Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables in the Škand Gumānīg Wizār1

Samuel Thrope

Hebrew University, Jerusalem

The title of this essay is plural, but its object is singular: a parable of a garden that ap-

pears in the Pazand version2 of the Middle Persian Zoroastrian theological treatise known as

the Škand Gumānīg Wizār (henceforth, ŠGW). The ŠGW, composed sometime in the ninth

century3 by the otherwise unknown author Mardānfarrox i Ohrmazddādān, is an apologetic

and polemical work in the style of ʿilm al-kalām rational theology.4 The first ten chapters of

the ŠGW are devoted to placing Zoroastrian theology on solid rationalist ground, and argue

for the logical necessity of ethical dualism, divine incorporeality, and the preexistence of the

evil antagonist, Ahriman. The remaining chapters—all extant manuscripts break off in the

1. The author would like the thank the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, which supported the research
that led to this article.
2. No manuscript of the Middle Persian original of the ŠGW is known to exist. All extant versions descend
from a Pazand and Sanskrit translation by the Indian Zoroastrian scholar Neryosang Dhaval. It is extremely
difficult to date Neryosang precisely, and scholars have proposed dates ranging from the eleventh to
fifteenth centuries. The most reliable approximate date seems to be the first half of the twelfth century,
proposed by Hodivala 1926.
3. Most scholars have dated the ŠGW to the second half of the ninth century. Edward William West first
proposed this date for the composition of the ŠGW in the introduction to his critical edition of the text
(Jamasp-Asana and West 1887: xvii-xviii). West bases his argument on the date of the editor of the ŠGW's
most important acknowledged source, the Middle Persian Zoroastrian theological and philosophical
compendium known as the Dēnkard. However, since the ŠGW only refers to the first compiler of the
Dēnkard, Ādurfarnbag ī Farroxzādān, and not the later editor Ādurbād ī Emēdān, West concluded that
Mardānfarrox must have lived and written after the first authority but before the second. As Ādurfarnbag is
often dated to the reign of the ʿAbbasid Caliph al-Maʾmun (r. 813-833), West dated the ŠGW near the end
of the ninth century. Jean de Menasce, the editor and translator of the now standard edition of the ŠGW,
rejects West's argument concerning the date of the Dēnkard's composition, and thereby his proof of the
ŠGW's ninth century provenance. However, on linguistic grounds he ascribes the text a similar date. See
further de Menasce 1945: 12. Recently, however, Mihaela Timuş has argued for a reevaluation of this
consensus and proposed dating the ŠGW to the tenth century. She bases her argument on the fact that in the
ŠGW's most extended reference to the Dēnkard, it calls the latter "the Dēnkard of One Thousand Chapters,"
the same name given to a later redaction of the text. See Timuș 2011. My thanks to Dr. Timuș for sharing
her work with me.
4. General similarities between the ŠGW and Muʿtazilite rational theology in particular are noted by de
Menasce 1945: 8-10, and in notes throughout his work.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 2

middle of chapter sixteen—are comprised of polemics against Islam, Judaism,5 Christianity,6

and Manichaeism.7 While the sources of the ŠGW's polemics have merited interest from

scholars, the text's literary features have gone almost entirely unnoticed; this essay is a mod-

est attempt to break ground in that unplowed field.

The parable is a well known genre in folk literature the world over. For instance, Je-

sus' parables in the New Testament (Kermode 1979) and parables in Jewish rabbinic exegeti-

cal literature, known as midrash, (Boyarin 1990:80-92; Fraenkel 1991: 1:323-94; Stern 1991;

and Hasan-Rokem 2003: 21-25) have been studied in particular depth. In both these classic,

and related, (Stern 1991: 188-206) examples of the genre, a short, schematic narrative is used

metaphorically to explicate a difficulty, either in theology, in interpretation, or both; this

somewhat opaque definition will be fleshed out in what follows.

While allusive fictions and exempla are rare and under-investigated in the study of

Zoroastrian literature,8 the fourth chapter of the ŠGW contains a model example of the

genre.9 This chapter is devoted overall to a discussion of celestial mechanics as it relates to

the influence of the evil planets and good stars on human fate.10 The ŠGW's parable is cast as

a response to a theological question that opens the chapter, posed by an otherwise unknown

individual named Mihiraiiār i Mahmādą of Isfahan.11 Mihraiiār questions how, since both

5. On the ŠGW's critique of Judaism see my doctoral dissertation, Thrope 2012, which includes references to
earlier literature.
6. On the ŠGW's critique of Christianity see Panaino 2007; Gignoux 2008; and Grenet 2010.
7. On the ŠGW's critique of Manichaeism see Sundermann 2001.
8. For a discussion of Sasanian wisdom literature (andarz), which includes some parabolic texts, see Shaked
1987 and, on Dēnkard Book Six, Aturpāt-i Ēmētān 1979. In contrast to the apparent dearth of parables in
Zoroastrian compositions, parables are prevalent in Manichaean literature. For a brief discussion of the
Manichaean genre see Sundermann 2009: 233-36 and the sources quoted there.
9. The text and translation can be found on pages 54-57 of de Menasce 1945.
10. On the prevalence of astrological beliefs in Zoroastrian literature and in the ŠGW in particular see Raffaelli
2009 and the sources quoted there.
11. Mihiraiiār is introduced in ŠGW 2:2 (de Menasce 1945: 34-35):
aβar pursašni ǝ̄ucaṇd hamǝ̄ pǝ̄rōžgar mihir aiiār i mahmādą ǝž spāhānī vahǝ manišnihā nǝ̄ halaa
x́ āhišnihā pursīṯ.
Regarding several questions which the ever-glorious Mihraiiār son of Mahmād from Isfahan asked
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 3

good and evil events on earth are dictated by the influence of the stars and the heavenly

sphere, the creation of these celestial bodies can be attributed to either the good creator

Ohrmazd or to the evil antagonist Ahriman. The radical opposition and incompatibility be-

tween good and evil is one of the central tenets of the ŠGW's theology,12 and Mihiriiār's ques-

tion points to a belief that seemingly contradicts this radical opposition. If Ahriman created

the celestial bodies, then he is, contrary to his nature, ultimately responsible for good events;

if Ohrmazd did so, he is, again, contrary to his nature, responsible for evil. If they created the

celestial bodies together, then Ohrmazd would be complicit in Ahriman's evildoing.13

Alongside the astrological arguments regarding the origins and functions of the planets

and the stars that Mardānfarrox deploys to answer the challenge raised by Mihiriiār i Mah-

mādą, the chapter also presents a parable of a gardener's defense of his garden against destruc-

tive vermin. In order to prevent the vermin from eating the fruit of the trees of his garden, a

wise gardener sets a trap that catches the vermin, who then exhausts itself struggling against

the trap and is put outside the garden. In an interpretation or solution that immediately fol-

lows the short, enigmatic narrative, Mardānfarrox likens the elements in the story to

Ohramzd's fashioning of the material world in order to foil Ahriman's attack on creation.

Mardānfarrox tells us that the gardener stands for Ohrmazd, the vermin for Ahriman, and the

trap for the material world in which Ahriman is caught until the end of time.

My argument in this essay is that the ŠGW's parable is not only a rhetorical tool to re-

solve Mihiriiār's particular theological challenge. Rather, the ŠGW presents us here with an

out of proper consideration, not foolish curiosity.

As de Menasce notes, Mihraiiār—or, to be more precise, his father—was apparently Muslim. See further
Cereti 2001: 80.
12. For the exposition of this opposition see ŠGW 8:1-38 (de Menasce 1945: 92-93).
13. ŠGW 4:2-6 (de Menasce 1945: 50-51).
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 4

exegetical parable. In other words, the difficulty or contradiction this parable aims to resolve

is not primarily Mihiriiār's challenge, but rather a difficulty in scripture; I am using this term

here in the sense of an oral canon, not necessarily a written text or texts. Though unacknowl-

edged in the text of the ŠGW itself, the parable is an interpretation of the Zoroastrian account

of creation, and an attempt to read away what, according to the ŠGW's theology, is a basic

contradiction in that text. Borrowing theoretical tools developed in the study of rabbinic para-

bles—known as mashal, plural meshalim—I will show how the ŠGW's garden parable is an

exegetical intervention in the Zoroastrian story of creation.

A Theory of the Mashal

The mashal has been defined as an allusive narrative told for an ulterior purpose, "ei-

ther to persuade people to take a certain action in some situation or to interpret that situation"

(Stern 1991: 6 and Boyarin 1995: 124). As mentioned above, analyses of the poetics of the

rabbinic genre can be brought to bear in the effort to unpack the garden parable from the

ŠGW. Without arguing for any historical link between the ŠGW and the mashal—for in-

stance that Mardānfarrox adopted the rabbinic form in some way—comparing the Zoroastrian

and rabbinic parables can highlight the underlying mechanics of the ŠGW's garden parable.

Nearly all rabbinic meshalim are composed of two parts: a fictional, stereotyped nar-

rative, which is the mashal proper, and the application of that narrative to a certain exegetical

occasion in scripture, the nimshal. Both sections begin with formulaic phrases and adhere

closely to a generic rubric. The nimshal also usually concludes with a biblical verse, the

mashal's prooftext. The following mashal from Genesis Rabbah 15,14 which identifies the

14. An exegetical midrash on the biblical book of Genesis that follows the narrative sequence of the Bible,
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 5

species of the tree of knowledge from which Adam ate in the garden of Eden, can serve as an

example:

Rabbi Yose said: it was a fig tree. Shall we not learn the solution from the context
of the verse?15 It resembles (mashal)16 a prince who dallied with one of his maid-
servants. When the king heard, he drove him away and out of the palace. He [the
prince] kept visiting at the thresholds of the maidservants, but none would receive
him.17 But the one who dallied with him opened her door and received him.

So too, when Adam ate from that tree, God drove him out and away from the gar-
den of Eden. And he kept visiting all the trees but none would receive him. But
the fig tree, because he had eaten her fruits, opened her door and received him. So
it is written: "And the eyes of the two were opened and they knew they were
naked and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves garments" (Genesis 3:7).18

Here, as is often the case in rabbinic parables, the generic marker mashal appears at

the beginning of this passage from Genesis Rabbah. The fictional narrative is sparse on detail

and description, moving in a few short sentences from crisis to climax to resolution. The

nimshal, in turn, connects each of the elements in the story to an element in a larger (textual)

reality, the canon of scripture.

The occasion for the mashal is a difficulty in the biblical text. These difficulties can

be of different types, including apparent contradictions, illogical turns in the plot, unidenti-

fied characters, or unfamilar words. Scholars have used the term "gap" for textual difficulties

Genesis Rabbah is dated to the first half of the fifth century CE. See Stack and Stemberger 1992: 276-283.
15. As noted by Frankel 1991: 1:343, this sentence is a conjunction of two principles of rabbinic hermeneutics:
davar me-davar hu lomed is a principle stating that something unclear can be clarified by something
evident which is similar to it. Davar ha-lamad me-ʿinyano states that something unclear can be clarified by
the context. As applied in the case of the unnamed tree, the two principles together indicate that the
unnamed tree can be identified by means of another tree that is named in the immediate context; this other
tree is none other than the fig.
16. The word mashal is missing from most manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah, but it is included in a parallel
version in Tosafot on Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 70b.
17. The text in Genesis Rabbah includes at this point a statement by Rabbi Berachiya describing what the trees
said to Adam, and an application of Psalms 36:12 to their words. This phrase can be identified as a later
interpolation both because it disrupts the flow of the narrative and because it is in Aramaic in an otherwise
Hebrew text. See Fraenkel 1991: 2:647, n. 74.
18. The text appears in Theodor and Albeck 1996: 1:140-141.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 6

of this kind; in Daniel Boyarin's formulation, a gap is "any place in the text that requires the

intervention of the reader to make sense of the story" (Boyarin 1995: 130). In this case, the

mashal from Genesis Rabbah aims to resolve a gap arising from the Bible's failure to identity

the species of the tree from which Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

There is a multifaceted relationship between the mashal's narrative and the text it in-

terprets. According to Boyarin, particularly in his Intertextuality and the Reading of

Midrash, the mashal is a schematic fiction that structures the enigmatic narrative of scripture,

encapsulated in the nimshal. In other words, the fictional narrative of the mashal, by employ-

ing shallow, stock characters, a minimum of plot and stereotyped phrases, provides a kind of

legend by means of which the reader can decode the multifaceted and polyphonous biblical

stories. The mashal dictates—enabling and at the same time constraining—what kinds of

plots Israel, God and the Nations of the World, the leading characters in the master-narrative

told in the Bible, can play out with each other: as Father and Son, Husband and Wife, King

and Servant.19 In explicating the application of the term fiction to the mashal's narrative, Bo-

yarin writes,
fiction here not being used in the sense of a text which is not true, but in the sense
of a text which has been structured so as to mean, an artifact. The function of the
mashal is to reveal the fictionality of the true story of the Torah, that is, to take its
recital of events, gapped as it is, and by assigning it a place in the cultural codes
articulated by simple narrative functions and structures, to allow it to be complet-
ed and to signify (Boyarin 1990: 91).

As Dina Stein has further noted, to read the mashal is to engage in a double reading:

first reading the mashal and nimshal together, discerning the correspondences between them

and how the mashal structures the scriptural narrative retold in brief in the nimshal, and then

19. Boyarin 1995: 130. David Stern has made the important point that there are, in fact, a limited number of
plot lines available for the mashal's fictional narrative. See Stern 1991: 19-21.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 7

returning to read the two halves separately in light of the gaps both contain. These gaps can

be found both in the fictional narrative itself, as unmotivated actions or irrational behavior on

the part of the characters, as well as in the discrepancies between mashal and nimshal (Stein

2004: 104). Together, these gaps undermine what seems, on the surface, to be the mashal's

explicit message or interpretation.20

These aspects of the mashal are well illustrated by the example from Genesis Rabbah

cited above. The problem in the biblical text which inspires the interpretation is the elision of

the identity of the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis 2:17-18. What kind of tree was it? In order

to answer the question, the mashal tells the story of the prince and the maidservant. This fic-

tion dictates the deeper structure on the relationship between Adam and the tree: after he

transgressed God's command and eats of the Tree of Knowledge, only that same tree will pro-

vide him with comfort and aid. Therefore, the fig tree from which Adam and Eve take leaves

to cover themselves must be the very tree by which they sinned. In the biblical account in

Genesis itself there is no explicit or necessary connection between the Tree of Knowledge

and the fig tree; there are all kinds of trees in the garden of Eden. However, when put into re-

lation through this short narrative, the connection between these two trees and, more impor-

tantly, these two verses seems inevitable. The mashal's fiction is a story which plots the pos-

sibilities of the sacred text, and scripture cannot but adhere to its structure.

At the same time, there are significant gaps within the narrative fiction and between

mashal and nimshal. Within the fictional narrative, the king's banishment of his son—or,

more specifically, the fact that the prince is punished while the maidservant escapes all

blame—seems unduly harsh and unfair. At the same time, the maidservant's receptiveness to

20. Different sorts of gaps are cataloged and analyzed in Stern 1991: 74-82.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 8

the prince's continued overtures is hard to explain. Why should she not, like the other

women, refuse the prince entry for fear of the king's anger? For that matter, why would the

king not forbid her to consort with the son he was so quick to banish? Reading against the

grain in this way, the king, which is to say God, looks a tyrant and his creations, the fig tree

for one, seem outside of his control.

The most prominent discrepancy between the fictional narrative and the scriptural ac-

count lies in the two stories' relative chronologies. In the biblical account in Genesis, Adam

and Eve make garments out of fig leaves after eating the fruit but before their exile from the

Garden of Eden (3:7). In the mashal, the prince's banishment (parallel to the exile) precedes

his return to the maidservant (parallel to making garments from fig leaves). Similarly, the

mashal ascribes to the maidservant a degree of agency that the biblical text does not grant to

the Tree of Knowledge. Both these discrepancies raise questions about the first human cou-

ple's responsibility for their downfall. If the tree, as it were, could choose to provide its

leaves or to hold them back, it seems logical to assume that it also had the power to give or

deny the forbidden fruit; by giving the fruit forth, the tree shares a measure of culpability.

The Garden Parable

We can now turn to the ŠGW's garden parable. The fictional narrative appears first,

following a passage in ŠGW 4:60-62 lauding Ohrmazd's role as protector, healer and savior

of his creatures. The passage reads as follows:

(63) vaš aṇgōšīdaa aβą cuṇ bāγ x́ adāe u bōstąnβąn i dānā kǝš daṯ21 u murū i
gunāhdār u zadār pa taβāhinīdan i bar i draxtą ō bāγ kāmǝṯ vazūdan (64) ōi bāγβąn

21. Both Pahalvi dad and Sanskrit śvāpada mean "wild animal" (MacKenzie 1971: 23; Monier-Williams 1899:
1105). Given the context, I have translated "vermin" throughout.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 9

i dānā padasāe kam raṇjī i x́ ǝ̄š aβāž dāštan i ą daṯ i gunāhdār ǝž x́ ǝ̄š bāγ rā aβazār i
pa griftan šāiiaṯ i ą daṯ ārāeṯ (65) cuṇ θaraa22 u dąm23 u cīnaa i farǝṇdaa (66) ku ka
daṯ cīnaa vīnǝṯ24 vaš raṇjaihā25 kāmǝṯ raftan pa anāgāhī26 i27 θalaa u dąm aṇdaraš
grōhihǝṯ28 (67) īṇ āšnā ku daṯ ka ō dąm oftǝṯ nǝ̄ aβarvǝ̄žī i dąm bǝ̄ ą i dąm ārāstār
(68) pa ąn daṯ aṇdar dąm grōhihǝṯ (69) mǝ̄raa29 bāγ x́ adāe i dąm ārāstār pa dānāī
āgāh30 ku ą dāṯ i31 nīrō aṇdā ci sāmąnaa u caṇd jamąn (70) ą32 dāṯ nīrō u zōr yaš aṇ-
dar tan pa kōxšīdārī āgārihǝṯ33 u rǝ̄žihǝṯ caṇdaš tuuą pa dąm xadan34 u θaraa škas-
tan taβāhinīdan kōxšīdan (71) u kaš abuṇdaa-nīrōī rā nīrō i kōxšāī x́ azǝṯ35 āgārihǝṯ
pas36 ą bāγaβąn i dānā pa x́ ǝ̄š kām u aṇjāmī bar37 i x́ ǝ̄š dānāihā ą dāṯ ǝž dąm bǝ̄ruṇ

22. In his edition, West amends from the manuscripts' reading maraa, noting that "here and elsewhere, the θ has
become m" (Jamasp-Asana and West 1887: 25). The Pahlavi versions clearly indicate a reading of talag.
The Sanskrit kīlakā, "a bolt," "pin," or "wedge" (Monier-Williams 1899: 285) seems not to be used in
classical Sanskrit in the sense of "trap," but it does fall within the larger semantic field.
23. Dąm, meaning both "snare" and "creation," is a pun which deepens the identification between the parabolic
narrative and the underlying story of creation. On this point see Timuş 2010.
24. Timuş argues that the vermin's vision should be understood in a metaphorical sense, as flying towards the
object of its vision. For, she argues, if it had seen the trap itself, it would have avoided it (Timuş 2009:
107). However, seeing the bait is not the same as seeing the trap.
25. Pahlavi ranjagīhā, Sanskrit āyāsatayā. Both words are adjectives meaning "with trouble" or "painfully"
(MacKenzie 1971: 70; Monier-Williams 1899: 148). De Menasce 1945:55 understands this phrase as
descriptive not of the vermin's advance on the trap, as I have translated above, but of its strong desire to
escape after being captured. This reading is problematic in that the event of capture only comes at the end
of the sentence. My translation follows that of Timuş 2009: 107: "et il veut s'enfuir tout troublé."
26. MSS. AK, PB3, and L23 record an ending hā; all others have īhā for ī.
27. The ezafe is found only in MSS. JJ, JE, and R.
28. Pahlavi grawīhēd, "to be captured"; Sanskrit antargrāhīyate, from grāha- "seizing," "holding," or "taking
captive" (Monier-Williams 1899: 372). See the discussion in Timuş 2010: 143-44.
29. Pahlavi mērag, meaning "young man" or "husband" (MacKenzie 1971: 55). Sanskrit mukhyaśva means
"being at the beginning or head" or "leader" (Monier-Williams 1899: 820). Following the Sanskrit, one is
tempted to translate this word as "chiefly," or "first of all." The Pahlavi, however, seems to preclude such a
reading.
30. MS. JE reads āgāhiṯ.
31. So all MSS. but the ezafe is not reflected in the Sanskrit švāpasya prāṇō.
32. MSS. JJ, JE and R prefix u.
33. Pahlavi āgārīhēd, Sanskrit akśamāyate. The two verbs have slightly different meanings: while the Sanskrit
root kṣam- signals "endurance" or "perseverance," and thus its negative equivalent would be something like
"unenduring," the Pahlavi verb comes ultimately from kār, meaning "work" or "action." In this passive
construction it is best rendered as "to be made inoperative," "deactivated" or "to suspend the efficacy of."
34. Pahlavi kandan, Sanskrit khananena, both with the meaning of "dig up" or "uproot" (MacKenzie 1971: 49;
Monier-Williams 1899: 336).
35. The precise reading of the corresponding Pahlavi ʾWCYT is disputed. De Menasce 1945 reads uzēd, "to go
out," while Timuş 2009 proposes hanjēd, from hixtan, "to draw water" or, more generally, "to pull" or "to
draw (Cheung 2007: 391); see also the Zoroasotrian Middle Persian text Pahlavi Rivayāt Accompanying the
Dādestān ī Dēnīg 46:6 (Williams 1990: 2:163): ka ahreman andar dwārist ēg-iš frōd hixt; "when Ahriman
invaded, it [the sky] was drawn down by him." Timuş 2009: 107 translates "affaiblie." Nyberg 1974: 2:199
also reads uzīdan. The Sanskrit vyayati, "to expend," "spend," or "waste" (Monier-Williams 1899: 1032),
does not seem to support either reading.
36. Pas appears in this position in mss MH19, JJ, JE, K28, R, and is reflected in the Sanskrit pascāt. In MS.
AK the word is inserted in a gloss before the preceding word; it also appears in that position in MSS. PB3
and L23.
37. MSS. MH19, JJ, JE, K28, and R prefix p or pa.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 10

aβaganǝṯ hast-gōharihā 38āgār-nīrōihā (72) x́ ǝ̄š dąm u θaraa aβāž-ārāstārihā avaza-

ṇdihā aβāž ō gaṇž aβaspārǝṯ.

(63) And his likeness is like a garden owner and gardener who knows that the sin-
ful and harmful vermin and birds wish to destroy the garden by ruining the fruit of
the trees. (64) That wise gardener, through little toil of his own, to keep those sin-
ful vermin from his garden, prepared an instrument which could capture the ver-
min (65) like a trap, a snare, or a bait for birds (66) which, when the vermin sees
the bait and, troubled in desire, approaches, unaware of the trap and snare, it is
captured inside. (67) It is known that when vermin fall in a snare, the victory is
not accorded to the snare but to the snare's maker. (68) By this the vermin was
captured in the trap: (69) the owner of the garden who made the snare in wisdom
knew the limits and duration of the strength of that vermin. (70) The bodily
strength and power of that vermin became incapacitated and flowed away in strug-
gle; as much as it was able, by uprooting the snare and breaking the trap, it strug-
gled to cause ruin. (71) And when on account of its incomplete strength, the
strength for struggle left it and it became incapacitated, then that wise gardener,
through his own desire and as fruit of his own accomplishment, wisely cast that
vermin out of the snare, with its strength inoperative in its own essence. (72) He
consigned his snare and trap, refashioned and undamaged, to the storehouse.

As in the mashal from Genesis Rabbah discussed above, the ŠGW's fictional narrative is

short and schematic, planted firmly in the troubles of the everyday world. Presented with

ravenous vermin and birds who wish to eat all the fruit of his garden, the gardener prepares a

trap. On accont of his skill, this trap not only captures the vermin, but incapacitates it; the

more the creature struggles, the tighter cinches the snare around its neck. Finally, exhausted

by its flailing—though, it should be noted, not killed—the vermin is dolice and the gardener

removes it from the garden.

The second part of the parable, the nimshal, connects each of the elements in the fic-

tion to an element in a larger reality, the Zoroastrian account of cosmogony. The ŠGW

continues:

38. De Menasce proposes amending hast to xast, meaning "wounded" or "injured"; he renders the phrase
"blessée dans sa substance et inopérante quant à sa puissance" (de Menasce 1945: 57).
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 11

(73) ōica mānā hast dādār hōrmǝzd i dahišną buxtār u dąm ārāstār u vaṯ buniiaštaa
āgārinīdār u bāγ39 i x́ ǝ̄š ǝž vazūdār pādār (74) dāṯ i gunāhkār i bāγ taβāhinīdār ōi
gazistaa āharman i dąmą štāftār patiiārinīdār40 (75) dąm i vahǝ āsmąn kǝš vahǝ
dahišną aṇdar mahmą41 hǝṇd (76) kǝš ganāmainiiō u42 vašūdagą43 xāmast aṇdar
grōhī hǝṇd (77) u ō44 θaraa u dąm i dāṯ i gunāhkār ǝž x́ ǝ̄š kāmašnigarī āgārinīdār
(78) jamąn i pa kōxšīdārī i āharman vaš zōrą aβazārą ō45 dǝ̄raṇg46 (79) i47 pa
kōxšīdārī i dāṯ aṇdar θaraa u dąm āgārihǝṯ yaš nōrō (80) ǝ̄βāž48 dādār i dąmą bux-
tan yaš ǝž patiiāraa jāβadąnaa niiak-raβǝšnī vīnārdan aβāž ārāeṯ i ōi bāγ x́ adāe i
dānā x́ ǝ̄š dąm u θaraa.

(73) He [the gardner] is like the creator Ohrmazd, savior of the creatures and fash-
ioner of creation, who renders inoperative the evil principle and who protects his
garden from the destroyer. (74) The sinful vermin, ruiner of the garden, he is ac-
cursed Ahriman, who hurries and impedes the creatures. (75) The good snare is
the sky in which the good creatures dwell, (76) in which the evil spirit and the
abortions are in captivity. (77) And [that which] by the trap and snare made the
sinful vermin incapacitated, through the performance of it own will, (78) is the
time of the struggle of Ahriman and his powers and instruments, for the duration
(79) of the vermin's struggle in the trap and snare during which his strength be-
comes incapacitated. (80) The sole creator's saving his creatures from the adver-
sary and arranging for them eternally a good course resembles that wise garden
owner and his snare and trap.

39. Only JE and the Sanskrit ārāmama, "gardener" (Monier-Williams 1899: 150) indicate bāγaβąn.
40. Pahlavi štāftār petyāragēnīdār, Sanskrit śastrāṇāmca dīrgharājā. The first word has resonances both of
oppression and hurrying; Pahlavi awištāftan, awištāb-, "to oppress," "hasten" (MacKenzie 1971: 14) and
New Persian šitāftan, šitāb- "to hurry" (see further references in Cheung 2007: 363). The Sanskrit śastra-
seems to be related to the word for sword. As for the second element in the compound, Pahlavi petyārag
means "evil adversary" (MacKenzie 1971: 68); Timuş 2009: 208 follows this reading in translating "qui
oppresse les créatures et produit l'advérsité." However, taking the Sanskrit into account, the first element
of which is related to length and duration (Monier-Williams 1899: 481), the Pazand could also be read as
reflecting an underlying Pahlavi pādīrānīdan, pādīrān- "to restrain" or "to impede" (MacKenzie 1971: 63).
41. Pahlavi mēhmān, Sanskrit abhyāgatāh. The Pahlavi has senses of "resident" and "guest," while the Sanskrit
indicates "guest" (Monier-Williams 1899: 77); both de Menasce 1945:77 and Timuş 2009: 108 translate
"duquel habitent les bonnes créatures."
42. MSS. MH19, K28 and R record o; JJ erases the word.
43. Pahlavi wišūdagān, Sanskrit duṣṭasṛṣṭiprabhṛtayaśva, "the first evil offspring" (Monier-Williams 1899:,
487, 685, and 1245). The word in found in the Pahlavi Rivayāt Accomapnying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg 49:18
ahreman ud dēwān wišūdāgān, Ahriman and the demon miscreations (Williams 1990: 2:193).
44. De Menasce 1945 amends this word to ōi.
45. MSS. JJ and JE omit this word.
46. MSS. JE and R add x́ adāe; this is reflected in Sanskrit dīrgharājā.
47. MSS. MH19, JE, K28, and R omit the ezafe.
48. MS. K28, and the Sanskrit omit this word; other manuscripts record aβāž.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 12

This second part of the ŠGW's parable functions precisely like the nimshal from Genesis

Rabbah. It connects each of the elements in the fictional narrative to the larger story of cre-

ation. The gardener is Ohrmazd; the vermin is Ahriman; the trap is heaven, inside of which

Ahriman and the demons are contained; and the mechanism of the snare is time, within which

Ahriman is trapped and struggling against which he fruitlessly wastes his strength.

Though it does not cite a prooftext like the mashal from Genesis Rabbah, the ŠGW's

parable can also be fruitfully read as exegetical: the nimshal of the parable of the gardener

and the vermin is an encapsulated version of the Zoroastrian story of creation. Just as the

mashal from Genesis Rabbah resolves a difficulty in the biblical text, namely the identity of

the unnamed tree from which Adam ate, the ŠGW's parable presents a solution to a gap in the

Zoroastrian creation story: how was it possible for Ahriman to attack Ohrmazd's good

creation?

Zoroastrian cosmogony receives its fullest treatment in Pahlavi literature, in particular

in the Bundahišn.49 Enrico Raffaeli has demonstrated the ŠGW's particular affinity to this

text,50 and it is for this reason that I will refer primarily to the Bundahišn in the synopsis of

Zoroastrian cosmogony below. However, it is important to bear in mind that as much as

Mardānfarrox declares himself an avid reader of Zoroastrian literature,51 it is unlikely—

49. A post-Sasanian work which makes uses of earlier materials, the Bundahišn describes the creation of the
world and its diversity; various chapters are devoted, for instance, to astronomy, geography, and animal and
vegetable life. The text also includes a final apocalyptical section. For a general discussion of the contents
of the work and the manuscript tradition see MacKenzie 1990; Cereti 2001: 87-91 and Macuch 2009:
137-39. The other main Pahlavi witness for the creation story is the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram, a late-ninth
century compilation which likewise draws from earlier sources. See Zādspram 1993.
50. This affinity is especially clear on points of astronomy and astrology: the fifth chapter of the Bundahišn
contains an extended astronomical discussion very similar to the fourth chapter of the ŠGW. On this
section of the Bundahišn see MacKenzie 1964 and, on the comparison, Raffaelli 2009. See also the
discussion of Mardānfarrox's relationship to Pahlavi literature in Timuş 2009: 16.
51. Mardānfarrox discusses his reading of the Dēnkard and select other Pahlavi texts at ŠGW 1:38, 4:106-107,
9:2-3, and most fully in 10:43-60. On the later passage in particular see Cereti 2005.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 13

though not impossible—that he had access to the same version of the story the Bundahišn

tells.52 More plausible is that the close affinity between the two texts is due to a common,

now lost, source (Raffaelli 2009). That is to say, the ŠGW's parable probably does not relate

to a single canonical text in the same way that Genesis Rabbah's mashal relates to the text of

Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. However, in as much as the account of creation recorded in the

Bundahišn and elsewhere is a foundational Zoroastrian narrative, it fulfills a similar, scrip-

tural role.

Given its length, I will recount the story of creation in brief rather than cite the Bun-

dahišn's version in full. In the beginning, Ohrmazd was on high, in omniscience, goodness

and light for an unlimited time. Ahriman, on the other hand, was in the deep and in darkness.

Both spiritual53 entities were unlimited in every direction but that facing the boundary

between them; this no-man's-land was filled by a void preventing any contact between the

two (Bundahišn 1:7). Ohrmazd, on account of his omniscience, was aware of Ahriman, their

conflict, and evil's ultimate defeat. Ahriman, however, was unaware of Ohrmazd. This situa-

tion lasted for three thousand years until Ahriman approached the boundary, saw the lights of

goodness, and attacked (Bundahišn 1:15-16). Though Ohrmazd proposed peace to Ahriman

and offered him the opportunity to aid goodness for his own benefit, Ahriman refused and

pledged eternal enmity against Ohrmazd and his creation (Bundahišn 1:20-23). In his omni-

science, Ohrmazd knew that if he did not set a limited time in which the battle between good

and evil would take place, like two men who agree to fight from morning to night (Bundahišn

52. Partially, my skepticism arises from the predominantly oral transmission of Zoroastrian literature up to and
including the ninth and tenth centuries. For an excellent recent discussion of the pervasiveness of orality in
Sasanian Iran see Secunda 2010.
53. Pahlavi mēnōg, "spiritual" as opposed to gētīg, "material." On the exact designations of these terms see
Shaked 1971.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 14

1:27), the strife would continue eternally. Therefore, Ohrmazd proposed to Ahriman that they

fix a period of nine thousand years in which to do battle. Ahriman, unable to foresee that this

time limit would lead inevitably to his own destruction, agreed to the terms (Bundahišn

1:26-28).

Their deal set, Ohrmazd recited the Ahunawar mantra,54 which set forth the future of

the conflict between good and evil.55 The Ahunawar revealed Ahriman's defeat and

Ohrmazd's triumph (Bundahišn 1:29): during the period of their battle, for three thousand

years Ohrmazd's will would prevail; for three thousand years, during the period of the mix-

ture (gumezišn), their wills would strive together; and during the final period, Ahriman would

be incapacitated. Stunned by this knowledge, Ahriman fell back into the darkness for three

thousand years (Bundahišn 1:30-32). Then Ohrmazd formed his creatures from his own

essence; Ahriman, in response, counter-created (kirrēnīd) the demons (Bundahišn 1:44-50).

There is an additional text from Bundahišn 4:10-12 that also relates to the parable's

description of Ohrmazd trapping Ahriman and the demons inside the sky (ŠGW 4:75-76):

pas āxist gannāg-mēnōg abāg hamist dēwān abzārān ō padīrag ī rōšnān, u-š ān ās-
mān dīd, ī-šān mēnōgīhā nimūd ka ne astōmand dād estēd. arešk-kāmagīhā tag
abar kard . . . māh ī frawardīn rōz ī ohrmazd andar dwārist nēm-rōz. u-š asmān

54. Ahunawar is the Pahlavi rendition of Avestan yaθa ahū vairyō, the opening words of one of the most sacred
verses in the Zoroastrian tradition (Yasna 27:13). Part of the Zoroastrian liturgy, the Ahunawar mantra is
the opening verse of the Old Avesta. This part of the Avestan corpus, written in a slightly more archaic
form of the Avestan language, also includes two additional mantras, Aš ̣ǝm Vohū (Yasna 27:14) and Yeŋ́hē
Hāṯąm (Yasna 27:15); the five Gathas, the sacred poems authored by the prophet Zaraθuštra himself (Yasna
28-34, 43-46, 47-50, 51, and 53); the Yasna Hapaŋhāiti (Yasna 35-41) and a final mantra, the A Airiiǝ̄ma
Isiio or Airiiaman at the end of Yasna 54. M. Schwartz has demonstrated that the Ahunawar is the original
last stanza of Yasna 29. See Schwartz 2003: 214-17. For further discussion of the intertextual relationship
between the various parts of the Old Avestan corpus, notably the concatenations in the Gathas, see Schwartz
2006 and the references to earlier studies quoted there.
55. Ohrmazd's revelatory recitation of the Ahunawar prayer is significant on a number of levels. In particular,
as Yuhan Vevaina has shown, the twenty-one words of the prayer are understood, within the Pahlavi
commentary tradition, to encapsulate the entire content of the dēn. See the further discussion in Vevaina
2010: 125-27.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 15

ēdōn aziš be tarsīd ceōn gōspand az gurg . . . u-š guft mēnōg asmān ō gannāg-
mēnōg ku "bēdom-zamānā-m pānagīh abāyēd kardan ku-t bērōn be nē hilēm."

Then the Evil Spirit rose with all the powerful demons against the lights, and he
saw the sky, which appeared spiritually for it had not been created materially. Full
of jealous desire he attacked . . . in the month of Frawardīn on the day of Ohrmazd
at noon he penetrated. And the sky was afraid of him like a sheep from a wolf . . .
And the spiritual sky said to the Evil Spirit: "I must protect the furthermost time,
meaning that I will not let you out."56

Though the sky flees from Ahriman "like a sheep from a wolf" during the attack,

afterward it forms a barrier between the Evil Spirit and the untainted spiritual realm. Here we

see why the parable identifies the trap with the sky: while Ahriman is able to enter, once

inside he cannot to get out.57 Overall, the relationship between the garden parable and the

creation story is quite clear: with the details filled in, the parable's correspondence between

the gardener and Ohrmazd, the vermin and Ahriman and the trap and the sky seem perfectly

fitting.

Distinguishing Ohrmazd and Ahriman

The gap in the Zoroastrian account of creation, namely lack of distinction between

Ohrmazd and Ahriman, that the parable sets out to interpret can be seen in the first chapter of

the Bundahišn. First of all, the characterization of the two entities deserves note. The Bun-

dahišn portrays both spiritual entities as fully developed characters. Diametrically opposed

though they might be in their natures, the fact that they are shown to both desire, think, con-

verse, and create seems to undermine the radical distinction between them. The text reveals

the internal thoughts of both, equally. Ahriman is shown to be a character with whom we as

56. For an edition of the text see Soraki 2003: 61-62.

57. The same episode is retold in ŠGW 4:12-16, though, significantly, the sky's initial retreat is not mentioned.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 16

readers can identity. In certain ways, Ahriman is even a tragic hero, bamboozled into

destruction by Ohrmazd's clever wiles. Though other Pahlavi texts insist on Ahriman's mate-

rial non-existence, a point also alluded to in the Bundahišn,58 his existence and presence as a

character in the text is exactly equivalent to Ohrmazd's.

In addition to their equal characterization, the creation story also depicts the possibil-

ity of their agreement. In the Bundahišn, Ohrmazd and Ahriman are capable of rapproche-

ment. Bundahišn 1:20-21 describe Ohrmazd's peace proposal to Ahriman before their battle:

(20) ēg ohrmazd abāg-iz ce-ēwēnag dānistan ī frazām ī kār ō padīrag ī gannāg

mēnōg sūd. u-š āštīh abar dāst ud guft kū "gannāg mēnōg, abar ō dām ī man ayārīh
bar ud stāyišn dah tā pad ān pādāšn amarg ud azarmān ud asōhišn ud apōhišn
bawē. (21) u-š cim ēn kū agar ardīg nē sarēnē xwad nē agarīhē ud ō-mān har
dōnān sūd abgārē."

(20) Then Ohrmazd, with his knowledge of the end of the affair, went to meet the
Evil Spirit. And he proposed peace and said, "Evil Spirit, befriend my creation
and offer praise so that as a reward you become immortal and ageless and without
feeling and undecaying. (21) And the reason is that if you do not provoke battle,
you will not incapacitate yourself and you will promote benefit for both of us."59

This conciliatory gesture certainly highlights Ohrmazd's goodness. Despite his fore-

knowledge of the inevitability of conflict, he is depicted as a seeker after peace. Ahriman's

answer is, predictably, a pledge of enmity. However, the dialogue between them not only

demonstrates their equal status as characters within the work but also raises the possibility

that Ahriman could have accepted the proposal. That would imply the mutability of

Ahriman's nature and the lack of absolute opposition between good and evil that reason, as

Mihiiār's question underlines, would dictate.

58. Dādestān ī Dēnīg 18:2-3 (Jaafari-Dehagi 1998: 72-73); Dēnkard 3:105 (de Menasce 1973: 107) and
Bundahišn 1:25 (Cereti and MacKenzie 2003: 35). See the discussion in Shaked 1967.
59. §21 is missing entirely from the shorter recension of the text, known as the Indian Bundahišn. It is possible
that this paragraph was added in the longer Iranian recension as an explanation of why Ohrmazd would
make his surprising offer of peace. See Cereti and MacKenzie 2003: 55.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 17

A similar problem is raised by the two entities' agreement to battle for a specific

period of time. On the one hand, as above, the necessity of Ahriman's agreement to

Ohrmazd's proposal implies an equality between them as characters. As much as Ahriman

lacks foresight in falling for Ohrmazd's trick, he is nonetheless capable of rational choice.

Moreover time is a double-edged instrument. The finiteness of time guarantees Ahriman's

ultimate defeat. However, time aids both good and evil. As Bundahišn 1:36 states, the Evil

Spirit's attack could not be incapacitated but through creation, and the time which is neces-

sary for Ohrmazd's creation animates or makes current (rawāgīh) Ahriman's evil counter-cre-

ation as well.60 From the Bundahišn's account is seems that time is, to a certain extent, out-

side of Ohrmazd's control.61 Despite the fact that the text describes Ohrmazd fashioning

finite time (Bundahišn 1:39), it also states that time is more powerful than both good and evil

creation. Why should good enter battle with such an aimless weapon?

The parable resolves this gap by providing in its fictional story a deep structure62 for

the creation narrative. The parable's story reveals that the apparent equality between

Ohrmazd and Ahriman is an illusion. Their natures are as different and incompatible as those

of a human being and a lizard or crow; no possibility of communication can exist between

60. See Cereti and MacKenzie 2003: 37:

u-š dīd pad rōšn-wēnāgīh Ohrmazd ku Gannāg Mēnōg hargiz az petyāragīh ne wardēd, ān
petyāragīh jud pad dām-dahišnīh ne agārīhēd ud dām jud pad zamān rawāgīh ne bawēd, ka zamān
brēhēnīd dām-ez ī Ahreman rawāg be bawēd.
And with his clear-sightedness Ohrmazd saw that the Evil Spirit would never turn from his ons-
laught, that that onslaught could not be made powerless except by the creation, and that for the
creatures there would be no currency without time, [and] that when time had been created the crea-
tures of Ahriman would also become current.
61. This might reflect an alternative account of creation which states that both Ohrmazd and Ahriman were
born from time (zurwān). This alternative version, identified as the "Zurvanite heresy" (see Zaehner 1972),
can be found in Pahlavi works (including the Bundahišn), later Zoroastrian religious texts in New Persian,
as well as Armenian and Greek sources. On the misapplication of the concepts of "orthodoxy" and "heresy"
to the different creation accounts in the Sasanian period see Shaked 1994,14-15.
62. On this as a function of the rabbinic parable see Boyarin 1995: 130.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 18

them. Moreover, in the parable no agreement is necessary between the gardener and the

vermin. It is simply the vermin's nature to attack,63 and no peace offerings or gentlemen's

agreements can offset or limit that attack. In essence, the parable sifts out of the creation nar-

rative all hints of Ahriman's character. Without even a specific name or identity—daṯ means

vermin in general, not any particular species of animal—the attacker is portrayed here with-

out any internal life or reflection, without emotions or reactions, but simply as a relentless

force, a hunger. The garden parable deanimates the Evil Spirit and strips him of his character.

Similarly, the time which restricts the period of battle and animates creation is no

longer the object of an agreement between the two entities. Rather, the time of the battle is

determined solely by the strength of the vermin. While the gardener, in his wisdom, gauges

the animal's strength and builds his trap accordingly, the struggle ends only when the vermin

is exhausted, not according to some external timer or schedule. Indeed, one can even go so

far as to say that the structuring fiction of the parable presents the story as if there were no

real battle at all. Time, battle, will, and struggle—all are internalized in the evil vermin and

have no effect on the garden of Ohrmazd. Whatever the surface contradictions, the deep

story of cosmogony is one of radical opposition and inequality.

This revelation of this deep story by means of the structuring garden fiction can be

said to entail, above all, a shift of narratological perspective. While creation in the Bundahišn

is told, as it were, through human eyes, which see the battle between good and evil personi-

fied on this material plane, in the world and within ourselves, the parable is told from the

63. This is essentially the answer Mardānfarrox gives as to Mihiiār's question why Ahriman could attack
Ohrmazd's creation: it is precisely because they are of irreconcilable natures that evil attacked good (ŠGW
2:5).
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 19

point of view of Ohrmazd himself. From that perspective, evil's attack is, at best, a minor in-

convenience and disturbs not at all his transcendent gardening.

As noted above, the rabbinic mashal is also characterized by gaps in the fictional nar-

rative and between the fictional narrative of the parable and its scriptural solution. The same

phenomenon can be found in the ŠGW's garden parable. The most significant gap between

the two halves of the parable is the problem of the trap. At Bundahišn 1:29,64 Ohrmazd re-

vealed to Ahriman through the Ahunawar prayer his own ultimate defeat. While it is not

clear whether Ahriman is destroyed or merely rendered inactive, the end of the world, the res-

urrection, and the destruction of the demons does seem to be the end of evil and its influence.

However, in the ŠGW's garden parable, the ending is more ambiguous. Having been inca-

pacitated, the gardener removes the vermin from the trap—one presumes this implies

removing it from the garden as well—and returns the trap to his storehouse. Having gone to

all the trouble to construct the trap and catch the vermin, why doesn't the gardener kill the an-

imal, or why does the story not state explicitly that the vermin never troubled the garden

again? The gesture of replacing the trap to the storehouse in particular raises the possibility

of its being taken out a second time. It raises the possibility of repetition, of a cyclical strug-

gle of good against evil which undermines the linear chronology of Zoroastrian cosmogony

in the Bundahišn.

Conclusion

I have tried to demonstrate that the parable of the gardener in the ŠGW relates to the

Zoroastrian account of creation—in particular as it appears in the Bundahišn—like rabbinic

meshalim relate to the text of the Bible. The ŠGW's parable is hermeneutical, meant to fill a

64. Cereti and MacKenzie 2003: 36.

 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 20

troubling gap in the creation story. In that story, Ohrmazd and Ahriman are portrayed as

characters with equally endowed with personality, agency, will, and presence. However, this

similarity would seem to violate the principle of the radical alterity of good and evil that is at

the heart of the ŠGW's rational theology. The ŠGW's parable serves, just as scholars of the

poetics of the mashal have discussed in the context of the rabbinic genre, as a key or legend

for "correctly" interpreting this contradictory characterization. The parable reveals the under-

lying structure of the Zoroastrian creation story. Ohrmazd and Ahriman are not really equal

characters, they are as incompatable as the dumb, animal craving of a vermin and the wise in-

telligence of a human gardener. But, as in the mashal, the relation between the Zoroastrian

parable and scripture—encapsulated in the solution—is satisfyingly ambiguous. Even as the

fictional narrative is a key to interpret scripture, the story of creation, Ohrmazd, and Ahriman

reveals the true depth and meaning of the otherwise shallow story of a gardener's pest

problem.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 21

Bibliography

Aturpāt-i Ēmētān (1979), The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI), ed. and trans. S.
Shaked, Boulder, CO.
Boyarin, D. (1990), Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Bloomington.

Boyarin, D. (1995), "Midrash in Parables", AJS Review 20: 123-138.

Cereti, C. (2001), La letteratura pahlavi: introduzione ai testi con riferimenti alla storia degli
studi e alla tradizione manoscritta, Milan.
Cereti, C. (2005), "Some Notes on the Škand Gumānīg Wizār," Languages of Iran, Past and
Present: Iranian Studies in Memoriam David Neil MacKenzie, ed. D. Weber,
Wiesbaden.

Cereti, C. and D. N. MacKenzie (2003), "Except by Battle: Zoroastrian Cosmology in the 1st
Chapter of the Greater Bundahišn", Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and
Central Asia, eds. C. Cereti, M. Maggi, and E. Povasi, Wiesbaden.
Cheung, J. (2007), Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, Leiden.
Fraenkel, Y. (1991), Darkei ha-Aggadah, Jerusalem.

Gignoux, P. (2008), "Comment le polémiste mazdéen du Skand Gumânîg Vîzâr a-t-il utilisé les
citations du Nouveau Testament?", Controverses des chrétiens dans l'Iran sassanide,
ed. C. Jullien, Paris.
Grenet, F. (2010), "I) Extraits du Škand Gumanig Wizar, II) Textes sogdiens et imagerie sogdi-
enne (suite)", Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, section des Sciences Religieuses, An-
nuaire 117: 117-23.
Hasan-Rokem, G. (2003), Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late An-
tiquity, Berkeley.

Hodivala, S. H. (1926), "The Dates of Hormazdyār Rāmyār and Neryosang Dhaval", Journal
of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 8: 85-133.
Jaafari-Dehaghi, M. (1998), ed. and trans., Dādestān ī Dēnīg: Part 1, Paris.

Jamasp-Asana, H. D. J. and E. W. West (1887), eds., Shikand-Gumānīk Vijār, Bombay.

Kermode F. (1979), The Genesis of Secrecy, Cambridge, MA.

Macuch, M. (2009), "Pahlavi Literature", The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, eds. R. E. Emm-
erick and M. Macuch, London.
MacKenzie, D. N. (1964), "Zoroastrian Astrology in the Bundahišn", Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 27: 511-29.

MacKenzie, D. N. (1971), Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, London.

MacKenzie, D. N. (1990), "Bundahišn", Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater, vol. 4, Costa

 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 22

Mesa.

Menasce, J. de (1945), ed. and trans., Une apologétique mazdéenne du IXe siècle: Škand-
Gumānīk Vičār: La solution décisive des doutes, Fribourg en Suisse.
Menasce, J. de (1973), ed. and trans., Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, Paris.

Monier-Williams, M. (1899), A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford.

Nyberg, H. S. (1974) Manual of Pahlavi, Wiesbaden.

Panaino, A (2007), "The Pāzand Version of Our Father," Inkulturation des Christentums im
Sasanidenreich, eds. A. Mustafa and J. Tubach, Wiesbaden.

Raffaelli, E. (2009), "The Astrological Chapter of the Škand Gumānīg Wizār", Kayd: Studies
in the History of Mathematics, Astronomy, and Astrology in Memory of David Pingree,
eds. G. Gnoli and A. Panaino, Rome.
Secunda, S. (2010), "The Sasanian Stam: Orality and the Composition of Babylonian Rabbinic
and Zoroastrian Legal Literature", The Talmud in its Iranian Context, eds. C. Bakhos
and R. M. Shayegan, Tübingen.
Shaked, S. (1967), "Some Notes on Ahriman, the Evil Spirit, and His Creation", Studies in
Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, ed. E. E. Urbach, et al.,
Jerusalem.

Shaked, S. (1971), "The Notions Mēnōg and Gētīg in the Pahlavi Texts and their Relation to
Eschatology," Acta Orientalia 33: 59-71.
Shaked, S. (1987), "Andarz," in Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater, vol. 2, Costa Mesa.

Shaked, S. (1994), Dualism in Transformation, London.

Schwartz, M. (2003), "Gathic Compositional History, Yasna 29, and Bovine Symbolism",
Paitimana, ed. S. Adhami, Costa Mesa.

Schwartz, M. (2006), "The Gathas and Other Old Avestan Poetry," La langue poétique indo-
européenne, eds. G.-J. Pinault and D. Petit, Leuven.

Soraki, F. P. (2003), "Bundahišn: Zoroastrische Kosmologie und Kosmogonie, Kapital I-VI",

PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.
Stern, D. (1991), Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature,
Cambridge.

Stack, H. L. and Stemberger, G. (1992), Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. M.
Bockmuehl, Minneapolis.

Stein, D. (2004), Maxims, Magic, Myth: A Folkloristic Perspective on Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer,
Jerusalem.

Sundermann, W. (2001), "Das Manichäerkapitel des Škand Gumānīg Wizār in der Darstellung
und Deutung Jean de Menasces," Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, ed. J.
 Thrope / Zoroastrian Exegetical Parables / 23

van Oort, et al., Leiden.

Sundermann, W. (2009), "Manichaean Literature in Iranian Languages", The Literature of Pre-

Islamic Iran, eds. R. E. Emmerick and M. Macuch, London.
Theodor, Y. and Ch. Albeck (1996), eds. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah: Critical Edition with
Notes and Commentary, Jerusalem.

Thrope, S. (2012, unpublished), "Contradictions and Vile Utterances: Polemic as Literature in

the Zoroastrian Critique of Judaism", PhD dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.

Timuş, M. (2009), "Fonder, bâtir, rénover: articulations conceptuelles du système zoroastrien

d'expression moyenne-perse," PhD dissertation, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes.
Timuş, M. (2010), "Changer les mots, altérer les idées: autor du traité apologétique Škand
Gumānīg Wizār", Studia Asiastica 9: 135-48.
Timuș, M (2011, unpublished), "Humour, Tens(i)on and Religion: When a Layman Defends
the Priests", manuscript.

Vevaina, Y. (2010), "'Enumerating the Dēn': Textual Taxonomies, Cosmological Deixis, and
Numerological Speculations in Zoroastrianism", History of Religions 50: 111-143.

Williams, A. (1990), ed. and trans., The Pahlavi Rivayāt Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg,
Copenhagen.
Zādspram (1993), Anthologie de Zādspram, eds. and trans. P. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, Paris.

Zaehner, R. C. (1972), Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, New York.