Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow of Zarathustra

Author(s): Yishai Kiel

Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 95, No. 1 (January 2015), pp. 35-50
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/678533 .
Accessed: 21/01/2015 14:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Abraham and Nimrod in the Shadow
of Zarathustra*
Yishai Kiel / Yale University

REIMAGINING ZARATHUSTRA

In his masterpiece Also sprach Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche poses the

question of “who is Zarathustra to us.”1 This question is not concerned with
the “historical” Zarathustra or with the literary production associated with
his name, but rather with the image of Zarathustra, the “imaginative” re-
construction of his figure and its broader cultural reception.2 The image
of Zarathustra, to be sure, assumed various incarnations in different peri-
ods, which dynamically evolved over time and across regions and literary
corpora. Zarathustra has been described as a mythic poet-sacrificer,3 the
author of the Gāthās, a philosopher, religious reformer, prophet, astrolo-
ger, the founder of magic, and so on.4 The widely attested tendency to ap-

* I would like to thank Prods Oktor Skjærvø, Christine Hayes, Steven Fraade, Dov Weiss, and
Shai Secunda for their illuminating comments.
1
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Thomas Common ðHazleton: Pennsyl-
vania State University, 1999Þ, 130: “And ye also asked yourselves often: ‘Who is Zarathustra to
us? What shall he be called by us?’ And like me, did ye give yourselves questions for answers. Is
he a promiser? Or a fulfiller? A conqueror? Or an inheritor? A harvest? Or a ploughshare? A
physician? Or a healed one? Is he a poet? Or a genuine one? An emancipator? Or a subjugator?
A good one? Or an evil one?”
2
For a conceptual distinction between the “academic” and “imaginative” approaches to the
study of the figure of Zarathustra, see Jenny Rose, The Image of Zoroaster ðNew York: Bibliotheca
Persica, 2000Þ, 1–10.
3
Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer,” in Paitimāna: Essays in Iranian,
Indian, and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt, ed. S. Adhami ðCosta Mesa,
CA: Mazda, 2003Þ, 1:157–94.
4
Some of these roles and functions were conceptualized via specific terms used to char-
acterize Zarathustra—for example, paygāmbar ðmessenger, apostleÞ and waxšwar ðcarrier of the
wordÞ in Pahlavi; rasūl and nabı̄ in Arabic and Persian; guru in Sanskrit and Gujarati; and “law-
giver” and “prophet” in English. For the reception of Zarathustra, see William Darrow, “The
Zoroaster Legend: Its Historical and Religious Significance” ðPhD diss., Harvard University,
1981Þ, and “Zoroaster Amalgamated: Notes on Iranian Prophetology,” History of Religions 27,
no. 2 ð1987Þ: 109–32; Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism:
Irano-Manichaica IV,” in La Persia e l’Asia centrale: Da Alessandro al X secolo; Atti del Convegno
internazionale, Roma, 9 –12 Novembre, 1994 ðRome: Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1996Þ, 597–

© 2015 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0022-4189/2015/9501-0002$10.00

35

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

propriate the figure of Zarathustra often necessitated a process of cross-

cultural translation, in which the founder of Zoroastrianism was reimag-
ined and reconfigured in the light of new cultural and historical contexts.
The present article examines a particular instance of the reception and
cross-cultural translation of the figure of Zarathustra in the Jewish and
Christian traditions, in which the founder of Zoroastrianism is linked to
and identified with the figures of Nimrod and Abraham, and mapped onto
a reconstructed scene set in the biblical period. The study focuses on a rab-
binic story, narrating the casting of Abraham into a fiery furnace by Nimrod.
This story provides, in turn, a window onto the broader cultural process in-
volved in the reimagining and reconfiguring of Zarathustra in Late Antiquity.
In this context, I hope to demonstrate that the authors of this rabbinic nar-
rative engaged a wide array of Greek sources pertaining to the figure of Zar-
athustra,5 in an attempt to syncretize and interweave the biography of Zar-
athustra into biblical episodes.

A B R A H A M I N T H E FU R N AC E

One of the most widely attested stories pertaining to the early biography of
Abraham concerns his miraculous deliverance from a fiery furnace,6 into

628, “Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer,” and “Zarathustra: A Revolutionary Monotheist?,” in

Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. Beate Pongratz-Leisten ðWinona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011Þ, 317–50; Jean Kellens, Essays on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism, trans.
and ed. Prods Oktor Skjærvø ðCosta Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2000Þ; Michael Stausberg, “A Name for
All and No One: Zoroaster as a Figure of Authorization and a Screen of Ascription,” in The
Invention of Sacred Tradition, ed. James Lewis and Olav Hammer ðCambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007Þ, 177–98; Daniel Sheffield, “In the Path of the Prophet: Medieval and
Early Modern Narratives of the Life of Zarathustra in Islamic Iran and Western India” ðPhD
diss., Harvard University, 2012Þ. For Greek and Latin texts on Zarathustra, see Phiroze Vasunia,
Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran: The Greek and Latin Sources in Translation ðMumbai:
K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 2008Þ, 59–68; Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism
in Greek and Latin Literature ðLeiden: Brill, 1997Þ, 317–23. For Western perspectives on Zar-
athustra, see Rose, Image of Zoroaster; Michael Stausberg, Faszination Zarathushtra: Zoroaster und
die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit ðBerlin: de Gruyter, 1997Þ.
5
Compare Kevin Van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science ðOxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009Þ, 23–63. In his work on the reception of the figure of Hermes
ðand the corpus of the so-called Hermetic literatureÞ in the East by Middle Persian and Arabic
authors, Bladel discusses similar examples of pseudo-Iranian or pseudo-Zoroastrian materials
that circulated in Greek. He further speculates that the Iranian myth ðfound in Middle Persian
and Arabic textsÞ regarding Alexander’s dissemination of the Avesta and the Sasanian royal
attempt to restore and retranslate lost Iranian wisdom from Greek works was triggered and
stimulated by the circulation of Greek texts that were attributed to Zarathustra and other
Iranian figures ðibid., 43–44Þ. While this theory is compelling, matters are further complicated
by the fact that one cannot always determine when a Greek text associated with an Iranian
figure—whether by way of attribution or depiction—is the source of later Iranian traditions
extant in Pahlavi and Arabic literature and when the Greek text itself was perhaps informed
by earlier Iranian tradition.
6
The literature on the reception of the figure of Abraham in the three “monotheistic”
religions is, of course, vast. Recent treatments include Vered Tohar, Abraham in the Furnace of

36

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

which he was cast by Nimrod, the notorious Babylonian-Assyrian biblical

figure.7 The motif of Abraham’s miraculous deliverance from a fire is com-
pletely absent from the Hebrew Bible, although supposed scriptural traces
of this motif were delineated by Second Temple exegetes.8 Using these ear-
lier pieces of tradition, rabbinic and Islamic authors attempted to weave to-
gether a coherent narrative telling the story of Abraham’s miraculous emer-
gence from the fiery furnace.9 While the relationship between the different
versions of the narrative remains somewhat elusive, it would seem that the
later rabbinic ðand perhapsÞ Islamic versions of the story are dependent—
whether directly or via a common origin—on an earlier version of the nar-
rative, such as the one preserved in Genesis Rabbah.10

Fire: A Rebel in a Pagan World ðRamat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2010Þ; Moshe Hallamish,
Hannah Kasher, and Yohanan Silman, eds., The Faith of Abraham: In the Light of Interpretation
throughout the Ages ½in HebrewŠ ðRamat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002Þ; Shari L. Lowin,
The Making of a Forefather: Abraham in Islamic and Jewish Exegetical Narratives ðLeiden: Brill, 2006Þ;
Pernille Carstens and Niels Peter Lemche, eds., The Reception and Remembrance of Abraham,
Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 13 ðPiscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011Þ; Steven
A. Hunt, ed., Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson ðCambridge:
Eerdmans, 2010Þ; John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition ðNew Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1975Þ; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Abraham, Sign of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims
ðNew York: Continuum, 1995Þ.
7
On the biblical and postbiblical traditions pertaining to the figure of Nimrod, see esp.
Karel van der Toorn and Pieter W. van der Horst, “Nimrod before and after the Bible,” Harvard
Theological Review 83, no. 1 ð1990Þ: 1–29.
8
See esp. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Abraham the Convert: A Jewish Tradition and Its Use
by the Apostle Paul,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A.
Bergren ðHarrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998Þ, 151–75; James L. Kugel, Traditions
of the Bible ðCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998Þ, 252–54, 267–70; Geza Vermes,
Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd rev. ed. ðLeiden: Brill, 1973Þ, 76–90; William Adler,
“Abraham and the Burning of the Temple of Idols,” Jewish Quarterly Review 77, nos. 2–3 ð1986Þ:
95–117; Joseph Gutmann, “Abraham in the Fire of the Chaldeans: A Jewish Legend in Jewish,
Christian, and Islamic Art,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 7 ð1973Þ: 342–52; Van der Toorn and Van
der Horst, “Nimrod,” 16–29.
9
For the Quranic version of the fire scene, see Qur’ān 29:24, 21:68, and 37:97. For the later
Islamic version, see Heinrich Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran ðHildensheim: Olms,
1971Þ, 120–86; Heinrich Schützinger, Ursprung und Entwicklung der arabischen Abraham-Nimrod
Legende, Bonner Orientalische Studien 11 ðBonn: Rheinischen Friedrich Wilhelms Universität,
1961Þ. A recent comparative discussion of the rabbinic and Islamic versions can be found in
Bat-Sheva Garsiel, Bible, Midrash and Quran: An Intertextual Study of Common Narrative Materials
ðTel-Aviv: Ha-Kibutz Ha-me’uhad, 2006Þ, 78–83. For the rabbinic versions of the story, see
Louis Ginzberg, ed., The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1 ðPhiladelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1909Þ, 174–217, with notes in vol. 5 ðPhiladelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1925Þ, 198–218;
Tohar, Abraham, 39–75. The classical rabbinic ðTalmudicÞ accounts of the story include Gen.
Rabbah 38:11 to Gen. 11:28; bPes 118a; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 26; and Tanhumma, Lekh
Lekha 2, to Gen. 12:1.
10
Genesis Rabbah is a Palestinian rabbinic midrash on the book of Genesis, redacted during
the fifth century. The appearance of a full-blown narrative of this story in the early Palestinian
midrash of Genesis Rabbah and not only in the later midrashim of Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and
Tanhumma, whose final redaction postdates the advent of Islam, seems to exclude the pos-
sibility of rabbinic dependence on the Islamic tradition in this case. For a more extensive
treatment of this topic, see Garsiel, Bible, Midrash and Quran, 78–83. An even earlier prefigu-
ration of the narrative—in Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo—will be considered below in detail.

37

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

In what follows, I shall attempt to situate the rabbinic version of this

narrative as preserved in Genesis Rabbah in the context of Greek traditions
pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra, the supposed founder of Zoroas-
trianism, who, like Abraham, is said to have been cast into a fire and mi-
raculously saved by God. Variants of this story are recorded not only in
medieval Islamic and Zoroastrian collections, which seem to have appro-
priated certain elements from the Judeo-Arabic narrative about Abraham,
but also by Greek authors of the first few centuries.11 Whether the Greek
authors based their accounts of the narrative on an early Iranian version
that did not reach us is not altogether clear, but it is fairly clear that a story
about the casting of Zarathustra into a fire and his miraculous deliverance
was available to the Greek speaking audience of Late Antiquity and thus
may have been known to the authors of the midrash.
To be sure, the fact that Abraham and Zarathustra were both cast into a
fire and miraculously saved by God does not in itself suggest a genealogical
connection between the two stories, as variants of this motif are fairly com-
mon in world literature. What firmly connects the rabbinic narrative to the
stories about Zarathustra is the rabbinic characterization of Nimrod, the
antagonist of the rabbinic version, as a fire-worshipper, a depiction which
appears to be based on Greek descriptions of the Zoroastrian fire-cult. This
image of Nimrod further invokes a set of explicit identifications of the fig-
ures of Nimrod and Zarathustra by several Christian authors.12 The paral-
lelism that exists between the fiery adventures of Abraham and Zarathustra
is thus further accentuated by the syncretic identification of Zarathustra with
the antagonist of the midrashic account.13
While the identification of Nimrod and Zarathustra plays a significant
role in the rabbinic narrative, the midrash also seems to react, albeit indi-
rectly and critically, to an association of Abraham with Zarathustra.14 Al-
though an explicit identification of Abraham and Zarathustra survived

11
For the different versions of this narrative, see below.
12
The connection between the story in Genesis Rabbah, which depicts Nimrod as a fire
worshipper, and the Greek-Christian identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra was briefly
noted in W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, rev. ed. ð1907; repr. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1973Þ, 377; and in Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 26–27. These
studies have failed to appreciate, however, the complexity and range of connections between
the midrashic account and the Greek traditions.
13
On the attempt to syncretize the Iranian and Semitic mythologies in general, see Shaul
Shaked, “First Man, First King: Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological
Transformations,” in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of
Religions, Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, ed. Shaul Shaked, Guy G. Stroumsa, and David
Shulman ðLeiden: Brill, 1987Þ, 238–56; Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Jamšid I: Myth of Jamšid,” by
Prods Oktor Skjærvø. For syncretic identifications of the figure of Zarathustra in particular, see
Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism,” 607–9.
14
The identification of Abraham and Zarathustra in the Islamic period is discussed in James
Russell, “Our Father Abraham and the Magi,” Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute 54
ð1987Þ: 56–67; Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 52–83; Wheeler M. Thackston, The Tales of the
0
Prophets of al-Kisā ı̄ ðBoston: Twayne, 1978Þ, 136–50.

