Criticism of Mr. Ghiasabadi about Zarathustra's marriage to his daughter Purochista

the writer: Fereydoun Formzar – ۱۳٩۱/۴/۱۳

taken from: Tarangar Tomorrow

Mr. Reza Moradi Ghiasabadi has claimed that the Gathas or Gathas translated Ashu Zoroaster into Persian, and that his translation is "the first attempt to translate a non-fiction Persian of the Zoroastrians' Gathas."!

But his more important claim is something that no one understood during the entire one hundred and forty-fifty years of the academic translation history of the Gathas.. Mr. Ghiasiabadi claims that, based on the text he translated, the Prophet Zarathustra imitated Ahura Mazda with his daughter..

Mr. Reza Moradi Ghiasabadi recently claimed that the Gathas or Gathas had translated Zoroaster into Persian, and that his translation was "the first attempt to translate a non-fiction Persian of the Zoroastrian Ghats."! He also claims that the translation of the Gaths from the Avestan language was done by another person and that Ghiasabadi also translated it.! With this description, it is not at all clear if the translation is Avestan from another, what exactly did Ghiasabadi translate? Whatever is translated, however, is not so important as the strange claim he makes for the first time..

Before I go on to claim Ghiasabadi, I must briefly write about what Gathas are and why they are important. The Gathas are the oldest parts of the Avesta and the poems attributed to Zoroaster themselves, and are linguistically older than the other parts of the Avesta; This puts the Gathas in a more prominent position than other Zoroastrian texts. Professor William Malendra, Director of the Middle East Department at the University of Minnesota, writes in Iranica: Gathas have been translated over and over again and in all Avesta no text has been translated as much as Gathas. He also claims that the translation of any text in the whole world, whether old or new, has not been interpreted as much as the Gathas and if and when.

Says Malandra: All the translations of the twentieth century, each of which has been done by competent linguists, have major differences with each other, even in a single text.. But apparently these are not things that someone like Ghiasabadi even needs to know! Ghiasabadi claims that based on his translation of the Gathas, he has discovered a truth that no one had understood during the entire one hundred and forty-fifty years of the history of the Gathas' academic translation. Provide! Mr. Ghiasiabadi claims that, based on the text he translated, the Prophet Zarathustra, in imitation of Ahura Mazda, had joined his daughter, and that perhaps when he announced the marriage with such confidence, he would also send the marriage certificate of the father and daughter to It has a stamp and signature ready.

The claim of Zarathustra's union with his daughter is a matter that, like any other historical claim, could be considered in its place, and if it was properly presented, it would have no objection, and even proving it would not diminish the values ​​of the Prophet Zarathustra, because Assuming that Zarathustra did so, such issues should be weighed against the norms and values ​​of their time and have nothing to do with the morals of our time.. But Mr. Ghiasabadi's claim, in addition to being untrue, could be considered an insult to the beliefs of thousands of our Zoroastrian compatriots..

Apparently, Mr. Ghiasabadi sees no reason to reconcile such issues with credible authorities before raising them..

Unlike Ghiasabadi, Professor Mary Boyce, one of the greatest scholars of ancient Iranian history and the Zoroastrian religion, believes that Zarathustra was married three times and none of them were to his own daughter; Mary Boyce says that according to legend, her daughter Purchista married Jamasb, the minister of Vishtasp. According to the Encyclop برdia Britannica, Volume 24, Page 820, Jamasp was the father-in-law of Porochista, the daughter of Zoroaster..

What Mr. Ghiasabadi claims is contrary to the current view. And try to get reviews from a few scientists, something he has never been able to do in his entire life. The second way that if he continues this process, sooner or later it will be inevitable will be to claim, like Nasser Purpirar, that the whole history of the world is a colonial conspiracy and that is why his writings and claims do not read with the official history of the world..