I have heard that most scholars consider Zarathustra to have been an existed, historical person. If this is the case, how do they know this, unlike Homer whose historicity is uncertain?
5
-
4Have you looked at Wikipedia's Zoroaster? If this doesn't answer your question, please edit to let us know what you need to know which is missing from the aritcle.– Lars BosteenCommented May 4, 2023 at 5:12
-
@LarsBosteen The Wikipedia article implicitly assumes that Zoroaster was a historical figure, but I couldn't find any information about how they came to this conclusion or found it plausible.– VitoCommented May 4, 2023 at 5:50
-
1Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s)– MCW ♦Commented May 4, 2023 at 9:19
-
@Vito Zoroaster is assumed to be an historical person for the same reasons that Jesus, Muhammad or Socrates are believed to be historical persons: there are people who said so, people who claimed to have known them, and writings about them or attributed to themselves. It is a weaker claim than people like Julius Caesar, who left much more evidence of his existence, but it is not a rare exception in history. Wether the true deeds about the man really match what it is believed to be known about him is not enough to deny that he, at some point, must have existed.– RekesoftCommented May 4, 2023 at 9:51
-
@Rekesoft Fleshing all that out actually makes a good answer.– cmwCommented May 5, 2023 at 16:43
Add a comment
|