Zartosht soltani biography of abraham

Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra Author(s): Yishai Kiel Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 95, No. 1 (January 2015), pp. 35-50 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/678533 . Accessed: 21/01/2015 14:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Religion. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra* Yishai Kiel / Yale University REIMAGINING ZARATHUSTRA In his masterpiece Also sprach Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche poses the question of “who is Zarathustra to us.”1 This question is not concerned with the “historical” Zarathustra or with the literary production associated with his name, but rather with the image of Zarathustra, the “imaginative” reconstruction of his figure and its broader cultural reception.2 The image of Zarathustra, to be sure, assumed various incarnations in different periods, which dynamically evolved over time and across regions and literary corpora. Zarathustra has been described as a mythic poet-sacrificer,3 the author of the Gāthās, a philosopher, religious reformer, prophet, astrologer, the founder of magic, and so on.4 The widely attested tendency to ap* I would like to thank Prods Oktor Skjærvø, Christine Hayes, Steven Fraade, Dov Weiss, and Shai Secunda for their illuminating comments. 1 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Thomas Common ðHazleton: Pennsylvania State University, 1999Þ, 130: “And ye also asked yourselves often: ‘Who is Zarathustra to us? What shall he be called by us?’ And like me, did ye give yourselves questions for answers. Is he a promiser? Or a fulfiller? A conqueror? Or an inheritor? A harvest? Or a ploughshare? A physician? Or a healed one? Is he a poet? Or a genuine one? An emancipator? Or a subjugator? A good one? Or an evil one?” 2 For a conceptual distinction between the “academic” and “imaginative” approaches to the study of the figure of Zarathustra, see Jenny Rose, The Image of Zoroaster ðNew York: Bibliotheca Persica, 2000Þ, 1–10. 3 Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer,” in Paitimāna: Essays in Iranian, Indian, and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt, ed. S. Adhami ðCosta Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2003Þ, 1:157–94. 4 Some of these roles and functions were conceptualized via specific terms used to characterize Zarathustra—for example, paygāmbar ðmessenger, apostleÞ and waxšwar ðcarrier of the wordÞ in Pahlavi; rasūl and nabı̄ in Arabic and Persian; guru in Sanskrit and Gujarati; and “lawgiver” and “prophet” in English. For the reception of Zarathustra, see William Darrow, “The Zoroaster Legend: Its Historical and Religious Significance” ðPhD diss., Harvard University, 1981Þ, and “Zoroaster Amalgamated: Notes on Iranian Prophetology,” History of Religions 27, no. 2 ð1987Þ: 109–32; Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism: Irano-Manichaica IV,” in La Persia e l’Asia centrale: Da Alessandro al X secolo; Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 9 –12 Novembre, 1994 ðRome: Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1996Þ, 597– © 2015 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-4189/2015/9501-0002$10.00 35 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion propriate the figure of Zarathustra often necessitated a process of crosscultural translation, in which the founder of Zoroastrianism was reimagined and reconfigured in the light of new cultural and historical contexts. The present article examines a particular instance of the reception and cross-cultural translation of the figure of Zarathustra in the Jewish and Christian traditions, in which the founder of Zoroastrianism is linked to and identified with the figures of Nimrod and Abraham, and mapped onto a reconstructed scene set in the biblical period. The study focuses on a rabbinic story, narrating the casting of Abraham into a fiery furnace by Nimrod. This story provides, in turn, a window onto the broader cultural process involved in the reimagining and reconfiguring of Zarathustra in Late Antiquity. In this context, I hope to demonstrate that the authors of this rabbinic narrative engaged a wide array of Greek sources pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra,5 in an attempt to syncretize and interweave the biography of Zarathustra into biblical episodes. A B R A H A M I N T H E FU R N AC E One of the most widely attested stories pertaining to the early biography of Abraham concerns his miraculous deliverance from a fiery furnace,6 into 628, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer,” and “Zarathustra: A Revolutionary Monotheist?,” in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. Beate Pongratz-Leisten ðWinona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011Þ, 317–50; Jean Kellens, Essays on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism, trans. and ed. Prods Oktor Skjærvø ðCosta Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2000Þ; Michael Stausberg, “A Name for All and No One: Zoroaster as a Figure of Authorization and a Screen of Ascription,” in The Invention of Sacred Tradition, ed. James Lewis and Olav Hammer ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007Þ, 177–98; Daniel Sheffield, “In the Path of the Prophet: Medieval and Early Modern Narratives of the Life of Zarathustra in Islamic Iran and Western India” ðPhD diss., Harvard University, 2012Þ. For Greek and Latin texts on Zarathustra, see Phiroze Vasunia, Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran: The Greek and Latin Sources in Translation ðMumbai: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 2008Þ, 59–68; Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature ðLeiden: Brill, 1997Þ, 317–23. For Western perspectives on Zarathustra, see Rose, Image of Zoroaster; Michael Stausberg, Faszination Zarathushtra: Zoroaster und die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit ðBerlin: de Gruyter, 1997Þ. 5 Compare Kevin Van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science ðOxford: Oxford University Press, 2009Þ, 23–63. In his work on the reception of the figure of Hermes ðand the corpus of the so-called Hermetic literatureÞ in the East by Middle Persian and Arabic authors, Bladel discusses similar examples of pseudo-Iranian or pseudo-Zoroastrian materials that circulated in Greek. He further speculates that the Iranian myth ðfound in Middle Persian and Arabic textsÞ regarding Alexander’s dissemination of the Avesta and the Sasanian royal attempt to restore and retranslate lost Iranian wisdom from Greek works was triggered and stimulated by the circulation of Greek texts that were attributed to Zarathustra and other Iranian figures ðibid., 43–44Þ. While this theory is compelling, matters are further complicated by the fact that one cannot always determine when a Greek text associated with an Iranian figure—whether by way of attribution or depiction—is the source of later Iranian traditions extant in Pahlavi and Arabic literature and when the Greek text itself was perhaps informed by earlier Iranian tradition. 