Dan D. Y. Shapira Open University of Israel, Raíanannah ³ ³ ³ ³ HARUT WA-MARUT, AGAIN

The purpose of this paper is to elucidate some aspects concerning the migration of literary, exegetical and mythological motifs in Sasanian Me- sopotamia and the neighboring regions, and I will consider here the pos- sible Zoroastrian-Manichaean and Manichaean-Qur

The Dçnkard (Acta Fidei) is an immense collection of traditional Zoroast- rian lore written in Middle Persian, or Pahlavi. This work was composed in the last Sasanian century (the 7th century), although the extant redaction was completed later, under the last Omayyads and the first Abbasids. The first two of the original nine books of the Dçnkard have not survived; Book IX of the Dçnkard (Dk 9) is a summary of the three different methods, or veins, of commentaries (Nasks), now lost, on the sacred Avestan texts. Chapter 32 of Book IX of the Dçnkard (Dk 9.32)1 is considered to be a commentary on the Xvadamçd (Xvaçtumaitî Hâitî) section (fragard) of the Warðtmânsar Nask. This fragard is a commentary on Avestan Yasna (henceforth: Y) 32; the ver- sions of the summarized commentaries of the S[t]ûdgar and Bag Nasks on the same Yasna are given in Dk 9.9 and Dk 9.54, respectively. In other words, the same text was analyzed in three different modes, or from three different aproaches. The beginning of this commentary in the version of the Warðt- mânsar Nask, being a very free paraphrase of the Pahlavi Yasna (this is, the Pahlavi rendering of the Avestan Yasna; henceforth: PY) 32, indicates that the Zandists fiercely defended the idea that the forces of evil which punish the transgressors are not the agents of the Zoroastrian Supreme Being, Ôhr- mazd. Dk 9.32.1–3 is as follows: 1. nohom fragard Xvadamçd abar madan î 3 dçw [î] frçftag ud lâbak-kârîh î Ôhrmazd ku pad hân lâbag awçðân menâd ud mizdçnâd ud ô zôr îðân pad murnjçnîdan î dâmân rasâd. 2. awçðân dçwân az zufrây ô burz lâbag çwâzîhâ axvârd xayûg, *çwag ku xvçðîh î adrôziðn, ud çwag-iz ku wâlanîh î adrôziðn, çwag kû çrmânîh î adrôziðn hâd im guft pad çn ku: «hân mçnôg hçm, ka xvçð çrmân ud wâlan çwag abâg did mihr nç drôzçnd, amâh nç çn-iz ku nç abzâr î tô hçmâ u-mân

1 D. M. MADAN, The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Denkard / Published by «The Society for the Promotion of Researches into the Zoroastrian Religion» under the supervision of D. M. Madan. I–II (Bombay, 1911) [henceforth: DkM] 835ff.; transla- tion: E. W. WEST, Contents of the Nasks // Pahlavi Texts. Part IV: Sacred Books of the East / Ed. F. M. Müller. XXXVII (Oxford, 1892) 252ff.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 419

dçn ud dâd hân [î] tô ud kâmag î tô kunçm, ud kç tô dôst ayâr, ud kç tô duðman wizand-dâr bawçm, [ud] kç tô xvâhçm gâh î andar hân î pahlom axvân, mizd î mizd-arzânîgân». 3. pasaxv î Ôhrmazd ô awçðân ku: «bç duðaxvâg dwârçd ô bun î hân *argan- dtum2 çdôn ðmâh harwisp az dçw hçd u-tân az Akôman-iz [hast] tôhmag ku-tân tôhmag az ânôh ku Akôman ud Waran-iz î abesîhînîdâr ud Âz-iz î hu-ôbâr3 ud Indr-iz î kûðîdâr dçn-mçnôg î ahlamogîh ud frâz frçbçd mar- dom [î] gçtîg pad huzîwçniðn ud a-marg-rawiðnîh ud meniðn awçðân fra- dom bç bandçd». 1. The ninth fragard, Xvadamçd (*Xvaçtumaitî), is about the coming of three deceitful demons, and their lamenting to Ôhrmazd that He,4 through this lament, should consider and reward them and join (Himself) to their power to destroy the creatures. 2. These demons disgorged *saliva by clamorous supplication (= spoke) from the abyss upwards, one: that he is the family that is undeceitful; another one: that he is the community that is undeceitful; and of the third one: that he is the clan that is undeceitful, saying that, namely: «We are that spirit when the members of a family, a community, a clan do not break promises one with the other; are we not really Thy tools? Our reli- gion and law are Thine, and we do Thy will; we assist those who are Thy friends, and we injure those who are Thy enemies; we are those who ask Thee of a place in the best existence, the reward that is a reward of the worthy». 3. The reply of Ôhrmazd to them was thus: «You rush out to Hell, to this most horrible source, as you are all from demon(s) and your seed is really from Akôman (Evil Thought), i. e., your seed is from there, where Akô- man (Evil Thought) and Waran (Lust) the destroyer and also Âz (Greed) the Swallower, and Indr the Slayer, too, (are), the spirit(s) of the religion of heresy. You deceive the worldly people5 as to good life and propaga- tion of immortality and you first bind their minds».

2 Spelled Aklwnd; Aklyy, aãrç, stands for Avestan aãriia-; Middle and New Persian argand. It seems, however, that the passage is derived from Pahlavi Vendi- dad 19.47, where one finds ô bun î axvân î tom kç çrang Duðaxv, with çrang stand- ing for Avestan #r#gatô. On this basis, it would be proper to emend our Denkard passage and to translate it: «to Hell... to the source of the wicked [of] darkness (*çrang *î *tom)». 3 R. C. ZAEHNER, Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford, 1955) 171: âz-iz î anhanbâr, «insatiate». 4 The aim of this capitalizing is to make clear, where Ôhrmazd is meant in the consequence. 5 This expression — mardom î gçtîg — may have two opposite senses: 1., «the ordinary people»; 2., «the people knowing the profound secrets of the Gâèâs».

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 420 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

The unnamed demons (apparently, three of them)6 complain that, although they carry out Ôhrmazd’s work and will, and are his tools (abzâr), they do not, nevertheless, receive their proper reward from Him. They complain fur- ther that Ôhrmazd does not add to their power to destroy (His, presumably, wicked) creatures, who later implicitly are called Ôhrmazd’s enemies; they also tell that they are of Ôhrmazd’s religion and law. «No», answers Ôhr- mazd: «you do it on your own, it is your evil nature that pushes you to the destruction of your own Evil Realm». The demons’ sin is described as lea- ding astray as to «good life» and «immortality» (huzîwçniðn ud a-marg- rawiðnîh). We shall return to these terms later. The Dk account is supposed to be a commentary to Y 32.1, which reads: Axþiiâcâ xvaçtuð yâsat ahiiâ v#r#z#n#m mat ariiamnâ ahiiâ daçuuâ mahmî manôi ahurahiiâ uruuâz#mâ mazdå èâôi dûtå½hô å½hâmâ t#ng dâraiiô yôi vå daibið#ntî. This Avestan passage was differently translated: «And (for bliss) from him shall the nobility beg; from him the community with (its) sodality; from him, (even) the daçva-adherents (daçuuâ)— on my terms (mahmî manôi), for bliss (uruuâz#mâ) from Ahura the wise. (People:) Let us be messengers (dûtå½hô) for (your) strengthening; for restraining those who are-hostile-to you»;7 «(to the gods). At my insistence (mahmî manôi), ye gods, the family, the community together with the clan, entreated for the grace of Him (uruuâz#mâ), the Wise Lord, (saying:) “Let us be Thy messengers, in order to hold back those who are inimical to you”»;8 «The family entreats, the community along with the tribe (do so) in my recital (mahmî manôi9 ), O you Daçvas, (entreating) for His, the Wise Ahu- ra’s favour: “Let us be Thy households (èâôi dûtå½hô10 å½hâmâ). Thou breakest up (the groupings of) those who hate You”»;11

6 From Ôhrmazd’s answer it is clear that the three unnamed demons have some specific links with Waran, Âz, Indr, who are also mentioned in the S[t]ûdgar commen- tary of Y 32, namely Dk 9.9.1, see below; they could even be identical with these. 7 M. WILKINS SMITH, Studies in the Syntax of the Gathas of Zarathushtra Together with the Text, Translations, and Notes. Language Dissertations Published by the Lin- guistic Society of America (Philadelphia, 1929). 8 S. INSLER, The Gâèâs of Zarathustra (Téhéran—Liège, 1975) (Acta Iranica 8. Sé- rie 3. Textes et mémoires, sous le Haut Patronage de SM. I. le Shahinshah Aryemehr). 9 Mana being a technical term, cf. H. HUMBACH, in collaboration with J. ELFEN- BEIN and P. O. SKJÆRVØ, The Gâèâs of Zarathustra and Other Old Avestan Texts. Vol. I– II (Heidelberg, 1991) (Indogermanische Bibliothek, Reihe 1) Vol. II. 77. 10 Dûtå½hô is generally connected with Vedic dûtá-, «messenger», but must be equated with dûd, dûdag, «smoke»; «hearth, family» (Ibid). 11 HUMBACH, ELFENBEIN, SKJÆRVØ, The Gâèâs of Zarathustra

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 421

«In my recital, O Daçvas, the family and the community along with the tribe ask for His, Mazdâ Ahura’s, favor (by praying): “Let us be your people. You scatter those who are hostile to you”»;12 «Of Him have they sought — family, community together with the clan, Of Him, o false gods, at my inspiration (mahmî manôi); His, the Wise Lord’s blessing: “May we be Your messengers, to hold back those that hate You!”».13 Its Pahlavi version (PY 32.1) is as follows: hân [gyan] î awç pad xvçðîh xvâst hân î awç wâlanîh14 abâg çrmânîh [hân mizd î Ôhrmazd xvçð dçwân pad çn ku wâlan ud çrmân î tô hçm #-ðân ôh xvâst] hân î awç dçwân pad man meniðnîh [ku-mân meniðn çdôn frârôn ciyôn Zardu[x]ðt] hân î Ôhrmazd urwâhmîh [#-ðân ôh xvâst] tâ gâwâg15 bawçm [ku râyçnâdâr â tâ bawçm] awçðân dârçm kç ðmâh bçðçnçnd [ku-ðân az ðmâh abâz dârçm].

