Life of JC and Parallels in IE. Myth

[seattlegal]

Gee, EM, should we add "Michael Valentine Smith" to the list?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!

Dang! I haven't read that book yet! Must go search it out!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"Christianity really had nothing to do with Jesus at all."

--> I quite agree. The 'deification' of Jesus in the fourth century AD turned the church completely around.

 

[bob x]

Well there had to be some sect of Christianity in Parthia

Of course there were. The kingdoms of Osroene (northern Iraq, tributary to Parthia) and Armenia (a buffer zone between Rome and Parthia, eventually partitioned) converted long before Rome did.

because all the sources about Christianity in the Aryan (Irano-Aryan) zone imply that that's where all the Christians who had been persecuted under the Romans took exile

You're not citing any of your sources. I doubt any of them say anything silly like "all" the Christians fleeing to Parthia, which would leave none of them in the Roman Empire, or garble like:

that after Constantine converted to Judiasm the Parthians kicked them out for trying to undermine their religious heritage, Zoroastrianism.

Constantine did not convert to Judaism, sheesh. And "Parthians" were gone for more than a century by Constantine's time. Nor do I know anything about Christian/Zoroastrian religious conflicts.

1.) apparitions before their births

a.) Astyages' dreamt about Cyrus's (a Zoroastrian) birth

Dream interpreters (e.g. Magi) tell Astyages of Cyrus's birth and how he will overthrow him and rule all of Asia

This is true; it is a fairly common folk-lore element. But we don't have such a story about Zoroaster himself.

2.) They were both immaculately conceived

This is a misunderstanding of the Roman Catholic theological term "Immaculate Conception" which refers to the conception of Mary the mother of Jesus. She is said to have been conceived without the taint of Original Sin that the rest of us have, so that she would be pure enough to bear Jesus. The whole notion of "Original Sin" is of course a doctrine that Zoroastrianism does not even have.

2. Perseus was born by parthenogenesis

Sexual relations between Zeus and a human woman, you mean.

Herodotus claims the Persians are descendants of Perseus through Persis

This is Greek chauvinism (claiming that every civilization must be derived from some offshoot of the Greeks) of the kind that you would usually denounce loudly (and with reason). It is false etymology, anyhow: the older form of the name "Perseus" was Pterseus and it is unconnected to Pars "Persia".

Persis was one of the initiatory levels in Roman Mithraism

Says who? There is a lot of literature making bogus claims about the contents of Roman Mithraism: the fact is, we do not have a single text of any kind from Mithraists, and the iconography in the "Mithraeum" temples is difficult to interpret.

Zoroastrian scholars imply that Vispa-tuarvairi was a "virgin mother" and tie this into the verse about Zoroaster's seed preserved by the Fravashis but I'm not totally convinced that we get all that here during the pre-Christian era.

I doubt you would find this earlier than the 20th century, frankly.

5.) There were attempts to assassinate them

a.) Astyages tries to have Cyrus assassinated
b.) Herodotus tries to have Jesus assasinated

"Herod" not "Herodotus"
This one is true: it is another common folk-lore motif that the rightful heir has to be hidden away from the wicked uncle/stepmother/whoever who wants to kill him. Often it arises as political propaganda: the earliest case was Sargon (the name means "legitimate") of Akkad, a usurper who put out a story that he was really of royal birth, but was smuggled away as an infant because [you know the drill]. In the inscriptions from Cyrus and Darius, it is plainly acknowledged that Cyrus was from the minor kings of Anshan, but later it was convenient to say he was "really" the rightful heir of the Medes, so that his overthrow of them was not at all a usurpation, etc. etc. The story of Herod slaughtering the infants of Bethlehem is likewise a late propagandistic invention (if such an incident had really happened, Flavius Josephus would not have left it out of his list of terrible things Herod did): the point of the story is to emphasize that even Herod acknowledges the rightfulness of the royal claims of the Davidite lineage, and that he would not feel safe on his throne if the true heir were not eliminated.

7.) They were known for arguing with elders at an early age

a. Cyrus debates with Astyages as a child in Xenophone
b. Jesus argues with the scribes

Can you find me Cyrus arguing with Astyages in Xenophon? Xenophon wrote about a different Cyrus a hundred years later; although he might have mentioned Cyrus the Great.

10.) They both commune with angels in a mountain

a. According to the Vendidad Zoroaster communes with Ahura Mazda and the angels - Fargard 19

b. Jesus communes with angels

Huh? Where do you get Jesus communing with angels, on a mountain or anywhere else? Zoroaster prays to Ahura Mazda to be shown the truth, and has to be visited by Vohu Mana and other emanations in order to learn it; Jesus doesn't need to be taught by anyone, which is the whole point of the story about him in the Temple as a child.

11.) They're both tempted by the Devil and are offered rulership

Give me a cite about Zoroaster and the Devil.

18.) The Crucifixion and martyerdom

a. Cyrus is killed in battle.

Which is quite the opposite of submitting to death voluntarily.

b. Zoroastrianism describes a sort of crucifixion in the Gathas where the believers are to undergo a sort of test/ miracle to prove who they are, and this test is also described in later Zoroastrian tradition.

And this has nothing to do with it either.

But I also found this reference to the first crucifixion described in history of a Persian (Zoroastrian) kind of relevant

The Greeks were generally opposed to performing crucifixions.[45] However, in his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: "They nailed him to a plank and hung him up ... this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion."[46] The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: "They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33. This barbarity, unusual on the part of Greeks, may be explained by the enormity of the outrage or by Athenian deference to local feeling."[47]

Crucifixion was a particularly horrid method of execution, reserved for criminals who deserved the utmost contempt, which this fellow had apparently earned. It is not the "first crucifixion described in history": the book of Samuel mentions that David allowed enemies of king Saul to take some of his descendants (sparing descendants of David's friend Jonathan) and hang them up by the hands.

Herodotus describes how Artayctes pleads for his life

Quite the opposite of Jesus, then.

The tragic tale of a Zoroastrian or monotheist Father and missionary was forced to witness the death of his own son, and suffer crucifixion at the hands of non-believers.

We don't actually know his religious beliefs, if he had any: describing him as a "missionary" is absurd. The case sounds about as "tragic" as the death of Colonel Qaddafi, frankly.

20. The Resurrection

The doctrine of the resurrection is prevalent in pre-Christian era Zoroastrian scripture

We don't know that. The Old Avestan quote you gave me is more easily read in other ways; the "Zamyad Yasht" quotes, yes, are quite unmistakable, but I don't know how late they are.

as well as the idea of the 3 days it takes for one to ascend to gurodemana "heaven."

Cite?

 

[mojobadshah]

Constantine did not convert to Judaism, sheesh.

LOL

He might as well have, and correction Constantine converted because both he and the Christians shared a common enemy, the Sassanian Zoroastrians.

This is true; it is a fairly common folk-lore element. But we don't have such a story about Zoroaster himself.

No, but Cyrus was a Zoroastrian or monotheist, which I suppose would set him apart from the the rest of the folk-lore.

This is a misunderstanding of the Roman Catholic theological term "Immaculate Conception" which refers to the conception of Mary the mother of Jesus. She is said to have been conceived without the taint of Original Sin that the rest of us have, so that she would be pure enough to bear Jesus. The whole notion of "Original Sin" is of course a doctrine that Zoroastrianism does not even have.

Hmmm... interesting. So Zoroaster and the Zoroastrians didn't believe in original sin, and Jesus wasn't born with original sin.

This is Greek chauvinism (claiming that every civilization must be derived from some offshoot of the Greeks) of the kind that you would usually denounce loudly (and with reason). It is false etymology, anyhow: the older form of the name "Perseus" was Pterseus and it is unconnected to Pars "Persia".

No doubt. Actually Janos Makkay thinks it was the other way around. For one Danae and her son Perseus recall the names of the Iranian tribes, the Turanian Danavas and the Persians. (see M.L. West, Indo-European Poetry and Myth)

Says who? There is a lot of literature making bogus claims about the contents of Roman Mithraism: the fact is, we do not have a single text of any kind from Mithraists, and the iconography in the "Mithraeum" temples is difficult to interpret.

The Mithraists, who were manifestly not Persians in any ethnic sense, thought of themselves as cultic "Persians." Moreover, whatever moderns might think, the ancient Roman Mithraists themselves were convinced that their cult was founded by none other than Zoroaster, who "dedicated to Mithras, the creator and father of all, a cave in the mountains bordering Persia," an idyllic setting "abounding in flowers and springs of water" (Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs 6). -Mithraism

Can you find me Cyrus arguing with Astyages in Xenophon? Xenophon wrote about a different Cyrus a hundred years later; although he might have mentioned Cyrus the Great.

See C4 in Xenophon's Cyropedia

Huh? Where do you get Jesus communing with angels, on a mountain or anywhere else? Zoroaster prays to Ahura Mazda to be shown the truth, and has to be visited by Vohu Mana and other emanations in order to learn it; Jesus doesn't need to be taught by anyone, which is the whole point of the story about him in the Temple as a child.

13. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. – Mark 1:13

Give me a cite about Zoroaster and the Devil.

Fargard 19.1a.4-10

Which is quite the opposite of submitting to death voluntarily.

Jesus didn't submit to death voluntarily in earlier texts either.

And this has nothing to do with it either.

Crucifixion was a particularly horrid method of execution, reserved for criminals who deserved the utmost contempt, which this fellow had apparently earned. It is not the "first crucifixion described in history": the book of Samuel mentions that David allowed enemies of king Saul to take some of his descendants (sparing descendants of David's friend Jonathan) and hang them up by the hands.

On a cross... the way they did that guy???

Quite the opposite of Jesus, then.

It's not opposite. They were both martyered, just in different ways.

We don't actually know his religious beliefs, if he had any: describing him as a "missionary" is absurd. The case sounds about as "tragic" as the death of Colonel Qaddafi, frankly.

Ruhi Muhsen Afnan's "Zoroaster's Influence on Anaxagoras, the Greek Tragedians, and Socrates" would imply otherwise.

When Xerxes passed through that region [Macedonia and Thrace], to reach Athens, he was welcomed, and feasted on the way (Herodotus VII:115-119) by the inhabitants, and among them by Maeandrius Protagoras' father. As a token of his deep appreciation, the king appointed a magi to tutor the young man, who in time became an outstanding figure mentioned by Plato in his dialogues. (Article on Protagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras by :J.A. Davidson, Classical Quarterly, Vol. III, 1953) - (Afnan, 72)

The word English "philosophy" which comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), meaning "love of wisdom", seems to have been originated and it is a loose translation of the Old-Iranian Ahura Mazda, meaning the ‘Lord and Worshipping the Wisdom’. Ahura is the symbol of pure Love in Old-Iranian traditions. - An introduction to Khshathra Vairya
& Jashn-e Sharivargan

Cite?

27. O Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! Where are the rewards given? Where does the rewarding take place? Where is the rewarding fulfilled? Whereto do men come to take the reward that, during their life in the material world, they have won for their souls? 28. Ahura Mazda answered: 'When the man is dead, when his time is over, then the wicked, evil-doing Daevas cut off his eyesight. On the third night, when the dawn appears and brightens up, when Mithra, the god with beautiful weapons, reaches the all-happy mountains, and the sun is rising:

 

[bob x]

No, but Cyrus was a Zoroastrian or monotheist, which I suppose would set him apart from the the rest of the folk-lore.

You think monotheists don't have folk-lore?

No doubt. Actually Janos Makkay thinks it was the other way around. For one Danae and her son Perseus recall the names of the Iranian tribes, the Turanian Danavas and the Persians. (see M.L. West, Indo-European Poetry and Myth)

I can only find in Makkay in Hungarian, which I don't read. "Turanian" is the name used by the Persians for NON-Iranian ENEMIES (later it becomes interpreted as "Turks").

The Mithraists, who were manifestly not Persians in any ethnic sense, thought of themselves as cultic "Persians." Moreover, whatever moderns might think, the ancient Roman Mithraists themselves were convinced that their cult was founded by none other than Zoroaster, who "dedicated to Mithras, the creator and father of all, a cave in the mountains bordering Persia," an idyllic setting "abounding in flowers and springs of water" (Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs 6). -Mithraism

Now read through that site: one of the most noteworthy aspects of Roman Mithraists is that there is no trace of Ahura Mazda whatsoever. MITHRA is the creator and father of all, and is above the duality of the two gods who point the way up and the way down (who aren't even called Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu). And while they believed that Zoroaster dedicated a sacred cave to Mithra, this is of course completely untrue, since Zoroaster didn't accept Mithra or any of the old polytheist deities at all. This is, again, a sign of how very superficial and garbled the knowledge about Zoroastrianism was among the Greco-Romans.

See C4 in Xenophon's Cyropedia

OK, Grampa wanted him to stay home and out of trouble, but the kid was always rambunctious-- and this you think is similar to Jesus in the Temple???

13. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. – Mark 1:13

Yes, angels fed him. This is not at all like Zoroaster being taught.

Fargard 19.1a.4-10

OK. Just how late is that? I thought "Vendidad" material was all Sassanian.

Jesus didn't submit to death voluntarily in earlier texts either.

What in the world are you talking about here?

It's not opposite. They were both martyered, just in different ways.

"Martyred"??? We have a cruel thief and murderer punished, not for any religious beliefs (if he even had any: the text indicates nothing of the sort), but for his crimes; and pleading for his life, rather than accepting death without any resistance.

Ruhi Muhsen Afnan's "Zoroaster's Influence on Anaxagoras, the Greek Tragedians, and Socrates" would imply otherwise.

When Xerxes passed through that region [Macedonia and Thrace], to reach Athens, he was welcomed, and feasted on the way (Herodotus VII:115-119) by the inhabitants, and among them by Maeandrius Protagoras' father. As a token of his deep appreciation, the king appointed a magi to tutor the young man, who in time became an outstanding figure mentioned by Plato in his dialogues. (Article on Protagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras by :J.A. Davidson, Classical Quarterly, Vol. III, 1953) - (Afnan, 72)

Herodotus VII:115-119 does mention a feast in a Thracian town. It says nothing whatsoever about the father of Protagoras, who was not from a rich family but working-class in origin. Where is the primary source for the story you are telling? Is there one?

Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), meaning "love of wisdom", seems to have been originated and it is a loose translation of the Old-Iranian Ahura Mazda, meaning the ‘Lord and Worshipping the Wisdom’. Ahura is the symbol of pure Love

SO now Ahura means "Love"??? You were just telling me it meant "Horse"! Why didn't the Greeks say hipposophia "horse-wisdom" then?

Don't you understand the sheer arrogance of thinking that nobody could possibly have come up with the idea of thinking wisdom is better than stupidity, unless Iranians taught them how?

On the third night, when the dawn appears and brightens up, when Mithra, the god with beautiful weapons, reaches the all-happy mountains, and the sun is rising:

And what text does this come from? And how late is it? This completely contradicts your previous insistence that Zoroastrians always taught that nobody will go to either heaven or hell until the end of the world, for which you cited a late text. The mention of "Mithra" makes it obvious this is not from the Gathas, so how do we know whether the Christian idea came before or after this entered Zoroastrianism?

 

[mojobadshah]

I can only find in Makkay in Hungarian, which I don't read. "Turanian" is the name used by the Persians for NON-Iranian ENEMIES (later it becomes interpreted as "Turks").

The Gathic form of Turanian is Turiya and they were the northern Aryan (Irano-Afghan) invaders who the Zoroastrians rebelled against, though some of them were known converts to Zoroastrianism. They were later displaced by the Altaics who were designated Turk which does ultimately derive from Turiya.

Now read through that site: one of the most noteworthy aspects of Roman Mithraists is that there is no trace of Ahura Mazda whatsoever. MITHRA is the creator and father of all, and is above the duality of the two gods who point the way up and the way down (who aren't even called Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu). And while they believed that Zoroaster dedicated a sacred cave to Mithra, this is of course completely untrue, since Zoroaster didn't accept Mithra or any of the old polytheist deities at all. This is, again, a sign of how very superficial and garbled the knowledge about Zoroastrianism was among the Greco-Romans.

Boyce discusses the "lord of the contract" or Mithra and the Mithradrug and implies that the word Mithra is akin to the word Manthra cf. mathro. All these forms are akin to the name of the all-mighty creator of the universe Mazda Ahura.

On another note what about Dughdova (Zoroaster's virgin mother) and the Celtic Daghda. Are the names akin and does a virgin mother play into this Celtic figure? Because Vallancy pointed this relationship out in his history of Ireland.

Yes, angels fed him. This is not at all like Zoroaster being taught.

How do you know they fed him? All I see is "ministered."

OK. Just how late is that? I thought "Vendidad" material was all Sassanian.

Calvert Watkins places all the oldest Young Avestan as early as 900BC. and the youngest Avestan texts as late as 700BC. The Vendidad falls somehwere in the middle.

What in the world are you talking about here?

In earlier texts Jesus complains "why have you foresaken me?" whereas in later texts he more willingly accepts his fate.

"Martyred"??? We have a cruel thief and murderer punished, not for any religious beliefs (if he even had any: the text indicates nothing of the sort), but for his crimes; and pleading for his life, rather than accepting death without any resistance.

Yeah, the details are different. But Jesus was murdered and Cyrus were murdered in Herodotus. The manner of crucifixion Jesus underwent was exactly the same as Artayctes underwent in Herodotus.

SO now Ahura means "Love"??? You were just telling me it meant "Horse"! Why didn't the Greeks say hipposophia "horse-wisdom" then?

No I was saying that one of the cognates of Ahura shipley points out is Eng. horse. Standard translation for Ahura Mazda is "Lord of Wisdom" which is comparable to the Greek philosophy "love of wisdom." Also Zoroaster was born into the Spitama clan. Spitama and sophist cf. philosophy are cognates.

Don't you understand the sheer arrogance of thinking that nobody could possibly have come up with the idea of thinking wisdom is better than stupidity, unless Iranians taught them how?

That's not even what I'm saying. Sure people thought wisdom was good, but what I'm saying is that the inspiration to study wisdom was a consequence of Zoroastrian influence.

And what text does this come from? And how late is it? This completely contradicts your previous insistence that Zoroastrians always taught that nobody will go to either heaven or hell until the end of the world, for which you cited a late text. The mention of "Mithra" makes it obvious this is not from the Gathas, so how do we know whether the Christian idea came before or after this entered Zoroastrianism?

The Vendidad, Fargard 19.5.26-31

 

[bob x]

The Gathic form of Turanian is Turiya and they were the northern Aryan (Irano-Afghan) invaders who the Zoroastrians rebelled against, though some of them were known converts to Zoroastrianism. They were later displaced by the Altaics who were designated Turk which does ultimately derive from Turiya.

OK, that makes sense.

Boyce discusses the "lord of the contract" or Mithra and the Mithradrug and implies that the word Mithra is akin to the word Manthra cf. mathro. All these forms are akin to the name of the all-mighty creator of the universe Mazda Ahura.

Not very akin, no. Pagan deities like Mithra were precisely what Zoroaster told everybody to avoid.

On another note what about Dughdova (Zoroaster's virgin mother)

The idea that Zoroaster's mother was a virgin was invented in the 20th century by the notorious confabulator Acharya S.

and the Celtic Daghda. Are the names akin and does a virgin mother play into this Celtic figure? Because Vallancy pointed this relationship out in his history of Ireland.

This is another example of late confabulation. I have warned you about Vallancy before. Dagda means "daddy" and he was a phallic figure.

How do you know they fed him? All I see is "ministered."

Greek diakehnoun "they acted as waiters"; diakonoi "waiters" were servants in charge of bringing food from the kitchen to the tables, hence deacons in the Christian church (in charge of distributing the Communion bread). The text here echoes Elijah in the desert being fed by (same word used in the Greek translation) friendly ravens.

Calvert Watkins places all the oldest Young Avestan as early as 900BC. and the youngest Avestan texts as late as 700BC. The Vendidad falls somehwere in the middle.

On what basis? Those dates sound absurd. It is recorded that pagan deities like Mithra and Anahita were introduced into the Zoroastrian religion in the mid-Achaemenid period, and that it was controversial at the time. The Vendidad, however, takes it for granted, and can hardly be earlier than the Arsacid period; I thought the consensus was Sassanian date.

In earlier texts Jesus complains "why have you foresaken me?" whereas in later texts he more willingly accepts his fate.

He isn't "complaining" but quoting scripture; it is the opening line of a Psalm about accepting God's will even when it seems unfair. And it is from the same texts as Jesus telling the disciples not to resist, praying "Not my will but Thy will be done" etc.

Yeah, the details are different. But Jesus was murdered and Cyrus were murdered in Herodotus. The manner of crucifixion Jesus underwent was exactly the same as Artayctes underwent in Herodotus.

The criminal punishment was carried out many many thousands of times. Other than that, what do the two cases have to do with each other?

No I was saying that one of the cognates of Ahura shipley points out is Eng. horse.

I KNOW what you are saying. I think Shipley's claim here is ridiculous.