6 The literature on the reception of the figure of Abraham in the three “monotheistic” religions is, of course, vast. Recent treatments include Vered Tohar, Abraham in the Furnace of 36 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod which he was cast by Nimrod, the notorious Babylonian-Assyrian biblical figure.7 The motif of Abraham’s miraculous deliverance from a fire is completely absent from the Hebrew Bible, although supposed scriptural traces of this motif were delineated by Second Temple exegetes.8 Using these earlier pieces of tradition, rabbinic and Islamic authors attempted to weave together a coherent narrative telling the story of Abraham’s miraculous emergence from the fiery furnace.9 While the relationship between the different versions of the narrative remains somewhat elusive, it would seem that the later rabbinic ðand perhapsÞ Islamic versions of the story are dependent— whether directly or via a common origin—on an earlier version of the narrative, such as the one preserved in Genesis Rabbah.10 Fire: A Rebel in a Pagan World ðRamat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2010Þ; Moshe Hallamish, Hannah Kasher, and Yohanan Silman, eds., The Faith of Abraham: In the Light of Interpretation throughout the Ages ½in HebrewŠ ðRamat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002Þ; Shari L. Lowin, The Making of a Forefather: Abraham in Islamic and Jewish Exegetical Narratives ðLeiden: Brill, 2006Þ; Pernille Carstens and Niels Peter Lemche, eds., The Reception and Remembrance of Abraham, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 13 ðPiscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011Þ; Steven A. Hunt, ed., Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson ðCambridge: Eerdmans, 2010Þ; John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition ðNew Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975Þ; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Abraham, Sign of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims ðNew York: Continuum, 1995Þ. 7 On the biblical and postbiblical traditions pertaining to the figure of Nimrod, see esp. Karel van der Toorn and Pieter W. van der Horst, “Nimrod before and after the Bible,” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 1 ð1990Þ: 1–29. 8 See esp. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Abraham the Convert: A Jewish Tradition and Its Use by the Apostle Paul,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren ðHarrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998Þ, 151–75; James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible ðCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998Þ, 252–54, 267–70; Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd rev. ed. ðLeiden: Brill, 1973Þ, 76–90; William Adler, “Abraham and the Burning of the Temple of Idols,” Jewish Quarterly Review 77, nos. 2–3 ð1986Þ: 95–117; Joseph Gutmann, “Abraham in the Fire of the Chaldeans: A Jewish Legend in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Art,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 7 ð1973Þ: 342–52; Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 16–29. 9 For the Quranic version of the fire scene, see Qur’ān 29:24, 21:68, and 37:97. For the later Islamic version, see Heinrich Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran ðHildensheim: Olms, 1971Þ, 120–86; Heinrich Schützinger, Ursprung und Entwicklung der arabischen Abraham-Nimrod Legende, Bonner Orientalische Studien 11 ðBonn: Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms Universität, 1961Þ. A recent comparative discussion of the rabbinic and Islamic versions can be found in Bat-Sheva Garsiel, Bible, Midrash and Quran: An Intertextual Study of Common Narrative Materials ðTel-Aviv: Ha-Kibutz Ha-me’uhad, 2006Þ, 78–83. For the rabbinic versions of the story, see Louis Ginzberg, ed., The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1 ðPhiladelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909Þ, 174–217, with notes in vol. 5 ðPhiladelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1925Þ, 198–218; Tohar, Abraham, 39–75. The classical rabbinic ðTalmudicÞ accounts of the story include Gen. Rabbah 38:11 to Gen. 11:28; bPes 118a; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 26; and Tanhumma, Lekh Lekha 2, to Gen. 12:1. 10 Genesis Rabbah is a Palestinian rabbinic midrash on the book of Genesis, redacted during the fifth century. The appearance of a full-blown narrative of this story in the early Palestinian midrash of Genesis Rabbah and not only in the later midrashim of Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and Tanhumma, whose final redaction postdates the advent of Islam, seems to exclude the possibility of rabbinic dependence on the Islamic tradition in this case. For a more extensive treatment of this topic, see Garsiel, Bible, Midrash and Quran, 78–83. An even earlier prefiguration of the narrative—in Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo—will be considered below in detail. 37 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion In what follows, I shall attempt to situate the rabbinic version of this narrative as preserved in Genesis Rabbah in the context of Greek traditions pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra, the supposed founder of Zoroastrianism, who, like Abraham, is said to have been cast into a fire and miraculously saved by God. Variants of this story are recorded not only in medieval Islamic and Zoroastrian collections, which seem to have appropriated certain elements from the Judeo-Arabic narrative about Abraham, but also by Greek authors of the first few centuries.11 Whether the Greek authors based their accounts of the narrative on an early Iranian version that did not reach us is not altogether clear, but it is fairly clear that a story about the casting of Zarathustra into a fire and his miraculous deliverance was available to the Greek speaking audience of Late Antiquity and thus may have been known to the authors of the midrash. To be sure, the fact that Abraham and Zarathustra were both cast into a fire and miraculously saved by God does not in itself suggest a genealogical connection between the two stories, as variants of this motif are fairly common in world literature. What firmly connects the rabbinic narrative to the stories about Zarathustra is the rabbinic characterization of Nimrod, the antagonist of the rabbinic version, as a fire-worshipper, a depiction which appears to be based on Greek descriptions of the Zoroastrian fire-cult. This image of Nimrod further invokes a set of explicit identifications of the figures of Nimrod and Zarathustra by several Christian authors.12 The parallelism that exists between the fiery adventures of Abraham and Zarathustra is thus further accentuated by the syncretic identification of Zarathustra with the antagonist of the midrashic account.13 While the identification of Nimrod and Zarathustra plays a significant role in the rabbinic narrative, the midrash also seems to react, albeit indirectly and critically, to an association of Abraham with Zarathustra.14 Although an explicit identification of Abraham and Zarathustra survived 11 For the different versions of this narrative, see below. The connection between the story in Genesis Rabbah, which depicts Nimrod as a fire worshipper, and the Greek-Christian identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra was briefly noted in W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, rev. ed. ð1907; repr. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973Þ, 377; and in Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 26–27. These studies have failed to appreciate, however, the complexity and range of connections between the midrashic account and the Greek traditions. 13 On the attempt to syncretize the Iranian and Semitic mythologies in general, see Shaul Shaked, “First Man, First King: Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological Transformations,” in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of Religions, Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. Shaul Shaked, Guy G. Stroumsa, and David Shulman ðLeiden: Brill, 1987Þ, 238–56; Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Jamšid I: Myth of Jamšid,” by Prods Oktor Skjærvø. For syncretic identifications of the figure of Zarathustra in particular, see Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism,” 607–9. 14 The identification of Abraham and Zarathustra in the Islamic period is discussed in James Russell, “Our Father Abraham and the Magi,” Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute 54 ð1987Þ: 56–67; Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 52–83; Wheeler M. Thackston, The Tales of the 0 Prophets of al-Kisā ı̄ ðBoston: Twayne, 1978Þ, 136–50. 12 38 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod only in medieval Islamic and Zoroastrian sources, there is reason to believe that this identification is in fact based on pre-Islamic speculation. In light of other attempts to syncretize episodes and characters from the Iranian and Semitic mythologies prior to the advent of Islam,15 it is conceivable that the intersections of the early biographies of Abraham and Zarathustra already sparked the imagination of pre-Islamic authors. Thus, while there are no explicit identifications of Abraham and Zarathustra in the early Greek tradition, it is not without significance that several Greek authors make sure to assert that Abraham and Zarathustra were, at the very least, contemporaries.16 To be sure, the rabbinic midrash clearly depends on the heritage of Second Temple exegesis, which prefigured and fostered the motif of Abraham’s deliverance from the flames. Although the core of this narrative was known to earlier writers, however, I shall demonstrate that there are several elements in the midrashic version of Genesis Rabbah that strongly suggest a rabbinic engagement of Greek traditions concerning Zarathustra. The authors of the midrash do not simply weave the ancient exegetical traditions about Abraham together with the Greek traditions about Zarathustra by identifying Nimrod as a fire-worshiper, but further complicate the web of intercultural associations and syncretic identifications. Thus, while the Greek accounts depict Nimrod-Zarathustra as the hero who was cast into the fire, the midrash reverses his role by portraying Nimrod, the fire-worshipper, as the antagonist and evil king who sought to cast Abraham into the flames. At the same time, the midrash engages and rejects the identification of Abraham and Zarathustra, by portraying the two figures as the ultimate rivals. 15 Some of these syncretic identifications were fostered by central Manichaean authors, who wrote in Iranian languages. The invocation of Zoroastrian mythological conceptions in these works generally reflects the attempt on the part of Mani and his followers to package the Manichaean message ðalong with its Jewish and Christian heritageÞ in a manner that would be agreeable and familiar to local adherents to Zoroastrianism. See Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Iranian Elements in Manicheism: A Comparative Contrastive Approach: Irano-Manichaica I,” in Au carrefour des religions: Hommages à Philippe Gignoux, ed. R. Gyselen, Res Orientales 7 ðBures-surYvette: Groupe pour l’étude de la civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1995Þ, 263–84, and “Iranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants: Irano-Manichaica III,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48, nos. 1–2 ð1995Þ: 187–223. 16 One must distinguish, in this regard, between two types of discourse: a comparison of distinct figures, in which a limited analogy between them is stressed, whether by the ancient authors themselves or by a critical interpreter, and the identification of such figures. In the first scheme, a figure may be portrayed in the likeness of another figure, so as to underscore certain affinities between them. In the second scheme, however, the figures are not merely compared but have converged, in the sense that they are said to be, or become, identical. While certain Islamic authors explicitly identify Abraham with Zarathustra, earlier sources seem to be using a more general discourse of comparison or resemblance. For this methodological point, see Stanley Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969Þ, 78– 80; Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcomingÞ, chap. 2. I am indebted to Hindy Najman for elucidating this important methodological distinction and for generously sharing her unpublished work with me. 39 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion In what follows, I shall attempt to position the midrashic account of the encounter between Abraham and Nimrod in its broader cultural context by textually locating and identifying the various biographical traditions concerning the fiery adventures of Zarathustra. I will demonstrate that, alongside the earlier exegetical traditions concerning Abraham in the fire, the Greek traditions about Zarathustra serve as the literary and cultural backdrop of the rabbinic narrative. In this context, I will attempt to reconstruct the different ways in which the authors of the midrash invoke, appropriate, react, or otherwise engage the Greek traditions about Zarathustra. THE S TOR Y IN ITS EXEGETICAL C ONTE XT The following is a translation of the amalgamated Hebrew-Aramaic version of the story, as preserved in Genesis Rabbah:17 He ðGodÞ tested him ðAbrahamÞ and gave him over to Nimrod. ðNimrodÞ said to him: Let us worship the fire! ðAbrahamÞ said to him: Should not we then worship water, which extinguishes fire! ðNimrodÞ said to him: Then, let us worship the water! ðAbrahamÞ said to him: Should not we then worship the clouds, which carry the water? ðNimrodÞ said to him: Then, let us worship the cloud! ðAbrahamÞ said to him: If so, Should not we worship the wind, which scatters the clouds? ðNimrodÞ said to him: Then, let us worship the wind! ðAbrahamÞ said to him: Should not we then worship the human, who withstands the wind? ðNimrodÞ said to him: You are merely piling words; we should bow to none other than the fire. I shall therefore cast you in it, and let your God to whom you bow come and save you from it! Haran ðAbraham’s brotherÞ was standing there. He said ðto himselfÞ: what shall I do? If Abraham wins, I shall say: “I am of Abraham’s ðfollowersÞ”, if Nimrod wins I shall say “I am of Nimrod’s ðfollowersÞ”. When Abraham went into the furnace and survived, Haran was asked: “Whose ðfollowerÞ are you?” and he answered: “I am Abraham’s ðfollowerÞ”! So, they took him and threw him into the furnace, and his belly opened up and he died and predeceased Terah, his father. The story can be roughly divided into the following thematic buildingblocks: Nimrod is identified as a fire-worshipper; Abraham ridicules Nimrod for his worship of fire by alluding to a cycle of natural interdependencies; Abraham is cast into the fire but is saved by God; Haran is cast into the fire and dies in the flames. In what follows, we will see that the casting of both Abraham and Haran into the fire is rooted in earlier exegetical traditions that were appropriated by the authors of the midrash. In its basic form, the story of Abraham in the fiery furnace is modeled on the biblical precedent of Dan. 3:19–23, according to which three young men were cast into a fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, and eventually saved by God.18 The projection of this theme onto the early 17 Gen. Rabbah 38:11 to Gen. 11:28 ðed. Theodor-Albeck, 363–64Þ. On the role of Dan. 3:19–23 in the story of Abraham in the fiery furnace, see Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 253 n. 3; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 88. 