12 H. HUMBACH, P. ICHAPORIA, The Heritage of Zarathustra. A New translation of his Gâèâs (Heidelberg, 1994). 13 M. SCHWARTZ, Coded Sound Patterns, Acrostics, and Anagrams in Zoroaster’s Oral Poetry // Studia Grammatica Iranica. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach / Ed. R. SCHMITT, P. O. SKJÆRVØ (München, 1986) 327–392, see 339. 14 This word (translated in WEST, Contents of the Nasks... 252, as «serf, serfdom») means «community etc.»; it translates (cf. E. B. N. DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Vispe- rad (Bombay, 1949) Glossary. 168) v#r#z# na- (which was rendered differently by Pahlavi translators: warzišn, wâlanîh, cf. Chr. BARTHOLOMAE, Altiranisches Wörter- buch (Strassburg, 1904) 1425; New Persian has barzan); it was frequently confused (cf. also DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad… Glossary. 168) with gâl, gâlân, which, according to H. S. NYBERG, A Manual of Pahlavi II, Glossary (Wiesbaden, 1974) 80, means «the gang, the villains labouring on the estates of the king», Old Persian gardâ, «servant, worker» (Elamite kur-taš, Aramaic grd[<], Babylonian Lugar- du), Old Indic grhal- «servant», Khotanese ggalû «family», > Pahlavi gâl (only Plu- ral), «attendants, followers, household». Cf. Kârnâmag î Ardaðîr î Pâbagân 10.8: gâlân î Kirm hâmôyçn xçr ud xvâstag ud bunag ô drubuðtîh î diz î *Gulârân nihâd, «the attendants of the Dragon deposited all their property, wealth and baggage in the citadel of the fortress Gulârân» (A. TAFAZZOLI, Pahlavica III // Acta Orientalia 51 (1990) 47–60, s. 51–52); gâl2 (NYBERG, A Manual of Pahlavi II… 80) in Ayâdgâr î Zarçrân 25, should be read dâr «blade» (see TAFAZZOLI, Pahlavica III… 51). 15 This translation preserves the traditional understanding of the Avestan dûtå½ho as «messenger», cf. note 10 above. Otherwise, it could be an early emendation of the original *dûdag, «household». The reading is problematic: DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad… Glossary. 154, 197: *dôwâg, «messenger, etc.»; dôwâg, in PY 32.13, translates mânèrânô dûtîm; BARTHOLOMAE, Altiranisches Wörterbuch… 749, suppo- sed *gôwâg; the gloss râyçnîdâr supports a meaning similar to that suggested by Bartholomae and Dhabhar, rather than the original *dûdag, «household». It is not impossible that lâbag in Dk 9.32.1 is a corruption of the same word here.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 422 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

That [the life] asked (to be) His own, that of the community (together) with that of the clan [this reward of Ôhrmazd Himself, the dçws, in these (words): «we are Thy community/adherent(s) and clan/friend(s)»; so they asked] his demons in my thought [i. e., our thinking is as righteous as that (of) Zoroaster] this joy of Ôhrmazd [so they asked] We are thy speakers [i. e., we are Thy arrangers], we hold (back)16 those who hurt Thee [i. e., we hold them back of Thee]. Although heavily glossed, the Avestan text of Y 32.1 was translated in the PY 32.1 mostly etymologically, or «formally», word for word. It seems, nevertheless, that the text remained obscure, perhaps, intentionally. In Y 32.1a, axþiiâcâ was analyzed by the glossator differently from ahiiâ, for reasons more graphical than textual (xþ looks very much as xv, so the glossator of [gyân, «life»17 ] confused it with axv); the grammatical cases of xvaçtuð... v#r#z#n#m mat ariiamnâ were misunderstood (hân î awç pad xvçðîh... hân î awç wâlanîh abâg çrmânîh), but the general sense of 32.1a and 32.1c was grasped; the problem is, however, with Y 32.1b. One point of importance is that ahiiâ daçuuâ mahmî manôi18 was rendered as hân î awç dçwân pad man meniðnîh, «his demons by my thought», which seems to be a rather faithful translation, by the Zandists’ standards (dçws — meaning in the Gâèic passage, perhaps, as in Old Indo-Iranian, «gods», not «demons»19 — is clearly Vocative, but was understood as if Nominative). It is not impossible that hân mçnôg hçm in 9.32.2 is an echo of this Zand;20 one should also note that otherwise, the Ave- stan mahmî manôi was left not rendered in the Dk version.21 The Zandist’s understading of the passage could be paraphrased as fol- lows: the dçws of the community and of the clan, believing to be Ôhrmazd’s agents and avengers, and pretending that their minds are as righteous as that of Zoroaster, asked Ôhrmazd to be His own and to be worthy of that boon /

