Kohlhammer, 1965. Pp. Xvi + 393
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BOOK REVIEWS DIE RELIGIONEN IRANS. By Geo Widengren. Die Religionen der Mensch heit 14. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965. Pp. xvi + 393. DM 39 — This is an important book, yet at the same time an understandably con troversial one for two reasons: the strong personal views of the author and the difficulty of reaching universally acceptable conclusions because of problems of interpretation inherent in the available sources, especially for the earlier period. At the outset, the reviewer would suggest that this book be read side by side with the equally important work of J. Duchesne-Guille- min, La religion de l'Iran ancien (Paris, 1962), which appeared while Widen- gren's book was still in press. The two scholars cite earlier studies of each other and often indicate disagreement of interpretation on many points. This kind of disagreement is really salutary for the reader; for he is thus re peatedly warned that there are numerous serious problems in the investiga tion of Persian religion and that, for the present at least, no convincing solution is possible. W.'s book is at once systematic and comprehensive, and it reveals throughout a first-hand knowledge of the original sources He deliberately employs the plural Religionen in his title, because he covers not only pre- Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism, and later modifications of what may be regarded as Persian religion proper in the Parthian and Sassanid periods, but he deals also with Mandaeism, Manichaeism, and the cults of the Sagdians, Sacae, and other East Iranian peoples. He closes his exposition with a treat ment of Persian religion and its influence after the Islamic conquest. Ac cordingly, he includes an account of the Parsees, the last significant group still professing a living form of Persian religion. In his exposition of each phase or form of Persian religion, the author follows roughly the same general scheme: pantheon, cult and places of cult, eschatology, priests, religious art, and, where applicable, the royal office and its central religious role. This procedure runs the danger of oversystematization, but enables the reader to make easy and instinctive comparisons. Throughout, the author emphasizes the importance of the terminology in the original languages, and he gives and interprets the names of divinities and institutions as found in Old Indie, Old and Middle Persian, and in other Eastern tongues. Specific references are given in the footnotes to the original sources and to the perti nent modern scholarly literature. At the end of the main text W. has fur nished a copious bibliography (pp. 360-74), a chronological table (p. 376), a Namen- und Sachregister (pp. 377-81, really too brief), and two invaluable 357 358 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES indexes for such a work, namely, an Index of Old Indie, Iranian, and Ar menian Words and Concepts (pp. 382-88), and an Index of Citations (pp. 384-93). Finally, the book contains a map illustrating the distribution of the Iranian peoples (facing p. 1), and seven plans of Persian temples (pp. 358- 59). W., who is the most distinguished successor of H. S. Nyberg in this field, reflects, if in modified form, the basic views of his master in the history of religion. Furthermore, as in the case of some of his fellow Swedish scholars in the biblical field, he is inclined to overemphasize the role of kingship and its place in religion—even if it be granted that the role of kingship is significant in this respect. While he is familiar with the various studies of G. Dumézil, and especially his Les dieux des Indo-européens (Paris, 1952), he does not give sufficient weight to DuméziFs contributions in his own inter pretations of the Indo-Iranian pantheon and mythology. His sociological approach in dealing with religious institutions leads him at times, e.g., in his treatment of religious associations or brotherhoods, to exaggerate their function and influence. His scepticism regarding any precise dating for Zoroaster (p. 61) is a bit extreme, yet it should be observed that his attitude indicates how little we have to work with on this question. No two scholars agree completely on the teachings of Zoroaster himself. W.'s personal evalua tion (pp. 74r-88) should be compared with that of Duchesne-Guillemin {op. cit., pp. 135-45). Widengren has long been defending his position regarding the nature and significance of Zervanism (pp. 288-95), but he has not succeeded in gaining the support of other specialists on this matter. He is much more convincing in his treatment of Mandaeism and Manichaeism. He maintains—and the reviewer believes he is right in this—that Mandaeism and Manichaeism are essentially Iranian in their basic concepts. In the interests of missionary propaganda, Mani could present himself as an apostle of Christ and find a place for Jesus in his system, but there is no essential connection between the Christian and Manichaean conceptions of Christ (p. 300). Incidentally, missionary propaganda in the East led Mani to find a place for Buddhistic elements in his system also. The criticisms offered—and others could be added—should not give the reader an unfavorable impression. This book and that of Duchesne-Guille min are the two most important contributions to Persian religion at the present time; as suggested above, the two books should be read together. Finally, it is a pleasure to call the reader's attention to the excellent series in which it appears, Die Religionen der Menschheit. It consists of thirty-six volumes, of which some ten have been published since 1960. Catholic University of America MARTIN R. P. MCGUIRE BOOK REVIEWS 359 ISRAELITE RELIGION. By Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Pp. xvi + 391. $7.50. Ever since the beginning of modern critical study of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, attempts have been made to trace the development of the religion of Israel from the time of its foundation until the age of the can onization by the Jewish religious authorities of the books included by them in their Sacred Writ. The task of drawing up such a history was fraught with a number of difficulties. One was the condition in which the text has been transmitted. Many passages have come down in so defective a state that, even if the meaning of every term used in them were known, their total implication would still not be clear. Another problem was posed by the uncertainty con cerning the actual dates when the traditions recorded were committed to writing. Language is no more static than any other human phenomenon, and words do not always retain their original connotation. A third complica tion was presented by apparent contradictions contained in parallel accounts of what gave every impression of being the same facts or identical events. Until comparatively recent times, when the cuneiform inscriptions dis covered in the Tigris and Euphrates valley and the hieroglyphics of Egypt began to be deciphered, there was not even available contemporary litera ture with which to compare the assertions of the Bible. Without such checks the student of the Hebrew Scriptures was, except for the help he could secure from such sister languages to which he had access as Arabic and Ara maic, completely dependent on the text of these Scriptures and his own ingenuity. Such was the status of what passed as the scientific study of the OT in the Western world about a century ago, when Assyriology and Egyptology were still more or less in their infancy and very little light was thrown by the findings of archeology on Bible times and places. Since the critical student of the biblical texts, who was unhampered by tradition, was left relatively free to speculate, it was not too hard to propound theories that seemingly resolved most of the difficulties. By the time the Graf-Well- hausen school of higher Bible criticism made its appearance, nearly all questions about the composition and make-up of the Hebrew Scriptures and what elements in them were fact and what would have to be set down as fiction were believed to have been answered. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were completely legendary characters, and the stories told about them, particularly such tales as the late birth of Isaac, were pure imagination. There was even doubt about the existence of a man like Moses, and the laws attributed to him, if he did exist, were most certainly not held 360 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES to be of his making. He could not possibly have initiated them. The so-called Five Books of Moses were compiled centuries after the supposed date of his death. They were pieced together out of four basic documents. The two oldest of these, labeled by these Bible critics Elohist and Yahwist respect ively, after the designation employed by them of the deity, were not written before the ninth and eighth centuries before the Christian era. The scroll of the law, which was purported to have been found in the Temple of Jeru salem in the eighteenth year of the reign of the reformist king Josiah (621 B.C.E.), contained most of Deuteronomy, which had just then been com posed. Its pretended antiquity was nothing but a pious fraud, perpetrated by its authors to obtain acceptance. The latest of these documents was the priestly code, with its instructions about sacrifices and other such ritual, the dietary regulations, the rules of purity, and the observance of fasts and feasts. This code, which embraces the whole of the extant book of Leviticus and portions of Exodus and Numbers, did not come into being until after the return of the Judean captives from Babylonian exile and first attained its present form under the scribe Ezra in the fifth pre-Christian century.