Ahuramazda

It is interesting how a single word can be used to distort a statement out of recognition. Lendering states:

“Ahuramazda was not, as Farrokh says on p.46, the single god, but a supreme god - Mithra and Anahita are mentioned as divinities in Avestan and Achaemenid sources, which also call Ahuramazda "the greatest of all gods" (plural).”

This statement is somewhat petty (“single” versus “supreme”) with Farrokh’s observation being quoted completely out of context:

First, Farrokh never states anywhere in his book that Ahura-Mazda is the sole god of the Iranian pantheon.

Second, Lendering carefully neglects to mention that Farrokh does indeed discuss the other gods (Mithra and Anahita) of Zoroastrian and pre-Zoroastrian mythology in his book (p.130, 191-194).

Third, Lendering may be confusing the critical distinction between the “divinities” versus the all powerful Mazda. If Lendering is unable to read Avestan, we recommend:

Hoffman, K. (1979). Das Avesta in der Persis [The Avesta in Persis]. In J. Harmatta (Ed.), Prologomena to the sources on the history of Pre-Islmaic Central Asia, Budapest:, pp. 89-93.

Pour-Davood, E. (translated by D.J. Irani) (1927). Holy Gathas: Zarathustra The Prophet of Ancient Iran. Tehran: Sazman e Entesharat e Faravahar.

Fourth, this is Farrokh’s actual statement:

“…the concept of an all powerful single god…”  

Note that Lendering drops off the words “all powerful” in his report. Mithra and Anahita were certainly important gods, but only Ahura-Mazda is all powerful in that he supersedes the lesser gods. This definition is provided in:

Nigosian, S.A. (1993). The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research. MontreaL: McGill-Queen’s University Press. See pages 71-73.

            Taraporewala, I.J.S. (1980). The Religion of Zarathustra. Tehran: Sazman e Entesharat e Faravahar. See pages 38-39.

This statement on Farrokh’s p. 46 is part of a 2 page discussion of the relationship between Zoroastrianism and Achaemenid rule. Ahura Mazda is the single Zoroastrian god of all gods (or as Lendering prefers “supreme”) of the Iranian pantheon.

We also recommend the following texts on Zoroastrianism by Professor Mary Boyce, as these will assist Lendering in helping to rectify his misconceptions between “the divinities” and Ahura Mazda:

Boyce, M. (2001). Zoroastrians: Their religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge.

Boyce, M., & Grenet, F. (1989). A History of Zoroastrianism.  E.J. Brill.

Boyce, M. (1977). A Persian stronghold of Zoroastrianism. London: Clarendon Press.

Lendering also alleges Farrokh of “ignoring the secondary resources” on the subject. This is not true, especially if the reader consults Farrokh’s footnotes and references.

To bolster his allegation, Lendering cites Harmatta in his Note 2 as a major source that Farrokh has not consulted. This is untrue: Harmatta is cited by Farrokh in Footnote 50 on page 294 of his book.