Quote:

---

I love history, I love mythology, I love stories, dont have low opinion of them, simply take them for what they are - not necessary true...

---

Quote:

---

Sounds cool, but names of historians is hardly evidence, matter of fact from what I know of historians, on every one that claims A there are a bunch of others who will claim B, ancient history is so distorted and twisted that chances of you proving something as such is the same as trying to prove that there is a god or proving that there isnt one...
Historians most of the time make educated guesses based on little to no data while trying to glue pieces into a story which can be rather far from the truth...
Just saying that history is 90% story telling and 10% science

---

Quote:

---

1. They lived and interacted with people who believed in many gods hence they probably shared their beliefs is a ridiculous theory IMO that proves nothing.
2. Some historians believe yada yada yada is also not a proof as there are other historians who believe otherwise
3. Some so called jewish bodies were found with objects which imply that jews worshiped other gods also doesnt prove that they werent heretics.

---

Quote:

---

Hmm, that was a fascinating story (really no sarcasm), however parts of it did sound like a religious book of a sort instead of a documentation of historians from that era, and the question I raise is, if indeed there are documents that claim all that how come its still considered just a theory by some historians and a false one by others ? I mean if there are original documents proving it as you say why is there any controversy ? Or are you claiming that it is a widely accepted truth by majority of historians worldwide ?
Not arguing, sincerely asking

---

Quote:

---

It is said by some critics that:

   Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason."
   He was baptized in a river.
   In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
   He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
   He began his ministry at age 30.
   Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind."
   He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
   He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
   He had a sacred cup or grail.
   He was slain.
   His religion had a eucharist.
   He was the "Word made flesh."
   Zoroaster's followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

Some of the things listed above are actually true and confirmed by scholarly literature -- and a couple of them come from sources that Zoroastrian scholars suggest go back to a source predating Christianity. But that's the mythicists getting 10 out of 100 on a test where before they got zeroes, or claiming a "100% increase" in a salary that went from one dollar a year to two dollars. Some of these I find no confirmation at all for; others come from sources that are way, way too late -- even as late as the 10th century! Our main source for details on Zoroaster is the Avesta, a collection of sacred texts which was put in writing between 346-360 AD [Herz.ZW, 774] and of which we have manuscript copies only as early as the 13th century [Wat.Z, 56 -- and note to conspiracy theorists: blame Alexander the Great and the Muslims for the destruction of Zoroastrian literature]. Some of the material probably comes from a time before the Christian era, but most of this is reckoned to be hymns and some basic information [Rose.IZ, 17] that was part of the oral tradition. The rest seems likely to have been added later, and for good reason, as Rose notes [ibid., 27]:

   The incorporation of certain motifs into the Zoroastrian tradition in the ninth century CE could indicate the conscious attempt of the priesthood to exalt their prophet in the eyes of the faithful who may have been tempted to turn to other religions.

In other words, if we see a "Jesus-like" story in these texts, especially this late, we have a right to suspect borrowing -- but in exactly the opposite way that critics suppose!

A key issue seems to be, "When did Zoroaster actually live?" Interestingly enough there has even been a few "Zoroaster-mythers" who said (as Bultmann said of Jesus!) "nothing can be said" of the historical Zoroaster [Rose.IZ, 15]. J. M. Robertson, who also stumped for a mythical Jesus and a mythical Buddha, took up the Zoroaster-myth (to which a Zoroastrian scholar responded, "I have myself indeed divined and published the argument by which Mr. Robertson's successors fifty years hence will irrefutably prove him a myth") [Wat.Z, 11]. One Zoroastrian scholar did go along with the idea eventually, but died before he could justify his position. At any rate, most of the sources I consulted prefer a date around 600 B.C., though one scholar has suggested a date as early as 1700 BC [Yam.PB, 414].

Does indeed Persia have anything to do with Jerusalem? Zoroaster's faith had an idea that sounds like, and probably is, bodily resurrection, though it is most clear only in AD-dated texts. Did the Jews "steal" this idea while under the thumb of the Persians? There is no direct evidence either way; the Persians may have got the ideas from the Jews, and from Ezekiel or Daniel.

We'll see some other general ideas they have in common as well. But in terms of borrowing, no evidence exists -- one way or the other, and a determination depends on the interpretations and datings of Zoroastrian texts. Zoroastrian scholars offer no consensus on the subject [Yam.PB, 461]: Yamauchi cites one scholar who believes that the Jews borrowed, another that says there is no way to tell who borrowed, and yet another who says that the borrowing was the other way. There is also a great difference in approach: The Jews buried their dead, while the Zoros exposed their dead.

Others argue that the Jewish idea of Satan is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. But Satan appears in Job, a very early book, and is nothing like the evil god Ahriman, who is a dualistic equal to Ohrmazd the good god, rather than a subordinate. Finally, it is significant that while the OT used plenty of Persian loanwords for governmental matters, they did not use any for religion [Yam.PB, 463]. The most we find is, I am told, the name of a Persian demon in the Book of Tobit!

And so, right to the list, shall we go?
Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason." It's hard to quantify this one -- the Avesta (note again, a late source, later than Christianity) refers to a "kingly glory" that was handed onward from one ruler to the next; this glory resided in Zoroaster's mother for about 15 years, including during the time she was married to Zoroaster's dad, Pourushaspa. It seems that a human father was still needed for Zoroaster [Jack.ZP, 18, 24] and that this "ray" was merely for the infusion of Zoroaster's spirit, not his body.

(A reader has added the point that it is not correct to use "Immaculate conception" to refer to Christ's virgin birth, as seems to be the implication here; rather it refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Mary was born without original sin. It is only somewhat recently that some people have erroneously used it to refer to Christ's virgin birth.)
He was baptized in a river. I can find no reference to this at all. There is a story of Zoraster receiving a revelation from an archangel while on the banks of a river, which Zoroaster later crosses [Jack.ZP, 41], but that is as close as I have found.
In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. Here's what I have on this: At age 7, Zoroaster was placed under the care of a wise man; as he was raised he had disputations with the magi -- the practitioners of occult and magic, necromancy, and sorcery. These were "put to confusion" by him [Jack.ZP, 29, 31]. Later he also made sport of the wise men of King Vishtapsa, who became one of his major converts [Jack.ZP, 61-2], and these wise men plotted against him, accusing him of being a necromancer. Zoroaster was imprisoned, but got out when he helped heal the king's favorite horse by making its legs grow back. Zoroaster was clearly a prodigy, but in quite a different area than Jesus.
He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. This one is true, sort of -- after 10 years (not 40 days!) of visionary experiences, a sub-demon named J. Buiti was sent by Ahriman (the functional devil-equivalent in this context -- he didn't come himself) "to deceive and overthrow the holy messenger." [Jack.ZP, 51]

This temptation involved an attempt to persuade Zoroaster to renounce the "good religion" of Mazdeism and worship evil spirits -- no bread to stones, no leaps from towers, just talking back and forth with Zoro quoting Persian scriptures. Jackson and Waterhouse indicate no location for this; it could have been the wilderness, but it might have been MacDonald's in Tehran. The story has some roots to the 2nd century BC [Wat.Z, 54] but it bears at best a superficial similarity to the temptation of Jesus.
He began his ministry at age 30. This one is absolutely right [Jack.ZP, 16], but rendered meaningless in this context by two things. First, it comes from the Pahlavi literature, which is post-Christian by several centuries, and second, thirty is the age at which Iranian men come to Wisdom. [WL, 54] The ancients gave as much regard to the "big three-oh" as we did -- there is no copycatting here.
Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind." This is kind of odd, because this would equate with a "John the Baptist myth," not a Christ myth! Even so, I find no evidence of any of these at all. Zoroaster did have an association with sacred fires [Jack.ZP, 98] that were part of the fire-cults in three particular temples, and seemed to have taken a part in preserving the fire-cult (which liked to keep the fires going, sort of like our eternal flame at Arlington Cemetery) but he did not "baptize" with and of these things.
He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. "Cast out" is a little vague for a description here -- Zoro apparently didn't like demons, but I find no record saying he cast them out of people as Jesus did: This was one of several abilities Zoro had, including driving out pestilence, witches, and sorcerers. There is a record of Zoroaster healing a blind man, but this comes from a document dated to the tenth century AD -- and he did it by dropping juice from a plant into the blind man's eyes. [Jack.ZP, 94]
He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. As this goes, it is true, but not all of these terms have the same meaning in Zoroastrianism that they do in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only "resurrection" is a good match here -- Zoroaster's faith taught that after judgment, the "dead will rise up" and men will become "not-aging, not-dying, not-decaying, not-rotting" [Herz.ZW, 299]. It's resurrection, it sounds like, though described by negatives.

In terms of the other stuff, there aren't a lot of similarities [Wat.Z, 95, 96, 98, 102]. Salvation was by works alone; there was "practically no place for repentance or pardon:" and "no doctrine of atonement." There is some issue about the fate of the wicked; one account says they will be tormented three days, then return to do good deeds; another source says they will be annihilated. There is an essential equivalent to Heaven and Hell, but it wouldn't be too hard to create such a concept independently one way or the other based on the simple assumption that people will get what they deserve.

Judgment would be made by committee: the Persian Mithra and two other gods are on the panel. If you aren't sure where you might go, word is that Zoroaster himself will come and plead for you. A concept of purgatory appears in a Zoroastrian work of the 5th-6th century, and later Zoroastrianism did develop rites of repentance and expiation, contrary to Zoroaster's recorded teachings. There's an apocalypse planned to be sure: a flood of molten metal to burn off the wicked. Zoroastrian eschatology comes for the most part, however, from those late AD sources [Yam.PB, 465].

A reader also sent us this note:

   "The case for a judeo-christian dependence on Zoroastrianism in its purely eschatological thinking is quite different. And not at all convincing, for apart from a few hints in the Gathas which we shall shortly be considering and a short passage in Yasht 19.80-90 in which a deathless existence in body and soul at the end of time is affirmed, we have no evidence as to what eschatological ideas the Zoroastrians had in the last four centuries before Christ. The eschatologies of the Pahlavi books, though agreeing in their broad outlines, differ very considerably in detail and emphasis; they do not correspond at all closely to the eschatological writings of the intertestimentary period nor to those of St. Paul and the apocalypse of St. John. They do, however, agree that there will be a general resurrection of the body as well as soul, but this idea would be the natural corollary to the survival of the soul as a moral entity, once that had been accepted, since both Jew and Zoroastrian regarded soul and body as being two aspects, ultimately inseperable, of the one human personality." -- R.C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York. 1961. Pg. 57

Note especially the implication that an idea of resurrection could have come up independently in the Zoroastrians because they shared the Jewish perception of totality of body and spirit.
He had a sacred cup or grail. If he did, the Zoroastrian scholars don't know about it. Not that it matters -- the idea of Jesus having a sacred cup or grail is a product of medieval legend, not the Bible!
He was slain. Zoroaster was indeed said to be slain, but his death isn't vested with any significance. There are a couple of stories about his death. A late story has him struck by lightning, but that is from a post-Christian source. An account that is generally accepted has Zoroaster killed at age 77 by a wizard/priest. There are no details on this death, other than that it occurred in a temple. A nice story from the 17th century has Zoroaster whipping out rosary beads and throwing them at his assassin as he dies. [Jack.ZP, 124-9]

Either way, Zoroaster's murder has neither the invested significance nor the surrounding similarities of the death of Jesus. There is also a third account that has him killed in battle as a king! However, none of this may matter as Herzfeld, after analysis of the data, concludes that the "murder of Zoroaster is entirely unhistorical" for the stories of it are all in late sources as much as 1400 years after his time, and had he truly been murdered, it would "resound loudly and persistently in history" before that [Herz.ZW, 241, 845].
His religion had a eucharist. Not that the Zoroastrian scholars are aware of, though I would not doubt that the Z people had communal meals like every religious and political group in ancient times. And since there is no atonement in Zoroastrianism, how can there be a Eucharist? The closest I can find to this is the fact that in later Zoroastriaism, there is a rite involving the intoxicating haoma plant, which may or may not have been known of and/or endorsed by Zoroaster [Yam.PB, 418] and involves a daily rite of consumption with no "eucharistic" significance (i.e., it is not Zoroaster's body or blood, etc.).

There is also a ceremony calls the yasna or veneration, which does involve the use of bread (topped with clarified butter) and a drink made from ephedra, pomegranate twigs, and milk (strained through a filter made from the hairs of a white bull), but evidence indicates that this ritual was established as part of liturgical reform in Zoroastrianism in the post-Christian era [Yam.PB, 449-50].
He was the "Word made flesh." Not that the scholars know about it, either.
Zoroaster's followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age. I have been able to confirm that this is true to some extent: a return is expected in 2341 CE, to start a golden age; the details on age 30 I have found nowhere. Whether this future Deliverer would indeed be Zoroaster himself again is indeed something that has been interpreted, but later Zoroastrian texts think that the person will be of the line of Zoroaster, not Zoroaster himself. [Wat.Z, 94-5]

A vague doctrine of a future redeemer does appear in texts dated as early as the 400s BC, but only later (9th cent. AD) texts go into detail, reporting three world saviors -- "virgin born" in a sense: It seems that some of Zoro's sperm is being preserved in a lake in Iran, and that three virgins bathing in the lake over the next few thousand years are going to get a big surprise as a result. Virgin born, perhaps, but not virgin conceived. The last of these three guys will eradicate all disease and death and usher in the final victory of good over evil.

And that, folks, is about the size of it -- there are more convincing parallels to Jesus in Dragonball Z than there are to the big Persian Z.

---

Quote:

---

The following are the oldest manuscripts:
Yasna and Vispered dated 1323 CE- Khordeh Avesta dated 1352 CE -Vendidad dated 1245 CEآEach manuscript had the name/s of the scribe/s and the date/s written at the end. Some of the manuscripts which have been preserved have their begining and ending pages missing. The Iranian and Indian styles of writing were different and even if we do not have the names now, we can distinguish between the two.

---

Quote:

---

According to Egyptian mythology, Horus was originally believed to be the son of Ra and Hathor and the
husband/brother of Isis. Later he was seen as the son of Osiris and Isis once Hathor and Isis were merged into
one being. Horus was considered the sky, sun, and moon god represented by a man with the head of falcon.

Zoroaster was an Iranian prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism. Though the dating of his life is heatedly
debated, he is believed to be a contemporary of King Hystaspes, making a 6th century B.C. dating most likely.
Evidence is shown throughout the Avesta which mentions personal conversations between the two. One example
is as follows:

"'I am a pious man, who speaks words of blessing,' thus said Zarathushtra to the young king Vishtaspa 'O young
king Vishtaspa! [I bless thee]" Vishtasp Yasht, 1

VIRGIN BIRTH There is no mention of a virgin birth in any Zoroastrian text nor do the events of Zoroaster's
birth seem to have any relation to Jesus. The actual accounts regarding his birth are given below:

Version 1: Zoroaster's parents (Dukdaub and Pourushasp) were a normal married couple who conceive a son
through natural means. Zoroaster is described as laughing when he is born as well as having a visible, glowing
aura about him:

"[Zoroaster] had come into the posterity...who are Pourushasp, his father, and Dukdaub who is his mother. And
also while he is being born and for the duration of life, he produced a radiance, glow, and brilliance from the
place of his own abode..." Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2

Version 2: In a later text, an embellishment is added by Zoroastrian followers. We are told Ahura Mazda (the
main deity of Zoroastrianism) implants the soul of Zoroaster into the sacred Haoma plant and through the plant's
milk Zoroaster is born.

TEMPTED IN THE WILDERNESS Zoroaster is also said to have been tempted by an evil spirit to renounce his
faith with the promise of receiving power over the nations. However, this story is found in the Vendidad, the
Zoroastrian text which lists the laws regarding demons, penned sometime between 250 - 650 A.D. (centuries
after the life of Jesus):

"Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: 'Do not destroy my creatures, O holy
Zarathushtra... Renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as...the
ruler of the nations.'" Vendidad Fargad 19:6

SEED OF A WOMAN The Christian Old Testament refers to the savior of mankind being born of a woman. Critics
claim this concept was stolen from Zoroaster whose name means seed of the woman. Apparently no one
investigated this claim because the name is an ancient Iranian compound of zareta (old, feeble) and ustra
(camel). His original Persian name Zarathushtra (Zoroaster is the Greek/English translation) literally translates as
owner of old feeble camels. Source and Source Zoroaster was also allegedly called The Word Made Flesh and
The Living Word but no such references exist.

MINISTRY BEGAN AT 30 Like Jesus, Zoroaster was believed to begin his teachings at the age of 30. Though
Zoroaster technically came out of seclusion at the age of 30 to begin his teachings, he was shunned and ignored
for 12 years until his religion was accepted by King Vishtaspa. Jesus, on the other hand, attracted followers
instantly. Zoroaster was believed to be killed around the age of 77 while Jesus was killed at the age of 33.
Furthermore this fact about Zoroaster is not mentioned until later texts dated around 225 A.D. (almost 200 years
after Christianity had already been in circulation).

EUCHARIST Though critics claim the concept of a bread-wine communion originated with Zoroaster, no such
celebration exists. Though priests accepted sacrifices of meat, flowers, milk, bread, fruit, and sacred water,
there was no symbolic communion performed by Zoroastrian followers other than drinking the juice from the
sacred Haoma plant (but this did not hold the body-blood significance of the Christian Eucharist). Source

RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS Critics point out the similarities between the basic belief structure of Zoroastrianism
and Christianity. Superficially, there are many correlations between the two until they are further examined:

   Both teach a spiritual battle between good and evil. True, but this is true for almost all religions. The chief
   god of Zoroastrianism is Ahura Mazda while the chief God of the Judeo-Christian belief is Yahweh. The
   arch enemy of Zoroastrianism is Angra Mainyu whereas in Christianity he is known as Satan.
   Zoroastrianism also teaches the dualism of both figures whereas Christianity teaches the subordination of
   Satan to God.
   Salvation. Zoroastrianism teaches all men will be judged according to their works at the final judgment.
   Christianity teaches men are judged according to their acceptance of Christ.
   Judgment. Zoroastrianism teaches all men are eventually saved. Christianity teaches the fate of the sinful
   is eternal.
   Monotheism. Zoroaster originally taught the concept of one god but Zoroastrian priests, in order to make
   the religion more enticing, later added several other deities.
   Resurrection of all men. Zoroastrian teaches the eventual resurrection of all humans at the end of the
   age. Christianity also teaches this, but this for the judgment of souls and the reign of the righteous in the
   millennial kingdom.


HE WAS SLAIN FOR MANKIND'S SINS It is believed Zoroaster was killed at the age of 77 after being
slaughtered on one of his temple altars by Turanian invaders (although this is debated). Regardless, his death
was never believed to atone for sin or to hold any other spiritual purpose.

IN CONCLUSION Most Zoroastrian texts were written centuries after the Christian texts. The accounts of
Zoroaster's life that existed before the time of Jesus (the Gathas) consist mainly of vague poetic writings which
say very little about his life. The incredible acts later associated with him were added by Zoroastrian priests
wishing to make the religion more appealing.

---

Quote:

---

Zoroaster was not born until around the time of the Babylonian captivity by the way. He may have borrowed from the Jews but the Jews did not borrow from him.

---

Quote:

---

Others argue that the Jewish idea of Satan is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. But Satan appears in Job, a very early book

---

Quote:

---

The articles on TDE are the result of my
studies and are offered freely to either strengthen the faith of the believer or to give the skeptic something to
consider.

---

Quote:

---

Elodin, I'm totally not interested in your interpretations of the Bible and generally in your interpretations at all.

---

Quote:

---

Zoroaster was not born until around the time of the Babylonian captivity by the way. He may have borrowed from the Jews but the Jews did not borrow from him.

---

Quote:

---

Second - the Zoroastrianism is at its peak during the reign of the Sassanids which begins in II century AD, that's its "restoration". Then it gets codified in a way similar to the codification of the Christianity during the Council of Nicaea and - again similarly - the new "official" ideology is violently enforced. Go figure why most of the texts are from that period.

---

Quote:

---

This tradition however clearly predates the Christianity and much of the Jewish religion as the Mazdaism does not appear just out of a sudden and not even with Zoroaster - it's like saying that Yahveh's religion starts with Jesus.

---

Quote:

---

All the nonsense put together in your second post comes from some pro-Christian wannabe-"scholar" who doesn't seem to have bothered with the reading too much or just assembled the regular one-sided interpretation so the likes of you can believe it without activating even a single brain cell (if available).

---

Quote:

---

Just one more thing:

Quote:

---

Others argue that the Jewish idea of Satan is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. But Satan appears in Job, a very early book

---

"A very early book" is a misleading trap for laymen. The book of Job is dated between XVI and VI or even V century BC which is a huge gap and there is no clear telling when exactly it was written. Furthermore, it will be hard to prove that it was never edited to include this "Satan" even if it was not present earlier, just like many writings had been edited throughout the years.
Anyway, next time quote some real scholars, not some "apologetic encyclopedia".

---

Quote:

---

Top Ten Reasons Why We Believe the Book of Job was Written During the Time of the Patriarchs

1. Job lived 140 years after his calamities (42:16). This corresponds with the lifespans of the patriarchs. For example, Abraham lived 175 years.

2. Job's wealth was reckoned in livestock (1:3; 42:12) which was also true of Abraham (Gen. 12:16) and Jacob (Gen. 30:43).

3. The Sabeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15, 17) were nomads in Abraham's time, but in later years were not.

4. The Hebrew word (qsitah) translated "piece of silver" (42:11) is used elsewhere only twice (Gen. 33:19, Josh. 24:32). Both times are in reference to Jacob.

5. Job's daughters were heirs of his estate along with their brothers (Job. 42:15). This was not possible later under the Mosaic Law if a daughter's brothers were still living (Num. 27:8).

6. Literary works similar in some ways to the Book of Job were written in Egypt and Mesopotamia around the time of the patriarchs.

7. The Book of Job includes no references to the Mosaic institutions (priesthood, laws, tabernacle, special religious days and feasts).

8. The name (sadday) is used of God 31 times in Job (compared with 17 times elsewhere in the Old Testament) and was a name familiar to the patriarchs.

9. Several personal and place names in the book were also associated with the patriarchal period. Examples include (a) Sheba - a grandson of Abraham, (b) Tema - another grandson of Abraham, (c) Eliphaz - a son of Esau, (d) Uz - a nephew of Abraham.

10. Job was a common West Semitic name in the second millennium B.C. Job was also a name of a 19th-century-B.C. prince in the Egyptian Execration texts.

---

Quote:

---

Is the Old Testament plagiarized from the Zoroastrian scriptures?


Is the Old Testament plagiarized from the Zoroastrian scriptures?

Quite simply, no. Many wild theories are thrown about by theologians
looking for something to put into their ThD theses, and this is one of
these ideas. The Zend Avesta is the principle scripture of Zoroastrianism,
the pseudo-monotheistic sun-worshiping religion which began in Persia in
about the seventh century BCE. One principal problem with this theory is
that most of the Old Testament was written long before the Zend Avesta.
The origins of the Zend Avesta are obscure, but the earliest evidence for
its existence comes from about 600 BCE. Assuming that there are parallels
between the Old Testament and the Zend Avesta which require one to
conclude that one borrowed from the other (and this is a big assumption)
the logical implication would be that the Persian scripture borrowed from
the one which preceded it?the Old Testament! The reason theologians are
not attracted to this theory is that it would not provide an interesting
and controversial ThD thesis topic.

Another problem with this theory is that most of the original Zend Avesta
has been completely lost. In fact, it is difficult to prove that Zoroaster
(also known as Zarathustra) himself is even an historical person, as his
origins and even the time of his life are controversial. The Zoroastrians
now rely principally on the Gathas, which are supposed sayings of
Zoroaster. I say supposed sayings of Zoroaster because this book was
written hundreds of years after the Zend Avesta when most of the original
writings had already been lost to posterity. For this reason, it is
difficult to say what was in the Zend Avesta in the first place. This
would make it hard to prove either that the Bible writers borrowed from
the Zoroastrian scripture or vice versa. With little solid evidence in
either direction, much room is left for those who like to speculate and
who make a living out of finding supposed problems with the Bible. You
would do well to be extremely skeptical of such claims. You should look
for some sort of solid evidence to back up the claim that the Bible
writers borrowed from Zoroastrian scripture. To date, I have seen no
reliable evidence to support the claim, but if you find something, I would
request you send the information my way. I will not be holding my breath.

John Oakes, PhD

---