38

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

only in medieval Islamic and Zoroastrian sources, there is reason to believe

that this identification is in fact based on pre-Islamic speculation. In light
of other attempts to syncretize episodes and characters from the Iranian
and Semitic mythologies prior to the advent of Islam,15 it is conceivable that
the intersections of the early biographies of Abraham and Zarathustra
already sparked the imagination of pre-Islamic authors. Thus, while there
are no explicit identifications of Abraham and Zarathustra in the early
Greek tradition, it is not without significance that several Greek authors
make sure to assert that Abraham and Zarathustra were, at the very least,
contemporaries.16
To be sure, the rabbinic midrash clearly depends on the heritage of
Second Temple exegesis, which prefigured and fostered the motif of
Abraham’s deliverance from the flames. Although the core of this narrative
was known to earlier writers, however, I shall demonstrate that there are
several elements in the midrashic version of Genesis Rabbah that strongly
suggest a rabbinic engagement of Greek traditions concerning Zarathustra.
The authors of the midrash do not simply weave the ancient exegetical
traditions about Abraham together with the Greek traditions about Zara-
thustra by identifying Nimrod as a fire-worshiper, but further complicate
the web of intercultural associations and syncretic identifications. Thus,
while the Greek accounts depict Nimrod-Zarathustra as the hero who was
cast into the fire, the midrash reverses his role by portraying Nimrod, the
fire-worshipper, as the antagonist and evil king who sought to cast Abra-
ham into the flames. At the same time, the midrash engages and rejects the
identification of Abraham and Zarathustra, by portraying the two figures as
the ultimate rivals.

15
Some of these syncretic identifications were fostered by central Manichaean authors, who
wrote in Iranian languages. The invocation of Zoroastrian mythological conceptions in these
works generally reflects the attempt on the part of Mani and his followers to package the
Manichaean message ðalong with its Jewish and Christian heritageÞ in a manner that would be
agreeable and familiar to local adherents to Zoroastrianism. See Prods Oktor Skjærvø, “Iranian
Elements in Manicheism: A Comparative Contrastive Approach: Irano-Manichaica I,” in Au
carrefour des religions: Hommages à Philippe Gignoux, ed. R. Gyselen, Res Orientales 7 ðBures-sur-
Yvette: Groupe pour l’étude de la civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1995Þ, 263–84, and “Iranian
Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants: Irano-Manichaica III,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Sci-
entiarum Hungaricae 48, nos. 1–2 ð1995Þ: 187–223.
16
One must distinguish, in this regard, between two types of discourse: a comparison of
distinct figures, in which a limited analogy between them is stressed, whether by the ancient
authors themselves or by a critical interpreter, and the identification of such figures. In the first
scheme, a figure may be portrayed in the likeness of another figure, so as to underscore certain
affinities between them. In the second scheme, however, the figures are not merely compared
but have converged, in the sense that they are said to be, or become, identical. While certain
Islamic authors explicitly identify Abraham with Zarathustra, earlier sources seem to be using a
more general discourse of comparison or resemblance. For this methodological point, see
Stanley Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969Þ, 78–
80; Hindy Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra ðCambridge:
Cambridge University Press, forthcomingÞ, chap. 2. I am indebted to Hindy Najman for elu-
cidating this important methodological distinction and for generously sharing her unpub-
lished work with me.

39

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

In what follows, I shall attempt to position the midrashic account of the

encounter between Abraham and Nimrod in its broader cultural context by
textually locating and identifying the various biographical traditions con-
cerning the fiery adventures of Zarathustra. I will demonstrate that, along-
side the earlier exegetical traditions concerning Abraham in the fire, the
Greek traditions about Zarathustra serve as the literary and cultural back-
drop of the rabbinic narrative. In this context, I will attempt to reconstruct
the different ways in which the authors of the midrash invoke, appropriate,
react, or otherwise engage the Greek traditions about Zarathustra.

THE S TOR Y IN ITS EXEGETICAL C ONTE XT

The following is a translation of the amalgamated Hebrew-Aramaic version

of the story, as preserved in Genesis Rabbah:17
He ðGodÞ tested him ðAbrahamÞ and gave him over to Nimrod. ðNimrodÞ said to
him: Let us worship the fire! ðAbrahamÞ said to him: Should not we then worship
water, which extinguishes fire! ðNimrodÞ said to him: Then, let us worship the water!
ðAbrahamÞ said to him: Should not we then worship the clouds, which carry the
water? ðNimrodÞ said to him: Then, let us worship the cloud! ðAbrahamÞ said to
him: If so, Should not we worship the wind, which scatters the clouds? ðNimrodÞ
said to him: Then, let us worship the wind! ðAbrahamÞ said to him: Should not we
then worship the human, who withstands the wind? ðNimrodÞ said to him: You are
merely piling words; we should bow to none other than the fire. I shall therefore
cast you in it, and let your God to whom you bow come and save you from it!
Haran ðAbraham’s brotherÞ was standing there. He said ðto himselfÞ: what shall
I do? If Abraham wins, I shall say: “I am of Abraham’s ðfollowersÞ”, if Nimrod wins I
shall say “I am of Nimrod’s ðfollowersÞ”. When Abraham went into the furnace and
survived, Haran was asked: “Whose ðfollowerÞ are you?” and he answered: “I am
Abraham’s ðfollowerÞ”! So, they took him and threw him into the furnace, and his
belly opened up and he died and predeceased Terah, his father.

The story can be roughly divided into the following thematic building-
blocks: Nimrod is identified as a fire-worshipper; Abraham ridicules Nim-
rod for his worship of fire by alluding to a cycle of natural interdepen-
dencies; Abraham is cast into the fire but is saved by God; Haran is cast into
the fire and dies in the flames. In what follows, we will see that the casting
of both Abraham and Haran into the fire is rooted in earlier exegetical
traditions that were appropriated by the authors of the midrash.
In its basic form, the story of Abraham in the fiery furnace is modeled on
the biblical precedent of Dan. 3:19–23, according to which three young
men were cast into a fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king,
and eventually saved by God.18 The projection of this theme onto the early
17
Gen. Rabbah 38:11 to Gen. 11:28 ðed. Theodor-Albeck, 363–64Þ.
18
On the role of Dan. 3:19–23 in the story of Abraham in the fiery furnace, see Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible, 253 n. 3; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 88.

40

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

biography of Abraham, however, hinges on several exegetical traditions

and motifs dating back to the Second Temple period, which explicitly as-
sociate Abraham with the motif of deliverance from fire.19
The name of the city in which Abraham lived, Ur of the Chaldeans ð’ur
kasdimÞ, was interpreted by many ancient exegetes according to the Hebrew
meaning of the word ’ur, which denotes fire or flames. Thus, Gen. 15:7 ð“I
am the Lord who took you out of Ur of the Chaldeans”Þ was understood as
saying “I am the Lord who rescued you from the midst of the fire of the
Chaldeans.” The nature of this fire was, of course, open to various inter-
pretations,20 but at least according to some exegetes, Abraham was saved
from a fiery furnace prepared by the Chaldeans to burn him.21 Some an-
cient interpreters surmised, moreover, that Abraham’s brother Haran must
have perished in this fire, based on a similar interpretation of the word ’ur
in Gen. 11:28 ð“Haran died before ½temporally or geographicallyŠ his father
Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans.”Þ As in the previous
verse, the word ’ur was understood not as the name of a city, but rather ac-
cording to its Hebrew meaning.22
The notion of a confrontation between Abraham and Nimrod, so
prominent in the Genesis Rabbah version of the narrative, is nearly absent
in the Second Temple accounts.23 As observed by Van der Toorn and Van
der Horst, the first surviving text to incorporate this motif into the story of
Abraham’s deliverance from the flames is the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum
ðcirca first or second century CEÞ, composed by the anonymous Pseudo-
Philo, although one cannot be certain that he was, in fact, the originator of
this motif.24 The sixth chapter of this work describes the refusal of Abra-
ham, along with eleven other men, to participate in the building of the
tower of Babel. The men are placed in prison, but are eventually granted a
chance to escape. In a Socratic gesture, Abraham refuses to escape and
chooses to remain in prison. Nimrod finds out that only Abraham is left in
prison and insists that Abraham be cast into a fiery furnace. The sentence
is carried out, but God sees to it that Abraham emerges from the flames
unscathed.

19
For a general discussion of these early traditions and motifs, see Kugel, Traditions of the
Bible, 252–54, 267–70; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 76–90; Van der Toorn and Van
der Horst, “Nimrod,” 16–29.
20
The fire from which Abraham was rescued could have been a fire set by Abraham himself
in order to burn the idols of his father or the flames mentioned in Gen. 11:3 ð“Come, let us
make bricks and burn them thoroughly”Þ, which were used for creating bricks for the tower of
Babel. See, e.g., Apocalypse of Abraham 5:1–14, 8:1–6; Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum bib-
licarum 6:4–5, 23:5.
21
See Jubilees 12:12–14; Targum Neophyti to Gen. 11:31, 15:7; Aramaic Targum to Eccle-
siastes 4:13; Vulgate to Neh. 9:7; Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6.16–17.
22
See, e.g., Jubilees 12:12–14; Targum Neophyti to Gen. 11:28; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to
Gen. 11:28; Jerome, Questions in Genesis, Gen. 11:28.
23
See, e.g., Jubilees 12:12–14; Josephus, Antiquities 1.113–14.
24
Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 19–20.

41

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

They ðNimrod and FenechÞ took him and built a furnace and lit it with fire. They
threw the bricks into the furnace to be fired. Then the leader Joktan, dismayed, took
Abraham and threw him with the bricks into the fiery furnace. But God stirred up an
earthquake, and burning fire leaped forth out of the furnace into flames and sparks
of flame, and it burned up all those standing around in front of the furnace. All
those who were consumed in that day were 83,500. But there was not even the
slightest injury to Abraham from the burning of the fire.25

The Genesis Rabbah version either depends directly on these earlier tra-
ditions, or both the rabbinic and pre-rabbinic traditions depend on a com-
mon origin. Most notably, however, the midrashic account seems to be con-
nected—whether directly or not—to the version attested in Pseudo-Philo,
which places the miraculous deliverance of Abraham from the fiery fur-
nace in the context of a confrontation between Abraham and Nimrod. The
story also seems to be dependent on the contrast exhibited several centu-
ries earlier in the book of Jubilees ðcirca second century BCEÞ between
Abraham’s deliverance from the fire and Haran’s death in the flames.26
That said, there are crucial elements in the Genesis Rabbah version of the
story that are clearly novel, namely, the identification of Nimrod as a fire-
worshipper and the incorporation of a theological debate between Abra-
ham and Nimrod over the worship of fire and other natural elements ðbut
cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 7Þ. In addition, it is worthy of note that in the
early versions of the story, Nimrod is either completely absent or is only one
of several figures who seek to harm Abraham ðPseudo-PhiloÞ. In the mid-
rash, by contrast, Nimrod is portrayed for the first time as the arch-enemy,
who stands as the sole rival of Abraham. In what follows, I shall demonstrate
that these novel elements in the rabbinic account can be significantly
illuminated by another set of traditions pertaining to the figure of Zar-
athustra, which stem from the Greek-Christian tradition.

THE G REEK TRADITION

In the Greek tradition, Zarathustra ðZqroάjtrhςÞ appears in connection

with two cycles of myths: the first is the story of Ninus, the king of Assyria
and founder of the city of Ninveh, who, together with his wife, Semiramis,
defeated the king of the Bactrians;27 and the second is the biblical account

25
Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 6.16–17, in Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on
Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation ðLeiden: Brill,
1996Þ, 100, 369–70 ðcommentaryÞ. See also Frederick James Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the
Bible ðOxford: Oxford University Press, 1993Þ, 41–48.
26
Jubilees 12:12–14.
27
Historically, Semiramis was Sammu-ramat, the wife of Shamshi-Adad V, king of Assyria,
and the mother of Adad-nirari III. The latter fought alongside his mother against Commagene
in 805 BCE. The identification of Zarathustra with the king of the Bactrians who fought against
Ninus is recorded by Diodorus Siculus ðca. 80–20 BCE; 2.6.1–2Þ, Aelius Theo ðca. 100 CEÞ,
Clement of Alexandria ðca. 150–211 CEÞ, Eusebius ðca. 262–340 CEÞ, and Augustine of Hippo

42

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

of Nimrod ðson of Cush, and the great grandson of NoahÞ, who is also said
to have founded the city of Ninveh.28 According to several accounts, Zara-
thustra is identified with Nimrod ðor one of his forefathers, Cush or HamÞ,
on the one hand, and with the king of the Bactrians, on the other, who is
said to have been defeated in battle and slain by Ninus: “Nebrod, the son
of Cush the Ethiopian, the progenitor of Assur, ascended the throne. His
rule extended over Orech, Arphal, and Chalanne. . . . This man accord-
ing to the Greeks was the same as Zoroaster, who migrated to the east and
founded the kingdom of the Bactrians, from which region he spread his
lawless teachings over the earth.”29
According to several Greek traditions, Zarathustra-Nimrod was con-
sumed by the flames of a fire that descended from heaven. According to the
Homilies of Pseudo-Clement of Rome, this fire was set by an evil king who
sought to kill Zarathustra, after the latter attempted to seize the kingship:
In his turn in the succession, a certain man of this family ðHam’s familyÞ called
Nebrod received the magic art as though he were a giant who chose to think
thoughts in opposition to God; he it is whom the Greeks knew as Zoroaster. After
the flood, he became covetous of the kingship, and being a great Magus, with his
magic devices he constrained the star presiding over the destiny of the evil king then
on the throne to yield the kingship. However, the latter, insofar as he was ruler and
had authority over the one who was attempting the violence, brought down the
royal fire upon him that he might honor his oath and punish him who had first
resorted to constraint. So, when Nebrod the Magus had been slain by the lightening
that had fallen from heaven to earth, his name was changed to Zoroaster ðZōro-
ástrēsÞ, since the stream of living fire from the star had descended upon him.30

ð354– 430 CE ½City of God 21.14ŠÞ. The sources are collected in Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumont,
Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre Ostanès et Hystaspe d’après la tradition grecque ðParis: Société d’Edi-
tions “Les Belles Lettres,” 1938Þ, 2:40–61; Vasunia, Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran,
59–68; Skjærvø, “Zarathustra in the Avesta and in Manicheism,” 607–9.
28
Gen. 10: 8–12 ðaccording to the NRSVÞ: “Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the
first on earth to become a mighty warrior. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore
it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ The beginning of his kingdom was
Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria,
and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the
great city.” On the identity of the biblical Nimrod, see Van der Toorn and Van der Horst,
“Nimrod,” 1–16.
29
Epiphanius of Salamis ðd. 403Þ, Panarium 3.2–3. The Panarion ðPaνάrioν, or “Medicine
Chest”Þ was given the name Adversus Haereses ð“Against the Heresies”Þ by the sixteenth-century
Latin translators.
30
Pseudo-Clement of Rome ðca. 350–400 CEÞ, Homilies 9.4. On the dating of the Pseudo-
Clementine homilies, see Nicole Kelley, Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines
ðTübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006Þ, 1–35. As for Nimrod being “in opposition to God,” see Au-
gustine, City of God 16.4: “It is humility that builds a safe and true path to heaven, raising aloft the
heart towards God—not against God, in the way that that same giant ½NimrodŠ was said to be a
hunter “against God” ½Gen. 10:9Š. . . . He and his people thus erected a tower against God, by which
is signified irreligious arrogance.” Compare Philo, Questions and Answers in Genesis 2:82: “But those
things that are here ½on earthŠ are against those things which are there ½in heavenŠ. For this reason
it is not ineptly said ½that Nimrod wasŠ ‘a giant before God’ ½Gen. 10:9Š which clearly ½meansŠ in

43

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

In a brief narrative from the early second-century found in the Orations

of Dio Cocceianus,31 Zarathustra is said to have been endangered by a
fire that descended from heaven. According to this version, Zarathustra
eventually emerged from the flames unscathed. The story involves a non-
confrontational encounter of Zarathustra with a Persian king, who was
deeply impressed by his miraculous emergence from the flames:
For the Persians say that Zoroaster, because of a passion for wisdom and justice,
deserted his fellows and dwelt by himself on a certain mountain; and they say that
thereupon the mountain caught fire, a mighty flame descending from the sky
above, and that it burned unceasingly. So then the king and the most distinguished
of his Persians drew near for the purpose of praying to the god; and Zoroaster came
forth from the fire unscathed, and, showing himself gracious towards them, bade
them to be of good cheer and to offer certain sacrifices in recognition of the god’s
having come to that place. And thereafter, so they say, Zoroaster has associated, not
with them all, but only with such as are best endowed with regard to truth, and are
best able to understand the god, men whom the Persians have named Magi, that is
to say, people who know how to cultivate the divine power, and not like the Greeks,
who in their ignorance use the term to denote wizards.32
At least some of the elements in the stories of Dio Cocceianus and Pseudo-
Clement of Rome appear in a Zoroastrian account of the early biography of
Zarathustra, which depicts the casting of Zarathustra into a fiery furnace
and his subsequent deliverance from the flames. The most well-known
Zoroastrian version of this story is preserved in a thirteenth-century work in
New Persian, known as the Zarātushtnāma ð8.4Þ:33 “The sorcerers were
befallen by commotion and villainy, and they stole Zarathustra away from
his father. Then they went to the wilderness, and piled up a mountain of
firewood. They darkened the pile with black naphtha and yellow sulphur, lit

opposition to the Deity.” See also bEruv 53a; bPes 94b; bHag 13a; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 229–
32; Van der Toorn and Van der Horst, “Nimrod,” 24–25. The etymology at the end of the passage
derives from a pseudoetymological explanation of the Greek form of Zarathustra’s name, Zōr-
oástrēs ðZqroάjtrhςÞ, which was interpreted as “living ðzōÞ star ðástērÞ.” Some of the other versions
0 0
of his name are: Zaravuštra- ðAvestanÞ; ð Þzr wšc ðSogdianÞ; zrhwšt ðParthianÞ; ZarduðxÞšt
ðPahlaviÞ; Zartusht/Zarātusht/Zardusht/Zarādusht ðPersianÞ; Jarathustra- ðParsi SanskritÞ; Zar-
tośt/Zarthośt ðParsi GujaratiÞ. The familiar Western name Zoroaster derives from the Greek
form. For a brief review of the different etymologies that have been proposed for the name
Zarathustra, see Manfred Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personennamenbuch I: Die altiranischen Namen
ðVienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979Þ, 105–6; Encyclopedia
Iranica, s.v. “Zoroaster, i. the Name,” by Rüdiger Schmitt.
31
On the myths Dio Cocceianus attributed to the Magi, see Encyclopedia Iranica, s.v. “Dio
Cocceianus,” by Roger Beck.
32
Dio Cocceianus ðca. 40–115Þ, Orations 36.40, in, Dio Chrysostom, III: Discourses 31–36, trans.
J. W. Cohoon and Henry L. Crosby ðCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956Þ, 456–57.
33 0
Kaykā ūs, the author of this collection, named his work Mawlūd-i Zartusht ðbirth of Zara-
thustraÞ, but it is more commonly known as the Zarātushtnāma ðbook of ZarathustraÞ. A critical
edition and new translation of the work can be found in Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 249–
508.

44

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

a fire, and threw Zarathustra on it. By the decree of God the Victorious, no
injury reached him from the blaze. The raging fire became like water,34 and
Zarathustra slumbered inside.”35
While this story may reflect a late Zoroastrian tradition from the Islamic
period, which was created in connection with the rabbinic-Islamic tradition
about Abraham/Ibrāhı̄m, it must be kept in mind that the Zoroastrian
traditions collected in the Pahlavi and New Persian works reflect a com-
bination of novel traditions composed in the Islamic period along with oral
traditions36 produced in earlier periods, including statements explicitly
attributed to named authorities37 from the Sasanian period.38 Although the
earlier traditions cannot always be distinguished from later elements, in the
case of Zarathustra’s fiery adventures the existence of Greek parallels seems
to point to an earlier Iranian version, upon which the extant Greek versions
depend. It is thus possible, although by no means certain, that at least the

34
A similar tradition concerning the cooling of Abraham’s furnace with water is recorded in
bPes 118a: “ When the wicked Nimrod cast our father Abraham into the fiery furnace, Gabriel
said to the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘Sovereign of the universe, let me go down, cool ½itŠ, and
deliver that righteous man from the fiery furnace.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:
‘I am unique in my world and he is unique in his world; it is fitting for Him who is unique to
deliver him who is unique.’ But because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold the
½meritedŠ reward of any creature, He said to him: ‘Thou shalt be privileged to deliver three of
his descendants ðHananiah, Misha’el, and ‘AzaryahÞ.’ ” While the Babylonian rabbinic account
of bPes 118a bears closer resemblance to the Iranian tradition, the Palestinian rabbinic
account preserved in Gen. Rabbah seems to be dependent on the Greek tradition.
35
Zarātushtnāma 8.4.
36
The oral nature of Zoroastrian literature is discussed in Harold W. Bailey, Zoroastrian
Problems in the Ninth-Century Books ðOxford: Clarendon, 1971Þ, 149–76; Philip Huyse, “Late
Sasanian Society between Orality and Literacy,” in The Sasanian Era: The Idea of Iran, ed. Vesta
Sarkhos Curtis and Sarah Steward ðLondon: Tauris, 2008Þ, 3:140–53; Philip G. Kreyenbroek,
“The Zoroastrian Tradition from an Oralist’s Point of View,” in K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 2nd
International Congress Proceedings ð5th to 8th January, 1995Þ, ed. Hormazdiar J. M. Desai and
Homai N. Modi ðBombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1996Þ, 221–37; Prods Oktor Skjærvø,
“The Importance of Orality for the Study of Old Iranian Literature and Myth,” Nāme-ye Irān-e
Bāstān: The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 5, nos. 1–2 ð2005–6Þ ½2007Š: 1–23;
Skjærvø, “The Zoroastrian Oral Tradition as Reflected in the Texts,” in The Transmission of the
Avesta, ed. Alberto Cantera, Iranica 20 ðWiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012Þ, 3–48; Shai Secunda,
“The Sasanian ‘Stam’: Orality and the Composition of Babylonian Rabbinic and Zoroastrian
Legal Literature,” in The Talmud in its Iranian Context, ed. Carol Bakhos and Rahim Shayegan
ðTübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010Þ, 140–60.
37
A discussion of the dating of named authorities mentioned in Pahlavi literature can be
found in Philip Gignoux, “La controverse dans le mazdéisme tardif,” in La controverse religieuse
et ses formes, ed. Alain Le Bolluec ðParis: Centre d’Etudes des Religions du Livre, 1995Þ, 127–49;
Alberto Cantera, Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta ðWiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004Þ,
164 –239; Yaakov Elman, “The Other in the Mirror: Iranians and Jews View One Another:
Questions of Identity, Conversion, and Exogamy in the Fifth-Century Iranian Empire, Part 1,”
Bulletin of the Asia Institute 19 ð2009Þ: 15–26; Shai Secunda, “On the Age of the Zoroastrian
Sages of the Zand,” Iranica Antiqua 47 ð2012Þ: 317–49.
38
An illuminating example of the coexistence of late and early traditions in Pahlavi litera-
ture is discussed in Yishai Kiel, “The Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in Light of
Rabbinic and Islamic Literature,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 22 ð2008Þ ½2012Š: 119–35.

45

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

favorable depiction of Zarathustra preserved by Dio Cocceianus—and per-

haps even the more critical depiction preserved by Pseudo-Clement of
Rome—was essentially based on an earlier Zoroastrian version, which told
the story of Zarathustra’s miraculous deliverance from the flames.

ABRAHAM AND ZARATHUSTRA

Alongside the identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra, several Muslim

and Zoroastrian authors identify Zarathustra with the first monotheistic
prophet Abraham /Ibrāhı̄m.39 Aside from the miraculous deliverance of
both figures from the fire and their encounter with an evil king, several
other details of their early biographies are strikingly reminiscent. It has
been pointed out, for example, that both Abraham and Zarathustra are said
to have been born to pagan fathers, both are said to have been engaged in
astronomy and astrology and are associated with stars, and both are said
to have rebelled against their heathen upbringing by smashing the idols of
their families and townsmen.40
Although the links between these two figures were explicitly forged only
in the Islamic period—a time in which Zoroastrians sought to improve
their social standing by identifying themselves as monotheists and thus
eligible for the status of ahl al-kitāb ð“people of the book”Þ41—stories of
Zarathustra’s life have been connected to the Abrahamic cycle from early
on. Thus, for instance, Eusebius, after telling his version of the story of Ni-
nus and Zarathustra, writes: “The city known as Ninveh among the Hebrews
was named after Ninus, in whose time Zoroaster the Magus was king of the
Bactrians. Semiramis was the consort of Ninus and succeeded him on the
throne. Hence, Abraham was contemporary with them.”42
Although this source does not explicitly identify Abraham with Zara-
thustra, it is important for Eusebius to assert that Zarathustra was, at least,
a contemporary of Abraham. A similar tendency is exhibited in the identi-
fication of Zarathustra with Nimrod, who according to several rabbinic and
non-rabbinic texts was likewise a contemporary of Abraham. To be sure, the
attempt to juxtapose the Iranian, Babylonian-Assyrian, and biblical myths
reflects the syncretic tendencies characteristic of Late Antique authors who

39
For a discussion of the Islamic and Zoroastrian texts identifying Abraham with Zar-
0
athustra, see Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 52–83; Thackston, Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisā ı̄,
136–50; Russell, “Our Father Abraham and the Magi,” 56–67.
40
For a survey of the traditions about Abraham, see Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 243–74. For
the traditions about Zarathustra, see Sheffield, In the Path of the Prophet, 249–508.
41
On the status of Zoroastrians under Islam, see David J. Wasserstein, “Conversion and the
ahl al-dhimma,” The New Cambridge History of Islam, ed. R. Irwin ðCambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2010Þ, 184–208, esp. 202; Yohanan Friedman, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: In-
terfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition ðCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003Þ, 72–76.
42
Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 10.9.10. See also Isidore of Seville, Etymologies 5.39.

46

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

contemplated such cross-cultural connections long before the advent of

Islam.
Shaul Shaked has previously called attention to the existence of Iranian-
Semitic syncretistic tendencies in the Islamic works, the origin of which he
traces back to an earlier period. Shaked outlines two types of cultural syn-
cretistic or harmonizing tendencies in this regard: the fusion or weaving of
the two mythical traditions together and the translation or equation of Ira-
nian and Semitic mythical figures.43 Regarding the dating of these tradi-
tions, Shaked writes: “It seems, however, possible to assume that they ½the
IraniansŠ had already made it earlier, at the time of the Sasanians, in order
to harmonize their traditions with those of their Semitic neighbors. The
process of syncretistic adaptation of Iranian materials to the surrounding
Semitic world may have begun long before the advent of Islam.”44
It is possible, therefore, that Zarathustra was identified with Abraham at
some point before the advent of Islam, in an attempt to create a sense of
symmetry between the Iranian and biblical mythologies.45 Taking into ac-
count the Greek traditions that place Zarathustra during the time of Abra-
ham ðalthough they do not identify the two figuresÞ, the explicit identifi-
cation of the two figures in later Islamic and Zoroastrian sources, and the
syncretic mindset of Late Antique authors in general, it would seem pos-
sible to speculate that the association of Abraham and Zarathustra pre-
dated the Islamic authors and may have been known to the authors of the
rabbinic midrash.

R E CO N S T RU CT I N G TH E MI D R A S H

As mentioned above, the fact that Abraham and Zarathustra were both cast
into a fire and miraculously saved by God is not in itself indicative of the
interdependency of the two narratives. The midrashic characterization of
Nimrod as a fire-worshipper, however, seems to reflect a stronger sense of
connection between Nimrod and Zoroastrianism, given the Greek descrip-
tions of the Zoroastrian fire-cult which may well have been known to the
rabbis.46 The midrashic characterization of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper
further invokes the explicit identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra
found in several Christian sources.47 The figure of Nimrod-Zarathustra, to be
43
Shaked, “First Man, First King,” 238–56 ðesp. 252–53Þ.
44
Ibid., 245.
45
Other attempts to create syncretic symmetries between Iranian and biblical mythic figures
are discussed by Yishai Kiel, “Reimagining Enoch in Sasanian Babylonia in Light of Zoroastrian
and Manichaean Traditions,” AJS Review ð2015Þ, forthcoming.
46
One of the things that Greek writers seem to have known about Zoroastrians, at least to
some degree of accuracy, is that they were engaged in fire-cults. See the sources collected in de
Jong, Traditions of the Magi, 343–50.
47
See esp. Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Homilies 9.4–5; Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 1.3, 2–
3 ðBidez and Cumont, 2.55–56; Vasunia, Zarathustra and the Religion of Ancient Iran, 48, 65; The
Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1, trans. Frank Williams ½Leiden: Brill, 1987Š, 16–17Þ.

47

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

sure, is explicitly associated with fire worshipping, as evident in Pseudo-

Clementine’s Recognitiones 1.30: “In the seventeenth generation, Nemrod
was the first to hold the kingship in Babylonia, and he built a city there; he
went from there to Persia and taught the Persians to worship fire.”48
I am not arguing that the Palestinian authors of the midrash possessed
knowledge of the Zoroastrian fire-cult,49 as they were clearly not conversant
in the intricacies of the Zoroastrian ritual.50 Rather, the authors of the
midrash seem to have derived their information on Zarathustra and Zo-
roastrianism from Greek traditions. In other words, the midrash must not
be misconstrued as corresponding directly with Zoroastrian ideology, as it
appears to engage Greek depictions of Zoroastrianism that were likely avail-
able to the rabbinic authors.
Beyond the midrashic dependence on the identification of Nimrod with
Zarathustra and the association of the former’s figure with the Zoroastrian
fire-cult, the midrash engages another important tradition, according to
which Nimrod-Zarathustra was endangered by the fire he worshipped. Ac-
cording to the first version we have examined, documented in the Pseudo-
Clementine Homilies, Nimrod-Zarathustra was consumed by a stream of fire
that descended from heaven, an act which was instigated by the evil Babylo-
nian king he had challenged. The encounter between Nimrod-Zarathustra
and the evil king seems to be reflected, albeit subversively, in the midrashic
encounter between Abraham and Nimrod. The role of Nimrod in this story,
however, is reversed: according to Pseudo-Clement, Nimrod challenged the
evil king, an act for which he was consumed by fire, while according to the

48
Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Recognitiones 1.30.
49
In contradistinction, Babylonian rabbinic traditions reflect more intimate knowledge of
Zoroastrianism. For a survey of recent scholarship in the field, see Yaakov Elman, “Up to the
Ears in Horses Necks: On Sasanian Agricultural Policy and Private Eminent Domain,” JSIJ
½ Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal Š 3 ð2004Þ: 95–102; Geoffrey Herman, “Ahasuerus the Former
Stable-Master of Belshazzar, and the Wicked Alexander of Macedon: Two Parallels between the
BT and Persian Sources,” AJS Review 29, no. 2 ð2005Þ: 283–88; Shai Secunda, “Reading the Bavli
in Iran,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 2 ð2010Þ: 310–18, and The Iranian Talmud: Reading the
Bavli in its Sasanian Context ðPhiladelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014Þ, 10–14; Yishai
Kiel, “Selected Topics in Laws of Ritual Defilement: Between the Babylonian Talmud and
Pahlavi Literature” ðPhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011Þ, 3–6.
50
The casting of a person into fire consists of one of the worst possible sins in Zoroastri-
anism, as the fire is believed to be contaminated by human carrion. This law goes back to the
Young Avesta ðredacted ca. the first half of the first millennium BCEÞ, as demonstrated in
Videvdad 3.16–17, 5.41–43, 5.47–48, 7.25, 8.73–74, and parallels. Unless the involvement of
Nimrod in casting a person into fire is meant as an anti-Zoroastrian parody, it would seem that
the authors of the midrash are completely unaware of or uninterested in this aspect of Zo-
roastrian law. It is also noteworthy that the cycle of elements deserving worship according to
Abraham’s debate with Nimrod ðfire, water, clouds, wind, and humansÞ is inconsistent with the
elements deserving worship according to Zoroastrianism. The Avestan Ameša Spenta ðboun-
teous immortal; Amešāspand, Amahraspand in PahlaviÞ are regarded as the guardians of the
elements: fire, water, earth, plants, cattle, metals, and righteous humans. See also Encyclopedia
Iranica, s.v. “Ameša Spenta,” by Mary Boyce. Had there been a consistent overlapping between
the two lists of elements, one ought to have considered the possibility that the midrash reflects
a carefully structured anti-Zoroastrian polemic, but this is clearly not the case.

48

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Abraham and Nimrod

midrash, Nimrod is himself the evil king, who having been theologically
challenged by Abraham, attempted to cast him into the fire.
What the version of Pseudo-Clement is missing, to be sure, is a “happy”
ending, in which the hero is miraculously saved from the flames. According
to Dio Cocceianus’s Orations, Zarathustra is indeed miraculously saved from
the flames to the amazement of a Persian king. Although this tradition does
not explicitly mention Nimrod, it would seem that Greek readers of the first
few centuries CE were likely to have made these associations. It is possible,
therefore, that a version similar to that preserved by Dio Cocceianus is re-
flected in the midrashic encounter between Abraham and Nimrod. In this
case, too, the authors of the midrash seem to have reversed the role of
Nimrod-Zarathustra in the story. While Dio Cocceianus portrays Zara-
thustra as the hero who was miraculously saved from the flames, the mid-
rash reserves this role for Abraham, while Nimrod the fire-worshipper is
depicted as the antagonist who sought to cast Abraham into the flames.
By contrasting the death of Haran in the fiery furnace with the deliv-
erance of Abraham from the flames, the authors of the midrash seem to
invoke both versions of the Greek tradition about Nimrod-Zarathustra,
namely that he was cast into a fire by an evil king and ultimately consumed
by the flames and that he was miraculously saved from the flames. In the
midrash, by contrast, the first version of the story is applied to Haran and
the second to Abraham, while in both cases Nimrod plays the role of the
evil king.
But why would the authors of the midrash collate the story of Nimrod-
Zarathustra with the early biography of Abraham in the first place? While it
is true that earlier exegetes such as Pseudo-Philo already juxtaposed the
stories of Abraham and Nimrod, I believe that the authors of the midrash
are also reacting to another set of traditions, which juxtapose Zarathustra
with Abraham /Ibrāhı̄m. Although an explicit syncretic identification of
these two figures is documented only in Islamic and medieval Zoroastrian
sources, we have seen that pre-Islamic sources allude to this connection by
juxtaposing the two figures in some way or by stressing that Abraham and
Zarathustra were, at the very least, contemporaries. It must be borne in
mind, moreover, that numerous Zoroastrian traditions preserved in medi-
eval works in Pahlavi or New Persian originated in a much earlier period.
Whether or not the authors of the midrash were cognizant of a tradition
that explicitly identified Abraham with Zarathustra, they seem to have re-
jected this notion, as the midrash presents Abraham and Nimrod as the
ultimate rivals. The identification of Nimrod with Zarathustra, moreover,
deemphasizes the alternative identification of Zarathustra with Abraham. I
would like to propose, however, that by depicting Abraham as the hero who
was cast into the fire and miraculously saved by God, the authors of the
midrash critically engage the association of Abraham with Zarathustra, who
is likewise said to have been cast into and miraculously saved from a fire. By

49

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Religion

arguing that Abraham is in fact the hero who was saved from a fire and that
Zarathustra ðin his reincarnation as NimrodÞ should be identified as the
evil king who sought to cast Abraham into the flames, the authors of the
midrash ingeniously downplay and reverse the association between Abra-
ham, the true monotheistic prophet, and Zarathustra, who is portrayed in
the midrash as an evil, idolatrous king.

CO NC L USIO N

In this study, I have attempted to situate the rabbinic story about Abraham
in the fiery furnace and his rivalry with Nimrod in the context of several
Greek traditions pertaining to the figure of Zarathustra, who is likewise said
to have been cast into a fire and miraculously saved by God. While this
motif is rather common and does not necessitate any cultural connection
between the early biographies of Zarathustra and Abraham, the charac-
terization of Nimrod as a fire-worshipper firmly connects the rabbinic nar-
rative with the Greek traditions about Zarathustra. Aside from the Greek
descriptions of Zoroastrian fire-cult, I have demonstrated that the image of
Nimrod as a fire-worshipper invokes a particular cross-cultural identifica-
tion of Nimrod with Zarathustra. The parallelism that exists between the
fiery adventures of Abraham and Zarathustra is thus further emphasized
by a syncretic identification of Zarathustra with the antagonist of the mid-
rashic account.
While the identification of Nimrod and Zarathustra plays a significant
role in the rabbinic narrative, I have further surmised that the midrash
reacts, albeit indirectly and critically, to an association of Abraham with
Zarathustra. Considering other attempts to syncretize episodes and char-
acters from the Iranian and Semitic mythologies, the intersections of the
early biographies of Abraham and Zarathustra seem to have sparked the
imagination of authors of Late Antiquity. The midrash, however, downplays
this identification, by arguing that Abraham is the hero who was saved from
the flames and Zarathustra ðin his reincarnation as NimrodÞ should be iden-
tified as the evil king who sought to cast Abraham into the flames.
While the rabbinic midrash clearly depends on the heritage of Second
Temple exegesis, which prefigured and fostered the motif of Abraham’s
deliverance from the flames, I have demonstrated that there are several
elements in the version of Genesis Rabbah that strongly suggest a rabbinic
engagement of and reaction to Greek traditions about Zarathustra. In this
context, the creators of the midrash did not simply weave together Greek
and other ancient exegetical traditions about Zarathustra, but further com-
plicated the web of intercultural associations and syncretic identifications
in fascinating new ways.

50

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.37 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:57:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions