[126] Euseb. "Chron." ed. Auch. p. 43; cf. Georg. Syncell. p. 167. [Greek: Batou] after Zoroaster should here be changed into [Greek: Baktrou] rather than [Greek: Magou].
[132] Suidas, [Greek: Magoi, Zôroastrês].
[133] Above, p. 17. Georg. Sync. p. 78, 79. Vol. I. p. 241, 247.
[134] Yet with Moses Zoroaster is a Mede, I. p. 87.
[136] Cf. Von Gutschmid, "Die Sage vom heiligen Georg;" Sächsische Gesellschaft d. W., 1861, s. 175.
[138] C. 20 in Justi, [c. 20; § 32 West]; cf. "Vend." 19, 15.
[139] C. 30, cf. above, p. 40. [C. 29, § 14, West.]
[140] Strabo, p. 515, derives it from Atropates, whom Alexander made satrap there.
[141] Still less important than the Bundehesh is the gloss on "Vend." 1, 60. "Many say that Zartusht was from Rak in Atropatan." Ragha is not in Atropatene.
[143] Plin. "H. N." 30, 2. Diogen. Laert. prooem. The different readings of 500 years in Suidas and 600 in Diogenes, as compared with 5000 and 6000 in the other MSS., can hardly be maintained against the uniform evidence of other witnesses.
[145] "Vend." 19, 33; Spiegel, "Avesta," 3, 9, 201, 206.
[146] "Ashi Yasht," 17; "Vend." 2, 20 ff.
[149] Justi, "Bundehesh," c. 1, 3, 34. [Cf. West's commentary on c. 34.]
[152] If the rise of Arsaces is put in the year 250 B.C. It makes no difference in the total if we choose the year 248 B.C. for the beginning of the Arsacids.
[153] Blau, "Z. D. M. G." 18, 686. Von Gutschmid, _ibid._
[155] Aristot. "Metaph." 13, 4. Diogen. Laert. prooem.
[156] Theopom. Fragm. 71, 72, ed. Müller.
[157] Diogen. Laert. prooem., cf. Suidas, [Greek: Magoi].
[165] Herod. 1, 101, 131-140; 7, 40, 43, 113, 191; 3, 84.
[166] Inscription of Darius at Elvend in Spiegel, "Keilinscriften," s. 45, 47.
[168] Strabo, p. 719; Nicol. Damasc. fragm. 66, ed. Müller.
[175] The Niça of the Vendidad is the Eastern Niça, Parthorum Nisæa, not very far from Merv; above, p. 10, _n._ 1.
[176] Lepsius, "Ueber das ursprungliche Zendalphabet," Abh. B. Akad. 1862, s. 298, 306, 381.
The examination of the traditions of the East and West has simply led to the confirmation of the result, which we gain from the Avesta--that the name and the doctrine of Zarathrustra belong to Bactria. With regard to the antiquity of the doctrine, the inscriptions of Darius and the statements of the Greeks allowed us to draw the conclusion that it became current and dominant in Bactria about the year 800 B.C.; and from the analogy of the development of the Arians on both sides of the Ganges we assumed that it was possible to place the date of Zarathrustra himself about two centuries earlier. That the Arians of Iran were not without gods and religious worship before Zarathrustra, if the fact needed proof, might be shown from the statements in the Avesta regarding the time previous to Zarathrustra. The examination of the legends of this time established kindred forms and traits in the Avesta and the Veda, and if, following this path further, we find in the Avesta views of the nature and character of the gods corresponding to those of the Veda, we might be confident in regarding them as the traditional possession of the Arians, and their earliest forms of religion. If, in fine, the coincidence of the Avesta with the Veda, on the one hand, and with the accounts of the Greeks on the other, extended to all the essential points in the doctrine and the law, the question stated above--whether in the restoration of the canon of the sacred writings in the midst of the fourth century of our era, under king Shapur II., the Avesta underwent material alterations, would have to be answered in the negative.