18 40 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod biography of Abraham, however, hinges on several exegetical traditions and motifs dating back to the Second Temple period, which explicitly associate Abraham with the motif of deliverance from fire.19 The name of the city in which Abraham lived, Ur of the Chaldeans ð’ur kasdimÞ, was interpreted by many ancient exegetes according to the Hebrew meaning of the word ’ur, which denotes fire or flames. Thus, Gen. 15:7 ð“I am the Lord who took you out of Ur of the Chaldeans”Þ was understood as saying “I am the Lord who rescued you from the midst of the fire of the Chaldeans.” The nature of this fire was, of course, open to various interpretations,20 but at least according to some exegetes, Abraham was saved from a fiery furnace prepared by the Chaldeans to burn him.21 Some ancient interpreters surmised, moreover, that Abraham’s brother Haran must have perished in this fire, based on a similar interpretation of the word ’ur in Gen. 11:28 ð“Haran died before ½temporally or geographicallyŠ his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans.”Þ As in the previous verse, the word ’ur was understood not as the name of a city, but rather according to its Hebrew meaning.22 The notion of a confrontation between Abraham and Nimrod, so prominent in the Genesis Rabbah version of the narrative, is nearly absent in the Second Temple accounts.23 As observed by Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, the first surviving text to incorporate this motif into the story of Abraham’s deliverance from the flames is the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum ðcirca first or second century CEÞ, composed by the anonymous PseudoPhilo, although one cannot be certain that he was, in fact, the originator of this motif.24 The sixth chapter of this work describes the refusal of Abraham, along with eleven other men, to participate in the building of the tower of Babel. The men are placed in prison, but are eventually granted a chance to escape. In a Socratic gesture, Abraham refuses to escape and chooses to remain in prison. Nimrod finds out that only Abraham is left in prison and insists that Abraham be cast into a fiery furnace. The sentence is carried out, but God sees to it that Abraham emerges from the flames unscathed. 19 For a general discussion of these early traditions and motifs, see Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 252–54, 267–70; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 76–90; Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 16–29. 20 The fire from which Abraham was rescued could have been a fire set by Abraham himself in order to burn the idols of his father or the flames mentioned in Gen. 11:3 ð“Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly”Þ, which were used for creating bricks for the tower of Babel. See, e.g., Apocalypse of Abraham 5:1–14, 8:1–6; Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6:4–5, 23:5. 21 See Jubilees 12:12–14; Targum Neophyti to Gen. 11:31, 15:7; Aramaic Targum to Ecclesiastes 4:13; Vulgate to Neh. 9:7; Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6.16–17. 22 See, e.g., Jubilees 12:12–14; Targum Neophyti to Gen. 11:28; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 11:28; Jerome, Questions in Genesis, Gen. 11:28. 23 See, e.g., Jubilees 12:12–14; Josephus, Antiquities 1.113–14. 24 Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 19–20. 41 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion They ðNimrod and FenechÞ took him and built a furnace and lit it with fire. They threw the bricks into the furnace to be fired. Then the leader Joktan, dismayed, took Abraham and threw him with the bricks into the fiery furnace. But God stirred up an earthquake, and burning fire leaped forth out of the furnace into flames and sparks of flame, and it burned up all those standing around in front of the furnace. All those who were consumed in that day were 83,500. But there was not even the slightest injury to Abraham from the burning of the fire.25 The Genesis Rabbah version either depends directly on these earlier traditions, or both the rabbinic and pre-rabbinic traditions depend on a common origin. Most notably, however, the midrashic account seems to be connected—whether directly or not—to the version attested in Pseudo-Philo, which places the miraculous deliverance of Abraham from the fiery furnace in the context of a confrontation between Abraham and Nimrod. The story also seems to be dependent on the contrast exhibited several centuries earlier in the book of Jubilees ðcirca second century BCEÞ between Abraham’s deliverance from the fire and Haran’s death in the flames.26 That said, there are crucial elements in the Genesis Rabbah version of the story that are clearly novel, namely, the identification of Nimrod as a fireworshipper and the incorporation of a theological debate between Abraham and Nimrod over the worship of fire and other natural elements ðbut cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 7Þ. In addition, it is worthy of note that in the early versions of the story, Nimrod is either completely absent or is only one of several figures who seek to harm Abraham ðPseudo-PhiloÞ. In the midrash, by contrast, Nimrod is portrayed for the first time as the arch-enemy, who stands as the sole rival of Abraham. In what follows, I shall demonstrate that these novel elements in the rabbinic account can be significantly illuminated by another set of traditions pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra, which stem from the Greek-Christian tradition. THE G REEK TRADITION In the Greek tradition, Zarathustra ðZqroάjtrhςÞ appears in connection with two cycles of myths: the first is the story of Ninus, the king of Assyria and founder of the city of Ninveh, who, together with his wife, Semiramis, defeated the king of the Bactrians;27 and the second is the biblical account 25 Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6.16–17, in Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation ðLeiden: Brill, 1996Þ, 100, 369–70 ðcommentaryÞ. See also Frederick James Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible ðOxford: Oxford University Press, 1993Þ, 41–48. 