Talk:Avesta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avesta article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:language
 language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Iran Avesta is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Central Asia Avesta is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

The holy book of Zarathustranians, Avesta, is a real proof that the Scythians are Turkic.For most historians, Scythians are indo-european. But the first "turk" word is used in Avesta while telling the wars between persians and turks. The so-called turkish king afrasiyab is Alp ER Tunga himself who is told in turkish "sagus" and epics. The word "turan" is where the turks live in and the same word is used for the land of Scythians. i want this issue to be discussed [00:18, February 19, 2006 User:88.224.97.70

Um, then discuss it. em zilch 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Law

Can their possibly be a way, either on this article or in a seperate, for a listing of Mazdaist Law? (since their is a page dedicated to all 613 Mitzvot for the Torah). For Zoroastrians (or those prospecting to be such), it will make it a little easier to study the faith. -- IdeArchos 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot, here is the information for study [1]. -- IdeArchos 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to compile a list of commandments, you are most welcome to do so. Don't however expect anyone else to do it for you. :)

Moreover, if you wish to have a list comparable to the Mitzvot, you would have to study the entire Avesta, not just the Vendidad. The Vendidad is in fact, not a list of "Thou shalt not .... s", but a series of "conversations" between Ahura Mazda and Zoroaster covering a multitude of topics (see #Vendidad topics), which could of course be construed to be instructions to the followers of Zoroaster. In any event, such a Mitzvot-like list would be Zoroastrian instruction, not Mazdaist law (which probably has a much wider scope), and would probably require vetting by Zoroastrian clergy, a process which probably would not be completed in our lifetimes. :) -- Fullstop 14:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite

I'm sorry, but your major rewrite seems to have deleted some information, and seems to be giving legendary accounts as facts. I think we'll have to revert and discuss your points one by one. dab (ᛏ) 15:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure I've deleted "information". It has also added plenty. As for legendary account, if you mean the stuff in History, well, that was in the old version too, but with less detail. As for legend (or not), well I've cited my sources - whether they are true or not is not for me to decide. Re: burning of the palace, see Alexander.

>> I think we'll have to revert and discuss your points one by one.

I think you'll find that there isn't a signifcant difference in content, even if there is in the structure. IMO, the rewrite is clearer (the Yasna could do with a cleanup though). I've asked for people in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Zoroastrianism to take a look at it. -- Fullstop 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! Your're right. I've dropped the "Yashts"! Mea maxima culpa. -- Fullstop 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored (edited) -- Fullstop 17:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vendidad topics

What follows is a breakdown (fargard # in brackets) of topics covered in fargards 3-22 of the Vendidad. I couldn't figure out how to elegantly include them all in a summary of the Vendidad and there really isn't a reason to do so, but may help when dealing with the assumption that the Vendidad is some sort of ecclesiastical law book.

  • hygiene (in particular care of the dead) [3,5,6,7,8,16,17,19] and cleansing [9,10];
  • disease, its origin, and spells against it [7,10,11,13,20,21,22];
  • mourning for the dead [12], the towers of silence [6], and the remuneration of deeds after death (Chinwad bridge) [19];
  • abridged versions of Zoroasters fight with evil and of his Revelation [19] (as described in the Hadokht Nask)
  • the sanctity of, and invocations to, fire [8], earth [3,6], water [6,8,21] and the light of the stars [21];
  • the dignity of wealth and charity [4], of marriage [4,15] and of physical effort [4]
  • statutes on unacceptable social behaviour [15] such as breach of contract [4], assault [4], and penances required to atone for violations thereof;
  • the worthiness of priests [18];
  • praise and care of the bull [21], the dog [13,15], the otter [14], the Sraosha bird [18], and the Haoma tree [6].

-- Fullstop 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what's this doing in here?

In Persian mythology, Abraham read the Avesta and the Zend in the midst of a furnace into which he was thrown by Nimrod. (Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable)

this is unhelpful and unenlightening in the extreme. Brewer's entry for the Abesta (apparently different from the Avesta) doesn't bother to name the sources of this myth, so we can't tell if it's actual Persian mythology or a later mixture produced after the rise of Christianity or Islam (Abraham and Nimrod being figures of Abrahamic mythology and all). If it isn't just an Arabian Nights-type folktale—hard to tell. blindly quoting this source without the least understanding or analysis is, IMO, worse than just leaving it out: all it does is mislead and confuse. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

>> Brewer's entry for the Abesta (apparently different from the Avesta)
  • Yes, different. But not because Avesta != Abesta, but because Avesta/Abesta != Zend-Avesta. In other words, you confused the Avesta with the Zend. Not only is this confusion explained in the Avesta article itself, it is also explained in the link you yourself provided.
  • The use of 'b' is legitimate - as in most Indo-Iranian languages 'b' and 'v' are interchangeable when transcribed using the latin alphabet - vuh is an approximant of another labial plosive, and can just as well be written as buh. Just like Avraham in Hebrew becomes Abraham (Greek doesn't have a 'v' either). Incidentally, the etymological roots of the term Avesta is Abestāg - see the second sentence in the Avesta article. In written Avestan, which was developed long after the language was no longer commonly spoken, there is no 'v' consonant.
>> [Brewer] doesn't bother to name the sources of this myth
  • Brewer doesn't have to cite his "sources" within mythology - if he says it comes from mythology (which incidentally are predominantly oral traditions), then its entirely valid to accept it at face value - unless of course you have a source that says otherwise. Moreover, there isn't any need to second guess - it doesn't make a difference when precisely that legend entered Persian mythology, nor is any analysis (original research?) necessary.
  • I'm not certain what precisely you mean by "myth". In common usage, myth implies falsehood, which is not the case in the context of mythology.
>> so we can't tell if it's actual Persian mythology or a later mixture produced after the rise of Christianity or Islam
  • Mythology, being predominantly orally transmitted, is inherantly volatile, and thus influenced by the legends and fables from other cultures. But,... so what? Moreover, determining which way the influence went (again: would be original research) would not negate Brewer's assertion (and thats all he is asserting) that its part of Persian mythology.
>> If it isn't just an Arabian Nights-type folktale—hard to tell.
  • The quotation is from a dictionary of "Phrase and Fable" in an article that says "Persian mythology" - A reader, even one who knows absolutely nothing of the subject, would really have to lean over backwards to accept it in any way other than at face value.
  • On the other hand, its not "hard to tell" for anyone who knows the difference between a folktale and mythology, leave alone anyone who has read both the WP articles 1001 Arabian Nights (Hazar Afsanah: "Thousand Legends") and the principle representative of Persian Mythology: The Shahnameh ("Epic of Kings").
  • But what difference does it make even if you could/can't tell? Assume for a second that it is from a folktale. Is a quotation from the Arabian Nights any less (or more) noteworthy? The Dictionary is a reference work of Phrase and Fable. No one, least of all Brewer, presumed these phrases or fables were factual.
>> blindly quoting this source without the least understanding or analysis is, IMO, worse than just leaving it out
  • Without understanding or analysis of what? Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable? Persian mythology? What would be the point of that? Notwithstanding the fact that both have their own article, they are entirely orthogonal to this one.
  • To analyze a belief-based story using scientific methods is not only meaningless, and would require the initial assumption that it is a falsehood. Then, to assume sacred stories associated with any culture are patently false is close-minded to the extreme and a disservice to the people who might believe it. Sure, from a scientific angle, the whole Abraham/Nimrod fire story is a yarn, but its a prominent story in several cultures and to try to analyze it is not going to be helpful (besides being a violation of Wikipedia:No original research policy).
  • Mythologies, by definition, involve sacred (to the culture they were from) tales and characters, which being necessarily accompanied by faith, are often believed to be true. cf: The Chinvat Bridge (Albadara in Islam, Luz in Judaism). The reader either believes it, or doesn't. Nothing to "understand" or "analyze" there.
>> all it does is mislead and confuse
  • The only thing I see as potentially misleading is the use of the term "mythology". Mythology, as used by Brewer, is an academic discipline. Are you perhaps confusing the adjectives 'mythological' with 'mythical'?
  • The quotation shows that a) the Avesta was an element in mythology and culture, b) so is the tale of Abraham and Nimrod. Thats in the text. Face value. Is there anything in that sentence has to be explained? Ok, may be a link to the tale would be in order.
  • Perhaps the association with Brewer is misleading or confusing. After all, Brewer wasn't exactly NPOV. Is that what you mean by "blindly quoting [Brewer]"?
-- Fullstop 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. i have confused nothing: the two books described in the different entries do not seem at all similar except in the matter of names. one is "The great work of Zoroaster. . .", the other "A book said to have been written by Abraham as a commentary on the Zend and the Pazend". this is what i mean by "apparently different".
  2. Brewer didn't cite his sources (which had to have been written, unless he traveled around Iran collecting oral mythology, which he didn't), but we should.
  3. it doesn't make a difference when precisely that legend entered Persian mythology—it most certainly does. myth and legend are not free-floating abstractions: they have temporal, cultural, and historical contexts. understanding of the mythology is deficient without at least some knowledge of these. knowing when exactly this story entered Persian mythology, if indeed it did, tells us a great deal: if it could be traced to the earliest texts (hypothetically—i tried, and it's not there), then it says something very interesting about the history of both the Zoroastrian and Abrahamic religions. if it's a post-Islamic import, then it says something about the later development of Zoroastrianism.
  4. i know perfectly well that the story itself isn't factual, thanks. the facts about the story, however, are—and again, without knowledge of these facts, understanding of the myth is diminished.
  5. understanding or analysis of what? the original source. whatever else it might be, Brewer's dictionary is not a central text of any mythology; he had to have found the tale somewhere. where? (more on that in a moment.)
  6. The quotation shows that a) the Avesta was an element in mythology and culture, b) so is the tale of Abraham and Nimrod.—and that, at some point, someone rolled these highly disparate elements together. who, when, where, and why? (that last might be unanswerable, but for the first three, it should be possible to say "The earliest known version of the story comes from text A, of religion B, written in language C around date D in location E.")

