Literal and Ethical Glosses in a Pahlavi Yasna Passage
A student is preparing a school translation of a Pahlavi Yasna passage. The Avestan text contains an adjective describing a righteous person. The Pahlavi gloss gives two expansions: first a short literal rendering, then a longer phrase explaining that the person is steadfast in good thought, good word and good deed. The teacher asks whether the longer phrase is part of the translation or a commentary, and whether the school edition should print it in the main text or in a note. The student also has a second manuscript in which the longer phrase is omitted, but the first manuscript is generally fuller and later in date. The class must decide how to present the passage without pretending that the Pahlavi gloss is a word-for-word equivalent of the Avestan.
1. Which gloss should be treated as the primary translation, and why?
Read the worked answer
The short literal rendering should be treated as the primary translation because it corresponds more closely to the Avestan adjective and can be checked against the Avestan syntax. The longer phrase is explanatory: it unpacks the ethical content of the adjective by naming good thought, good word and good deed. That does not make it false or unimportant, but it is a commentary in the tradition of Pahlavi zand, where a translation is often followed by an exposition. The student should therefore translate the Avestan adjective literally in the main text and place the ethical expansion in a note or in a separately marked commentary column. The later, fuller manuscript is useful evidence for the history of interpretation, but its fullness is not proof that the longer phrase was part of the original gloss.
2. How should the edition handle the manuscript that omits the longer phrase?
Read the worked answer
The omission should be recorded, not silently harmonised. The student should state that one manuscript has only the literal gloss while the other adds the ethical expansion. Because the longer phrase reads like an explanatory addition, the most economical explanation is that it entered the tradition as commentary and was later copied into the gloss. The edition can print the literal gloss as the base text, mark the expansion as a variant or commentary, and explain the choice in a short note. If the school edition is meant for beginners, the note can be brief, but it must still show that the two manuscripts do not have the same text. This teaches the central lesson of Pahlavi textual study: translation and interpretation are often transmitted together, and the editor must distinguish them without discarding either.