Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1’isthoq as the original of this form of Isaac. 5 Sans. has ‘his whole-blood brother’s son.’ * Assuming that Paz. shé stands for Pahl. gas-1, both here and in § 49. Nér. seems to have understood it as Ar. say, ‘ somewhat.’ [24] Q 226 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. ‘I will not taste zt, because z¢ is not from paradise, and is not pure.’ 48. Then Abraham gave assurance thus: ‘The wine is pure from paradise, and Isaac, who is my son, brought z¢” 49. Thereupon the Lord, oz account of his freedom from doubt in Isaac, and the assurance gzven by Abraham, tasted the wine one time. 50. Afterwards, when he wished to go, he was not allowed until one of them ad sworn ¢o the other by a serious oath’. ' 51. Observe this twaddle full of delusion; not “even a single detaz/ is adapted to a sacred being. 52. In what way was his coming in bodily form to the abode of Abraham and eating bread, of which not even a single defaz/ is adapted to him? 53. This, too, is evident from it, that the suffering of Abraham was not? from the Lord, but from another producer. 54. And even the faultiness*? which was owing to his want of understanding of knowledge was such, that the purity of the wine and whence z¢ came were not known by him. 55. His falsity zs also seen zm this, when he spoke of not drinking the wine, and a¢ last drank z¢. 56. Afterwards he is confessing that it is genuine amd pure. 57. Now, how is he worthy of worship, as a divinity that is all-knowing and almighty, whose nature is this ? 58. And another place states that ¢here was one of the sick who, with his own wife and child, was 1 This tale is perhaps to be sought in the Talmud. * Reading 14 instead of raf. By reading the latter Nér. has “the suffering, which was for Abraham, was from the Lord,’ which is inconsistent with the context. 5 Assuming that Paz. bavani (Sans. vaikalyam) stands for Pahl. zifanth, which seems more probable than supposing it to be a miswriting of Paz, dewanagi, ‘folly.’ CHAPTER XIV, 48-72. 227 particularly ome that was suffering, poor, azd without a stipend. 59. AZ all times he was very diligent and active in prayer and fasting and the worship of the sacred being. 60. And one day, in prayer, he secretly begged a favour thus: ‘Give me any enjoyment that is in daily food (rézth), (61) that it may be easier for me to live.’ ) 62. And an angel came down unto him and spoke thus: ‘The sacred being has not allotted thee, through the constellations’, more daily food than this, (63) ad it is not possible to allot anew; (64) but, as a recompense for worship and prayer, a throne whose four feet are of jewels is appointed. for thee in heaven (vahist) by me, (65) and, if it be necessary, I wzd/ give unto thee one foot of that throne.’
2for thee in heaven (vahist) by me, (65) and, if it be necessary, I wzd/ give unto thee one foot of that throne.’ 66. That exalter of the apostles enquired of his own wife, (67) avd the unfortunate ove spoke thus: ‘Jt zs better for us to be content with the scanty daily food and bad living in the worldly existence, (68) than if our throne, among our companions in heaven, #ad three feet; (69) but if it may occur to thee then appoint us a day’s food by another mode.’ 70. A¢ the second coming of that angel he spoke thus: ‘But if I dissipate the celestial sphere, and produce the sky azd earth anew, and construct and produce the motion of the stars anew, s¢z// thenceforth z¢ is not clear whether thy destiny w2// fall out good or bad 2’ 71. From this statement z¢ is, therefore, manifest that he is not himself the appointer of daily food and supreme, (72) distribution is not by his will, 1 Of the zodiac (see Mkh. XII, 5, 6, 8). * This tale is probably from the same source as the last. Q2 228 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. he is not able to alter destiny, (73) and the revolution of the ce/estzal sphere, the sun and moon and stars, is not within the compass of his knowledge, will, and command. 74. Azd also this, that the throne, as to which z¢ was announced (nivikinid) thus: ‘I w2d? give z¢ in heaven,’ is not of his formation and creation. 75. And ¢# another place he speaks about his own twaddle (76) thus: ‘I ave slain, 7 one day}, an assemblage (ram) of sinners, as well as innumerable innocents.’ 77. 4d when the angels talked much of the unreasonable performance, he then spoke of it thus: ‘I am the Lord, the ruler of wills, (78) superintending, unrivalled, and doing my own will, and no one assists ov is to utter a murmur (drengisn6d) about me®.’ 79. Especially abundant is the twaddle that is completely delusive, which as seemed to me tedious to write. 80. Whoever would investigate the backward opinions of these statements, should be, for that purpose of his, a high-priest speaking candidly (Az4a), (81) until he becomes aware of the nature of the same scripture, and of the truth of that which is stated by me. 82. Now if he de a sacred being, of whom these are signs and tokens, that zmples that truth is far from him, (83) forgiveness strange to him, (84) and knowledge is not bestowed upon him. 85. Because this itself is the fiend who is leader of the hell which Assuming that Paz. zumaé is a corruption of gumé (see Chap. IV, rox n) and stands for Huz. y6m-1. But it may mean ‘the whole of.’ ? This seems to be quoted from the same source as the two preceding tales, CHAPTER XIV, 73—XV, 8. 229 is the den (gréstak) of the gloomy race, (86) whom the devilish defiled ones and evil people glorify by the name of the Lord, and offer 42m homage. 87. About this subject is here complete. CuHapTerR XV. 1. Another ¢kzng I publish is a feeble story (nisang) about the inconsistency, unbounded statements, and incoherent disputations of Christian
387. About this subject is here complete. CuHapTerR XV. 1. Another ¢kzng I publish is a feeble story (nisang) about the inconsistency, unbounded statements, and incoherent disputations of Christian (Tars4k) believers. ’ 2, Since, inasmuch as all three! are from the one origin of Judaism—(3) that zmplying that, when anything is said within the one, it is for them mutually helping their own delusion of every kind—(4) you should know whence the original sect of Christianity came forth. 5. That in the town of Jerusalem? ¢here was a woman of the same Jews who was known for incapacity®, (6) azd pregnancy became manifest in her‘. 7. When asked by them thus: ‘Whence is this pregnancy of thine?’ (8) she said in reply thus: ‘The angel Gabriel® came unto me, and he spoke thus: “Thou art pregnant by the pure wind (holy 6799 spirit)®. 1 The three defects mentioned in § 1. ? Nér. reads Hurfisarm for Pahl. Afirfisalem. 8 Sans. has ‘ misconduct,’ but this is more than Pahl. disazakth seems to imply. , * «Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost’ (Mat. i. 18). 5 Pahl. Gépril is misread Sparagar by Nér. These two names would be written alike in Pahlavi. *¢The angel Gabriel was sent from God .. . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph... and the angel 230 SIKAND-GOMANEK VIGAR. 9. As to that, you should observe thus: ‘Who, apart from that woman, saw the angel Gabriel? And on what account is it expedient to consider that woman truthful?’ 10. If they say that, on account of the spiritual state of that angel, no one is able to see Azm, (11)-that zmples—if the cause of ‘not seeing that angel be zs spiritual nature—¢hat . the sight of that woman also, for the same reason, is not unrestricted. 12. If they say that the sacred being made 42m visible to that woman, and on account of the worthiness of that woman, (13) no other person deng made worthy, (14) odserve this, where is the evidence that the woman spoke truthfully ? 15. Or, if that woman were conspicuous to any one for truth, it is fitting for him to demonstrate that also to other persons, so that, through that evidence, she might be more fully considered as very truthful by them. 16. But now the showing of him (the angel), to that woman only, is not considered dy any one as true. 17. Now you should also observe ¢hat the origin of their religion Aas all come forth from this testimony of a woman, which was given by her about her own condztzon. 18. Odserve, again, that if they say the Messiah arose from the pure wind of the sacred being, that tmplies—if the only wind that is pure azd from the sacred being be that one—that the other wind, which is distinct from that, is not from the sacred being and not pure, (19) avd another producer is manifested inevitably. 20. If the wind be all from answered and said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1’isthoq as the original of this form of Isaac. 5 Sans. has ‘his whole-blood brother’s son.’ * Assuming that Paz. shé stands for Pahl. gas-1, both here and in § 49. Nér. seems to have understood it as Ar. say, ‘ somewhat.’ [24] Q 226 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. ‘I will not taste zt, because z¢ is not from paradise, and is not pure.’ 48. Then Abraham gave assurance thus: ‘The wine is pure from paradise, and Isaac, who is my son, brought z¢” 49. Thereupon the Lord, oz account of his freedom from doubt in Isaac, and the assurance gzven by Abraham, tasted the wine one time. 50. Afterwards, when he wished to go, he was not allowed until one of them ad sworn ¢o the other by a serious oath’. ' 51. Observe this twaddle full of delusion; not “even a single detaz/ is adapted to a sacred being. 52. In what way was his coming in bodily form to the abode of Abraham and eating bread, of which not even a single defaz/ is adapted to him? 53. This, too, is evident from it, that the suffering of Abraham was not? from the Lord, but from another producer. 54. And even the faultiness*? which was owing to his want of understanding of knowledge was such, that the purity of the wine and whence z¢ came were not known by him. 55. His falsity zs also seen zm this, when he spoke of not drinking the wine, and a¢ last drank z¢. 56. Afterwards he is confessing that it is genuine amd pure. 57. Now, how is he worthy of worship, as a divinity that is all-knowing and almighty, whose nature is this ? 58. And another place states that ¢here was one of the sick who, with his own wife and child, was 1 This tale is perhaps to be sought in the Talmud. * Reading 14 instead of raf. By reading the latter Nér. has “the suffering, which was for Abraham, was from the Lord,’ which is inconsistent with the context. 5 Assuming that Paz. bavani (Sans. vaikalyam) stands for Pahl. zifanth, which seems more probable than supposing it to be a miswriting of Paz, dewanagi, ‘folly.’ CHAPTER XIV, 48-72. 227 particularly ome that was suffering, poor, azd without a stipend. 59. AZ all times he was very diligent and active in prayer and fasting and the worship of the sacred being. 60. And one day, in prayer, he secretly begged a favour thus: ‘Give me any enjoyment that is in daily food (rézth), (61) that it may be easier for me to live.’ ) 62. And an angel came down unto him and spoke thus: ‘The sacred being has not allotted thee, through the constellations’, more daily food than this, (63) ad it is not possible to allot anew; (64) but, as a recompense for worship and prayer, a throne whose four feet are of jewels is appointed. for thee in heaven (vahist) by me, (65) and, if it be necessary, I wzd/ give unto thee one foot of that throne.’
2for thee in heaven (vahist) by me, (65) and, if it be necessary, I wzd/ give unto thee one foot of that throne.’ 66. That exalter of the apostles enquired of his own wife, (67) avd the unfortunate ove spoke thus: ‘Jt zs better for us to be content with the scanty daily food and bad living in the worldly existence, (68) than if our throne, among our companions in heaven, #ad three feet; (69) but if it may occur to thee then appoint us a day’s food by another mode.’ 70. A¢ the second coming of that angel he spoke thus: ‘But if I dissipate the celestial sphere, and produce the sky azd earth anew, and construct and produce the motion of the stars anew, s¢z// thenceforth z¢ is not clear whether thy destiny w2// fall out good or bad 2’ 71. From this statement z¢ is, therefore, manifest that he is not himself the appointer of daily food and supreme, (72) distribution is not by his will, 1 Of the zodiac (see Mkh. XII, 5, 6, 8). * This tale is probably from the same source as the last. Q2 228 SIKAND-GOMANIK VIGAR. he is not able to alter destiny, (73) and the revolution of the ce/estzal sphere, the sun and moon and stars, is not within the compass of his knowledge, will, and command. 74. Azd also this, that the throne, as to which z¢ was announced (nivikinid) thus: ‘I w2d? give z¢ in heaven,’ is not of his formation and creation. 75. And ¢# another place he speaks about his own twaddle (76) thus: ‘I ave slain, 7 one day}, an assemblage (ram) of sinners, as well as innumerable innocents.’ 77. 