جستاری در مفهوم زند

Abstract
The concept of Zand occupies an ambiguous and multifaceted position within the Zoroastrian tradition. Conventionally, the term Zand refers to the translation of Avestan texts into the Pahlavi language carried out by religious scholars. However, this definition hardly captures the full complexity and interpretive depth inherent in the notion. Over the past three centuries, numerous Western scholars have sought to examine both the explicit and implicit dimensions of Zand, producing an array of interpretations and raising fundamental questions regarding its etymology, its usage within Avestan and Pahlavi texts—particularly in the interplay between Manthra and Zand—its conceptual definition, semantic evolution, the existence of an exegetical tradition among Zand interpreters, the sacredness attributed to Zand texts, their possible oral or written modes of transmission, the influence of foreign intellectual traditions, and the nature of Zand as a translation or commentary on the Avesta. This paper undertakes a comprehensive synthesis of these varied scholarly perspectives, critically examining their foundations and interrelations in order to construct a coherent and refined understanding of the concept of Zand. Through this comparative and analytical approach, the study aims to clarify the boundaries and meaning of Zand and to dispel the conceptual ambiguities that have long surrounded it.
Keywords: Avesta; Exegetical studies; Zand; Zand scholarship; Zoroastrian tradition
1. Introduction
The concept of Zand has long been a subject of contentious debate within Zoroastrian literature. It has remained a focal point of inquiry—necessitating rigorous clarification and demystification—across the Avestan, Pahlavi, and subsequent traditions, as well as in the extensive contemporary scholarship produced by Western researchers concerning the exegesis and translation of Zoroastrian texts. Arguably, the impetus for these investigations originated from the persistent encounter with the binomials “abastāg ud zand” and “zand ud abastāg,” which permeate Pahlavi literature and the Zoroastrian tradition of the Islamic era. This nomenclature became a source of significant historiographical distortion for pioneering Western scholars, such as Anquetil-Duperron, in their taxonomy of the Avesta and its sacred commentaries. It was only later that Martin Haug discerned this terminological ambiguity, endeavoring to delineate the distinction between Zand and Avesta (cf. Cantera 2004; Haug 1862; Nyberg 1980).
Central to these scholarly endeavors is the etymological excavation of the term Zand and an analysis of its semantic trajectory from the Avestan period to the Pahlavi texts. In his Altiranisches Wörterbuch (1904, p. 342, p.1120), Bartholomae provided a seminal elucidation of the term and its compounds within various Avestan strata. Cantera (2004, p.2–4) has synthesized the varied interpretations offered by scholars regarding these Avestan forms, contextualized by their usage within the texts. Notwithstanding their nuanced insights, these analyses largely converge upon Bartholomae’s original interpretation, which renders the term as “explanation, clarification, or exegesis.” Consequently, within the ancient Zoroastrian tradition, as perceived by the editors and compilers of the Avestan canon, the concept of Zand is intrinsically linked to the “cognition, knowledge, and exegesis of the text” (cf. Boyce 1968, p. 35).
The discourse within both the Zoroastrian tradition and contemporary Western scholarship indicates that the subject extends beyond mere lexical interpretation; it encompasses both the philological evolution of the term and the shifting scope of its referents over time. Fundamental questions persist: Does Zand signify translation or exegesis? Was it considered a sacred text equivalent to the Avesta? What is the chronology of the Zands and the processes of their inception? Did they precede the written Avesta? What is the ontological status of their sanctity? How does the usage and composition of the term fluctuate across distinct historical periods, and how should we critically evaluate the extant corpus of Zands? These remain the paramount issues currently occupying the scholarly community.
2. Literature Review
In this context, the term Zand denotes the translation, explication, and exegesis of the Avesta; thus, it is imperative to delineate the evolution of the Western scholarly engagement with these texts. Josephson (1997, pp. 12–17) provides a comprehensive survey of the scholarship preceding the final decade of the twentieth century. By the end of the nineteenth century, two distinct schools of Avestan exegesis had emerged: the Traditionalists, led by Darmesteter, who maintained that comprehension of the Avesta was contingent upon the Zands; and the Vedists, the school of comparative linguistics led by Geldner, which dismissed the Zands and advocated for comparative philology grounded in the Vedas to interpret Avestan texts.
