Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T14:20:18.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the antiquity of Zoroastrian apocalyptic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Extract

‘Apocalyptic’, it has been pointed out, ‘is only another word for “revelation”, and apocalyptist for “revealer”. Essentially, therefore, prophecy and apocalyptic [are] identical.’ Prophecy in its turn has been defined as ‘the declaration of knowledge which cannot be apprehended through the ordinary faculties, but is acquired either by revelation from a deity or by some other mantic power inherent in te seer himself’. Through the accidents of history a distinction came to be drawn by students of Jewish sacred literature between ancient prophecy and later apocalyptic, the latter flourishing in the intertestamental period; and in the Jewish tradition it is apocalyptic which, it has been said, ‘was the first to grasp the great idea that all history, alike human, cosmological and spiritual, is unity. … Apocalyptic sketched in outline the history of the world and of mankind, the origin of evil, its course, and inevitable overthrow, and the final consummation of all things’.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Charles, R. H., Religious development between the Old and the New Testament, London and New York, 1914, p. 14, n. 1Google Scholar

2 H. M., and Chadwick, N. K., The growth of literature, III, Cambridge, 1940, 705Google Scholar

3 Charles, op. cit., p. 24

4 Guillemin, J. Duchesne, The hymns of Zarathustra, transl. Henning, M., London, 1952, 18Google Scholar

5 Chadwick, op. cit., p. 791

6 Charles, op. cit., p. 17

7 Yasna 31.14, in the translation of Insler, S., The Gāthās of Zarathustra, Acta Iranca, 8, 1975, 41Google Scholar. This verse was cited in connexion with the late Zoroastrian apocalyptic text, the Zand ī Vahman YaŠt, by West, E. W., SBE, XXXVII, p. 181, n. 1Google Scholar

8 Cf. Lommel, H., Die Religion Zarathustras nach dem Awesta dargestellt, Tϋbingen, 1930, repr. 1971, 228–9Google Scholar

9 See Boyce, , A history of Zoroastriansim (Handbuch der Orientalistik, ed. Spuler, B., I.8.1.2.2A) I, Leiden, 1975, 293Google Scholar

10 Text in Geldner, K. F., Avesta, the Sacred Books of the Parsis, II, Stuttgart, 1889, 244Google Scholar, 256–8, with asterisked words emended according to Bartholomae, C., Altiranisches Wōrterbuch, Strassburg, 1904Google Scholar

11 See Humbach, H., IF, LXIII, 1957, p. 43, n.7Google Scholar

12 Against Isler's attractive interpretation of Gathic feraša-as‘healed, renovated’ (op. cit., p. 172) see Schmidt, H. P., IIJ, 21, 1979, 97–8Google Scholar

13 See Chadwick, op. cit., p. 847

14 Zand-Ākāsīh or Greater Bundahišn [ =EBd.], ed. and transl. by Anklesaria, B. T., Bombay, 1956, XXIX.5Google Scholar

15 On this name see Justi, F., Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895, repr. 1963, 1976, 253–4Google Scholar (under Piškyaoθna) and 251 (under Peschōtanu); Nyberg, H. S., MO, 1929, 345Google Scholar; Herzfeld, E.AMI, II, 1930, 57Google Scholar; Christensen, A., Les Kayanides, Copenhagen, 1931, 56Google Scholar

16 See Šāhnāme, Beroukhim edition, Tehran, 1314/1935, VI, p. 1497, II. 30–4; transl. A. G. and E. Warner, London, 1910, v, 32

17 ibid., text, VI, p. 1532, II. 638–40; transl., v, p. 66

18 Explicitly so described, ibid., text, VI, p. 1661, 1. 2927; p. 1685, 1. 3322; transl., v, pp. 196, 218

19 ibid., text, VI, p. 1591, II. 1633 ff.; text, v, 124 ff

20 ibid., text, VI, 1593– transl., v, 127

21 ibid., text, VI, 1713–14, 1720–1; transl., v, 244, 251–2

22 ibid., text, VI, p. 174, l. 4306; transl., v, 279

23 ibid., text, VI, p. 1754, ll. 98 ff.; p. 1755, ll. 124 ff.; text, v, 280, 290

24 ibid., text, VI, 1603–4; transl., v, 137–8

25 No stress could of course be laid on this in isolation, since both major and minor characters are apt simply to fade away in the early part of the epic, interwoven as this is of a tangle of minstrels' tales; cf. Boyce, M., ‘Some remarks on the transmission of the Kayanian heroiccycle’, Serta Cantabrigiensia, Mainz, 1954, 50Google Scholar

26 See Rosenberg, F., ed. and transl., Le livre de Zoroastre (Zarātusht Nāma), St Petersburg, 1904, text, p. 2Google Scholar, 11. 14 ff.; transl., 2

27 ibid., p. xxxi. A small but striking testimony to his faithfulness to his original is the fact that he makes a clear allusion to the ancient doctrine of the Amešasapand Šshrevar's link with the sky, a doctrine generally lost sight of latterly, see text, p. 34, 1. 661; transl., 36

28 Text, 57 ff.; transl., 56 ff

29 Text, 57 ff.; transl., 58. On the terminology and nature of this service see Boyce, M. and Kotwal, F., ‘Zoroastrian bāj and drō—I’, BSOAS, XXXIV, 1, 1971, 63 ffGoogle Scholar

30 Text, p. 61, 1. 1174; transl., 60; cf. his fixed epithet of ‘Royīntan’ in the epic. Despite the use of this epithet, Isfandiyār's invulnerability is only sporadically stressed in the Šāhnāme, where the Avestan hero is made to succmb at last to the non-Avestan Rustam. A recent study of the Šāhnāme treatment has been made by omidsalar, M., ‘Isfandiyar and the question of his invulnerability’, Iran Nameh a Persian Journal of iranian Studies (published by the Foundation for iranian Studies, Washington, D.C.), I, 1983, 254–81Google Scholar (Persian text) with English abstract, pp. 319–20

31 Text, p. 61, 1, 1170; transl., 60

32 Dk, VII.5.12, see Molé, M., La légende de zoroastre selon les textes pehlevis, Paris, 1967Google Scholar, 64/65

33 On the well-established phenomenon of the ‘heroisation’ of a priestly tradition see Chadwick, op. cit., I, 1932, 134; and further, in particular connexion with Iran and the Kayaniancycle, Boyce, Serta Cantabrigiensia, 46 ff

34 For lists of the Iranian Immortals, with varying numbers and names, see Christensen, Les Kayanides, 153–6

35 loc. cit. in n. 32

36 For a table of the family relationships see Christensen, op. cit., p. 70

37 dādestān ī dēnīg, Pursišn 89.5; text in Anklesaria, P. K. (ed.), A critical edition of the unedited portion of the Dādestān-ī dīnīk, unpulished London thesis, 1958, 173Google Scholar; cf. West, E. W., SBE, XVIII, 257Google Scholar. For other references to the building of Kangdiz by Syāvaxš see G Bd. XXXII.5; Dk. VII.1.38, ed. Madan, 598.15–20 (Molé, Légende de Zoroastre, 10/11); Mēnōg ī Xrad (MX) XXVII. 57 ed. and transl. by E. W. West, stuttgart/london, 1871, 32/159; Zand ī Vahman Yašt (ZVYt.), ed. and transl. by B. T. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1957, VII.19, 20; Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg (AJ), ed. and transl. by Messina, G., Rome, 1939, VII.2Google Scholar; Pahl Riv Dd. (ed. Dhabhar, B. N., Bombay, 1913) XLIX.1Google Scholar; Šāhnāme, text, III, 617 ff.; IX, p. 2927, 1. 325; transl., II, 279 ff.; IX, 25