Standard translation for Ahura Mazda is "Lord of Wisdom" which is comparable to the Greek philosophy "love of wisdom."

Sigh, "love" and "lord" are not the same word. The general concept that wisdom is a good thing is the only commonality here.

Spitama and sophist cf. philosophy are cognates.

Because there are a couple letters in common???

That's not even what I'm saying. Sure people thought wisdom was good, but what I'm saying is that the inspiration to study wisdom was a consequence of Zoroastrian influence.

You think that nobody ever figured out that learning wisdom requires some study until Iranians told them that??? You want me to cite some wisdom literature from, say, the ancient Egyptians or Chinese, or are you capable of understanding how insufferably arrogant it is for you to think Iranians are the only wise people in the world?

 

[mojobadshah]

Not very akin, no. Pagan deities like Mithra were precisely what Zoroaster told everybody to avoid.

Actually the Gathas don't say anything about not praising Mithra, though it's true his name doesn't come up. But other hamkars or lower caste angels are mentioned in the Gathas. The Gathas do however include the Mathra Yasna, Mithra is reintroduced in later scripture, like in the Mehr Yasht, is used to desceibe Mazda's body, other cognates include Mitro cf. mathro, Mazda and some etymologies derive Christmas from Christ + Mithras which makes sense because both mass and [tano] mathro are mean "body."

The idea that Zoroaster's mother was a virgin was invented in the 20th century by the notorious confabulator Acharya S.

No, though it may not be Zoroastrian scripture it is tradition Denkard or Zad-Sparam.

This is another example of late confabulation. I have warned you about Vallancy before. Dagda means "daddy" and he was a phallic figure.

The thing is Dhagh-deiwos Daghdas's PIE root looks like it could be cognate to Dugh-dova, and other sources imply that Danu or Brigit was Daghda's virgin mother. So was Danu or Brigit a virgin or not?

Greek diakehnoun "they acted as waiters"; diakonoi "waiters" were servants in charge of bringing food from the kitchen to the tables, hence deacons in the Christian church (in charge of distributing the Communion bread). The text here echoes Elijah in the desert being fed by (same word used in the Greek translation) friendly ravens.

Could that be a metaphor? In any case both Zoroaster and Jesus spent their meditations among angels.

On what basis? Those dates sound absurd. It is recorded that pagan deities like Mithra and Anahita were introduced into the Zoroastrian religion in the mid-Achaemenid period, and that it was controversial at the time. The Vendidad, however, takes it for granted, and can hardly be earlier than the Arsacid period; I thought the consensus was Sassanian date.

On the basis that Young Avestan is more archaic than Old Persian and they don't mention either the Medes or the Persians. Mithra's counterpart Mitra is mentioned in the Vedas so Mithra and probably Anahita predate the Gathas.

He isn't "complaining" but quoting scripture; it is the opening line of a Psalm about accepting God's will even when it seems unfair. And it is from the same texts as Jesus telling the disciples not to resist, praying "Not my will but Thy will be done" etc.

That's not what Wright says.

The criminal punishment was carried out many many thousands of times. Other than that, what do the two cases have to do with each other?

The Persian was a monotheist and Jesus was a monotheist. The Jews were not monotheists in the same sense. Their god was not an all good god.

Sigh, "love" and "lord" are not the same word. The general concept that wisdom is a good thing is the only commonality here.

And that they're conscience praisers of Wisdom specificly. Not money, or power, or women, or other stuff.

Because there are a couple letters in common???

No because they're cognates Spitama cf. white [garments], soft, sophist, (philo)sophy, sofia, sufi

You think that nobody ever figured out that learning wisdom requires some study until Iranians told them that??? You want me to cite some wisdom literature from, say, the ancient Egyptians or Chinese, or are you capable of understanding how insufferably arrogant it is for you to think Iranians are the only wise people in the world?

You're being ridiculous about this. Previously the Greeks praised the god of the sky or the ocean or the wind, etc.... The Jews praised the god of war, or fertility, etc... then Zoroaster comes along and exalts Mazda "wisdom" as the highest power responsible for everything, and all of a sudden the Greeks begin to turn away from their worship of zues, posedion, hermes, and they begin to zero in on the exact same thing Zoroaster did, and not only that the Greek philosophers even tell stories about how their predessors studied Zoroaster.

 

[bob x]

Actually the Gathas don't say anything about not praising Mithra, though it's true his name doesn't come up.

The Gathas condemn the worship of ALL the pagan deities from before, without naming any of them individually.

The Gathas do however include the Mathra Yasna

Comparing the translation with the original, I find that the Gatha did not actually contain mathra or anything like it. It contained twice the phrase "highest of the high" which in context obviously means Ahura Mazda, but the "Pazend" (very late commentary, in Middle Persian so there can be no question of the Sassanian or even post-Islamic date) says that phrase is how Mithra was described, and that is the excuse for giving the text this title of Mathra Yasna which the contents do not justify.

Mithra is reintroduced in later scripture

Yes. This was a relapse back to crude pagan polytheism. Zoroaster's depiction of God as having all these "emanations" left the door open to this kind of thing, which is why I do not consider it a pure monotheism.

other cognates include Mitro cf. mathro, Mazda and some etymologies derive Christmas from Christ + Mithras which makes sense because both mass and [tano] mathro are mean "body."

AGAIN you are just grabbing words that happen to start with the same letter and declaring them the same. Earlier you were saying that Mazda "wisdom" was related to the root of "mind" which I would find plausible (I would have to check it out, but it is much less unreasonable than most of your "linguistics"), but now you have decided it means "body" instead of "mind"???

And English mass in the sense of "Roman Catholic church service" as in "Christmas" is not, in fact, the same word as mass in the sense of "lump of material"; it is from Latin missa from a verb "to send; relay" as in mission, commission etc. because it was a transmission of the divine grace.

No, though it may not be Zoroastrian scripture it is tradition Denkard or Zad-Sparam.

Show me.

The thing is Dhagh-deiwos Daghdas's PIE root

No, it's not dhagh plus deiwos, it's just from DADA, an exceedingly ancient nursery-form for "daddy" found in numerous language groups, long pre-dating Indo-European.

other sources imply that Danu or Brigit was Daghda's virgin mother. So was Danu or Brigit a virgin or not?

That's from the lying inventions of Acharya S.

On the basis that Young Avestan is more archaic than Old Persian

It was a frozen "liturgical" language like medieval Church Latin. A text in Church Latin from the 1500's would still be composed in a form of Latin which had not been current as a spoken form since ~400.

and they don't mention either the Medes or the Persians.

Which could mean they were from before that time-- or from long after.

Mithra's counterpart Mitra is mentioned in the Vedas so Mithra and probably Anahita predate the Gathas.

And are therefore included in the general condemnation by Zoroaster of the worship of any of the old gods. "Anahita" by the way was not an Indo-Iranian goddess, but an adaptation of the Syrian Anath. The name was re-shaped to mean something like "unblemished" in Iranian: an- is a negative prefix like English un-, non- as in that phrase we have argued about, aryan ut anaryan or eran ut aneran "Iranian and non-Iranian"; -ta is a participle suffix like English -ed but the root in the middle is a little obscure.

That's not what Wright says.

Then, as usual, Wright doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. It is the same texts which show Jesus submitting to the will of the Father and quoting the scripture: the Greek breaks off into Hebrew and Aramaic when giving the words uttered by Jesus on the cross, to make it absolutely clear that it is an Old Testament quotation (Psalms 22:1; reading the rest of Psalms 22 makes clear what he is meaning).

The Persian was a monotheist

We are not told that he had any religion at all, or even that he was Persian by ethnicity. His career as a murderous thief makes it very dubious that he was genuinely religious even if he was Zoroastrian in name only (but we are not even told that much).

The Jews were not monotheists in the same sense. Their god was not an all good god.

EXACTLY! YHWH is the god of everything, and was all one; this is quite different from the multiplicity in Zoroastrianism, and is the culmination of a quite independent history of religious thought. That's what I've been trying to explain to you for a very long time.

No because they're cognates Spitama cf. white [garments], soft, sophist, (philo)sophy, sofia, sufi

Sophia "wisdom" is not from the root for "robes".

You're being ridiculous about this. Previously the Greeks praised the god of the sky or the ocean or the wind, etc....

YOU are being ridiculous. The Greeks, like numerous cultures remote from the Iranian, also had a deity for WISDOM, namely Athena who sprang from the head of Zeus. The etymology of the name is a transposition of consonants (for reasons of "taboo deformation" as in other cases where a divine name is re-pronounced) from older Anetha, same root as Anath in Syria and Neith in Egypt. Athena was the patron goddess of Athens and other Ionian cities in which philosophers were valued (long before Persians were on the scene); Anath was the patron deity of Byblos (a Phoenician port from which the Greeks learned literacy; Greek biblos "book" is from this city's name) and Neith the patron deity of Sais in Egypt: these cities were called the "league of the Gray Goddess" and had special trading relations (Ionian Greeks had a quarter in Sais from very early times). Sais was the center of Egyptian nationalism in the late period: capital of the dynasty which threw out the Assyrians, until the Persians conquered Egypt under Cambyses; the Saites re-established Egyptian independence for a brief period before the Persians re-took it (the last time Egypt was ruled by people actually from Egypt until the 1950's!)

How long ago Athens adopted the goddess of wisdom as it principal deity is hard to tell. There is said to have been a contest between Poseidon (god of earthquakes and the sea) and Athena in the time of Erechtheus, which was many generations before Theseus, the first roughly datable king (13th century BC, since he was a couple generations before the Trojan War c. 1180 BC). There was an extensive "wisdom" literature in Egypt and Syria for thousands of years before there were any Persians; some of this is reflected in Old Testament passages praising the hokhmah "wisdom" of YHWH, rendered sophia in the Greek translation. In all these traditions, Wisdom is feminine; the main thing that is unique about the Iranians here is that Ahura Mazda is masculine, but that was not copied by anybody.

The Jews praised the god of war, or fertility, etc...

What the hell are you talking about? The Jews worshipped the god of EXISTENCE ITSELF.

the Greek philosophers even tell stories about how their predessors studied Zoroaster.

No, no Greek philosopher says any such thing. Pythagoras met and studied under an astrologer, in Babylon, whose name started with "Z"; so a late Roman author thinks that must have been Zoroaster, which is totally impossible. Plato expressed a desire to go to Persia someday and find out what they knew out there, but because of the political conflicts this trip was never possible. Protagoras was the son of a poor man from a Thracian city where Xerxes forced the rich to bankrupt themselves throwing an expensive dinner party for him; so your 20th-century Iranian chauvinist author invents a story that Xerxes gave Protagoras a tutor, which is totally contrary to the ancient sources. All the Greco-Roman sources show that the amount of knowledge they had about Zoroaster was pathetically fragmentary and garbled: they didn't even get his name right.

 

[mojobadshah]

AGAIN you are just grabbing words that happen to start with the same letter and declaring them the same. Earlier you were saying that Mazda "wisdom" was related to the root of "mind" which I would find plausible (I would have to check it out, but it is much less unreasonable than most of your "linguistics"), but now you have decided it means "body" instead of "mind"???

Shipley lists PIE * men I-IV. Mazda, mantra, and man fall under *men I. He does assign Mithra to a different root, but Mithra indicates "covenant" as in Mithradrug and though there was no Mathra for Mithra there was a Mithra Yasht and one source I came across claimed that this Yasht describes Mithra as Mazda's body. History of Zoroastrianism

Show me.

Dk. 7. 2. 36-72; Zsp. 13. 4

No, it's not dhagh plus deiwos, it's just from DADA, an exceedingly ancient nursery-form for "daddy" found in numerous language groups, long pre-dating Indo-European.

I thought there were forms of dad in Sanskrit too.

or from long after.

I doubt it, but here's Watkins:

How to Kill a Dragon

Go figure.

 

[bob x]

Shipley lists PIE * men I-IV. Mazda, mantra, and man fall under *men I.

These all look plausibly related to the "mind" root.

He does assign Mithra to a different root, but Mithra indicates "covenant" as in Mithradrug

This is from the "mate" root, as in Indic maitri "friendship, benevolence" and Celtic maite "close friend" from which English has mate, matey in the sense of "friend" assimilated to the Germanic mate "husband or wife".

there was a Mithra Yasht and one source I came across claimed that this Yasht describes Mithra as Mazda's body

I showed you what the actual text of it was. It was not talking about Mithra at all; it is only the late Pazend which puts that spin on it.

I thought there were forms of dad in Sanskrit too.

And in numerous other languages, Indo-European or otherwise; DADA is not as common as the PAPA root for "father" but both are about as old as MAMA for "mother" or NANA for "caretaker woman"; these are practically Pan-Human, not just Indo-European.

I doubt it, but here's Watkins:

How to Kill a Dragon

Go figure.

Is there some point you are trying to make?

 

[mojobadshah]

This is from the "mate" root, as in Indic maitri "friendship, benevolence" and Celtic maite "close friend" from which English has mate, matey in the sense of "friend" assimilated to the Germanic mate "husband or wife".

I showed you what the actual text of it was. It was not talking about Mithra at all; it is only the late Pazend which puts that spin on it.

I think we're talking about two different things now. I did mention the Mathra Yasna, which is what I think you're referring to here, but what I'm referring to here is the Mehr Yasht Mehr Yasht I can't see it myself, but one source I recall was trying to assert that Mithra is described as Mazda's "firey" body in this Yasht. The word Mathra itself however appears several times in the Gathas.

And in numerous other languages, Indo-European or otherwise; DADA is not as common as the PAPA root for "father" but both are about as old as MAMA for "mother" or NANA for "caretaker woman"; these are practically Pan-Human, not just Indo-European.

Don't yell at me now, but what about these forms: Proto-Celtic: *Dagodeiwos, Old Irish: Dag Dia, Modern Irish: Daghdha which wikipedia cites? Don't they look like they could be akin to the personal name Dughdova? Who does does the morpheme get from Dada to Daghda?

Is there some point you are trying to make?

I'm trying to kill a dragon! LOL

Here are some other points to take into consideration that may support Watkin's date for the Younger sections no later that 700 BC:

The forms Ahura and Mazda are not fully compounded into one word in the Young Avestan scriptures.

Young Avestan texts:

Khorda-Avesta ahurahe mazdå
Vendidad ahurô mazdå

Visperad ahurô mazdå

Assyrian Inscriptions:

Ahura Maida (latter part of 2nd millennium)

Assara Mazas ( 685-627 BC)

Old Persian (c. 600 BC) inscriptions:

Ahuramazda

Parthian Hormazd

Sassanian Ohrmazd

New Persian Hormoz

Secondly, I mentioned that the Medes nor the Persians are mentioned in the Avesta because they were composed east of Media and Persia (Fars) in Aryana. But I also came across this source The Expository Times, and I've seen many like it which purport that the Madai mentioned in Genesis, the oldest portion of the Hebrew Bible, were equivalent to the Medes mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as early as 840 BC as the Amada > Mata > Mada. So that would place the Young Avesta before 840 BC.

Third how do you explain the Assyrian form which first appears as Ahura and later appears as Assara? This reminds me of the source that stipulated that a lot of Indic words were rooted in Assyrian. Maybe this has something to do with why the Avestan's preserved holy Ahura and Hepta-Hind, and the Vedic people rejected the sinister Asura, and place-names appear as Septa-Sind.

This yarah is from a Proto-Indo-European root: compare English year, Greek hora "season; timespan" (hence English hour). It may go back to Nostratic root for "light" seen in such Semitic forms as Hebrew uwr "light", m-owr "light-bringer" (participial m- again; at Genesis 1:15-16 the sun and moon are the two m-oroth). In Semitic the w-r forms for "light" are connected to the y-r forms for "see" ("w" and "y" often interchange), although Indo-European lacks, as far as I know, any words for "see" that belong to this root.

Lastly, granted that the Madai of Genesis were the Medes how unlikely would it have been that Semitic form Yireh "see" in Yahweh-Yireh was actually just a loan from IE. forms like Yarah "year" which developed from the idea that the moon is an "eye" like the sun is viewed as having "eyes" in other cultures?

 

[bob x]

[how] does does the morpheme get from Dada to Daghda?

I don't know how the "g" got there: maybe I'm completely mistaken (it does happen, sometimes!). But I did think the root was "father", which would make a connection to a woman's name quite unlikely.

Here are some other points to take into consideration that may support Watkin's date for the Younger sections no later that 700 BC

We're somewhat talking past each other here. Younger Avestan is a frozen "liturgical language" like medieval Church Latin or the Coptic used by the Egyptian Christians (both frozen in forms that had not been spoken in Rome or Egypt since ~5th century), or the literary Sanskrit of India (which is a later stage of that language than the Vedic, but still thousands of years old in origin). In a pre-literate society, where "texts" are preserved only by rote memorization, the age of the language and the age of the text are the same thing; but once there is writing, the grammar of a standardized language can be taught, and new texts composed in it, even though it has not been spoken in that form for a very long time. Watkins is talking about the date at which Younger Avestan became standardized (well after the Gathas, evidently; but he thinks earlier than the Achaemenid period), but I don't see anywhere that he argues that all the texts we have (or any of them, for that matter) in that liturgical language were written that far back.

I've seen many like it which purport that the Madai mentioned in Genesis, the oldest portion of the Hebrew Bible, were equivalent to the Medes mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as early as 840 BC

The problem is that the name, meaning "league" (it is not clear what language group it was from), was used in various mutant forms for many tribal confederacies: the Midian were all Arabs, although the Mitanni were Indo-Europeans. Genesis might be talking about some other league that we don't know about: the "Table of Nations" chapter in which it is found appears to reflect the political situation around the reign of Solomon (10th century BC) and it is not known whether the "Mede" confederacy existed yet, or if it did, whether it had the same membership.

So that would place the Young Avesta before 840 BC.

Your assertion that texts which don't mention Medes must come before the Medes ignores the possibility that they come from long after the Medes. The New York Times doesn't mention the "kingdom of Jerusalem" so-- it must be from before 1095?

how unlikely would it have been that Semitic form Yireh "see" in Yahweh-Yireh was actually just a loan from IE. forms like Yarah "year" which developed from the idea that the moon is an "eye" like the sun is viewed as having "eyes" in other cultures?

Not "unlikely", totally impossible. I have told you many times before that Hebrew y- is not part of the root (resh-aleph-heh here) but is a prefix for 3rd person singular (like English suffix -s), in imperfective aspect: yireah "he/she/it sees" or "is seeing" but ereah "I am seeing", tireah "you [sing.] are seeing"; or yareah "it causes to be seen; makes visible" (poetic for "moon") but tareah "you make visible"; no prefixes appear in perfective aspect, as raah "he has seen" or raahtem "you [pl.] have seen". It is senseless to derive the root from a word that starts with "y" when the "y" is a grammatical affix; it is part of this exasperating pattern of yours, grabbing randomly at words from languages you don't know anything about the structure of, and declaring them related on the basis of a letter or two and a vague indirect connection you imagine between the meanings: I have told you this is rubbish since we first met.

 

[mojobadshah]

We're somewhat talking past each other here. Younger Avestan is a frozen "liturgical language" like medieval Church Latin or the Coptic used by the Egyptian Christians (both frozen in forms that had not been spoken in Rome or Egypt since ~5th century), or the literary Sanskrit of India (which is a later stage of that language than the Vedic, but still thousands of years old in origin). In a pre-literate society, where "texts" are preserved only by rote memorization, the age of the language and the age of the text are the same thing; but once there is writing, the grammar of a standardized language can be taught, and new texts composed in it, even though it has not been spoken in that form for a very long time. Watkins is talking about the date at which Younger Avestan became standardized (well after the Gathas, evidently; but he thinks earlier than the Achaemenid period), but I don't see anywhere that he argues that all the texts we have (or any of them, for that matter) in that liturgical language were written that far back.

What about Koin and Latin? How long were they used as languages of liturgy? Are there references to "Jesus's resurrection" "a general resurrection" and "a general judgment day" in association with Christianty before the oldest written versions of the NT in our possesion? How old are our oldest written versions of the NT?

The problem is that the name, meaning "league" (it is not clear what language group it was from), was used in various mutant forms for many tribal confederacies: the Midian were all Arabs, although the Mitanni were Indo-Europeans. Genesis might be talking about some other league that we don't know about: the "Table of Nations" chapter in which it is found appears to reflect the political situation around the reign of Solomon (10th century BC) and it is not known whether the "Mede" confederacy existed yet, or if it did, whether it had the same membership.

Here you appear to be linking words that have a few letters in common together. Madai and Mada resemble eachother much more than Madai and Midian, not to mention the Gimiri mentioned with the Madai in Genesis are also mentioned with the Mada in Assyrian texts.

Your assertion that texts which don't mention Medes must come before the Medes ignores the possibility that they come from long after the Medes. The New York Times doesn't mention the "kingdom of Jerusalem" so-- it must be from before 1095?

The Young Avestan forms of Ahura Mazda are all attested as Ahura Mazda and in Assyrian c. 700BC This form is a loan from Avestan that enters into Old Persian compounded as Ahuramazda.