26 Jubilees 12:12–14. 27 Historically, Semiramis was Sammu-ramat, the wife of Shamshi-Adad V, king of Assyria, and the mother of Adad-nirari III. The latter fought alongside his mother against Commagene in 805 BCE. The identification of Zarathustra with the king of the Bactrians who fought against Ninus is recorded by Diodorus Siculus ðca. 80–20 BCE; 2.6.1–2Þ, Aelius Theo ðca. 100 CEÞ, Clement of Alexandria ðca. 150–211 CEÞ, Eusebius ðca. 262–340 CEÞ, and Augustine of Hippo 42 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod of Nimrod ðson of Cush, and the great grandson of NoahÞ, who is also said to have founded the city of Ninveh.28 According to several accounts, Zarathustra is identified with Nimrod ðor one of his forefathers, Cush or HamÞ, on the one hand, and with the king of the Bactrians, on the other, who is said to have been defeated in battle and slain by Ninus: “Nebrod, the son of Cush the Ethiopian, the progenitor of Assur, ascended the throne. His rule extended over Orech, Arphal, and Chalanne. . . . This man according to the Greeks was the same as Zoroaster, who migrated to the east and founded the kingdom of the Bactrians, from which region he spread his lawless teachings over the earth.”29 According to several Greek traditions, Zarathustra-Nimrod was consumed by the flames of a fire that descended from heaven. According to the Homilies of Pseudo-Clement of Rome, this fire was set by an evil king who sought to kill Zarathustra, after the latter attempted to seize the kingship: In his turn in the succession, a certain man of this family ðHam’s familyÞ called Nebrod received the magic art as though he were a giant who chose to think thoughts in opposition to God; he it is whom the Greeks knew as Zoroaster. After the flood, he became covetous of the kingship, and being a great Magus, with his magic devices he constrained the star presiding over the destiny of the evil king then on the throne to yield the kingship. However, the latter, insofar as he was ruler and had authority over the one who was attempting the violence, brought down the royal fire upon him that he might honor his oath and punish him who had first resorted to constraint. So, when Nebrod the Magus had been slain by the lightening that had fallen from heaven to earth, his name was changed to Zoroaster ðZōroástrēsÞ, since the stream of living fire from the star had descended upon him.30 ð354– 430 CE ½City of God 21.14ŠÞ. The sources are collected in Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumont, Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition grecque ðParis: Société d’Editions “Les Belles Lettres,” 1938Þ, 2:40–61; Vasunia, Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran, 59–68; Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism,” 607–9. 28 Gen. 10: 8–12 ðaccording to the NRSVÞ: “Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.” On the identity of the biblical Nimrod, see Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 1–16. 29 Epiphanius of Salamis ðd. 403Þ, Panarium 3.2–3. The Panarion ðPaνάrioν, or “Medicine Chest”Þ was given the name Adversus Haereses ð“Against the Heresies”Þ by the sixteenth-century Latin translators. 30 Pseudo-Clement of Rome ðca. 350–400 CEÞ, Homilies 9.4. On the dating of the PseudoClementine homilies, see Nicole Kelley, Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines ðTübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006Þ, 1–35. As for Nimrod being “in opposition to God,” see Augustine, City of God 16.4: “It is humility that builds a safe and true path to heaven, raising aloft the heart towards God—not against God, in the way that that same giant ½NimrodŠ was said to be a hunter “against God” ½Gen. 10:9Š. . . . He and his people thus erected a tower against God, by which is signified irreligious arrogance.” Compare Philo, Questions and Answers in Genesis 2:82: “But those things that are here ½on earthŠ are against those things which are there ½in heavenŠ. For this reason it is not ineptly said ½that Nimrod wasŠ ‘a giant before God’ ½Gen. 10:9Š which clearly ½meansŠ in 43 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion In a brief narrative from the early second-century found in the Orations of Dio Cocceianus,31 Zarathustra is said to have been endangered by a fire that descended from heaven. According to this version, Zarathustra eventually emerged from the flames unscathed. The story involves a nonconfrontational encounter of Zarathustra with a Persian king, who was deeply impressed by his miraculous emergence from the flames: For the Persians say that Zoroaster, because of a passion for wisdom and justice, deserted his fellows and dwelt by himself on a certain mountain; and they say that thereupon the mountain caught fire, a mighty flame descending from the sky above, and that it burned unceasingly. So then the king and the most distinguished of his Persians drew near for the purpose of praying to the god; and Zoroaster came forth from the fire unscathed, and, showing himself gracious towards them, bade them to be of good cheer and to offer certain sacrifices in recognition of the god’s having come to that place. And thereafter, so they say, Zoroaster has associated, not with them all, but only with such as are best endowed with regard to truth, and are best able to understand the god, men whom the Persians have named Magi, that is to say, people who know how to cultivate the divine power, and not like the Greeks, who in their ignorance use the term to denote wizards.32 At least some of the elements in the stories of Dio Cocceianus and PseudoClement of Rome appear in a Zoroastrian account of the early biography of Zarathustra, which depicts the casting of Zarathustra into a fiery furnace and his subsequent deliverance from the flames. The most well-known Zoroastrian version of this story is preserved in a thirteenth-century work in New Persian, known as the Zarātushtnāma ð8.4Þ:33 “The sorcerers were befallen by commotion and villainy, and they stole Zarathustra away from his father. Then they went to the wilderness, and piled up a mountain of firewood. They darkened the pile with black naphtha and yellow sulphur, lit opposition to the Deity.” See also bEruv 53a; bPes 94b; bHag 13a; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 229– 32; Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 24–25. The etymology at the end of the passage derives from a pseudoetymological explanation of the Greek form of Zarathustra’s name, Zōroástrēs ðZqroάjtrhςÞ, which was interpreted as “living ðzōÞ star ðástērÞ.” Some of the other versions 0 0 of his name are: Zaravuštra- ðAvestanÞ; ð Þzr wšc ðSogdianÞ; zrhwšt ðParthianÞ; ZarduðxÞšt ðPahlaviÞ; Zartusht/Zarātusht/Zardusht/Zarādusht ðPersianÞ; Jarathustra- ðParsi SanskritÞ; Zartośt/Zarthośt ðParsi GujaratiÞ. The familiar Western name Zoroaster derives from the Greek form. For a brief review of the different etymologies that have been proposed for the name Zarathustra, see Manfred Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personennamenbuch I: Die altiranischen Namen ðVienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979Þ, 105–6; Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Zoroaster, i. the Name,” by Rüdiger Schmitt. 31 On the myths Dio Cocceianus attributed to the Magi, see Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Dio Cocceianus,” by Roger Beck. 32 Dio Cocceianus ðca. 40–115Þ, Orations 36.40, in, Dio Chrysostom, III: Discourses 31–36, trans. J. W. Cohoon and Henry L. Crosby ðCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956Þ, 456–57. 0 33 Kaykā ūs, the author of this collection, named his work Mawlūd-i Zartusht ðbirth of ZarathustraÞ, but it is more commonly known as the Zarātushtnāma ðbook of ZarathustraÞ. A critical edition and new translation of the work can be found in Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 249– 508. 44 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod a fire, and threw Zarathustra on it. By the decree of God the Victorious, no injury reached him from the blaze. The raging fire became like water,34 and Zarathustra slumbered inside.”35 While this story may reflect a late Zoroastrian tradition from the Islamic period, which was created in connection with the rabbinic-Islamic tradition about Abraham/Ibrāhı̄m, it must be kept in mind that the Zoroastrian traditions collected in the Pahlavi and New Persian works reflect a combination of novel traditions composed in the Islamic period along with oral traditions36 produced in earlier periods, including statements explicitly attributed to named authorities37 from the Sasanian period.38 Although the earlier traditions cannot always be distinguished from later elements, in the case of Zarathustra’s fiery adventures the existence of Greek parallels seems to point to an earlier Iranian version, upon which the extant Greek versions depend. It is thus possible, although by no means certain, that at least the 34 A similar tradition concerning the cooling of Abraham’s furnace with water is recorded in bPes 118a: “ When the wicked Nimrod cast our father Abraham into the fiery furnace, Gabriel said to the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘Sovereign of the universe, let me go down, cool ½itŠ, and deliver that righteous man from the fiery furnace.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: ‘I am unique in my world and he is unique in his world; it is fitting for Him who is unique to deliver him who is unique.’ But because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the ½meritedŠ reward of any creature, He said to him: ‘Thou shalt be privileged to deliver three of his descendants ðHananiah, Misha’el, and ‘AzaryahÞ.’ ” While the Babylonian rabbinic account of bPes 118a bears closer resemblance to the Iranian tradition, the Palestinian rabbinic account preserved in Gen. Rabbah seems to be dependent on the Greek tradition. 35 Zarātushtnāma 8.4. 36 The oral nature of Zoroastrian literature is discussed in Harold W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books ðOxford: Clarendon, 1971Þ, 149–76; Philip Huyse, “Late Sasanian Society between Orality and Literacy,” in The Sasanian Era: The Idea of Iran, ed. Vesta Sarkhos Curtis and Sarah Steward ðLondon: Tauris, 2008Þ, 3:140–53; Philip G. Kreyenbroek, “The Zoroastrian Tradition from an Oralist’s Point of View,” in K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 2nd International Congress Proceedings ð5th to 8th January, 1995Þ, ed. Hormazdiar J. M. Desai and Homai N. Modi ðBombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1996Þ, 221–37; Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “The Importance of Orality for the Study of Old Iranian Literature and Myth,” Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān: The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 5, nos. 1–2 ð2005–6Þ ½2007Š: 1–23; Skjærvø, “The Zoroastrian Oral Tradition as Reflected in the Texts,” in The Transmission of the Avesta, ed. Alberto Cantera, Iranica 20 ðWiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012Þ, 3–48; Shai Secunda, “The Sasanian ‘Stam’: Orality and the Composition of Babylonian Rabbinic and Zoroastrian Legal Literature,” in The Talmud in its Iranian Context, ed. Carol Bakhos and Rahim Shayegan ðTübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010Þ, 140–60. 37 A discussion of the dating of named authorities mentioned in Pahlavi literature can be found in Philip Gignoux, “La controverse dans le mazdéisme tardif,” in La controverse religieuse et ses formes, ed. Alain Le Bolluec ðParis: Centre d’Etudes des Religions du Livre, 1995Þ, 127–49; Alberto Cantera, Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta ðWiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004Þ, 164 –239; Yaakov Elman, “The Other in the Mirror: Iranians and Jews View One Another: Questions of Identity, Conversion, and Exogamy in the Fifth-Century Iranian Empire, Part 1,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 19 ð2009Þ: 15–26; Shai Secunda, “On the Age of the Zoroastrian Sages of the Zand,” Iranica Antiqua 47 ð2012Þ: 317–49. 38 An illuminating example of the coexistence of late and early traditions in Pahlavi literature is discussed in Yishai Kiel, “The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 22 ð2008Þ ½2012Š: 119–35. 45 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion favorable depiction of Zarathustra preserved by Dio Cocceianus—and perhaps even the more critical depiction preserved by Pseudo-Clement of Rome—was essentially based on an earlier Zoroastrian version, which told the story of Zarathustra’s miraculous deliverance from the flames. ABRAHAM AND ZARATHUSTRA Alongside the identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra, several Muslim and Zoroastrian authors identify Zarathustra with the first monotheistic prophet Abraham /Ibrāhı̄m.39 Aside from the miraculous deliverance of both figures from the fire and their encounter with an evil king, several other details of their early biographies are strikingly reminiscent. It has been pointed out, for example, that both Abraham and Zarathustra are said to have been born to pagan fathers, both are said to have been engaged in astronomy and astrology and are associated with stars, and both are said to have rebelled against their heathen upbringing by smashing the idols of their families and townsmen.40 Although the links between these two figures were explicitly forged only in the Islamic period—a time in which Zoroastrians sought to improve their social standing by identifying themselves as monotheists and thus eligible for the status of ahl al-kitāb ð“people of the book”Þ41—stories of Zarathustra’s life have been connected to the Abrahamic cycle from early on. Thus, for instance, Eusebius, after telling his version of the story of Ninus and Zarathustra, writes: “The city known as Ninveh among the Hebrews was named after Ninus, in whose time Zoroaster the Magus was king of the Bactrians. Semiramis was the consort of Ninus and succeeded him on the throne. Hence, Abraham was contemporary with them.”42 Although this source does not explicitly identify Abraham with Zarathustra, it is important for Eusebius to assert that Zarathustra was, at least, a contemporary of Abraham. A similar tendency is exhibited in the identification of Zarathustra with Nimrod, who according to several rabbinic and non-rabbinic texts was likewise a contemporary of Abraham. To be sure, the attempt to juxtapose the Iranian, Babylonian-Assyrian, and biblical myths reflects the syncretic tendencies characteristic of Late Antique authors who 39 For a discussion of the Islamic and Zoroastrian texts identifying Abraham with Zar0 athustra, see Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 52–83; Thackston, Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisā ı̄, 136–50; Russell, “Our Father Abraham and the Magi,” 56–67. 40 For a survey of the traditions about Abraham, see Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 243–74. For the traditions about Zarathustra, see Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 249–508. 41 On the status of Zoroastrians under Islam, see David J. Wasserstein, “Conversion and the ahl al-dhimma,” The New Cambridge History of Islam, ed. R. Irwin ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010Þ, 184–208, esp. 202; Yohanan Friedman, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003Þ, 72–76. 42 Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 10.9.10. See also Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 5.39. 46 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod contemplated such cross-cultural connections long before the advent of Islam. Shaul Shaked has previously called attention to the existence of IranianSemitic syncretistic tendencies in the Islamic works, the origin of which he traces back to an earlier period. Shaked outlines two types of cultural syncretistic or harmonizing tendencies in this regard: the fusion or weaving of the two mythical traditions together and the translation or equation of Iranian and Semitic mythical figures.43 Regarding the dating of these traditions, Shaked writes: “It seems, however, possible to assume that they ½the IraniansŠ had already made it earlier, at the time of the Sasanians, in order to harmonize their traditions with those of their Semitic neighbors. The process of syncretistic adaptation of Iranian materials to the surrounding Semitic world may have begun long before the advent of Islam.”44 It is possible, therefore, that Zarathustra was identified with Abraham at some point before the advent of Islam, in an attempt to create a sense of symmetry between the Iranian and biblical mythologies.45 Taking into account the Greek traditions that place Zarathustra during the time of Abraham ðalthough they do not identify the two figuresÞ, the explicit identification of the two figures in later Islamic and Zoroastrian sources, and the syncretic mindset of Late Antique authors in general, it would seem possible to speculate that the association of Abraham and Zarathustra predated the Islamic authors and may have been known to the authors of the rabbinic midrash. R E CO N S T RU CT I N G TH E MI D R A S H As mentioned above, the fact that Abraham and Zarathustra were both cast into a fire and miraculously saved by God is not in itself indicative of the interdependency of the two narratives. The midrashic characterization of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper, however, seems to reflect a stronger sense of connection between Nimrod and Zoroastrianism, given the Greek descriptions of the Zoroastrian fire-cult which may well have been known to the rabbis.46 The midrashic characterization of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper further invokes the explicit identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra found in several Christian sources.47 The figure of Nimrod-Zarathustra, to be 43 Shaked, “First Man, First King,” 238–56 ðesp. 252–53Þ. Ibid., 245. 45 Other attempts to create syncretic symmetries between Iranian and biblical mythic figures are discussed by Yishai Kiel, “Reimagining Enoch in Sasanian Babylonia in Light of Zoroastrian and Manichaean Traditions,” AJS Review ð2015Þ, forthcoming. 46 One of the things that Greek writers seem to have known about Zoroastrians, at least to some degree of accuracy, is that they were engaged in fire-cults. See the sources collected in de Jong, Traditions of the Magi, 343–50. 47 See esp. Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Homilies 9.4–5; Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 1.3, 2– 3 ðBidez and Cumont, 2.55–56; Vasunia, Zarathustra and the Religion of Ancient Iran, 48, 65; The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1, trans. Frank Williams ½Leiden: Brill, 1987Š, 16–17Þ. 44 47 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion sure, is explicitly associated with fire worshipping, as evident in PseudoClementine’s Recognitiones 1.30: “In the seventeenth generation, Nemrod was the first to hold the kingship in Babylonia, and he built a city there; he went from there to Persia and taught the Persians to worship fire.”48 I am not arguing that the Palestinian authors of the midrash possessed knowledge of the Zoroastrian fire-cult,49 as they were clearly not conversant in the intricacies of the Zoroastrian ritual.50 Rather, the authors of the midrash seem to have derived their information on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism from Greek traditions. In other words, the midrash must not be misconstrued as corresponding directly with Zoroastrian ideology, as it appears to engage Greek depictions of Zoroastrianism that were likely available to the rabbinic authors. Beyond the midrashic dependence on the identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra and the association of the former’s figure with the Zoroastrian fire-cult, the midrash engages another important tradition, according to which Nimrod-Zarathustra was endangered by the fire he worshipped. According to the first version we have examined, documented in the PseudoClementine Homilies, Nimrod-Zarathustra was consumed by a stream of fire that descended from heaven, an act which was instigated by the evil Babylonian king he had challenged. The encounter between Nimrod-Zarathustra and the evil king seems to be reflected, albeit subversively, in the midrashic encounter between Abraham and Nimrod. The role of Nimrod in this story, however, is reversed: according to Pseudo-Clement, Nimrod challenged the evil king, an act for which he was consumed by fire, while according to the 48 Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Recognitiones 1.30. In contradistinction, Babylonian rabbinic traditions reflect more intimate knowledge of Zoroastrianism. For a survey of recent scholarship in the field, see Yaakov Elman, “Up to the Ears in Horses Necks: On Sasanian Agricultural Policy and Private Eminent Domain,” JSIJ ½ Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal Š 3 ð2004Þ: 95–102; Geoffrey Herman, “Ahasuerus the Former Stable-Master of Belshazzar, and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the BT and Persian Sources,” AJS Review 29, no. 2 ð2005Þ: 283–88; Shai Secunda, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 2 ð2010Þ: 310–18, and The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in its Sasanian Context ðPhiladelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014Þ, 10–14; Yishai Kiel, “Selected Topics in Laws of Ritual Defilement: Between the Babylonian Talmud and Pahlavi Literature” ðPhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011Þ, 3–6. 