Difference between revisions of "Angra Mainyu" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(Reimported and credited wikipedia article.)
(Reimported and credited wikipedia article.)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
:''Glossolalia is commonly called "speaking in tongues". For other uses of "speaking in tongues", see [[Speaking in Tongues (disambiguation)]].
+
:''"Ahriman" redirects here. For other uses, see [[Ahriman (disambiguation)]].''
−
:''"Tongues" redirects here. For the body part, see [[Tongue]], for other uses, see [[Tongue (disambiguation)]].''
 
−
{{global}}
 
−
'''Glossolalia''' or '''speaking in tongues''' is the vocalizing of fluent speech-like, but unintelligible utterances, often as part of religious practice. Its use (including use in this article) also embraces [[Xenoglossy]] - speaking in a [[natural language]] that was previously unknown to the speaker. {{Wiktionarypar|Glossolalia}}
 
  
−
== Definition ==
+
{{Zoroastrianism}}
−
===Etymology===
+
'''Angra Mainyu''' (alt: ''Aŋra Mainiuu'') is the [[Avestan language|Avestan-language]] name of [[Zoroastrianism]]'s [[Hypostasis (religion)|hypostasis]] of the "destructive spirit". The [[Middle Persian]] equivalent is '''Ahriman'''.
−
'Glossolalia' is constructed from the [[Greek language|Greek]] ''γλωσσολαλιά'' and that from ''γλῶσσα'' - ''glossa'' "tongue, language" and ''λαλεῖν'' (''lalein'') "to talk". 'Speaking in tongues' is the result of translating into English the two components of the same Greek word.  
 
  
−
The Greek expression (in various forms) appears in the [[New Testament]] in the books of [[Acts of the Apostles|Acts]] and [[First Corinthians|1 Corinthians]]. 'Speaking in tongues' has been used at least since the translation of the New Testament into Middle English in the [[Wycliffe Bible]] in the 14th century.<ref>See Mark 16:17 in the [http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/Mar.txt Wycliffe Bible]</ref> [[Frederic William Farrar]] first used the word ''glossolalia'' in 1879.<ref>[[Oxford English Dictionary]], 2nd ed, 1989</ref>
+
==In the Avesta==
 +
===In Zoroaster's revelation===
 +
Avestan 'angra mainyu'<!-- lower case when in Gathic context —> "seems to have been an original conception of [[Zoroaster]]'s."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673">{{citation|chapter=Ahriman|last=Duchesne-Guillemin|first=Jacques|title=Encyclopaedia Iranica|location=New York|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul|year=1982|volume=1|pages=670–673|chapter-url=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f6/v1f6a117a.html}}</ref> In the [[Gathas]], which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to the prophet himself, 'angra mainyu' is not yet a proper name.<ref group="n">Proper names are altogether rare in the Gathas. In these texts, even [[Ahura Mazda]] and [[Amesha Spenta]] are not yet proper names.</ref> In the one instance in these hymns where the two words appear together, the concept spoken of is that of a ''mainyu'' ("mind", "mentality", "spirit" etc<ref group="n">The translation of ''mainyu'' as "spirit" is the common approximation. The stem of ''mainyu'' is ''man'', "thought", and 'spirit' is here meant in the sense of 'mind'.</ref>) that is ''angra'' ("destructive", "inhibitive", "malign" etc). In this single instance - in ''[[Yasna]]'' 45.2 - the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declares 'angra mainyu' to be its "absolute antithesis."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" />
  
 +
A similar statement occurs in ''Yasna'' 30.3, where the antithesis is however 'aka mainyu', ''aka'' being the Avestan language word for "evil." Hence, 'aka mainyu' is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted with 'spenta mainyu', the "bounteous spirit" with which [[Ahura Mazda]] conceived of creation, which then "was."
  
 +
The 'aka mainyu' epithet recurs in ''Yasna'' 32.5, when the principle is identified with the [[daeva|''daeva''s]] that deceive humankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, the ''daeva''s are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: In Zoroaster's view the ''daeva''s are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons.<ref name="Hellenschmidt_1993_599_602">{{citation|chapter=Daiva|author=Hellenschmidt, Clarice & Kellens, Jean|title=Encyclopaedia Iranica|location=Costa Mesa|publisher=Mazda|year=1993|volume=6|pages=599-602}}</ref>
  
−
== Description ==
+
In ''Yasna'' 32.3, these ''daeva''s are identified as the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but of ''[[Akem Manah|akem manah]]'', "evil thinking." A few verses earlier it is however the ''daebaaman'', "deceiver" - not otherwise identified but "probably Angra Mainyu"<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" /> - who induces the ''daeva''s to choose ''achistem manah'' - "worst thinking." In ''Yasna'' 32.13, the abode of the wicked is not the abode of Angra Mainyu, but the abode of the same "worst thinking." "One would have expected [Angra Mainyu] to reign in hell, since he had created 'death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful' (''Y.'' 30.4)."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" />
−
Glossolalia came to prominence in modern times in the [[Azusa Street Revival]] of 1906 and in the subsequent growth of the [[Pentecostal]] movement. Since then there have been a number of attempts to describe glossolalia in a systematic way.  
 
  
−
===Linguistics of Pentecostal glossolalia===
+
===In the Younger Avesta===
−
William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics.<ref>William J. Samarin, ''Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism''. Macmillan, New York, 1972</ref> His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in public and private Christian meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the USA over the course of five years; his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake-handlers of the Appalachians, and Russian Molakans in Los Angeles.  
+
''Yasna'' 19.15 recalls that Ahura Mazda's recital of the [[Ahuna Vairya]] invocation puts Angra Mainyu in a stupor. In ''Yasna'' 9.8, Angra Mainyu creates [[Zahhak|Aži Dahaka]], but the serpent recoils at the sight of [[Mithra|Mithra's]] mace (''Yasht'' 10.97, 10.134). In ''Yasht'' 13, the [[Fravashi]]s defuse Angra Mainyu's plans to dry up the earth, and in ''Yasht'' 8.44 Angra Mainyu battles but cannot defeat [[Tishtrya]] and so prevent the rains. In ''Vendidad'' 19, Angra Mainyu urges Zoroaster to turn from the good religion by promising him sovereignty of the world. On being rejected, Angra Mainyu assails the prophet with legions of demons, but Zoroaster deflects them all. In ''Yasht'' 19.96, a verse that reflects a Gathic injunction, Angra Mainyu will be vanquished and Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail.
  
−
Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker.
+
In ''Yasht'' 19.46ff, Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu battle for possession of ''khvaraenah'', "divine glory" or "fortune". In some verses of the Yasna (eg ''Yasna'' 57.17), the two principles are said to have created the world, which contradicts the Gathic principle that declares Ahura Mazda to be the sole creator and which is reiterated in the cosmogony of ''[[Vendidad]]'' 1. In that first chapter, which is the basis for the 9th-12th century ''[[Bundahishn]]'', the creation of sixteen lands by Ahura Mazda is countered by the Angra Mainyu's creation of sixteen scourges such as winter, sickness and vice. "This shift in the position of Ahura Mazda, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit [Mazda's instrument of creation], must have taken place in the 4th century B.C. at the latest; for it is reflected in Aristotle's testimony, which confronts Ariemanios with Oromazdes (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.6)."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" />
−
<blockquote>
 
−
It is verbal behavior that consists of using a certain number of consonants and vowels[...]in a limited number of syllables that in turn are organized into larger units that are taken apart and rearranged pseudogrammatically[...]with variations in pitch, volume, speed and intensity.<ref>William J. Samarin, ''Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism''. Macmillan, New York, 1972, 120</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
[Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.<ref>Samarin, William J. 'Sociolinguistic vs. Neurophysiological Explanations for Glossolalia: Comment on Goodman’s Paper.' ''Journal for the Scientific
 
−
Study of Religion'' 11, 3: (1972a) 293–296.</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
  
−
That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others: [[Felicitas Goodman]] found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language.<ref>Goodman, Felicitas D.: 'Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings'. ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religio''n 8, 2: (1969) 227–235.</ref>
+
''Yasht'' 15.43 assigns Angra Mainyu to the nether world, a world of darkness. So also ''Vendidad '' 19.47, but other passages in the same chapter (19.1 and 19.44) have him dwelling in the region of the ''daeva''s, which the ''Vendidad'' asserts is in the north. There (19.1, 19.43-44), Angra Mainyu is the ''daevanam daevo'', "''daeva'' of ''daeva''s" or chief of the ''daeva''s. The superlative ''daevo.taema'' is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the ''daeva''s in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the ''daeva''s or their father."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" />
  
−
Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface, and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".<ref>William J. Samarin, ''Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism''. Macmillan, New York, 1972, 128</ref>  He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organised, and - most importantly of all - there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".<ref>William J. Samarin, ''Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism''. Macmillan, New York, 1972, 128</ref>
+
==In Zurvanite Zoroastrianism==
 +
{{main|Zurvanism}}
 +
[[Zurvanism]] was a branch of Zoroastrianism that sought to resolve the dilemma of the "twin spirits" of ''Yasna'' 30.3. The resolution, which probably developed out of the contact with [[Chaldea]], was to have both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as twin sons of the First Principle "Time" (Avestan: ''Zurvan''). Zurvanism was strongly criticized as a heresy during the [[Sassanid]] period ([[225]]-[[651]]) of Iranian history, an era in which it probably also had its largest following. Although the [[monist]] doctrine is not attested after the 10th century, some Zurvanite features are nonetheless still evident in present-day Zoroastrianism.
  
−
On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".<ref>William J. Samarin, ''Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism''. Macmillan, New York, 1972, p2</ref>
+
Zurvanism's principle feature is then the notion that both Ahura Mazda ([[Middle Persian|MP]]: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) were twin brothers, with the former being the epitome of good and the latter being the epitome of evil. Further, this dichotomy was ''by choice'', that is, Angra Mainyu chose to be evil: "It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
  
−
Practitioners of glossolalia may disagree with linguistic researchers and claim that they are speaking human languages ([[xenoglossia]]). For example Ralph Harris, in the work ''Spoken By the Spirit'' published by Radiant Life/GPH in 1973, recounts seventy five occasions when glossolalic speech was understood by others. (Scientific research into such claims is documented in the article on [[xenoglossia]].)
+
The mythology of the twins is only attested in the post-Sassanid Syriac and Armenian polemic such as that of [[Yeznik of Kolb|Eznik of Kolb]]. According to these sources the genesis saw Zurvan as existing alone but desiring offspring who would create "heaven and hell and everything in between." Zurvan then sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, androgyne Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which He then communicated to His brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity.<ref name="Zaehner_1966_419_428">{{citation|last=Zaehner|first=Richard Charles|title=Zurvan, a Zoroastrian dilemma|year=1955|publisher=Clarendon|location=Oxford}}</ref>
  
−
===Comparative linguistics===
+
==In Zoroastrian tradition==
−
[[Felicitas Goodman]], a psychological anthropologist and linguist, studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, Caribbean and Mexico; these included English, Spanish and Mayan speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation), and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practised by Christians and the followers of other religions.<ref>Goodman, Felicitas D., ''Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia''. Univer-
+
In the [[Pahlavi]] texts of the 9th-12th century, Ahriman (written ''{{IPA|ˀhl(y)mn}}'') is frequently written upside down "as a sign of contempt and disgust."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" />  
−
sity of Chicago Press, 1972</ref>
 
  
−
== Material explanation ==
+
In the ''[[Book of Arda Viraf]]'' 5.10, the narrator - the 'righteous Viraf' - is taken by [[Sarosh]] and [[Atar|Adar]] to see the "the reality of God and the archangels, and the non-reality of Ahriman and the demons."
−
The material explanation of the ability to produce glossolalic speech has long been disputed. [[Pentecostal]]s believe that it is a [[Gift of the spirit|gift of the Holy Spirit]]. Yet glossolalia is a material phenomenon which has physical and psychological patterns.  
+
<ref>{{cite book|author=Haug, Martin (trans., ed.)|chapter=The Book of Arda Viraf|editor=Charles F. Horne|title=The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East (Vol. 7)|year=1917|publisher=Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb|location=New York}}</ref> This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as the ''[[Denkard]]'', a 9th century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism",<ref name="deMenasce">{{citation|last=de Menasce|first=Jean-Pierre|year=1958|title=Une encyclopédie mazdéenne: le Dēnkart. Quatre conférences données à l'Université de Paris sous les auspices de la fondation Ratanbai Katrak|location=Paris|publisher=Presses Universitaires de France}}</ref> which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" /> In chapter 100 of ''Book of the Arda Viraf'', which is titled 'Ahriman', the narrator sees the "Evil spirit, ... whose religion is evil [and] who ever ridiculed and mocked the wicked in hell."
  
−
===Mental illness===
+
In the Zurvanite ''Ulema-i Islam'' (a Zoroastrian text, despite the title), "Ahriman also is called by some name by some people and they ascribe evil unto him but nothing can also be done by him without Time." A few chapters later, the Ulema notes that "it is clear that Ahriman is a non-entity" but "at the resurrection Ahriman will be destroyed and thereafter all will be good; and [change?] will proceed through the will of God." In the ''Sad Dar'', the world is described as having been created by Ohrmuzd and become pure through His truth. But Ahriman, "being devoid of anything good, does not issue from that which is owing to truth." (62.2)
−
As Pentecostalism expanded in the 20th century and attracted the attention of the wider world, psychologists initially thought of glossolalia in pathological terms, thinking that it was caused by mental illness. In 1927 George Cutten described tongues-speakers as people of low mental abilities.<ref>George Barton Cutten, ''Speaking with Tongues Historically and Psychologically Considered'', Yale University Press, 1927.</ref>
 
  
−
This explanation was effectively refuted in 1969 by a team from the University of Minnesota, who conducted an extensive study covering the United States, Mexico, Haiti and Colombia; they reached practitioners among Pentecostals, other Protestant groups, and Roman Catholics.
+
''[[Jamasp Namag|Book of Jamaspi]]'' 2.3 notes that "Ahriman, like a worm, is so much associated with darkness and old age, that he perishes in the end."<ref name="Jamaspi_Modi">{{citation|last=Modi|first=Jivanji Jamshedji Modi|title=Jamasp Namak ("Book of Jamaspi")|year=1903|publisher=K. R. Cama Oriental Institute|location=Bombay}}</ref> Chapter 4.3 recalls the grotesque legend of Tahmurasp (Avestan: Taxma Urupi) riding Angra Mainyu for thirty years (cf. ''Yasht'' 15.12, 19.29) and so preventing him from doing evil. In Chapter 7, Jamasp explains that the Indians declare Ahriman will die, but "those, who are not of good religion, go to hell."
−
<blockquote>
 
−
Cutten's contentions concerning psychopathology, quoted and re-quoted through the years, have taken on an aura of fact among non-Pentecostal churchmen who are critical of the movement. His assumption that glossolalia is linked to schizophrenia and hysteria has not been supported by any empirical evidence.<ref>Hine, Virginia H.: 'Pentecostal Glossolalia toward a Functional Interpretation.' ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'' 8, 2: (1969) 211–226: quote on p213</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
  
−
Subsequent studies have confirmed this conclusion. A 2003 statistical study in the religious journal Pastoral Psychology concluded that, among the 991 male evangelical clergy sampled, glossolalia was associated with stable extroversion, and contrary to some theories, completely unrelated to psychopathology.<ref>Francis L.J. and Robbins M., Personality and Glossolalia: A Study Among Male Evangelical Clergy, Pastoral Psychology, Volume 51, Number 5, May 2003, pp. 391-396(6)</ref>
+
The ''[[Bundahishn]]'', a Zoroastrian account of creation completed in the 12th century has much to say about Ahriman and his role in the cosmogony. In chapter 1.23, following the recitation of the [[Ahuna Vairya]], Ohrmuzd takes advantage of  Ahriman's incapacity to create life without intervention. When Ahriman recovers, he creates [[Jeh]], the primal whore who afflicts women with their menstrual cycles. In Bundahishn 4.12, Ahriman perceives that Ohrmuzd is superior to himself, and so flees to fashion his many demons with which to meet Creation in battle. The entire universe is finally divided between the Ohrmuzd and the [[yazatas|''yazad''s]] on one side and Ahriman with his [[daeva|''dev''s]] on the other. Ahriman slays the primal bull, but the moon rescues the seed of the dying creature, and from it springs all animal creation. But the battle goes on, with mankind caught in the middle, whose duty it remains to withstand the forces of evil through good thoughts, words and deeds.
 +
Other texts see the world created by Ohrmuzd as a trap for Ahriman, who is then distracted by creation and expends his force in a battle he cannot win. (''The epistles of Zatspram'' 3.23; ''Shkand Gumanig Vichar'' 4.63-4.79). The ''Dadistan denig'' explains that God, being omniscient, knew of Ahriman's intent, but it would have been against His "justice and goodness to punish Ahriman before he wrought evil [and] this is why the world is created."<ref name="JDG_1982_670_673" />
  
−
===Not hypnosis===
+
Ahriman has no such omniscience, a fact that Ohrmuzd reminds him of (''Bundahishn'' 1.16). In contrast, in [[Manichean]] scripture, Mani ascribes foresight to Ahriman.<ref name="Dhalla_1938_392">{{citation|last=Dhalla|first=Maneckji Nusservanji|publisher=OUP|location=New York|year=1938| title=History of Zoroastrianism}} p. 392.</ref>
−
Some kind of hypnosis or trance has often been suggested as the explanation for glossolalia. Much glossolalia takes place in heightened states, whether in Christian or non-Christian contexts.<ref>Goodman, Felicitas D., ''Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia''. University of Chicago Press, 1972.</ref> But glossolalia does not require a state of hypnosis or trance. An experiment was conducted in which 12 experienced glossolalists performed with eyes open and without accompanying kinetic activity (such as trembling or shaking) or any residual disorientation.<ref>Spanos, Nicholas P.; Hewitt, Erin C.: Glossolalia: 'A test of the 'trance' and psychopathology hypotheses.' ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'': 1979 Aug Vol 88(4) 427-434.</ref> Moreover glossolalia is not only displayed in group situations. The Minnesotan study found that "after the initial experience of glossolalia, most Pentecostals speak with tongues as frequently, if not more frequently, alone in private prayer", including some for the first time.<ref>Hine, Virginia H.: 'Pentecostal Glossolalia toward a Functional Interpretation.' ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'' 8, 2: (1969) 211–226: quote on p218</ref> These findings rule out hypnosis.
 
  
−
===Learned behaviour===
 
−
The material explanation arrived at by a number of studies is that glossolalia is "learned behavior".<ref>Hine, Virginia H.: 'Pentecostal Glossolalia toward a Functional Interpretation.' ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'' 8, 2: (1969) 211–226: quote on p211</ref><ref>Samarin, William J., ''Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism''. Macmillan, New York, 1972, quote on p73</ref> What is taught is the ability to produce language-like speech. This is only a partial explanation, but it is a part that has withstood much testing. It is possible to train novices to produce glossolalic speech. One experiment with 60 undergraduates found that 20% succeeded after merely listening to a 60-second sample, and 70% succeeded after training:
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance[...]support the hypothesis that glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.<ref>Spanos, Nicholas P.; Cross, Wendy P.; Lepage, Mark; Coristine, Marjorie: 'Glossolalia as learned behavior: An experimental demonstration.' ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'': 1986 Feb Vol 95(1) 21—23.</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech.<ref>John Kildahl and Paul Qualben, ''Final Progress Report, Glossolalia and Mental Health'', 1966, unpublished.</ref>
 
  
−
===Neuroscience=== 
 
−
In 2006, at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers, under the direction of Andrew Newberg, MD, completed the world’s first brain-scan study of a group of individuals while they were speaking in tongues. The study concluded that while participants were exercising glossolalia, activity in the language centers of the brain actually decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. During this study, researchers observed significant cerebral blood flow changes among individuals while exercising glossolalia, concluding that the observed changes were consistent with some of the described aspects of glossolalia. Further, the researchers observed no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function. <ref>Andrew Newberg, Nancy Wintering and Donna Morgan (Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ): Cerebral blood flow during the complex vocalization task of glossolalia, J Nucl Med. 2006; 47 (Supplement 1):316P</ref> <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?ex=1189742400&en=b8bd8ab027f7592c&ei=5070 New York Times]</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBW-4M3J0R4-1&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F22%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=eb99cea50b73f00b819a4190ce812713 Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, Volume 148, Issue 1, 22 November 2006, Pages 67-71]</ref>
 
  
−
==Christian practice==
+
==In present-day Zoroastrianism==
−
There are three broad opinions on the Christian practice of speaking in tongues.
+
In 1878, [[Martin Haug]] proposed a new reconstruction of what he believed was Zarathustra's original monotheistic teaching, as expressed in the Gathas - a teaching that he felt had been corrupted by later Zoroastrian dualistic tradition as expresssed in [[#In the Younger Avesta|post-Gathic scripture]] and in the [[#In tradition|texts of tradition]].<ref>{{citation|last=Haug|first=Martin|author2=<!-- posthumous pub: edited by West, Edward W.-->|title=Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis|location=London|publisher=Trubner|year=1884}}. <!-- 3rd edition —></ref> For Angra Mainyu, this interpretation meant a demotion from a spirit coeval with Ahura Mazda to a mere product of the Creator. Haug's theory was based to a great extent on a new interpretation of ''[[Yasna]]'' 30.3; he argued that the good "twin" in that passage should not be regarded as more or less identical to Ahura Mazda, as earlier Zoroastrian thought had assumed<ref name="history">Cf. Boyce, Mary (1982), ''A History of Zoroastrianism. Volume 1: The Early Period''. Third impression with corrections. P.192-194</ref>, but as a separate created entity, Spenta Mainyu. Thus, both Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu were created by Ahura Mazda and should be regarded as his respective 'creative' and 'destructive' emanations.<ref name="history"/>
−
* '''Glossolalists''' believe that the Christian glossolalia practiced today is the 'speaking in tongues' described in the New Testament.  They believe that it is a miraculous [[Gifts of the Spirit|gift of the Spirit]].  While some Christians claim that these tongues are a real, unlearned language (i.e., [[xenoglossia]])<ref>e.g. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic theology. IVP, 1994, p1070.</ref><ref>Assemblies of God, 2000, ''The Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life'', p4. This is the [http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf official statement] on the subject made by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God on August 11, 2000.</ref>, others explain the activity as a 'language of the spirit', or a 'heavenly language', perhaps the language of angels.<ref>Grudem, W., 1994, ''Systematic Theology'', IVP, p1072.</ref>  
 
−
* '''Cessationists''' believe that the speaking in tongues practised today is simply the utterance of meaningless syllables, and that it is neither [[xenoglossia]] nor miraculous, but rather learned behavior. However, they believe that what the New Testament describes is [[xenoglossia]], a miraculous [[Gifts of the Spirit|gift of the Spirit]] through which the speaker could communicate in languages not previously studied.
 
−
* '''Sceptics''' agree with cessationaists that the speaking in tongues practised today is learned and meaningless. In contrast, however, they reject New Testament descriptions of [[xenoglossia]] (speaking real, unlearned human languages) and miraculous glossolalia (speaking unlearned languages of the spirit as inspired by the Spirit of God) entirely as either fallacious or misinterpreted.<ref>Putman, W G. "Gift of Tongues". In ''New Bible Dictionary'', 3rd edition, edited by I H. Marshall et al. 1996, 1195–1196.</ref>
 
  
−
===New Testament===
+
Haug's interpretation was gratefully received by the [[Parsi]]s of Bombay, who at the time were under considerable pressure from Christian missionaries (most notable amongst them John Wilson<ref name="Wilson">{{citation|last=Wilson|first=John|year=1843|title=The Parsi religion: Unfolded, Refuted and Contrasted with Christianity|location=Bombay|publisher=American Mission Press}} pp. 106ff.</ref>) who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community and criticized Zoroastrianism for its alleged dualism as contrasted with their own monotheism.<ref name="Maneck">{{cite book|last=Maneck|first=Susan Stiles|title=The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change Among the Parsis of India|publisher=K. R. Cama Oriental Institute|location=Bombay|year=1997}} pp. 182ff.</ref> Haug's reconstruction had also other attractive aspects that seemed to make the religion more compatible with [[nineteenth-century]] [[Enlightenment]], as he attributed to Zoroaster a rejection of rituals and of worship of entities other than the supreme deity.<ref>Boyce, Mary (2001), ''Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices''. P.20</ref>
−
There are five places in the [[New Testament]] where speaking in tongues is referred to explicitly:
 
−
* [[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 2|Acts 2]], which describes tongues-speaking occurring in [[Jerusalem]] at [[Pentecost]].
 
−
* [[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 12|1 Cor 12-14]], where [[Apostle Paul|Paul]] discusses speaking in tongues as part of his wider discussion of the [[gifts of the Spirit]]; his remarks shed some light on his own speaking in tongues as well as how tongues were spoken in the early church.
 
−
* [[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 10|Acts 10:46]], when the household of [[Cornelius the Centurion|Cornelius]] in [[Caesarea]] spoke in tongues, and those present compared it to the tongues-speaking that occurred at Pentecost.
 
−
* [[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 19|Acts 19:6]], when a group of approximately a dozen men spoke in tongues in [[Ephesus]] as they received the Holy Spirit while the apostle Paul laid his hands upon them.
 
−
* [[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Mark#Chapter 16|Mark 16:17]], which records the instructions of [[Jesus christ|Christ]] to the [[apostles]], including his description of tongues as a sign that would follow "them that believe" in him.
 
  
−
At [[Pentecost]] there was a sound like a mighty rushing wind, "divided tongues like fire" rested on the [[apostles]], they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in languages previously unknown to them, but recognizable to others present as their own native language. Glossolalists and cessationists both recognise this as [[xenoglossia]], a miraculous ability that marked their [[Baptism of the Holy Spirit|baptism in the Holy Spirit]]. Something similar took place on at least two subsequent occasions, in Caesarea and Ephesus.  
+
The new ideas were subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, which eventually reached the west and so in turn corroborated Haug's theories. Among the Parsis of the cities, who were accustomed to English language literature, Haug's ideas were more often repeated than those of the [[Gujarati language]] objections of the priests, with the result that Haug's ideas became well entrenched and are today almost universally accepted as doctrine.<ref name="Maneck" />
  
−
The [[Apostle Paul]] instructed the church in [[Corinth]] about speaking in tongues in his discussion of the [[gifts of the Spirit]] in a [[First Corinthians|letter]] to them. His purpose was to encourage them to value the gift, but not too highly; to practice it, but not abuse it. In the letter, although Paul commands church brethren, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor 14:39), and that he wishes those to whom he wrote "all spoke with tongues" (1 Cor 14:5) and claims himself to speak with tongues more than all of the church at Corinth combined ("I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all" 1 Cor 14:18). At the same time he discourages simultaneous speaking in tongues directed at people rather than God, lest unbelievers think the assembled brethren "mad" (1 Cor 14:23, 27). Tongues, says Paul, is speaking to God, rather than men, mysteries in the spirit (1 Cor 14:2), edifies the tongues-speaker (1 Cor 14:4), is the action of the praying of a person's spirit (1 Cor 14:14), and serves to bless God and give thanks (1 Cor 14:16-17).
+
While some modern scholars<ref name="Gershevitch_1964_32">{{citation|last=Gershevitch|first=Ilya|title=Zoroaster's Own Contribution|journal=Journal of Near Eastern Studies|volume=23|issue=1|year=<!-- Jan —>1964|pages=12-38}} p. 13.: The conclusion that the Fiendish Spirit, too, was an emanation of Ahura Mazdah's is unavoidable.  But we need not go so far as to assume that Zarathustra imagined the Devil as having directly issued from God. Rather, since free will, too, is a basic tenet of Zarathushtrianism, we may think of the 'childbirth' implied in the idea of twinship as having consisted in the emanation by God of undifferentiated 'spirit', which only at the emergence of free will split into two "twin" Spirits of opposite allegiance.</ref><ref>{{citation|chapter=Ahriman|last=Duchesne-Guillemin|first=Jacques|title=Encyclopaedia Iranica|location=New York|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul|year=1982|volume=1|pages=670–673|chapter-url=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f6/v1f6a117a.html}}: The myth of the Twin Spirits is a model he set for the choice every person is called upon to make. It can not be doubted that both are sons of Ahura Mazda, since they are explicitly said to be twins, and we learn from Y. 47.2-3 that Ahura Mazda is the father of one of them. Before choosing, neither of them was wicked. There is therefore nothing shocking in Angra Mainyu's being a son of Ahura Mazda, and there is no need to resort to the improbable solution that Zoroaster was speaking figuratively. That Ohrmazd and Ahriman's brotherhood was later considered an abominable heresy is a different matter; Ohrmazd had by then replaced the Bounteous Spirit; and there was no trace any more, in the orthodox view, of the primeval choice, perhaps the prophet's most original conception.</ref> hold views similar to Haug's regarding Angra Mainyu's origins<ref name="history"/><ref>Boyce, Mary (1990), ''Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism''. P.16: This Western hypothesis influenced Parsi reformists in the nineteenth century, and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars.</ref><!--Note that unlike the first two references, Boyce is used here a source mentioning the existence of these opinions exist, not an example of them—>, many now think that the traditional "dualist" interpretation was in fact correct all along and that Angra Mainyu was always considered to be completely separate and independent from Ahura Mazda.<ref name="history"/><ref name=clark>Clark, Peter (1998), ''Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith''. pp.7-9</ref><ref>Nigosian, S.A. (1993), ''The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research''. P.22</ref>
  
−
Glossolalists and cessationists generally agree that the primary purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues was to mark the [[Holy Spirit]] being poured out on the [[Ecclesia (church)|church]]. At [[Pentecost]] the [[Apostle Peter]] declared that this gift, which was making some in the audience ridicule the [[apostles]] as drunks, was the fulfilment of the prophecy of [[Joel (prophet)|Joel]] that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 2|Acts 2:17]]).<ref>Assemblies of God, 2000, ''The Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Initial Experience and Continuing Evidences of the Spirit-Filled Life'', p1. This is the [http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf official statement] on the subject made by the
+
==In modern spiritual systems==
−
General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God on August 11, 2000.</ref>
+
[[Rudolf Steiner]], the initiator of the [[Anthroposophical]] movement, published detailed and elaborate studies on Ahriman, a spiritual entity whom the author associates with materialism. Ahriman fulfills the role of influencing and undermining events which occur in contemporary society. Steiner writes that Ahriman can be considered to be the same spiritual being as the [[Satan]] of the [[Bible]]; he differentiated both of these from [[Lucifer]], the tempter, and the demon [[Mephistopheles]]. According to Steiner, the biblical demons [[Mammon]] and [[Beelzebub]] are Ahriman's associates.
  
−
Despite all this in common, there are significant variations in interpretation.
+
Ahriman's assignment, according to Steiner, is to alienate the human being from his spiritual roots and to inspire [[materialism]] and heartless technical control of human activity. His positive contribution is to bring intellectual development and a focus on the sensory world. As such, his influence is highly relevant to present-day Western culture. His great opponent is the archangel [[Michael (archangel)|Michael]], who Steiner equates with Babylonian [[Marduk]]. Ahura Mazda and the Vedic ''Vishva Karman'' represent [[Christ]]'s spiritual aura around the [[Elohim]], the spirits of the Sun sphere.
−
* '''Universal'''. The traditional [[Pentecostal]] view is that every Christian should expect to be [[Baptism in the holy spirit|baptized in the Holy Spirit]], the distinctive mark of which is glossolalia.<ref>Assemblies of God, ''http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft.pdf Statement] of Fundamental Truths'', Statements 7 and 8.</ref> While all agree that baptism in the Holy Spirit is integral to being a Christian, others believe that it is not separable from [[Religious conversion|conversion]] and no longer marked by glossolalia. Pentecostals appeal to the declaration of the [[Apostle Peter]] at Pentecost, that "the gift of the Holy Spirit" was "for you and for your children and for all who are far off" ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 2|Acts 2:38-39]]). Cessationists reply that the gift of speaking in tongues was never for all ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 12|1 Cor 12:30]]).
 
