Mani
c. 260 CE
|
NOTE |
The Book of Giants is one of the seven canonical books composed by the religious teacher Mani (lived 216 to 274 or 277 CE), whose faith drew on Christian and Gnostic traditions, presenting a world divided strictly through a dualism of good and evil. The Book of Giants, originally composed in Syriac, does not survive, but descriptions and excerpts translated into other languages do. From this, it is clear that Mani's book about Giants drew on Enochian literature surrounding Genesis 6:4 and used the story of the Watchers and the Giants, who, Mani considered demons, to illustrate principles of dualism. In the Manichaean texts, the giants Ohya and Hahya, the sons of Shemihaza (from the Book of Enoch) were translated by Mani's Persian translators into Sām and Narīmān, sons of Šahmīzād, reflecting adaptation into a Persian cultural context. The fragments and excerpts from Mani's Book of Giants were collected and translated by W. B. Henning in 1943, but because this collection remains under copyright, I present here discussion of the contents of the Book of Giants and a few representative excerpts from Henning's translations focusing on the life and times of the Giants. The majority of the book (and the discussion thereof) focused on Mani's concepts of dualism, represented by a Tree of Life with a root in heaven and a Tree of Death with a root in hell, and the battle between good and evil.
|
|
Jerome, Homily on Psalm 133 (c. 420 CE) We read in an apocryphal book that in the time when the sons of God descended unto the daughters of men, they descended on Mount Hermon, and there entered into a pact that they should go to the daughters of men and form unions with them. This book is quite explicit, and it is classified as apocryphal. The interpreters of old not infrequently referenced it, but we are telling you of this, not to cite an authority, but to make note of it. [...] I have read about this apocryphal work in a certain book where it was used to confirm its author’s heresy. What did he say? He said that the sons of God, who had descended from heaven and came to Hermon and lusted for the daughters of men were angels, and he said that they came down from heaven and their souls accordingly longed for the bodies of the daughters of men. Does this not seem to be the origin of the dogma of the Manichaeans? For just as the Manichaeans say that souls desired human bodies, and to be united in the pleasures of the flesh, thus do not those who say the angels desired bodies—that is, the daughters of men—seem to be saying that which the Manichaeans say? It would take too long to speak against them now, but I wish merely to indicate the volume which opportunistically seemed to confirm their dogma. Translated by Jason Colavito |
Sources and Content of The Book of Giants
Isaac De Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manicheïsme, vol. I (1734), p. 429
Among the books of Mani is also a treatise entitled a Book on the Enterprise of the Giants. I do not know whether mixed with it were some of the fables that were found in a book which bears the name of Enoch, and which is believed to have been composed by some Hellenist Jew before the time of the Apostles. This is probably the one cited by St. Jude under the title of the Prophecy of Enoch. It relates the origin of the Giants, who are descended from the impure trade of angels of the lowest order with the daughters of men. It could well be in Mani’s book as well, though this was not its principal object. Be that as it may, having found in pagan mythology that the Giants, under the feet of the Dragon, undertook to dethrone Jupiter, he claimed that this fiction of the Poets was based on an ancient truth, namely on a war that the Powers of Darkness waged against God. This is what Simplicius and Alexander of Lycopolis testify. Besides, I do not know if the apocryphal history of the Giants, which bore the name of Enoch, is not the book of which George Syncellus speaks, regarding the year of the World 2585. He relates that Cainan, Noah's grandson, while walking in the countryside, found the scriptures of the Giants and hid them in his home. Mani might have drawn on these faulty sources.
Translated by Jason Colavito
Konrad Kessler, Mani (1889), pp. 198-201 (abridged and slightly adapted)
The book of the giants.—Unfortunately, a more precise table of contents is missing in the Fihrist, in all the manuscripts. The Greeks (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 85) know the book as ή γιγάντειος βίβλος or ή των γιγάντων πραγματεία. Titus of Bostra speaks (in Gallandi Biblioth. Vet. Patr. V p. 294) of the gigantomachia in Mani. However, we are not entirely dependent on the presumption of the title for determining the content because of a valuable note from Al-Ghadanfar of Tabriz in his appendix to the letter of al-Biruni. This treatise [treats] of the tower of Babel and of the antediluvian giants and their battles. Then it goes on: “The Book of the Giants by Mani the Babylonian is full of the stories of these giants, to which Sām and Narīmān belong, which two names he probably took from the Avesta of Zaradust from Adarbaigan. The Indians also speak of the coming of Vasudeva, who was sent to put the world in order and to destroy the giants in the time of Bharata. Vyasa, his son, wrote a book containing a hundred and twenty thousand verses according to their meters, all of which deal with the stories of these giants, namely their wars and other conditions.”