4d when the angels talked much of the unreasonable performance, he then spoke of it thus: ‘I am the Lord, the ruler of wills, (78) superintending, unrivalled, and doing my own will, and no one assists ov is to utter a murmur (drengisn6d) about me®.’ 79. Especially abundant is the twaddle that is completely delusive, which as seemed to me tedious to write. 80. Whoever would investigate the backward opinions of these statements, should be, for that purpose of his, a high-priest speaking candidly (Az4a), (81) until he becomes aware of the nature of the same scripture, and of the truth of that which is stated by me. 82. Now if he de a sacred being, of whom these are signs and tokens, that zmples that truth is far from him, (83) forgiveness strange to him, (84) and knowledge is not bestowed upon him. 85. Because this itself is the fiend who is leader of the hell which Assuming that Paz. zumaé is a corruption of gumé (see Chap. IV, rox n) and stands for Huz. y6m-1. But it may mean ‘the whole of.’ ? This seems to be quoted from the same source as the two preceding tales, CHAPTER XIV, 73—XV, 8. 229 is the den (gréstak) of the gloomy race, (86) whom the devilish defiled ones and evil people glorify by the name of the Lord, and offer 42m homage. 87. About this subject is here complete. CuHapTerR XV. 1. Another ¢kzng I publish is a feeble story (nisang) about the inconsistency, unbounded statements, and incoherent disputations of Christian
387. About this subject is here complete. CuHapTerR XV. 1. Another ¢kzng I publish is a feeble story (nisang) about the inconsistency, unbounded statements, and incoherent disputations of Christian (Tars4k) believers. ’ 2, Since, inasmuch as all three! are from the one origin of Judaism—(3) that zmplying that, when anything is said within the one, it is for them mutually helping their own delusion of every kind—(4) you should know whence the original sect of Christianity came forth. 5. That in the town of Jerusalem? ¢here was a woman of the same Jews who was known for incapacity®, (6) azd pregnancy became manifest in her‘. 7. When asked by them thus: ‘Whence is this pregnancy of thine?’ (8) she said in reply thus: ‘The angel Gabriel® came unto me, and he spoke thus: “Thou art pregnant by the pure wind (holy 6799 spirit)®. 1 The three defects mentioned in § 1. ? Nér. reads Hurfisarm for Pahl. Afirfisalem. 8 Sans. has ‘ misconduct,’ but this is more than Pahl. disazakth seems to imply. , * «Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost’ (Mat. i. 18). 5 Pahl. Gépril is misread Sparagar by Nér. These two names would be written alike in Pahlavi. *¢The angel Gabriel was sent from God .. . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph... and the angel 230 SIKAND-GOMANEK VIGAR. 9. As to that, you should observe thus: ‘Who, apart from that woman, saw the angel Gabriel? And on what account is it expedient to consider that woman truthful?’ 10. If they say that, on account of the spiritual state of that angel, no one is able to see Azm, (11)-that zmples—if the cause of ‘not seeing that angel be zs spiritual nature—¢hat . the sight of that woman also, for the same reason, is not unrestricted. 12. If they say that the sacred being made 42m visible to that woman, and on account of the worthiness of that woman, (13) no other person deng made worthy, (14) odserve this, where is the evidence that the woman spoke truthfully ? 15. Or, if that woman were conspicuous to any one for truth, it is fitting for him to demonstrate that also to other persons, so that, through that evidence, she might be more fully considered as very truthful by them. 16. But now the showing of him (the angel), to that woman only, is not considered dy any one as true. 17. Now you should also observe ¢hat the origin of their religion Aas all come forth from this testimony of a woman, which was given by her about her own condztzon. 18. Odserve, again, that if they say the Messiah arose from the pure wind of the sacred being, that tmplies—if the only wind that is pure azd from the sacred being be that one—that the other wind, which is distinct from that, is not from the sacred being and not pure, (19) avd another producer is manifested inevitably. 20. If the wind be all from answered and said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.