0% found this document useful (0 votes)
200 views32 pages015 1999 Irano-Judaica 4 72-90 Saviour and Dragon
Uploaded by
WozniakCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
200 views32 pages015 1999 Irano-Judaica 4 72-90 Saviour and Dragon
Uploaded by
WozniakCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 32
IRANO-JUDAICA IV
STUDIES RELATING TO
JEWISH CONTACTS WITH
PERSIAN CULTURE
THROUGHOUT THE AGES
Edited by SHAUL SHAKED
and AMNON NETZER
4
JERUSALEM 1999 |
CONTENTS
Introduction
PRODS OKTOR SKJARV@, Cambridge, Mass.
Avestan Quotations in Old Persian? Literary Sources
of the Old Persian Inscriptions
PHILLIPE GIGNOUX, Paris
‘Monotheism or Polytheism in the Gathic Revelation?
ALMUT HINTZE, Cambridge (England)
The Saviour and the Dragon in Iranian and Jewish(Christian Eschatology
MARIA MACUCH, Berlin
Iranian Legal Terminology in the Babylonian Talmud in the Light
of Sasanian Jurisprudence
K. D. IRANI, New York
‘Transformation in Forms of Religiosity in the Ancient Iranian
and Jewish Traditions
PALLAN R. ICHAPORIA, Womelsdorf, Pa.
The Legendary History of Iran in the Religio-Historical Account of
The Zamyad Yast (Yt. 19)
JAMES R. RUSSELL, Cambridge, Mass.
Iran and Israel in the Armenian Epic of Sasun
DAN SHAPIRA, Jerusalem
‘Manichaios, Jywndg Gryw and Other Manichean Terms and Titles
WOJCIECH SKALMOWSKI, Leuven
Iranian Heterography and Aramaic: Some Reflections
65
n
a1
102
106
uu
122
1st EM. JEREMIAS, Budapest
The Impact of Semitic Linguistics on the First Persian Grammars
Wrien in Europe
PAOLA ORSATTI, Rome
The Judeo-Persian Pentateuch of Constantinople and the
Beginnings of Persian Linguistic Sudies in Europe
ROBERT BRODY, Jerusalem
Zoroastrian Themes in Geonic Responsa
AMNON NETZER, Jerusalem
[Notes and Observations Concerning Sahin's Birthplace
‘VERA B. MOREEN, Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
Polemical Use of the Qur'an in Two Judeo-Persian Texts
HERBERT H. PAPER, Cincinnati
‘A Judeo-Persian Bible Lexicon: British Library MS 10556
DAVID YEROUSHALMI, Tel Aviv
The Mishnaic Tractate Abot in Judeo-Persian Literature
RAYA SHANI, Jerusalem
A Judeo-Persian Talismanic Textile
DALIA LEVIT-TAWIL, New York
Queen Esther at Dura: Her Imagery in Light of Third-Cennury cs.
Oriental Syncretism,
BERNARD GOLDMAN, Detroit
The Iranian Element in the Dura Synagogue Murals
SIMON HOPKINS, Jerusalem
The Neo-Aramaic Dialects of Iran
HEBREW SECTION
ELI AHDUT, Nir Banim
Jewish-Zoroastrian Polemics in the Babylonian Talmud
159
m
179
187
203,
214
223
251
274
298
31
Jew
the
As
leg
sin
pre
ib
arc
Pr
Sc
aC
ea m
i
ci
I
iw
E
f
Introduction
‘The present volume contains many of the papers read at the third colloquium on
the subject of Irano-Judaica held in Jerusalem from 3-6 July 1994. The actual
meetings were held for the most part in the guest-house of Kibbutz Ramat Rachel,
‘where the guests from abroad were staying, and where they could enjoy, ata short
distance from the centre of Jerusalem, a pastoral environment and facilities that
‘only such a holiday resort can offer.