This passage is particularly significant not only as a clear indication about the content of the book of Mani in question, but generally as a clue about the origin of his theologoumena and their position in relation to related elements of older religions. The “giants” are famous personalities of prehistoric times who became legendary and whose legend later was seen in supernatural dimensions. In the Book of the Giants, he dealt with those violent giants of the legends of antiquity, their battles and ultimate destruction, as he did when developing the giants of his own system, the cosmogonic powers, primitive man, etc., the world bearer (Omophoros-Laturarius), etc. In it he mentioned the sky-storming giants of the building of the Babylonian tower and the world-devastating giants that emerged from the marriage of angels, and he probably drew these two stories from the later Jewish tradition, but brought in the native pagan tradition of Babylonia (cf. Berosus) about these interesting parts of the ancient legend, which he still knew well, like the Jewish tradition in the Book of Enoch (ch. 6ff.). He knew how to discuss all kinds of extra-biblical things, as the abundance of angel names shows. But then he went back to Iranian antiquity and talked about the warrior Narīmān (the old Bactrian Nairyômainyus), the son of the warrior Gershasp, and of Narīmān’s son, the legendary Sām. The naming of Vasudeva suggests that Mani also made a selection from the Indian sagas for his communications in this volume. The epithet “Giant,” according to Bar Bahlûl, the Syrian lexicographer, belonged among others to the legendary old hero of the unconquerable Arab fortress Hațra in the upper-Mesopotamian steppe, Sanatruq, after which this city is called “the Haţra of Sanatruq”; this Sanatruq was a giant. This, too, was a figure who could find a place in a book of oriental heroes such as Mani’s. The loss of this work of Mani's for the history of legends in general is therefore extremely regrettable, but especially for information about the legendary knowledge of that time (middle 3rd century AD) in Babylonia. Sām and Narīmān e.g. are not mentioned in the portion of the Avesta we have received, knowledge provided first by Ferdowsi, who lived more than 800 years after Mani, admittedly from old sources, the originals of which, however, go back only to Mani's time at the very earliest.
Translated and adapted by Jason Colavito
Franz Cumont, Recherches sur le Manichéisme: I. La cosmogonie Manichéenne d'après Théodore bar Khôni (1908), pp. 3-4.
We know the titles of all the writings left by Mani, and to some extent their character. Among them, the one where we would be tempted to look first for the origin of our three derivatives, Syriac, Arabic and Greek, it is the “Treatise on the Giants” which recounted the battles sustained at the origin of the world by hellish monsters rising up against heaven. But the little that we know of its content agrees badly with such a hypothesis, and it seems that in this book Mani has implemented, by adapting them to his system, the rich epic legends of Iran, which filled a good part of the Avesta and which later still provided Ferdowsi with admirable material to put into Persian verse. We do not find anything like it in our cosmogonic fragments.
Translated by Jason Colavito
Prosper Alfaric, Les écritures manichéennes, vol. II (1920), 21-22, 30-34.
II. The Principles.—The second writing of the tetrad of Archelaus, the one entitled The Principles (Kephalaia), was to expound, according to its title, the theory of the two eternally opposite natures which formed the basis of Manichaeism and which, variously, asserted itself more or less in all earlier Gnostic systems. No doubt it was closely connected with the treatise On Light and Darkness attributed to Bardasian. The latter author professed, in fact, a dualism very akin to that of Mani.
The work is never expressly cited under the name given to it in the Acts of Archelaus. But it appears to have been used frequently. And by bringing together the texts which relate to it, we can arrive at a fairly clear idea of it.
[…]
Before the Patriarch of Antioch, Serapion of Thmuis, summing up the “initial mythology of the Manicheans,” briefly recalled the theory of the two trees, which he apparently borrowed from the same book. Now, after having identified its essential meaning, he alluded to Mani's prolific description of it, and he refused to reproduce in detail “the armor, the battles, the mythical inventions and the gigantomachies” which followed.
Alexander of Lycopolis already made a similar remark when he finished his exposition of the essential principles, of the great Kephalaia of the Manichean doctrine. He noted, in fact, that the Manicheans invoked the gigantomachy of the ancient poets to show how the latter had known the struggle waged by Matter against God.
From these comparisons, we are entitled to conclude with probability that the book of Principles of which the Greek texts speak is identical with that of the Giants reported by Arab historians. In fact, authors who know the first seem to ignore the second and vice versa. Only Timothy of Constantinople mentions both. Among the writings of Mani, he indicates, after the book of Prayers, “that of the Principles and that of the Giants,” as well as several evangelical collections. But he may have in mind one and the same work bearing two different names. And, if he believes in two separate treatises, this in no way proves that he saw them, for he might simply have extrapolated from the duality of the titles to that of the content.
Secondly, moreover, Arab historians do not provide any precise information. Only a little-known author, Al Ghadanfar [of Tabriz], reports a suggestive detail about it: “This book by Mani the Babylonian,” he says, “is filled with stories of giants, such as Sām and Narīmān, whose names he borrowed from the Avesta of Zaradust [= Zoroaster] the Adarbaigan.” This last detail is very questionable and is based only on a simple supposition of the narrator. Without doubt, Sām and Narīmān hold a important place in the Persian tradition. But they also play an important role in the sacred literature of Mandaeism, closely related to that of the ancient Sabaeans, by which Mani was influenced. Their legend has a lot to do with that of the antediluvian Giants. And there circulated, about these last, in the Gnostic circles, a whole literature, which was connected with that of Adam, Seth, Enoch and Noah, often invoked by the Manichaeans. There was in particular one scripture of the Giants, which was said to have been found in a field, either by Kainan or by Sala and which should perhaps be compared to a book mentioned in the Decree of Pseudo-Gelasius and dedicated to the giant Ogias, and to the struggles undertaken by him against “the Dragon” after the flood. Mani was able to draw inspiration from a work of this kind. This is why his work would have born a similar title.
In Central Asia and China, where this Gigantomachy interested much less than the antithesis of Good and Evil, the text was designated by new titles which brought out its fundamental dualism. It is this that we see, according to all appearances, in a colophon which can be read at the end of a separate sheet and where a Uighur auditor congratulates himself on having recited “this holy book of the Two Roots.” Unfortunately, the entire folio appears to contain only copyists' additions, and does not provide any new details on the content of the work.
The title given by the Uighur text is the exact translation of the Pahlavi Do Bun, which is read at the head of the Manichaean book rolls also discovered in the region of Turpan and which means both the “Two Roots” and the “Two Principles.” It is under this last title that the Kephalaia circulated in China. They must be identified with the book of the Two Principles that a Fu-to-tan from Persia brought to the Middle Kingdom in 694, which was incorporated around 1019 into the Taoist canon by Emperor Zhenzhong and which is still mentioned in the thirteenth century by the priest Zhong-Qian of Liang-zhu.
This last author provides some curious information about it: “That which is, he says, (of the holy book) of the Two Principles, thus we call (the one) where men and women must not marry; where, when holding each other, they must not talk to one another; where, in case of illness, no remedies are taken; where, at death, naked (corpses) are buried, etc.” Zhong-Qian is content to note certain curious details in the book which seemed extravagant to him. He doesn't care to probe the spirit of it.
The Manichean fragment of Dunhuang brought to Paris by the Pelliot mission, alluding to the same work, reveals, on the contrary, its general idea, but without attempting an analysis: “The one,” it remarks, “who attempts to enter religion must know that the two Principles of Light and Darkness have absolutely distinct natures. If he does not discern this, how (could he) put into practice (the doctrine)?”
In the Khuastuanift of Dunhuang, the Manichaean Auditors express themselves in analogous terms: “When we came to know the true God and the pure Law, they say, we knew the Two Roots. … We knew the Light Root was the domain of Heaven and that the Dark Root was the domain of Hell.”
The Manichean Treaty of Duanhuang, preserved in Beijing, develops the latter image. It describes at length the “Trees of Death” and the “Trees of Life,” and it is from them that it derives all evil as well as all good that operates in our souls. Without doubt, here is a part of the book of the Two Principles, that which relates to human dualism, and it seems to allude to this work, for it says, in fact, about the “Denavars” or the “Perfects”: “(Such Masters) .... believe in the meaning of the Two Principles; their heart is pure and conceives no doubt; they reject the Darkness and follow the Light as prescribed by the Saints.”
All these details agree very well with those which have been borrowed from Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, Theodorus of Cyrese, and Severus of Antioch, about the Kephalaia, and they complement them advantageously. They confirm the conclusions already formulated on this book and allow it to be followed until a late period.
Translated by Jason Colavito
Among the books of Mani is also a treatise entitled a Book on the Enterprise of the Giants. I do not know whether mixed with it were some of the fables that were found in a book which bears the name of Enoch, and which is believed to have been composed by some Hellenist Jew before the time of the Apostles. This is probably the one cited by St. Jude under the title of the Prophecy of Enoch. It relates the origin of the Giants, who are descended from the impure trade of angels of the lowest order with the daughters of men. It could well be in Mani’s book as well, though this was not its principal object. Be that as it may, having found in pagan mythology that the Giants, under the feet of the Dragon, undertook to dethrone Jupiter, he claimed that this fiction of the Poets was based on an ancient truth, namely on a war that the Powers of Darkness waged against God. This is what Simplicius and Alexander of Lycopolis testify. Besides, I do not know if the apocryphal history of the Giants, which bore the name of Enoch, is not the book of which George Syncellus speaks, regarding the year of the World 2585. He relates that Cainan, Noah's grandson, while walking in the countryside, found the scriptures of the Giants and hid them in his home. Mani might have drawn on these faulty sources.
Translated by Jason Colavito
Konrad Kessler, Mani (1889), pp. 198-201 (abridged and slightly adapted)
The book of the giants.—Unfortunately, a more precise table of contents is missing in the Fihrist, in all the manuscripts. The Greeks (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 85) know the book as ή γιγάντειος βίβλος or ή των γιγάντων πραγματεία. Titus of Bostra speaks (in Gallandi Biblioth. Vet. Patr. V p. 294) of the gigantomachia in Mani. However, we are not entirely dependent on the presumption of the title for determining the content because of a valuable note from Al-Ghadanfar of Tabriz in his appendix to the letter of al-Biruni. This treatise [treats] of the tower of Babel and of the antediluvian giants and their battles. Then it goes on: “The Book of the Giants by Mani the Babylonian is full of the stories of these giants, to which Sām and Narīmān belong, which two names he probably took from the Avesta of Zaradust from Adarbaigan. The Indians also speak of the coming of Vasudeva, who was sent to put the world in order and to destroy the giants in the time of Bharata. Vyasa, his son, wrote a book containing a hundred and twenty thousand verses according to their meters, all of which deal with the stories of these giants, namely their wars and other conditions.”
This passage is particularly significant not only as a clear indication about the content of the book of Mani in question, but generally as a clue about the origin of his theologoumena and their position in relation to related elements of older religions. The “giants” are famous personalities of prehistoric times who became legendary and whose legend later was seen in supernatural dimensions. In the Book of the Giants, he dealt with those violent giants of the legends of antiquity, their battles and ultimate destruction, as he did when developing the giants of his own system, the cosmogonic powers, primitive man, etc., the world bearer (Omophoros-Laturarius), etc. In it he mentioned the sky-storming giants of the building of the Babylonian tower and the world-devastating giants that emerged from the marriage of angels, and he probably drew these two stories from the later Jewish tradition, but brought in the native pagan tradition of Babylonia (cf. Berosus) about these interesting parts of the ancient legend, which he still knew well, like the Jewish tradition in the Book of Enoch (ch. 6ff.). He knew how to discuss all kinds of extra-biblical things, as the abundance of angel names shows. But then he went back to Iranian antiquity and talked about the warrior Narīmān (the old Bactrian Nairyômainyus), the son of the warrior Gershasp, and of Narīmān’s son, the legendary Sām. The naming of Vasudeva suggests that Mani also made a selection from the Indian sagas for his communications in this volume. The epithet “Giant,” according to Bar Bahlûl, the Syrian lexicographer, belonged among others to the legendary old hero of the unconquerable Arab fortress Hațra in the upper-Mesopotamian steppe, Sanatruq, after which this city is called “the Haţra of Sanatruq”; this Sanatruq was a giant. This, too, was a figure who could find a place in a book of oriental heroes such as Mani’s. The loss of this work of Mani's for the history of legends in general is therefore extremely regrettable, but especially for information about the legendary knowledge of that time (middle 3rd century AD) in Babylonia. Sām and Narīmān e.g. are not mentioned in the portion of the Avesta we have received, knowledge provided first by Ferdowsi, who lived more than 800 years after Mani, admittedly from old sources, the originals of which, however, go back only to Mani's time at the very earliest.
Translated and adapted by Jason Colavito
Franz Cumont, Recherches sur le Manichéisme: I. La cosmogonie Manichéenne d'après Théodore bar Khôni (1908), pp. 3-4.
We know the titles of all the writings left by Mani, and to some extent their character. Among them, the one where we would be tempted to look first for the origin of our three derivatives, Syriac, Arabic and Greek, it is the “Treatise on the Giants” which recounted the battles sustained at the origin of the world by hellish monsters rising up against heaven. But the little that we know of its content agrees badly with such a hypothesis, and it seems that in this book Mani has implemented, by adapting them to his system, the rich epic legends of Iran, which filled a good part of the Avesta and which later still provided Ferdowsi with admirable material to put into Persian verse. We do not find anything like it in our cosmogonic fragments.
Translated by Jason Colavito
Prosper Alfaric, Les écritures manichéennes, vol. II (1920), 21-22, 30-34.
II. The Principles.—The second writing of the tetrad of Archelaus, the one entitled The Principles (Kephalaia), was to expound, according to its title, the theory of the two eternally opposite natures which formed the basis of Manichaeism and which, variously, asserted itself more or less in all earlier Gnostic systems. No doubt it was closely connected with the treatise On Light and Darkness attributed to Bardasian. The latter author professed, in fact, a dualism very akin to that of Mani.
The work is never expressly cited under the name given to it in the Acts of Archelaus. But it appears to have been used frequently. And by bringing together the texts which relate to it, we can arrive at a fairly clear idea of it.
[…]
Before the Patriarch of Antioch, Serapion of Thmuis, summing up the “initial mythology of the Manicheans,” briefly recalled the theory of the two trees, which he apparently borrowed from the same book. Now, after having identified its essential meaning, he alluded to Mani's prolific description of it, and he refused to reproduce in detail “the armor, the battles, the mythical inventions and the gigantomachies” which followed.
Alexander of Lycopolis already made a similar remark when he finished his exposition of the essential principles, of the great Kephalaia of the Manichean doctrine. He noted, in fact, that the Manicheans invoked the gigantomachy of the ancient poets to show how the latter had known the struggle waged by Matter against God.
From these comparisons, we are entitled to conclude with probability that the book of Principles of which the Greek texts speak is identical with that of the Giants reported by Arab historians. In fact, authors who know the first seem to ignore the second and vice versa. Only Timothy of Constantinople mentions both. Among the writings of Mani, he indicates, after the book of Prayers, “that of the Principles and that of the Giants,” as well as several evangelical collections. But he may have in mind one and the same work bearing two different names. And, if he believes in two separate treatises, this in no way proves that he saw them, for he might simply have extrapolated from the duality of the titles to that of the content.
Secondly, moreover, Arab historians do not provide any precise information. Only a little-known author, Al Ghadanfar [of Tabriz], reports a suggestive detail about it: “This book by Mani the Babylonian,” he says, “is filled with stories of giants, such as Sām and Narīmān, whose names he borrowed from the Avesta of Zaradust [= Zoroaster] the Adarbaigan.” This last detail is very questionable and is based only on a simple supposition of the narrator. Without doubt, Sām and Narīmān hold a important place in the Persian tradition. But they also play an important role in the sacred literature of Mandaeism, closely related to that of the ancient Sabaeans, by which Mani was influenced. Their legend has a lot to do with that of the antediluvian Giants. And there circulated, about these last, in the Gnostic circles, a whole literature, which was connected with that of Adam, Seth, Enoch and Noah, often invoked by the Manichaeans. There was in particular one scripture of the Giants, which was said to have been found in a field, either by Kainan or by Sala and which should perhaps be compared to a book mentioned in the Decree of Pseudo-Gelasius and dedicated to the giant Ogias, and to the struggles undertaken by him against “the Dragon” after the flood. Mani was able to draw inspiration from a work of this kind. This is why his work would have born a similar title.
In Central Asia and China, where this Gigantomachy interested much less than the antithesis of Good and Evil, the text was designated by new titles which brought out its fundamental dualism. It is this that we see, according to all appearances, in a colophon which can be read at the end of a separate sheet and where a Uighur auditor congratulates himself on having recited “this holy book of the Two Roots.” Unfortunately, the entire folio appears to contain only copyists' additions, and does not provide any new details on the content of the work.
The title given by the Uighur text is the exact translation of the Pahlavi Do Bun, which is read at the head of the Manichaean book rolls also discovered in the region of Turpan and which means both the “Two Roots” and the “Two Principles.” It is under this last title that the Kephalaia circulated in China. They must be identified with the book of the Two Principles that a Fu-to-tan from Persia brought to the Middle Kingdom in 694, which was incorporated around 1019 into the Taoist canon by Emperor Zhenzhong and which is still mentioned in the thirteenth century by the priest Zhong-Qian of Liang-zhu.
This last author provides some curious information about it: “That which is, he says, (of the holy book) of the Two Principles, thus we call (the one) where men and women must not marry; where, when holding each other, they must not talk to one another; where, in case of illness, no remedies are taken; where, at death, naked (corpses) are buried, etc.” Zhong-Qian is content to note certain curious details in the book which seemed extravagant to him. He doesn't care to probe the spirit of it.
The Manichean fragment of Dunhuang brought to Paris by the Pelliot mission, alluding to the same work, reveals, on the contrary, its general idea, but without attempting an analysis: “The one,” it remarks, “who attempts to enter religion must know that the two Principles of Light and Darkness have absolutely distinct natures. If he does not discern this, how (could he) put into practice (the doctrine)?”
In the Khuastuanift of Dunhuang, the Manichaean Auditors express themselves in analogous terms: “When we came to know the true God and the pure Law, they say, we knew the Two Roots. … We knew the Light Root was the domain of Heaven and that the Dark Root was the domain of Hell.”
The Manichean Treaty of Duanhuang, preserved in Beijing, develops the latter image. It describes at length the “Trees of Death” and the “Trees of Life,” and it is from them that it derives all evil as well as all good that operates in our souls. Without doubt, here is a part of the book of the Two Principles, that which relates to human dualism, and it seems to allude to this work, for it says, in fact, about the “Denavars” or the “Perfects”: “(Such Masters) .... believe in the meaning of the Two Principles; their heart is pure and conceives no doubt; they reject the Darkness and follow the Light as prescribed by the Saints.”
All these details agree very well with those which have been borrowed from Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, Theodorus of Cyrese, and Severus of Antioch, about the Kephalaia, and they complement them advantageously. They confirm the conclusions already formulated on this book and allow it to be followed until a late period.
Translated by Jason Colavito
Excerpts and Fragments of The Book of Giants
W. B. Henning, "The Book of Giants," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies vol. XI, part 1 (1943)
Ogias fought with a draco, and so did Ohya; his enemy was the Leviathan (text N). Ohya and his brother Ahya were the sons of Šhmyz’d (text H), i.e. Στμιαζα̑ς, the chief of the Egrēgoroi in the Book of Enoch; hence, Στμιαζα̑ς is transcription of šhm- (or šḥm ?). In the Persian edition of the Kawān Ohya and Ahya are "translated" as Sām and Narīmān, but the original names are kept in one passage (A 60). The translator did well to choose Sām-Krsāsp, both with regard to Ogias' longevity (Sām is one of the "Immortals") and to his fight with the dragon (Sām is a famous dragon-killer). In the Sogdian fragments the name of Sām is spelt S’hm = Sāhm, as it is often in Pahlavi (S’hm beside S’m); Ṭabari has Shm, cf. Christensen, Kayanides, p. 130. Sāhm's brother is Pāt-Sāhm. This name may have been invented by the Sogdian translator in order to keep the names of the brothers resembling each other. Narīmān was evidently not known in Sogdiana as a brother of Sām. According to the Book of the Giants, the main preoccupation of Sām-Sāhm was his quarrel the giant Māhawai, the son of Virōgdād, who was one of the twenty ers of the Egrēgoroi.
The Book of the Giants was published in not less than six or seven languages. From the original Syriac the Greek and Middle Persian versions were made. The Sogdian edition was probably derived from the Middle Persian, the Uygur from the Sogdian. There is no trace of a Parthian text. The book may have existed in Coptic. The presence of names such as Sām and Narīmān in the Arabic version proves that it had been translated from the Middle Persian.
Ogias fought with a draco, and so did Ohya; his enemy was the Leviathan (text N). Ohya and his brother Ahya were the sons of Šhmyz’d (text H), i.e. Στμιαζα̑ς, the chief of the Egrēgoroi in the Book of Enoch; hence, Στμιαζα̑ς is transcription of šhm- (or šḥm ?). In the Persian edition of the Kawān Ohya and Ahya are "translated" as Sām and Narīmān, but the original names are kept in one passage (A 60). The translator did well to choose Sām-Krsāsp, both with regard to Ogias' longevity (Sām is one of the "Immortals") and to his fight with the dragon (Sām is a famous dragon-killer). In the Sogdian fragments the name of Sām is spelt S’hm = Sāhm, as it is often in Pahlavi (S’hm beside S’m); Ṭabari has Shm, cf. Christensen, Kayanides, p. 130. Sāhm's brother is Pāt-Sāhm. This name may have been invented by the Sogdian translator in order to keep the names of the brothers resembling each other. Narīmān was evidently not known in Sogdiana as a brother of Sām. According to the Book of the Giants, the main preoccupation of Sām-Sāhm was his quarrel the giant Māhawai, the son of Virōgdād, who was one of the twenty ers of the Egrēgoroi.
The Book of the Giants was published in not less than six or seven languages. From the original Syriac the Greek and Middle Persian versions were made. The Sogdian edition was probably derived from the Middle Persian, the Uygur from the Sogdian. There is no trace of a Parthian text. The book may have existed in Coptic. The presence of names such as Sām and Narīmān in the Arabic version proves that it had been translated from the Middle Persian.
Middle Persian
M 101, a to n, and M 911,
(Frg. j) . . . Virōgdād . . . Hōbābīš robbed Ahr . . . of -naxtag, his wife. Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other. Sām . . . before the sun, one hand in the air, the other (30) . . . whatever he obtained, to his brother . . . . imprisoned . . . (34) . . . over Taxtag. To the angels . . . from heaven. Taxtag to . . . Taxtag threw (or: was thrown) into the water. Finally (?) . . . in his sleep Taxtag saw three signs, [one portending . . .], one woe and flight, and one . . . annihilation. Narīmān saw a gar[den full of] (40) trees in rows. Two hundred . . . came out, the trees. . . .
(Frg. l) . . . Enoch, the apostle, . . . [gave] a message to [the demons and their] children: To you . . . not peace. [The judgment on you is] that you shall be bound for the sins you have committed. You shall see the destruction of your children. ruling for a hundred and twenty [years] . . . . (50) . . . wild ass, ibex . . . ram, goat (?), gazelle, . . . oryx, of each two hundred, a pair . . . the other wild beasts, birds, and animals and their wine [shall be] six thousand jugs . . . irritation(?) of water (?) . . . and their oil shall be . . .
Published Sb.P.A.W., 1934, p. 29.
. . . outside . . . and . . . left . . . . read the dream we have seen. Thereupon Enoch thus . . . . and the trees that came out, those are the Egrēgoroi (‘yr), and the giants that came out of the women. And . . . . . over . . . pulled out . . . over . . .
Sogdian
T ii. Two folios
. . . they took and imprisoned all the helpers that were in the heavens. And the angels themselves descended from the heaven to the earth. And (when) the two hundred demons saw those angels, they were much afraid and worried. They assumed the shape of men and hid themselves. Thereupon the angels forcibly removed the men from the demons, (10) laid them aside, and put watchers over them . . . . the giants . . . . were sons . . . with each other in bodily union . . . . with each other self- . . . . and the . . . . that had been born to them, they forcibly removed them from the demons. And they led one half of them (20) eastwards, and the other half westwards, on the skirts of four huge mountains, towards the foot of the Sumeru mountain, into thirty-two towns which the Living Spirit had prepared for them in the beginning. And one calls (that place) Aryān-waižan. And those men are (or: were) . . . . in the first arts and crafts. . . . . they made . . . the angels . . . and to the demons . . . they went to fight. And those two hundred demons fought a hard battle with the [four angels], until [the angels used] fire, naphtha, and brimstone . . .
T ii. S 20. . . . and what they had seen in the heavens among the gods, and also what they had seen in hell, their native land, and furthermore what they had seen on earth,—all that they began to teach (hendiadys) to the men. To Šahmīzād two(?) sons were borne by . . . . One of them he named "Ohya"; in Sogdian he is called "Sāhm, the giant". And again a second son [was born] to him. He named him "Ahya"; its Sogdian (equivalent) is "Pāt-Sāhm". As for the remaining giants, they were born to the other demons and Yakṣas. (Colophon) Completed: (the chapter on) "The Coming of the two hundred Demons".
Coptic
Keph. 93 23-28: On account of the malice and rebellion that had arisen in the watch-post of the Great King of Honour, namely the Egrēgoroi who from the heavens had descended to the earth,—on their account the four angels received their orders: they bound the Egrēgoroi with eternal fetters in the prison of the Dark(?), their sons were destroyed upon the earth.
Keph., 117 1-9: Before the Egrēgoroi rebelled and descended from heaven, a prison had been built for them in the depth of the earth beneath the mountains. Before the sons of the giants were born who knew not Righteousness and Piety among themselves, thirty-six towns had been prepared and erected, so that the sons of the giants should live in them, they that come to beget . . . . who live a thousand years.
Translated by W. B. Henning (1943)
M 101, a to n, and M 911,
(Frg. j) . . . Virōgdād . . . Hōbābīš robbed Ahr . . . of -naxtag, his wife. Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other. Sām . . . before the sun, one hand in the air, the other (30) . . . whatever he obtained, to his brother . . . . imprisoned . . . (34) . . . over Taxtag. To the angels . . . from heaven. Taxtag to . . . Taxtag threw (or: was thrown) into the water. Finally (?) . . . in his sleep Taxtag saw three signs, [one portending . . .], one woe and flight, and one . . . annihilation. Narīmān saw a gar[den full of] (40) trees in rows. Two hundred . . . came out, the trees. . . .
(Frg. l) . . . Enoch, the apostle, . . . [gave] a message to [the demons and their] children: To you . . . not peace. [The judgment on you is] that you shall be bound for the sins you have committed. You shall see the destruction of your children. ruling for a hundred and twenty [years] . . . . (50) . . . wild ass, ibex . . . ram, goat (?), gazelle, . . . oryx, of each two hundred, a pair . . . the other wild beasts, birds, and animals and their wine [shall be] six thousand jugs . . . irritation(?) of water (?) . . . and their oil shall be . . .
Published Sb.P.A.W., 1934, p. 29.
. . . outside . . . and . . . left . . . . read the dream we have seen. Thereupon Enoch thus . . . . and the trees that came out, those are the Egrēgoroi (‘yr), and the giants that came out of the women. And . . . . . over . . . pulled out . . . over . . .
Sogdian
T ii. Two folios
. . . they took and imprisoned all the helpers that were in the heavens. And the angels themselves descended from the heaven to the earth. And (when) the two hundred demons saw those angels, they were much afraid and worried. They assumed the shape of men and hid themselves. Thereupon the angels forcibly removed the men from the demons, (10) laid them aside, and put watchers over them . . . . the giants . . . . were sons . . . with each other in bodily union . . . . with each other self- . . . . and the . . . . that had been born to them, they forcibly removed them from the demons. And they led one half of them (20) eastwards, and the other half westwards, on the skirts of four huge mountains, towards the foot of the Sumeru mountain, into thirty-two towns which the Living Spirit had prepared for them in the beginning. And one calls (that place) Aryān-waižan. And those men are (or: were) . . . . in the first arts and crafts. . . . . they made . . . the angels . . . and to the demons . . . they went to fight. And those two hundred demons fought a hard battle with the [four angels], until [the angels used] fire, naphtha, and brimstone . . .
T ii. S 20. . . . and what they had seen in the heavens among the gods, and also what they had seen in hell, their native land, and furthermore what they had seen on earth,—all that they began to teach (hendiadys) to the men. To Šahmīzād two(?) sons were borne by . . . . One of them he named "Ohya"; in Sogdian he is called "Sāhm, the giant". And again a second son [was born] to him. He named him "Ahya"; its Sogdian (equivalent) is "Pāt-Sāhm". As for the remaining giants, they were born to the other demons and Yakṣas. (Colophon) Completed: (the chapter on) "The Coming of the two hundred Demons".
Coptic
Keph. 93 23-28: On account of the malice and rebellion that had arisen in the watch-post of the Great King of Honour, namely the Egrēgoroi who from the heavens had descended to the earth,—on their account the four angels received their orders: they bound the Egrēgoroi with eternal fetters in the prison of the Dark(?), their sons were destroyed upon the earth.
Keph., 117 1-9: Before the Egrēgoroi rebelled and descended from heaven, a prison had been built for them in the depth of the earth beneath the mountains. Before the sons of the giants were born who knew not Righteousness and Piety among themselves, thirty-six towns had been prepared and erected, so that the sons of the giants should live in them, they that come to beget . . . . who live a thousand years.
Translated by W. B. Henning (1943)