38 Otherwise Herzfeld, AMI, II, 1930, 56–8, who regarded Kangdiz as ‘vōlling mythisch’. An objection made to placing to placing Zoroaster at the merging of stone into bronze age his own people (see, with further references, Boyce, A history of Zoroastrianism, II, 1982, 1–3) has been that this means assigning Vištāspa's ancestors to a more fully stone age. But there is no fundamental problem in this, even though in the surviving tradition, from the Younger Avesta onwards, they are presented first as chariot-riding, i.e. Bronze Age, warriors, then, as horse-riding nobles of Arsacid and Sasanian times, clad in main and fighting in huge imperial armies, sometimes with a contingent of indian elephants (cf., e.g., Ayādgār ī Zarērān, 27). Oral traditions regularly alter the accidents of a story to fit social changes; cf. the immense alterations undergone, during a much shorter period of transmission, by the stories of the Romano-British King Arthur before these were set down by Mallory

39 Text, IV, p. 1271, 1. 2526; transl., IV, 134

40 Yt. V.54; See Bartholomae, Air. Wb., 437. Lommel's tentative suggestion (Die Yāšt's des Awesta, GÖttingen and leipzing, 1927, p. 36, n. 6) that dvara, might here mean not ‘Pas’ but ‘gate’ in the sense of ‘royal palace’, seems unlikely in so ancient a text. On the hilly nature of Karna/Kang (thoroughly confused in the Pahlavi texts with Kangdiz), cf. Yt. 19.4 (the mountain Antare.kaŋha); GBd. IX.3; Indian Bd. XII.3 (West, SBE, v, 34); Šāhnāme, text, IV, p. 1294, 1. 438 (kūh-i Gang), transl., IV, 162

41 Text, IV, p. 1318, 1. 894; transl., IV, 187

42 Text, IV, p. 1351, 1. 1545; transl., IV, 221

43 Text, IV, 1337–41; transl., IV, 207–11

44 In MX XXVII.62 one of the achivements of Kay Xosrow is the ‘ordering of Kangdiz’ (winārdan ī K.). Cf. G Bd. XXXII.12; AJ VII.2 (end). In late texts of the Islamic period one also finds, by confusion, the building of Kangdiz ascribed to Siyāvuš father, Kay Kaus, see Markwart, J., A catalogue of the provincial capitals of Eranshahr, ed. Messina, G., Rome, 1931, 27Google Scholar

45 AJ XVI.51

46 See Lincoln, B., ‘On the imagery of Paradise’, IF, 85, 1980, 151–64Google Scholar

47 See ibid., 159 ff., with references to earlier studies

48 Cited, with and transl., By Lincoln, art. cit., 163

49 On these see ibid., 159–62

50 See Sachau, E.C. (transl.), Alberuni's India, London, 1888, I, 304Google Scholar; Markwart, Provincial capitals, 27, 34. Syāvaxš' Kangdiz and Yima's var are juxtaposed in AJ VII.1–11

51 Above, p. 61 with n. 37

52 GBd., ed. Anklesaria, T.D., Bombay, 1908, 210.6–12Google Scholar; ed. B. T. Ankesaria, XXXII.12. On the opening formula see W. B. Henning, ‘An astronomical chapter of the Bundahishn’, JRAS, 1942, p. 231, n.8

53 VII.2–8, Messina, p. 49

54 The list is the same as in the G Bd. passage, except that copper (rōyēn) replaces lapis lazuli, and the order differs a little

55 XLIX.2–11, 13–15, ed. Dhabhar, pp. 159–61; following the transcription and translation of A. V. Williams, whi is preparing a new edition of the text. For the reference to the staling ass he compares Y. 41.25, G Bd. XXIV.d. Syāvašgird is another name for Kangdiz

56 cf. B. Lincoln, art. cit. in n. 46, pp. 151–2, 155, 157

57 GBd. XXIX. 10

58 Text, III, 615–17; transl., II, 277x2013;9

59 Text, ibid., p. 618, II. 1720 ff.; transl., ibid., 280 ff

60 Text, ibid., p. 619, II. 1733–4; transl., ibid., 290

61 Text, ibid., p. 619, II. 1739 ff.; transl., ibid., 290

62 Text, V. p. 1326, II. 1053 ff.; transl., IV, 195–6

63 Text, ibid., p. 1359, II. 1708 ff.; pp. 1373 ff.; transl., ibid., 230 ff., 245 ff

64 Text, ibid., p. 1377, I. 2047; transl., ibid., 249

65 Text, ibid., 1378 ff.; transl., ibid., 250 ff

66 Dk. IX.15.11; Sanjana, XVII, 38–39/31; Madan, p. 805, II. 8–11; West, SBE, XXXVII, 203. Wikander, S., Der arische Männerbund, Lund, 1938, 66, 96 ff., has written much on the banner, Av. drafša, as a symbol of military powerGoogle Scholar

67 GBd. XXXV.56; Indian Bd. XXXII.5 (West, SBE, V, 142). For another explanation of his presence there see Herzfeld, AMI, II, 57

68 This recurrent by-name still lacks a convincing explanation. On it see West, SBE, V, p. 117, n. 2; Herzfeld, AMI, II, 57

69 GBd. XXIX.6

70 ibid., 7. On the names of the first six ‘spiritual chiefs’ in this list see Darmesteter, J., Études iraniennes, Paris, 1883, II, 206–8Google Scholar; Boyce, Hist. Zoroastrianism, I, 284

71 From the ZVYt., ed. Anklesaria, B.T., as Zand-ī Vohūman Yasn, Bombay, 1957Google Scholar

72 cf. above, p. 58 (Yt. 19.96)

73 Represented by the extant Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg, XVI-XVII

74 See Chadwick, op. cit., I, pp. 451–3, n. 2; p. 473, n. 33; III, 844–6

75 ibid., I, 453

76 ibid., III. 844. Since this latter type of composition. i.e. vaticinatio ex eventu, is both ancient and widespread, it is impossible to accept the hypothesis advanced by J. Duchesne Guillemin, ‘Apocalypse juive et apocalypse iranienne’, La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' Impero Romano, ed. U. Bianchi and M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden, 1982. 753–61. that this literary genre was an invention of the Greeks, developed by the Jews in the Hellenistic period, and transmitted thereafter by them to Iran

77 The existence of the Zoroastrian millennial scheme, in connexion, it seems, with the Zurvanite heresy, is first attested through a quotation by Plutrach (Isis and Osiris, 47) from Theopompos, born 376 B.C. No trace, however, of a theory of recurrent cycles of events has been found in Babylonian cuneiform texts, see W. G. Lambert, ‘Berossus and Babylonian eschatology’, Iraq, 38, 1976, 171–3 (a reference I owe to the kindness of Dr. Amélie Kuhrt); so that this was possibly a development of Hellenistic times. On the dating of the preceding lines in Plutarch. which present a condensed summary of Iranian eschatological apocalyptic, see B. Lincoln, ‘“The Earth becomes Flat”-a study of apocalyptic imagery’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 25, 1983, 139–40 with n. 12

78 Nyberg, H.S., Die Religionen des Alten Iran, German transl. by Schaeder, H.H., Leipzig 1938, repr. 1966, 306Google Scholar

79 These are the names which are given, before Pišyoōtan's, in GBd. XXIX.2, cf. above, n. 70

80 It has been proposed to see the name of the first Saviour, UxšyaṯṠ.ƏrƏta, in ‘oxyartes’, the Greek rendering of an Iranian name borne by a noble at the time of Alexander's conquest, see C. Bartholomae, IF, IX. 1899, p. 266, n. 1; G. Messina, ‘II Saušyant- nella tradizione iranica e la sua attesa’, Orientalia, I, 1932, 170–1. It seems unlikely, however, that the doctrine of the three Saviours was established and already widely known in his parents' generation, i.e. in the first half of the fourth century. For other interpretations of the name see Justi, Namenbuch, 233 (followd by W. Hinz) and M. Mayrhofer, see the latter's Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. I.I, Die avestischen Namen (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), Vienna, 1977, no. 335; and F. Grenet, ‘L'onomastique iranienne à Aī Khanoum’, BCH, CVII, 1983, 378