AAs usual in this series of conferences, no central theme was imposed. The aim
was to try and cover a wide range of topics within the general heading of the
series, treating the subject matter of “Irano-Judaica” as broadly and as liberally as
desired, the Iranian part covering anything Jewish that has to do with Iran, and the
Jewish part defined as incorporating Semitic elements in general, with even casual
references to Aramaic or Judaism regarded as sufficient excuse for inclusion in
‘the conference. There were nevertheless some papers that had to be omitted. Among
these was an interesting paper by Farrokh Vajifdar, entitled “The Vendidad
Ascendancy and Decline”, which concentrated on internal isues within the
Zoroastrian community, and the paper by Pallan R. Ichaporia, that deals with the
legendary history contained in an Avestan hymn had to be abridged, especially
since much of its contents had already been published elsewhere. ‘A paper by a
prominent Tajik scholar, Ahror Mukhtarov, on “The Jews of Bukhara in the Tarikh-
§ Manazil-i Bukhara and Tarikh-i Naf'T’, and a paper by an important Russian
archaeologist, Boris J. Stavisky, on “The Jews in Pre-Islamic Middle (former
Central) Asia” presented too many technical problems and had regrettably to be
left out. Other papers that were read at the conference but do not appear in the
present volume are by J. W. Boyd with R. G. Williams, Haideh Sahim, Martin
‘Schwartz, and Michael Zand, as well as the late J. C. Greenfield. My own article
on the early Jewish-Persian texts from the Geniza has also been left out for two
‘800d reasons: to leave room to others, and because research on the Geniza texts in
‘early Judaco-Persian has not yet been concluded, and it does not seem appropriate
‘to publish partial results at this stage.
‘The aim of the following remarks is to give an impression of the main themes
‘treated, sometimes accompanied by additional comments. viii INTRODUCTION
oe
In the paper by P.O. Skjzervs, “Avestan Quotations in Old Persian?” the question
of whether there is a connection between the Old Persian inscriptions and the
Zoroastrian scriptures is examined. The question is interesting for a variety of
reasons. It is related to the historical problem of whether the Achaemenid kings
and their followers were Zoroastrian. If they were, one must assume that they were
aware of the Zoroastrian literature. Iti also interesting from the point of view of
the poetics ofthe inscriptions of the Achaemenian kings: what was the framework
of their cultural references? The author, in discussing the problem, collects material
to show that the Old Persian inscriptions use some common themes and topoi of
kings’ pronouncements that had been used over and over again in the ancient Near
East, and one finds oneself in a quandry in trying to define what might have been
Iranian, as opposed to the common Near Easter heritage, in the Old Persian
inscriptions, One of the most important cultural encounters in the world of antiquity
in the Near East is that between Semitic and non-Semitic, in the first place Iranian,
culture. “Irano-Judaica” for our purposes includes the whole area of contact,
between Iranians and Semites — for example, in the linguistic field, between
Aramaic and Iranian. Viewed from this perspective, Skjzervo's article is important
for any discussion of Irano-Judaica, although it has little direct bearing on the
Jewish component of this contact.
‘The author amasses an impressive range of quotations and references to show
‘the possibility that the writers ofthe Old Persian inscriptions were aware of certain
phrases or themes that occur in the Avesta. Some of these correspondences, as the
author is the first 1o admit, are quite commonplace, involving expressions that
‘occur spontaneously in various cultures without the need to assume dependence
or contact; some are common to the mentality of the ancient Near East; others
seem to be typical of the heritage of Indo-European poetical or royal phraseology.
Old Persian and Avestan are two separate languages, and the difference between
the Old Persian inscriptions and the Avestan phrases is, according to the author,
often superficial, each using words available in its own language, while the themes,
considered to be the deep structure, may be identical. One may however mildly
object by saying that in the case ofa sacred scripture one may expect to find some
verbal influence in the language of worshippers using a different vernacular.
The theme of protecting the weak and the poor from the wrongdoings of the
rich, and from favoritism forthe rich by the authorities, is quite widespread, and is
attested in the Avesta as well asin the Old Persian inscriptions, ef. K. Bar, “Avestan
dregu-, drighu-", Studia oriemtalia Toanni Pedersen septuagenario .. dicata,
Copenhagen, 1953, pp. 2140. The novelty of the Old Persian inscriptions consists
in the insistence on a kind of symmetry: not only an avoidance of favouring the
rich against the poor, but also avoiding doing the opposite thing, although one can
hardly speak, I think, of a concer “to protect the interests of the mighty against
wrong-doing by the weak”, The special veneration of the poor in ancient Near
Eastem cultures, notably in Jewish and Christian texts and later also in Islam,
where “poor” became synonymous with “modest, humble” and even with
mosomenro CHANAE INTRODUCTION ix
“tighteous”, is well known, and the Iranian texts shared in the same perception. In
the Sasanian period, one of the instances where this attitude is most forcefully
‘manifest is the widespread epithet of judges, “Protector of the Poor” (driyésan
jadag-g0w). Itis perhaps against this background that the need may have been felt
to protect the mighty from the favor that judges and rulers would tend to show to
the poor (cf. Ex. 23:3). This idea is so widespread that it makes the connection,
‘between Old Persian and Avestan somewhat less meaningful.
‘A remarkable parallel between Old Persian terminology and that of the Avesta
concerns the Old Persian formula that expresses the wish that the person should be
happy while alive and a follower of arta when dead. The Avestan formula is roughly
the opposite: the person shall be a follower of aa while alive, and shall partake in
the Good Existence when dead. The contrast is marked and probably not fortuitous.
If there is a quotation here, it seems to be polemical. The Avestan phrase uses
clear religious concepts for both states, while the Old Persian relegates the
unequivocal religious concept tothe state of the person after death. It is the merit
of this study that it does not seek to assert dependence, but only to explore its
possibility and its implications.
‘The next group of articles is devoted to questions of influence and borrowing
between Iran and Judaism. The paper by Ph. Gignoux, “Monotheism or Polytheism
in the Gathic Revelation?” tackles one of the oldest and most often debated questions
in the history of research into Zoroastrianism: how is the message of Zoroaster to
be interpreted, is it monotheistic or polytheistic? And one may add here, with
Gignoux, is it dualistic?
Gignoux gives a short history of the discussion of this problem, mentioning the
‘main protagonists of the chief views. He himself tends to assert the chronological
primacy of Israelite monotheism, by invoking recent research on the archives of
‘Mari. In discussing this problem, Gignoux goes into the question of how one should
interpret the proper names that consist of two divine names juxtaposed, the dvandva
‘compounds, and suggests that they may be treated in the same way as the compound
personal names are understood in Semitic, that is, as short nominal phrases, although
‘one difficulty here is the fact that this is not a usual construction of compounds in
Indo-European. Another difficulty, raised by Gignoux himself, i8 the fact that
sometimes the two terms of the compound seem to be near synonyms.
Whether Zoroaster’s message in the Gathas deserves to be called monotheism,
on this question Gignoux is less decisive; but he seems to be sympathetic to the
view that there is a gradual inclination towards monotheism in Iranian history. IfT
may express a personal opinion here, I would say that it is tue that at a certain
Point in the religious history of the Middle East the ancient polytheistic religions
give way to various forms of monotheism, whether it isa strict faith in a single
‘204, oF a mitigated form of monotheistic faith. also believe that in this development
dualism is one of the expressions of this monotheistic tendency, and it was most
characteristic of Iranian culture. Gignoux’s paper draws attention to these parallels
between Israelite and Iranian religious history.
‘The study by Almut Hintze, “The Saviour and the Dragon in Iranian and Jewish/
Christian Eschatology”, examines closely the possible links between the main x INTRODUCTION
eschatological ideas that sprang in the post-exilic period in Judaism with the
corresponding notions in the Zoroastrian writings. The author could draw on her
‘own thorough treatment of the main Avestan text that deals with eschatology,
Yait 19, known as Zamyad Yat, which is the subject of a book that she wrote
Particular attention is devoted to the complex of eschatological stories connected
with the figure of the dragon in early Christian writings, which, as the author
points out, show striking similarities with the Zoroastrian stories around the figure
of Azi Dahiika (Pahlavi Azdahig), the Avestan dragon. She cautiously concludes
that there is a good chance that the eschatological complex centered on the struggle
with the dragon figure should be one of the components that might have influenced
the Jewish and Christian ideas of eschatology.
Maria Macuch, in her paper “Iranian Legal Terminology in the Babylonian
‘Talmud in the Light of Sasanian Jurisprudence”, discusses some terms occurring
in the Babylonian Talmud which are with some certainty borrowings from Sasanian
legal terminology. She quotes two terms that have already been explained by
previous research: mwhrqy w'bwrgny, explained for the first time by Bernhard
Geiger as meaning “reliable, or authentic, contracts”, and pursitn-ndmag. Professor
‘Macuch, who has made Sasanian law her special domain, supplies information as
to how these terms are used in Iranian judicial literature,
K. D. Irani, a philosopher and a Zoroastrian, discusses in his article
‘ransformation in Forms of Religiosity in the Ancient Iranian Jewish traditions”
similarities and contrasts between the two religions, Zoroastrianism and Judaism,
from the standpoint of religious typology. He uses for his typology a terminology
such as archaic religion, ancient organized religion, and reflective religion; or, in
a different classification, a religion with a strong tribal consciousness as against
an individualistic, and therefore universal, religion. The author then points out
some paradoxes that exist. Zoroastrianism, an individualistic religion according
to the author, developed as a religion with a strong sense of tribalism; being
reflective, itnevertheless developed a strong ritual element, in contrast tothe spirit
of the original scriptures. These are thoughtful points, although itis certainly open
to debate whether the labels used by the author are entirely justifiable, and, if they
are, whether they necessarily exclude each other.
Another contribution from the point of view of a member of the Zoroastrian
faith, the paper by Pallan R. Ichaporia on “The legendary history of Iran in the
religio-historical account of the Zamyad Yast (Yt. 19)”, discusses the mythology
of Zoroastrianism, taking as its point of departure the mythical allusions in the
19th Yait of the Avesta. Observations as to the dating and the classification of the
Yaits are included in this paper. Various other aspects of the mythology
incorporated in Yast 19 are discussed in detail in the book by Helmut Humbach
and Pallan R. Ichaporia, Zamyaid Yast, Wiesbaden 1998, and it seemed unnecessary
to reproduce those points in this paper.
From the rich mythology and eschatology of the Armenian epic of Sasun, James
R. Russell quotes in his article on “Iran and Israel in the Armenian epic of Sasun”
‘echoes of Iranian traditions that were merged with biblical associations to form a
complex of ideas, aspirations, and yearnings. His wide-ranging knowledge of both FeLTASS PLETE LSCS EV RE EYE LES EE
ees hE
9 Here itis described how
the rulers of the earth are decisively defeated by the elect people of God, because
“they have denied the Lord ofthe Spirits, his Anointed One” (Enoch 48.10) Then
the dead will ise and a wonderful era will begin under the rule of the Anointed
‘One (Enoch 51). In IV Ezra 13-(late first century c.e.) there is an account of how
the final Saviour rises up from the sea and slays an innumerable army of hostile
people with a stream of fire issuing from his mouth; afterwards he assembles
Peaceful people around himself. The end of the world is also described in chapter
100f the Assumptio Mosis as the final struggle of Good and Evil.™ Although a
Messiah is not mentioned in this apocalypse, God has his messenger, an angel
whom he sends to fight his enemies (Ass. Mosis 10.2)
{bets things by his private plans bot in obedience to the noble teachings ofthe great God” (1.
‘Saline *Sibyline rates in: Charlesworth ed), The Ol Testament Pseudepigrapha 1376)
‘Then all the enemies of Israel will be defeated, bt ‘the sons ofthe pret God will dell aroveg
{Be szmple in peace (3.702) and all people will recognize the ‘immortal king the great etemal
Cod and he will ise wp an eschatological kingdom of peace forall (3.767.795), According
\0 Collins, ibid. f.x° the ‘King from the Sun’ would be the Egyptian king. On the date of the
{5x Se Collin, bid. 355 (: 163-145 mice). — One single kingdom and one single language
fpoken by all eople characterize par of the eschatological kingdom described by Plus,
De lside et Osiride 17: Eva Biov xa uiav nobsreiav éxdvtow yevéoBon,
% The “Book of Dream Visions” constitutes chapters 83-90 of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch and
Encyclopaedia Judaica vol.11, Jerusalem 1971, 1409; ol. 4, 1198-9,
38 On the date see E Isaac, “I (Ethiopic Apocalypte of) Enoch” In: Charlesworth ed), The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha17.
*% Ass. Mosis 102: "Ten his kingdom wil appear throughout his whole creation, Then the evil
Will have an end. Yea, sorrow will be led away with him. Then wil be filled the hands of tre
‘messenger, who is in the highest place appointed. Yea, he will at once avenge them of their
nemies. For the Heavenly One will rise from his kingly throne. Yea, he will go orth from
Js holy habitation with indignation and wrath on behalf of his sons”. Priest in: Charlesworth,
‘Pseudepigrapha 1931-2). Cf. on this passage Bousset, Religion des Judentum* 287 80 ALMUT HINTZE
6. The Eschatological Role of the Dragon
The resurrection of the dead is merely the logical consequence of the enemy's
defeat, since death eannot prevail over life created by God, but life has to overcome
death. It is the Messiah who inaugurates these events, although it is not always he
‘who raises the dead, but sometimes God himself.*® In Daniel 12.1-3, a judgement
is implied by the reference to some waking “to everlasting life and some to shame
and everlasting contempt.” The prophecy in chapters 24-27 of Isaiah, which dates
from the third or second century 8.c.., also speaks of the resurrection to come in
‘order to re-establish Israel. Here the other, non-Jewish people are invited to life
in eternal bliss as well (Is.27.13). The Lord “will swallow up death in victory”
(1s.25.8) and the dead will rise (Is.26.19).
‘The resurrection is connected here with the myth of Leviathan: “On that day the
Lord will punish with his sword, which is hard and great and strong, Leviathan,
the fleeing serpent, and Leviathan, the tortuous serpent; and he will slay the monster
that isin the sea” (1s.27.1).°7 Here, in the story of the Leviathan slain by Yahweh
himself, a dragon plays a role in the eschatological struggle. Also in the Syriac
‘Apocalypse of Baruch 29.4 (early 2nd cent. cx.) at the coming of the Messiah,
Leviathan, here together with Behemoth, another mythical monster, rises out of
the sea. Both creatures are said to have been preserved until the time when the
Messiah comes in order to serve as food for those who are left." In the following
35. Bousset, Religion des Judentums* 274 maintain that resurection would be performed by God
14 that the Messiah would play no role in this. Ths is in contradiction to Enoch 51.3, if the
"Elected One" who resunects the dead and judges them is the Messih as Beer, in Kautzsch,
Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alien Testaments I, 265 ni, assumes. — In the
Old Testament, resurrection of the dead is first found in Ezekiel 37.1-10, where its implied
that their bones may be joined together again. But from the following interpretation of the vision,
E2.37.11-14, it emerges that itis not eschatological at all, since resurrection ofthe dead is
only theoretically considered as a possible extraordinary means of showing Israel that Yahweh
§s her lord: ts a picture ofthe restoration of Israel and part of the future, national hope and
promise, ef. W. Echrodt, Der Prophet Hesekiel. Gitingen 1966 (Das Alte Testament Deutsch
22), 383-8; Bousst, Religion des Judensums‘ 269 fn.1; Huligird, ANRW IL 19,1, 344 with
{n.160; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 1972, 18. Egyplin influence has been thought of here by
M. Gog, in: NewesBibellexikon,e4, by M, Gérg/B, Lang, vol, Zirich 1991, 200.
36 Revised Standard Version. The new element here is thatthe sinners will lso arse in order
be punished forthe way that they live, f. Hultgird, ANRW IL 19,1, 542
37 Translation by Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis 103, except for tannin which he translates by
" On the meaning of rannin see GR. Driver, "Mythological Monsters in the Old
* In Studi orientalistci in onore di G, Levi della Vida, Roma 1956, 1 242-8. Cf
also below under 7
38 “And it will happen that when all uhat which should come to pass in these parts has been
accomplished, the Anointed One will begin to be revealed, And Behemoth wil reveal isef
from its place, and Leviathan will come from the sea, the two great monsters which I created
‘on the fifth day of ereation and which I shall have kept until tht time. And they will be
nourishment fr all who are lft” (FJ. Kip, “(Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch” In: Charlesworth
| THE SAVIOUR AND THE DRAGON 81
section, Sy*- Bar 30, atthe completion of the Messiah's coming, the resurrection
‘ies place and the souls of the just will be of one mind, foreach of them knows,
thatthe end of time has come. By contrast, those of the unjust will perish from
fea, for they realise thatthe time of their punishment has arrive.
1a dragon who is to be defeated in the course of the eschatological events plays
~gyole also in chapter 20.1-3 of the Apocalypse of St. John: The “old dragon” (6
‘6 Gpyotios, 20.1) is identified with Satan, the Devil. The angel comes down
from heaven having the key to the abyss, the underworld, and a chain in his hands
jn order to fetter the dragon. The angel throws the dragon into the abyss and locks
itthere for a thousand years to protect the other creatures from his deceits.*® Then
the dragon is freed again fora short time (nerd tara det Aviva adtov puxpov
voy, 20.3) so that it may take part in the great final struggle in which it is
Aecisively defeated. The two types of Messianic expectation, the Jewish national
hhope and the eschatological universal one, are combined in the image of the
‘Messianic kingdom on earth lasting fora thousand years, and described in Rev.20.4~
6° Then comes the judgement, and death is thrown into the lake of fire (20.10).
There is a new heaven and a new earth (21.1), in which will be no more death,
suffering or pain (21.4). Thus, here, too, the defeat of the dragon is connected with
judgement, resurrection of the dead and the beginning of a new era in which death
and all other evil are no more*’
(4), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, 1983, 630). On the date ofthe Syriae Baruch cf
Klip, ibd. 616. On the tradition that Leviathan has become the food of God's people cf. H.
Wildberger,Jesaja 13-27, 1978, 1002.
