Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T20:50:03.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Book of the Giants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

W. B. Henning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Isaac De Beausobre, the Huguenot author of one of the best books ever written on Manichæism (Histoire critique de Manichée et du Mani cheïsme, Amsterdam, 1734, 1739), was the one to make the only sound suggestions on the sources used by Mani for the compilation of his Book of the Giants: the Book of Enoch, and the which Kenan, a great-grandson of Noah, discovered lying in a field (vol. i, 429, n. 6). The latter work has been indentified by Alfaric (Lex Écritures Manichéennes, ii, 32) with a book whose contents are briefly indicated in the Decretum Gelasianum, p. 54, II. 298–9 (ed. Dobschütz): Liber de Ogia nomine gigante qui post diluvium cum dracone ab hereticis pugnasse perhibetur apocryphys. Of the Book of Enoch, which was composed in the Hebrew language in the second century B.C., only an Ethiopic version, a few Greek fragments, and some excerpts made by the Byzantine chronographer Georgius Syncellus survive. Mani, who could hardly read the Hebrew, must have used an Aramaic edition based directly on the Hebrew text (see below, Šhmyz'd). He quotes mainly from the first part, which Georgius S. (p. 45, EI.-R.) called “the first book of Enoch on the Egrēgoroi”, but shows himself acquainted also with the subsequent chapters.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , February 1943 , pp. 52 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 53 note 1 Numerous variants (p. 126, Dobschūtz), e.g. de ogiae, de oggie, diogiae, diogine, diogenes, de ocia, de ugia, de ugica, de ozia, de ugia, de ugica, de ogiga, de eugia, de uegia, de eugenia, etc. In MIgne's Patrologia Latina the text is in vol. 59, 162–3.

page 53 note 2 See Charles, The Book of Enoch, 2nd ed., 1912. For the Greek fragments (and Georgius S.) the edition by Flemming and Radermacher, (= Fl.-R.) is quoted here. For Mani's use of the Enoch literature see my papers in Sb.P.A.W., 1934, 27, 27–32, and in ZDMG., 90, 2–4.

page 53 note 3 See below A 86–94, and compare G 19–21 with Enoch 67, 4, and G 38 with Enoch 17, 1; 21,7; 54,6; 67,4–13. On chaps. 72 sqq. see Sb.P.A.W., 1934, 32.

page 53 note 4 Namely the Kamsarakan-k– (mentioned often in the Armenian history of the fourth century) who claimed descent from the royal house of the Arsacids. This is clear from the Chinese Maniehæan text that preceded the Fragment Pelliot, now printed in the Taishô TripiṠaka as No. 2141a, vol. 54, p. 1280A, but hitherto untranslated: “He was born in the country-of Sunn (= Babylonia), in the royal abode ofB'uât-tiei (= Patī-g), by his wifeMuân-jām (= Maryam) of the family ofKiяm-sât-g'ion (= Kamsar(a)gān).” The namein the Byzantine formula of abjuration (Migne, Pair. Gr., i, 1468) may be corrupted from Kamsar-. Thus there is a grain of truth in the assertion in the K. al-Fihrist, 327, 31, that Mani's mother had belonged to the Arsacid house; ibid., Maryam (ed. marmaryam) is given as one of hernames.—It is not proposed to discuss the origin of Mani's father here.

page 53 note 5 I have abandoned my earlier opinion on this point (ZDMG., 90, 4) which was based on insufficient material. The important Sogdian fragment, text H, was not then known to me.

page 53 note 1 See BS0S., VIII, 583Google Scholar; ZDMG., 90, 4. [Cf. also Bal. girōk, Geiger, No. 107.]

page 53 note 2 Cf. also Parthian bgpwhr'n, Sogd. βγPšyt, lit. “sons of God” = angels (also fern. Sogd. βγpwryšt). Thus bgpwhr has a double meaning in Parthian, it being (Sogd. βγpwr) also the translationof Chin. T'ien-tzŭ, or rather of Skt. devaputra.

page 53 note 3 Herein he differed from the common interpretation of the passage (Nephilim = giants), shared also by the authors of the Book of Enoch.

page 53 note 4 M 41: 'br q'rc'r'wt zmbg 'sift cy'whrmyzdbg qyrd 'd dyw'n: dw q'w'n 'wt dw nyw'n.

page 53 note 5 This word, in the anti-Manichæan book by Alexander Lycopolitanus, p. 8, 10, ed. Brinkmann, refers neither to the Manich. “First Battle”, nor to Mani's Book of the Giants, as Cumont, Rech., i, 3; ii, 160 sq., erroneously states. Cumont goes so far as to say that in the quoted passage Alexander had given a summary of Mani's work, and Benveniste, MO., xxvi, 213, has repeated this statement. In fact, Alexander says that experts in Greek mythology might quote, from the Greek poets, the Greek yуyαντομαχlα, as a parallel to the Manich. doctrine of the rising by the Hyle against God. In ch. 25 (p. 37, 13 sqq.) Alexander explains that such poetical fables about giants could not be regarded as a satisfactory parallel, because they were myths and meant to be understood as allegories. He then (37, 17) quotes the story of Genesis vi, 2–4, which he provides with an allegorical explanation. But he ascribes it to the History of the Jews without even mentioning the Book of the Giants. This shows conclusively that he had no knowledge of Mani's book.

page 54 note 1 Jackson, Researches, 37, 67 sq., has “poisonous mass”; cf. OLZ., 1934, 752.

page 54 note 2 Hence the comparative mzndr (e.g. Mir.Man., i) and the superlative Pahl. măzan-tum (e.g. Dd., p. 118, 12 ed. Anklesaria).

page 54 note 3 Clearly to be derived from Av. mazan- “greatness”. Cf. also Jackson, loc. cit., on mzn. Hence, the first part of the name of Māzandarān probably = “gigantic”.

page 54 note 4 Thus Dobschūtz, Decret. Gelas., p. 305.

page 54 note 5 Dobschūtz, loc. cit., who quotes Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr., 799 sq., and Migne, Diet, des apocr., ii, 649, 1295.

page 55 note 1 For example, Men.Khr., 68, 12; 69, 12, ed. Andreas; Pahl. Yasna, 9, 10 (p. 71, 19).

page 55 note 2 Shm, of course, transcribes S'hm, not S'm.

page 55 note 3 MPers. m'hw'y A 7, with suff. m'hwy-c A 19, Sogd. m'h'wy C 15 (= Wrogdad οуlï in B). Hardly = Māhōi (as suggested ZDMG., 90, 4), for the ending -ōi was pronounced -ōi also in the third century (cf. e.g. wyrwd = Wērēi in the inscription of Shapur, line 34). Furthermore, there was no Māhōi among the heroes of the Iranian epos (M. is well known as the name of the governor of Marv at the time of the last Yezdegerd). More likely Māhawai was a non-Iranian name and figured already in the Aramaic edition of the Kawān; it may have been adapted to the Persian. Cf. Mḥwy'l, Genesis, iv, 18 ?

page 55 note 4 But see Mir.Man., iii, 858 (b 134 sqq.).

page 55 note 5 The children of the Egrēgoroi share with the inhabitants of Airyana Vaēĵah the distinction of being regarded as the inventors (or first, users) of the arts and crafts. For the spelling of Aryān-Vēžan see aldo Appendix, text U. It is not clear wheather Yima (text V) had been given a place in the Sogdian Kawān. Ymyẖ, i.e. Imi, is the correst Sogdian form of the name.

page 56 note 1 This system of notation has been used also in my book Sogdica, and in my paper in BSOS., X, pp. 941 sqq. The various interpunction marks are uniformly represented by oo here.

page 56 note 2 But possibly Frg. i should occupy the first place; see below, notes on lines 95–111.

page 60 note 1 = far less than he could say. Cf. Əž hazār yak, ŠGV., xiv, 2, Əž hazārą baewarą yak, ibid., xvi, 1. Salemann, Zap. Imp. Ak. Nauk, sér. viii, t. vi, No. 6, 25, quoted Persian az hazār yakī va az bisyār andakī.

page 60 note 2 The texts B and C (Uygur and Sogdian) could be inserted here (or hereabouts).

page 60 note 3 Probably one of the twenty “deearchs” (Enoch 6, 7), viz. No. 4 Kokabiel = Χωχαριᾑλ in the Greek fragments, and Χωβαβιᾑλ apud Syncellus.

page 60 note 4 This also could be a “decarch”, Arakib- 'Αρκιẑλ, or Aramid- 'Ραμιᾑλ.

page 60 note 5 Incomplete name.

page 60 note 6 Cf. Enoch 7, 5.

page 60 note 7 txtg might be appellative, = “a board”. This would fit in three of the passages, but hardly in the fourth.

page 60 note 8 Evidently this is the dream that Enoch reads in the fragment M 625c (= Text D, below), which therefore probably belonged to the Kawān. It should be inserted here.

page 61 note 1 Here (or hereabouts) the texts E aDd F should be entered, both of which deal with the judgment on the fallen angels. Text F approximates to Enoch, ch. 10 (pronouncement of the judgment by God), while Text E is nearer to Enoch, ch. 13 (communication of the judgment to the angels by Enoch).

page 61 note 2 = Enoch, 12, 4–5: Ε⋯π⋯ το⋯ς ⋯λρηΥόροις … ούκ εοταγ ύμίν είρήνη.

page 61 note 3 = Enoch, 13, 1–5: ⋯ξέ 'Ενώχ … ειπεν … ονκ εσται σοι ειρηνη. κριμα μεΥα εεν κατά σού ήσαι σε … περι … τής άξκς και τής άμαρτιας κτλ.

page 61 note 4 = Enoch, 14, 6: ιξ,ητε τής ύπώλειαν τών νίών ύμών.

page 61 note 5 = Syncellus, pp. 44–5 Fl.-R. (ad cap. xvi), cf, Genesis, vi, 3. άπολούνται οί άΥαπητοί ύμών … οτι πάσαι αί ήμέραι τής ξωής αύτών άπό τού νύν ού μή έσοντάι πλείω τών έκατόν είκοσιν έτών.

page 61 note 6 In Jewish Persian trwš is “ram” (Lagarde, Pers. Stud., 73), but in the dialect of Rišahr nr. Bushire (according to the notes made on this dialect by Andreas about seventy years ago) tΚtär is “a young she-goat”. See JEAS., 1942, 248. [trwš, Is. I11, Ier. 5140 = Hebr. 'attūd, probably understood as “he-goat”.]

page 61 note 7 These lines evidently refer to the promise of peace and plenty that concludes the divine judgment in Enoch, 10. Hence = “each pair of those animals shall have two hundred young”?

page 61 note 8 sārišn: cf. DkM. 487apu.-488, 3, “when they provoke (sārēn-) him, he does not get irritated (sār- and better, sārih-).” GrBd. 5, 8, “if you do not provoke, or instigate (sārēn-) a fight” (differently Nyberg, ii, 202). sār-, if from sarƏd- (Skt. śardh-), is presumably the transitive to syrydn (from srdhya- according to Bartholomæ), cf. NGGW., 1932, 215, n. 3.

page 61 note 9 Cf. Enoch, 10, 19: ή άμπελος [sic] ήν άν φντεύσονσιν πρόχονς οίνν χιλιάξας. … έλαίας ….

page 61 note 10 ty or ty[y] = tai from taih from taiy (cf. GGA., 1935,18), is ambiguous: (1) sharp instrument, (2) burning, glow, brightness, sunrays, etc. So also is tyzyy: (1)sharpness, (2)speed. One could also restore ty[gr].

page 61 note 11 Lit. [but the wing(s) that (is, are) with him]. The curious expression was chosen probably on account of the rhythm. For the same reason byc is employed in the place of 'n'y in line 73.

page 61 note 12 Lit. “beats”.

page 61 note 13 'ystyh- is obviously different from 'styh- (on which see BSOS., IX, 81), and possibly-derived from 'yst-, cf. z'yh- “to be born” from z'y- “to be born”. 'ystyh- is met with in W.-L., ii, 558, R i 25, “blessed chief who stands ('ystyhyd?) as the sign of the Light Gods.” Lentz has 'ystyhnd, but without having seen the manuscript one may presume a misreading (cf. ibid., R i 1, Lentz: pd[‥]dg, but probably pr['d]ng, R i 2, Lentz: p.d'r, but probably pyr'r, ibid., R ii 22, Lentz: 'n.z, but probably ]wn; for further cases see OLZ., 1934, 10).

page 62 note 1 St. John, 13, 16.

page 62 note 2 phrystn: phryz- = Parth. prx'stn: prxyz- (cf. Av. pārihaēza-, Sogd. pr-ryž; Parth. 'x'št: MPers. 'xyst) is mostly “to stand around, to be about, versari”, sometimes “to stand around for the purpose of looking after someone” = “serve, nurse, protect”, often merely “to be”. phryz- “to stand off, to abstain” is presumably different (para-haeza-).

page 62 note 3 The series of visions in which Enoch sees the arrangements for the punishment of the fallen angels, etc., and of “the kings and the Mighty” (chaps, xvii sqq.), follows immediately upon the announcement of the divine judgment. Hence, frgg. k-g must be placed after frg. 1. Text G (below), which describes the execution of the divine order, could perhaps be inserted here.

page 62 note 4 It is difiScult to decide whether this fragment should be placed at the end or at the beginning of the book. The 400,000 Righteous may have perished when the Egrēgoroi descended to the earth. The “choosing of beautiful women”, etc., strongly suggests the misbehaviour of the Egrēgoroi on their arrival upon the earth. The hard labour imposed on the Mesenians and other nations may be due to the insatiable needs of their giant progeny (Enoch, 7, 2 sqq.). On the other hand, “fire, naphtha, and brimstone” are only mentioned as the weapons with which the archangels overcame the Egrēgoroi, after a prolonged and heavy fight (Text G, 38), and the 400,000 Righteous may well have been the innocent non-combatant victims of this battle which may have had a demoralizing effect even upon the electae. To clear up the debris the archangels would naturally commandeer the men. We do not know whether Mani believed Enoch to have been moved out of sight (έλήμφΦη Enoch, 12, 1) before the Egrēgoroi appeared, or before they were punished.

page 62 note 5 See texts R, and Q (where 4,000 instead of 400,000).

page 62 note 6 See BSOS., X, 398.Google Scholar

page 62 note 7 See text T, line 3.

page 62 note 8 Cf. Enoch, 7, 1 ?

page 62 note 9 On myšn'yg'n see BSOS., X, 945, n. 2,Google Scholar on hwjyg, ibid., 944, n. 7.

page 63 note 1 py(y) always = nerves, sinews (not “fat” as in Mir.Man., i, etc., as alternative rendering). It is equivalent to nerfs (Chavannes-Pelliot, Traité Man., 32/3 [528/9]), Uygur singir (T.M., iii, 18/9), Copt. = Sehne (Keph., 96, etc.), Sogd. p§§w' (unpubl.). Cf. also GrBd., 196, 4, where Goetze, ZII., ii, 70, wrongly has “fat”. MPers. pai = NPers. pai = Pashto pala = Sogd. p§§w' (not Av. piΦwā-).

page 63 note 2 Hardly “to”. Cf. Cumont, Rech., i, 49, and my paper NGGW., 1932, 224.

page 63 note 3 Or: over the Just God, sun and moon, the (or: his) two names. The “Just God” is the Third Messenger (not = bgr'štygr, i.e. Zrwān).

page 63 note 4 Unintelligible. Lit. “…two flames given into the (or: his) hand”.

page 63 note 5 Cf. Sb.P.A.W., 1934, 27Google Scholar, and BSOS., VIII, 585.Google Scholar

page 63 note 6 Cf. M 171, 32 sqq. 'wt 'st ngwiš'g ky 'w 'b[w](r)[s] m'nh'g ky hmyw zrgtvng 'štyd 'wš zmg 'wd t'b'n png ny ryzynd. 'w'gwn hwyc hwrw'n ngwš'g pd pzd 'wd wšyd'x pd xw'r 'wt dyjw'r, kd dwr 'c wjydg'n 'wt kd nzd 'w wjydg'n, hw pd wxybyy frhyft 'wd w'wryft 'škybyd, etc. “And some Hearers are like unto the juniper which is ever green, and whose leaves are shed neither in summer nor in winter. So also the pious Hearer, in times of persecution and of free exercise (lit. openmindedness), in good and bad days, under the eyes of the Elect or out of their sight, — he is constant in his charity and faith.” Although the word 'bwrs is incomplete in both passages, its restoration is practically a certainty.

page 63 note 7 Possibly the parable of St. Mark, iv, 3 sqq.

page 63 note 8 8 Cf. BSOS., IX, 86Google Scholar.

page 67 note 1 An elaborate version of this parable is found in M 221 R 9–23: u nyws0161;' kyh'n rw'ng'n 'w wjyydg'n “wryyd”wn m'n'g c'wn' Škwẖ myrd [ky] dwxt ‘y nyq z'd hy, 'wd pd wryhryy 'wd'gr'yyẖ 'byr hwcyyhr hy. 'wd h'n myrd ‘y 'škwẖ’w hwcyhryyẖ ‘y’ wy qnyycg xwyš dwxlr prg'myyh cy ''byr h[wcyhr] [h]y. 'wd'wy dwxlr ‘y hwcyhr [ M.’wš 'w š'ẖ hndyym'n [qwnyh] 'wd š'ẖ'wy qnycg ps[ndyh?] 'wd pd znyy nš'yy. 'wš [ ] pws 'cyygšz'ynd[ ] pwsryn ‘yš’c 'w[y myrd ‘y 'š]kwẖ dwxlr z['d (remainder missing), “The Hearer that brings alms to the Elect, is like unto a poor man to whom a pretty daughter has been born, who is very beautiful with charm and loveliness. That poor man fosters the beauty of that girl, his daughter, for she is very beautiful. And that beautiful daughter …, he presents her to the king. The king approves of her, and puts her into bis harem. He has [several] sons by her…. The sons that were born to that poor man's daughter.…”. Throughout the story the parabolic optative is in use.

page 64 note 2 For a similar parable see below, lines 258 sqq.

page 64 note 3 zyyg: this word, hitherto unexplained, occurs in the Šābuhragān (M 470 V 14, spelt z'yg). The sinners, roasting in hell, see.

page 64 note 4 Possibly “weapons”.

page 64 note 5 Cf. Kephalaia, 192/3.

page 64 note 6 Cf. āhīd-gar-ān below, F 43/4. For a discussion of āhīd see Zaehner, BSOS., IX, 315 sq. Perhaps one can understand Av. āhiti- as “ something that causes shame”, hence “stain”, etc. In that case Anahitā could be compared to Apsaras. As regards NPere. xīre, mentioned by Zaehner, this may be connectedwith Sogd. yyr'k “foolish”. The word in DkM., 205s, is not necessarily hyrg-gwn (thus Zaehner, ibid., 312). It might be hyl- = Pashto xar

page 65 note 1 Cf. supra, lines 206–212.

page 65 note 2 On boyuq see Bang, , loc. cit., p. 15, who has:Google Scholar

page 66 note 1 Cf. Enoch, 13, 9, ήλθον πрóς aύτοÙς, кaì πάντ㎭ς συνγ·γμένοί έ

page 66 note 2 Cf. Enoch, 13, 4–6.

page 66 note 3 i.e. the divine order for their punishment (Enoch, 10).

page 67 note 4 [Other fragments of the same manuscript (“T i”), not however belonging to the Kawān, show that there were three columns to a page; hence, the correct order of the columns is: BCDEFA. Perhaps this text, too, is not a fragment of the Kawān.].

page 67 note 1 murzīdan is “persecute, harass”, not “show pity” as hitherto translated (S 9; Mir.Man., ii; W.-L., ii, 556, r 6).

page 67 note 2 ghwd (Mir.Man., ii), ghwdg'n (Mir.Man., i), ghwyn- (ZII., ix, 183, 27): the derivation of these words from vi + hū by Schaeder, , Sb.P.A.W., 1935, 492, n. 3Google Scholar, is based on the translation I had given; this translation, however, was based on nothing but this selfsame etymology.

page 67 note 3 Enoch, 10, 10.

page 68 note 1 This passage in particular seems to show that the text is a fragment of the Kawān. There are two groups of sinners here: one is (apparently) to be transferred from a preliminary fireprison to the permanent hell at the end of the world (= the Egrēgoroi), the other consists of the κίβδηλι(= Giants). The digression on their final fate in the great conflagration, under the eyes of the self-satisfied Righteous (cf. Šābuhragān, M 470 V), is well in keeping with Mani's discursive style.

page 68 note 2 w'y- (different from Parth. w'y- “to lead”) = “to fly” or “to hunt” ? Cf. w'ywg “hunter” (BBB., where the translation should be changed), Air. Wb. 1356, 1407.

page 68 note 3 My pupil I. Gershevitch thinks prβ'r should be derived from prβyr-. It is true that “explanation, announcement” fits most passages better than “chariot” Hence, Mahāyāna rendered as “the great announcement”?.

page 68 note 4 See above, E 9–10; cf. pδ'rβ-, P 2, 1163, and Sogdica, p. 57.

page 68 note 5 Cf. zyt- BBB., 105 (on f 78); Saka ysän- ysät-, etc.

page 68 note 6 'ngyrf[ ? Hardly 'ngyrδ[. If -p[, from ham-k∂hrp-, cf. MPers. hārn-hannām.

page 68 note 7 Cf. Npers, . dāman, Yidgha avlānd, Morgenstierne, IIFL., II, 194Google Scholar.

page 69 note 1 Hardly ywxt]yy or fsyt]yy (it should be ywxtyt), etc.

page 69 note 2 Possibly šxy(w), but not šxww.

page 69 note 3 Enoch, 17,1: θέλωσιν φααίνίνίαι ωσεί ανθρωποι. pts'δ, cf. Skt. praticchanda-.

page 69 note 4 viz. the human associates of the demons, esp. the “daughters of men”.

page 69 note 5 viz. the giants and their children ? Or merely the children of the giants ? See below, S. According to Syncellus (apud Fl.-R., p. 25) there were three generations: (1) the giants, (2) the Nephīlīm, their sons, and (3) the Eliud, their grandsons. In the Book of Enoch the giants are killed, or rather incited to kill each other, before the Egrēgoroi are punished (ch. 10). Their spirits shall roam the world, until the day of judgment, as πνεύμαία πονηρα (15,8–16,1).

page 69 note 6 This passage shows that the Sogdian text had been translated from either Middle-Persian or Parthian (MPers. ky myhryzd 'c nwx 'wyš'n r'y wyn'rd bwd, Parthian ky w'd jywndg 'c nwx hwyn wsn'd wyr'št bwd).

page 69 note 7 'nδyk probably = skill, art, ability (differently, BBB., p. 105).

page 69 note 8 See above, A 97.

page 69 note 9 Fairly cursive, difficult to read.

page 69 note 10 Probably by assimilation from Šamšai (= Šimšai in Ezra).

page 70 note 1 Read: cnn δmwmh wδwh 'δw?? Or: cnn hmpmh, etc. The word δβ' impnh (etc.) cannot possibly be fitted in. One naturally expects: … cnn ⃜ ϒypδ δβ' mpnh.

page 70 note 2 Short for ”z'yt'yt ϒnt; apparently not: ”z'yt'nt.

page 70 note 3 See above, 6 28–9, and below, text M. According to Enoch, ch. 8, the fallen angels imparted to mankind unholy arts and undesirable knowledge, e.g. astrology, cosmetics, soothsaying, metallurgy, production of weapons, even the art of writing (ch. 69, 9).

page 71 note 1 Copyist's mistake (read: pṯymṯy).

page 71 note 2 Presumably the stellar demons.

page 71 note 3 Cf. JRAS., 1942, 232 n. 6.

page 71 note 4 If Mani's famous Ertenk was indeed a picture-book, this Vifrās may well have been the explanatory text published together with it; cf. Polotsky's suggestion, Man. Hom., 18, n. 1, on Mani's είκων (but see BBB., pp. 9 sq.). There is no reason for “identifying” the Ertenk with Mani's Evangelion (Schaeder, Gnomon, 9, 347). The fragments of the Vifrās (M 35, M 186, M 205, M 258, M 740, T ii K, T iii D 278) will be published at some other opportunity.

page 72 note 1 The point is that A eats or kills B, after B had finished C. A man killed his brother over the treasure, but was killed by a third party, etc. The Great Fire will devour the bodily fire which had swallowed the “exterior fire”. Hence, Ohya killed Leviathan, but was killed by Raphael.

page 72 note 2 , St.Wikander, Vayu, I [1941], 166Google Scholar, quotes my article on Enoch, and my paper in ZDMG., 1936, p. 4, and remarks that eigentuemlicherweise I had forgotten Al-Ghaḍanfar's notice on Sām and Narīmān. Less careless readers will find Ghaḍanfar's notice quoted in extenso on the page cited by Wikander.