this has been bothering me for some time, and I finally had time to do some checking. this is what I found:

  • the entry on the Abesta (that is, the commentary written by Abraham, etc.) is absent from all editions of the dictionary from at least 1968 on (that being the earliest I could find). the stories of Abraham and Nimrod as found in the entry on Abraham and attributed to "Tavernier" and "T. Moore" survived a bit longer, but they're gone from the most recent edition (2005).
  • modern Zoroastrians have some rather similar stories about Zoroaster. one, for which I was referred to the Denkard, has an evil governor named Durasrun trying burn the young Zoroaster alive, but failing when the fire dies, or just won't be lit. the other (sourced to the Sharestan and Dabestan) has Arjasp of Turkestan attacking the fire temple at Balkh, killing Zoroaster and burning many of the books—but not the Avesta and related works, which escape unharmed.
  • the first story seems an obvious parallel to "The Ghebers say that Abraham was thrown into the fire by Nimrod’s order, but the flame turned into a bed of roses, on which the child Abraham went to sleep". the second not so much, but it might be the source for this tale of Abraham reading in a furnace. i strongly suspect that there's been garbling or conflation of Zoroaster and Abraham somewhere along the line; following up on Tavernier and Moore might pinpoint when it occurred. 132.216.66.139 (User:Mirv) 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

