Editing Avesta (section)

==History==

===Zoroastrian tradition===
The Zoroastrian history of the Avesta, lies in the realm of legend and myth. The oldest surviving versions of these tales are found in the ninth to 11th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition (i.e. in the so-called "[[Pahlavi books]]"). The legends run as follows: The twenty-one ''nask''s ("books") of the Avesta were created by Ahura Mazda and brought by [[Zoroaster]] to his patron [[Vishtaspa]] (''[[Denkard]]'' 4A, 3A).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=50–51}} Supposedly, Vishtaspa (''Dk'' 3A) or another [[Kayanian dynasty|Kayanian]], [[Kai Darab|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).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=51–52}} 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).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=52–53}} Several centuries later, one of the [[Parthian Empire|Parthian]] emperors named Valaksh (one of the [[Vologases (disambiguation)|Vologases]]) 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).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=52–53}}

The ''Denkard'' 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 priest Tansar ([[mobad|high priest]] under [[Ardashir I]], ''r.'' 224–242 CE, and [[Shapur I]], 240/242–272 CE), who had the scattered works collected – of which he approved only a part as authoritative (''Dk'' 3C, 4D, 4E).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=53–54}} Tansar's work was then supposedly completed by Adurbad Mahraspandan (high priest of [[Shapur 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).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=54}} A final revision was supposedly undertaken in the 6th century CE under [[Khosrow I]] (''Dk'' 4G).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=55}}

===Early Western scholarship===
Texts of the Avesta became available to European scholarship comparatively late, thus the study of [[Zoroastrianism]] in Western countries dates back to only the 18th century.{{sfn|Boyce|1984|p=x}} [[Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron]] travelled to [[India]] in 1755, and discovered the texts among Indian Zoroastrian ([[Parsi]]) communities. He published a set of French translations in 1771, based on translations provided by a Parsi priest. Anquetil-Duperron's translations were at first dismissed as a forgery in poor [[Sanskrit]], but he was vindicated in the 1820s following [[Rasmus Rask]]'s examination of the Avestan language (''A Dissertation on the Authenticity of the [[Zend#misnomer|Zend]] Language'', Bombay, 1821). Rask also established that Anquetil-Duperron's manuscripts were a fragment of a much larger literature of sacred texts. Anquetil-Duperron's manuscripts are at the {{Lang|fr|[[Bibliothèque nationale de France]]|italic=no}} ('P'-series manuscripts), while Rask's collection now lies in the [[Royal Library, Denmark]] ('K'-series). Other large Avestan language manuscript collections are those of the [[British Museum]] ('L'-series)<!-- the [[East India House]] collection is now also there-->, the K. R. Cama Oriental Library in [[Mumbai]], the Meherji Rana library in [[Navsari]], and at various university and national libraries in Europe.

In the early 20th century, the legend of the [[Parthian empire|Parthian-era]] collation engendered a search for a 'Parthian archetype' of the Avesta. According to the theory of [[Friedrich 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 the [[Aramaic alphabet]]-derived [[Pahlavi scripts]].{{refn|For a summary of Andreas' theory, see {{harvp|Schlerath|1987|pp=29–30}}.|group="n"}} The search for the 'Arsacid archetype' was increasingly criticized in the 1940s and was eventually abandoned in the 1950s after [[Karl Hoffmann (linguist)|Karl Hoffmann]] demonstrated that the inconsistencies noted by Andreas were actually due to unconscious alterations introduced by oral transmission.{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=57}} Hoffmann identifies{{sfn|Hoffmann|1958|pp=7ff}} these changes to be due,{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=56–63}} in part, to modifications introduced through recitation;{{refn|For example, prefix repetition as in e.g. ''paitī ... paitiientī'' vs. ''paiti ... aiienī'' (''[[Yasna|Y.]]'' 49.11 vs. 50.9), or [[sandhi]] processes on word and syllable boundaries, e.g. ''adāiš'' for ''*at̰.āiš'' (48.1), ''ahiiāsā'' for ''ahiiā yāsā'', ''gat̰.tōi'' for ''*gatōi'' (43.1), ''ratūš š́iiaoθanā'' for ''*ratū š́iiaoθanā'' (33.1).{{sfn|Humbach|1991|pp=59–61}}|group="n"}} 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;{{refn|e.g. irregular internal ''hw'' > ''x<sup>v</sup>'' as found in e.g. ''harax<sup>v</sup>ati''- 'Arachosia' and ''sāx<sup>v</sup>an-'' 'instruction', rather than regular internal ''hw'' > ''ŋ<sup>v</sup>h'' as found in e.g. ''aojōŋ<sup>v</sup>hant''- 'strong'.{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=58}}|group="n"}} and in part due to the influence of phonetic developments in the Avestan language itself.{{refn|e.g. YAv. ''-ō'' instead of expected OAv. ''-ə̄'' for Ir. ''-ah'' in almost all polysyllables.{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=61}}|group="n"}}

===Modern scholarhip===
The notion of an Arsacid-era collation and recension is generally rejected by modern scholarship.{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=56}} 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.{{sfn|Humbach|1991|p=56}} Based on linguistic aspects, scholars like [[Jean Kellens|Kellens]], [[Prods Oktor Skjærvø|Skjærvø]] and [[Karl Hoffmann (linguist)|Hoffman]] 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.{{Sfn|Hoffmann|1987|loc="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"}}{{Sfn|Kellens|1998}}{{Sfn|Skjaervø |2009|loc=p. 46}}

==== ''Oral transmission'' ====
The first phase comprises the creation of the Old Avestan texts, like the [[Gatha (Zoroaster)|Gathas]]. Today, scholars consider a time frame between 1500 and 900 BCE to be possible,{{sfn|Daniel|2012 |loc=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."}} with a date close to 1000 BCE being considered likely by many.{{sfn|Hale|2004 |loc=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"}} They must have crystallized early on, meaning their transmission became unchanged.{{Sfn|Skjaervø |2009|loc=p. 46}} During their long history, the Gathic texts seem to have been transmitted with the highest accuracy.{{sfn|Boyce|1984|p=2}}

[[File:Young avestan geography.png|thumb|Geographical horizon of the toponyms found in the Young Avestan texts]]The second phase comprises the creation of the Young Avestan texts. These texts, which form the majority of the extant Avesta, originated in a later stage of the [[Avestan period]] separated from the Old Avestan time by several centuries.{{Sfn|Hintze|2015|loc=p. 38: "Linguistic, literary and conceptual characteristics suggest that the Old(er) Avesta pre‐dates the Young(er) Avesta by several centuries."}} Scholars nowadays assume that this phase corresponds to a time frame from ca. 900-400 BCE.{{Sfn|Skjaervø|2009|loc=p. 43}} Due to a number of [[Avestan geography|geographical references]], there is a wide consensus that they were composed in the eastern portion of [[Greater Iran]].{{Sfn|Witzel|2000|loc=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."}} While the Old Avestan material was handed down as a fixed [[Sacred language|liturgical corpus]], the Young Avestan texts appear to have been transmitted during this time in an [[oral 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.{{sfn|Boyce|1984|p=2}}

At some time, however, this fluid phase must have stopped as well and the process of transmission of the Young Avestan texts became fixed similar to the Old Avestan material.{{Sfn|de Vaan|Martínez García|2014|loc=pp.5-6}} This second crystallization must have taken place during the Old Iranian period, as Young Avestan does not show any characteristics of Middle Iranian.{{Sfn|Kreyenbroek |2022|loc=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"}} The subsequent transmission took largely place in Western Iran as evidenced by alterations introduced by native Persian speakers.{{Sfn|Schmitt|2000|loc=pp. 24–25}} Scholars like [[Prods Oktor Skjærvø|Skjærvø]] and [[Philip G. Kreyenbroek|Kreyenbroek]] correlate this second crystallization with the adoption of Zoroastrianism by the [[Achaemenid Empire|Achaemenids]].{{Sfn|Kreyenbroek |2022|loc=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"}} As a result, [[Old Persian|Persian]]- and [[Median language|Median]]-speaking [[Magi|priests]] would have become the primary group to transmit these texts.{{Sfn|Hoffmann |1989|loc=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"}} Having no longer an active command of Avestan, they would have decided to preserve both Old and Young Avestan text as faithfully as possible.{{Sfn|Skjaervø|2011|loc=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"}} Some Young Avestan texts, like the [[Vendidad]], show non-Avestan influence and are therefore considered to have been redacted or otherwise altered by non-Avestan speakers after the main corpus became fixed.{{Sfn|Schmitt|2000|loc=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"}} Regardless of such changes and redactions, the main Avestan corpus was now transmitted by people for whom Avestan was no longer a native but a purely [[Sacred language|liturgical languange]].{{Sfn|Skjaervø|2009|loc=p. 46}}

==== ''Written transmission'' ====
{{Main|Sasanian Avesta}}
It was not until around the 5th or 6th century CE that Avestan corpus was committed to written form, which lead to the creation of the [[Sasanian Avesta]].{{sfn|Boyce|1984|p=1}} This is seen as a turning point in the Avestan tradition since it separates the purely oral from the written transmission.{{sfn|Schmitt|2000|loc=p. 22}} The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by that collation. That master copy, now lost, is known as the 'Sassanian archetype'. The oldest surviving manuscript (''K1''){{refn|1=''K1'' represents 248 leaves of a 340-leaf ''Vendidad Sade'' manuscript, i.e. a variant of a ''[[#Yasna|Yasna]]'' text into which sections of the ''[[#Visperad|Visperad]]'' and ''[[#Vendidad|Vendidad]]'' are interleaved. The colophon of ''K1'' (K=Copenhagen) identifies its place and year of completion to Cambay, 692Y (= 1323–1324 CE). The date of ''K1'' is occasionally mistakenly given as 1184. This mistake is due to a 19th-century confusion of the date of ''K1'' with the date of ''K1''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> source: in the postscript to ''K1'', the copyist – a certain Mehrban Kai Khusrow of Navsari – gives the date of his ''source'' as 552Y (= 1184 CE). That text from 1184 has not survived.|name="K1"|group="n"}} of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE.{{sfn|Boyce|1984|p=1}}

The post-Sasanian phase saw a pronounced deterioration of the Avestan corpus. 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.{{sfn|Boyce|1984|p=3}} 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.