39 Cf, Huligird, ANRW I! 19,1, 538. Similarly 1 Enoch 10.4-6: Raphael binds Azaz’el and throws
him into a hole inthe desert, where covered by sharp and rugged rocks he must stay until the
‘reat jadgement in order to be thrown into the abyss of fire. In 1 Enoch 54.1~6 the hordes of,
‘Azaz°el are bound with ion chains of immense weight and thrown into the buring abyss of
‘complete condemnation, And on te “great day of judgement they willbe cast into the furnace
offre” by the angels Michael, Gabriel, Raphacl and Phanvel, because they served Satan and
led astray the people on the earth (Isaac in Charlesworth (ed), Pseudepigrapha 117 and 38).
40 E. Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, In: Das Neve Testament Deutsch, vplIV, Gotingen
1968, 100f.: “In dieser Erwartung des Zwischenreiches sind 2wei verschiedene Formen
eschatologischer HofToung miteinande verbunden worden. Nach der teen Vorstellung sollte
der Messias als endzeilicher Konig kommen, der das Reich Davids wiederhersellen und Isral
‘uhervlichem Glanz emporfubren wird. la det Apokalypik aber bidet sich daneben eine ganz
andere Auffassung von der zktnfigen Heiszcit aus: Vom Himmel wird der gotliche Gesandte
der Menschensohn, erscheinen, bei seiner Ankunft werden die Toten auferstetien und alle
Menschen vor seinen Richterstul treten missen. Die altere nationale Hoffnung suchte man
‘pller mit der universalen Eschatologie 2u verkndpfen, indem das Reich des Messiaskbnigs
vor das Ende der Welt und den Anbruch des neuen Aons gesetzt wurde.” The eschatological
Messiah shares many tits Wit the Iranian Victorious Sao8yan, the messenger of Ahura Maza
(119.92,
41. Furthermore, in the Avesta the Saofyant is described asthe “‘messenger” (ait) of Ahura Mazda
(Yt 199), Inthe myth related i the book of Revelation it is also the angel (Gk. Sos
messenger’) who binds the dragon, and also inthe Assurptio Mosis 10.2 where God has his
messenger, his angel, whom he sends to fight the enemies, A messenger of Yahweh is first 82 ALMUT HINTZE
Bousset, Religion des Judentums* 516 has drawn a parallel between the myth
fromthe Book of Revelation 20.1-3 and one known from the Avesta and Pahlavi
Tierature: the dragon Dahakca," an incamation of Evil, already mentioned above
deraection with the weapon ofthe SaoSyant Astwua.arata is overcome by te
in commatiaona (Pal, Freddn. Inthe Avestan sources the dragon is killed by
mere stnona, but in the Pahlavi ones itis said thatthe hero only fettered the dragon
set pourtd him at Mount Demawend*? until the renovation of the world when
acy RirsSsp wil arise and slay him: Bd 29.9, K 20 fol1234.19 — fol 123%. 1,
ae NNW bowr?ap KRYTWNd ZNHL-c YMLLWN": (20) (IK pronen °MT- dik
‘BR? SHDWNt pt kwktn’ (1) L? Pyyst 7P-§ HR pt’ kup ¥ cdwm?wnd'S BR? bst
iDahdg ke Bewarasp hwanénd tris gdwad (gowed?) ki Frédin bat Dahag be
teri pad kudtan né Kayes w-5pas pad kafi Dumdwand be bast “OC OS ‘whom
Frey call Béwarasp, this, oo, itsay, that Frédan when he captured Dane wos
aie, coll him, and afterwards bound him at Mount Demawand.” When the gon
ae enerad, Krstop arses, sites and sla him. The sory i told in more deta!
a an tend 9.21 8-10. In contrast with te passage inthe Bundahisn just quoted,
dane not said that Frédon was not able to Kill the dragon, which would not be
Mery honourable fora hero, but that after striking Dab with his cv pon
yee rer near and even skull the dragon didnot die. Then Fréd6n took his sword
are hacked att with three blows. But various kinds of noxious creature came OW
ae oody so that the eretor Ohrid, fearing thatthe earth would become Fut
of serpents, toads, scorpions, lizard, tortoises, and frogs asked Freon 10 Sort and
cea ragon with awful feters and imprison i” Then atthe coming ofthe
Tpumoned in Malachi 3.1-6 and in his context the fie ordeals alluded 0, Here already Boos
Religion des Judenrurs* 813 f.1 has noticed a Persian affinity.
«et tal on Ati Dehaka hasbeen gatbered and discussed in a mastery acl by Skiers
Encyclopaedia Iranica Il, 1989, 191-9.
ea epee 5, Oxford 180, rep. Debi 1977, 119. Tis try i uo rated in Deland
Cr noo 9.152 ("and for that which happens when owing to confinement, Dai becomes
care aes on forthe destruction ofthe word, and attempts he aniston of he moe
ca ce) Is our to site ia, and to tare that powertliend for te word Sv!
ae ese SBE 37, 1892, 198-8), Ayakiri mask 4.28. Cf Holigird, ANRW 1119.1
539; Skjervo, Encycl Iran. I, 1989, 19.
444, DH 2160 ff, TDI: 83v17-S4r10, Anklesaria 254
Hee putin pad atest in DH but missing n K2, it mers ht he ea Oa
rRotahag was fetered at Mount Demawend, tay be assmed that the dragon 8 tethered
Ara eae volcanic Mount Demawend Te story could well be an etiological le
explaining voleani eruptions
146 Tae fn hnd has deeloped from amore archaic dvnb"wnd, a the name of the mous
Free the trlingual SopOrsciption from the hid cemary and in ea 0
rete in the Bunda, cf. Eis, “Der Name Demand.” Archit 7 iendint 22
= wh fn.33; Geograpische Namengebng in and Iran chen 1982+
43
47 Cf. West, SBE 37, 1892, 214 THE SAVIOUR AND THE DRAGON 83
‘Saoiyant,* the hero Kirsasp is resurrected and finally slays the dragon,*
‘Phil at the coming of So8yans, the third SaoSyant, resurrection of the dead takes
The description of these events forms the final section of the Bahman Yast,
Fee it is recounted that nine thousand years after the death of Frédon, Ahriman
fall of hatred goes to Mount Demawand and shouts to Bewarasp (= Azdahag) that
jhe should rise up and come out into this world full of people. The dragon, being
tmnable to loosen the fetters and still fearing that Frédon might appear again, is
freed by Ahriman. After the fetters are removed, Azdahag’s vigour and impetuosity
increase tremendously. First it swallows Ahriman, and then rushes into the world
‘perpetrate sin and swallow one-third of mankind, cattle, sheep, and other
creatures of Ohrmazd; and it smites water, fire, and vegetation. Afterwards, the
‘water, fire, and vegetation stand before Ohrmazd the lord in lamentation and ask
him to make Frédon alive again so that he might destroy Azdahag; otherwise the
fire could not heat, and the water could not flow. And then Ohrmazd the creator
‘asks Srosh and the angel Neryosang to go to the hero Kirsasp and shake his body
until he rises up. Three times they utter acry, and the fourth time Kirsasp rises up
triumphantly, and goes to meet Azdahag. Azdahdg asks for mercy, but the hero
‘does not listen, and strikes the dragon with his club on the head, and kills it. With
the killing of Azdahag evil is removed from this world and a new millennium
starts. Then So8yans comes and makes the creatures pure again, the resurrection
takes place, and future existence begins.™°
‘The similarities between these two stories are so striking that the myth alluded
to in the Book of Revelation may have been developed on an Iranian model.*!
‘A parallel to the Iranian dragon Ai Dahaka has also been recognized in the
horrible fourth animal described in Daniel 7.728, whose cruel reign is brought to
anend with the coming of the “Son of Man.”S? The animal is killed and its body
thrown into the fire (Daniel 7.11ff.). Although here it is the “old man” who
annihilates the monster, the passage contains a parallel to the Iranian myth in so
far as the annihilation ofthe dragon immediately precedes the coming of the "Son
‘of Man” who ushers in a new age and whose rule has no end (Daniel 7.13-14,
48 On the tiplication of the Saoiyant see Boyce, History I 284, 290, II 2424; BSOAS 47,
1984, 676
T1941, | 49 Paki.Riv.Dd. 18125, ed, A.V. Williams, The Pahlavi Riodyat Accompanying the Dadestan 1
Dénig, 2 Parts, Copenhagen 1990, cf. ibid. I p.161fF. with references. The myth ofthe dragon
here is Iranian, not Babylonian, as Bousset 516 thinks, and inherited from the Indo-European
period, ef. C.Watkins, “How to kill a Dragon in Indo-Europaen.” Sudies in Memory of Warren
Cowgill ed. by C. Watkins, BerlyNew York 1987, 270-299, On the legend of Kerasaspe
Boyce, History 1 100-4
80 B.T. Anklesara, (ed. and tr.) Zand-f Vohinan Yasn and Two Pahlavi Fragments. Bombay
1919 [1957], chap IX, 14-23; cf West, SBE 5, 1880, 234-S; Cereti 1995.
SI Although the Pablavi books date only from the ninth century ce, the material contained in
‘them is much older, f. eg. Huligard, ANRW IL 19,1, 17E.
52 CF. Ed, Meyer, Urspringe und Anfiinge des Chrstentuns vol, Stutigar/Berlin *1924 (repr.
Darmstadt 1962), 199; A. von Gall, BAEAEIA TOY @EOY, Heidelberg 1926, 267, ef Huligird,
ANRW IL 19,1, 1979, 5326.98,
is that
sthered
cal tale
>untain
orks, a6
lint 22,
11982, 4 Pahlavi Dictionary, London 1971, 17 ¢
84 ALMUT HINTZE,
27) Also in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 39 a “fourth kingdom” is described,
‘whose cruel reign is put an end to by the Messiah (39.7). The lastruler of this cruel
kingdom is fettered, taken to Mount Zion, questioned by the Lord's Messiah about
all his evil deeds, and killed by the Messiah (40.1). Then the elect people will be
‘assembled around the Messiah and his rule will last until the end of this world
(40.1-3). Although here the Messiah isthe desired political, national king of Israel,
the vision contains elements of the eschatological myth.
“Thus we find the dragon not only in the Avestan and Pahlavi descriptions of the
Renovation of the world, but also in the Jewish and Christian sources.
7. Semitic tannin “monster” in Pahlavi?
In Js.27.1 Leviathan is also called tannin “sea monster." In Ugaritic mythology,
too, Leviathan (here: Loran) is described as mn withthe same epithets as Leviathan
in Is.27.1.5 Skjgervo® remarks that the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew tannin is used
by Ibn an-Nadim in a Manichaean context in his description of the Evil Spirit.”
‘Also in Manichaean texts one of Ahriman’s physical forms is that of a dragon
Gannin) 5 But the references to two possible atestations of the Semitic zannn in
Pahlavi, possibly even referring to Azdahdg, are unfortunately very uncertain: A
form *TNYN? [tannindj has been restored by Henning, “Two Manichaean Magical
Tents,” BSOAS 12, 1947, 42 (= SelPap. 11276) from a transmitted form It TNN?
(vel sim.) in Pahl.Riv.D4.9.3 (= Dhabhar p.22, line 10), The context is the
description of the merit of religious services, especially of the drdn service. It is
Said that the spirit ofthe drén is able to fight Ahriman and the demons of darkness
sand he strikes them into the earth cygwn’ ~*M® bikwe “like a .. griffin.” Since
'53.On te interpretation ofthe “Son of Man” in this passage andthe origin ofthe image cf Hugi,
‘ibid. 535
‘54 1s27.1; fan 299 “he killed the sea monster,” L Koehle/W. Baumgarmer, Hebrdisches wd
rcdisehes Lexikon zum Alten Testament, voLTV, 3d edition rv. by 1. Stamm, Leiden 1990,
To2d: WH. Schmidt, Die Schopfangsgeschichte der Priesterschri. WMANT 17, 71967, 122.
“This word for “dragon” is well attested in Semitic Ianguages, including Mandsic, ser E'S.
DroweriR, Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford 1963, 480
55 Cf Wildbergr, Jesaja 13-27, 1978, 1002; Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis 107 with fn.78.
1536 Skjervs Encyclopaedia lranica 1, 1989, 198.
‘57 Fehres, transl. by B. Dodge, New York/London 1970, 11778.
38. HJ, Polotsy/ B. BOhlig (eds), Kephalaia. Erste Halfte (Manichtische Handschriften den
Stanlichen Museen, Bd). Stutigart 1940, p 3033-31. (eference kindly provided by Professor
|W. Sunderman).
$0 fhathut/ i wansated as “griffin” by Bailey, Zor Probl, 2ad ed. xaxili, MacKenzie. A Concise
syphon"), and Boyce, A Word List of Manichaean
Middle Persian and Parthian, Teheran/Libge. 1977, 74 (: Man, MPers. pigwe), The rendering
«ofthis very rare word as “griffin” or “monster like a griffin” is based on a series of word i
‘her langeages such as e.g. Armenian paskué which wansats yoy of the Sepwagint, se
Henning, BSOAS 12, 1947, 41-43 (# SlPap. 11 275-7), However, im all languages ex<