16 The infinitive dâraiiô, «to push back, zurückhalten», rendered well by sense, especially in the gloss, is, however, grammatically wrong. 17 An interesting gloss, no doubt, of some age; there are more examples for rende- ring ax´iiâcâ by gyân, cf. DHABHAR, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad… Glossary. 140. Cf. also Dk 9.32.3: frâz frçbçd mardom [î] gçtîg pad huzîwaniðn ud a-marg-rawiðnîh, «You deceive the worldly people as to good life and propagation of immortality». 18 «The daçva-adherents — on my terms»; «at my insistence, ye gods»; «in my recital, O you Daçvas» «O false gods, at my inspiration», cf. above. 19 Compare the translations by Insler and Schwartz. 20 Compare Dk 9.32.2: awçðân dçwân az zufrây ô burz lâbag çwâzîhâ axvârd xayûg *çwag ku xvçðîh î adrôziðn ud çwag-iz ku wâlanîh î adrôziðn çwag kû çrmânîh î adrôziðn hâd-im guft pad çn ku: «hân mçnôg hçm ka xçð çrmân ud wâlan çwag abâg did mihr nç drôzçnd..., etc. 21 Cf. D. SHAPIRA,«Ariš and Mahmî» (forthcoming).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 423 joy / reward, which is life, i. e., the immortality. This version should be com- pared with that of the S[t]ûdgar Nask (Dk 9.9.1):22 haštom fragard Xvadamçd abar pahrçz î az çziðn î Gannâg Mçnôg rây an- astôwân î Dçn ud hân î az çziðn î Indr ud ô Sâwar rây an-çbyânghân-dâd ud hân î az çziðn î Tawriè ud Zairiè rây çw-môg-dwâriðn, ud hân az çziðn î Akatað rây duð-nigerâygar, ud hân az çziðn î hamâg dçwân rây a-mâr-gan- dâd mardom [...], The eighth fragard, Xvadamçd (*Xvaçtumaiti), is about avoidance of people of being involved in the worship of the Foul Spirit, of non-reliance on the Avesta, the worship of Indr, and of Sâwar (namely), practicing being un- girdled with the sacred kûstîg-girdle, of the worship of Tawriè and Zai- riè23 (namely),walking (daevically) around with one shoe, and because of the worship of Akataš, who (the demon Akataš) is the producer of bad observance, and of the worship of all the demons (namely), practicing being without the serpents-killing-mace... As in other cases,24 it is the Warðtmânsar version (Dk 9.32) rather than that of the (just quoted) S[t]ûdgar Nask (Dk 9.9) that preserves the older material, while that of the S[t]ûdgar Nask underwent serious censorship; the reason for this censorship was that being originally of mythological character, the S[t]ûdgar Nask was entitled to be more popular, thus opening the way to introducing newer — and not unfrequently heterodoxal — material. To turn to our Warðtmânsar version as summarized in Dk 9.32, which is a very free paraphrase of PY 32, the point of the beginning of this commen- tary (Dk 9.32.1–3) is polemical — the Evil Powers punish those who deserve to be punished, but doing so, they, nevertheless, do not do God’s job, and their power to punish is not from Ôhrmazd — and we are thus entitled to suppose that these polemics were aimed against some controversial teach-

22 Dk 9.9: DkM 792.17–794.4; DkS (P. B. SANJANA, D. P. SANJANA, The Dinkard / The Original Pahlavi Text; the same transliterated in Zend Characters; Translations of the Text in the Gujarati and English Languages; a Commentary and a glossary of Select Terms. Vol. 1–19 (Bombay, 1874–1928) Vol. 17. 13–16; Dk MS B (M. J. DRES- DEN, Dênkard, A Pahlavi Text. Fascimile Edition of the Manuscript B of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Bombay (Wiesbaden, 1966), missing folios 147.7–150.1); WEST, Contents of the Nasks... 181–185. 23 On the names of a pair of Iranian demons (Tariè and Zariè) which became the names of two wicked characters in the Scroll of Esther, Tereš and Zereš, see Sh. SHAKED, Bagdâna, King of Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic // Acta Iranica 24 (Dèxième série. Hommages et Opera Minora X. Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce) (Leiden, 1985) 511–542, s. 518; cf. also J. DUCHE- SNE-GUILLEMIN, Les noms des eunuques d’Assuérus // Mus 116 (1953) 105–108. See also note 49 below. 24 E. g., Dk 9.6 as compared to Dk 9.29.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 424 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum ings that the Zandists had in mind, while producing a commentary which strays far from the text which it was supposed to clarify. I think we cannot understand the fervor of Dk 9.32.1–3 unless we assume that what we find here is a result of the interaction between the traditional Zoroastrian exegesis and some «Western» (Judeo-Christian? Manichaean?) traditions known to the Zandists, who, not rejecting Monotheism outright, nevertheless fiercely defended the idea that the forces of evil which punish the transgressors are not Ôhrmazd’s agents. In my opinion, the Dk text calls one to ponder whether the heretical or openly anti-Zoroastrian teachings against which this Pahlavi midrash was composed to repudiate were not texts close — or belonging — to the type of literature which went back to the Jewish Books of Giants in their different versions.25 As is known, some of Mani’s compositions ultima- tely derived from these Books of Giants,26 as well as from genuine non-«or- thodox» Zoroastrian Zands or popular lore. In his Middle Iranian work, Ðâ- buhragân, Mani wrote:27 ] pd dyw(<)n yn pnd >yg

25 Qumranic fragments, Enochic books, Manichaean writings, medieval legends; see, e. g., L. JUNG, Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Muhammedan Literature (Philadelphia, 1926) 129–130; W. B. HENNING, Ein manichäisches Henochbuch // Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, Phil.-hist. Kl. 5 (1934) 27–35; J.-P. DE MENASCE, Une légende indo-iranienne dans l’angélologie judéo-mu- sulmane: à propos de Hârût et Mârût // Études Asiatiques 1.2 (1947) 10–18; B. J. BAM- BERGER, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia, 5712/1952) 113–117, 278; G. VAJDA, Hârût wa- Mârût // The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. III (Leiden—London, 19712) 236–237. J. T. MILIK, The Book of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford, 1976) 335–339, believed that the medieval legends on Šemúazay and >Azâ<çl represent a retroversion of fragments of Manichaean compositions, but cf. J. C. GREENFIELD, M. E. STONE, The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch // Numen 26 (1979) 89–103, s. 102. Compare also G. A. G. STROUMSA, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden, 1984) 167, and now J. C. REEVES, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (West Orange, 1992) 88. 26 The history of the Giants’ literature in Semitic languages and its translations into the tongues of Manichaean and Christian traditions as a whole cannot, of course, be dealt with here. For the previous literature, see REEVES, Jewish Lore in Manichae- an Cosmogony... 27 D. N. MACKENZIE, Mani’s Ðâbuhragân-I // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42 (1979) 500–534, s. 504–505, A 1–9. 28 See also ibid. 522 n. 5.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 425

