What do you think?
Rate this book
Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism
"Boyce is a, perhaps the, world authority on Zoroastrianism. . . . Prefaced by a 27-page introduction, this anthology contains selections which offer a complete picture of Zoroastrian belief, worship and practice. There are historical texts from the sixth century B.C. onwards, and extracts from modern Zoroastrian writings representing traditionalism, occultism and reformist opinion. Anyone wishing to know more about this 'least well known of the world religions' should sample these selections."— The Methodist Church
"Wide-ranging. . . . An indispensable one-volume collection of primary materials."—William R. Darrow, Religious Studies Review
"Wide-ranging. . . . An indispensable one-volume collection of primary materials."—William R. Darrow, Religious Studies Review
176 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1984
6 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
About the author
Mary Boyce
31 books29 followersBOYCE, Nora Elizabeth Mary, was a British scholar of Zoroastrianism and its relevant languages, and Professor of Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London.
She was born in Darjeeling where her parents were vacationing to escape the heat of the plains during the summer. Her father, William H. Boyce, was a Judge at the Calcutta high-court, then an institution of the British imperial government. Her mother Nora (née Gardiner) was a granddaughter of the historian Samuel Rawson Gardiner.
Boyce was educated at Wimbledon High School and then Cheltenham Ladies' College. At the University of Cambridge's Newnham College, she studied English, archaeology and anthropology, graduating with a double first.
In 1944, Boyce joined the faculty of the Royal Holloway College, University of London, where she taught Anglo-Saxon literature and archaeology until 1946. Simultaneously she continued her studies, this time in Persian languages, under the guidance of Vladimir Minorsky at the School of Oriental and African Studies from 1945 to 1947. There she met her future mentor, Walter Bruno Henning, under whose tutelage she began to study Middle Iranian languages.
In 1948, Boyce was appointed lecturer of Iranian Studies at SOAS, specialising in Manichaean, Zoroastrian Middle Persian and Parthian texts. In 1952, she was awarded a doctorate in Oriental Studies from the University of Cambridge. At SOAS, she was promoted to Reader (1958–1961) and subsequently awarded the University of London's professorship in Iranian Studies following Henning's transfer to the University of California at Berkeley.
Boyce remained a professor at SOAS until her retirement in 1982, continuing as Professor Emerita and a professorial research associate until her death in 2006. Her speciality remained the religions of speakers of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular, Manichaeanism and Zoroastrianism.
She was born in Darjeeling where her parents were vacationing to escape the heat of the plains during the summer. Her father, William H. Boyce, was a Judge at the Calcutta high-court, then an institution of the British imperial government. Her mother Nora (née Gardiner) was a granddaughter of the historian Samuel Rawson Gardiner.
Boyce was educated at Wimbledon High School and then Cheltenham Ladies' College. At the University of Cambridge's Newnham College, she studied English, archaeology and anthropology, graduating with a double first.
In 1944, Boyce joined the faculty of the Royal Holloway College, University of London, where she taught Anglo-Saxon literature and archaeology until 1946. Simultaneously she continued her studies, this time in Persian languages, under the guidance of Vladimir Minorsky at the School of Oriental and African Studies from 1945 to 1947. There she met her future mentor, Walter Bruno Henning, under whose tutelage she began to study Middle Iranian languages.
In 1948, Boyce was appointed lecturer of Iranian Studies at SOAS, specialising in Manichaean, Zoroastrian Middle Persian and Parthian texts. In 1952, she was awarded a doctorate in Oriental Studies from the University of Cambridge. At SOAS, she was promoted to Reader (1958–1961) and subsequently awarded the University of London's professorship in Iranian Studies following Henning's transfer to the University of California at Berkeley.