page 73 note 1 See above, A 98.

page 73 note 2 Cf. above, A 105 sqq.

page 73 note 3 Presumably the number of years supposed to have passed from the time of Enoch to the beginning of the reign of Vištāsp. The date for Enoch was probably calculated with the help of the Jewish world-era, or the mundane era of Alexandria (beginning 5493 B.C.), or by counting backwards from the Deluge. Taking 3237 B.C. (but 3251 B.C. according to the Coptic chronology) as the date of the Deluge (see Taqizadeh, S. H., BSOS., X, 122, under c), and adding 669 (= from Enoch's death to the Deluge according to the Hebrew Genesis), and subtracting the number in our fragment, 3,28[8 ?], from 3,237 + 669 = 3,906, the resulting date, 618 B.C., agrees perfectly with the traditional Zoroastrian date for the beginning of Vištāsp's reign (258 + 30 years before Alexander's conquest of Persia, 330 B.C.; cf. Taqizadeh,127 sq.). From this one may infer that the famous date for Zoroaster: “258 years before Alexander” was known to Mani (Nyberg, Rel. Alt. Iran, 32 sqq., thinks it was invented towards the beginning of the fifth century).Google Scholar

page 73 note 4 The name is possibly to be restored in Tūrk. Man., III, p. 39, No. 22, R 5, where wy. t'δ lp was read by LeCoq.Google Scholar

page 73 note 5 In quoting this text in ZDMG., 90, p. 5, I took wyjn for what it seemed to be, viz. Vēžan. But as the appearance of Bēžan in connection with Vištāspa is incomprehensible, I have now restored [‘ry’]n wyjn, see above, G 26.

page 74 note 1 For the spelling, cf. ktodws apud Theodore bar Kōnay.

page 74 note 2 'mwst = amwast = believer, faithful (not “sad”!), from hmwd-, Arm. havat-.

page 74 note 3 The lines 3,4 and 14,15 are possibly complete.

page 74 note 4 Hardly “food” or “banquet” ? Cf. Parth. 'ωχγη, etc. Also Budd. Sogd. 'ωуγ- ('ωу'γ-) Impf. ω'уγ-, Inf. 'ωу'ωγτ, etc.) “to abandon” (SCE., 562; Dhuta, 41; P 2, 97, 219; P 7, 82; etc., appears to be of no use here.

page 74 note 5 Cf. NPers. jehāniyān.

page 74 note 6 Cf. Vd., ii, 20 ? But the Manich. fragment appears to describe the election of Yima to the sovereignty over the world.

page 74 note 7 Cf. BSOS., X, 102, n. 4.

page 74 note 8 šyrn'm is a karmadharaya, = acclamation(s), cheering, cf. e.g. Rustam frg. (P 13, 5) prw BBkw šyrn'm “with loud cheers” it should not be confused with the bahuvrīhi šyrn'm'k “wellreputed, famous” (e.g. Reichelt, ii, 68, 9; šyrn'm'y, ibid., 61, 2, cf. BBB., 91, on a 11). But šym'm is also“(good) fame”, see e.g. V.J., 156, 168, 1139.

page note 4 Hardly “food” or “banquet” ? Cf. Parth. 'ωχγη, etc. Also Budd. Sogd. 'ωуγ- ('ωу'γ-) Impf. ω'уγ-, Inf. 'ωу'ωγτ, etc.) “to abandon” (SCE., 562;; Dhuta, 41; P 2, 97, 219; P 7, 82; etc., appears to be of no use here.

page note 5 Cf. NPers. jehāniyān.

page note 6 Cf. Vd., ii, 20 ? But the Manich. fragment appears to describe the election of Yima to the sovereignty over the world.

page note 7 Cf. BSOS., X, 102, n. 4.

page note 8 šyrn'm is a karmadharaya, = acclamation(s), cheering, cf. e.g. Rustam frg. (P 13, 5) prw BBkw šyrn'm “with loud cheers” it should not be confused with the bahuvrīhi šyrn'm'k “wellreputed, famous” (e.g. Reichelt, ii, 68, 9; šyrn'm'y, ibid., 61, 2, cf. BBB., 91, on a 11). But šym'm is also“(good) fame”, see e.g. V.J., 156, 168, 1139.