50 The casting of a person into fire consists of one of the worst possible sins in Zoroastrianism, as the fire is believed to be contaminated by human carrion. This law goes back to the Young Avesta ðredacted ca. the first half of the first millennium BCEÞ, as demonstrated in Videvdad 3.16–17, 5.41–43, 5.47–48, 7.25, 8.73–74, and parallels. Unless the involvement of Nimrod in casting a person into fire is meant as an anti-Zoroastrian parody, it would seem that the authors of the midrash are completely unaware of or uninterested in this aspect of Zoroastrian law. It is also noteworthy that the cycle of elements deserving worship according to Abraham’s debate with Nimrod ðfire, water, clouds, wind, and humansÞ is inconsistent with the elements deserving worship according to Zoroastrianism. The Avestan Ameša Spenta ðbounteous immortal; Amešāspand, Amahraspand in PahlaviÞ are regarded as the guardians of the elements: fire, water, earth, plants, cattle, metals, and righteous humans. See also Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Ameša Spenta,” by Mary Boyce. Had there been a consistent overlapping between the two lists of elements, one ought to have considered the possibility that the midrash reflects a carefully structured anti-Zoroastrian polemic, but this is clearly not the case. 49 48 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Abraham and Nimrod midrash, Nimrod is himself the evil king, who having been theologically challenged by Abraham, attempted to cast him into the fire. What the version of Pseudo-Clement is missing, to be sure, is a “happy” ending, in which the hero is miraculously saved from the flames. According to Dio Cocceianus’s Orations, Zarathustra is indeed miraculously saved from the flames to the amazement of a Persian king. Although this tradition does not explicitly mention Nimrod, it would seem that Greek readers of the first few centuries CE were likely to have made these associations. It is possible, therefore, that a version similar to that preserved by Dio Cocceianus is reflected in the midrashic encounter between Abraham and Nimrod. In this case, too, the authors of the midrash seem to have reversed the role of Nimrod-Zarathustra in the story. While Dio Cocceianus portrays Zarathustra as the hero who was miraculously saved from the flames, the midrash reserves this role for Abraham, while Nimrod the fire-worshipper is depicted as the antagonist who sought to cast Abraham into the flames. By contrasting the death of Haran in the fiery furnace with the deliverance of Abraham from the flames, the authors of the midrash seem to invoke both versions of the Greek tradition about Nimrod-Zarathustra, namely that he was cast into a fire by an evil king and ultimately consumed by the flames and that he was miraculously saved from the flames. In the midrash, by contrast, the first version of the story is applied to Haran and the second to Abraham, while in both cases Nimrod plays the role of the evil king. But why would the authors of the midrash collate the story of NimrodZarathustra with the early biography of Abraham in the first place? While it is true that earlier exegetes such as Pseudo-Philo already juxtaposed the stories of Abraham and Nimrod, I believe that the authors of the midrash are also reacting to another set of traditions, which juxtapose Zarathustra with Abraham /Ibrāhı̄m. Although an explicit syncretic identification of these two figures is documented only in Islamic and medieval Zoroastrian sources, we have seen that pre-Islamic sources allude to this connection by juxtaposing the two figures in some way or by stressing that Abraham and Zarathustra were, at the very least, contemporaries. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that numerous Zoroastrian traditions preserved in medieval works in Pahlavi or New Persian originated in a much earlier period. Whether or not the authors of the midrash were cognizant of a tradition that explicitly identified Abraham with Zarathustra, they seem to have rejected this notion, as the midrash presents Abraham and Nimrod as the ultimate rivals. The identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra, moreover, deemphasizes the alternative identification of Zarathustra with Abraham. I would like to propose, however, that by depicting Abraham as the hero who was cast into the fire and miraculously saved by God, the authors of the midrash critically engage the association of Abraham with Zarathustra, who is likewise said to have been cast into and miraculously saved from a fire. By 49 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Journal of Religion arguing that Abraham is in fact the hero who was saved from a fire and that Zarathustra ðin his reincarnation as NimrodÞ should be identified as the evil king who sought to cast Abraham into the flames, the authors of the midrash ingeniously downplay and reverse the association between Abraham, the true monotheistic prophet, and Zarathustra, who is portrayed in the midrash as an evil, idolatrous king. CO NC L USIO N In this study, I have attempted to situate the rabbinic story about Abraham in the fiery furnace and his rivalry with Nimrod in the context of several Greek traditions pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra, who is likewise said to have been cast into a fire and miraculously saved by God. While this motif is rather common and does not necessitate any cultural connection between the early biographies of Zarathustra and Abraham, the characterization of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper firmly connects the rabbinic narrative with the Greek traditions about Zarathustra. Aside from the Greek descriptions of Zoroastrian fire-cult, I have demonstrated that the image of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper invokes a particular cross-cultural identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra. The parallelism that exists between the fiery adventures of Abraham and Zarathustra is thus further emphasized by a syncretic identification of Zarathustra with the antagonist of the midrashic account. While the identification of Nimrod and Zarathustra plays a significant role in the rabbinic narrative, I have further surmised that the midrash reacts, albeit indirectly and critically, to an association of Abraham with Zarathustra. Considering other attempts to syncretize episodes and characters from the Iranian and Semitic mythologies, the intersections of the early biographies of Abraham and Zarathustra seem to have sparked the imagination of authors of Late Antiquity. The midrash, however, downplays this identification, by arguing that Abraham is the hero who was saved from the flames and Zarathustra ðin his reincarnation as NimrodÞ should be identified as the evil king who sought to cast Abraham into the flames. While the rabbinic midrash clearly depends on the heritage of Second Temple exegesis, which prefigured and fostered the motif of Abraham’s deliverance from the flames, I have demonstrated that there are several elements in the version of Genesis Rabbah that strongly suggest a rabbinic engagement of and reaction to Greek traditions about Zarathustra. In this context, the creators of the midrash did not simply weave together Greek and other ancient exegetical traditions about Zarathustra, but further complicated the web of intercultural associations and syncretic identifications in fascinating new ways. 50 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions