Talk:Zahhak

Untitled
This page very possibly should be merged with Azhi Dahaka. They cover the same subject.

Removed quote

 * In the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, the figures in this myth become historical characters: "It is apparent, therefore, that by Zohak is meant the Assyrian dynasty, whose symbol was the purpureum signum draconis -- the purple sign of the dragon. From a very remote antiquity (Genesis 14) this dynasty ruled Asia, Armenia, Syria, Arabia, Babylonia, Media and Persia.It was finally overthrown by Cyrus the great and Darius the great Hystaspes, after '1,000 years' rule. "

This quote was unsourced. It is also, I think, complete nonsense; I know of no modern scholarship that associates Azhi Dahaka with Assyria, and I don't think that Assyria is even mentioned in the Shahnama. Also, I suspect that this "purple sign of the dragon" is pure fiction. Searches on "purpureum signum draconis" indicate that it refers to a Roman standard -- nothing to do with Zahak. RandomCritic 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Image
We need an image.

I saw a Persian miniature of Zahak and the serpents in one of Batmanglij's cook books. I think it was a shot of a Ferdowsi manuscript. If anyone has a copy of Batmanglij's books, it's worth the scan. I think it was this one: --Zereshk 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

re: (purported) Indo-Iranian tradition
I've removed the whole pseudo-comparison of Verethragna vis-a-vis Indra because a) even the *adjectives* verethragnan (Avestan) and vtrahan (Sanskrit) are not equivalents even if they are cognate - i.e. the effective meanings are not the same. The two terms originally meant the same thing (smiter of resistance/obstacles), but in Vedic tradition, Vtrahan (note capitalization) has come to be an appelative title of Indra, 'smiter of (the dragon) Vṛtra'. b) a comparison of Indra/Verethragna has absolutely nothing to do with an article on Aži Dahāka, nor does it have a place in a section titled "The Ahi / Aži in Indo-Iranian tradition". For the sake of reference, here is what the paragraph would read if the comparison were accurately represented:
 * ..., the slaying of Vedic Vṛtra, which is a characteristic feature of Vedic Indra who thus receives the appelative title Vṛtrahan, 'smiter of Vṛtra', and also 'victorious'. This latter meaning however appears to have been lost in Vedic lore, but because 'victorious' in Avestan is vərəθraγan and an attribute of the Zoroastrian Yazata Vərəθraγna, Vedic scholars concluded that the Yazata Vərəθraγna (modern Persian: Vahrām/Bahrām) was the Iranian equivalent of Vedic Indra. This theory has however been repeatedly rejected for many reasons (See also Vahrām).

As I noted above, this is not relevant to the article on Aži Dahāka. "There is no Iranian tradition of a dragon such as Indian Vrtra, who guards the cosmic waters and is defeated by the gods themselves." (Boyce, 1975:91-92, cf. 63-64) -- Fullstop 10:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

proposed addition in the popular culture
in the anime heroic legend of arslan, there is a mention of zahak, the snake king, same goes with the manga. --ParthianPrince (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article
Thanks to all those who worked on this article. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Revelations
Why does this article make no mention to Zahhak's astonishing similarities to the Antichrist from The Book of Revelations in Christianity? Both are charismatic leaders who will one day attempt to conquer the world, both are depicted as dragons and both will eventually be cast into a river of fire. --86.171.200.115 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking the same thing, but I think you would need to find some scholarly works that also make this correlation.

"The Book of Revelation" in the New International Greek Testament Commentary by G.K. Beale makes this connection in a footnote in chapter 20:1-3 section. There's your scholarly source!

What?
In a post-Avestan Zoroastrian text, the Dēnkard, Aži Dahāka is identified as an Arab, as the source of the writings of Judaism (in this context identified as a religion opposed to Zoroastrianism)

-- That doesn't many any sense. Judism is hundreds and hundreds of years older than the Zoroastrian text, and "Arab" is much, much older than that, not until the 7th Century CE, which is several hundred years after the Zoroastrian text's date. How can something hundreds of years older than the Old Testament influence it as a source? And how can it be associated with a group of people that didn't exist till several hundred years later? I'm removing this until someone cites this properly and shows they know what they're talking about. Colonel Marksman (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It just takes a certain level of intelligence to verify it... it's in the Denkard, Book 3. It doesn't matter if it makes any sense to you, its a literary claim and should be listed. "This,  too,   is   declared   in   the   good   religion   that   the   source   ofdemons (Ahriman) had arrayed with deceits Zohak, the descendant ofTaj,112   the   diminisher   of   creations;   hence   the   laws   of   Zohakdeteriorated his own nature, worked for the immoral and blemished(Ahriman), and caused destruction by tyranny and apostasy, so thatthe habits of men were corrupted, the world distressed, and there wasincrease of mortality among the creatures. The Jewish scriptures were first composed by him (i.e. Zohak), anddeposited   in   the   fortress   of   Jerusalem.   And   through   Zohak   menadhered unto the Jewish high-priest Abraham, and through Abrahamthey adhered unto Moses, whom the Jews accepted as their prophetand messenger of faith, and unto whom they ascribe the salvation ofsins committed, and regarded his acquirements as being necessary forthe final propagation of their faith. – Thus Zohak cherished (dôshitê)demoniac deceptions to harm his people.113"

Ahriman or Iblis?
I hate to alter others contributions, but I must say that in the text (Shahnameh)the evil in Zahhak's story is "Iblis". There is no refrence to "Ahriman". Please re-check the Shahnameh again. Larchwood1 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Zahhak or Zahak?
Zohhak[zæhhɒːk] is another word it is not Zahak [zæhɒːk]:

Zahhak/Zohhak (with bauble H)is an arabic (not persian) word meaning so laughing. Its spelling is ضَحّاک, it has no relation to Zahak (with one H. in Arabic word it is a common name for boys.

Zahak is a persian word ضحاک — Preceding unsigned comment added by آهو زمانی شبستری (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zahhak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001142816/http://www.chn.ir/news/?section=2&id=31507 to http://www.chn.ir/news/?section=2&id=31507

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zahhak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201182300/http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-cd5088b4eaa749f8a25507f1a63b9fc7-fa.html to http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-cd5088b4eaa749f8a25507f1a63b9fc7-fa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Azi Dahaka
In the wikipedia article, there is no mention whatsoever that Azi Dahaka was a serpent like creature. However, in the link below in the 5th paragraph under the section titled "Precursor for Christianity ?" it specifically states such. can anyone clarify ? thanks.

https://news.ufl.edu/articles/2018/11/freddie-mercurys-family-faith-the-ancient-religion-of-zoroastrianism.html

Gizziiusa (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)gizziiusa

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Relief of Zahhak.jpg
 * Zahhak.jpg