−
* '''One gift'''. Different aspects of speaking in tongues appear in Acts and 1 Corinthians, such that the [[Assemblies of God]] declare that the gift in Acts "is the same in essence as the gift of tongues" in 1 Corinthians "but different in purpose and use".<ref>Assemblies of God, ''Statement of Fundamental Truths'', Statement 8. This is the [http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft.pdf statement] of "non-negotiable beliefs that all Assemblies of God churches adhere to".</ref> They distinguish between (private) speech in tongues when receiving the gift of the Spirit, and (public) speech in tongues for the benefit of the church. Others assert that the gift in Acts was "not a different phenomenon" but the same gift being displayed under varying circumstances.<ref>Grudem, Wayne. ''Systematic theology''. IVP, 1994, p1073.</ref> The same description - 'speaking in tongues' - is used in both Acts and 1 Corinthians, and in both cases the speech is in an unlearned language. 
 
−
* '''Direction'''. The New Testament describes tongues largely as speech addressed to God, but also as something that can potentially be interpreted into human language, thereby "edifying the hearers" ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 14|1 Cor 14:5,13]]). At Pentecost and Caesarea the speakers were praising God ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 2|Acts 2:11]]; [[wikisource:Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 10|10:46]]).  Paul referred to praying, singing praise, and giving thanks in tongues ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 14|1 Cor 14:14-17]]), as well as to the interpretation of tongues([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 14|1 Cor 14:5]]), and instructed those speaking in tongues to pray for the ability to interpret their tongues so others could understand them ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 14|1 Cor 14:13]]). While some limit speaking in tongues to speech addressed to God - "prayer or praise",<ref>Grudem, Wayne. ''Systematic theology''. IVP, 1994, p1070</ref> others claim that speech in tongues is revelation from God to the church, and may be interpreted into human language by those embued with the gift of interpretation of tongues for the benefit of others present.<ref>Masters, Peter, and John C. Whitcomb. ''The charismatic phenomenon''. Wakeman, 1988, p49.</ref>
 
−
* '''Sign for unbelievers''' ([[wikisource:Bible (King James)/1 Corinthians#Chapter 14|1 Cor 14:22]]). Some assume that tongues are "a sign for unbelievers that they might believe",<ref>Assemblies of God, ''Holy Spirit Baptism: Frequently Asked Questions about Tongues'', [http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/baptmhs_faq_tongues.cfm webpage], 26.08.08</ref> and so advocate it as a means of evangelism. Others point out that Paul quotes Isaiah to show that "when God speaks to people in language they cannot understand, it is quite evidently a sign of God's judgment"; so if unbelievers are baffled by a church service they cannot understand because tongues are spoken without being interpreted, that is a "sign of God's attitude", "a sign of judgment".<ref>Grudem, Wayne. ''Systematic theology''. IVP, 1994, p1075.</ref>
 
−
* '''Comprehension'''. Some say that speech in tongues was "not understood by the speaker"<ref>Grudem, Wayne. ''Systematic theology''. IVP, 1994, p1070.</ref> Others assert that "the tongues-speaker normally understood his own foreign-language message".<ref>Masters, Peter, and John C. Whitcomb. ''The charismatic phenomenon''. Wakeman, 1988, p106.</ref>
 
  
−
===Church History (A.D. 100 to 500)===
+
==In popular culture==
−
Twentieth-century [[Pentecostal]]ism was not the earliest instance of "speaking in tongues" in [[church history]], but earlier examples are few; it has never been regarded as orthodox until the rise of Pentecostalism.
+
* In the [[Warhammer 40,000]] fantasy game, Ahriman is a chaos sorcerer in command of the [[Chaos Space Marines|Thousand Sons Traitor Legion]] who is second in power only to Magnus the Red.
 +
* In the [[Final Fantasy Series|Final Fantasy]] video game series, Ahriman is a frequent enemy, depicted as a flying eyeball with wings.  In [[Final Fantasy XII]], Ahriman is a "[[Boss (video game)|boss]]" character, but appears as a ghostly figure instead of an eyeball. In [[Final Fantasy X-2]], Angra Mainyu is an optional "[[Boss (video game)|boss]]". In [[Final Fantasy XI]], Angra Mainyu is the chief of the area "Dynamis - Beaucedine", where he appears as a black-colored monster with wings and one large red eye.
 +
* In the [[Type-Moon]] visual novel ''[[Fate/stay night]]'', a figure named 'Angra Mainyu' is called forth as a servant in the Third Holy Grail War to corrupt the Grail itself. The figure's role is further expanded in the sequel ''[[Fate/hollow ataraxia]]'', where it acts as the servant [[Avenger (Fate/hollow ataraxia)|Avenger]].
 +
* In the [[DC Comics]] book ''[[Wonder Woman]]'' Ahura Mazda is married to the [[Amazons|Amazon]] [[Nu'Bia]]. In the comic the demon Ahriman murders Ahura Mazda, and carves his heart from his body. Nu'Bia returns to earth in search of Ahriman, hoping that she can retrieve the heart and revive her lover.
 +
* In [[Jacqueline Carey]]'s 2003 novel ''[[Kushiel's Avatar]]'', the protagonist [[Phèdre nó Delaunay]] finds herself in the middle of a parallel universe where Zoroastrianism has been inverted and the worship of Angra Mainyu replaces that of Ahura Mazda. The protagonist becomes the bed-mate and plaything of the 'Conqueror of Death' who promotes "ill thoughts, ill words, ill deeds", which eventually kills him and allows the worship of Ahura Mazda to be reinstated.
 +
* In [[Ben Bova]]'s novel ''[[Orion]]'', Ahriman is the main antagonist, seeking to destroy the continuum in what is later revealed to be a revenge plot for the destruction of his species.
 +
* In the role-playing game [[Arcturus]], Angra Mainyu is the final boss at Eden of distant, apocalyptic future.
 +
* In [[Robert A. Heinlein]]'s ''[[Stranger in a Strange Land]]'', Jubal Harshaw warns Gillian Boardman not to inadvertently brainwash Michael Valentine Smith, the man who had been raised on Mars, in the process of teaching him terrestrial etiquette, imploring her "by the myriad deceptive aspects of Ahriman" (Ch. 12).
 +
* In the B indi-movie [[Dark Gate]] a box that contains within it a portal to hell is known as the tool of Angra Mainyu, describes the entity as an evil spirit born in the blackest pit of hell.
 +
*[[Noise music]]ian and [[avant-garde]] musician [[Leila Bela]] released an album named after Angra Mainyu titled ''[[Angra Manyu]]''.
 +
* In the game [[God Hand]], the English voice calls the final boss (Satan) Angra.
 +
* In the fifth season finale of [[Highlander: The Series]], Ahriman is a demon who - in attempting to dominate mankind - reappears every thousand years.
 +
* In the fictional [[Roleplaying Game]] [[Dark Ages: Vampire]], the Ahriman is the primordial essence of the Abyss, an evil, unholy realm  from which the members of the [[Lasombra]] clan summon their power to manifest and handle shadows.
 +
* In [[Dean Koontz]]' ''False Memory'', the antagonist is brilliant psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Ahriman. Dr. Ahriman makes the conscious choice to be evil, treating his patients like toys, to be dominated, controlled, played with, debased and, ultimately, discarded.
 +
* In [[Philip K. Dick]]'s ''[[The Cosmic Puppets]]'', the protagonist's hometown has come under the control of Angra Mainyu (named Ahriman in the novel) and [[Ahura Mazda]], called Ohrmazd.
 +
* In [[David Zindell]]'s Lightstone series, Angra Mainyu is a fallen member of the angelic Galadin, and is the master of the main villain of the series, Morjin.
 +
* Ahriman is an antagonist in the [[Prince of Persia: Prodigy]] video game.
 +
* The figure of Ahriman is a [[literary topos]] in [[Karl May]]'s ''Im Reiche des silbernen Löwen'' (1898).
 +
* In the [[Dungeons & Dragons]] role-playing game, Ahriman is the original name of Asmodeus, the overlord of Nine Hells of Baator.
 +
* In the video game ''[[Prince of Persia (2008 video game)|Prince of Persia]]'', Ahriman is the main villain.  He has infected an alternate world with a strange plague which causes people to transform into savage beasts.  The Prince of Persia must unite with a woman named Elika in order to save this bizarre realm.
 +
*[[Prophet of Doom]] author [[Craig Winn]] equated Ahriman (which he refers to as the Persian Devil) with one of the names of [[Allah]], Ah-Rahman, and uses this connection to state his case that Allah is actually a manifestation of Ahriman (and hence, [[Satan]]) who had purposely inspired a false prophet to deceive the masses away from the one true God.
 +
* Ahriman is the principal villain in the game [[Defenders of Oasis]] for the [[Sega]] [[Game Gear]].
  
−
References to speaking in tongues by the [[Church fathers]] are rare. Aside from Irenaeus' 2nd-century reference to many in the church speaking all kinds of languages 'through the Spirit', and Tertullian's reference in 207 C.E. to the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues being encountered in his day, there are no known first-hand accounts of glossolaia, and very few second-hand accounts.<ref>Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918). "The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers contain no clear and certain allusions to miracle working or to the exercise of the charismatic gifts, contemporaneously with themselves." For further verification observe the nature of the Fathers' clearest allusions to the charismatic gifts, as laid out in the section.</ref>
+
==Notes==
 +
{{refbegin}}
 +
<references group="n" />
 +
{{refend}}
 +
In "Tumbletick & Company" the evil leader of the Ahrioch Horde who is decapitated by Egremont after being shot with arrows by Is-Is as the necromancer prepares to sacrifice Tumbletick.
  
−
What we do have are general remarks that Christ had given the [[gifts of the Spirit]] to the church, and that the gifts in general remained in the church.
+
==Bibliography==
−
<blockquote>
+
{{reflist}}
−
For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to this present time. ([[Justin Martyr]], c.150)<ref>Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', Chapter 82</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God. ([[Justin Martyr]], c.150)<ref>Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', Chapter 88.</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
The Fathers also recount the lists of gifts of the Spirit recorded in the [[New Testament]].
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed. ([[Novatian]], c.200-c.258)<ref>Novatian, ''Treatise Concerning the Trinity'', Chapter 29.</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
For God hath set same in the Church, first apostles…secondly prophets…thirdly teachers…next mighty works, among which are the healing of diseases… and gifts of either speaking or interpreting divers kinds of tongues. Clearly these are the Church’s agents of ministry and work of whom the body of Christ consists; and God has ordained them. ([[Hilary of Poitiers]], 360)<ref>Hilary of Poitiers, ''On the Trinity'', Vol 8 Chap 33</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
There is one instance of a Father apparently recording that he had heard some in the church speaking all kinds of languages through the Spirit:
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God. ([[Irenaeus]], c.180)<ref>Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'', Book V, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/IRENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_V/Chapter_VI. Chapter VI].</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
  
−
Tertullian in an anti-heretical apologetic alludes to instances of the 'interpretation of tongues' as one among several examples of 'spiritual gifts' common enough in his day to be easily encountered and provide evidence that God was at work in the church:
+
<!—transliterated Ahriman—>
−
<blockquote>
 
−
Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer — only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his. Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator; therefore without doubt the Christ, and the Spirit, and the apostle, belong severally to my God. Here, then, is my frank avowal for any one who cares to require it. ([[Tertullian]], c.207)<ref>Tertullian, ''Against Marcion'', Book V, Chapter VIII, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_III/Anti-Marcion/The_Five_Books_Against_Marcion/Book_V/VIII].</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
  
−
There were unorthodox movements that may have engaged in glossolalia. For example, [[Montanism|Montanus]] was accused (by his opponents) of ecstatic speech that some have equated to glossolalia:
+
[[Category:Zoroastrianism]]
−
<blockquote>
 
−
He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times. ([[Eusebius]], d.c.339)<ref>Eusebius, ''Ecclesiastical History'', V,17,3</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
Their hostility to such a practice demonstrates that the mainstream (the anti-Montanists) regarded it as false, and would never have practised it. Indeed, "after the first or perhaps the second century, there is not record of it in any Orthodox source, and it is not recorded as occurring even among the great Fathers of the Egyptian desert, who were so filled with the Spirit of God thet performed numerous astonishing miracles, including raising the dead".<ref>Fr. Seraphim Rose, ''Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future'', p.125.</ref>
 
  
−
[[Chrysostom]] regarded the whole phenomenon of 'speaking in tongues' as not only something that was not practised in his own day, but was even obscure.
+
[[de:Ahriman]]
−
<blockquote>
+
[[es:Angra Mainyu]]
−
This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more? ([[Chrysostom]], 344-407)<ref>Chrystostom, ''Homilies on First Corinthians'', xxix, 1</ref>
+
[[fa:اهریمن]]
−
</blockquote>
+
[[fr:Ahriman]]
 +
[[ko:앙그라 마이뉴]]
 +
[[hy:Ահրիման]]
 +
[[it:Angra Mainyu]]
 +
[[he:אנגרה מניו]]
 +
[[nl:Ahriman]]
 +
[[ja:アンラ・マンユ]]
 +
[[pl:Aryman]]
 +
[[pt:Arimã]]
 +
[[ro:Angra Maynu]]
 +
[[ru:Ариман]]
 +
[[sl:Ahriman]]
 +
[[sv:Ahriman]]
 +
[[tr:Ehrimen (anlam ayırımı)]]
  
−
[[Augustine of Hippo]] regarded speaking in tongues (that is, xenoglossia) as a gift for the apostolic church alone, and argued that this was evident from the fact that his contemporaries did not see people receiving that gift in their own day.
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues", which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance". These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when he laid the hand on infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so strong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him. ([[Augustine of Hippo]], 354-430)<ref>Augustine, ''Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:10'', in ''The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'' [7:497-98]</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
Glossolalists sometimes appeal to a sermon by [[Augustine of Hippo]] on Psalm 32 where he urged believers to 'sing in jubilation'. Whether speaking in tongues is involved is disputed.
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
For singers, either in the harvest, or in the vineyard, or in any other busy work, after they have begun
 
−
in the words of their hymns to exult and rejoice, being as it were filled with so great joy, that they cannot express it in words, then turn from actual words, and proceed to sounds of jubilation. The jubilee is a sound signifying that the heart laboureth with that which it cannot utter...that the heart may rejoice without words, and the boundless extent of joy may have no limits of syllables.<ref>Augustine, ''Expositions on the book of Psalms'', Volume 1, John Henry Parker, Oxford, 1847, p317.</ref><ref>On Psalm 32, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 32, ii, Sermo 1:8.</ref>
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
===Church History (A.D. 500 to 1900)===
 
−
* 1100s - [[Bernard Clairvaux|Bernard of Clairvaux]], commenting on Mark 16:17 ("they will speak in new tongues"), asked: "For who is there that seems to have these signs of the faith, without which no one, according to this Scripture, shall be saved?"<ref>Bernard, Serm. i. de Ascens., 2</ref> He explained that these signs were no longer present because there were greater miracles - the transformed lives of believers.
 
−
* 1100s - [[St. Francis of Assisi]], founder of the [[Franciscan]] order.
 
−
* 1100s - [[Hildegard of Bingen]] is reputed to have spoken and sung in tongues.  Her spiritual songs were referred to by contemporaries as "concerts in the Spirit."
 
−
* 1200s - [[St. Dominic]], founder of the [[Dominican Order]].
 
−
* 1200s - [[St. Anthony of Padua]]
 
−
* 1265 - [[Thomas Aquinas]] wrote about the gift of tongues in the New Testament, which he understood to be an ability to speak every language, given for the purposes of missionary work. He explained that Christ did not have this gift because his mission was to the Jews, "nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue"; for "no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations".<ref>Thomas Aquinas, ''Summa Theologica'', Question 176.</ref>
 
−
* 1300s - The [[Moravian Church|Moravians]] are referred to by detractors as having spoken in tongues.  John Roche, a contemporary critic, claimed that the Moravians "commonly broke into some disconnected Jargon, which they often passed upon the vulgar, 'as the exuberant and resistless Evacuations of the Spirit'" <ref>Stanley M. Burgess, "Medieval and Modern Western Churches," Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 32</ref>.
 
−
* 1500s - [[St. Francis Xavier]], the co-founder of the [[Jesuit]] order.
 
−
* 1600s - The French Prophets: The [[Camisards]] also spoke sometimes in languages that were unknown: "Several persons of both Sexes," James Du Bois of Montpellier recalled, "I have heard in their Extasies pronounce certain words, which seem'd to the Standers-by, to be some Foreign Language." These utterances were sometimes accompanied by the gift of interpretation exercised, in Du Bois' experience, by the same person who had spoken in tongues. <ref>John Lacy, A Cry from the Desert (London, 1708), p. 32) (The Charismatic Movement, 1975, Michael P. Hamilton, p 75)</ref>
 
−
* 1600s - Early [[Quakers]], such as [[Edward Burrough]], make mention of tongues speaking in their meetings: "We spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and His Spirit led us" <ref>Epistle to the Reader by Edward Burrough, prefixed to George Fox, [http://www.qhpress.org/texts/bvb/gfgmgw2.html The Great Mystery of the Great ##### Unfolded] and Antichrist's Kingdom Revealed Unto Destruction (London: Thomas Simmons, 1659), ISBN 0-404-09353-1</ref>.
 
−
* 1817 - In Germany, [[Gustav von Below]], an aristocratic officer of the Prussian Guard, and his brothers, founded a charismatic movement based on their estates in Pomerania, which may have included speaking in tongues.
 
−
* 1800s - [[Edward Irving]] and the [[Catholic Apostolic Church]].  Edward Irving, a minister in the Church of Scotland, writes of a woman who would "speak at great length, and with superhuman strength, in an unknown tongue, to the great astonishment of all who heard, and to her own great edification and enjoyment in God" <ref>Edward Irving, "Facts Connected With Recent Manifestations of Spiritual Gifts," Frasers Magazine (Jan. 1832)</ref>.  Irving further stated that "tongues are a great instrument for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us."
 
−
*  1800s Sidney Rigdon will have disagreements with Alexander Campbell regarding speaking in tongues. In 1830 leaves Campbell's movement and joins the Church of Christ (which will become the Latter Day Saint Tradition Churches). The Church of Christ embraces speaking in Tongues and the Interpretation of tongues. At the 1836 dedication of the Kirtland Temple the dedicatory prayer asks that God grant them the gift of tongues and at the end of the service Elder Young speaks in tongues, another elder interprets it and then gives his own exhortation in tongues. Many other worship experiences in the Kirtland Temple prior to and after the dedication included references to people speaking and interpreting tongues. In 1842 in describing the beliefs of the church Joseph smith will identify a belief of the "gift of tongues" and "interpretation of tongues".{{Fact|date=September 2008}}
 
−
 
−
===Outbreak of Glossolalia, 1901 to 1906===
 
−
{{main|Azusa Street Revival}}
 
−
The modern Christian practice of glossolalia is often said to have originated around the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States. The city of [[Topeka, Kansas]] is often cited as the center of the Pentecostal movement and the resurgence of glossolalia in the Church. [[Charles Fox Parham]], a [[Holiness Movement|holiness]] preacher and founder of [[Bethel Bible College]] in 1900, is given the credit to being the one who influenced modern [[Pentecostalism]]. During what has been called a sermon by Parham, a bold student named [[Agnes Ozman]] asked him for prayer and the [[laying on of hands]] to specifically ask God to fill her with the [[Holy Spirit]]. This was the night of New Year's Eve, 1900. She became the first of many students to experience glossolalia, coincidentally in the first hours of the twentieth century. Parham followed within the next few days, and before the end of January 1901, glossolalia was being discussed in newspapers as a sign of the second advent of Pentecost.
 
−
 
−
Parham now found himself as the leader of the movement and traveled to church meetings around the country to preach [in the terminology of that era] about ''[[Holiness movement|holiness]],'' ''[[divine healing]],'' ''healing by faith,'' the ''laying on of hands and prayer,'' ''[[sanctification]] by faith,'' and the signs of ''[[baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire]],'' the most prominent being ''speaking in tongues''. <ref>http://www.originalapostolicfaith.org/1900AFRVol2No3.pdf ''The Apostolic Faith,'' Volume 2, No. 3, January 1, 1900.</ref> <ref>[http://www.originalapostolicfaith.org/our_history.htm Our History<!-- Bot generated title —>]</ref> <ref>[http://www.godsgenerals.com/person_c_parham.htm God's Generals | Christian History<!-- Bot generated title —>]</ref>
 
−
 
−
Word of the outpouring of the Spirit spread to other Holiness congregations. Parham wrote, studied, traveled, preached, and taught about glossolalia for the next few years. Parham and others who believed in or manifested tongues were persecuted from both inside and outside of the church. In 1905, he opened a Bible school in Houston. It was there that [[William J. Seymour]] became indoctrinated. It is notable that Seymour was black, and Parham was white. It is further notable that Seymour did not speak in tongues while in Houston.
 
−
 
−
When Seymour was invited to speak in Los Angeles about the baptism of the Holy Spirit in February 1906, he accepted. His first speaking engagement was met with dispute, primarily because he preached about "tongues" being a primary indication of the baptism of the Spirit, yet he did not himself speak in tongues. It was not until April that his preaching and teaching about glossolalia paid dividends, first to a man named Edward Lee, and later to Seymour. Similar to the experience of Parham in 1901, Seymour's students received the ability to speak in tongues a few days before he did.
 
−
 
−
[[Image:026 la times.gif|right|thumb|290px|Headline about the "Weird babel of tongues" and other behavior at Azusa Street, from a 1906 [[Los Angeles Times]] newspaper.]] By May 1906, indeed only one month after the Great [[San Francisco Earthquake]] which was seen as an "act of God", Seymour was leading a major movement of the Spirit known as the [[Azusa Street Revival]] in [[Los Angeles]]. It has been characterized as an [[inter-denominational]], inter-racial, inter-sex [[Pentecostal]] [[Revival meeting|revival]] during a time in the United States in which women and non-whites were not afforded the same [[civil rights]] as white men. People from many denominations and [[races]] gathered daily to see and hear, to preach and pray, to sing and shout, and to speak in new tongues. Newspapers, clearly biased against the movement, reported the happenings as a wild and weird group of mostly "colored" people acting as if they were pretty disturbed, exhibiting behavior unheard of in most [[Protestant]] churches of the time: intense shouting, vigorous jerking, dancing, passing out, crying, howling, emotional outbursts, and speaking gibberish. Many religious leaders in Los Angeles and other places were quick to disparage the goings on at Azusa Street, informing their flocks that the new Pentecostal movement was (at worst) sensational, [[Satanic]], [[Spiritualism (religious movement)|Spiritualism]], and (at best) too overly focused on the [[Holy Spirit]] instead of [[Jesus Christ]]. The matter of glossolalia was then (as it is now) hotly debated within the Church as being either [[heresy]] or exemplary and necessary for a spiritual rebirth in Jesus Christ.
 
−
 
−
Witnesses at the Azusa Street Revival wrote of seeing fire resting on the heads of participants, miraculous healings in the meetings, and incidents of speaking in tongues being understood by native speakers of the language. According to the first issue of William Seymore's newsletter, "The Apostolic Faith," from 1906:
 
−
{{Cquote|A Mohammedan, a Soudanese by birth, a &#x5b;m]an who is an interpreter and speaks six&#x5b;t]een languages, came into the meetings at Azusa Street and the Lord gave him messages which none but himself could understand. He identified, interpreted and wrote &#x5b;a] number of the languages.<ref>Square brackets indicate faded parts that are no longer readable.</ref>}}
 
−
 
−
===Contemporary Christian, 1915 to present===
 
−
The revival at Azusa Street lasted until around 1915. But from it grew many new Protestant churches and denominations, as people visited the church in Los Angeles and took their new found beliefs to communities around the US and abroad. Many denominations rejected the doctrines of Parham and Seymour, while some denominations adopted them in one form or another. [[Baptism of the Holy Spirit]] was a doctrine that was embraced by the [[Assemblies of God]] (est. 1914) and [[Pentecostal Church of God]] (est. 1919) and others. Glossolalia became entrenched into the doctrines of many [[Protestant]] churches and [[denominations]] in the twentieth century. The later [[Charismatic movement]] was heavily influenced by the [[Azusa Street Revival]] and [[Pentecostalism]]'s glossolalia.
 
−
 
−
Some Christians practice glossolalia as a part of their private devotions; some accept and sometimes promote the use of glossolalia within corporate worship. This is particularly true within the [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] and [[Charismatic movement|Charismatic]] traditions. Both Pentecostals and Charismatics believe that the ability to speak in tongues, and sometimes the utterance itself, is a supernatural gift from God.
 
−
 
−
Three different manifestations or forms of glossolalia can be identified in Charismatic / Pentecostal belief. The "sign of tongues" refers to [[xenoglossia]], wherein one speaks a foreign language he has never learned.  The "gift of tongues" or "giving a tongue" refers to a glossolalic utterance by an individual and addressed to a congregation of, typically, other believers. This utterance is believed to be inspired directly by the [[Holy Spirit]] and requires a natural language interpretation, made by the speaker or another person if it is to be understood by others present. Lastly "praying in the spirit" is typically used to refer to glossolalia as part of personal prayer.
 
−
 
−
The discussion regarding tongues has permeated many branches of the Christian Church, particularly since the widespread Charismatic Movement in the 1960s.  Many books have been published either defending<ref>Example: Christenson, Laurence, ''Speaking in tongues : and its significance for the church'', Minneapolis, MN : Dimension Books, 1968.</ref> or attacking<ref>Example: Gromacki, Robert Glenn, ''The modern tongues movement'', Nutley, N.J. : Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973, ISBN 0875523048 (Originally published 1967)</ref> the practice. The issue has sometimes been a contributing factor in splits within local churches and in larger [[Christian denomination|denominations]]. The controversy over tongues is part of the wider debate between conservative, evangelical Christians whose approach to the Christian Scriptures requires addressing the texts that endorse glossolalia.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}  Within that debate are [[continuationists]] who believe that glossolalia has a role to play in contemporary Christian practice and [[cessationalists]] and [[dispensationalists]] who believe that all miraculous gifts, including glossolalia, were featured only in the time of the [[early church]].
 
−
 
−
==Other religions==
 
−
Aside from Christians, other religious groups also have been observed to practice some form of ''theopneustic glossolalia.'' It is perhaps most commonly in [[Paganism]], [[Shamanism]], and other [[mediumistic]] religious practices.<ref>Fr. Seraphim Rose: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, St Herman Press</ref>
 
−
 
−
Glossolalia was exhibited by the renowned ancient Oracle of [[Delphi]], whereby a priestess of the god [[Apollo]] (called the [[Pythia]]) speaks in unintelligible utterances, supposedly through the spirit of Apollo in her.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}
 
−
 
−
The [[Judaism|Jewish religion]] has various citations of unintelligible speech beginning with the verse in Psalms 81:6 -
 
−
: '' '''"The evidence was put in 'Jehoseph' when going forth on the land of Egypt: ''' ''
 
−
: '' '''A language I did not know I will hear."''' ''
 
−
The Talmud explains that Joseph was taught to understand all 70 toungues at the night of New years eve, before receiving rule over Egypt under Pharoe. [Rosh Hashana 18a, Sotah 41a] <ref>[http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8:%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%92%D7%99%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%94#.D7.93.D7.A3_.D7.A0.D7.97_.D7.A2.D7.9E.D7.95.D7.93_.D7.90 Sfat Lo Yadaati Eshma] (Hebrew) On the Psalms citation.</ref>
 
−
 
−
Various rituals and references exist about prayer of people not familiar with the holy language, and the importance of prayers said by people who only know how to mumble the words without understanding them.
 
−
In the 17th century it was said in the name of the [[Baal Shem Tov]] upon hearing the prayer of someone who instead of praising God who blesses the ''years'' (HaShonim) praised God who blesses the ''women'' (HaNoshim). He said that this person's prayers are the highest and holyest.<br />
 
−
There are various texts and sayings to be read during the Jewish traditional prayers, which are either unintelligable or purposefully said in Aramaic, so as to reach directly to God without intervention of the angels, who speak the holy language of Hebrew.
 
−
 
−
Today there is a Hassidic sect of Jews who believe in the importance of repeating a citation "Na Nach..." for national and personal redemption. <br />
 
−
It is interesting to note the texts to be recited during the Shavuot celebrations (original ceremony of Pentecost) must be read in the original Hebrew directly from the Bible, even if the person reading it does not understand the meaning. <ref>Bikurim in Hebrew only[http://www.dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/sotah/points/so-ps-033.htm Daf Hayomi outline]</ref>
 
−
 
−
Certain [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] magical texts from the Roman period have written on them unintelligible syllables such as "t t t t n n n n d d d d d..." etc. It is conjectured that these may be transliterations of the sorts of sounds made during glossolalia. The [[Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians]] also features a hymn of (mostly) unintelligible syllables which is thought to be an early example of Christian glossolalia.
 
−
 
−
In the nineteenth century, [[Spiritism]] was developed by the work of [[Allan Kardec]], and the phenomenon was seen as one of the self-evident manifestations of spirits. Spiritists argued that some cases were actually cases of [[xenoglossia]] (from Greek,''xenos'', stranger; and ''glossa'', language. When one speaks in a language unknown to him). However, the importance attributed to it, as well as its frequency, has decreased significantly. Some present-day spiritists{{Who|date=September 2008}} regard the phenomenon pointless, as it does not convey any intelligible message to those present.
 
−
 
−
Glossolalia has also been observed in the [[Haitian Vodou|Voodoo]] religion of [[Haiti]],<ref>[http://www.scionofzion.com/tongues3.htm Tongue Speaking<!-- Bot generated title —>]</ref> as well as in the [[Hindu]] [[Guru]]s and [[Fakir]]s of India.<ref>[http://www.anandamayi.org/ Sri Sri Anandamoyi Ma's Spiritual Heritage<!-- Bot generated title —>]</ref><ref>[http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/ Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future<!-- Bot generated title —>]</ref>
 
−
 
−
Glossolalia has even been postulated as an explanation for the [[Voynich manuscript]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Gerry Kennedy, Rob Churchill|title=The Voynich Manuscript|location=London|publisher=Orion|year=2004|id=ISBN 0-7528-5996-X}}</ref>
 
−
 
−
==Literature==
 
−
Glossolalia plays a major role in [[Neal Stephenson's]] novel [[Snow Crash]], in which those exposed to the patterns generated by the titular [[computer virus]] begin to speak in the [[Sumerian]] language, spreading a destructive [[meme]] associated with the goddess [[Ashurah]].
 
−
 
−
==Biblical references==
 
−
* {{bibleverse||Mark|16:17}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse||Acts|2:4-15}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse||Acts|10:44-48}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse||Acts|19:2-6}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|12:8-11}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|13:1}}, {{bibleverse-nb|1|Corinthians|13:8}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|14:1-40}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse||Jude|1:20}}
 
−
* {{bibleverse||Isaiah|28:11}}: see with {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|14:21}}
 
−
 
−
==See also==
 
−
*[[Alpha Course]]
 
−
*[[Aphasia]]
 
−
*[[Asemic writing]]
 
−
*[[Biblical hermeneutics]]
 
−
*[[Charismatic movement]]
 
−
*[[Covenant theology]]
 
−
*[[Dispensationalism]]
 
−
*[[Grammatical-historical]]
 
−
*[[Holiness movement]]
 
−
*[[Logorrhea]]
 
−
*[[Mystical language]]
 
−
*[[Pentecostalism]]
 
−
*[[Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship]]
 
−
*[[Toronto Blessing]]
 
−
 
−
==References==
 
−
{{reflist|2}}
 
−
 
−
==Further reading==
 
−
*Mark J. Cartledge, ed. ''Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives''. [[Paternoster Press|Paternoster]], 2006.
 
−
*Dave Roberson -''[http://www.christianserver.com/voffice/files_file_download2.asp?fileid=4438 Vital Role of Praying in Tongues]''
 
−
*Dr. Joseph Kostelnik, Ph.D. ''[http://www.gtm.org/pvp/bookdetails.php?id=8 Prayer in the Spirit: The Missing Link]''. Prophetic Voice Publications, 1981.
 