81 See Eddy, S.K, The king is dead, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1961, 10 ffGoogle Scholar

82 For a characteristically judicious analysis of this text see E. W. West, SBE, v, lii-lv

83 Above, p. 66

84 ZVYt. IV.2

84 ZVYt. VII.19

86 ZVYt. IIV.27 ff

87 cf. Yt. 19, 95–6; GBd. XXXIV.27, in contrast to XXXIII.29; Pahl. riv. Dd. XLIX.18, where after his achievements at the end of the tenth millennium Pišyōtan ‘will fo back to Kang, until the time of Frašegird, the victory of Obrmazd and the Amahraspands, and the smiting and conquering and destroying of Ahriman and the miscreations of the dēvs’

88 ZVYt. IX.1 ff

89 ZVYt. IX.11

90 ZVYt. IX.24

91 See. in addition to ZVYt., AJ XVI.51; Zarātušt Nāme, Persian text, 77; transl., 78; GBd. XXXIII.28; Pahl. Riv. Dd. XLIX.18. In the condensed version given in Māh Fravardīn, rōz Hordād, 29, it is said simply that Pišyōtan ‘ will come from Kangdiz to Wrānšahr and make the Mazda-worshipping faith current’ (az Kangdiz ō Erānšahr āyēd ud dēn ī mazdēsn73x0101;n rawāg kunēd), see Jamasp-Asana, J. M. (ed.), The Pahlavi texts, II, Bombay, 1913, 105Google Scholar translit. and German transl. by Markwart, J., ‘Das Naurōz’, Dr. J. J. Modi Memorial Volume, Bombay, 1930Google Scholar. 750/1; but the next paragraph of this is devoted to the appearance of Ušēdar. Cf. also the reference in Dk. IX.41.6 to ‘the approach of Ušēdar ī Zardušt, when the just Čihr-mayān will arrive’

92 See Unvala, M.R. Dārāb Hormazyār's Rivāyat, II, Bombay, 1922, 379. 1516Google ScholarDhabhar, B.N., The Persiam rirayats of Hormazyar Framarz and others, Bombay, 1932, 599Google Scholar

93 I.6–II, III.19 ff

94 Persian text, 68 ff.; transl., 66 ff

95 See J. Duchesne-Guillemin, art. cit. in n. 76

96 Daniel 2.31 ff. (quoted here from the New English Bible)

97 Bickerman, E. J., Four strange books of the Bible, New York, 1967, 68Google Scholar cited by Duchesne-Guillemin, art. cit., pp. 758–9

98 Duchesne-Guillemin, loc. cit

99 Dk. IX.8.(7).I; text, sanjana, XVII, 12; K43b, fol. 23v, 1. 4

100 ZVYt. I.3, cf. III.19, 29 (so translated by B. T. Anklesaria)

101 L. 1344 (with Kumīxt rhyming with gurīxt); cf. 1. 1312 (when kumaxt rhymes with saxt)

102 Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 68

103 So duchesne-Guillemin, loc. cit

104 cf. Allan, J. W., Persian metal technology 700–1300 A. D, Oxford Oriental Monograph No. 2, London, 1979Google Scholar (a reference I owe to the kindness of my colleague Dr. A. D. H. Bivar)

105 ZVYt. III.26

106 For reasons why this was so see Boyce, , Zoroastrians their religious beliefs and practices, London, 1979, 116–17, 16173x2013;5Google Scholar

107 ZV Yt, III.25. On the deliberate interweaving of political with religious propaganda in the Sasanian period see, e.g., Boyce, op. cit., 126–8, 142

108 Destrée, Annette, ‘Quelques reflexions sur le héros des récits apocalyptiques persans et sur le mythe de la ville de cuivre’, in La Persia nel Medioevo, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, 1971, p. 649, n. 23Google Scholar

109 Dk. IX.8.4. The attempt made by Duchesne-Guillemin, art. cit. in n. 76, pp. 755, 757, to use this Dk. reference to Ādurbād to date the Sūdgar Nask itself to the fourth century A.D. is plainly ill-advised. The Dk. epitome derives from the MP Zand of the lost Avestan nask, and not from the Avestan original

110 ZV Yt. VII.26, 36–7; GBd. XXXIII. 28

111 On which see Boyce, M., ‘Iconoclasm among the Zoroastrians’, in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman cults, Studies for Morton Smith at sixty, ed. Neusner, J., Leiden, 1975, IV, 93111Google Scholar The same iconoclastic role is assigned in the ZV Yt. to Pišyōtan's kinsman and fellow Immortal, Kai Xosrow

112 Czeglédy, K., ‘Bahrām Čōbīn and the Persian apocalyptic literature’, Acta Orient Hung., VIII, 1958, 36Google Scholar

113 In the Persian Rivāyats (op.cit. in n. 92) the persian priests look for the coming of Pešōtan and ‘Bahrām the Strong (Hamāvand)’ together at the end of the present millennium, see Unvala, II, 390.8–9, Dhabhar, 606. On Bahrām Čōbīn and Sasanian apocalyptic see further Czeglédy, art. cit., and Destrée, art. cit. in n. 108

114 The lost Vahman Yašt may be presumed to have been a verse-text, like Yašt 19. That the Jāmāsp Nāmag was in verse first established by E. Benveniste, ‘Une apocalypse pehlevie: le žām73x0101;sp-Nāmak’, RHR, 106, 1932, 340 ff

115 Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, 3rd ed., ed. Gressmann, H., Tϋbingen. 1926, 480Google Scholar

116 For an admirably terse and lucid analysis of this usage see Cohn, Norman, ‘Medieval millenarism: its bearing on the comparative stude of millenarian movements’, in Millennial dreams in action: essays in comparative study, ed. Thrupp, S. L, The Hauge, 1962, 31Google Scholar

117 For a learned summary see ibid., 32–9; and cf. the fuller treatment in the introduction and conclusion to the 2nd ed. of his The Pursuit of the Millennium, Oxford, 1970

118 This though I owe to Professor Cohn himself, to whom I am indebted for illuminating discussions of this aspect of Zoroastrianism

119 To earlier studies of th linguistic evidence can be added that of Friedrich, P., Proto-Indo-European syntax, Butte, Montana, 1975, 44–6Google Scholar (cited by Lincoln, B., Priests, warriors and cattle, University of California Press, [1983], p. 49, n. 1Google Scholar). For the social evidence see recently Boyce, , ‘The bipartite society of the ancient Iranians’, in Societies and languages of the ancient Near East: studies in honour of I. M. Diakonoff, ed. Dandamayev, M. A. etal., LOndon, 1982, 33–7Google Scholar Against the views set out in this article it has been argued that the evidence for a tripartite division of proto-I.E. society is too strong to be set aside; and that, since various Indo-European peoples had attested tripartite social divisions from the Bronze Age onwards, a continuity can be assumed. But this is not necessarily the case. When the proto-Indo-Iranians moved out, it seems, on to the Inner Asian steppes they left apparently a farming for a semi-nomadic life; and nomads do not usually have rigid social divisions. Later steppe societies, in which everyone rode on horseback, were strikingly egalitarian: and even if the evidenc eof the Gāthās were lacking, it would be reasonable to suppose that carlier ones, in which everyine walked on foot, were equally so. The probability of a development from triparite proto-I.E. farming society > bipartite proto-Indo-Iranian pastoral society > tripartite Indo-Aryan and Iranian Bronze Age societies is strengthened by the lack of a common social terminology in the two latter groups

120 See most recently Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism, II, 3–4

121 Professor I. M. Diakonoff has stressed to me by letter that the Bronze Age war-chariot, with which the prophet seems to have been familiar, was not apparently known at least in Central Asia before c. 1400. The concept of weapons as being generically of stone could of course have persisted long after the first use of bronze weaponry. Indeed the relative scarcity and costliness of metal brought it about that even the Mongols used bone or horn arrowheads as well as ones of iron, see D. Sinor, ‘The Inner Asian Warrior’, JAOS, 101, 1981, 140. Nevertheless the other considerations already discussed make it seem unlikely that the prophet should be dated to later than c. 1400–1200 B.C