Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1VII, vii, 19), was born in the steel period (Dk. IX, viii, 4), and lived in the reign of king Shahpdhar II, son of Adharmazd (AV. p. 145 n), being high-priest over the religion (Dd. XX XVII, 36). He also collected and preserved the Nasks (Dk. VIII, i, 22), Cc 2 XXXVI PAHLAVI TEXTS. and, after he had proved his orthodoxy by ordeal (Sg. X, 70, 71), the king proclaimed his intention of not allowing any more heterodoxy (Dk. IV, 271). In his old age he obtained a son, after devout prayer, and named him ZaratQst (Pandndmak, 1); but this son also bore the Avesta title of Avarethrabau (Dk. VII, vii, 20, 21; VIII, xiii, 18), who is called the son of Rastare-vaghemt in Yt. XIII, 106, showing that this latter Avesta title was adopted by Attrpid himself. Finally, we meet with another Atdrpad, son of Zarattist, described in Peshotan's Dk. III, cxxxvii, 2, as high-priest in the reign of Yazgdakard I (A.D. 399-420), son of Shahpdhar, and also mentioned in Pahl. Yas. p. 120, Il. 14, 15 Sp. (translated in Dk. VIII, i, 7 n). 65. We have here, evidently, three successive high-priests, father, son, and grandson, and all celebrated men. The father had been employed in collecting and revising, or probably translating, some of the sacred books, and then, after a religious discussion, submitted himself to the ordeal of melted metal, as a test of his orthodoxy. The king was convinced, and his proclamation meant persecution of the heterodox, such as was commenced about A.D. 339, as regards the Christians. So that we may safely assume that Atdvpdd’s ordeal took place shortly before this date, and probably shortly after 337, when the Roman war commenced. As we must also certainly assume that the original chronology could not have come into existence at a much later date than 341, when so remarkable an event as the birth of a new apostle was fixed by it to occur, we have to consider who this apostle could have been; and whether it may not have been intended to identify him with Atdpad’s own son. 66. In the first place, is such a suspicion consistent with known dates? To represent Adshédar, according to the original chronology, the son must have been born A.D. 341 (§ 63); and we may suppose that the time of Adshédar’s conference (371) would represent the time of Atdrpad’s 1 See S. B.E., vol. xxxvii, p. 415. INTRODUCTION. XXXVI
2To represent Adshédar, according to the original chronology, the son must have been born A.D. 341 (§ 63); and we may suppose that the time of Adshédar’s conference (371) would represent the time of Atdrpad’s 1 See S. B.E., vol. xxxvii, p. 415. INTRODUCTION. XXXVI death, when his son succeeded him in the high-priesthood. If Atarpad were aged eighty-one at his death, he would have been fifty-one at the birth of his son, or approaching old age; and he would have been born in 290, or nineteen years before the king. His grandson may have been born in 365, when his father ZaratQst was twenty-four, and may have succeeded that father in the high-priesthood about 400, the second year of king Yazdakard I. As all these dates are reasonably consistent with the few facts that are known, there seems to be no impossibility in the hypothesis that the original chronology of Adshédar’s birth may have had some connection with the date of the birth of Atrpad’s son. The dates assumed, with regard to these three highpriests, which may be slightly varied, are as follows: — Atarpad, born 290, high-priest 320, died 371. Zarathst, ,, 341, » 371, 5 400. Atrpad, ,, 363, » 400, ,, 420, or later. 67. On the other hand, we must recollect that the time of the birth of AQshédar was not an isolated date which could be varied at pleasure, to suit any circumstances that might arise; but it was intimately connected with the dates of birth of three other apostles, which were each placed at the same distance from the ends of three other millenniums. It would perhaps be more difficult to suit a new millennial system of chronology, to the accidental year of a particular child’s birth, than to have the child born in a particular year of an old system already existing. And, if so, it may be safer to assume that Attrpad, knowing the year of the expected birth, took measures to secure the fulfilment of the prophecy, so far as the birth was concerned. If the child did not turn out so capable of regenerating the world as had been expected, that was a matter for posterity to explain. Under such circumstances of merely seeming fulfilment of a single particular, fraudulently obtained, the original prediction might be of any age. 68. It does not appear that the priestly councillors assembled by Khasré I (Byt. I, 7), made any alteration in XXXViii PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3Under such circumstances of merely seeming fulfilment of a single particular, fraudulently obtained, the original prediction might be of any age. 68. It does not appear that the priestly councillors assembled by Khasré I (Byt. I, 7), made any alteration in XXXViii PAHLAVI TEXTS. the original chronology, although they slightly revised the Pahlavi Vendidad. In fact, the priests, who must have been long expecting the end of Zaratdst’s millennium, were probably looking forward for the approaching downfall of the SAsAnian monarchy, which might readily be understood, as the surest sign of the termination of this period, from such statements as those in Dk. VII, viii, 1,2. At any rate, the alterations in the chronology, for the purpose of postponing the end of the tenth millennium till a. D. 635, would not have been made till some time after the termination of the monarchy in 651, but probably long before the compilation of the Bundahis about goo. The effects of these alterations upon the dates of the evil ninth and tenth centuries, and upon those of the birth, conference, and preaching of Adshédar, have been already stated in § 61. And their object has evidently been to adapt the . old predictions as much as possible to real events; for which purpose also, the predictions themselves have probably been often made more definite than they were originally. .69. It follows, from the foregoing investigation, that the original chronology must have existed A.D. 341, and, in fact, we have found no sufficient reason for supposing that it was compiled as late as Sds4nian times. While the alterations, we find in the Bundahis, could have hardly been made till after 651. 70. Regarding the age in which Zaratist lived, the dates stated in the synopsis of traditional chronology (§ 55), are B.C. 660-583, while the reign of Vistasp, which extends to the fabulous length of 120 years, or 660-540, evidently represents a short dynasty, including Hystaspes and his next four forefathers, if we accept the traditional identification of Vistasp with the father of Darius I. But the names of those four forefathers, which are known on the unimpeachable authority of the Behistin inscription of Darius himself, render it almost impossible to accept this traditional identification, as they differ totally from those of the forefathers of Vistasp in the Avesta. The two dynasties are as follows :— INTRODUCTION. XXXIX BehistQn : Hakhamanis Avesta: Kavi KavAta Kaispis Kava Usa Ariyéramna Kava Husrava Arshama Aurvadaspa Vistaspa Kava Vistaspa\. - Unless it can be shown that these two series of names have the same meaning in two different languages, there seems little chance of proving the identity of the two dynasties. We may, however, quote the instances of the high-priest Atarpad= Atare-pAta and his son Zaratdst= Zarathustra being called Rastare-vaghet and Avarethrabau, respectively, in the Avesta (see § 64); but these latter names seem more like titles than translations.
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.
1VII, vii, 19), was born in the steel period (Dk. IX, viii, 4), and lived in the reign of king Shahpdhar II, son of Adharmazd (AV. p. 145 n), being high-priest over the religion (Dd. XX XVII, 36). He also collected and preserved the Nasks (Dk. VIII, i, 22), Cc 2 XXXVI PAHLAVI TEXTS. and, after he had proved his orthodoxy by ordeal (Sg. X, 70, 71), the king proclaimed his intention of not allowing any more heterodoxy (Dk. IV, 271). In his old age he obtained a son, after devout prayer, and named him ZaratQst (Pandndmak, 1); but this son also bore the Avesta title of Avarethrabau (Dk. VII, vii, 20, 21; VIII, xiii, 18), who is called the son of Rastare-vaghemt in Yt. XIII, 106, showing that this latter Avesta title was adopted by Attrpid himself. Finally, we meet with another Atdrpad, son of Zarattist, described in Peshotan's Dk. III, cxxxvii, 2, as high-priest in the reign of Yazgdakard I (A.D. 399-420), son of Shahpdhar, and also mentioned in Pahl. Yas. p. 120, Il. 14, 15 Sp. (translated in Dk. VIII, i, 7 n). 65. We have here, evidently, three successive high-priests, father, son, and grandson, and all celebrated men. The father had been employed in collecting and revising, or probably translating, some of the sacred books, and then, after a religious discussion, submitted himself to the ordeal of melted metal, as a test of his orthodoxy. The king was convinced, and his proclamation meant persecution of the heterodox, such as was commenced about A.D. 339, as regards the Christians. So that we may safely assume that Atdvpdd’s ordeal took place shortly before this date, and probably shortly after 337, when the Roman war commenced. As we must also certainly assume that the original chronology could not have come into existence at a much later date than 341, when so remarkable an event as the birth of a new apostle was fixed by it to occur, we have to consider who this apostle could have been; and whether it may not have been intended to identify him with Atdpad’s own son. 66. In the first place, is such a suspicion consistent with known dates? To represent Adshédar, according to the original chronology, the son must have been born A.D. 341 (§ 63); and we may suppose that the time of Adshédar’s conference (371) would represent the time of Atdrpad’s 1 See S. B.E., vol. xxxvii, p. 415. INTRODUCTION. XXXVI
2To represent Adshédar, according to the original chronology, the son must have been born A.D. 341 (§ 63); and we may suppose that the time of Adshédar’s conference (371) would represent the time of Atdrpad’s 1 See S. B.E., vol. xxxvii, p. 415. INTRODUCTION. XXXVI death, when his son succeeded him in the high-priesthood. If Atarpad were aged eighty-one at his death, he would have been fifty-one at the birth of his son, or approaching old age; and he would have been born in 290, or nineteen years before the king. His grandson may have been born in 365, when his father ZaratQst was twenty-four, and may have succeeded that father in the high-priesthood about 400, the second year of king Yazdakard I. As all these dates are reasonably consistent with the few facts that are known, there seems to be no impossibility in the hypothesis that the original chronology of Adshédar’s birth may have had some connection with the date of the birth of Atrpad’s son. The dates assumed, with regard to these three highpriests, which may be slightly varied, are as follows: — Atarpad, born 290, high-priest 320, died 371. Zarathst, ,, 341, » 371, 5 400. Atrpad, ,, 363, » 400, ,, 420, or later. 67. On the other hand, we must recollect that the time of the birth of AQshédar was not an isolated date which could be varied at pleasure, to suit any circumstances that might arise; but it was intimately connected with the dates of birth of three other apostles, which were each placed at the same distance from the ends of three other millenniums. It would perhaps be more difficult to suit a new millennial system of chronology, to the accidental year of a particular child’s birth, than to have the child born in a particular year of an old system already existing. And, if so, it may be safer to assume that Attrpad, knowing the year of the expected birth, took measures to secure the fulfilment of the prophecy, so far as the birth was concerned. If the child did not turn out so capable of regenerating the world as had been expected, that was a matter for posterity to explain. Under such circumstances of merely seeming fulfilment of a single particular, fraudulently obtained, the original prediction might be of any age. 68. It does not appear that the priestly councillors assembled by Khasré I (Byt. I, 7), made any alteration in XXXViii PAHLAVI TEXTS.
3Under such circumstances of merely seeming fulfilment of a single particular, fraudulently obtained, the original prediction might be of any age. 68. It does not appear that the priestly councillors assembled by Khasré I (Byt. I, 7), made any alteration in XXXViii PAHLAVI TEXTS. the original chronology, although they slightly revised the Pahlavi Vendidad. In fact, the priests, who must have been long expecting the end of Zaratdst’s millennium, were probably looking forward for the approaching downfall of the SAsAnian monarchy, which might readily be understood, as the surest sign of the termination of this period, from such statements as those in Dk. VII, viii, 1,2. At any rate, the alterations in the chronology, for the purpose of postponing the end of the tenth millennium till a. D. 635, would not have been made till some time after the termination of the monarchy in 651, but probably long before the compilation of the Bundahis about goo. The effects of these alterations upon the dates of the evil ninth and tenth centuries, and upon those of the birth, conference, and preaching of Adshédar, have been already stated in § 61. And their object has evidently been to adapt the . old predictions as much as possible to real events; for which purpose also, the predictions themselves have probably been often made more definite than they were originally. .69. It follows, from the foregoing investigation, that the original chronology must have existed A.D. 341, and, in fact, we have found no sufficient reason for supposing that it was compiled as late as Sds4nian times. While the alterations, we find in the Bundahis, could have hardly been made till after 651. 70. Regarding the age in which Zaratist lived, the dates stated in the synopsis of traditional chronology (§ 55), are B.C. 660-583, while the reign of Vistasp, which extends to the fabulous length of 120 years, or 660-540, evidently represents a short dynasty, including Hystaspes and his next four forefathers, if we accept the traditional identification of Vistasp with the father of Darius I. But the names of those four forefathers, which are known on the unimpeachable authority of the Behistin inscription of Darius himself, render it almost impossible to accept this traditional identification, as they differ totally from those of the forefathers of Vistasp in the Avesta. The two dynasties are as follows :— INTRODUCTION. XXXIX BehistQn : Hakhamanis Avesta: Kavi KavAta Kaispis Kava Usa Ariyéramna Kava Husrava Arshama Aurvadaspa Vistaspa Kava Vistaspa\. - Unless it can be shown that these two series of names have the same meaning in two different languages, there seems little chance of proving the identity of the two dynasties. We may, however, quote the instances of the high-priest Atarpad= Atare-pAta and his son Zaratdst= Zarathustra being called Rastare-vaghet and Avarethrabau, respectively, in the Avesta (see § 64); but these latter names seem more like titles than translations.
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.