−
 
−
==External links==
 
−
*[http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm Glossolalia as Foreign Language] by D. William Faupel
 
−
*[http://community.middlebury.edu/~beyer/gl/intro.html Andrei Bely's ''Glossalolia'' {sic} with an English translation]
 
−
*[http://skepdic.com/glossol.html A Skeptic's Perspective] The Skeptic's Dictionary on Glossolalia
 
−
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Gift of Tongues]
 
−
*[http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Gift_Of_Tongues 1911encyclopedia.org: Gift of Tongues]
 
−
*[http://www.bad-language.com/tongues Speaking in Tongues] by Linguist Karen Stollznow
 
−
*[http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/ Glossolalia] bible411.com
 
−
*[http://www.james-dave.com/tongues1.html Speaking in Tongues: Frequently Asked Questions] by James H. Boyd
 
−
 
−
 
−
[[Category:Constructed languages]]
 
−
[[Category:Language and mysticism]]
 
−
[[Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity]]
 
−
[[Category:Spiritual gifts]]
 
−
[[Category:Greek loanwords]]
 
−
 
−
[[cs:Glosolálie]]
 
−
[[da:Tungetale]]
 
−
[[de:Zungenrede]]
 
−
[[el:Γλωσσολαλιά]]
 
−
[[es:Glosolalia]]
 
−
[[eo:Glosolalio]]
 
−
[[fr:Glossolalie]]
 
−
[[ko:방언 (종교)]]
 
−
[[id:Glossolalia]]
 
−
[[ia:Glossolalia]]
 
−
[[it:Glossolalia]]
 
−
[[he:גלוסולליה]]
 
−
[[lt:Glosolalija]]
 
−
[[nl:Glossolalie]]
 
−
[[ja:異言]]
 
−
[[no:Tungetale]]
 
−
[[nn:Tungetale]]
 
−
[[pl:Glosolalia]]
 
−
[[pt:Glossolalia]]
 
−
[[ru:Глоссолалия]]
 
−
[[simple:Glossolalia]]
 
−
[[sk:Glosolalia]]
 
−
[[fi:Kielilläpuhuminen]]
 
−
[[sv:Tungomålstalande]]
 
−
[[zh:說方言 (宗教)]]
 
  
  
Line 293: Line 120:
 
[[Category:Religion]]
 
[[Category:Religion]]
  
−
{{credit|250894044}}
+
{{credit|249154234}}

Revision as of 03:43, 11 November 2008

"Ahriman" redirects here. For other uses, see Ahriman (disambiguation).
Part of a series on

Zoroastrianism

Faravahar.png

Primary topics

Zoroastrianism / Mazdaism
Ahura Mazda
Zarathustra (Zoroaster)
aša (asha) / arta

Angels and demons

Overview of the Angels
Amesha Spentas · Yazatas
Ahuras · Daevas
Angra Mainyu

Scripture and worship

Avesta · Gathas
Vendidad
The Ahuna Vairya Invocation
Fire Temples

Accounts and legends

Dēnkard · Bundahišn
Book of Arda Viraf
Book of Jamasp
Story of Sanjan

History and culture

Zurvanism
Calendar · Festivals
Marriage
Eschatology

Adherents

Zoroastrians in Iran
Parsis · Iranis
• • •
Persecution of Zoroastrians

See also

Index of Related Articles

Angra Mainyu (alt: Aŋra Mainiuu) is the Avestan-language name of Zoroastrianism's hypostasis of the "destructive spirit". The Middle Persian equivalent is Ahriman.

In the Avesta

In Zoroaster's revelation

Avestan 'angra mainyu' "seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster's."[1] In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to the prophet himself, 'angra mainyu' is not yet a proper name.[n 1] In the one instance in these hymns where the two words appear together, the concept spoken of is that of a mainyu ("mind", "mentality", "spirit" etc[n 2]) that is angra ("destructive", "inhibitive", "malign" etc). In this single instance - in Yasna 45.2 - the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declares 'angra mainyu' to be its "absolute antithesis."[1]

A similar statement occurs in Yasna 30.3, where the antithesis is however 'aka mainyu', aka being the Avestan language word for "evil." Hence, 'aka mainyu' is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted with 'spenta mainyu', the "bounteous spirit" with which Ahura Mazda conceived of creation, which then "was."

The 'aka mainyu' epithet recurs in Yasna 32.5, when the principle is identified with the daevas that deceive humankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, the daevas are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: In Zoroaster's view the daevas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons.[2]

In Yasna 32.3, these daevas are identified as the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but of akem manah, "evil thinking." A few verses earlier it is however the daebaaman, "deceiver" - not otherwise identified but "probably Angra Mainyu"[1] - who induces the daevas to choose achistem manah - "worst thinking." In Yasna 32.13, the abode of the wicked is not the abode of Angra Mainyu, but the abode of the same "worst thinking." "One would have expected [Angra Mainyu] to reign in hell, since he had created 'death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful' (Y. 30.4)."[1]

In the Younger Avesta

Yasna 19.15 recalls that Ahura Mazda's recital of the Ahuna Vairya invocation puts Angra Mainyu in a stupor. In Yasna 9.8, Angra Mainyu creates Aži Dahaka, but the serpent recoils at the sight of Mithra's mace (Yasht 10.97, 10.134). In Yasht 13, the Fravashis defuse Angra Mainyu's plans to dry up the earth, and in Yasht 8.44 Angra Mainyu battles but cannot defeat Tishtrya and so prevent the rains. In Vendidad 19, Angra Mainyu urges Zoroaster to turn from the good religion by promising him sovereignty of the world. On being rejected, Angra Mainyu assails the prophet with legions of demons, but Zoroaster deflects them all. In Yasht 19.96, a verse that reflects a Gathic injunction, Angra Mainyu will be vanquished and Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail.

In Yasht 19.46ff, Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu battle for possession of khvaraenah, "divine glory" or "fortune". In some verses of the Yasna (eg Yasna 57.17), the two principles are said to have created the world, which contradicts the Gathic principle that declares Ahura Mazda to be the sole creator and which is reiterated in the cosmogony of Vendidad 1. In that first chapter, which is the basis for the 9th-12th century Bundahishn, the creation of sixteen lands by Ahura Mazda is countered by the Angra Mainyu's creation of sixteen scourges such as winter, sickness and vice. "This shift in the position of Ahura Mazda, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit [Mazda's instrument of creation], must have taken place in the 4th century B.C.E. at the latest; for it is reflected in Aristotle's testimony, which confronts Ariemanios with Oromazdes (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.6)."[1]

Yasht 15.43 assigns Angra Mainyu to the nether world, a world of darkness. So also Vendidad 19.47, but other passages in the same chapter (19.1 and 19.44) have him dwelling in the region of the daevas, which the Vendidad asserts is in the north. There (19.1, 19.43-44), Angra Mainyu is the daevanam daevo, "daeva of daevas" or chief of the daevas. The superlative daevo.taema is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the daevas in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the daevas or their father."[1]

In Zurvanite Zoroastrianism

Main article: Zurvanism

Zurvanism was a branch of Zoroastrianism that sought to resolve the dilemma of the "twin spirits" of Yasna 30.3. The resolution, which probably developed out of the contact with Chaldea, was to have both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as twin sons of the First Principle "Time" (Avestan: Zurvan). Zurvanism was strongly criticized as a heresy during the Sassanid period (225-651) of Iranian history, an era in which it probably also had its largest following. Although the monist doctrine is not attested after the 10th century, some Zurvanite features are nonetheless still evident in present-day Zoroastrianism.

Zurvanism's principle feature is then the notion that both Ahura Mazda (MP: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) were twin brothers, with the former being the epitome of good and the latter being the epitome of evil. Further, this dichotomy was by choice, that is, Angra Mainyu chose to be evil: "It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.

The mythology of the twins is only attested in the post-Sassanid Syriac and Armenian polemic such as that of Eznik of Kolb. According to these sources the genesis saw Zurvan as existing alone but desiring offspring who would create "heaven and hell and everything in between." Zurvan then sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, androgyne Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which He then communicated to His brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity.[3]

In Zoroastrian tradition

In the Pahlavi texts of the 9th-12th century, Ahriman (written ˀhl(y)mn) is frequently written upside down "as a sign of contempt and disgust."[1]

In the Book of Arda Viraf 5.10, the narrator - the 'righteous Viraf' - is taken by Sarosh and Adar to see the "the reality of God and the archangels, and the non-reality of Ahriman and the demons." [4] This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as the Denkard, a 9th century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism",[5] which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be."[1] In chapter 100 of Book of the Arda Viraf, which is titled 'Ahriman', the narrator sees the "Evil spirit, ... whose religion is evil [and] who ever ridiculed and mocked the wicked in hell."

In the Zurvanite Ulema-i Islam (a Zoroastrian text, despite the title), "Ahriman also is called by some name by some people and they ascribe evil unto him but nothing can also be done by him without Time." A few chapters later, the Ulema notes that "it is clear that Ahriman is a non-entity" but "at the resurrection Ahriman will be destroyed and thereafter all will be good; and [change?] will proceed through the will of God." In the Sad Dar, the world is described as having been created by Ohrmuzd and become pure through His truth. But Ahriman, "being devoid of anything good, does not issue from that which is owing to truth." (62.2)

Book of Jamaspi 2.3 notes that "Ahriman, like a worm, is so much associated with darkness and old age, that he perishes in the end."[6] Chapter 4.3 recalls the grotesque legend of Tahmurasp (Avestan: Taxma Urupi) riding Angra Mainyu for thirty years (cf. Yasht 15.12, 19.29) and so preventing him from doing evil. In Chapter 7, Jamasp explains that the Indians declare Ahriman will die, but "those, who are not of good religion, go to hell."

The Bundahishn, a Zoroastrian account of creation completed in the 12th century has much to say about Ahriman and his role in the cosmogony. In chapter 1.23, following the recitation of the Ahuna Vairya, Ohrmuzd takes advantage of Ahriman's incapacity to create life without intervention. When Ahriman recovers, he creates Jeh, the primal whore who afflicts women with their menstrual cycles. In Bundahishn 4.12, Ahriman perceives that Ohrmuzd is superior to himself, and so flees to fashion his many demons with which to meet Creation in battle. The entire universe is finally divided between the Ohrmuzd and the yazads on one side and Ahriman with his devs on the other. Ahriman slays the primal bull, but the moon rescues the seed of the dying creature, and from it springs all animal creation. But the battle goes on, with mankind caught in the middle, whose duty it remains to withstand the forces of evil through good thoughts, words and deeds. Other texts see the world created by Ohrmuzd as a trap for Ahriman, who is then distracted by creation and expends his force in a battle he cannot win. (The epistles of Zatspram 3.23; Shkand Gumanig Vichar 4.63-4.79). The Dadistan denig explains that God, being omniscient, knew of Ahriman's intent, but it would have been against His "justice and goodness to punish Ahriman before he wrought evil [and] this is why the world is created."[1]

Ahriman has no such omniscience, a fact that Ohrmuzd reminds him of (Bundahishn 1.16). In contrast, in Manichean scripture, Mani ascribes foresight to Ahriman.[7]


In present-day Zoroastrianism

In 1878, Martin Haug proposed a new reconstruction of what he believed was Zarathustra's original monotheistic teaching, as expressed in the Gathas - a teaching that he felt had been corrupted by later Zoroastrian dualistic tradition as expresssed in post-Gathic scripture and in the texts of tradition.[8] For Angra Mainyu, this interpretation meant a demotion from a spirit coeval with Ahura Mazda to a mere product of the Creator. Haug's theory was based to a great extent on a new interpretation of Yasna 30.3; he argued that the good "twin" in that passage should not be regarded as more or less identical to Ahura Mazda, as earlier Zoroastrian thought had assumed[9], but as a separate created entity, Spenta Mainyu. Thus, both Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu were created by Ahura Mazda and should be regarded as his respective 'creative' and 'destructive' emanations.[9]

Haug's interpretation was gratefully received by the Parsis of Bombay, who at the time were under considerable pressure from Christian missionaries (most notable amongst them John Wilson[10]) who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community and criticized Zoroastrianism for its alleged dualism as contrasted with their own monotheism.[11] Haug's reconstruction had also other attractive aspects that seemed to make the religion more compatible with nineteenth-century Enlightenment, as he attributed to Zoroaster a rejection of rituals and of worship of entities other than the supreme deity.[12]

The new ideas were subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, which eventually reached the west and so in turn corroborated Haug's theories. Among the Parsis of the cities, who were accustomed to English language literature, Haug's ideas were more often repeated than those of the Gujarati language objections of the priests, with the result that Haug's ideas became well entrenched and are today almost universally accepted as doctrine.[11]

While some modern scholars[13][14] hold views similar to Haug's regarding Angra Mainyu's origins[9][15], many now think that the traditional "dualist" interpretation was in fact correct all along and that Angra Mainyu was always considered to be completely separate and independent from Ahura Mazda.[9][16][17]

In modern spiritual systems

Rudolf Steiner, the initiator of the Anthroposophical movement, published detailed and elaborate studies on Ahriman, a spiritual entity whom the author associates with materialism. Ahriman fulfills the role of influencing and undermining events which occur in contemporary society. Steiner writes that Ahriman can be considered to be the same spiritual being as the Satan of the Bible; he differentiated both of these from Lucifer, the tempter, and the demon Mephistopheles. According to Steiner, the biblical demons Mammon and Beelzebub are Ahriman's associates.

Ahriman's assignment, according to Steiner, is to alienate the human being from his spiritual roots and to inspire materialism and heartless technical control of human activity. His positive contribution is to bring intellectual development and a focus on the sensory world. As such, his influence is highly relevant to present-day Western culture. His great opponent is the archangel Michael, who Steiner equates with Babylonian Marduk. Ahura Mazda and the Vedic Vishva Karman represent Christ's spiritual aura around the Elohim, the spirits of the Sun sphere.

In popular culture

  • In the Warhammer 40,000 fantasy game, Ahriman is a chaos sorcerer in command of the Thousand Sons Traitor Legion who is second in power only to Magnus the Red.
  • In the Final Fantasy video game series, Ahriman is a frequent enemy, depicted as a flying eyeball with wings. In Final Fantasy XII, Ahriman is a "boss" character, but appears as a ghostly figure instead of an eyeball. In Final Fantasy X-2, Angra Mainyu is an optional "boss". In Final Fantasy XI, Angra Mainyu is the chief of the area "Dynamis - Beaucedine", where he appears as a black-colored monster with wings and one large red eye.
  • In the Type-Moon visual novel Fate/stay night, a figure named 'Angra Mainyu' is called forth as a servant in the Third Holy Grail War to corrupt the Grail itself. The figure's role is further expanded in the sequel Fate/hollow ataraxia, where it acts as the servant Avenger.
  • In the DC Comics book Wonder Woman Ahura Mazda is married to the Amazon Nu'Bia. In the comic the demon Ahriman murders Ahura Mazda, and carves his heart from his body. Nu'Bia returns to earth in search of Ahriman, hoping that she can retrieve the heart and revive her lover.
  • In Jacqueline Carey's 2003 novel Kushiel's Avatar, the protagonist Phèdre nó Delaunay finds herself in the middle of a parallel universe where Zoroastrianism has been inverted and the worship of Angra Mainyu replaces that of Ahura Mazda. The protagonist becomes the bed-mate and plaything of the 'Conqueror of Death' who promotes "ill thoughts, ill words, ill deeds", which eventually kills him and allows the worship of Ahura Mazda to be reinstated.
  • In Ben Bova's novel Orion, Ahriman is the main antagonist, seeking to destroy the continuum in what is later revealed to be a revenge plot for the destruction of his species.
  • In the role-playing game Arcturus, Angra Mainyu is the final boss at Eden of distant, apocalyptic future.
  • In Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, Jubal Harshaw warns Gillian Boardman not to inadvertently brainwash Michael Valentine Smith, the man who had been raised on Mars, in the process of teaching him terrestrial etiquette, imploring her "by the myriad deceptive aspects of Ahriman" (Ch. 12).
  • In the B indi-movie Dark Gate a box that contains within it a portal to hell is known as the tool of Angra Mainyu, describes the entity as an evil spirit born in the blackest pit of hell.
  • Noise musician and avant-garde musician Leila Bela released an album named after Angra Mainyu titled Angra Manyu.
  • In the game God Hand, the English voice calls the final boss (Satan) Angra.
  • In the fifth season finale of Highlander: The Series, Ahriman is a demon who - in attempting to dominate mankind - reappears every thousand years.
  • In the fictional Roleplaying Game Dark Ages: Vampire, the Ahriman is the primordial essence of the Abyss, an evil, unholy realm from which the members of the Lasombra clan summon their power to manifest and handle shadows.
  • In Dean Koontz' False Memory, the antagonist is brilliant psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Ahriman. Dr. Ahriman makes the conscious choice to be evil, treating his patients like toys, to be dominated, controlled, played with, debased and, ultimately, discarded.
  • In Philip K. Dick's The Cosmic Puppets, the protagonist's hometown has come under the control of Angra Mainyu (named Ahriman in the novel) and Ahura Mazda, called Ohrmazd.
  • In David Zindell's Lightstone series, Angra Mainyu is a fallen member of the angelic Galadin, and is the master of the main villain of the series, Morjin.
  • Ahriman is an antagonist in the Prince of Persia: Prodigy video game.
  • The figure of Ahriman is a literary topos in Karl May's Im Reiche des silbernen Löwen (1898).
  • In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, Ahriman is the original name of Asmodeus, the overlord of Nine Hells of Baator.
  • In the video game Prince of Persia, Ahriman is the main villain. He has infected an alternate world with a strange plague which causes people to transform into savage beasts. The Prince of Persia must unite with a woman named Elika in order to save this bizarre realm.
  • Prophet of Doom author Craig Winn equated Ahriman (which he refers to as the Persian Devil) with one of the names of Allah, Ah-Rahman, and uses this connection to state his case that Allah is actually a manifestation of Ahriman (and hence, Satan) who had purposely inspired a false prophet to deceive the masses away from the one true God.
  • Ahriman is the principal villain in the game Defenders of Oasis for the Sega Game Gear.

Notes

  1. ↑ Proper names are altogether rare in the Gathas. In these texts, even Ahura Mazda and Amesha Spenta are not yet proper names.
  2. ↑ The translation of mainyu as "spirit" is the common approximation. The stem of mainyu is man, "thought", and 'spirit' is here meant in the sense of 'mind'.

In "Tumbletick & Company" the evil leader of the Ahrioch Horde who is decapitated by Egremont after being shot with arrows by Is-Is as the necromancer prepares to sacrifice Tumbletick.

Bibliography

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1982), "Ahriman", Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 1, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul 
  2. ↑ Hellenschmidt, Clarice & Kellens, Jean (1993), "Daiva", Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 6, Costa Mesa: Mazda 
  3. ↑ Zaehner, Richard Charles (1955), Zurvan, a Zoroastrian dilemma, Oxford: Clarendon 
  4. ↑ Haug, Martin (trans., ed.) (1917). "The Book of Arda Viraf", in Charles F. Horne: The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East (Vol. 7). New York: Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb. 
  5. ↑ de Menasce, Jean-Pierre (1958), Une encyclopédie mazdéenne: le Dēnkart. Quatre conférences données à l'Université de Paris sous les auspices de la fondation Ratanbai Katrak, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France 
  6. ↑ Modi, Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1903), Jamasp Namak ("Book of Jamaspi"), Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 
  7. ↑ Dhalla, Maneckji Nusservanji (1938), History of Zoroastrianism, New York: OUP  p. 392.
  8. ↑ Haug, Martin (1884), Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis, London: Trubner .
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Cf. Boyce, Mary (1982), A History of Zoroastrianism. Volume 1: The Early Period. Third impression with corrections. P.192-194
  10. ↑ Wilson, John (1843), The Parsi religion: Unfolded, Refuted and Contrasted with Christianity, Bombay: American Mission Press  pp. 106ff.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Maneck, Susan Stiles (1997). The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change Among the Parsis of India. Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute.  pp. 182ff.
  12. ↑ Boyce, Mary (2001), Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. P.20
  13. ↑ Gershevitch, Ilya (1964), "Zoroaster's Own Contribution", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23 (1): 12-38  p. 13.: The conclusion that the Fiendish Spirit, too, was an emanation of Ahura Mazdah's is unavoidable. But we need not go so far as to assume that Zarathustra imagined the Devil as having directly issued from God. Rather, since free will, too, is a basic tenet of Zarathushtrianism, we may think of the 'childbirth' implied in the idea of twinship as having consisted in the emanation by God of undifferentiated 'spirit', which only at the emergence of free will split into two "twin" Spirits of opposite allegiance.
  14. ↑ Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1982), "Ahriman", Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 1, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul : The myth of the Twin Spirits is a model he set for the choice every person is called upon to make. It can not be doubted that both are sons of Ahura Mazda, since they are explicitly said to be twins, and we learn from Y. 47.2-3 that Ahura Mazda is the father of one of them. Before choosing, neither of them was wicked. There is therefore nothing shocking in Angra Mainyu's being a son of Ahura Mazda, and there is no need to resort to the improbable solution that Zoroaster was speaking figuratively. That Ohrmazd and Ahriman's brotherhood was later considered an abominable heresy is a different matter; Ohrmazd had by then replaced the Bounteous Spirit; and there was no trace any more, in the orthodox view, of the primeval choice, perhaps the prophet's most original conception.
  15. ↑ Boyce, Mary (1990), Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. P.16: This Western hypothesis influenced Parsi reformists in the nineteenth century, and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars.
  16. ↑ Clark, Peter (1998), Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith. pp.7-9
  17. ↑ Nigosian, S.A. (1993), The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research. P.22

de:Ahriman es:Angra Mainyu fa:اهریمن fr:Ahriman ko:앙그라 마이뉴 hy:Ահրիման it:Angra Mainyu he:אנגרה מניו nl:Ahriman ja:アンラ・マンユ pl:Aryman pt:Arimã ro:Angra Maynu ru:Ариман sl:Ahriman sv:Ahriman tr:Ehrimen (anlam ayırımı)

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Angra_Mainyu&oldid=849434

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki