Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:16:49.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the coherence of Yasna: a critical assessment of recent arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2017

Amir Ahmadi
Amir Ahmadi*
Affiliation:
Monash University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years a number of scholars have proposed more or less detailed schemas of the formation of the Zoroastrian ritual. These schemas offer accounts of the arrangement of the texts in the liturgy, the process of its formation, and even its function from an endogenous perspective. One way or another, they argue that the official Zoroastrian liturgy is an integrated ritual with a coherent text, and that the function of the ritual and the intention behind the arrangement of the texts can be determined by means of philological, literary and comparative analyses. The questions of formation and meaning of the Zoroastrian liturgy these scholars have placed on the agenda are important not only for the study of Zoroastrianism but also for the history of religions and ritual theory. I consider their accounts with respect to the texts they invoke and the methods they use, and show that their arguments suffer from fatal flaws.

Keywords

ZoroastrianismYasnaIndo-Iranian religionRitualComparative method
Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 57 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2017 

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

Ahmadi, A. 2017. “A gāthic rite? A critique of the cosmological interpretation of the Gāthās”, Iranian Studies 50, 199–221.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. 1943. Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bartholomae, C. 1961. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
Bernabé, A. 2002. “La toile de Pénélope: a-t-il existé un mythe orphique sur Dionysos et les Titans?”, Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 219, 401–33.Google Scholar
Bowden, H. 2010. Mystery Cults of the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bremmer, J. 2014. Initiation in the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brisson, L. 1991. “Damascius et l'Orphisme”, in Borgeaud, P. (ed.), Orphisme et Orphée. Geneva: Librairie Droz S.A., 157–209.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Caland, W. and Henry, V.. 1906–07. L'agniṣṭoma. Description complète de la forme normale du sacrifice de Soma dans le culte védique. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2014. Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: Pensées et travaux préliminaires. Paris: Association pour l'avancement des études iraniennes.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2015. “The usage of the Frauuarāne in Zoroastrian rituals”, Estudios Iranios y Turanios 2, 71–97.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2016a. “A substantial change in the approach to the Zoroastrian Long Liturgy: about J. Kellens's Études avestiques et mazdéennes”, Indo-Iranian Journal 59, 139–85.Google Scholar
Cantera, A. 2016b. “The ‘sacrifice’ (Yasna) to Mazdā: its antiquity and variety”, in Williams, A., Stewart, S. and Hintze, A. (eds), The Zoroastrian Flame: Exploring Religion, History and Tradition. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 61–76.Google Scholar
Edmonds, R. 1999. “Tearing apart the Zagreus myth”, Classical Antiquity 18, 35–73.10.2307/25011092Google Scholar
Heesterman, J.C. 1993. The Broken World of Sacrifice: An Essay in Ancient Indian Ritual. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hintze, A. 2004. “On the ritual significance of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti”, in Stausberg, M. (ed.), Zoroastrian Rituals in Context. Leiden: Brill, 291–316.Google Scholar
Hintze, A. 2007. A Zoroastrian Liturgy. The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35–41). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, K. and Narten, J.. 1989. Der Sasanidische Archetypus. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Jamison, S.W. and Brereton, J.P.. 2014. The Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. 3 Volumes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 1996. “Commentaire sur les premiers chapitres du Yasna”, Journal Asiatique 284, 37–108.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 1998. “Considérations sur l'histoire de l'Avesta”, Journal Asiatique 286, 451–519.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 2007. Études avestiques et mazdéennes. vol. 2. Le Hōm Stōm et la zone des déclarations. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 2010. Études avestiques et mazdéennes. vol. 3. Le long préambule du sacrifice. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 2011. Études avestiques et mazdéennes. vol. 4. L'acme du sacrifice. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Kellens., J. 2012. “Contre l'idée platonicienne d'Avesta ou les Considérations revisitées”, in Cantera, A. (ed.), The Transmission of the Avesta. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. 2015. “L'exégèse du sacrifice comme principe unitaire de l'Avesta”, in L'exégèse du sacrifice comme principe unitaire de l'Avesta: Leçon de clôture prononcée le 14 février 2014. Paris: Collège de France: http://books.openedition.org/cdf/4053.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. and Pirart, É.. 1988. Les textes vieil-avestiques. Volume 1. Introduction, texte et traduction. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kellens, J. and Pirart, É.. 1991. Les textes vieil-avestiques. Volume 3. Commentaire. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kuiper, F.B.J. 1960. “The ancient Aryan verbal contest”, Indo-Iranian Journal 4, 217–81.10.1163/000000060790085609Google Scholar
Magoun, H.W. 1898. “Apām Napāt in the Rig-Veda”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 19, 137–44.Google Scholar
Magoun, H.W. 1900. “Apam Napat again”, The American Journal of Philology 21, 274–86.Google Scholar
Oettinger, N. 2009. “Zum Verhältnis von Apąm Napāt- und Xvarənah- im Avesta”, in Pirart, É. and Tremblay, X. (eds), Zarathushtra entre l'Inde et l'Iran. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 189–96.Google Scholar
Proferes, T.N. 2007. Vedic Ideals of Sovereignty and the Poetics of Power. New Haven: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Proferes, T. 2014. “The relative chronology of the nivids and praiṣas and the standardisation of Vedic ritual”, Indo-Iranian Journal 57, 199–221.10.1163/15728536-05703013Google Scholar
Redard, C. and Kellens, J.. 2013. Études avestiques et mazdéennes. vol. 5. La liquidation du sacrifice. Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Scheid, J. 2007. “Sacrifices for gods and ancestors”, in Rüpke, J. (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 263–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. 2006. “On Haoma, and its liturgy in the Gathas”, in Panaino, A. and Piras, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europœa. Milan: Mimesis, 215–24.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, P.O. 2007. “The Avestan Yasna: ritual and myth”, in Vahman, F. and Pedersen, C.V. (eds), Religious Texts in Iranian Languages. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 57–84.Google Scholar
Smith, J.Z. 1982. “The bare facts of ritual”, in Imagining Religion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 53–65.Google Scholar
Swennen, P. 2013. “Pourquoi nomma-t-on les hymnes vieil-avestiques Gāθās?”, in Pirart, É. (ed.), Le sort des Gâthâs. Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 201–10.Google Scholar
Swennen, P. 2016. “Xavier Tremblay et la liturgie longue proto-indo-iranienne. Présentation”, in Pirart, É. (ed.), Études de linguistique iranienne. In memoriam Xavier Tremblay. Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 1–87.Google Scholar
Tremblay, X. 2006–07. “Le Yasna 58 Fšušə Mąθra haδaoxta”, in Annuaire du Collège de France, 685–93.Google Scholar
Versnel, H.S. 1990. “What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: myth and ritual, old and new”, in Edmunds, L. (ed.), Approaches to Greek Myth. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar