meaning of bara, he cut, cut out, carved, planed down, polished; and
he refers to Lee, who characterizes it as a silly theory that bara
meant to create ex nihilo. In Joshua xvii. 15 and 18, the same verb is
used in the sense of cutting down trees; in Psalm civ. 30 it is
translated by 'Thou renewest the face of the earth.' In Arabic, too,
according to Lane, bara means properly, though not always, to create
out of pre-existing matter. All this shows that in the verb bara, as
in the Sanskrit tvaksh or taksh, there is no trace of the meaning
assigned to it by later scholars, of a creation out of nothing. That
idea in its definiteness was a modern idea, most likely called forth
by the contact between Jews and Greeks at Alexandria. It was probably
in contradistinction to the Greek notion of matter as co-eternal with
the Creator, that the Jews, to whom Jehovah was all in all, asserted,
for the first time deliberately, that God had made all things out of
nothing. This became afterwards the received and orthodox view of
Jewish and Christian divines, though the verb bara, so far from
lending any support to this theory, would rather show that, in the
minds of those whom Moses addressed and whose language he spoke, it
could only have called forth the simple conception of fashioning or
arranging--if, indeed, it called forth any more definite conception
than the general and vague one conveyed by the [Greek: poiein] of the
Septuagint. To find out how the words of the Old Testament were
understood by those to whom they were originally addressed is a task
attempted by very few interpreters of the Bible. The great majority of
readers transfer without hesitation the ideas which they connect with
words as used in the nineteenth century to the mind of Moses or his
contemporaries, forgetting altogether the distance which divides their
language and their thoughts from the thoughts and language of the
wandering tribes of Israel.
How many words, again, there are in Homer which have indeed a
traditional interpretation, as given by our dictionaries and
commentaries, but the exact purport of which is completely lost, is
best known to Greek scholars. It is easy enough to translate [Greek:
polemoio gephyrai] by the bridges of war, but what Homer really meant
by these [Greek: gephyrai] has never been explained. It is extremely
doubtful whether bridges, in our sense of the word, were known at all
at the time of Homer; and even if it could be proved that Homer used
[Greek: gephyrai] in the sense of a dam, the etymology, i. e., the
earliest history of the word, would still remain obscure and doubtful.
It is easy, again, to see that [Greek: hieros] in Greek means
something like the English sacred. But how, if it did so, the same
adjective could likewise be applied to a fish or to a chariot, is a
question which, if it is to be answered at all, can only be answered
by an etymological analysis of the word.[48] To say that sacred may
mean marvellous, and therefore big, is saying nothing, particularly as
Homer does not speak of catching big fish, but of catching fish in
general.
[Footnote 48: On [Greek: hieros], the Sanskrit ishira, lively, see
Kuhn's 'Zeitschrift,' vol. ii. p. 275, vol. iii. p. 134.]
These considerations--which might be carried much further, but which,
we are afraid, have carried us away too far from our original
subject--were suggested to us while reading a lecture lately published
by Dr. Haug, and originally delivered by him at Bombay, in 1864,
before an almost exclusively Parsi audience. In that lecture Dr. Haug
gives a new translation of ten short paragraphs of the Zend-Avesta,
which he had explained and translated in his 'Essays on the Sacred
Language of the Parsees,' published in 1862. To an ordinary reader the
difference between the two translations, published within the space of
two years, might certainly be perplexing, and calculated to shake his
faith in the soundness of a method that can lead to such varying
results. Nor can it be denied that, if scholars who are engaged in
these researches are bent on representing their last translation as
final and as admitting of no further improvement, the public has a
right to remind them that 'finality' is as dangerous a thing in
scholarship as in politics. Considering the difficulty of translating
the pages of the Zend-Avesta, we can never hope to have every sentence
of it rendered into clear and intelligible English. Those who for the
first time reduced the sacred traditions of the Zoroastrians to
writing were separated by more than a thousand years from the time of
their original composition. After that came all the vicissitudes to
which manuscripts are exposed during the process of being copied by
more or less ignorant scribes. The most ancient MSS. of the
Zend-Avesta date from the beginning of the fourteenth century. It is
true there is an early translation of the Zend-Avesta, the Pehlevi
translation, and a later one in Sanskrit by Neriosengh. But the
Pehlevi translation, which was made under the auspices of the
Sassanian kings of Persia, served only to show how completely the
literal and grammatical meaning of the Zend-Avesta was lost even at
that time, in the third century after Christ; while the Sanskrit
translation was clearly made, not from the original, but from the
Pehlevi. It is true, also, that even in more modern times the Parsis
of Bombay were able to give to Anquetil Duperron and other Europeans
what they considered as a translation of the Zend-Avesta in modern
Persian. But a scholar like Burnouf, who endeavoured for the first
time to give an account of every word in the Zend text, to explain
each grammatical termination, to parse every sentence, and to
establish the true meaning of each term by an etymological analysis
and by a comparison of cognate words in Sanskrit, was able to derive
but scant assistance from these traditional translations. Professor
Spiegel, to whom we owe a complete edition and translation of the
Zend-Avesta, and who has devoted the whole of his life to the
elucidation of the Zoroastrian religion, attributes a higher value to
the tradition of the Parsis than Dr. Haug. But he also is obliged to
admit that he could ascribe no greater authority to these traditional
translations and glosses than a Biblical scholar might allow to
Rabbinical commentaries. All scholars are agreed in fact on this, that
whether the tradition be right or wrong, it requires in either case to
be confirmed by an independent grammatical and etymological analysis
of the original text. Such an analysis is no doubt as liable to error
as the traditional translation itself, but it possesses this
advantage, that it gives reasons for every word that has to be
translated, and for every sentence that has to be construed. It is an
excellent discipline to the mind even where the results at which we
arrive are doubtful or erroneous, and it has imparted to these studies
a scientific value and general interest which they could not otherwise
have acquired.
We shall give a few specimens of the translations proposed by
different scholars of one or two verses of the Zend-Avesta. We cannot
here enter into the grammatical arguments by which each of these
translations is supported. We only wish to show what is the present
state of Zend scholarship, and though we would by no means disguise
the fact of its somewhat chaotic character, yet we do not hesitate to
affirm that, in spite of the conflict of the opinions of different
scholars, and in spite of the fluctuation of systems apparently
opposed to each other, progress may be reported, and a firm hope
expressed that the essential doctrines of one of the earliest forms of
religion may in time be recovered and placed before us in their
original purity and simplicity. We begin with the Pehlevi translation
of a passage in Ya_s_na, 45:
'Thus the religion is to be proclaimed; now give an
attentive hearing, and now listen, that is, keep your ear in
readiness, make your works and speeches gentle. Those who
have wished from nigh and far to study the religion, may now
do so. For now all is manifest, that Anhuma (Ormazd)
created, that Anhuma created all these beings; that at the
second time, at the (time of the) future body, Aharman does
not destroy (the life of) the worlds. Aharman made evil
desire and wickedness to spread through his tongue.'
Professor Spiegel, in 1859, translated the same passage, of which the
Pehlevi is a running commentary rather than a literal rendering, as
follows:
'Now I will tell you, lend me your ear, now hear what you
desired, you that came from near and from afar! It is clear,
the wise (spirits) have created all things; evil doctrine
shall not for a second time destroy the world. The Evil One
has made a bad choice with his tongue.'
Next follows the translation of the passage as published by Dr. Haug
in 1862:
'All ye, who have come from nigh and far, listen now and
hearken to my speech. Now I will tell you all about that
pair of spirits how it is known to the wise. Neither the
ill-speaker (the devil) shall destroy the second (spiritual)
life, nor that man who, being a liar with his tongue,
professes the false (idolatrous) belief.'
The same scholar, in 1865, translates the same passage somewhat
differently:
'All you that have come from near and far should now listen
and hearken to what I shall proclaim. Now the wise have
manifested this universe as a duality. Let not the
mischief-maker destroy the second life, since he, the
wicked, chose with his tongue the pernicious doctrine.'
The principal difficulty in this paragraph consists in the word which
Dr. Haug translated by duality, viz. dum, and which he identifies with
Sanskrit dvam, i. e. dvandvam, pair. Such a word, as far as we are
aware, does not occur again in the Zend-Avesta, and hence it is not
likely that the uncertainty attaching to its meaning will ever be
removed. Other interpreters take it as a verb in the second person
plural, and hence the decided difference of interpretation.
The sixth paragraph of the same passage is explained by the Pehlevi
translator as follows:
'Thus I proclaimed that among all things the greatest is to
worship God. The praise of purity is (due) to him who has a
good knowledge, (to those) who depend on Ormazd. I hear
Spento-mainyu (who is) Ormazd; listen to me, to what I shall
speak (unto you). Whose worship is intercourse with the Good
Mind; one can know (experience) the divine command to do
good through inquiry after what is good. That which is in
the intellect they teach me as the best, viz. the inborn
(heavenly) wisdom, (that is, that the divine wisdom is
superior to the human).'
Professor Spiegel translates:
'Now I will tell you of all things the greatest. It is
praise with purity of Him who is wise from those who exist.
The holiest heavenly being, Ahuramazda, may hear it, He for
whose praise inquiry is made from the holy spirit, may He
teach me the best by his intelligence.'
Dr. Haug in 1862:
'Thus I will tell you of the greatest of all (Sraosha), who
is praising the truth, and doing good, and of all who are
gathered round him (to assist him), by order of the holy
spirit (Ahuramazda). The living Wise may hear me; by means
of His goodness the good mind increases (in the world). He
may lead me with the best of his wisdom.'
Dr. Haug in 1865:
'I will proclaim as the greatest of all things that one
should be good, praising only truth. Ahuramazda will hear
those who are bent on furthering (all that is good). May he
whose goodness is communicated by the Good Mind instruct me
in his best wisdom.'
To those who are interested in the study of Zend, and wish to judge
for themselves of the trustworthiness of these various translations,
we can recommend a most useful work lately published in Germany by Dr.
F. Justi, 'Handbuch der Zendsprache,' containing a complete
dictionary, a grammar, and selections from the Zend-Avesta.
_September, 1865._
VII.
GENESIS AND THE ZEND-AVESTA.[49]
O that scholars could have the benefit of a little legal training, and
learn at least the difference between what is probable and what is
proven! What an advantage also, if they had occasionally to address a
jury of respectable tradespeople, and were forced to acquire the art,
or rather not to shrink from the effort, of putting the most intricate
and delicate points in the simplest and clearest form of which they
admit! What a lesson again it would be to men of independent research,
if, after having amassed ever so many bags full of evidence, they had
always before their eyes the fear of an impatient judge who wants to
hear nothing but what is important and essential, and hates to listen
to anything that is not to the point, however carefully it may have
been worked out, and however eloquently it may be laid before him!
There is hardly one book published now-a-days which, if everything in
it that is not to the purpose were left out, could not be reduced to
half its size. If authors could make up their minds to omit everything
that is only meant to display their learning, to exhibit the
difficulties they had to overcome, or to call attention to the
ignorance of their predecessors, many a volume of thirty sheets would
collapse into a pamphlet of fifty pages, though in that form it would
probably produce a much greater effect than in its more inflated
appearance.
[Footnote 49: 'Eran, das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris, Beitraege
zur Kenntniss des Landes und seiner Geschichte.' Von Dr. Friedrich
Spiegel. Berlin, 1863.]
Did the writers of the Old Testament borrow anything from the
Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, or the Indians, is a simple
enough question. It is a question that may be treated quite apart from
any theological theories; for the Old Testament, whatever view the
Jews may take of its origin, may surely be regarded by the historian
as a really historical book, written at a certain time in the history
of the world, in a language then spoken and understood, and
proclaiming certain facts and doctrines meant to be acceptable and
intelligible to the Jews, such as they were at that time, an
historical nation, holding a definite place by the side of their more
or less distant neighbours, whether Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, or
Indians. It is well known that we have in the language of the New
Testament the clear vestiges of Greek and Roman influences, and if we
knew nothing of the historical intercourse between those two nations
and the writers of the New Testament, the very expressions used by
them--not only their language, but their thoughts, their allusions,
illustrations, and similes--would enable us to say that some
historical contact had taken place between the philosophers of Greece,
the lawgivers of Rome, and the people of Judea. Why then should not
the same question be asked with regard to more ancient times? Why
should there be any hesitation in pointing out in the Old Testament an
Egyptian custom, or a Greek word, or a Persian conception? If Moses
was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, nothing surely would
stamp his writings as more truly historical than traces of Egyptian
influences that might be discovered in his laws. If Daniel prospered
in the reign of Cyrus the Persian, every Persian word that could be
discovered in Daniel would be most valuable in the eyes of a critical
historian. The only thing which we may fairly require in
investigations of this kind is that the facts should be clearly
established. The subject is surely an important one--important
historically, quite apart from any theological consequences that may
be supposed to follow. It is as important to find out whether the
authors of the Old Testament had come in contact with the language and
ideas of Babylon, Persia, or Egypt, as it is to know that the Jews, at
the time of our Lord's appearance, had been reached by the rays of
Greek and Roman civilisation--that in fact our Lord, his disciples,
and many of his followers, spoke Greek as well as Hebrew (i. e.
Chaldee), and were no strangers to that sphere of thought in which the
world of the Gentiles, the Greeks, and Romans had been moving for
centuries.
Hints have been thrown out from time to time by various writers that
certain ideas in the Old Testament might be ascribed to Persian
influences, and be traced back to the Zend-Avesta, the sacred writings
of Zoroaster. Much progress has been made in the deciphering of these
ancient documents, since Anquetil Duperron brought the first
instalment of MSS. from Bombay, and since the late Eugene Burnouf, in
his 'Commentaire sur le Yasna,' succeeded in establishing the grammar
and dictionary of the Zend language upon a safe basis. Several
editions of the works of Zoroaster have been published in France,
Denmark, and Germany; and after the labours of Spiegel, Westergaard,
Haug, and others, it might be supposed that such a question as the
influence of Persian ideas on the writers of the Old Testament might
at last be answered either in the affirmative or in the negative. We
were much pleased, therefore, on finding that Professor Spiegel, the
learned editor and translator of the Avesta, had devoted a chapter of
his last work, 'Eran, das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris,' to the
problem in question. We read his chapter, 'Avesta und die Genesis,
oder die Beziehungen der Eranier zu den Semiten,' with the warmest
interest, and when we had finished it, we put down the book with the
very exclamation with which we began our article.
We do not mean to say anything disrespectful to Professor Spiegel, a
scholar brimfull of learning, and one of the two or three men who know
the Avesta by heart. He is likewise a good Semitic scholar, and knows
enough of Hebrew to form an independent opinion on the language,
style, and general character of the different books of the Old
Testament. He brings together in his Essay a great deal of interesting
information, and altogether would seem to be one of the most valuable
witnesses to give evidence on the point in question. Yet suppose him
for a moment in a court of justice where, as in a patent case, some
great issue depends on the question whether certain ideas had first
been enunciated by the author of Genesis or the author of the Avesta;
suppose him subjected to a cross-examination by a brow-beating lawyer,
whose business it is to disbelieve and make others disbelieve every
assertion that the witness makes, and we are afraid the learned
Professor would break down completely. Now it may be said that this is
not the spirit in which learned inquiries should be conducted, that
authors have a right to a certain respect, and may reckon on a certain
amount of willingness on the part of their readers. Such a plea may,
perhaps, be urged when all preliminary questions in a contest have
been disposed of, when all the evidence has been proved to lie in one
direction, and when even the most obstinate among the gentlemen of the
jury feel that the verdict is as good as settled. But in a question
like this, where everything is doubtful, or, we should rather say,
where all the prepossessions are against the view which Dr. Spiegel
upholds, it is absolutely necessary for a new witness to be armed from
top to toe, to lay himself open to no attack, to measure his words,
and advance step by step in a straight line to the point that has to
be reached. A writer like Dr. Spiegel should know that he can expect
no mercy; nay, he should himself wish for no mercy, but invite the
heaviest artillery against the floating battery which he has launched
into the troubled waters of Biblical criticism. If he feels that his
case is not strong enough, the wisest plan surely is to wait, to
accumulate new strength if possible, or, if no new evidence is
forthcoming, to acknowledge openly that there is no case.
M. Breal--who, in his interesting Essay 'Hercule et Cacus,' has lately
treated the same problem, the influence of Persian ideas on the
writers of the Old Testament--gives an excellent example of how a case
of this kind should be argued. He begins with the apocryphal books,
and he shows that the name of an evil spirit like Asmodeus, which
occurs in Tobit, could be borrowed from Persia only. It is a name
inexplicable in Hebrew, and it represents very closely the Parsi
Eshem-dev, the Zend Aeshma daeva, the spirit of concupiscence,
mentioned several times in the Avesta (Vendidad, c. 10), as one of the
devs, or evil spirits. Now this is the kind of evidence we want for
the Old Testament. We can easily discover a French word in English,
nor is it difficult to tell a Persian word in Hebrew. Are there any
Persian words in Genesis, words of the same kind as Asmodeus in Tobit?
No such evidence has been brought forward, and the only words we can
think of which, if not Persian, may be considered of Aryan origin, are
the names of such rivers as Tigris and Euphrates; and of countries
such as Ophir and Havilah among the descendants of Shem, Javan,
Meshech, and others among the descendants of Japhet. These names are
probably foreign names, and as such naturally mentioned by the author
of Genesis in their foreign form. If there are other words of Aryan or
Iranian origin in Genesis, they ought to have occupied the most
prominent place in Dr. Spiegel's pleading.