nciple of the Zoroastrian religion,
which is founded on a solemn protest against the whole worship of the
powers of nature invoked in the Vedas, and on the recognition of one
supreme power, the God of Light, in every sense of the word--the
spirit Ahura, who created the world and rules it, and defends it
against the power of evil. That power of evil which in the most
ancient portions of the Avesta has not yet received the name of
Ahriman (i. e. angro mainyus), may afterwards have assumed some of the
epithets which in an earlier period were bestowed on V_r_itra and
other enemies of the bright gods, and among them, it may have assumed
the name of serpent. But does it follow, because the principle of evil
in the Avesta is called serpent, or azhi dahaka, that therefore the
serpent mentioned in the third chapter of Genesis must be borrowed
from Persia? Neither in the Veda nor in the Avesta does the serpent
ever assume that subtil and insinuating form as in Genesis; and the
curse pronounced on it, 'to be cursed above all cattle, and above
every beast of the field,' is not in keeping with the relation of
V_r_itra to Indra, or Ahriman to Ormuzd, who face each other almost as
equals. In later books, such as 1 Chronicles xxi. 1, where Satan is
mentioned as provoking David to number Israel (the very same
provocation which in 2 Samuel xxiv. 1 is ascribed to the anger of the
Lord moving David to number Israel and Judah), and in all the passages
of the New Testament where the power of evil is spoken of as a person,
we may admit the influence of Persian ideas and Persian expressions,
though even here strict proof is by no means easy. As to the serpent
in Paradise, it is a conception that might have sprung up among the
Jews as well as among the Brahmans; and the serpent that beguiled Eve
seems hardly to invite comparison with the much grander conceptions of
the terrible power of V_r_itra and Ahriman in the Veda and Avesta.

Dr. Spiegel next discusses the similarity between the Garden of Eden
and the Paradise of the Zoroastrians, and though he admits that here
again he relies chiefly on the Bundehesh, a work of the Sassanian
period, he maintains that that work may well be compared to Genesis,
because it contains none but really ancient traditions. We do not for
a moment deny that this may be so, but in a case like the present,
where everything depends on exact dates, we decline to listen to such
a plea. We value Dr. Spiegel's translation