The twentieth century was largely dominated by the Geldnerian paradigm. This hegemony was further reinforced by the discovery of the Turfan fragments, which influenced new readings of Pahlavi texts and relegated Zand philology to the periphery of Avestan studies. Nevertheless, scholars of religion, prioritizing semantic and theological context over rigid structuralism, continued to assert the importance of these texts as repositories of evolving religious thought. From the mid-twentieth century, Parsi scholars such as Dhabhar and B.T. Anklesaria undertook the collation of Zand manuscripts and produced critical editions of the extant Avestan Zands. Simultaneously, the circle of French Iranists centered around Duchesne-Guillemin, which focused heavily on the interpretation of the Dēnkard in the latter half of the century, renewed scholarly interest in the Zand tradition. Despite Klingenschmitt’s (1969) reaffirmation of the negative philological stance toward the Zands, the turn of the twenty-first century marked a significant renaissance in Zand research (cf. Cantera 2004, pp. 35–104).
Among contemporary scholars, particularly within the final decade of the twentieth century, three figures have extensively investigated the complexities and transformations of the Zands—all through foundational doctoral research, underscoring the recent surge of academic interest in the field: Judith Josephson (1997) at Uppsala University; Dan Shapira (1998) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Alberto Cantera, whose 2004 monograph, Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta, represents the definitive expansion of his doctoral dissertation.
In contrast, within the Iranian academic landscape—with the exception of sporadic articles by Jaleh Amouzgar (2016, pp. 669–672) and a few graduate theses—the systematic, critical study of the Zands remains significantly underdeveloped.
3. Methodology
This article endeavors to document the historical evolution of the term Zand by examining its conceptual nuances and functional applications within Pahlavi texts and the Zoroastrian tradition. The methodological framework involves the systematic collation of evidence from ancient texts, followed by a rigorous philological and analytical examination. Subsequently, the findings are critically synthesized and evaluated in light of contemporary scholarly discourse.
4. Results
A. The zand texts have been less studied compared to other fields of ancient Iranian studies.
B. The term zand remains an ambiguous concept.
C. zand is a multifaceted concept, and this article addresses its various dimensions.
5. Discussion
The Zands have garnered varying degrees of scholarly attention from the dawn of the eighteenth century to the present, with a significant surge in interest observed in recent decades. The concept of Zand has historically been characterized by a certain degree of semantic ambiguity across Avestan, Pahlavi, and post-Islamic Arabic and Persian texts. Consequently, scholars have proposed a diverse array of definitions and multifaceted descriptions of its dimensions. Evidence of Zand-writing (exegesis) has been documented and verified across the Avesta, epigraphic records, and various other Iranian and non-Iranian languages. The Zands emerge from an ancient exegetical tradition and possess an inherent sanctity; while they maintain a written form, they are underpinned by a robust oral tradition. Furthermore, traces of linguistic borrowing and intercultural interaction are discernible within the Zand corpus. Nonetheless, when Zand is understood in its specific sense—the translation of the Avesta into Pahlavi—it must be noted that it does not encompass merely any linguistic rendition. Rather, it refers to those translations produced by Zoroastrian clergy to meet the exigencies of their era, spanning from the post-Achaemenid period to the early Islamic centuries.
6. Conclusion
Existing scholarship has predominantly scrutinized the Zands through a philological lens, treating them as linguistic transfers or translations of the Avesta into Pahlavi. However, it must be asserted that even in the sense of word-for-word translation, the Zand represents a profound religious perception (reception) of sacred texts by high-ranking clergy, shaped by the needs of the time. This perception transcended mere linguistics to become a juridical (fiqh-like) proposition that actively shaped historical reality. Thus, the Zands are inextricably linked to the subjectivity and character of the cleric, rather than being a mere conventional transmission of text from one language to another. The Zands are the convergence of linguistic understanding, religious piety, and the socio-religious politics of the era, embodied in the person of the Zand-writer. A true Zand can only be produced when a figure approaching the sanctity of the Prophet Zarathustra emerges. Therefore, it can be concluded that Zand is an ongoing, pervasive phenomenon that is not strictly confined to the translation of Avestan into Pahlavi. As long as a righteous and authoritative cleric provides a religious perception that serves as a definitive proof (hujjat) for the faithful, the Zand remains a living, generative force, regardless of the target language. This is evidenced by the fact that from the fifth century AH onwards, New Persian became the new medium for the religious insights of Zoroastrian priests, giving rise to “Neo-Zands” (now-zand-ha).
Bibliography
Amouzegar, Zhaleh, & Ahmad Tafazzoli. (2007). Kitab-e Panjom-e Denkard [The Fifth Book of the Denkard]. Mo’in. [In Persian] .
Amouzegar, Zhaleh. (2016). Zand. In Daneshnameh-ye Jahan-e Islam [Encyclopedia of the Islamic World] . 21. 669–672. Bonyad-e Daneshnameh-ye Jahan-e Islam. [In Persian]
Baily, H. W. (1971). Zoroastrian Problems in the ninth century Books, Oxford.
Bartholomae Chr. (1961). Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg.
Boyce, M. (1968). Middle Persian Literature. In: Handbuch der Orientalistik. 1.4.(2.1), 32-66.
Boyce, Mary, & F. Grener. (1996). Tarikh-e Kish-e Zarathusht Pas az Eskandar [Zoroastrianism: An Introduction. Under Macedonian and Roman rule], vol. 3:. Translated by Homayoun Sanati-Zadeh. Tehran: Toos. [In Persian].
Cantera . A. (1999). Die Stellung der Sprache der Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta innerhalb des Mittelpersischen, Studia Iranica, 28, 173–207.
Cantera, A. (2004). Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta. Harrassowitz Verlag.
Cherti, Carlo.(2016). Adabiyat-e Pahlavi [Pahlavi Literature]. Translated by Pantea Soraya. Nashr-e Farzan. [In Persian].
de Menasce, J. (1973). Le troisième livre de Dēnkart. Paris (Bibliothèque des œuvres classiques persanes 4. Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de Paris 5).
Frhang-ī ōīm ēwak(1397). [ōīm ēwak Dictionary]. Translated and researched by Farzaneh Gashtasb and Nadia Hajipour. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian].
Fadhilat, Fereydoon. (2020). Kitab-e Denkard-e Sevom [The Third Book of the Denkard]. Barsam. [In Persian].
Geldner (1886–1896). Avesta. The Sacred Books of the Parsis. 3 vols. Stuttgart.
Genioux, Philippe. (1993). Ardaviraf-nameh [The Book of Arda Viraf]. Translated and researched by Zhaleh Amouzegar. Mo’in. [In Persian].
Gignoux, Ph. (1986). sur l’inexistence d’un Bahman yasht Avestique. Journal of Asian and African studies. 32, 53-64.
Gignoux, Ph. (1991). Les Quarter Inscriptions du Mage Kirdīr, Paris.
Haug, M. (1862). Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis. Studies on Zoroastrian Religion and the Zend-Avesta, their origins, development, structure, texts and linguistic composition. London.
Josephson, J. (1997). the Pahlavi Translation technique as illustrated by hōm yašt. Upppsala.
Klingenschmittt, G. (1978). Der Beitrag der Paahlavi-Literatur zur Interpretation des Avesta. Munchener studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 37, 93-107.
Kotwal, F. M. & Ph. G. Kreyenbroek (1992). The Hērbedestān and Nērangestān. Volume I: Hērbedestān. Paris (StIr, Cahier 10).
Madan, D. M. (1911). the complete text of the Pahlavi Dinkard. Bombay (= DkM).
Moazami, M. (2014). Wrestling with the Demons of the Pahlavi Wīdēwdād. Iran Studies 9. Leiden/Boston.
Nyberg, H. S. (1938).Die Religionen des alten Iran. Leipzig.
Shaked, sh. (1994). Dulism in Transformation: varieties of Religion in Sasaian Iran. London.
Schaeder, H. (1930). Iranische Beiträge. Halle.
Shæjrvø, P. O. (1998). Kirdir’s Vision. In: Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. 16, 269- 306.
Shæjrvø, P. O. (2012). The Zoroastrian Oral Tradition as Reflected in the texts. In: Iranica 20, 3-48.
Shapira, D. (1998). Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis Zand, thesis submitted for the degree. Doctor of Philosophy in Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Vevaina, Y. S –D. (2023). The Sūdgar Nask of Dēnkard Book 9 Text. Translation and Critical Apparatus, Harrassowitz Verlag.
Vevaina, Y. S –D. (2024). Zoroastrian Hermeneutics in Late Antiquity Commentary on the Sūdgar Nask of Dēnkard Book 9. Harrassowitz Verlag.
Widengren, G. (1998). Din-ha-ye Iran [Religions of Iran]. Translated by Manouchehr Farhang. Tehran: Agahan-e Ideh. [In Persian].
Zarshenas, Zohreh. (2001). Jostare-ha dar Zaban-ha-ye Irani-ye Miyane-ye Sharghi [Essays on Eastern Middle Iranian Languages]. Tehran: Farvahar. [In Persian].
Zartosht-nameh [The Book of Zarathustra]. (1959). Edited by Frederick Rosenberg, researched by Mohammad Dabir-Siaghi. Tehran: Tahouri Bookstore. [In Persian].