[94] “Ormazd et Ahriman,” by James Darmesteter, pp. 154, 159.
[95] It may be objected that the “Boundehesch,” which gives the above details, is comparatively a modern work. It must be noted, however, that the destruction of purity in the world by the serpent Dahâka is mentioned in the 9th Yaçna, v. 27, which is much earlier, and that Dr. Haug supposes the “Boundehesch” to have had a Zend original (“Essays on the Sacred Language, &c., of the Parsees,” p. 29). Windischmann, also, says that “a closer study of this remarkable and venerable book, and comparing it with the original text preserved to us, will induce us to form a much more favourable opinion of its antiquity and contents.” (“Zoroastrische Studien,” p. 282). The opinion of this latter writer is that, notwithstanding the striking resemblance between the narrative of the fall of man contained in the “Boundehesch” and that in Genesis, the former is original, although inferior in simplicity to the Hebrew tradition (idem, p. 212). The narratives are so much alike, however, that they can hardly have had independent origins, and the very simplicity of the latter is a very strong argument against its priority.
[96] See suprà, p. 24.
[97] Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London, vol. ii., p. 264, et seq., and compare with the Gnostic personification of “Truth,” for which see King’s “Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 39.
[98] Lajard, op. cit., p. 96.
[99] Jehovah threatens death, but the Serpent impliedly promises life, the former having relation to the individual, the latter to the race.
[100] Lajard, op. cit., p. 60, note.
[101] Some of the Essenes, who appear to have had connection with Mithraism, taught this doctrine.
[102] It is well known to Biblical writers that this legend formed no part of the earlier Mosaic narrative.
[103] Faber’s “Pagan Idolatry.”