The individual texts of the Avesta were originallyoral compositions.[6] They were composed over a long period of several centuries during theAvestan period (possibly ranging from the 15th century BCE to the 4th century BCE).[7] The written transmission began much later during theSasanian era (224 to 651 CE), with the creation of the Avestan alphabet. The resulting texts were then compiled into the multi-volume edition of theSasanian Avesta.[8] This edition was lost after theIslamic conquest of Iran, and only a small portion of it has survived, scattered across a number of individual manuscript traditions. The oldest surviving fragment of such a manuscript dates to 1323 CE.[9]
Unlike the Sasanian Avesta, which was organized thematically, the survivingAvestan manuscripts correspond to the different ceremonies in which they are used.[10] It is assumed that it was their regular use which ensured their survival to this day.[11] The principal text is theYasna, which takes its name from thecorresponding ceremony, in which it is recited. Extensions to the Yasna ceremony include theVendidad and theVisperad.[12] In addition to theseHigh Liturgies, the Avestan corpus comprises shorter liturgical texts compiled in theKhordeh Avesta or "Little Avesta". Aside from theYashts, these other lesser texts include theNyayeshs, theGāhs, theSih-rozag and theAfrinagans.[12]
The termAvesta originates from the 9th/10th-century works of Zoroastrian tradition in which the word appears asMiddle Persianabestāg,[13][14]Book Pahlaviʾp(y)stʾkʼ. In that context,abestāg texts are portrayed as received knowledge and are distinguished from theexegetical commentaries (thezand) thereof. The literal meaning of the wordabestāg is uncertain; it is generally acknowledged to be a learned borrowing from Avestan, but none of the suggested etymologies have been universally accepted. The widely repeated derivation from*upa-stavaka is fromBartholomae, who interpretedabestāg as a descendant of a hypotheticalreconstructed Old Iranian word for "praise-song" (Bartholomae:Lobgesang);[15] but this word is not actually attested in any text.
The Zoroastrian history of the Avesta lies in the realm of legends and myths. The oldest surviving versions of these tales are found in the ninth-to-11th-century texts of Zoroastrian tradition (i.e., the so-called "Pahlavi books"). The legends run as follows: The twenty-onenasks ("books") of the Avesta were created by Ahura Mazda and brought byZoroaster to his patronVishtaspa (Denkard 4A, 3A).[16] Supposedly, Vishtaspa (Dk 3A) or anotherKayanian,Daray (Dk 4B), then had two copies made, one of which was stored in the treasury and the other in the royal archives (Dk 4B, 5).[17] Following Alexander's conquest, the Avesta was then supposedly destroyed or dispersed by the Greeks, after they had translated any scientific passages of which they could make use (AVN 7–9,Dk 3B, 8).[18] Several centuries later, one of theParthian emperors named Valaksh (one of theVologases) supposedly then had the fragments collected, not only of those that had previously been written down, but also of those that had only been orally transmitted (Dk 4C).[18]
TheDenkard also records another legend related to the transmission of the Avesta. In this story, credit for collation and recension is given to the early Sasanian-era priestTansar (high priest underArdashir I,r. 224–242 CE, andShapur I, 240/242–272 CE), who had the scattered works collected – of which he approved only a part as authoritative (Dk 3C, 4D, 4E).[19] Tansar's work was then supposedly completed by Adurbad Mahraspandan (high priest ofShapur II,r. 309–379 CE) who made a general revision of the canon and continued to ensure its orthodoxy (Dk 4F,AVN 1.12–1.16).[20] A final revision was supposedly undertaken in the 6th century CE underKhosrow I (Dk 4G).[21]
Modern scholarship generally rejects the pre-Sasanian-era Zoroastrian history of the Avesta.[22] Instead, there is now a wide consensus that for most of their long history, the Avesta's various texts were handed down orally and independently of one another.[22] Based on linguistic aspects, scholars likeJean Kellens,Prods Oktor Skjærvø, andHoffman have also identified a number of distinct phases, during which different parts of the Avestan corpus were composed, transmitted in either fluid or fixed form, as well as edited and redacted by the Zoroastrian priests.[23][24][25]
Geographical horizon of the toponyms found in the Young Avestan texts
The Avestan texts are grouped into two distinct layers: Old Avestan and Young Avestan, which belong to two different chronological strata.[26] Regarding the Old Avestan material, scholars consider a time frame for its creation between 1500 and 900 BCE to be possible,[27] with a date close to 1000 BCE being considered likely by many.[28] There are no geographical references in the Old Avestan texts, which makes it impossible to specify where they were composed.[29]
The Young Avestan texts, which form the majority of the extant Avesta, originated in a later stage of theAvestan period, separated from Old Avestan by several centuries.[30] Scholars assume that this phase corresponds to a long time frame, possibly lasting from 900 to 400 BCE.[31] In contrast to the Old Avestan texts, the Young Avestan parts contain a number ofgeographical references. As a result, there is a consensus that at least these texts were composed in the eastern portion ofGreater Iran.[32]
Some texts in the Avestan corpus, like theVendidad or theVishtasp Sast, show pronounced grammatical deficiencies.[33] They seem to consist of proper Avestan phrases, which appear to have been pieced together by people who no longer had an active command of Avestan.[34] This indicates that these texts were redacted from earlier, now lost sources, after Avestan ceased to be a spoken language.[25]
The Old Avestan texts must have crystallized early, meaning their transmission became fixed.[25] Over their long history, the Gathic texts seem to have been transmitted with the highest accuracy.[35] While the Old Avestan material was handed down as a fixedliturgical corpus, the Young Avestan texts appear to have been transmitted for some time in anoral tradition which was still fluid. This means they were composed partly afresh with each generation of poet-priests, sometimes with the addition of new material.[35]
At some time, however, this fluid phase must have stopped completely and the process of transmission of the Young Avestan texts became fixed similar to the Old Avestan material.[36] This second crystallization must still have taken place during the Old Iranian period, as Young Avestan does not show any characteristics of Middle Iranian.[37] The subsequent transmission took largely place in Western Iran as evidenced by alterations introduced by native Persian speakers.[38] Scholars likeSkjærvø andKreyenbroek correlate this second crystallization with the adoption of Zoroastrianism by theAchaemenids.[39] As a result,Persian- andMedian-speakingpriests would have become the primary group to transmit these texts.[40] Having no longer an active command of Avestan, they may have decided to preserve both Old and Young Avestan texts as faithfully as possible.[41]
It was not until around the 5th or 6th century CE that the Avestan corpus was written down using the newly developed Avestan alphabet. This led to the creation of a comprehensive edition of the Avestan corpus, namely theSasanian Avesta.[9] This is seen as a turning point in the Avestan tradition since it separates the purely oral from the written transmission.[42]
This edition was lost at some time after the fall of the Sasanian empire, and the oldest surviving manuscript (K1)[n 1] of an Avestan text is dated to 1323 CE.[9] The history of the Avesta until these first manuscripts appear is unknown,[43] but the post-Sasanian phase saw a pronounced deterioration of the Avestan corpus.[44] Summaries in the texts of the Zoroastrian tradition from the 9th/10th century indicate that the Sasanian Avesta was much larger than the Avesta that exists today.[12] Only about one-quarter of the Avestan sentences or verses referred to by the 9th/10th century commentators can be found in the surviving texts. This suggests that an indeterminable number of juridical, historical, and legendary texts have been lost since then. On the other hand, it appears that the most valuable portions of the canon, including all of the oldest texts, have survived. The likely reason for this is that the surviving materials represent those portions of the Avesta that were in regular liturgical use and therefore known by heart by the priests and not dependent for their preservation on the survival of particular manuscripts.
Avestan manuscripts became available to European scholarship comparatively late, thus the study ofZoroastrianism in Western countries dates back to only the 18th century.[45]Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron travelled toIndia in 1755, and discovered the texts among Indian Zoroastrian (Parsi) communities. He published a set of French translations in 1771. They were at first dismissed as a forgery in poorSanskrit, but ultimately vindicated.
In the early 20th century, the Zoroastrian legend of theParthian-era collation engendered a search for a 'Parthian archetype' of the Avesta. According to the theory ofFriedrich Carl Andreas (1902), the archaic nature of the Avestan texts was assumed to be due to preservation via written transmission, and unusual or unexpected spellings in the surviving texts were assumed to be reflections of errors introduced by Sasanian-era transcription from theAramaic alphabet-derivedPahlavi scripts.[n 2] The search for the 'Arsacid archetype' was increasingly criticized in the 1940s and was eventually abandoned in the 1950s afterKarl Hoffmann demonstrated that the inconsistencies noted by Andreas were actually due to unconscious alterations introduced by oral transmission.[46] Hoffmann identifies[47] these changes to be due,[48] in part, to modifications introduced through recitation;[n 3] in part to influences from other Iranian languages picked up on the route of transmission from somewhere in eastern Iran (i.e. Central Asia) via Arachosia and Sistan through to Persia;[n 4] and in part due to the influence of phonetic developments in the Avestan language itself.[n 5]
After the loss of theSasanian Avesta, the Avestan corpus survived through a number of manuscript traditions.[52] These manuscripts overwhelmingly correspond to specific liturgies in which they are used,[53] and it is assumed that this liturgical use guaranteed their survival.[54] The oldest surviving fragment of a manuscript dates to 1323 CE but most extant manuscripts date from after the 17th century.[55] Today, more than 300 such manuscripts are catalogued.[56] The most important analysis of Avestan manuscripts was provided byGeldner in his edition of the Avesta. In theProlegomena to his edition, he provided acritical apparatus, detailing the stemmatics of the manuscripts he used.[57]
In modern editions, specific manuscripts are typically classified according to several criteria. One criterion is the liturgy, like theYasna,Vendidad orVisperad, in which they are used.[58] Another criterion is whether they originated within theIranian orIndian Zoroastrian communities.[59] In addition, manuscripts are classified according to their use.[60] Manuscripst for liturgical purposes contain theAvestan text plus liturgical instructions. They are calledSade orSadah, meanigpure.[61] On the other hand, manuscripts forexegetical purposes contain the Avestan text jointly with a translation. Most exegetical manuscripts have a translation intoMiddle Persian, calledPahlavi.[62] But there are also some manuscripts with translations intoModern Persian,Sanskrit andGujarati.
The corpus of Avestan literature was produced during the Old IranianAvestan period and transmitted within anoral culture of priestly composition.[63] It was not until theSasanian period, that the Zoroastrian priesthood produced anauthoritative edition of this corpus. This edition is described in the Zoroastrian literature of the 10th century, but was lost at some undetermined time afterwards.[64] Since then, no new authoritative edition of the scattered Avestan corpus has been produced by the Zoroastrian community.
First page of Geldner's edition of the Avesta, widely considered to be the most important edition[65]
After Avestan manuscripts became known in the Western world, several scholary attempts were made to create acritical edition of the diverse manuscripts through which the, now much reduced, Avestan corpus had survived. The first critical edition was published in 1852 byWestergaard.[66] It was based mostly on the manuscripts collected byRask.[67] Around the same time,Spiegel published an edition of the ZoroastrianHigh Liturgies, i.e., the Yasna, the Visperad and the Vendidad. Despite being smaller in scope and based on fewer manuscripts than Westergaard's edition, it is still considered relevant since it includes theMiddle Persian translations jointly with the Avestan text.[68] Between 1886 and 1896,Geldner produced an edition of the Yasna,[57] the Visperad, the Khordeh Avesta,[69] and the Vendidad.[70] Although it lacked a few minor texts, included by Westergaard, it was based on significantly more manuscripts.[71] As a result, it has remained the standard edition of the surviving Avestan corpus to this day.[65] Overall, these works share the sameeditorial principle, which was to reproduce the earliest commonancestor of the manuscripts,[72] therefore going back as close as possible to the Sasanian Avesta.[73]
Since the publication of Geldner's edition, a number of developments have increased the need for a new edition.[74] On the one hand many new manuscripts have been found, in particular in Iran. These new manuscripts have cast doubt on the, up to then, established opinion that all extant manuscripts derive from a single Sasanianarchetype or, at least, some later hypearchetype.[75] Furthermore, the surviving Avestan texts are nowadays recognized as a primarily liturgical corpus. This means the editorial principle of previous editions, i.e., the reconstruction of the SasanianUrtext, does not apply. The surviving texts are instead increasingly seen as witnesses of a living liturgical tradition; a tradition which is much older and existed parallel to the exegetical tradition represented in the Sasanian Avesta.[76]
These developments led to the creation of the Avestan Digital Archive (ADA) and the Corpus Avesticum Berolinense (CAB). ADA is a digital archive, which as of 2013 has digitized already 150 manuscripts and made 80 of them online available.[77] Furthermore, CAB is a project which attempts to edit the manuscripts within their original ritual context.[78]
First page of an Iranian Sade manuscript of theVendidad, the only volume of theSasanian Avesta (called Juddēwdād therein) which has remained intact until today
According to theDenkard, theAvesta of the Sasanian period was organized into 21nasks (volumes). This division was to mirror the structure of the 21-word-longAhuna Vairyamanthra: each of the three lines of theprayer consists of seven words.[79] Correspondingly, thenasks are divided into three groups, of seven volumes per group.[80] Originally, each volume had a word of the prayer as its name, which so marked a volume's position relative to the other volumes.[79]
The first group of the nasks was theGathic group. It contained the Gathas as well as long commentaries on them. It comprised theStōd-yasn, theSudgar, theWarshtmansr, theBag, the Waštag, theHadoxt and theSpand nask.[81] Of these nasks, the Stod-yasn is extant in theStaota Yesnya, which forms the central portion of theHigh Liturgies like the Yasna and Visperad (see below). Parts of the Hadoxt nask may be extant through theHadoxt nask fragments, while most other nasks are considered to be lost.