the first guess was right. . . Jean-Baptiste Tavernier gives a slightly muddled but generally accurate report on Zoroastrian beliefs and customs in 17th-century Persia, including the story of young Zoroaster (or Ebrahim-zer-Ateucht) being thrown into a fire by a king named Neubrout (I think; the third letter is slightly obscure[2]). nothing on a furnace yet, but i suspect that it stems from a similar confusion of Zoroaster and Abraham. (which raises another question: when and where did Tavernier's Ebrahim-zer-Ateucht arise? from the Zoroastrians of Persia, or from his own mishearing/misunderstanding?) 132.216.66.139 (Mirv) 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. >> the two books described in the different entries do not seem at all similar except in the matter of names. one is "The great work of Zoroaster. . .", the other "A book said to have been written by Abraham as a commentary on the Zend and the Pazend". this is what i mean by "apparently different".
    In the context of Brewer's 19th century (mis)understanding of the terms, it was acceptable to confuse the Avest with the Zend (lit: commentary, written in Pazend).
    Today, "The Zend-Avesta: ... a commentary on the Zend" would make no sense (a commentary on a commentary?). So, yes. TODAY they would be different "books", but in the 19th century, the "Zend-Avesta" was simply a misnomer for "Avesta". (That they still ended up as separate articles suggests Brewer wasn't familiar with the subject)
  2. >> at some point, someone rolled these highly disparate elements (Avesta, mythology, tale of Abraham and Nimrod) together. who, when, where, and why?
    They aren't that disparate. A great deal of the Avesta reintroduces pre-Zarathustrian mythology (that is, the characters and stories that existed prior to Zoroaster's reorganization of Mazdaism). In turn, Persian mythology draws on the Avesta. So, what came first, the chicken or the egg? And awaaay goes the "when", without which, no "who" either. :)
  3. >> when and where did Tavernier's Ebrahim-zer-Ateucht arise? from the Zoroastrians of Persia, or from his own mishearing/misunderstanding?
    The Ghebers that Tavernier refers to suggests that he actually dealt with the Zoroastrians themselves. The term (literally: unbeliever) was - and still is in some areas - used to exclusively refer to the Zoroastrians, and Tavernier's use of the term puts him in their immediate geographic vicinity. However, it seems unlikely that Zoroastrians would have called themselves "unbelievers", or inversely that Muslims would have used Ebrahim to refer to Zoroaster.
    Anyhow, there might be an "answer" to your question in Brewer's itself: For a second, shed your preconception that the Zend and the Avesta are "apparently different" and replace the errant use of the term "Zend" with the correct term "Avesta". Now look at the two Brewer articles again: On the one hand you still have The great work of Zoroaster... On the other you now have: A book said to have been written by Abraham as a commentary on the Avesta. We know when the commentaries (Zend) began to be distinguished from the Avesta proper - 2nd century at the earliest. So, if Abraham wrote anything related to Zoroastrianism, it would predate the Zend ("commentary on the Avesta") by a long shot, and would be (in) the Avesta itself.
Anyhow...
Kudos for your efforts. But IMO, its not practical to try to fathom the who, when, where and why of mythology because mythology is a continuously morphing target - as you yourself pointed out, mythology needs to be interpreted in its temporal, cultural, and historical context to understand it. I'm also very hesitant to consider applying modern scientific methods to questions of belief. Someone, somewhere is bound to have an alternate theory, and so on and so forth - all of which don't change or contribute to the belief itself. Faith, by definition, is irrational, so whats the point of trying to rationalize it?
But, ... that wasn't the point. The article is on the Avesta, not on mythology or on Brewer's. In that context, all the quotation did was (at worst) serve as an example. Or to put it another way: do you know of any other primary religious text/texts (as an entity itself!, not stories or characters from within it) that exists in such a way in a mythology?
The focus, in other words, is not on the tale (mythology, Abraham, Brewer's quotation), but on the subject of the tale (Avesta). As such, its not relevant whether the sentence is from mythology or from a fairy tale, or from what era, or where the story might have come from. Sure, any subject can be analyzed, but its not particularly constructive to analyze the packaging when its the contents - independant of any packaging - that are of interest.
-- Fullstop 17:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. So, yes. TODAY they would be different "books", but in the 19th century, the "Zend-Avesta" was simply a misnomer for "Avesta". (That they still ended up as separate articles suggests Brewer wasn't familiar with the subject)—and how do we get the two different authors? In Jewish and Christian interpretations Zoroaster was identified, if with any figure of Abrahamic mythology, with Nimrod. The identification with Abraham is almost certainly post-Islamic and may be even later; Thomas Hyde is the earliest source I've been able to find that connects the two (though I don't think he equates them).
  2. I meant to ask who wrote the text which recounts Abraham/Zoroaster reading [some holy book] after being thrown into a furnace by Nimrod/whoever, when did they write it, where did they write it, and why? Maybe it's not possible to trace the earliest incarnation of the myth as we have it here (if, say, it was passed on orally at first), but it ought to be possible to trace the earliest extant writing that contains it.
    This is what I've found: The story of Abraham and Nimrod first appears in Jewish writings from the 1st century CE; it certainly had antecedents, possibly in . . . the story of Zoroaster thrown into a fire, which may be traced to the Pahlavi texts and is likewise probably older than that. The identification of Abraham and Zoroaster is newer, but it too is attested (Tavernier has it, at what remove we don't know, and [3], mentions it, though Usenet postings are not the most credible sources). What I have not found, despite exhaustive searching, is any kind of story about Abraham or Zoroaster reading any kind of text after being thrown into a fire by whoever. If this particular tale is indeed a part of Persian mythology of whatever era, it ought to appear somewhere outside a single edition of a 19th-century English dictionary. It doesn't. (Yet. I've tracked down some early Islamic texts, lives of the prophets and accounts of Persia, which may prove to contain the story. We shall see.)
  3. mythology needs to be interpreted in its temporal, cultural, and historical context to understand it—and if we don't know what those contexts are, what can we learn? As we currently have it, the only beliefs that the story illuminates are those of a 19th-century English divine; we have his thoughts on a particular story or group of stories, but we don't know what those stories are, or even if they really exist—the entry may be an original garble.
  4. But, ... that wasn't the point. The article is on the Avesta, not on mythology or on Brewer's. In that context, all the quotation did was (at worst) serve as an example. Or to put it another way: do you know of any other primary religious text/texts (as an entity itself!, not stories or characters from within it) that exists in such a way in a mythology?—but where does this example come from? an unfortunate flaw in Brewer's scholarship? An early European garbling of Zoroastrian and Abrahamic myths? A conflation of those myths, by Muslims or Zoroastrians or both, following the Islamic conquest of Iran? An even earlier conflation of the myths? The common roots of Zoroastrianism and Judaism? If one of the first two, then it's relevant to the history of European scholarship regarding Persian mythology, but says nothing about the mythology itself. If the third or fourth (one would still have to know precisely which in order to make sense of it), then it's perhaps more relevant to the subject. If the last. . .nah, I wasn't serious about that one.
  5. As such, its not relevant whether the sentence is from mythology or from a fairy tale, or from what era, or where the story might have come from. Sure, any subject can be analyzed, but its not particularly constructive to analyze the packaging when its the contents - independant of any packaging - that are of interest.—I disagree. It is not only relevant and constructive to do so, it is necessary. An analogy: if one were to take Alexander Hislop's synthesis of various myths—about Nimrod, Ninus and Semiramis, Zoroaster, Chons or perhaps Osiris, and Bacchus—then present it as a Jewish, Mesopotamian, Persian, Egyptian, or Greek/Roman myth, without clearly identifying Hislop as the source, one would be doing the reader a grave disservice. Similarly, it is not good scholarship to treat a story that appears only in a single 19th-century English reference work as if it were as much a part of Persian mythology as (say) Ahura Mazda.
All this text really needs is attribution to an actual Persian source for this supposed Persian myth. If one can be found, great; if none turn up, then the text probably shouldn't be in the article. —Charles P._(Mirv) 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

d'accord. -- Fullstop 14:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
ps: where did you get "In Jewish and Christian interpretations Zoroaster was identified, if with any figure of Abrahamic mythology, with Nimrod" from? (other than Hislop's anti-catholic diatribe more-or-less saying so :)

I got it from an article I found while researching the question at hand, which I recently added to Nimrod (king). [4] lists, along with some other identifications, three primary sources for the equation: the Clementine homilies ([5] and [6]), the Book of the Cave of Treasures ([7]), and perhaps the Genesis Rabba ([8]).
These types of interpretationes Christianorum/Judaeorum are endlessly fascinating when they're studied rigorously, with sources, dates, and contexts pinpointed; cast free from their moorings in particular texts, though, they cause at best 3000-word arguments like the one immediately above, more usually woolly thinking about comparative mythology, and at worst complete garbage like Hislop's pamphlet. —Charles P._(Mirv) 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/v/e/Talk%7EAvesta_4579.html"