Did Zarathustra exist or what?

[neutrino_cannon]

It occured to me that compared to Jesus, far less is known about the famous Persian Sage. We don't even have particularly strong evidence as to when he lived (whereas Jesus is nailed down to within a few years)!

Is there any chance that Zarathustra as he is concieved today is a composite or legendary character?

 

[CaptainManacles]

whereas Jesus is nailed down to within a few years

Based on what exactly? Given that we have zero information about Jesus that we can "nail down", it's hard to say we know less about any given historical figure. We can't really have less then zero.

If you objectively look at the information we have available, you pretty much have to conclude that Jesus probably didn't exist, and if anyone close to a "Jesus" figure existed, we don't really know if he was crusified, where and when he was born, what his politics where, where he traveled, or if he called himself god. All we're left with is that there was a guy that called himself the messiah, and that's certainly true; there were lots of people in the region calling themselves messiahs.

 

[David Swidler]

"Nailed down." Good one.

 

[jjramsey]

If you objectively look at the information we have available, you pretty much have to conclude that Jesus probably didn't exist,

Plenty of historians have objectively looked at the information we have available and concluded just the opposite, including the atheist ones. The guys who trumpet the "Jesus-is-a-myth" bit are not only a minority, but like the creationists, they market their work at laypersons who want to believe them, not at the scholars. (One exception is Robert Price, whose book Deconstructing Jesus was oh-so politely panned.) I suppose that one could mangle Winston Churchill and joke and say that the theory that Jesus existed is the worst of all the historical theories--except for all the other historical theories. The giveaway is that all the theories so far involving a mythical Jesus involve ad hoc hypotheses and arguments from silence. Try, for example, to explain away all the references to Jesus having brothers without piling on unfounded speculation that is a clumsy explanation of the facts.

If you want to discuss this further, there is already another thread on this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47373

 

[kmortis]

As if to illustrate your point, the opening paragraph that I found concering Zoroaster was this

Hardly anything is known about Zarathustra's life. For example, it is uncertain when he lived. The ancient Greeks speculated that he lived six thousand years before the philosopher Plato and several scholars have argued for a date at the beginning of the sixth century BCE. Modern scholars believe that Zarathustra is the author of the Gâthâ's (a part of the holy book of the Zoroastrians, the Avesta), which they date -on linguistic grounds- in the fourteenth or thirteenth century BCE.

Fron here

It would seem that there is less to go on for Zoroaster than Jesus. But I've never once hear someone question his existance. It could be that, with Z just being a prophet rather than the Son Of God, his existantial status isn't quite as important.

Zarathustra was born in Bactria (or Aria) as the son of a not very powerful nobleman named Purushaspa and a woman named Dughdhova. Zarathustra was the third of five brothers. He became a priest and seems to have showed a remarkable care for humans and cattle. The family is often called Spitama, which is just a honorary title meaning 'most beneficient', but was later taken for a family name.

There are somethings that are written in the Avestas about his life, but I treat them with the same lump of salt that I do with the uncorrobated parts of the Bible, or any other historical document.

I dunno, the Ancient Greeks and Persians were sure convinced that he lived, but I cannot find anything to back up that idea.

 

[Iacchus]

Of course this was back in the days when we had nothing but meaningless concepts by which to communicate with. People believed in this sort of thing you know, and belief was very important back then.

 

[geni]

It occured to me that compared to Jesus, far less is known about the famous Persian Sage. We don't even have particularly strong evidence as to when he lived (whereas Jesus is nailed down to within a few years)!

Is there any chance that Zarathustra as he is concieved today is a composite or legendary character?

That is a slightly tricky since you are basicaly talking about two different people.

Zarathustra author of the Gâthâ's probably did exist simly on the baisis that someone wrote them. Jesus is a poor anology for this one. Jahwist would probably be a better one.

Zarathustra ansestor of the persian kings and the like is a different matter.

 

[Cosmo]

Of course this was back in the days when we had nothing but meaningless concepts by which to communicate with. People believed in this sort of thing you know, and belief was very important back then.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, the irony.

Or, perhaps people believed things as a matter of principle? Obviously the principles of Zarathustra and Jesus Christ do exist. And, if the principle exists, perhaps this is even more important than any physical outcropping of it.

 

[UrsulaV]

Granted that Zoroastrianism ain't my strong suit, does the existence of Zarathustra matter as much to the continuation of the religion as the existence of Jesus?

Somebody invented Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda and all the rest, presumably--having done so, is this inventor then a key part of the story as it continues, without which the rest would fall apart?

Christianity can't hold up without Jesus, he's kinda the important bit. But does this guy's existence matter to Zorastrianism in the same fashion? If not, then I don't imagine it's as important to study of the religion--presumably like tracking down the historical Buddha, it's more historically interesting than critical to the continued feasibility of the teachings for people today, ya know?

 

[BeholdTheTruth]

"Nailed down." Good one.

God save us from puny puns. OTOH, much about Zoroaster is pretty much black and white.

 

[Jekyll]

Plenty of historians have objectively looked at the information we have available and concluded just the opposite, including the atheist ones. The guys who trumpet the "Jesus-is-a-myth" bit are not only a minority, but like the creationists, they market their work at laypersons who want to believe them, not at the scholars. (One exception is Robert Price, whose book Deconstructing Jesus was oh-so [

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html

Is this a forgone conclusion then?

 

[jjramsey]

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html

Is this a forgone conclusion then?

From the review that politely panned Deconstructing Jesus:

To be sure, the time between Jesus and the New Testament could have produced (and did) a largely fictional story--as Price contends--but could it have produced multiple, independent fabrications from unrelated groups? Evidence from analogous cases from the first century--such as the fantastical stories surrounding Vespasian, or Apollonius of Tyana both of whom apparently really lived--would suggest not.
--snip--
Price also gives too much credence to the idea that the gospels were written later than is generally supposed (e.g. his contention that Marcion included an earlier version of Luke into his New Testament rather than a redacted version of the canonical Luke). The evidence provided by the last couple of centuries seems too firm to allow this. This resort to late composition also implies sloppiness in the effort to validate the mythological Jesus, for if one posits the conflation of Simon/Peter and the other apostles as independent messiahs into the figure of Jesus based on late composition, one must also address obvious problems, such as how John the Baptist's story survived relatively intact.
--snip--
The record we have from non-Christian sources, while late, point toward an actual person named Jesus, whose life generally matches--at least in its most broad outline--what is said by the earliest Christian sources. To suppose that all of these sources are mistaken does a certain violence to the texts that is unmerited. While, perhaps, Jesus was created by the early Christian communities, Price does not yet convince.

The case for Jesus of Nazareth's historical existence is circumstantial, but trying to interpret the historical evidence under the presumption that he never existed leads to contortions. Like I said, try to explain away all the references to Jesus having brothers without piling on unfounded speculation that is a clumsy explanation of the facts.

 

[Just thinking]

Is there any chance that Zarathustra as he is concieved today is a composite or legendary character?

Not a composit ... a composer. Didn't he write the music for 2001?

 

[Jekyll]

The case for Jesus of Nazareth's historical existence is circumstantial, but trying to interpret the historical evidence under the presumption that he never existed leads to contortions. Like I said, try to explain away all the references to Jesus having brothers without piling on unfounded speculation that is a clumsy explanation of the facts.

I did go away and read that review .

The last line, that you also quoted seemed to sum it up for me.

While, perhaps, Jesus was created by the early Christian communities, Price does not yet convince.

It might well be an inelegant and unconvincing arguement, but that doesn't make it wrong and that's what the priest has to show.

 

[jjramsey]

It might well be an inelegant and unconvincing arguement, but that doesn't make it wrong and that's what the priest has to show.

Yet if you have two competing sets of theories, and one set explains the evidence straightforwardly and the other requires ad hoc hypotheses to explain away evidence that prima facie contradicts it, which is the saner set of theories?

BTW, this link seems to be the author's "case" against Christ in that article to which you linked: http://www.luigicascioli.it/dueprove_eng.php

I especially find this bit amusing:

Now they had to counterfeit the names of Galilean and Nazarite, which meaning Zealot

Um, never mind that Galilee was, um, the northern region of Palestine and is well-attested even outside Christian texts, and that Nazarite meant a guy who took a vow to not cut his hair or drink anything intoxicating, regardless of whether he did any fighting.

This guy's a nut.

 

[1984]

It's a bit like Sun Tzu isn't it? This from Wikipedia: "Some scholars have concluded that Sun Tzu's work was actually authored by unknown Chinese philosophers and that Sun Tzu did not actually exist as a historical figure."

Who's to say that our present modes of communication won't become far removed from whatever modes the future has in store. So much so that the internet may become like the oral tradition of passing down stories until it's contents distort into complete myths. James Randi could become a hot topic of debate. Was he really a skeptic or not? (edited for clarity)

I like the way religious people cling to...

Oh stuff it, refer to my current signature links.

 

[jjramsey]

Is there any chance that Zarathustra as he is concieved today is a composite or legendary character?

If you really want to find out, look and see who the scholars dealing with Zarathustra/Zoroaster are. The speculation of laypersons can be fun, but researching who knows what in the field is probably a better way to answer the question.

 

[Jekyll]

Um, never mind that Galilee was, um, the northern region of Palestine and is well-attested even outside Christian texts, and that Nazarite meant a guy who took a vow to not cut his hair or drink anything intoxicating, regardless of whether he did any fighting.

This guy's a nut.

Damn. I've been mislead by newspaper headlines again.

It made me think that the priest had overstepped the mark in his critisms and was actually going to have to prove Jesus existed and speculation otherwise must be false, rather than discredit a woo.

 

[Euromutt]

Zarathustra author of the Gâthâ's probably did exist simly on the baisis that someone wrote them.

It's a bit like Sun Tzu isn't it?

Or Homer, for that matter. I'm thinking of that line that "the Iliad and Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by a poet we know by that name." Obviously, yes, someone wrote the Gâthâ's, just like someone wrote On War and, indeed, the Iliad, but whether that person actually resembled the legendary figure to whom authorship is attributed is very much open to question. When I refer to "Homer," I generally mean "whoever it was that wrote the Iliad" without necessarily envisioning a blind old Greek chap clad in a stola and clutching a lyre.