>He does not know anything well.
Don't be so overtly sensitive, user. It doesn't suit your case well.
>As I have explained REPEATEDLY in this forum, Zoroastrianism of SASSANIAN era was preserved very well. The Shahnameh, for example, does a good job recording Sassanian kingly lineage. Moreover, the Gathas are from Zarathustra.
My point was fairly simple – Sassanian Zoroastrianism and it's modern continuation can in certain respects be considered a shadow of it's former self as Alexander slaughtered the old priesthood. Since early Zoroastrianism was an oral tradition, we know next to nothing about it. The Letter of Tansar was foundational in the Orthodox establishment of Sassanid Zoroastrianism and the Zend Avesta in particular, with him claiming that the Heterodox tradition had decayed and he was to reinvigorate it.
With Alexander conquering Persia, Zoroastrian beliefs became mixed with Hellenistic paganism. In order to understand this decline that led to the Sassanid Orthodox revival, you should definetly check out "Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature" by Albert De Jong. Roman Mithraism is most certainly a byproduct of this.
I want to touch on a point you made in an earlier post:
>Zoroastrian minority is maintaining traditions dating to Sassanian era, it has a continuity up to this age, but you don't see Germanic pagans maintain a continuity, hence the revivalism.
You seem to be under the impression that "continuity" equals "ideological consistency", which if you have studied the historical progression of various religions is most certainly never the case – religious traditions are very fluid, progressively shifting and adaptational to their milleu.
With the exception of the Gathas and a handful of Yasnas written in Old Persian, the Zend Avesta is largely an original compilation of the Sassanid era. Two kings in particular, Shapur I and Khosrau I, were well known for their religious eccleticism.
Shapur I in particular - who was instrumental in the establishment of Sassanid Zoroastrianism by means of the high priest Kartir - even wanted to add Hellenistic material to the Avesta. Both Shapur I and Kartir likewise seems to have had an affinity for the Heterodox and Hellenstically influenced Zurvanism, which is quite puzzling, since Orthodox Mazdaism came out triumphant in the end.
In conclusion, it is very naive to suppose that Sassanid Zoroastrianism was without outside influences and that it constitutes a faithful continuation of Early Zoroastrianism. I'm not deriding this tradition by any means, but there is a general tendency amongst religious folks to carry an unhealthy ammount of historical romanticizing.