The second group was themanthric group. Its content has been interpreted as connecting the first and third group.[82] It comprised theDāmdād, the Nāxtar, the Pāzag the Raθβištāiti, theBariš, the Kaškaysraw and theWištāsp-sāst nask.[81] Only the Wištāsp-sāst nask may be extant in theWishtasp Sast manuscripts (see below).[83] All the other nasks are considered lost.
The third group was the legal group, meaning its content primarily covered topics of Zoroastrian jurisprudence. It comprised theNikātum, theDuzd-sar-nizad, theHuspāram, theSakātum, theJuddēwdād, theČihrdād and theBagān Yašt.[81] The Bagān Yašt contained most of the Yashts of the extant Avesta (see below), whereas the Huspāram nask contained theHerbedestan andNerangestan texts, which are extant in the fragments collections (see below). The Juddēwdād nask ist the only nask of the Sasanian Avesta which has survived intact through the Vendidad manuscripts (see below), meaning that both its Avestan andZand have remained the same. Of the other nasks, only fragments may have survived.[84]
The extant Avestan manuscripts no longer follow the division into nasks as described for the Sasanian Avesta. Instead, they are typically associated with the specific liturgy or ceremonies they are used in. The following structure is derived from Geldner's edition of the Avesta. Unlike the Sasanian Avesta, which was produced by the Zoroastrian priesthood, this is a scholarly edition and it is consequently not canonical in a religious sense. It is, however, widely regarded to be the most important edition of the extant Avestan corpus and considered canonical for scholarly purposes.[85][86][87] In this edition, Geldner included the most important ZoroastrianHigh Liturgies, namely theYasna,[57] theVisperad[88] and theVendidad,[70] as well as theKhordeh Avesta,[89] a collection of minor liturgies, ceremonies andprayers aimed at lay people.
First two pages of the first chapter of the Yasna in Geldner's edition of the Avesta
TheYasna (fromyazišn "worship, oblations", cognate with Sanskrityajña) is an Avestan text recited during the primary Zoroastrian liturgy, namely theYasna liturgy. It consists of 72 sections called theha-iti orha. Its central part, Yasna 14–58, consists of theStaota Yesnya, which formed one of the volumes of the Sasanian Avesta.[90]
Being the most important liturgy, the Yasna is attested through a large number of manuscripts, which are grouped into six different manuscript types: The (i) Indian and (ii) Iranian Pahlavi Yasna, the (iii) Indian and (iv) Iranian SadeVidevdad, i.e., manuscripts which describe theVidewdad liturgy in which the Yasna is embedded, the (v) Sanskrit Yasna as well as the (vi) Yasna Sade. In Geldner's edition, the Yasna is edited in the first volume of his series.[57]
TheVisperad (fromvîspe ratavo, "(prayer to) all patrons") is an Avestan text named after theVisperad liturgy in which it is used. The text is divided into 24 sections calledkarde, which are interleaved into the slightly rearranged 72has of the Yasna during the Visperad liturgy.[91] For his edition, Geldner used 26 manuscripts, which fall into three different manuscript types. The first type areVendidad Sade manuscripts of the Vendidad liturgy, which is an extension of the Visperad liturgy. The second type areVisperad Sade manuscripts, i.e., they contain the Avestan text of the Visperad liturgy. The third type are theVisperad Pahlavi manuscripts, which do, however, only contain the text unique to the Visperad liturgy, i.e., they lack the portions drawn from the Yasna liturgy.[92] In his edition, Geldner edited the text according to the Visperad Sade manuscripts.[93] It was published in the second volume of his series.[94]
Khordeh Avesta manuscripts contain collections of Avestan texts, which are aimed at lay people.[95] They, therefore, differ from the High Liturgies, like the Yasna, Visperad and Vendidad, which are only performed by priest, typically inside a fire temple.[96] The content of different Khordeh Avesta manuscripts can differ widely, depending on the choices made by the editor(s). Most manuscripts contain the fiveNyayesh , the fiveGah, a number ofYashts, the 30Sih-rozag and the fourAfrinagan prayers.[89]
TheNiyayishns, abbreviatedNy., are fiveprayers for regular recitation by both priests and laity.[12] They are addressed to theSun andMithra (recited together thrice a day), to theMoon (recited thrice a month), and tothe Waters and toFire.[12] The Niyayishns are composite texts containing selections from the Gathas and the Yashts, as well as later material.[12]
TheGāhs are five invocations to the five divinities that watch over the five divisions (gāhs) of theday.[12]Gāhs are similar in structure and content to the five Niyayishns.
TheYashts (fromyešti, "worship by praise") are a collection of 21 hymns, each dedicated to a particular divinity or divine concept.[97] They are extant through either pure Yasht manuscripts, which contain all 21 hymns, or through Khordeh Avesta manuscripts, most of which, however, only contain a selection of the most popular hymns.[98] Due to this inconsistent editorial practice, the Yashts are placed differently within the Avestan corpus by modern authors. In Geldner's edition, they are placed within the Khordeh Avesta.[69]
TheSih-rozag ("thirty days") is an enumeration and invocation of the 30 divinities presiding over the days of the month. (cf.Zoroastrian calendar). TheSih-rozag exists in two forms, the shorter ("littleSih-rozag") is a brief enumeration of the divinities with their epithets in the genitive. The longer ("greatSih-rozag") has complete sentences and sections, with theyazatas being addressed in the accusative. The Sih-rozag is never recited as a whole, but is a source for individual sentences devoted to particular divinities, to be inserted at appropriate points in the liturgy depending on the day and the month.[99]
TheAfrinagans are prayers recited during the Afrinagan ceremonies.[100] The number of prayers in the manuscripts vary but most include four: the first in honor of the dead, the second on the five epagomenal days that end the year, the third is recited at the six seasonal feasts, and the fourth at the beginning and end of summer.[101]
TheVendidad (orVidēvdāt, a corruption of AvestanVī-Daēvō-Dāta, "Given Against the Demons") is an Avestan text which is used during theVidevdad liturgy. This liturgy is an extension of theVisperad liturgy, itself an extension of theYasna liturgy. The text consists of 22 sections, calledfragards. They are framed using the so calledfrashna, i.e., a discussions betweenAhura Mazda and Zoroaster. The Vendidad's different parts vary widely in character and in age. Some parts may have been composed during theSasanian period although the greater part is very old.[102]
The Vendidad originally was one of the legal nasks of the Sasanian Avesta, calledJuddēwdād therein. This naks belonged todādīg, i.e., legal, nasks and therefore, unlike the Yasna and the Visparad, it is a text dealing with laws rather than the record of a liturgical ceremony. Since the Vendidad includes all of the Juddēwdād nask, it is the only nask of the Sasanian Avesta that has survived in its original form.[102]
The text is extant through two different manuscript traditions. The first are the so called Vendidad Pahlavi manuscripts. They contain the 22fragards of the Vendidad jointly with theZand. This manuscript type is, therefore, considered to go back directly to the Juddēwdād nask from the Sasanian Avesta. The other type are the Vendidad Sade manuscripts. They described the Vendidad liturgy as it is performed. Consequently, they contain the Avestan text of the 72has of the Yasna, the 24kardes of the Visperad and 22fragards of the Vendidad text.[102] For his edition of the Avesta, Geldner edited only the Avestan text of the 22 fragards.[70]
In his seminal edition of the Avesta, Geldner included only the most important liturgical manuscripts. Other authors, however, did compile a number of minor or incomplete Avestan texts. They are often referred to as fragments. There are altogether more than 20 fragment collections, many of which have no name (and are then named after their owner/collator) or only a Middle Persian name.[103] The more important texts in this category are theNerangestan, theHerbedestan, theWishtasp Sast, theHadoxt nask fragments. (see Sasanian Avesta) and thePursishniha "questions," also known as "FragmentsTahmuras".
It is generally assumed that the Sasanian Avesta not only consisted of a comprehensive edition of the Avestan corpus but also contained a full translation and commentary inMiddle Persian, calledZand.[104] This assumption is based on the observation that references to the Sasanian Avesta typically quote from the Middle Persian translation as well as the fact that those texts directly derived from it, namely theVendidad, theHerbedestan and theNerangestan, all include a Zand.[105] The translations of these surviving texts is generally considered to be the oldest and most faithfull ones.[106]
After the Avestan corpus became known in the West, a number of scholarly translation have been provided. The oldest translation of the Avesta intoEnglish was provided in theSacred Books of the East series byDarmesteter andMills between 1880 and 1887.[107][108][109] In addition, Darmesteter also published a translation of the Avesta into his nativeFrench between 1892 and 1893.[110][111][112] These translations, however, were mostly based on the Middle Persian translation of the manuscripts.[113] In 1910, Fritz Wolff produced a translation of the Avesta intoGerman.[114] This work was based on Geldner's edition and translated theAvestan text directly usingBartholomae'sAltiranisches Wörterbuch. As a result, his translation is generally seen as superior.[115]
^K1 represents 248 leaves of a 340-leafVendidad Sade manuscript, i.e. a variant of aYasna text into which sections of theVisperad andVendidad are interleaved. The colophon ofK1 (K=Copenhagen) identifies its place and year of completion to Cambay, 692Y (= 1323–1324 CE). The date ofK1 is occasionally mistakenly given as 1184. This mistake is due to a 19th-century confusion of the date ofK1 with the date ofK1's source: in the postscript toK1, the copyist – a certain Mehrban Kai Khusrow of Navsari – gives the date of hissource as 552Y (= 1184 CE). That text from 1184 has not survived.
^For example, prefix repetition as in e.g.paitī ... paitiientī vs.paiti ... aiienī (Y. 49.11 vs. 50.9), orsandhi processes on word and syllable boundaries, e.g.adāiš for*at̰.āiš (48.1),ahiiāsā forahiiā yāsā,gat̰.tōi for*gatōi (43.1),ratūš š́iiaoθanā for*ratū š́iiaoθanā (33.1).[49]
^e.g. irregular internalhw >xv as found in e.g.haraxvati – 'Arachosia' andsāxvan- 'instruction', rather than regular internalhw >ŋvh as found in e.g.aojōŋvhant – 'strong'.[50]
^e.g. YAv.-ō instead of expected OAv.-ə̄ for Ir.-ah in almost all polysyllables.[51]
^Daniel 2012, p. 47: "All in all, it seems likely that Zoroaster and the Avestan people flourished in eastern Iran at a much earlier date (anywhere from 1500 to 900 B.C.)".
^Skjaervø 2009, p. 43: "Young Avestan must have been quite close to Old Persian, which suggests it was spoken in the first half of the first millennium BC".
^Vevaina 2013, p. 996: "The Avesta, conventionally referred to as the “Sacred Book of the Persians” is, in fact, an orally transmitted, liturgically based, corpus redacted by the Zoroastrian priesthood".
^Cantera 2012, "The Avestan texts were probably composed in Eastern Iran between the second half of the 2nd millennium bce and the end of the Achaemenid dynasty".
^Kellens 1987, "The Sasanian Avesta. It has now been established beyond any doubt that the known Avestan Vulgate originates from a canon which was arranged and written down under the Sasanians".
^Cantera 2012, "Almost all Avestan texts preserved in the manuscripts are ritual texts performed in the different Zoroastrian rituals".
^West 1892, chap. Introduction: "[B]ut when, through conversion and extermination, the Mazda-worshippers had become a mere remnant, [...] they rapidly lost all their old literature that was not in daily religious use".
^Hoffmann 1987, "Every Avestan text, whether composed originally in Old Avestan or in Young Avestan, went through several stages of transmission before it was recorded in the extant manuscripts. During the course of transmission many changes took place".
^Schmitt 2000, p. 25: "Die Sprachform der avestischen Texte insgesamt ist nicht einheitlich; es lassen sich zwei Hauptgruppen unterscheiden, die nicht nur chronologisch, sondern in einzelnen Punkten auch dialektologisch voneinander zu trennen sind[.]".
^Daniel 2012, p. 47: "All in all, it seems likely that Zoroaster and the Avestan people flourished in eastern Iran at a much earlier date (anywhere from 1500 to 900 B.C.".
^Hale 2004, p. 742: "Current scholarly consensus places his life considerably earlier than the traditional Zoroastrian sources are thought to, favoring a birth date before 1000 BC".
^Grenet 2015, p. 21: "Does the Avesta contain any reliable evidence concerning the place where the "real" Zarathustra (i.e., the person repeatedly mentioned in the Gāthās) lived? The answer is no".
^Hintze 2015, p. 38: "Linguistic, literary and conceptual characteristics suggest that the Old(er) Avesta pre‐dates the Young(er) Avesta by several centuries.".
^Witzel 2000, p. 10: "Since the evidence of Young Avestan place names so clearly points to a more eastern location, the Avesta is again understood, nowadays, as an East Iranian text, whose area of composition comprised – at least – Sīstån/Arachosia, Herat, Merw and Bactria.".
^Schmitt 2000, p. 26: "Andere Texte sind von sehr viel geringerem Rang und zeigen eine sehr uneinheitliche und oft grammatisch fehlerhafte Sprache, die deutlich verrät, daß die Textverfasser oder -kompilatoren sie gar nicht mehr verstanden haben".
^Malandra 2006, "[I]t is the piecing together of separately good Avestan phrases by someone who could not compose Avestan, yet who could produce, nonetheless, an intelligible statement".
^Kreyenbroek 2022, p. 202: "Still, the language of these Old Iranian texts stopped well short of evolving to a “Middle Iranian” stage, which suggests that they became “fixed” a long time before they were committed to writing in their present form".
^Kreyenbroek 2022, p. 202: "The only way such a process is imaginable is a scenario where a small, authoritative group of priests taught these texts to another group of transmitters who had no prior knowledge of them. This would have been the case when Zoroastrianism first became influential in Western Iran, under Darius I".
^Hoffmann 1989, p. 90: "Mazdayasnische Priester, die die Avesta-Texte rezitieren konnten, müssen aber in die Persis gelangt sein. Denn es ist kein Avesta-Text außerhalb der südwestiranischen, d.h. persischen Überlieferung bekannt[...]. Wenn die Überführung der Avesta-Texte, wie wir annehmen, früh genug vonstatten ging, dann müssen diese Texte in zunehmendem Maße von nicht mehr muttersprachlich avestisch sprechenden Priestern tradiert worden sein".
^Skjaervø 2011, p. 59: "The Old Avestan texts were crystallized, perhaps, some time in the late second millennium BCE, while the Young Avestan texts, including the already crystallized Old Avesta, were themselves, perhaps, crystallized under the Acheamenids, when Zoroastrianism became the religion of the kings".
^Kellens 1987, "Of the history of the Avestan texts from the collapse of the Sasanian empire and the oldest manuscripts in our possession little is known".
^Kellens 1987, "We know that the Muslim conquest and the dispersal of the Mazdean communities caused a weakening of the religious tradition and a decline of the liturgical elocution, which caused damage to the written transmission of the Avesta".
^Cantera 2013, p. 345: "Es gibt keine Handschrift die "das Avesta" enthält. Avesta wird die Gesamtheit von zoroastrischen Texten in altiranischer Sprache genannt, die in vielen einzelnen Handschriften überliefert sind".
^Cantera 2013, p. 345: "Die meisten dieser Handschriften enthalten Sprechgesang zoroastrischer Liturgien".
^Cantera 2022, "Most non-ritual Avestan texts were therefore lost at an unspecified time.
^Cantera 2015b, p. 41: "The manuscripts can be further classified according to their use".
^Kellens 1987, "The manuscripts that contain only the Avestan text are called sāda 'pure'".
^Cantera 2015a, "The manuscripts transmitting the preserved Avestan texts often also include their translation into Pahlavi [PT], the Zoroastrian Middle Persian language".
^Skjaervø 2012, p. 5: "How were the Avestan texts composed? [The composers] reproduced, updated linguistically, and modified before or during performances according to the expectations of their times and places".
^Kellens 1987, "The Sasanian collection of the Avesta and its commentary (zand) is described in chap. 8 of the Dēnkard; it was probably composed of three books of seven chapters [...]".
^abGholami 2024, p.19: "Geldner's edition has been considered the canonical text to date".
^Hintze 2012, p. 420: "Westergaard chiefly based his edition on the manuscripts which Rasmus Rask had brought to Copenhagen [and] manuscripts from various private collections".
^Schmitt 2002, "So Spiegel' edition [included], in contrast to Westergaard’s work, the Middle Persian rendering of the Avestan texts, which are often important for understanding them".
^Hintze 2012, p. 420: "Geldner had access to 133 manuscripts".
^Gholami 2024, p.19: "Geldner and Westergaard were of the opinion that all the surviving manuscripts had been based on one copy; thus, the aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the original text".
^Cantera 2012, p. VIII: "N. L. Westergaard tries in his edition to reconstruct as far as possible the original Sasanian Avesta. K. F. Geldner's edition had a similar purpose".
^Redard 2021, p. 1: "During recent years certain shortcomings in [Geldner's] edition have been brought to notice by scholars, and some scholars have argued that it should now be replaced by a new edition".
^Gholami 2024, p. 19: "The most important arguments countering Hoffmann and Narten’s theory and critiquing Geldner’s edition were based on the results of and fresh information derived from a number of previously unknown Avestan manuscripts, which came to light in Iran".
^Cantera 2022, "In Sasanian times, there were two parallel collections: the Great Avesta and the Ritual Avesta. The extant Avesta known from the manuscripts derives from the latter".
^Cantera 2013, "Seit einigen Jahren verfolgt das Avestan Digital Archive (www,avesta-archive.com) das Ziel, alle avestischen Handschriften on1ine zu publizieren. Bisher wurden ca. 150 Haudschriften digitalisiert, ca. 80 sind indexiert und online zugänglich".
^Cantera 2020, p. 200: "This is the main aim of the Corpus Avesticum Berolinense. In this project carried out at the Institute for Iranian Studies (https://cab.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/), we aim to present an edition of the rituals in Avestan in two diferent ways: 1) a presentation of the ritual system still operating in Iran in the 16th century using mainly the evidence of the manuscripts".
^West 1892, p. 24: "'The last number refers, no doubt, to the eight fargards still extant under the corrupt name Vishtasp Yasht, which probably consist of fragments of the Avesta text of this Nask".
^Hintze 2012, p. 419: "To the present day Avestan Studies largely rely on two monumental works[:] Karl Friedrich Geldner's edition of the Avesta of 1889–1896 and Christian Bartholomae's Altiranisches Wörterbuch of 1904".
^Redard 2021, p. 1: "Geldner’s edition, became the reference edition".
^Gholami 2024, p. 19: "Geldner's edition has been considered the canonical text to date".
^Malandra 2000c, "KHORDEH AVESTĀ (Pahlavi xwardag aβistāg) “The Little Avesta,” the name given to a collection of texts used primarily by the laity for everyday devotions".
^Malandra 2000c, "Thus, it excludes the high liturgy of the priestly ritual, namely, the Yasna, Visperad, and Vendidād".
^Hintze 2014, "YAŠTS, the group of 21 Avestan hymns in praise of various deities of the Zoroastrian pantheon".
^Hintze 2014, "The Yašts are transmitted in two types of manuscript: Khorde Avestas and pure Yašt codices".
^Kellens 1987, "The fragments. In addition to the complete texts, more than twenty groups of fragments are known".
^Cantera 2004, p. 134: "da in diesem Kanon die Pahlavi Übersetzung enthalten war".
^Cantera 2015a, "We know that the Sasanian great Avesta [included] a translation into Pahlavi, because its description in the Dēnkard is based on the PT and because the manuscripts of texts deriving directly from the great Avesta always included the PT".
^Cantera 2015a, "We distinguish at least three chronological levels: (1) old translations like the Vīdēvdād, Nērangestān, and Hērbedestān".
Cantera, Alberto (2012)."Preface". In Cantera, Alberto (ed.).The transmission of the Avesta. Iranica. Vol. 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.ISBN978-3-447-06554-2.
Hoffmann, Karl (1989).Der Sasanidische Archetypus – Untersuchungen zu Schreibung und Lautgestalt des Avestischen (in German). Reichert Verlag.ISBN9783882264708.
Humbach, Helmut (1991),The Gathas of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts, Part I, Heidelberg: Winter
Kanga, M. F. (2014)."ĀFRĪNAGĀN".Encyclopædia Iranica. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Schlerath, Bernfried (1987), "Andreas, Friedrich Carl: The Andreas Theory",Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. 2, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 29–30
Schmitt, Rüdiger (2000). "Die Sprachen der altiranischen Periode".Die iranischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden.ISBN3895001503.
Skjaervø, P. Oktor (1995). "The Avesta as source for the early history of the Iranians". In Erdosy, George (ed.).The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. De Gruyter.ISBN9783110144475.
Skjaervø, P. Oktor (2011). "Avestan Society". In Daryaee, Touraj (ed.).The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0199390427.
Wolff, Fritz (1910).Avesta. Die heiligen Bücher der Parsen. Übersetzt auf der Grundlage von Christian Bartholomaes Altiranischem Wörterbuch. Straßburg: K. J. Trübner.
%2c_opened_to_first_chapter%2c_unknown_copyist%2c_Yazd%2c_Iran%2c_1647_AD_-_British_Library%2c_London_-_DSC00550.jpg)