This might be a reference to the deceitful Fallen Angels of the Enochic tradition of the Books of Giants, but, against the background of the Pahlavi passages quoted above, one may probably bring to mind some problematic Zoroastrian Zands as well. This latter point cannot be proven at present; how- ever, it was presumably the Manichaean29 version of the legend about the Fallen Angels, influenced by Iranian motifs, that one finds in the Qur<ân. According to the Qur<ânic tradition (s. 2.102/96), the devils revealed sorcery in Babylon to two angels, Hârût wa-Mârût. It was in Babylon, too, that Hârût wa-Mârût were later suspended by their heels, as a punishment for their diso- bedience. According to another Islamic (but still, Iranian) tradition, the couple was imprisoned and chained in a well on Mt. Dumbâwand, having been thus cast in the role of a double Aþi Dahâka.30 The Qur<ânic text says: And they [the Children of Israel] followed what the Satans recited / called for over the Kingdom of Salomon; though Salomon [himself] disbelieved not, but the Satans disbelieved, teaching the people magic and that which was revealed to the Angels (dual) in Babylon [those whose names are] Hârût and Mârût, and they [dual] taught not any man, without they said [dual]: «Behold, we are but a seduction / temptation; do not disbelieve!»; and they [men] learned from them [dual] that what divides between man and his neighbor, and they did not harm anybody but by God’s permis- sion, and they learned [from them] what does harm and does not benefit; and indeed they knew that this one who bought it, has no part in the future life; and if they only knew how much bad is that that they sold their souls for.31 The perspective of the Qur<ânic version here is problematic: on the one hand, this version conforms to the strictly Monotheistic view, in the vein of the first two chapters of Job (Hârût wa-Mârût did not harm anybody except by God’s permission); on the other, the task of Hârût wa-Mârût is to be the seducers of Allah (fitna), tempting weak souls and urging them to turn to their own free choice: «we are but a seduction and do not disbelieve!»32 In

29 For a new evaluation of possible Manichaean influences on Muúammad, see now R. SIMON, Mânî and Muúammad // Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 21 (1997) 118–141. But cf. F. DE BLOIS, The «Sabians» (êâbi<ûn) in Pre-Islamic Arabia // Acta Orientalia 56 (1995) 39–61. 30 Cf. J. R. RUSSELL, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, 1987) (Harvard Ira- nian Series 5) 381. The stories about Aþi-Dahâka-, the Zoroastrian arch-demon chaind in Mt. Dumbâwand in Northern Iran, belong to the most popular stock of legends in Iranian traditions. 31 The translation adopted, with slight alterations, is that given in A. J. ARBERRY, The Koran Interpreted (New York, 1955) 40–41. 32 It is very interesting that the Qur<ânic story about the seducers Hârût wa-Mârût appears in the context of the «Satanic Verses» (s. 2.100).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 426 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum the Zoroastrian version of Dk 9.32, which lies, as a whole, within Zoroastrian lore, one has to discriminate between the functions of seduction and punish- ment. Within the complicated dualistic Zoroastrian Weltanschauung, with its clearly monotheistic overtones, this sounds well, but in the strictly Monothei- stic version of Qur<ân one hears dissonant voices: in Muúammad’s Monothei- stic view here, Šay‹Œn is, indeed, an agent of Allah. One should note that Muúammad spoke of two angels, while the number of the demons in Mani’s fragments remains unspecified so far, and Dk 9.32 mentions three demons. This difference of numbers is easily explained, if we assume that the texts under consideration are related: the three demons of Dk 9.32 correspond to the Scriptural «family, community, clan» (Pahlavi xvçðîh, wâlanîh, çrmânîh; Avestan xvaçtuð, v#r#z#n#m, ariiamna-), while Muúam- mad (or, his source) reduced their number by one for the simple reason that these Fallen Angels are called by the Iranian names which are those of a pair.33 The names of the Qur<ânic Hârût wa-Mârût were identified long ago as originating in those of a pair of the Zoroastrian «archangels» (Immortal Bounti- ful Ones), or Am#ša Sp#ntas, whose Avestan names are Haurvatât and Am#r#tât,34 / Middle Persian hrwdYazatas («the ones worthy of worship») are known also in Sogdian as hrwwt mrwwt, and their names are found in Armenian and Kurdish as the names of flower[s],36 apparently, because of the evident asso-

33 Note, that PY 32 also speaks about two demons, or about two groups of them (wâlanîh, çrmânîh), taking xvaçtuð yâsat as pad xvçðîh xvâst. 34 See P. DE LAGARDE, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Leipzig, 1866) 14ff.; cf. E. LITTMANN, Hârût und Mârût // Festschrift F. G. Andreas (Leipzig, 1916) 70–87. This etymology was rejected in A. J. WENSINCK, Hârût wa-Mârût // The Encyclopae- dia of Islam. Vol. II (Leiden—London, 19271) 272–273; G. DUMÉZIL, Naissance d’Ar- changes (Paris, 1945) 158–170, reaffirmed the old view of de Lagarde about the Iranian origin of Hârût wa-Mârût, cf. also DE MENASCE, Une légende indo-iranienne dans l’angélologie judéo-musulmane…, and A. BAUSANI, La Persia religiosa, da Zara- thustra a Bahâ

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 427 ciation of flowers with plants and water, the domain of these Yazatas.37 In Sasanian Mesopotamia these beings were known to non-Zoroastrians as Ar- tat Amurtat, with the more Iranian-looking form of their names found now in an Aramaic magic text.38 This pair of Zoroastrian Yazatas caught the popular imagination within the sphere of Semito-Iranian cultural and linguistic con- tact during the Late Sasanian period and found its way to the Arabs. I suggest that there is a possibility to explain the slight difference between the Arabic and the Middle Persian names not only as a result of a mistaken vocalization which supposingly occurred in Arabic, but also as a result of the earlier Ara- maic-Iranian semantic interaction. I thereupon suggest that the Iranian names were interpreted in Aramaic as *Hârûtâ, «evil thinking» (from HRR/HRHR),39 and *Mârûtâ, «[evil] power».40 In Avestan, the names Haurvatât and AmIrItât are feminine, but there is no grammatical gender in Western Middle Iranian; as to Aramaic, in this language such abstract nouns ending in -ût[â] are femi- nine, but when borrowed by Arabic, they become masculine, normally fal- ling within an Arabic pattern for loan words from Syriac feminine nouns

Hordâd, ud cambag Amurdâd [xvçð], «He also says that every Amahraspand has its own flower.... Hordâd has lily, and Amurdâd has èamba as her own»; B. T. ANKLESA- RIA, Zand-Âkâsîh, Iranian or Greater Bundahiðn. Transliteration and Translation in English (Bombay, 1956) 152, left èamba untranslated; in New Persian èampâ means «a kind of rice grown in Gilan». This is not impossible, for Amurdâd cares for food (cmp. Hordâd — who cares for waters — with its lily; note also that Hordâd corre- sponds to the spring month of Nisan, while Amurdâd to that of the early summer month of Siwan). See now D. SHAPIRA, Pahlavi Flowers // D. N. MacKenzie Memo- rial Volume / Ed. D. Weber (in press). 37 These functions were inseparable from the essence of these yazatas to such an extent that they were even preserved by the author of the Jewish 2 Enoch (cf. fur- ther) — plants are established on Earth, temporal affairs implies protection from the waters of the flood; cf. note 48 below. 38 See Sh. SHAKED, Popular Religion in Sasanian Babylonia // Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 21 (1997) 103–118, s. 113. 39 As to the meaning of the name, compare the name of a Zoroastrian demon Akoman, «Evil Mind», found in the texts under consideration (Y 32.3, Dk 9.32.3). An Aramaic dialect of the type of Mandaic may have been an intermediary as well. In Mandaic (E. S. DROWER, R. MACUCH, The Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963) 127a), haruta, though from Semitic îRR and unconnected to the original *HRR, means *«freedom» > «licence, prostitution». 40 As to the meaning of the name, compare the name of another Zoroastrian Yaza- ta, Ðâhrçwar, «Desirabale Power». As an etymology, Aramaic mârûtâ was noted already in WENSINCK, Hârût wa-Mârût... 272–273. One probably should not exclude a possible contamination with Aramaic mârûdâ / mârôdâ, «rebelous, repugnant», *mârûdtâ, «rebellion, punishment». Syriac transcription reflected in Arabic was sug- gested in G. WIDENGREN, Muhammad, the Apostle of God, and his Ascension, Univ. Arsskr. 1955:1, King and Savior IV (Uppsala—Leipzig, 1955) 196.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 428 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

(like mlkwt<, lhwt< > mlkwt, l

41 Cf. note 17 above. 42 The synonymical akâ mana?hâ and akasca mainiiuš were translated by the same word, Akoman, see Dk 9.32.3. 43 The names of the pair Am#r#tât and Huruuatât were frequently rendered as amarg-rawiðnîh and hamâg-rawiðnîh, cf. WEST, Contents of the Nasks... 338 n. 1. 44 The edition used was A. VAILLANT, Le Livre des Secrets d’Henoch / Texte slave et traduction française (Paris, 1952). Cf. also W. R. MORFILL, The Book of Secrets of Enoch / Transl. from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill; ed. with introd., notes and indices by R. H. Charles (Oxford, 1896); N. SCHMIDT, The Two Recensions of Slavonic Eno- ch // Journal of the American Oriental Society 41.1 (1921) 307–312; A. RUBINSTEIN, Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch // Journal of Jewish Studies 13 (1962) 1–21; F. I. ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch (Late First Century A.D.) // The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments / Ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York, 1983) 91–220. 45 See, for example, S. PINES, Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavo- nic Book of Enoch // Types of Redemption / ed. Z. Werblowsky, J. Bleeker (Leiden, 1974) (Suppl. to Numen 18) 72–87, esp. n. 14; M. BOYCE, F. GRENET, The History of Zoroastrianism III (Leiden, 1991) (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. Abteilung 8. Band 1. Abschnittlieferung, 2. Heft) 427–432; compare D. WINSTON, The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha, and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence // Journal of the History of Religions 52 (1966) 183–216. As Rudolf Otto (cited in PINES, Eschatology and the Concept... 76) noted, an indisputable indication of Zoroastrian influence on 2 Enoch is to be found in a passage in which Enoch speaks of the Animal Soul accus- ing Man (see VAILLANT, Le Livre des Secrets d’Henoch... 56). This idea should be

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 429 only in two Slavonic [Macedonian or Panonian] recensions. Recently, Dr. Eugenia Smagina of Moscow identified numerous quotations from the Eno- ch Apocalypse found in the Cologne Mani Codex as taken from the first chapters of 2 Enoch.46 These identifications imply that at least some parts of 2 Enoch were current in Mesopotamia between the third and the fifth centu- ries CE (i. e., between the period of Mani’s life and the date of the extant copy of the Cologne Mani Codex) and that 2 Enoch was (at least partly) extant in Aramaic, as the Vorlage of the Cologne Mani Codex was originally written in this language. In addition, the Mesopotamian attestation of this composition easily explains the numerous Iranian elements which are cha- racteristic of this Jewish work, with which Mani was apparently familiar. In this composition we encounter two trustworthy Watchers (egregori), Aðèùxú and Maðèùxú, whom God established on Earth in order to keep watch over it and to control temporal affairs, and as guarantees that the cheirographia of Adam and Seth would not perish in the imminent Flood and Conflagration: çàíå ðÓêîïèñàíèå òâîå è ðÓêîïèñàíèå Ìòåöü òâîèõ è Àäàìà è ñèôà íå ïîòðåáÿò ñÿ äî âýêà ïîñëåäíÿãî ßêî àçú çàïîâýäàõ àíãåëîìú àðÈÌõÓ è ìàðÈÌõÓ ßæå ïîñòàâèõ íà çåìëè õðàíèòè þ È ïîâåëåâàòè âðåìåííûì äà ñí(à)áäÿò ðÓêîïèñàíèå Ìòåöü òâîèõ ä à í å ïîãûáíåò â áÓäÓùÈ ïîòîïú Èæå àçú ñîòâîðþ â ðîäú òâîåìú [...], «parce que l’écrit de ta main et l’écrit de la main de tes pères, Adam et Seth, ne seront pas détruits jusqu’au siècle dernier, car moi j’ai ordonné à mes anges Arioch et Marioch, que j’ai établis sur la terre pour la garder et commander aux choses temporelles, de préserver l’écrit de la main de tes pères, pour qu’il ne périsse pas dans le prochain déluge que je ferai dans ta race [...]».47 compared with Y 29, Dk 9.29. As to the concept of Time in 2 Enoch, which was at the focus of the above-mentioned article by Pines (with a reference to the famous «there will be no Time anymore» of Dostoyevsky in «The Karamazov Brothers», taken from a non-perfect version of 2 Enoch), note, in passing, the following pertinent remark by Zaehner: «Ali Mirdrakvandi wrote in his Irradiant: In the world on which I have creat- ed one does not eat or drink neither work, nor is there any season for us, like day, night, spring, summer nor any other season», see R. C. ZAEHNER, Zoroastrian Survivals in Iranian Folklore II // Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 30 (1993) 65–76, s. 73. Ali Mirdrakvandi, an Iranian tribesman of heterodox background, com- posed several texts in English that were seen by the great British Iranist as reflecting Iranian religious notions of high antiquity. These modern English texts were studied by Zaehner in the context of his researches into the Ancient Iranian religion. 46 Only one quotation from 2 Enoch has been identified so far in J. C. REEVES, Heralds of that Good Realm. Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (Lei- den—New York—Köln, 1996) (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies XLIm Brill) 196. 47 See VAILLANT, Le Livre des Secrets d’Henoch... 34–35. Cf. the English transla- tion of the shorter [A] and the longer [J] recensions in ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apo- calypse) of Enoch... 156–157, ch. 33.12: «...on account of your handwriting and the

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 430 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum

The names of these Earth-keeping and aion-ruling non-Biblical angels introduced into the antedeluvian Sacred History have long since been identi- fied as connected with those of the Avestan Haurvatât and AmIrItât. Not only the names, but also the functions — the care of water and plants — were preserved.48 We might suggest that Mani, who knew 2 Enoch in which a positive function is ascribed to Hordâd and Amurdâd, made here one of his characteristic twists and cast the couple into the role of the Fallen Angels.49 The use of the names of the earth-protecting Immortal Bountiful Ones may reflect the Manichaean (theoretical) rejection of agriculture and serious limi- tations on permissible foods, with a special stress on some vegetables. Hundreds of years after Muúammad, Fallen Angels still cotinued to draw the attention of foreign observers of Islam. In the later Islamic tradition, ac- cording to the 14th century anti-Muslim treatise by the Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (al. monk Joasaph), the angels EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô were sent by God «to rule well and judge justly».50 Alongside the forms EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô given by Kantakouzenos, another Byzantine Greek form is attested as well, namely EÁñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è, with è (which cannot go back to the Arabic forms with t). In the Byzantine Abjuration formula we read: «I ana- themize the angels called by Muúammad (ÌùÜìåä) Áñ¦è and Ìáñ¦è».51 It is clear that the pair was seen by Christians as if perceived by Muhamme- dans as angels (as their Zoroastrian namesakes in fact are), rather than as demons (who they are in the Qur<ân). The names EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô / EÁñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è, with þô / ¦è for - ût, correspond to the Arabic names Hârût and Mârût. This phonetic variant, handwriting of your fathers — Adam and Seth. They will not be destroyed until the final age. For I have commanded my angels, Ariokh and Mariokh, whom I have ap- pointed on the earth to guard them and to command the things of time to preserve the handwritings of your fathers so that they might not perish in the impending flood which I shall create in your generation /...and the handwriting of your fathers — Adam and Sith and Enos and Kainan and Maleleil and Ared your father. And they will not be destroyed until the final age. So I commanded my angels, Ariukh and Pariukh, whom I have appointed on the earth as their guardians, and I have comman- ded the seasons, so that they might preserve them so that they might not perish in the future flood which I shall create in your generation...». 48 Cf. note 37. 49 There is also a possibility that Hordâd and Amurdâd were substituted for the names of another couple, that of the demons Tariè and Zairiè found in the correspon- ding Dk 9.9.1; cf. note 23 above. Note also that the Arabic word *fitna, «seduction», used in the Qur<ânic version has, in the Manichaean setting, mostly encratic (anti-) sexual connotations, and is associated mostly with the female seduction of males. 50 MILIK, The Book of Enoch... 110. 51 See E. MONTET, Un rituel d’abjuration des musulmans dans l’église grecque // Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 53 (1906) 145–163, s. 150.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access D. D. Y. Shapira 431 together with the notion of the angelic nature of the pair, suggests the exi- stence of an independent Byzantine tradition different from the Qur<ânic one quoted. I suggest that the names familiar to Byzantines from their own tradi- tion (e. g., from the lost Greek version of 2 Enoch) were substituted for those of their Qur<ânic counterparts, whose history was different. In other words, the Qur<ânic Hârût and Mârût and the Byzantine EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô / Áñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è go back to different recensions of the same story, and it was not from the Muslims that the Byzantines heard of it first. Having clarified some points relating to the history of the Arabic and Greek forms of the names of the Zoroastrian Yazatas, we shall now return to the Slavonic forms. Trying to explain the problematic -ch (-x) of the Slavonic forms, Milik52 supposed that the Greek original of 2 Enoch had *EÁñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è for àðèÌõú and ìàðèÌõú, which invariably represent the same «Hârût and Mârût» tradition: «the oscillation of f < th (e. g. Sif, Seth...) and of ch (here Arof > Aroch > Arioch) is peculiar to the phonetics of Greek borrow- ings into the eastern Slavonic languages (e. g. Fiodor and Chodor coming from Theodôros)». This explanation is indeed shrewd and sophisticated.53 The problem, how- ever, is that the shift in question is the mark of much later vulgar dialects and was rarely attested in writing. Until the spelling reform after the Russian Revolutions of 1917, è was sustained in borrowings from Greek; the Slavo- nic and Russian Bibles have, e. g., Cèdú or Cèèú for Seth, or Pouèú for Ruth [pronounce Sif and Ruf’].54 Milik’s suggestion could probably explain -ch (-x) for -è, but it ignores two other difficulties: (1), -i (-è) of Aðèùxú and Maðèùxú, which has no parallel in the existing Arabic, Greek, Iranian forms, and (2), why the attested Byzantine Greek forms, which supposedly should transcribe the Arabic form with -u- (Hârût / Mârût), have nevertheless the forms with -ô- (EÁñþô êár Ìáñþô / Áñ¦è êár Ìáñ¦è; the same -ô- oc- curs also in the Slavonic forms Aðèùxú / Maðèùxú)? In light of the Byzantine attestation of EÁñþô / Ìáñþô in addition to Áñ¦è / Ìáñ¦è, it is possible that Aðèùxú and Maðèùxú stem from a Greek original that had another, third, form, namely * Áñéù÷ / Ìáñéù÷, which was faithfully reproduced by the Slavonic translation. These unattested forms could be explained as a misreading of the original Semitic (in Hebrew square cha- racters]. The waw and yodh were frequently confused throughout all the pe- riods of writing in Hebrew square characters [but not in Paleo-Hebrew], and

52 MILIK, The Book of Enoch... 110. 53 For criticism, see ANDERSEN, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse) of Enoch... 157, n. l. 54 Although this unusual and vulgar spelling of Seth does appear in the passage of 2 Enoch quoted above from the edition of Vaillant. Cf. nevertheless the variant read- ings there, among which Sit appears. However, one may ask why Seth was spelled as Sif, whereas *Arioth and *Marioth as Arioch and Marioch in the same verse.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access 432 Scrinium II (2006). Universum Hagiographicum the letters thaw and h³et are extremely similar. The Jewish forms thus recon- structed are actually identical to the Avestan ones, even more than the Arabic ones which are derived from Aramaic, as they explain the problematic -i- of Aðèùxú / Maðèùxú.55 As for the Qur<ânic passage in question, we should assume that there was a Mesopotamian Aramaic (Late Manichaean, rather than Jewish or Christian) version of the Enochic motif which «semitized» Iranian lore in an anti-Zoro- astrian vein. The Mesopotamian setting and the Iranian names of the Evil Angels, Hârût wa-Mârût, are among the most interesting features of the Qur<ânic account: in this supposedly Semitic version, the Evil Angels keep their Iranian names [which are not the names used in the Zoroastrian ver- sion], as a part of the demonization of the borrowed Zoroastrian angelogy. In 2 Enoch the two angels are two trustworthy Watchers whom God esta- blished on Earth in order to keep watch over it and to control temporal af- fairs, and to preserve the writing of the hand [of Seth] so that it may not perish in the imminent flood. Note that the two Yazatas are in charge of plants (established on Earth) and water (protection from flood). It was the truly angelic nature of this pair that inspired the Byzantine texts referred above to identify the Qur<ânic demons with the more familiar angels of their Iranian and Armenian neighbors. This combination of non-Zoroastrian evidence is sufficient, I believe, to enable one to suppose that a story similar to the con- tents of Dk 9.32.1–2 was told in Iran, with *Hordâd and Murdâd as the names of the demons / rebelling angels. This version, whether Manichaean, «popu- lar», or «heretical», provoked a response by the Zandists who incorporated a re-working of their own into the Warðtmânsar Nask.

55 As to the forms Artat Amurtat cited in SHAKED, Popular Religion in Sasanian Babylonia... 113, compare: çåéøî çåéøà úøåîà úúøà.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:01PM via free access