Talk:Avesta

Veda-Avesta comparison

This section sounds like one person's theory; especially the footnote saying that Antequil-Duperron deliberately omitted all material bearing a resemblance to Hinduism, that the Avesta is the missing part of the Vedas and that Iranian and Zoroastrian topics are referred to in the Vedas. It certainly bears no resemblance to anything I have read in normal scholarship about Zoroastrianism.

If it is not substantiated within a reasonable time, I shall remove it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Now done. The only link given was to one man's conspiracy blog, about how Zoroaster came from India, Western scholarship of Zoroastrianism was founded by an agent of the "French Jew Rothschild", HIV does not cause AIDS etc etc. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, even this version of events seems to be doubtful opinion

I arrived here having read a rather different version of events elsewhere. In this, a history beginning around 600 BCE, a rather different Avesta was first compiled by Zoroaster. However that version and anything related to it (including priests who could have memorized it) were destroyed by Alexander when he conquered the region around 300 BCE.

Now that version of events does have something of the ring of indignation and color that might be taken with a degree of caution. But the dismissal here of all such ideas as "legend and myth" seems equally improbable without a substantiated case.

Of the two heaps of what appear to be rubbish, so far I lean to the first.--70.79.64.157 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Zoroastrian Cleaning

Probably need a newer source than this for such an important topic, but apparently among Zoroastrians cow's urine went from being a preventative/cure against leprosy to being a common daily ablution to avoid disease and evil spirits until the early 20th century. This was apparently most prominently expounded in the Vendidad, which would merit inclusion here if true. — LlywelynII 09:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Revising the intro

Currently, the introduction spends too much space on the individual texts like the Yasna and Vendidad. More than two thirds cover this topic which is better suited for the dedicated articles dedicated to these texts. I would propose to shorten this part and streamline the introduction.Kjansen86 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Problems with 'The Author' section

The section on Authors has a number of problems both conceptually and content wise. From a conceptual perspective, there cannot be such a thing an author of the Avesta, since the Avesta is a collection of different texts, which were composed, revised and redacted over a long period of time. Moreover, almost all of its individual parts, with the exception of the Gathas, likewise do not have an author. These individual parts are overwhelmingly liturgical texts, which also were redacted and revised several times over a long period of time. Finally, even if they would have an author, these texts have dedicated pages on Wikipedia, where this topic would fit much better. Contentwise, the section doesn't fare much better since most of the text doesn't even talk about authorship but about supposed creation dates. Again, this would be more appropriate in the respective Wikipedia pages or, alternatively, in the History section of this article.Kjansen86 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Quran-Avesta comparison

On 19 June 2026, the user Magsarion32 added a lengthy section on the Comparison between the Avesta and the Quran. This edit is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. The text is extremely long without citing any specific elements that the Quran may have borrowed from the Avesta or been influenced by.
2. If such an influence existed, it would run from the Avesta to the Quran and would therefore be better suited to the Wikipedia article on the Quran (which does already have a section fitting for that purpose).
3. All actual comparisons (such as the Chinvat Bridge) are generally of a Zoroastrian nature and might be better addressed in an article on Islam or Zoroastrianism.
4. Much, if not most, of the claims aren't supported by scholarly sources.
5. Although the section cites two actual scholarly sources, it contains no inline citations. This makes it nearly impossible to verify the claims.
6. According to the statements in this section, these two sources deny any direct connection, which renders the section irrelevant.
7. The section contains material on the religous opinons of early Muslims. This is irrelevant in a Wikipedia article.
8. The section contains original research (e.g. the notion that Dualism evolved only later in Zoroastrianism).

Overall, I am in favor of adding a section that describes possible connections between the Avesta and other religious or literary texts. The Vedas, for example, have been frequently disucssed in scholarly literature. Such a section, however, should provide a more comprehensive overview, be concisely worded, and cite relevant scholarly sources. Kjansen86 (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It is has been 2 weeks since I asked for major revivision on this section and no answer has been provided. Due to the concerns being raised, I am therefore going to delete this section from the article.

Although I am not convinced that much can be salvaged, the text itself will remain available in the 'View history' tab. If someone wants to use this material to possibly write a proper section on, say, 'Connections to other literature', it can be accessed there.Kjansen86 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)