The Bundahišn: The Zoroastrian Book of Creation

«0 Praise to the Creator Ohrmazd! Majestic, glorious, omniscient, wise, mighty, the greatest in good thoughts, words, and deeds in thinking, speech, and action, and to all the spiritual and material deities.» — el proemio del Bundahišn abre con la alabanza a Ohrmazd creador y a todas las deidades espirituales y materiales, y le atribuye la omnisciencia y la primacía en pensamiento, palabra y obra (Prologue, 0).

«1 With good fortune and with a happy omen I would wish to write— secondly1 with the good star and under the supervision of that friend of god, all-wise, sower of righteousness, friend of good deeds, who knows god, seer of the spiritual world, beloved of the best, the authority of the good Mazdaean dēn, Spandyād Māh-Windād Rōstam Šahryār of immortal soul—the writing of primal creation [bundahišn].» — el proemio declara bajo qué autoridad se escribe —la de Spandyād Māh-Windād Rōstam Šahryār, nombrado autoridad del buen *dēn* mazdeo— y da el título como acto: la escritura de la creación primordial (Prologue, 1).

«2 Since the coming of the Arabs to Iran, and their promulgation of an evil dēn and evil will, they have turned away from the good dēn of the Kayanids and from respect for the upholders of the dēn, and from the god-given2 secrets3 of the deep and wonderful4 Gāthās, and the proper logic of things, right thinking, proper action, and meaningful discourses have passed from the memory and knowledge of the common people.» — el proemio fecha su propio agravio en la llegada de los árabes a Irán y sostiene que desde entonces se han perdido de la memoria común los secretos de las Gāthās, la lógica de las cosas y el pensamiento recto (Prologue, 2).

«3 On account of these evil times, even those of noble and Kayanid families and the upholders of the dēn have mixed with the customs and manners of those of evil dēn. For prestige’s sake, they have held the words, customs, and rites of the good dēn to be no more than blemish and error.» — el proemio acusa a los propios linajes nobles y kayánidas y a los sostenedores del *dēn* de haberse mezclado con costumbres de mal *dēn* y de tener por mancha y error las palabras y ritos de la buena religión (Prologue, 3).

«4 One who sought instruction in this tradition and these secrets, could only gain it for himself through effort, toil, and trouble, wandering from place to place—and still they did not succeed.» — el proemio cierra el diagnóstico con una negativa: quien buscaba instrucción en esta tradición solo podía lograrla con esfuerzo y peregrinaje de lugar en lugar, y aun así no lo conseguía (Prologue, 4).

«1 Thus it is revealed in the good dēn: “Ohrmazd was on high, in omniscience and goodness, for eternity in the light.” 2 That light is the throne and place of Ohrmazd; some call it “endless light.”» — el capítulo 1 pone su primera afirmación en boca del buen *dēn*, no en la suya: Ohrmazd estaba en lo alto, en omnisciencia y bondad, en la luz por la eternidad (1:1-2).

«3 Ahriman was in darkness, afterthought, and aggression, down deep. 4 Aggression was his nature and darkness his place; some call it “endless darkness.” 5 Between them was a void. Some say it was Way, in which there is the Mixture.» — el texto sitúa a Ahriman abajo, en oscuridad, retropensamiento y agresión, y entre los dos pone un vacío que algunos llaman Way, donde está la Mezcla (1:3-5).

«6 Both spirits were finite and infinite. 7 For above was what is called endless light, unbounded. Down deep was endless darkness, and that is infinite. 8 At the border both were finite, for between them was the void, and they did not touch. Again, both spirits were finite in their own bodies.» — el texto sostiene a la vez la finitud y la infinitud de los dos espíritus, y da la razón: infinitos hacia arriba y hacia abajo, finitos en la frontera, donde no se tocan porque media el vacío (1:6-8).

«10 Furthermore, at the Final Body, the creatures of Ohrmazd will have perfect power for ever and ever; that is infinity. 11 And at that time, the creatures of Ahriman will be destroyed, so that the Final Body can come to be; that is finitude.» — el texto reparte infinitud y finitud por el desenlace: las criaturas de Ohrmazd tendrán poder perfecto para siempre, y las de Ahriman serán destruidas para que el Cuerpo Final pueda ser (1:10-11).

«13 For three thousand years, the creatures were only spiritual; that is, they were unthinking, unmoving, and intangible.» — el texto data en tres mil años la fase en que las criaturas fueron solo espirituales: sin pensamiento, sin movimiento e intangibles (1:13).

«14 On account of his afterthought, Ahriman was not aware of Ohrmazd’s existence. He rose up from the depths and came to the boundary within sight of the light. 15 When he saw Ohrmazd’s light, intangible and blazing,1 because of his aggression and jealousy he attacked to destroy it. 16 Then, when he saw valor and victory greater than his own, he scurried back into the darkness and fabricated many demons, those destructive creatures hungry for battle.» — el texto explica la ignorancia inicial de Ahriman por su retropensamiento, y narra su primer ataque y su retirada a la oscuridad, donde fabrica demonios (1:14-16).

«17 When Ohrmazd saw the creatures of the Evil Spirit, they seemed to him awful, rotten, bad, and evil, and he did not praise them. 18 Afterward, when the Evil Spirit saw the creatures of Ohrmazd, they seemed to him profound and honorable, and he praised Ohrmazd’s creation.» — el texto marca la asimetría de los dos juicios: Ohrmazd no alaba las criaturas del Espíritu Maligno, y el Espíritu Maligno sí alaba la creación de Ohrmazd (1:17-18).

«19 Then Ohrmazd, knowing the nature of creation and the end of the affair, went to meet the Evil Spirit. He proposed peace and said: “Evil Spirit, give aid to my creatures and offer praise, so that, as a reward, you may become immortal and ageless, without sensation or decay. 20 If you do not provoke a battle, you will not become powerless yourself and you will bring benefit to us both.» — el texto pone en boca de Ohrmazd una oferta de paz con recompensa: inmortalidad y ausencia de vejez a cambio de ayuda y alabanza (1:19-20).

«21 The Evil Spirit snarled: “I will not help your creatures and I will not offer praise! No, I will destroy you and your creatures for ever and ever! I will incite all your creatures to hate you and to love me.» — el texto da la respuesta de Ahriman como voto de destrucción y de incitar a las criaturas a odiar a Ohrmazd y amarlo a él (1:21).

«22 The explanation is that he believed that Ohrmazd had offered peace because he was helpless against him. He did not accept it, and made his vow.» — el texto explica el rechazo por un error de lectura de Ahriman: creyó que la oferta de paz venía de la impotencia (1:22).

«25 Ohrmazd said to the Evil Spirit: “Let us set a time, so that by this pact our battle will be limited to nine thousand years.» — el texto fija en nueve mil años el pacto de batalla que propone Ohrmazd (1:25).

«26 Thereupon the Evil Spirit, because of his inability to foresee the end, became a party to that agreement, just like two men who set a time for a duel, saying, “Let us do battle on such and such a day until nightfall.» — el texto atribuye la aceptación del pacto a la incapacidad de Ahriman de prever el final, y la compara con dos hombres que fijan día para un duelo (1:26).

«30 As it says in the dēn: “When he had said one-third of the prayer, the Evil Spirit cringed with fear; when he had said two-thirds, the Evil Spirit fell to his knees; and when he had said it all, the Evil Spirit became powerless and unable to do evil to Ohrmazd’s creatures.» — el texto cita al *dēn* para graduar el efecto de la oración: al tercio Ahriman se encoge, a los dos tercios cae de rodillas, y al final queda impotente (1:30).

«33 Before creation, Ohrmazd was not Lord, but after creation he became Lord, beneficent, wise, harmless, manifest, ever-arranging, bounteous, and all-observing. 34 At first, he created the essence of creation, goodness, that spirit through which his own body was made good when he thought of creation. For he became Lord through creation.» — el texto sostiene que Ohrmazd no era Señor antes de la creación y que lo llegó a ser por ella (1:33-34).

«36 So, of necessity, in order to render the Adversary powerless, he created time. 37 The reason was that the Evil Spirit could not be made powerless except by battle. The explanation of battle [karezar] is that it is an action [kār] that needs to be done by taking strategies [čārōmandīhā].» — el texto deriva la creación del tiempo de una necesidad de guerra y glosa la palabra batalla, *karezar*, como acción que se hace tomando estrategias (1:36-37).

«38 From eternity, he created Time of Long Dominion; some call it “finite time.” From Time of Long Dominion, he created imperishability; that is, the things of Ohrmazd do not perish. Blisslessness was revealed from imperishability, so that the demons will have no bliss. Immutability of the spirit, the spirit that preserves the things of Ohrmazd unchanging as they were at the primal creation, was revealed from blisslessness. The perfect desire of the creatures of the world was revealed from immutability of the spirit, for the righteous creation of the creatures is harmony.» — el texto encadena la creación como generación descendente: del Tiempo de Largo Dominio la imperecibilidad, de ésta la ausencia de dicha para los demonios, de ésta la inmutabilidad del espíritu y de ésta el deseo perfecto de las criaturas (1:38).

«there is a measure of twelve thousand years, which is finite, and then it mixes with and turns into infinity. That is, the creatures, too, will be eternal and pure with Ohrmazd.» — el texto mide en doce mil años el tramo finito que va de la creación primordial a la impotencia del Espíritu Maligno, y lo hace desembocar en la infinitud (1:41).

«“Time is more powerful than both creations, the creatures of Ohrmazd and those of the Evil Spirit. Time is the measure of all things. Time is the most covetous of those who covet. Time is the most questioning of those who question. (That is, it is possible to decide in time.) Our time was laid down limited; in time, what is built up6 falls down. No mortal man escapes it, not if he flies upward, nor if he digs down a deep well and sits in it, nor even if he goes down under the spring of the cold waters.» — el texto cita al *dēn* una sentencia sobre el tiempo: más poderoso que las dos creaciones, medida de todas las cosas, y del que ningún mortal escapa ni volando ni cavando (1:42).

«43 Ohrmazd fashioned the forms of his creatures from his own essence, from light existence, in fire-form: bright, white, round, and distinct.» — el texto describe las formas primeras de las criaturas de Ohrmazd, hechas de su propia esencia y en forma de fuego: brillantes, blancas, redondas y distintas (1:43).

«46 The Evil Spirit fabricated his own creatures from material darkness, in that form: black, ashy, of dark worth, and evil, like the form of the most sinful vermin. 47 From material self-love he fabricated bad, formless lust, as befits lust.» — el texto contrapone la fabricación de Ahriman desde la oscuridad material —negra, cenicienta, como la más pecadora de las alimañas— y de ella la lujuria informe (1:46-47).

«52 When Ohrmazd created the Amahraspands, he became limited. He needed to create these six spiritual masters for the material world, and, later, at the time of the Final Body, he will need them once more to remove evil from it. He maintains his spiritual creations spiritually. He first created the material creatures spiritually, and then created them again in material form. He first created the Amahraspands, the six principles, and then the rest, and the seventh was Ohrmazd himself. Among the material creatures created in spiritual form, there were first six, and the seventh was he himself, for Ohrmazd is both: first spiritual, and then material by means of the Amahraspands.» — el texto sostiene que Ohrmazd se hizo limitado al crear a los Amahraspands, y describe el orden doble de su obra: primero espiritual y luego material, con él mismo como séptimo (1:52).

«53 The first of the material creations was the sky, second water, third earth, fourth the plant, fifth the cow, sixth the man, and seventh Ohrmazd himself.» — el texto ordena las creaciones materiales —cielo, agua, tierra, planta, vaca, hombre— y pone a Ohrmazd de séptimo (1:53).

«54 In his antagonism, the Evil Spirit fabricated first Akōman, then Indar, then Sawul, then Nanhais—who is11 Tarōmad—then Tariz and Zariz, and afterward the other demons. Seventh was the Evil Spirit himself.» — el texto da la serie contraria de los demonios que fabrica el Espíritu Maligno, con él mismo de séptimo, en paralelo exacto con la serie de Ohrmazd (1:54).

«57 Ohrmazd’s creatures were nourished in the spirit such that they are moist, unthinking, intangible, and immobile, like semen. After this moist state, they became mixed, like semen and blood mixed together. After the mixture they became an atom,12 like an embryo. Then, after the atom stage, there was a separation, like hands and feet. After this separation was a hollowness, like eyes, ears, and a mouth. After the hollowness was a trembling, when it began to move. So too now, in the material world, creatures are conceived, born, and nourished in their mothers’ wombs in just this way.» — el texto describe la nutrición espiritual de las criaturas por etapas —semen, mezcla, átomo, separación, oquedad, temblor— y las equipara a la gestación en el vientre materno (1:57).

«58 In creation, Ohrmazd is both mother and father of his creatures: mother when he spiritually nourished the creatures, and father when he created them in the material world.» — el texto atribuye a Ohrmazd los dos papeles: madre al nutrir espiritualmente y padre al crear en el mundo material (1:58).

«2 While the Evil Spirit was powerless, Ohrmazd fashioned the creatures for the material world. From endless light, he fashioned fire; from fire, wind; from wind, water; and from water, earth and everything corporeal in this world.» — el capítulo 1A da la cadena material de la creación: del fuego el viento, del viento el agua, del agua la tierra y todo lo corpóreo (1A:2).

«“At first, all creation was a single drop of water; that is, everything came from water except for the seed of humans and animals, for that seed is the seed of fire.» — el capítulo 1A cita al *dēn* para hacer del agua el origen de todo, con la excepción de la semilla de humanos y animales, que es semilla de fuego (1A:3).

«4 He first created the sky for repelling the enemy; some call it “the first.” He created water second, to strike the fiend of thirst. Third, he created the earth and all corporeal being. Fourth, he created plants to aid the beneficent cattle. Fifth, cattle to aid the righteous. Sixth, he created the righteous man to destroy and make powerless the Evil Spirit and all the demons.» — el capítulo 1A da a cada creación su función bélica: el cielo para repeler al enemigo, el agua contra el demonio de la sed, y el hombre justo para destruir al Espíritu Maligno y a los demonios (1A:4).

«7 First, he created the sky: bright, visible, distant, in the form of an egg; made of shining iron, its essence steel; male» — el capítulo 1A describe el cielo como huevo de hierro brillante y esencia de acero, y le atribuye género masculino (1A:7).

«He created all the creatures inside the sky, a stronghold, like a fortress in which are stored all the weapons needed for a battle, or like a house in which things are kept.» — el capítulo 1A compara el cielo con una fortaleza donde se guardan las armas de la batalla, o con una casa donde se guardan las cosas (1A:7).

«18 He created these six creations in the six divisions of the year. He calculated that a year would be three hundred sixty-five days in twelve months: in each month thirty days, apart from one month of thirty-five days. He fixed the name of an Amahraspand to every day.» — el capítulo 1A ata la creación al calendario: seis creaciones en las seis divisiones del año, trescientos sesenta y cinco días en doce meses, y el nombre de un Amahraspand para cada día (1A:18).

«0 This is the knowledge of the Zand. First, on the primacy of Ohrmazd, and the onslaught of the Evil Spirit. Then on the nature of the world and the creatures, from the primal creation to the end, as is» — el capítulo 1 anuncia su plan y su fuente: es el conocimiento del Zand, y va de la primacía de Ohrmazd y el asalto del Espíritu Maligno a la naturaleza del mundo y de las criaturas; la frase sigue en la plana siguiente, donde se remata con lo que revela el *dēn* mazdeo (1:0).

«26 The names of those five intercalary days—which some call the five days of the Gāhān, and others the good five—are, in religious terms, Ahunawad Gāh, Uštawad Gāh, Spandmad Gāh, Wohuxštr Gāh, and Wahištōišt Gāh.» — el capítulo 1A nombra los cinco días intercalares, llamados por unos días de las Gāhān y por otros los cinco buenos, y da su nombre religioso uno por uno (1A:26).

«28 The names of the twelve months are also from the Amahraspands: Frawardīn, Ardwahišt, Hordād, Tīr, Amurdād, Šahrewar, Mihr, Ābān, Ādur, Day, Wahman, and Spandarmad.» — el capítulo 1A deriva de los Amahraspands también el nombre de los doce meses (1A:28).

«1 Ohrmazd fashioned the lights and set them between the sky and the earth: the “fixed” stars and the wandering stars, then the moon, and last the sun.» — el capítulo 2 ordena las luces entre cielo y tierra y pone al sol el último, después de las estrellas fijas, las errantes y la luna (2:1).

«č is like the ch-sound in “church” γ (Greek gamma) is the sound of the Spanish g between vowels, as in haga ə (schwa) is like the e in “fed” ŋ (agma) is like the ng-sound in “sing” š and ṣ̌ are like the sh-sound in “short” ϑ (Greek theta) is like the th-sound in “think” x is like the ch-sound in “loch” ž is the voiced sound of English “measure”» — la tabla de pronunciación que abre el volumen fija cómo leer los grafemas del persa medio y del avéstico, y toma del español el ejemplo de la *γ*: la g intervocálica de haga. [Agostini y Thrope]

«Undertaking a translation of the Bundahišn, one of the essential books of Zoroastrianism, requires some courage. Several renowned scholars have worked on this text over the past century and have not managed to bring their work to fruition.» — Shaked abre el prólogo declarando que la empresa pide coraje y que varios estudiosos de renombre trabajaron el texto durante un siglo sin terminarlo. [Shaked]

«This treatise got its written shape more than a millennium ago, perhaps after a period of oral transmission.» — Shaked fecha la fijación por escrito hace más de un milenio y deja abierta una fase oral previa. [Shaked]

«The Bundahišn was created in the second major phase of Zoroastrian religious literature, where it occupies a very prominent position.» — Shaked sitúa la obra en la segunda gran fase de la literatura religiosa zoroastriana y le da ahí un lugar prominente. [Shaked]

«the Bundahišn’s version of the Zoroastrian religion reflects to some extent the intellectual currents prevalent at the time of its composition in the ninth century ce. This includes some elements of Greek thinking and science as well as ideas that became popular in the Islamic period.» — Shaked señala que la versión de la religión que da el libro refleja las corrientes intelectuales de su tiempo de composición, el siglo IX, con elementos de pensamiento y ciencia griegos y con ideas del periodo islámico. [Shaked]

«Two types of dualism are clearly present in this account. One is ethical: it distinguishes between good and evil entities. The other is ontological, referring to the distinction between that which is visible and tangible—we may call it “material” (gētīg in Middle Persian)—and that which is invisible and intangible, or “spiritual” (mēnōg in the language of the Zoroastrian texts).» — Shaked distingue dos dualismos en el relato: uno ético, entre entidades buenas y malas, y otro ontológico, entre lo visible y tangible —*gētīg*— y lo invisible e intangible —*mēnōg*—. [Shaked]

«In contrast to the more familiar types of dualism in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Gnostic schools, these two types of dualism operate in Zoroastrianism independently of each other.» — Shaked objeta la equiparación con el dualismo del judaísmo, el cristianismo, el islam y las escuelas gnósticas: en el zoroastrismo los dos dualismos operan con independencia el uno del otro. [Shaked]

«Contrary to what we may expect, it is good, and not evil, that is more closely associated with material existence. While both good and evil have a spiritual form of existence, they do not function in the same manner in the material world. The visible world is exclusively a creation of Ohrmazd, while the evil entity, Ahriman, has no real share in the material mode of existence.» — Shaked enuncia la inversión que a su juicio sorprende al lector: lo que se asocia más estrechamente a la existencia material es el bien, y Ahriman no tiene parte real en el modo material de existir. [Shaked]

«Zoroastrianism, in contrast, rejected the claim that the Evil Spirit is a product of the material world. He is regarded in Zoroastrianism as a spirit who invaded the material world in order to destroy it.» — Shaked declara que el zoroastrismo rechaza que el Espíritu Maligno sea producto del mundo material: lo tiene por un espíritu que invadió ese mundo para destruirlo. [Shaked]

«It may be noted that the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the only form of ancient Judaism that is close in structure to this Iranian point of view.» — Shaked señala como único paralelo cercano en el judaísmo antiguo a la secta de los rollos del Mar Muerto. [Shaked]

«As an element of surprise, we encounter here a third abode, one that is allotted to neither of the two contending powers, Ohrmazd and Ahriman. It is a “void” that serves as a no man’s land.» — Shaked llama elemento de sorpresa a la tercera morada del relato, el vacío que no pertenece a ninguno de los dos poderes. [Shaked]

«Another interesting point to note is that the two uncreated spirits are described as both limited and unlimited. This statement appears to go against common sense, but it is required by the logic of the theological narrative.» — Shaked consigna como contrario al sentido común que los dos espíritus increados se describan a la vez limitados e ilimitados, y lo atribuye a la lógica del relato teológico. [Shaked]

«The author’s position may be valid if it is accepted that the creation of Ohrmazd’s creatures is not a creation ex nihilo but consists of transference from the spiritual to the material form of being.» — Shaked propone la condición bajo la cual la posición del autor se sostiene: que la creación de las criaturas de Ohrmazd no sea *ex nihilo* sino traslado de lo espiritual a lo material. [Shaked]

«These observations may strike us as highly scholastic, but the Bundahišn consists of an enormous intellectual endeavor to articulate the deeper significance of Zoroastrian dualism and its implications.» — Shaked concede lo escolástico de sus propias observaciones y sostiene que el libro es un esfuerzo intelectual enorme por articular el sentido profundo del dualismo zoroastriano. [Shaked]

«It tells us not only how Ohrmazd created the world, but also how this creation was, in a sense, an act of creating the deity, who with this act became the Creator» — Shaked lee el relato de la creación como acto que constituye a la propia deidad: al crear, Ohrmazd se hace Creador. [Shaked]

«Certain contemporary scholars have denied that Ohrmazd was a creator god. The Zoroastrian tradition celebrates Ohrmazd as a creator. He is present in this capacity in the Zoroastrian calendar.» — Shaked consigna el desacuerdo sin cerrarlo: hay estudiosos que niegan que Ohrmazd fuera un dios creador, y la tradición lo celebra como tal en el calendario. [Shaked]

«The Bundahišn (and other exegetical and speculative works of the second phase of Zoroastrian literature) contains several cases of midrashic-type explanations of words and expressions, pretending that they are based on etymology.» — Shaked describe como explicaciones de tipo midrásico las que el libro da de palabras y expresiones, con apariencia de etimología. [Shaked]

«The author of the Bundahišn supplies a pseudo-etymological explanation of this expression: “an action conducted by stratagems» — el ejemplo que da Shaked es *kārezār*, campo de batalla, que el autor explica como acción conducida por estratagemas. [Shaked]

«The only way to reconcile the double function of Way as a middle entity is by tearing his essence apart. We therefore have in Zoroastrianism two separate entities: one is the “Good Way” and the other is called the “Evil Way.”» — Shaked explica el desdoblamiento de Way, deidad del viento y del vacío, en un Way bueno y un Way malo como única salida a su doble función de barrera entre los dos espíritus. [Shaked]

«Way is in a sense similar to Zurwān, the deity of Time, who is the source of both good and evil according to the “Zurvanite” story of creation. However, Zurwān is placed above the two entities of good and evil, not between them.» — Shaked compara a Way con Zurwān, deidad del Tiempo y fuente de bien y de mal en el relato zurvanita, y marca la diferencia: Zurwān queda por encima de los dos, no en medio. [Shaked]

«The conclusion of this primordial ontology is that we have a dualism that is mitigated to a certain extent by a third entity. It may strike us as a paradox that a dualism has to have recourse to a triangular structure» — Shaked concluye que la ontología primordial del libro da un dualismo atenuado por una tercera entidad, y llama paradoja a que un dualismo necesite estructura triangular. [Shaked]

«Zoroastrianism, as it emerges from a reading of the Bundahišn and other Zoroastrian treatises, may well be viewed historically as a dualistic faith that emerged from an earlier polytheistic religious system, such as is familiar from ancient Indian and other Indo-European literary works.» — Shaked propone leer históricamente el zoroastrismo como fe dualista surgida de un sistema politeísta anterior, del tipo que se conoce por la literatura india y otras indoeuropeas. [Shaked]

«1.On Material Creation 2.On the Fashioning of the Lights 3.On How and Why Creation Went to Battle 4.On How the Adversary Burrowed Through to Creation 5.On the Opposition of the Two Spirits: That Is, How the Demon Chiefs Came Spiritually to Oppose the Spiritual Deities 6.On the Stages of the Battle of Material Creation against the Evil Spirit 7.On the Likenesses of the Creatures 8.On the Nature of the Lands 9.On the Nature of the Mountains 10.On the Nature of the Seas 11.On the Nature of the Rivers 12.On the Nature of Lakes 13.On the Nature of the Five Forms of Animals 14.On the Nature of Mankind 15.On the Nature of the Birth of All Species 16.On the Nature of Plants 17.On the Mastery of Men, Animals, and Everything 18.On the Nature of Fire 19.On the Nature of Sleep 20.On Songs 21.On the Nature of Wind, Clouds, and Rain 22.On the Nature of Vermin 23.On the Nature of the Wolf Species» — el índice enumera los treinta y seis capítulos con su título, y la numeración es la que esta ficha usa al citar el texto traducido. [Índice]

«The association of evil with the material world is derived from the trends of thought that were developed in the schools of» — Shaked deriva de las escuelas neoplatónicas y gnósticas —así lo nombra la plana siguiente— la asociación entre el mal y el mundo material; la frase se corta aquí porque el troceo cambia de plana. [Shaked]

«36.On the Chronology of the Arabs of Twelve Thousand Years Afterword: The God of Time and the End of Times Guy G. Stroumsa Notes Bibliography Annotated Index» — el índice cierra repartiendo las voces del aparato: epílogo firmado por Stroumsa y, detrás, notas, bibliografía e índice anotado. [Índice]

«Creation, the Bundahišn tells us, begins with time. Before the physical world came to be, there was a vast realm of the spirit, infinite in all directions but divided in two: on one side, the dominion of good and» — los traductores abren la introducción con la tesis que la organiza: la creación empieza por el tiempo, y antes del mundo físico hay un reino espiritual partido en dos. [Agostini y Thrope]

«All of creation is the field for a battle between good and evil: good stars opposed to evil planets, good animals opposed to evil vermin, heroes opposed to witches and sorcerers.» — los traductores describen el campo entero de lo creado como campo de batalla: estrellas buenas contra planetas malos, animales buenos contra alimañas, héroes contra brujas y hechiceros. [Agostini y Thrope]

«Does that make Zoroastrianism polytheistic or dualistic or perhaps monotheistic? This has been a matter of intense disagreement; the likely answer is that none of these concepts quite fits.» — los traductores dejan la clasificación abierta: la disputa entre politeísmo, dualismo y monoteísmo ha sido intensa y a su juicio ninguna de las tres categorías encaja bien. [Agostini y Thrope]

«The universe is also split by a second, separate division between the spiritual (mēnōg) and material (gētīg) realms. Good and evil exist both in the intangible mēnōg and in the tangible gētīg; Ahriman’s first assault on the good occurs only in the realm of the spirit.» — los traductores separan la división ética de la división entre *mēnōg* y *gētīg*: el bien y el mal existen en las dos, y el primer asalto de Ahriman ocurre solo en el espíritu. [Agostini y Thrope]

«Non-Iranian sources in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic relate an alternative version of the Iranian creation myth. The myth features a primordial god of time, Zurwān, who is the father of both Ohrmazd and Ahriman; Ahriman, the myth says, came into being from his father’s moment of doubt during a sacrifice, and then Ohrmazd was born.» — los traductores exponen el mito zurvanita que solo transmiten fuentes no iranias —griegas, siriacas, armenias y árabes—: Zurwān, dios primordial del tiempo, engendra a Ahriman de un momento de duda durante un sacrificio. [Agostini y Thrope]

«Puzzlingly, however, this story is not mentioned in extant Zoroastrian literature. Confronted with this incongruity, scholars imagined Zurvanism to be a “heresy” that was originally present in Zoroastrian works but had later been “repressed” and all reference to it “expunged.”» — los traductores señalan que el relato no aparece en la literatura zoroastriana conservada, y que ante esa incongruencia los estudiosos imaginaron el zurvanismo como herejía reprimida y expurgada. [Agostini y Thrope]

«The most prominent example of this trend is Robert C. Zaehner’s 1955 Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, which includes a number of Bundahišn passages with an alleged Zurvanite coloring» — el ejemplo que dan de esa corriente es el Zurvan de Robert C. Zaehner, de 1955, que recoge pasajes del Bundahišn con supuesto color zurvanita. [Agostini y Thrope]

«In recent decades the Zurvanite hypothesis has been effectively debunked. (A witty and cogent summary of the debate can be found in Albert de Jong’s entry on the subject in Encyclopædia Iranica.)» — los traductores declaran que en las últimas décadas la hipótesis zurvanita ha quedado sin crédito y remiten al resumen del debate que firma Albert de Jong en la Encyclopædia Iranica. [Agostini y Thrope]

«the overarching structure of the Bundahišn mirrors the nine-thousandyear history of the world, proceeding from creation in chapter 1 to the vanquishing of evil at the end of days in chapter 36.» — los traductores leen la arquitectura del libro como espejo de los nueve mil años del mundo: de la creación en el capítulo 1 a la derrota del mal en el 36. [Agostini y Thrope] El *nine-thousandyear* del verbatim es una unión del extractor: el impreso corta nine-thousand-year al final de renglón.

«In its scope, eclecticism, and focus on natural history at the expense of discussions of ritual or religious law, the Bundahišn resembles Islamic encyclopedias, in particular the contemporary Epistles of the Brethren of Purity.» — los traductores emparentan el libro con las enciclopedias islámicas —y en particular con las Epístolas de los Hermanos de la Pureza, contemporáneas— por su alcance, su eclecticismo y su atención a la historia natural en lugar del ritual o la ley religiosa. [Agostini y Thrope]

«The references to creation by emanation in chapter 1 recall Neoplatonic creation theories widely adopted in the Islamic world.» — los traductores remiten las alusiones a la creación por emanación del capítulo 1 a las teorías neoplatónicas difundidas en el mundo islámico. [Agostini y Thrope]

«It is one of a group of Zoroastrian works dated to this period that share similar content and concerns. Some of these “Ninth Century Books,” as they have been called, like the massive, eclectic Dēnkard (Acts of the Dēn) or the wisdom dialogue Mēnōg ī Xrad (Spirit of Wisdom), are anonymous or pseudepigraphic.» — los traductores sitúan la obra dentro de los llamados Libros del Siglo IX y consignan que varios de ellos, como el Dēnkard o el Mēnōg ī Xrad, son anónimos o pseudoepígrafos. [Agostini y Thrope]

«A close analysis of the priestly genealogy given in chapter 35 of the Bundahišn shows that one of the priests named there, Farrōbag son of Ašwahišt, who speaks in the first person and may be a late redactor of the work as a whole, was a contemporary and perhaps relative of Zādspram, who lived in the last quarter of the ninth century.» — los traductores derivan de la genealogía sacerdotal del capítulo 35 una hipótesis de redacción: Farrōbag hijo de Ašwahišt, que habla en primera persona, pudo ser redactor tardío del conjunto y contemporáneo de Zādspram. [Agostini y Thrope]

«Early Zoroastrianism remains a subject of fierce debate. Scholars disagree about when and where Zoroaster lived: opinions have ranged from 1500 bce Kazakhstan to sixth-century bce Persia.» — los traductores consignan el desacuerdo sobre cuándo y dónde vivió Zoroastro, con opiniones que van del Kazajistán de 1500 a. C. a la Persia del siglo VI a. C. [Agostini y Thrope]

«Others contend that Zoroaster is a collective author, like the Homeric poet, and not an individual.» — los traductores recogen también la posición que hace de Zoroastro un autor colectivo, como el poeta homérico. [Agostini y Thrope]