Boyce remained a professor at SOAS until her retirement in 1982, continuing as Professor Emerita and a professorial research associate until her death in 2006. Her speciality remained the religions of speakers of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular, Manichaeanism and Zoroastrianism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 10, 2024
بسیار ستودنی. اثر محققانه و گزیده از پژوهشگری که عمری در این زمینه آموخته و اندوخته. کار شسته رفته است و خواننده را گیج نمی‌کند. از طرفی زبده ای از متون متفاوت زرتشتی را هم به فراخور موضوع فراروی خواننده گذاشته است که مثل رگه های الماس در معدن ذغال سنگ کلمات و عبارات توحیدی خاص را در این نصوص می توان از نظر گذراند
![Profile Image for [Name Redacted].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1347082397i%2F287915._UY200_CR0%2C0%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
November 1, 2010
Poorly organized, terribly published, and (at points) badly translated, it seems that this book owes its place in the study of Zoroastrianism largely to the fact that there are so few comparable books. However simply because few modern scholars have made similar attempts, that does not mean that this attempt is a success. Boyce is one of the more important (or at least most-cited) scholars of Zoroastrian religion, but in this book she seems to assume a number of things: 1) that the reader is at once completely familiar with and yet largely ignorant of the topic at hand; 2) that the pseudo-historical narrative she and many other scholars have imagined for Indo-Iranian peoples and the composition and creation of the Gathas is a verifiable historical reality; 3) that the Gathas, despite being songs and poems, need not be presented as such; 4) that incomplete renderings of the "textual sources" are sufficient "for the study of Zoroastrianism". The author does the texts a great disservice in fact by excerpting sections and then re-arranging them according to topic and her perception of their importance -- comparable in some ways to taking a passage from the Psalms, arranging it as though it were a prose narrative, and then slapping it between a passage from 2 Chronicles and a discourse from John Chrysostom.
October 26, 2011
I had picked Boyce’s Zoroastrians not only for its rarity but also because of the rave reviews that it had received. It is supposed to be an introduction to this foreign religion. Quite honestly, I found the book burdened with non-essential details combined with a complete lack of embedding the narrative in any kind of comprehensive historical context. Boyce version of Zoroastrian history is non-confrontational and not the least concerned with the greater questions of historicity that loom on every corner along the way.
As the author of The Great Leap-Fraud – Social Economics of Religious Terrorism, I am probably entirely unsuitable to reading Boyce’s book, in particular because I studied a lot of primary evidence rather than pre-cooked secondary sources. Naturally, it may be hard to please me with conformist religious gibberish that seems to derive from Boyce’s admiration for this faith of supposed peace, tolerance and care for the poor (as if these would not be expedient central tenets of everybody else). Even though the author hints at some problems with the orthodoxy, she seems to stubbornly refuse to address them. She is not the least irritated by the Zoroastrian claim that they would not have relied on written texts. Is it not obvious to the author that a religion without firm written doctrines would be prone to hi-jacking by just about any vested interest? How does the total absence of evidence prove the historicity of a “prophet” 6,000 years ago? While it is certainly not enough to stake the claim over 4,000 years later, not even the oldest archaeological evidence is watertight. It may be nothing more than a symbol and a god-like figure, combined with a god that may have been adopted later on. I think that Boyce is reading too much into primary evidence that may have been backdated centuries later, which is possibly a shared bias among academics in the dusty minefield of religion. But then, said evidence points at an entirely different history: one of a religious revolution that may have swept the Middle East somewhere from the sixth to the fourth century BC.
While the read itself is challenging, even strenuous, I doubt that many are able to memorize much out of the bombardment of names and places. The book Zoroastrians is for those that do not dare to ask questions and want to learn something about this faith for the sake of being good conversationalists. If you are one of those, pray for never being seated at my table! A disappointing lone star.
As the author of The Great Leap-Fraud – Social Economics of Religious Terrorism, I am probably entirely unsuitable to reading Boyce’s book, in particular because I studied a lot of primary evidence rather than pre-cooked secondary sources. Naturally, it may be hard to please me with conformist religious gibberish that seems to derive from Boyce’s admiration for this faith of supposed peace, tolerance and care for the poor (as if these would not be expedient central tenets of everybody else). Even though the author hints at some problems with the orthodoxy, she seems to stubbornly refuse to address them. She is not the least irritated by the Zoroastrian claim that they would not have relied on written texts. Is it not obvious to the author that a religion without firm written doctrines would be prone to hi-jacking by just about any vested interest? How does the total absence of evidence prove the historicity of a “prophet” 6,000 years ago? While it is certainly not enough to stake the claim over 4,000 years later, not even the oldest archaeological evidence is watertight. It may be nothing more than a symbol and a god-like figure, combined with a god that may have been adopted later on. I think that Boyce is reading too much into primary evidence that may have been backdated centuries later, which is possibly a shared bias among academics in the dusty minefield of religion. But then, said evidence points at an entirely different history: one of a religious revolution that may have swept the Middle East somewhere from the sixth to the fourth century BC.
While the read itself is challenging, even strenuous, I doubt that many are able to memorize much out of the bombardment of names and places. The book Zoroastrians is for those that do not dare to ask questions and want to learn something about this faith for the sake of being good conversationalists. If you are one of those, pray for never being seated at my table! A disappointing lone star.
May 27, 2025
I recently finished reading Mary Boyce's The Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. There are many significant passages from the Yashts, Gathas, Bundashihn, Denkard, and more. Only the Gathas are credited to Zarathustra, whereas the rest of the Zend-Avesta is attributed to other priests.
My feelings about Zoroastrianism are mixed.
It's interesting how Zoroaster promoted his ethical dualism while bloody wars and cattle raids raged around the Oxus River. Zoroaster orated his philosophy, preserved in the Gathas, due to the constant raids and thefts of cattle by Scythian-like warlords. There is a conflict between the Good Mind (Vohu Manah) and the Evil Mind (Aka Manah). A Good Mind is one of generosity, respect for cattle, and following the truth and order (asha) of Ahuramazda, the latently omnipotent God. Ahuramazda's Spirit (Spenta Mainyu) is linked with good mentalities, good things, and truth, and this is at odds with Ahriman's foul, malevolent spirit, which is associated with bad mentalities, bad things, and lies (Angra Mainyu). According to the Bundahishn, Ahuramazda and Ahriman were two independent, uncreated gods with only emptiness between them until Ahriman attacked Ahuramazda out of avarice. A later interpretation, such as that of the Zurvanites, claims Ahuramazda and Ahriman are twins born from Infinite Time, Zurvan. Zurvanites worshiped alongside Orthodox Zoroastrians in full orthopraxy, which included praying near sacred eternal fires, using the same liturgies, and administering kushti rituals.
The world became a divine instrument to defeat Ahriman, and human beings are enjoined to follow asha over druj. During the end times, the world is prophesied to be fully renovated as Ahuramazda triumphs over Ahriman (Frashokereti). Furthermore, the soteriological end goal of Zoroastrianism is to accumulate meritorious deeds before crossing the Chinvat Bridge, and if one's goodness outweighs the sins, he'll be led to Ahuramazda's House of Song by his "Daena," which is portrayed as a heavenly maiden reflecting one's soul; however, if one is corrupt, he'll plummet into Ahriman's lair of endless darkness. This dualistic aesthetic intrigues me, but it leads me to my major critique...
Zoroastrians classify everything in life in black and white. Certain texts suggest that even water rats, snakes, and reptiles should be eradicated as creatures created by Ahriman, which would be disastrous for ecological stability. Moreover, despite the Zoroastrians' respectable emphasis on maintaining the purity of fire, water, earth, and wind, their approach seemed excessively superstitious. In some passages, bathing in rivers was discouraged for fear of contaminating them, and this was before industrialization or overpopulation. While purifying one's mind is admirable, it seems strange not to throw water on fire out of fear of corrupting one's soul (urvan). These are just a few examples of how Zoroastrianism had strange practices back then...
Another problem is that Zoroastrianism was highly oppressive. Iranians were warned not to abandon their ethnic religion in numerous inscriptions by Sassanian kings. It is pertinent to note, however, that the Iranian world was vast, and Balkh even included many Iranian Buddhists. Kerdir even gloats about attacking Buddhists in his inscription on the Ka'ba-yi Zardusht. I find that revolting. It is possible that Zoroastrians influenced Islamic Apostasy laws, as well as many other unsavory practices.
In my assessment, Zoroastrianism died out in Iran because of the oppression of the followers of Mazdak the Younger, a popular reformer. His goal was to reform Zoroastrianism's negative elements: to remove the rigid binary categorization of certain animals as purely light or darkness, to encourage increased tolerance toward one another, and so on. The claim that he was a communist is simply propaganda. It is also interesting to note that Crypto-Mazdakites, such as the Khurramites, were the earliest Zoroastrian rebels against Muslim invaders.
It is my belief that the masses were simply fatigued by the hypocrisy of the priestly caste by the time Muslim invaders arrived on Iranian lands. I predict something similar will happen with the hypocritical mullahs, who paradoxically increase Iranian resentment of Islam.
Granted, I did like this beautiful Dionysian passage from Vis and Ramin about the celebration of Nowruz, which I have fond memories of:
Instead of vilifying those who throw water onto fire, Zoroastrian priests would have benefited Iran more by emphasizing the tranquility and harmony found in such celebrations. It could have been argued that such festivities reveal Ahuramazda's essence as joy.
This book is still worth reading since Zoroastrianism had a great deal of influence on various world religions. Just don't expect a contemplative path like the Dharma, even though they share Indo-Iranian roots.
[Important Addition]:
I have increased my score after reflecting more deeply on the symbolism of Gavaevodata and taking into greater consideration the historical time period of Zoroaster. In Zoroastrianism, the metaphorical representation of Gavaevodata, akin to a divine bovine entity, represents a theology that emphasizes a harmonious relationship with nature. The Zoroastrian concept of Gaush Urva, or the "soul of animals," reflects an ecological consciousness, potentially influencing later philosophical thought, such as that of Empedocles. I find the Yasna 29 to be sublime and tie into man's relationship to nature in a cosmic way:
Furthermore, Zoroaster, as portrayed in the Gathas (e.g., Yasna 32:8), opposed the moral corruption of his steppe society, especially the violent practices of the warrior class, such as excessive cattle raids. I believe Zoroastrianism gradually become more militant during the Sassanian empire. I have reconsidered my views and believe the essence of Zoroastrianism was found more in a tranquil pastoral setting united by both care for the Earth and fellow man.
My feelings about Zoroastrianism are mixed.
It's interesting how Zoroaster promoted his ethical dualism while bloody wars and cattle raids raged around the Oxus River. Zoroaster orated his philosophy, preserved in the Gathas, due to the constant raids and thefts of cattle by Scythian-like warlords. There is a conflict between the Good Mind (Vohu Manah) and the Evil Mind (Aka Manah). A Good Mind is one of generosity, respect for cattle, and following the truth and order (asha) of Ahuramazda, the latently omnipotent God. Ahuramazda's Spirit (Spenta Mainyu) is linked with good mentalities, good things, and truth, and this is at odds with Ahriman's foul, malevolent spirit, which is associated with bad mentalities, bad things, and lies (Angra Mainyu). According to the Bundahishn, Ahuramazda and Ahriman were two independent, uncreated gods with only emptiness between them until Ahriman attacked Ahuramazda out of avarice. A later interpretation, such as that of the Zurvanites, claims Ahuramazda and Ahriman are twins born from Infinite Time, Zurvan. Zurvanites worshiped alongside Orthodox Zoroastrians in full orthopraxy, which included praying near sacred eternal fires, using the same liturgies, and administering kushti rituals.
The world became a divine instrument to defeat Ahriman, and human beings are enjoined to follow asha over druj. During the end times, the world is prophesied to be fully renovated as Ahuramazda triumphs over Ahriman (Frashokereti). Furthermore, the soteriological end goal of Zoroastrianism is to accumulate meritorious deeds before crossing the Chinvat Bridge, and if one's goodness outweighs the sins, he'll be led to Ahuramazda's House of Song by his "Daena," which is portrayed as a heavenly maiden reflecting one's soul; however, if one is corrupt, he'll plummet into Ahriman's lair of endless darkness. This dualistic aesthetic intrigues me, but it leads me to my major critique...
Zoroastrians classify everything in life in black and white. Certain texts suggest that even water rats, snakes, and reptiles should be eradicated as creatures created by Ahriman, which would be disastrous for ecological stability. Moreover, despite the Zoroastrians' respectable emphasis on maintaining the purity of fire, water, earth, and wind, their approach seemed excessively superstitious. In some passages, bathing in rivers was discouraged for fear of contaminating them, and this was before industrialization or overpopulation. While purifying one's mind is admirable, it seems strange not to throw water on fire out of fear of corrupting one's soul (urvan). These are just a few examples of how Zoroastrianism had strange practices back then...
Another problem is that Zoroastrianism was highly oppressive. Iranians were warned not to abandon their ethnic religion in numerous inscriptions by Sassanian kings. It is pertinent to note, however, that the Iranian world was vast, and Balkh even included many Iranian Buddhists. Kerdir even gloats about attacking Buddhists in his inscription on the Ka'ba-yi Zardusht. I find that revolting. It is possible that Zoroastrians influenced Islamic Apostasy laws, as well as many other unsavory practices.
In my assessment, Zoroastrianism died out in Iran because of the oppression of the followers of Mazdak the Younger, a popular reformer. His goal was to reform Zoroastrianism's negative elements: to remove the rigid binary categorization of certain animals as purely light or darkness, to encourage increased tolerance toward one another, and so on. The claim that he was a communist is simply propaganda. It is also interesting to note that Crypto-Mazdakites, such as the Khurramites, were the earliest Zoroastrian rebels against Muslim invaders.
It is my belief that the masses were simply fatigued by the hypocrisy of the priestly caste by the time Muslim invaders arrived on Iranian lands. I predict something similar will happen with the hypocritical mullahs, who paradoxically increase Iranian resentment of Islam.
Granted, I did like this beautiful Dionysian passage from Vis and Ramin about the celebration of Nowruz, which I have fond memories of:
There once lived a king who in his sovereign rule did as he please and had fair fortune... How joyous was the festival which he celebrated in the spring! All the illustrious were there..., the king seated among the nobles like the moon among the stars... The wine-filled cup passed among them,... blossoms scattered from the trees like coins showered upon the fortunate... To one side minstrels sang to the wine, to the other nightingales sang to the rose... Joyous as was the king's celebration, others were no less so... Each had left his house for the for the fields, carrying with him the means for enjoyment. From every garden and meadow and stream different kinds of song could be heard... Each set a crown of wild tulips on his head, each had the glowing ember of wine in his hand. One group had pleasure in racing their horses, another in listening to music and in dancing... All had gone out to make merry, they turned the earth's surface into a bright brocade.
Instead of vilifying those who throw water onto fire, Zoroastrian priests would have benefited Iran more by emphasizing the tranquility and harmony found in such celebrations. It could have been argued that such festivities reveal Ahuramazda's essence as joy.
This book is still worth reading since Zoroastrianism had a great deal of influence on various world religions. Just don't expect a contemplative path like the Dharma, even though they share Indo-Iranian roots.
[Important Addition]:
I have increased my score after reflecting more deeply on the symbolism of Gavaevodata and taking into greater consideration the historical time period of Zoroaster. In Zoroastrianism, the metaphorical representation of Gavaevodata, akin to a divine bovine entity, represents a theology that emphasizes a harmonious relationship with nature. The Zoroastrian concept of Gaush Urva, or the "soul of animals," reflects an ecological consciousness, potentially influencing later philosophical thought, such as that of Empedocles. I find the Yasna 29 to be sublime and tie into man's relationship to nature in a cosmic way:
1 The cow's soul lamented to you, [the gods]: "For whom did you create me?
Who fashioned me?
Cruelty, oppression, bloodlust, rage, and violence have fettered me,
[And] there is no herdsman for me other than you.
Therefore, you must all show me [the way to] good pastures."
2 Then the cow's Fashioner asked Truth: "What [was] your allotment for the cow
when, ruling [the earth], you all gave her cow-tending nourishment
together with pasturage?
Whom do all of you desire as the Lord who would destroy the cruelty [wielded] by the
Possessor of the Lie?"
3 [The one who is] not a slayer of the alliance with Truth
[and is] free from hatred for the cow would reply to him:
"[One] is not to know of those [things] by which He drives the lowly to lofty [heights].
[But] he to whom I shall go, on account of [his] having sent out requests [for aid?],
[will be] the strongest of beings.
4 [Zarathustra:] "The Wise One [is he] remembering best the pacts
that, indeed, he has made with daevas and men sometime before [now]
And [those also] that he will make sometime later.
He is the discerning Lord; it will be for us just as he would wish."
5 [Zarathustra: And] so, then, do we two -- my soul and the fertile cow's --
devote ourselves with zeal, with hands stretched out to the Lord,
So [that] we may dispose the Wise One to [answer our] inquiries.
Is there no prospect for the cattle-breeder living justly among the Possessors of the Lie?"
source: https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/aveol/10 (I find this translation better than Boyce)
Furthermore, Zoroaster, as portrayed in the Gathas (e.g., Yasna 32:8), opposed the moral corruption of his steppe society, especially the violent practices of the warrior class, such as excessive cattle raids. I believe Zoroastrianism gradually become more militant during the Sassanian empire. I have reconsidered my views and believe the essence of Zoroastrianism was found more in a tranquil pastoral setting united by both care for the Earth and fellow man.
March 25, 2021
مری بویس در سال ۱۹۲۰ در دارجلینگ هند دیده به جهان گشود. پدرش از قضات دستگاه حکومتی بریتانیا در هند، و مادرش نوه مورخ انگلیسی سموئیل گاردنر بود. او تحصیلات دبیرستان خود را در انگلستان به پایان برد. سپس در دانشگاه کمبریج ادبیات انگلیسی، باستان‌شناسی و انسان‌شناسی آموخت و با درجه ممتاز تحصیلات خود را به اتمام رساند. در سال ۱۹۴۴ به تدریس ادبیات انگلوساکسن در دانشگاه لندن پرداخت و همزمان وارد مدرسه مطالعات شرقی و آفریقایی دانشگاه لندن شد و به تحصیل در رشته زبانهای ایرانی پرداخت. در آن روزها مینورسکی، هنینگ و تقی‌زاده در این مدرسه تدریس می‌کردند. در سال ۱۹۴۸ تدریس متون مانوی، پهلوی و پارتی را در همین مدرسه به عهده گرفت. پس از رفتن هنینگ به دانشگاه کالیف��نیا، بویس جانشین او شد و به مقام استادی در مدرسه مطالعات شرقی و آفریقایی رسید و تا سال ۱۹۸۶ در آنجا به تدریس پرداخت. بویس مقالات و آثار ارزشمندی تالیف کرد که عمدتاً درباره آیین‌های ایران باستان، متون مانوی، ادبیات شفاهی ایران و به‌ویژه جنبه‌های مختلف کیش زردشتی است. مهمترین اثر او با عنوان «تاریخ کیش زردشت» اثری است ماندگار که نتیجه سالها تحقیق و پژوهش درباره این آیین باستانی است. بویس در سال ۱۹۸۲ بازنشسته شد و به همین مناسبت دو تن از ایران‌شناسان برجسته، دیوید بیوار و جان هینلز جشن‌نامه‌ای حاوی مقالات قدیمی همکاران بویس فراهم آوردند که در سال ۱۹۸۵، به مناسبت شصت‌و‌پنجمین سال تولد وی، منتشر شد. این مجموعه دو جلدی زندگینامه بویس و همچنین فهرستی از آثار چاپ شده و زیر چاپ او را را تا آن تاریخ در بر دارد. رنج بیماری جسمی بویس، که سالها همراهش بود، سرانجام او را خانه‌نشین و سپس زمین‌گیر کرد. اما او از ادامه کار باز نایستاد و علاوه‌بر تدوین تاریخ کیش زردشت، مقالاتی برای دانشنامه ایرانیکا نوشت. بویس واپسین روزهای عمر را در بیمارستانی در لندن گذراند و سرانجام در روز چهارم آوریل ۲۰۰۶/ فروردین ۱۳۸۵ درگذشت. اثر حاضر تالیف دانشمند فقید، پرفسور مری بویس، به عنوان کتاب درسی برای دانشجویان رشته ادیان، فرهنگ و تاریخ فراهم و نخستین بار در سال ۱۹۸۴ در منچستر منتشر شد. این اثر دارای یازده فصل است و آثار و منابع مکتوب موجود درباره دین زردشت را در اختیار خوانندگان قرار می‌دهد. این اثر حاوی کهن‌ترین سروده های مکتوب دین زردشت همچون گاهان و یشتهای اوستا تا آثار متاخرتر پارسیان است.
May 18, 2019
از دیباچه این کتاب به قلم جان هینلز: هدف از نگارش این مجموعه ارائه ترجمه هایی به روزتر و قابل اعتمادتر از متون مهمی است که نیاز اصلی مطالعات دین زردشتی به شمار می رود. نخستین کوشش برای ارائه چنین مجموعه ای در سده نوزدهم در «آثار مقدس شرقی» صورت گرفت... این دیباچه در 2 صفحه آمده است. فهرست کلی این کتاب به این شرح است: 1- مقدمه؛ 2- سنت و آموزه؛ 3- ستایش، نیایش و اعتراف؛ 4-تکالیف و آیین های دینی؛ 5- اسطوره زندگی زردشت؛ 6- سرنوشت روان پس از مرگ و تصویر بهشت و دوزخ؛ 7- متون پیشگویی؛ 8- آیین زروانی: بدعت زردشتی؛ 9- متون جزمی از متون پهلوی سده نهم میلادی؛ 10- متون تاریخی؛ 11- دین زردشتی در دوره معاصر: سده های هجدهم و نوزدهم میلادی؛ کتاب شناسی.
July 21, 2022
The classical Greek 'n' Roman hIstoryography, Jasths and Gathas, the Avestan Zand, Syriac and Armeniac polemys the sources of Pax Sasanianorum and much, much more in English.
October 2, 2022
After reading this book, I felt like my understanding of Zoroastrianism had only marginally improved.
October 29, 2012
Good resource and selection of primary readings on various aspects of Zoroastrianism. Boyce offers a fresh translation of the texts selected and provides corrections to them as well as to the timeline of Zoroastrian writings and history. I would have enjoyed more commentary for the selections, but there is enough to provide adequate guidance. A basic, if not essential, resource for the study of Zoroastrianism.
September 5, 2012
Read this as part of an effort to better understand a friend. It's a start but leaves many questions unanswered.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews