IRANO-JUDAICA III STUDIES RELATING TO JEWISH CONTACTS WITH PERSIAN CULTURE THROUGHOUT THE AGES Edited by SHAUL SHAKED and AMNON NETZER Sy SapCONTENTS Introduction I. Iranian Religion and Judaism: Comparative Studies GEDALIAHU G,. STROUMSA, Jerusalem Zoroastrian Origin to the Sefirat? ALMUT HINTZE, Berlin The Greek and Hebrew Versions of the Book of Esther and Its Iranian Background WERNER SUNDERMANN, Berlin Man's “Book of the Giants” and the Jewish Books of Enoch. A Case of Terminological Differences and What It Implies JEAN KELLENS, Liége L’eschatologie mazdéenne ancienne PHILIPPE GIGNOUX, Paris Sur la réalité d'une sibylle persane JAMES R. RUSSELL, Cambridge, Mass. The Ascensio Isaiae and Iran A.V. WILLIAMS, Manchester Zoroastrian and Judaic Purity Laws. Reflections on the Viability of a Sociological Interpretation KD. IRANI, New York The Conceptual Basis for the Interaction between the Ancient Traditions of the Jews and the Iranians 17 40 49 63 72 90IL. Jewish Life in Iran from the Parthian Period to Modern Times V.A. LIVSHITS AND Z.I. USMANOVA, St. Petersburg New Parthian Inscriptions from Old Merv SHAUL SHAKED, Jerusalem Items of Dress and Other Objects in Common Use: Iranian Loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic AMNON NETZER, Jerusalem Rashid al-Din and his Jewish Background VERA B. MOREEN, Philadelphia A Dialogue between God and Satan in Shahin’s Bereshit Namah SOROUR SOROUDI, Jerusalem The Concept of Jewish Impurity and Its Reflection in Persian and Judeo-Persian Traditions HAIDEH SAHIM, New York The Dialect of the Jews of Hamedan 99 106 118 127 142Introduction by Sh ace € mk eed This third volume of Irano-Judaica demonstrates the great variety of themes and periods which fall under this heading. Although the studies presented here are diverse in contents and concerns, employ different methods of enquiry, and in some cases display contrasting attitudes and opinions, there is a certain uniformity which may be discerned behind these divergencies. The present collection of papers reflects the most important studies presented to the Irano-Judaica group in its meeting in Jerusalem in July 1990. Two of the papers were not delivered at that meeting, and have been included here because they belong to the general framework. Professor Livshits was unable to attend the meeting, but in his subsequent visit to Jerusalem he asked us to regard the lecture he delivered at the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities as the one he would have contributed to the Irano-Judaica conference. Professor Irani’s paper was inadvertently omitted from the preceding collection, and in publishing it here we are making amends for that failure. The book has been divided into two sections. The first deals with problems of religious contact between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, and the second is devoted to various other aspects of the historical relations between the two cultures. In the following I shall present the main points of the papers included in this volume, with occasionally a supplementary remark or correction, which I hope the authors will accept with good grace. I. Iranian Religion and Judaism: Comparative Studies Gedaliahu Stroumsa discusses, in a richly documented paper, the similarity of the conception of the seven sefirot with the earlier Jewish idea of seven abstract spirits, and he compares this Jewish conception to the Iranian notion of the Amesha Spenta. The idea of this connection has already been voiced in the scholarly literature, as the author points out, since the end of the nineteenth century, but Stroumsa’s paper is the first attempt to explore it thoroughly and to tie up all the different loose ends. The ancient Jewish sefirat of Sefer Yezira are then connected to the kabbalistic sefirot, and if this is accepted, we have here a long line of development within Judaism of a notion which may have originally derived from Iran. This is a suggestion that deserves to be given careful consideration. Whether8 INTRODUCTION or not it is going ultimately to become part of scholarly consensus, the discussion raises interesting questions as to the channels of transmission of religious ideas between Iranians and Jews. Almut Hintze examines a number of specific points emerging from the comparison of the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Book of Esther. One of these points involves the name of King Ahasuerus. The Hebrew form suggests that this is the Old Persian name X$aya-arSan-, which would give Greek Xerxes. The Greek text however has a different name, Artaxerxes. Both are names of historical kings of the Achaemenian dynasty. As against the Hebrew epithet for Haman, “Agagi”, there is the Greek epithet Bougaios. The Hebrew name for the feast which was established as a result of the events recounted in the Book of Esther is Purim; the Greek name of that feast is frourai, with the form frouraia used by Josephus, and a variant, frourdia, being attested for Esther 9:26. The Greek forms, the author argues, are clearly not mere transcriptions of the Hebrew, but display an independent tradition, and must be accounted for. The examination of these forms suggests that they can reflect genuine Iranian forms, and have a chance of being original, or at least of having as much a claim to authenticity as the Hebrew version. In his article on Mani’s Book of the Giants Werner Sundermann re-cxamines an interesting problem that has already exercised the minds of several scholars in the course of recent Manichaean scholarship, including lately J.C. Reeves (1992). The problem concerns the use Mani made of certain Jewis motifs, namely those occurring in the Enochic cycle of writings. Sundermann’s article contains an edition of a hitherto unpublished Turfan fragment in Sogdian, which may belong to the same literary cycle as the Book of Giants, and comes to the conclusion that Mani was familiar with the Jewish Enoch books as used by the Jewish-Christian community of the Elchasaites. Those books may have undergone a gnosticising interpretation already before Mani’s time (this is the position of G.G. Stroumsa), or — as Sundermann is inclined to believe — the Manichaean interpretation may have been read into these stories by Mani himself. The problem of ancient Iranian eschatology, which has an obvious bearing on the question of possible Iranian influences on Judaism, has been onc of Jean Kellens’ scholarly concerns in several of his publications. In the article published in this volume he gives his thoughts on this problem a new formulation. His conclusions are summarized in three succinct and clear points: Individual eschatology forms part of the ancient Iranian religion from its initial stage, according to Kellens. The character of that religion is ritualistic, and the individual eschatology that Kellens recognizes as existing there is an organic concomitant of this ritualistic approach. Kellens can sce no hint of collective or public eschatology in the older layers of Iranian religious history, up to the end of the Achaemenian period. From these statements there follows scepticism as to the possibility of an Iranian influence on Jewish apocalypticism. One should however distinguish, if I may add here a note of my own, between apocalypticism and universal eschatology; even if the former is denied, it is possible to investigate whether the latter existed. Kellens clearly denies both. In any case one should assume that the issue is not yetINTRODUCTION 9 definitively settled. Scholarly interpretation of the Old Avestan texts is divided between two schools of scholarship with diametrically opposed results. Kellens represents here those scholars who understand the Gathas in terms of a ritualistic religion, very close to that of Vedic India. Other scholars give more weight to the continuity of religion in Iran, and accept the traditional reading of the Gathic texts, which makes them a close precursor of later Zoroasatrianism. No approach has yet brought decisive proof, although the weight of probability favours, to my mind, the assumption that the chasm separating the Gathas from the later phases of the Iranian religion cannot have been so deep. Certain Sibylline texts written in Greek in the Hellenistic period, and in particular the third, are supposed to derive from Iran or to contain Iranian influences. This is the theme discussed by Philippe Gignoux, who continues here a line of argument that he has pursued over several articles in the course of the past few years. The main thrust of his argument is directed against Mary Boyce’s hypothesis of the existence of a Persian Sibyl. In buttressing his thesis that apocalypticism is of late appearance in Iran, he relies on the views.of Jean Kellens (given a renewed formulation in this volume), who denies the antiquity of universal eschatology in Iran. Another support for the denial of a Persian Sibyl is derived by the author from the research made by Valentin Nikiprowetzky on the third Sibyl. Part of the debate hinges over the question whether one accepts Flusser’s arguments (cf. Flusser 1972) in favour of an Iranian origin to the idea of the Four Kingdoms, one important point of that argument being the fact that Media and Persia are placed at the conclusion of the series of four kingdoms. The debate over the antecedence and originality of Iranian ideas in this field as opposed to Jewish, Babylonian, or Hellenistic claims, is at this stage in our knowledge at a deadlock. The different schools of research have had their say, each arguing forcefully for its own point of view, but no conclusive proof one way or the other is available. Ultimately the question as to whose reconstruction is more plausible should be resolved no less by using aesthetic and structural criteria, or considerations of historical probability, than by seeking incontrovertible proof. In an article rich in allusions and suggestions, James R. Russell discusses a complex of themes that occur in Judaism and may have Iranian antecedents. This relates to the legends concerning the Prophet Isaiah having been sawn in two, like Yima (on whom I would add a reference to Shaked 1987). At the same time, the article evokes many more themes, such as that of the severed head, the ascension of the soul to heaven, the vision of the upper worlds, and many more. Alan Williams uses the model developed by the anthropologist Mary Douglas for interpreting the structure and functioning of the Zoroastrian laws of purity. The model helps in building a scheme that seems symmetrical and aesthetically satisfactory, and at the same time clarifies the structure of the conceptions of purity laws in Zoroastrianism. Williams is careful to point out the limitations of his approach. Zoroastrian literature is a fairly small and homogeneous body of texts, and lends itself quite easily to this kind of treatment. Much of the diversity that presumably existed within Zoroastrianism is lost, one may add, by the fact that the little that is extant of Zoroastrian literature was transmitted through priests who10 INTRODUCTION represented one single strand. If we had access to other forms of Zoroastrianism we might find that the picture is less tidy. In addition, as Williams points out, we are cut off from the actual practice and life of Zoroastrian society in the historical periods in which the code of laws was developing. The interaction between rules and their application is essential for understanding the sense of the system. These observations make the contrast between Zoroastrianism and Judaism somewhat less significant. In both cases there is a strong element of truth in the observation that the rules of purity are a symbolic statement of intent, and at the same time also a reality that subsequently helps shape the other elements of the civilization. K.D. Irani offers an analysis of the conceptual basis for the contact between the two sets of traditions, Judaism and Iran. He observes that there are different forms and contexts in which contact between two cultures can take place. Besides the casual, and essentially external, reference to another culture, there are more important and subtle manners in which one culture acknowledges the existence of the other: by accepting or repudiating elements of the other, or by having certain elements in one’s own culture transformed under the impact of the other. Starting from these premises Irani proceeds to examine in detail the main tenets of the two religions. Some of his statements may arouse disagreement. Thus Irani describes the early Zoroastrian tradition as monotheistic, although it admits of two spirits that are in opposition in the world: I have suggested (in Shaked 1994, forthcoming, chapter 1) that the contrast between monotheism and dualism is more illusory than real, for there is no monotheism, I believe, in which there is no element of duality, and there can be no ethical dualism that describes the two cosmic elements in the conflict as equal, hence it is essentially a monotheism with a strong emphasis on the duality that exists in the world. The distinction is thus probably more one of degree than of essence. Irani’s analyses of the various conceptions add a dimension of depth to the discussion of religious contacts. II. Jewish life in Iran from the Parthian period to modern times The joint article by Livshits and Usmanova contains a publication of three unpublished inscriptions on pottery vessels of the Parthian period found in Old Merv. Z.1. Usmanova gives the archaeological background to the epigraphic finds at Old Merv, and V.A. Livshits discusses the readings of the osctraca and their significance. The relevance of this material to Irano-Judaica lies in the fact that the owner's name in one of the inscriptions (No. 1) apparently has a Semitic patronymic, more specifically perhaps a Jewish father’s name, Joseph. The name of the father ys’, is, according to Livshits’ reasonable surmise, a hypocorism of Joseph. The puzzling feature of this personal name is the fact that the son’s name is a very typical Parthian name, Pakar (or Pakér), and it is anyone’s guess why a Jew, if the hypothesis offered by Livshits is right, should have given an Iranian name to his son. On the other hand, it may be taken for granted that Jews often bore Gentile names in Iran. Inscription No. 3 apparently also contains a Semitic name, which may have been borne by a Jew: mylk, Melek, literally “counsel, advice”, or “king”INTRODUCTION 8] (these definitions seem preferable to those given in the article). The feminine biblical name Milka could fit either of these two meanings. At a much later period mik is known as a Jewish nickname in Iran. It occurs in one of ther tombstones from Jam in Afghanistan, dated 1194 A.D. (cf. Rapp 1965:29; Shaked 1981:78). In my article I discuss a group of words denoting certain objects in common use in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud that were borrowed from Iranian. Some borrowings are obvious, others conjectural and hypothetical. Such borrowings serve as evidence for the daily contact between the various groups in Parthian and Sasanian Babylonia, although they do not necessarily denote a particular connection between Jews and Iranians. Amnon Netzer discusses the great Iranian historian and public figure of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century, Rashid al-Din. It has been a matter of scholarly debate for a long time whether Rashid al-Din’s ancestry was Jewish or not, for the malicious imputation of Jewish roots to a public figure was a common practice in Mediaeval Islam. After giving a survey of the scholarly discussion of this question, Netzer reexamines the whole range of evidence. His findings make it very probable that Rashid al-Din was indeed born a Jew and that he converted to Islam in his adult life, although ultimately the sincerity of his Muslim faith was apparently beyond reproach. A study in the literary history of Judaeo-Persian is presented by Vera B, Moreen, who examines in detail the treatment accorded by the poet Shahin to the theme of the fall of Satan. At the heart of her discussion is the attempt to establish the Jewish and Muslim sources used by the poet. It is noteworthy that in this particular episode (and often elsewhere as well) Shahin relied more heavily on Islamic than on Jewish traditions. The author is sceptical about the possibility that Shahin might have known the Qur’an directly, and assumes that the Jews were reluctant to become acquainted with the Arabic script, let alone to read Muslim scriptures. Such a statement is however in need of qualification, for we do know that some Iranian Jews of the Cairo Geniza period wrote their letters, or at least parts of them, in Arabic script (this will be demonstrated by my forthcoming publication of the Judaeo-Persian Geniza material). Besides, they had recourse to compositions written by Muslims in Arabic script, and even the Quran enjoyed a measure of familiarity among Jews (for this point cf. Steinschneider 1893:854f.; Weinstein 1971/2; Lazarus-Yafeh 1991). The Qur’an was used as a source for quotations in some Jewish magical texts, and particularly in Judaeo-Persian, although this is attested only from a relatively late date (cf. Shaked 1983). The close comparison made by the author of the pocm by Shahin with certain Islamic compositions, such as Nisabiiri, shows that Shahin often echoes phrases used by Muslim sources. The author suggests two possible explanations for this surprising indebtedness: that Sufi ideas exercised strong influence on the Jews of Persia, and that Muslim legends were regarded as part of the common folk heritage of both Jews and Muslims in Iran. A detailed and very informative study by Sorour Soroudi brings together massive information about the religious and practical position of the Jews in recent Iran. The particular angle from which this question is approached is the definition of the Jews (like other members of non-Islamic religious groups) as carriers of impurity12 INTRODUCTION according to the Shi'a perception of the term. The practical, sometimes also the theoretical, situation of the Jews differs in some respects from those of other groups, partly because they did not have the patronage of external forces, as did the Christians and more recently the Zoroastrians, Some of them held certain marginal occupations, being engaged as entertainers, amulet-writers or readers of the future, and as such were exempt on certain occasions from the restrictions imposed by the purity laws. The laws themselves entailed a number of humiliating points of hardship on the Jews, but originally they were the expression of a genuine religious concern. This does not mean to say that they were not often used merely for keeping the Jewish congregation down, for extorting money from them, or for pressuring them to convert. The author also investigates the possible roots of these conceptions of purity, which have striking affinities with Zoroastrian rules. Haideh Sahim gives a brief sketch of the dialect of the Jews of Hamedan (as she prefers to spell the place name), indicating its position among other Jewish dialects of Iran and placing it, as has been done by scholars before, among the Central Dialects. The Jewish dialects are not a separate group as such: they reflect the Position of the Jews in the areas in which they were or are spoken, and their study affords an opportunity for understanding population migrations within Iran. It is Particularly useful to have a list of Hebrew words in the dialects — the study of the Hebrew components in the various Jewish languages and dialects is instructive both for reconstructing the history of Hebrew and the Jewish tradition of the community in question. It also sheds some light on the phonetics and semantics of the dialect in question. Publishing this volume, with the wealth and diversity of studies that it contains, and with the numerous technical difficulties that such a task entails, was made possible through the generosity of several organizations, the names of which are listed on the back of the title-page. The conference was held under the auspices of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and the Hebrew University. The capable staff of the Ben-Zvi Institute, and in particular Mr. Michael Glatzer, contributed a great deal to the success of the conference as well as to the publication of this volume. All of them deserve our sincere thanks. I should like to conclude with a word of thanks to my co-editor, Amnon Netzer, who has been helpful both materially and intellectually in establishing this forum for Judaeo-Persian and Irano-Jewish studies. Shaul Shaked