« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
to be this. When the flood took place, those few persons who, entering the ark, were saved by water, represent those who shall enter the Church by baptism, and who shall alone be saved by water. There are, as the Fathers have observed, two figures here—the water of the flood (a figure of that of baptism), and the ark (a figure of the Church as well). The water plays & double part in the flood. It destroys some and saves others. It is the water as a saving element that is the type. St. Peter says, simply, “As there were but eight persons saved by the water—the eight who entered the arkso there now will be saved, by the water of baptism, those only who by it shall enter the Church.” Whether the flood was universal or not, we say that only those eight who entered the ark were saved by the water of the flood. St. Peter does not say that the only ones saved in the world were those who were in the ark. He says that those only who were saved by water were those who entered the ark—an absolute truth, independent of the scope of the flood. The water is a figure only so far as it was a means of safety. Under this aspect only it prefigured baptism ; but those who we suppose were saved from the flood because its waters never reached them, would these have been saved by water? No; they would have been saved from the water—à very different thing. St. Peter, then, does not even say that when the flood came there were none saved by the water, except the eight in the ark, but only that the ark saved eight.
Suppose that it were actually stated in Scripture that the flood was of a very limited character, why should not God have used it as an image of a general Christian fact? The Paschal lamb was only eaten by the Jews, yet it was a type of that Eucharist to which all the world is called, as it is also to the waters of baptism. There is, then, nothing in Scripture which forbids our considering the flood to have destroyed a portion only of the human race, others, besides Noah and his family, having been spared. (Cf. M. Motais, Le deluge biblique.)
Rationalists, it is observed, in the name of science tell us that the story of the flood is a myth, an idle legend. Why? Because the old interpretation of the Scripture narrative is, they say, opposed to the teachings of all modern scientific discovery. But what if the old interpretation is wrong? What if the Bible story bears a different meaning? What if the hypothesis we have maintained, limiting the scope of the flood, is correct ? Then surely the very ground is cut from beneath the feet of the objectors, and once again we say truth is victorious. " The word of the Lord endureth for ever.”
MR. MOULTON'S ZOROASTER AND ISRAEL.
By Rev. DR. L. H. MILLS, Hon. M.A., OXFORD. It is with no small gratification that I welcome at last an article on Zoroaster by one who has made Zend a special study. Nothing could be fairer or more useful than Mr. Moulton's essay on the whole, and I
must express my indebtedness to him for it. There are, however, not unnaturally, some particulars as to which he has made oversights, as all others do; or perhaps it is better to say that he has inade regrettable omissions through haste.
Referring to the former division in the schools of Zend philology, Mr. Moulton makes what I think is an exaggerated statement when he says that the only continuous translations of the "whole Avesta belong to the traditional school, either wholly or with a very marked bias, even while using the other method.” But what has become of Haug, whom Mr. Moulton does not mention ? Haug did not translate the whole of the Avesta ; but he gave us a very energetic (if now antiquated) treatment of the Gâthas, with an elaborate commentary (some 500 or 600 pages) ; and as the Gåthas are by far the most important part of the Avesta, his work, with commentary, was fully equivalent to a continuous translation of a much larger portion of the whole. But Haug was the most prominent representative of that old (and non-) comparative school. Then, Hübschmann is placed by Mr. Moulton on the wrong side-if there is any side remaining, which there is not. I fear I must call Mr. Moulton's remarks in this direction almost, if not quite, out of date. There is no longer any defined distinction between schools, I am happy to say, although there is between cliques, which I am sorry to say; and there are extremists at both poles. There was once, howeve m, and one deep enough to cause disaster. Haug scarcely cited a Pahlavi word in his elaborate work; and no one anywhere will be in the least degree offended when I state that it is evident that he had no knowledge at the time of the Pahlavi language. He even treated Neryosangh practically as if he were an original expositor. That was the old school that compared only the Sanskrit language. This treatment continued, as Mr. Moulton knows, in soine valuable but smaller works where no Pahlavi is cited, till about 1885, when the two “ schools began slowly to merge into one. As to the expression “comparative,” we did not use it in Germany—that is to say, not before five years ago. Such a term would not have suggested itself there in this connection. It was French usage, however, and I suppose still continues to be. There is no serious student in Zend philology, as Mr. Moulton well knows—nor has there been one since the days of Burnouf — who denies the quasi-identity of Zend and Vedic etymology and grammar. I have myself even written out my translation of the Gâthas into Vedic Sanskrit almost to their full extent;? while every word has been approximately translated by me into that language over and over again (so with all Zend specialists, as I suppose, without exception). Where, however, I really differ from Mr. Moulton, and where I must say that he is more seriously behind the times, is in speaking of the “ascertained ” meaning of the equivalent Sanskrit. What is more “ ascertained " in Vedic Sanskrit than in Gâthic? We are rolling the subject over and over every
1 I may ultimately publish this translation, as it is a very great convenience to have the Sanskrit forms before the eye.
decade. And as to a comparison of definitions restricted to Sanskrit, we must not forget that the dearest principle to a modern critic is to snub etymology.
Etymologizing” is laughed at in Germany as in France, notably by Darmesteter. To expect the same words always to mean the same things even in the same language is contrary to modern methods. How, then, can we expect the old Iranian Aryan and the old Indian Aryan terms to be identical in meanings ? Look at the immense difference in the meanings of identical words in the Vedic and the Classic Sanskrit (see the Sacred Books of the East, xxxi.; Introduction, p. xlvi). All the more suggestive writers now vie with each other in catching meanings from every imaginable analogy, and it is this which has destroyed the old and so-called comparative (better the non-comparative) school; and Mr. Moulton will find that the gentleman whom he especially commends as a representative of the “comparative" school will repudiate entirely in the future all exclusion of hints from tradition, just as all others now repudiate such neglect. As the scholar chosen by Darmesteter and Max Müller to treat the Gâthas in the Sacred Books of the East, I may be pardoned for hoping that my own efforts have helped to bring on this happy union of the once opposing parties. My Gâthas presented the Pahlavi texts as for the first edited with the collation of MSS., for the first deciphered (which is the crux), and for the first translated in their entirety into an European language, while Neryosangh and the Persian text were added. Humble as the work may have been,
was the first attempt ever made anywhere to discuss the Gâthas with their ancient commentaries exhaustively, but this did not make me a traditionalist. My texts were tentatively printed to four-fifths of their extent so early as 1882, when they were eagerly requested of me by the first writers then existing in Germany, France, and elsewhere.
Forced by circumstances to place them in the hands of a great authority, I was openly thanked for them by him at the most important lectures then delivered in Germany; and it would be casting a slur upon the written acknowledgments of this eminent friend if I should affect to deny that my unworthy book, widely distributed in its unfinished condition and without its commentary, has yet had some influence in bringing about the desired change.
Here I diverge for a moment from the immediate purpose before me to notice, at the request of Professor Cheyne, what Mr. Moulton advances as to the obscurities of the Gâthas. Mr. Moulton, with others who, unlike him, have made no beginning in Zend philology, overlooks the fact that the obscurities in the Gâthas very seldom indeed affect the nature of their theological conclusions. They do so indeed in one, and in more than one place, but that is not“ often.” As to the one important passage, I am indeed much gratified that Mr. Moulton agrees with me in utterly repudiating the suggestion of the Pahlavi commentator, which was followed in this instance by a writer in the Zeitschrift D. M.G.,
1 A new version of it to the extent of 410 pages out of 650 is now in the binder's hands, and will be on sale, and to be had of Brockhaus, by the time that this is read.
who produced a translation “almost identical" with one which had long circulated from the unpublished lectures of Roth, and who, curiously enough, is the one example of the "comparative" method whom Mr. Moulton cites.
I think that the important doctrine as to the Hamêstagân does not exist in the passage referred to, and the point is exceedingly well made in Mr. Moulton's paper.
But as to the obscurities of the Gâthas, here Mr. Moulton's specialism comes in. He knows, as I also too painfully know, that there are very many inscrutable uncertainties in the details of Gâthic exegesis, but when we are touching comparative religion we should both of us drop our specialism. Mr. Moulton will, beyond any question, acknowledge that the main burden of the Gathas as dealing in most elevated religious and moral conceptions is practically without obscurity, and in a future paper I may illustrate this most fully. No one who knew the Gâthas even so imperfectly as their late Sanskrit translator Neryosangh (about 500 to 600 years ago) could fail to derive from them almost all that theology needed as a stimulus.
Take as a sample some of the verses which begin the Gâthic collection as it now stands. I give a free translation to which no one will particularly object. It also reproduces approximately the rhythm of the original. 1. With hands outstretched I beseech | with praise for this grace the first
? That I may content; cf. Y. 29, 3 where the Kine wails.
Gifts for the two lives grant me, this bodily life and the mental,
Or “in welfare” he places those seizing the dyaptâ their attained objects of desire.
For every action the grace of Mazda, the Living One,? knowing,
power. 1 A very eminent authority once followed my former suggestion gairim (see S. B.E., xxxi., p. 19) “to the Mount Alborij leading to heaven.”
2 Lit., Ahura, the God, or “living spirit.”
3 Or “in wish." (For more literal translations now some five years old, soc my vol. of the Sacred Books of the East, xxxi.)
Mr. Moulton will willingly acknowledge that there is no serious difference of opinion of any kind among Zendists as to these four verses, and what difference there is has only very restricted bearing upon comparative theology.
In ver. 5 we have a fair, if not an extreme, example of Gâthic uncertainty. (a) O Holiness, when shall I see thee and thou Good Mind as I
(c) With that Manthra most we hold | flesh-devouring fiends afar.
Here all the so-called comparative school with one voice followed the Pahlavi and Sanskrit translators, while I, in S. B. E. xxxi., rejected them entirely, on both lines (6) and (c). Now, however, I return to them with hesitation on verse (c), and I return to them alternatively in line (6).
But let the student of comparative theology note well that each alternative affords a thoroughly native Avestic idea. For instance, we have “ that I may teach all the living to believe vâurayâ” in Y. 31, i., and we have " we may
crush the tormentor's torments" in Y. 28, vi., and each idea is almost equally valuable for theology.
What difference does it make to the theology of the passage whether we say, " finding the way to God," or “finding His throne"? The "throne”
' could not be found without the "way," &c. Now, this general cast, and that of many
similar verses of the Gathas, could not have been concealed from the Zoroastrian priests of any early age, and accordingly the Pahlavi, Sanskrit, and Persian translations, which are, of course, descendants of remotely earlier versions, reproduce the general ideas with approximate, and sometimes with remarkable fidelity, and are themselves often models of ancient pious conception. There were no priests at all at the time of Cyrus who could have failed to know that the Gâthas with their now lost additions were pervaded with such thoughts as those above.
Parts of the Zend Avesta were doubtlessly written long after that period. Most certainly there was little of a critical nature in a modern sense in the scholarship of these priests, but Gâthic was practically their mother tongue, and it is from the surmises of their descendants that we have been taught all our grammar; of course, I mean indirectly. No one would have discovered at all so soon, for instance, that vinasti was from a na conjugation of vid, if the Pahlavi translators had not shown us that vid was its original. There is no full na conjugation of vid in Sanskrit.
But where I most seriously object to Mr. Moulton's very valuable article is, as already implied, in such remarks as that "the Pahlavi doctors certainly knew no Sanskrit for such a purpose" (that of comparing it with the Gâthic). Here one might well indulge in an exclamation point.