145

Prods Oktor Skjærvø is distinguished not only byhis broad range of expert erudition in Iranisticsand his service to this field through both prolificpublications and pedagogical aids, but also by hiscollegiality, including private and public open-ness to opposing views. I am confident that hewill welcome my contribution to this celebra-tion even though I will differ with him, as alsowith other notable Iranists, in the solution of theproblem to which this paper is addressed.

An Old Iranian divine epithet Khshathrapati(

X

s

a

q

rapati-

) “Lord of Power/Rule/Dominion” isattested as

˙s

trpty

in the Aramaic version of thetrilingual stela erected at the Letoön of Xanthos,Lycia, by Pixodaros, the last Achaemenid satrapof Caria and Lycia (A. Dupont-Sommer in Metzgeret al. 1974 and 1979). The Greek and Lycian ver-sions of the inscription indicate that it is Apollofor which Khshathrapati is intended as equivalent.Since the publication of the inscription four de-cades ago, the consensus opinion that Khshathra-pati is Mithra has had a growing dossier of allegedevidence. The present article is intended to showthat the dossier is unconvincing, and to replaceMithra by another candidate for Khshathrapati.

The identification of Khshathrapati with Mithrawas primarily motivated by Apollo’s solarity,whereby the suggestion arose that the equivalentIranian deity with a solar nature was Mithra.However, the sun was divinized in the Iraniancult as Huwar Khshaita (Avestan

huuar

´

x

s

a

e

ta

-).Mithra was properly a god of social agreements(including contracts and pacts), whose course ofinspection followed the sun across the sky, and inthe course of the centuries before the CommonEra became a sun-god himself. That this devel-opment had occurred for the Mithra worshipped

in southwestern Anatolia in the late Achaemenidperiod cannot be taken for granted (see Ger-shevitch 1975).

Two other seeming corroborations of theKhshathrapati = Mithra theory were noted withthe publication of the stela. The identificationof Khshathrapati with Mithra appeared to havean auspicious precedent in R. Dussaud’s view(see Dupont-Sommer 1976) that the ancientLevantine god named

s

drpª

, later called

SatravphÍ

at Elis in the Peloponnese, is of Iranian origin,and represents Mithra as “Satrap.” This opinion,as, we shall see, was more recently taken up byA. D. H. Bivar as part of the evidence for Khs-hathrapati = Mithra. In fact, the attestation of

s

drpª

is limited to the greater Phoenician area.His name is now known to consist of the Se-mitic

rpª

“healing, the healer” added to Egyp-tian

s

d

“the savior” or “the enchanter,” a formof Horus who repels vermin, who was broughtby Semitic workmen to the Levant from Egypt,a provenience confirmed by the Egyptian traitsof the earliest statues of the god from Lebanondating perhaps as early as the 9th to 7th cent.

b.c.e.

The Hellenized form

SatravphÍ

, attestedin the Phoenician territory (whence the formin Elis), is but a popular etymology for

s

drpª

. SeeSchwartz 2006, 146, and 147, notes 8–15, withreferences to E. Lipi

n

ski. This Phoenician di-vinity is thus irrelevant for both Mithra andKhshathrapati (

<

x

s

a

q

ra-pati-

, in which the ele-ment *-

pati

- “lord” differs from the -

pa

8

-

“pro-tector” of *

x

s

a

q

rapa

8

-

“satrap”).A more important apparent corroboration for

Khshathrapati = Mithra was M. Mayrhofer’s obser-vation (

apud

Dupont-Sommer 1976, 653) of a for-mula, in several Br

a

hma

ñ

as, which declares that

Apollo and Khshathrapati, the Median Nergal, at Xanthos

M A R T I N S C H W A R T Z

university of california, berkeley

s c h w a r t z

: Apollo and Khshathrapati, the Median Nergal, at Xanthos

146

Mitra is

k

ß

atrápati

- “Lord of Power.” This im-plies that *

x

s

a

q

rapati

- and

k

ß

atrápati

- representparallel inheritances from a Proto-Indo-Iranianepithet *

k

s

atrapati

- for *Mitra. However, no com-parable Avestan epithet is found for Mithra. Oneonly finds a structurally different genitive phraseinstead of the compound, and this is for MazdaAhura and not Mithra, in the Gathic Yasna44.9

paiti

s´

. . . x

s

a

q

rahii

a

“Lord of Dominion/Power.” The compound

k

ß

atrápati

- is not foundin the Rigveda, which however commonly asso-ciates Varu

ñ

a, and thence Mitr

a

varu

ña

, with

k

ß

atrá

, and this may lie behind the Br

a

hma

ñ

as’qualifying Mitra as

k

ß

atrápati

-. Possibly theGathic

paiti

s´

. . .

x

s

a

q

rahii

a

is inherited from apre-Zarathustrian Ahura who resembled Varu

ñ

a;such an Ahura is evidenced in the Old AvestanYasna Hapta

Ù

h

a

iti, in which Mazd

a

Ahura’saqueous wives, the Ahur

a

n

i

s, parallel Varu

ñ

a’sVaru

ña

n

i

s, and in the Gathas themselves, “notto be deceived is the all-binding (

v

i

sp

a

.hi

s

as

)Ahura,” as Yasna 45.4e is correctly translated.

The lack of Iranian evidence for Mithra being

x

s

a

q

rapati

- was impressively addressed by P. O.Skjærvø (in Humbach and Skjærvø 1983, 99–100), who derived the name of the Manicheandivinity

(ª)x

s

(ª)y

s

pt

etc. from *

x

s

a

q

rapati

-, com-paring as mythological equivalent Man. MiddlePersian

dahybed

“Lord of the Land/Country”(also attested as a Sasanian title of a ruler), one ofthe “Sons of Mihr-yazd (= ‘the god Mithra’).”

Sims-Williams (

apud

Boyce 1990, 7 n. 7) showedthat the Sogdian must represent

(

´

)X

ses

-pat

, andattempted to explain the first element as *

x

s

ai

q

ra

-via contamination of

x

s

a

q

ra

- “land, dominion” by*

s

ai

q

ra

- (Avestan

so

iqra-) “dwelling” or via theroot-form xsai- “to rule.” Sims-Williams’ evidencefor *xsaiqra- is unsustainable. R. Schmitt’s expla-nation of the Elamite divine name Setrabattis(rejecting as impossible etymology from *xsaqra-pati-) from a straightforward saiqrapati- “Lord ofthe Dwelling/Settlement” (pace Sims-Williams,where Schmitt is cited) is corroborated by aYoung Avestan divine appellation soiqrahe paiti-(Yasna 2.16), whereas *xsaqrapati- still requiressupport. Sims-Williams’ other arguments for*xsaiqra- are unconvincing. The form of GreekejxaitravphÍ etc. (vs. satravphÍ < *xsaqrapa 8– “sa-trap”) could be influenced by ejxaite∂n “to com-mand,” cf. Late Latin admiralis < Arabic ªamir(? al-) via admirabilis or the like. Man. Parth.ªrdxsyhr, Persian ªrdsyr, derive from *Artaxsa-

qr(i)ya-, indicated as ªrt˙stry on Frataraka coin-age, cf. Book Pahlavi pªt˙syl etc. vis-à-vis Inscrip-tional Pahl. pªt˙stry “treaty” < *patixsaqriya-.Tumshuq Saka xsera-, Khotanese kßira- “coun-try, land, kingdom” could formally derive from*saiqra- with semantic influence of xsaqra-.

However, the thesis of an etymological paral-lelism between Sogd. (´)Xses-pat and MPers.dahybed fails for reasons of Manichean MiddleIranian realia. It is only in the Middle Persianthat Mani’s original Aramaic conception of Liv-ing Spirit and his five emanations was “trans-lated” (in Mani’s presentation of his ideas to theZoroastrian king Shapur I) as the god Mithra andhis five sons, the first four of whom are namedfrom the Zoroastrian Pahlavi series manbed,wisbed, zandbed, and dahybed, which render aseries of four “lords” (Av. -paiti-) over a fourfoldhierarchy (house, clan, tribe, land/country) asso-ciated with Mithra in his Avestan hymn, towhich series pahr(ag)bed “border lord” wasadded. It must be noted that neither the LivingSpirit nor the Splenditenens is ever connectedwith Mithra in Man. Sogd. texts; Mithra, Man.Sogd. mysyy bgyy, is merely the Sun.

In Sogdian Manicheism, the equivalents ofMani’s mytholegoumena are rendered quite dif-ferently from the Middle Persian, and in generaltranslate or approximate Mani’s original concep-tions. Thus the Living Spirit is not named fromMithra (unlike the MPers., where Mihryazd =the Living Spirit)1 but is directly translated Zu-wande Griw “Living Spirit” (~ Wad Ziwande/Ziwandag < Parthian “id.”) or is approximated asWesparkar, the local name of the Old Iranian at-mospheric god (Av. Vaiius Uparo.kairiio). Simi-larly the Sogdian names of the emanations of theLiving Spirit. Mani’s Adamas of the Light, whohas a martial role, becomes Sogd. Wsagn, the oldgod of victory in warfare. Mani’s King of Honorbecomes Sman Xsed/Xseq “Heaven King,” whilethe Glorious King, who stands on the lowestearth, is named Zay Spandarmet “the Earth(goddess) Spandarmet.”

In this light, the Atlas’ problematic Sogdianname, pdfªrbgyy, which appears to mean “the godwho causes rushing,” could be explained by aconception of Atlas (in Man. Gr. ∆WmofovroÍ“Bearing [the earth] on the shoulders,” Syr. Sab-bala “the bearer”) as making the earth(s) whirlon his shoulders. Such a view may have arisenfrom the flat round shape of the earth borne aloft

147

s c h w a r t z : Apollo and Khshathrapati, the Median Nergal, at Xanthos

being associated with the firmament, Sogd. qfarte(Psalm 19.1 dbrty = Syr. rqiºa), the cognate of Av.qbas 5a- (< *qwárta-) “rushing” and “firmament”(Schwartz 1974, 260) the latter word glossed inPersian as xub-carx “well-wheeled,” cf. Pers.carx-i falak “the (whirling) wheel of the firma-ment,” sometimes expressed by carx alone. Theassociation of the bearer of the earth with atwirler of firmaments may have been maximizedby the Manichean myth’s placement of thewheels of fire, water, and wind close to the Atlas.Quite possibly the concept of the Atlas was ap-proximated by an old local Sogdian divine cos-mological wheel-turner; cf. Henning 1937, 59–60n. 506, who connects pdfªrbgyy with “speeding”and suggests that a local Sogdian god is behindthe identification.

Now, Sogd. (´)Xses-pat (whose appellation mustbe independent of that of its MPers. mythic equiv-alent, the Lord of the Country) names that ema-nation which Mani, in his original Aramaic,called the “Holder/Possessor of Splendor,” whichis found in the Syriac tradition (in EphraemSyrus’ Prose Refutations and independently inTheodore bar Qoni), in Greek (FeggokavtocoÍ), andin Latin (Augustine’s Splenditenens).2

Accordingly, with -pat “lord, possessor,”*(´)xses should mean “splendor.” From Proto-Iranian *xsaita- “splendid, bright,” attested inAv. xsaeta- “id.” (e.g. in huuar´xsaeta- “the Sun”as bright; Ossetic Digorun xsed “dawn-ruddy”;and Pers. sed “brightness”), we may posit OldSogdian *xsaiqya- (with regular *-qya- from der-ivational *-t-ya- still operative after cessation ofSievers’ Law); for *-qy- to Sogd. -s-, see Henning1937, 63 n. 523.3

A. D. H. Bivar (1988 passim; 1998, 12–30) hasbuilt on the Khshathrapati = Mithra theory, tak-ing up again the old Iranizing explanation of thename of the Phoenician god sdrpª/SatravphÍ (dis-missed above), and making use of Skjærvø’s ety-mology of (´)Xses-pat in putting forth a novelIranizing explanation of the Hellenistic god Sa-rapis (Serapis) which has eluded Iranistic criti-cism and which I must address here.

Bivar moves from the Xanthos Xsaqrapati-,allegedly Mithra, to Skjærvø’s derivation of(´)Xses-pat from *Xsaqrapati-. However, he ig-nores Skjærvø’s correct equation of (´)Xses-patwith Dahybed (= the Splenditenens). Citing theseries of ratu-s (chief representations) in the Pah-lavi translation of Yasna 19.9, which had been

adduced by Sundermann as the source of Mani’srendering of the five emanations of the LivingSpirit as the Five Sons of Mithra, “Manbed (‘Lordof the House’), Wisbed (‘Lord of the Clan’),Zandbed (‘Lord of the Tribe’), and Zardust (‘Zar-athushtra’) is the Fifth,” Bivar focuses on the lastitem. He expects that “Zoroaster” is a Zoro-astrian replacement for an original Sahrbed <*Xsaqrapati- “Lord of the Kingdom/Empire” in aseries from Median Mithraism in which Xsaqra-pati-, as designation of an imperial Mithra, wassacrilege for Zarathushtra as well as for Mani,who changed Sahrbed to Pahr(ag)bed to namethe highest ranking son.4 The latter son, it mustbe noted, is the King of Honor, and not the Holderof Splendor. Moreover, it is clear that the Avestanhierarchy is a fourfold canon, nmana- “house,”vis- “clan,” zañtu- “tribe,” and daiÙ!hu- “land”;the West Iranian imperial use of xsaqra- is a laterdevelopment, and it is absurd to posit a Medianideology which is older than that of the Avesta.More relevantly yet, Bivar invents a word, sahr-bed, and treats it as a real entity, although it isattested in no form in Middle Persian. It is the fic-tive Sahrbed (< Xsaqrapati-), allegedly Mithra asgod of the (Median) state, which Bivar then positsas the origin of the Hellenistic god Sarapis, hith-erto regarded as Egyptian.

Unfortunately, Bivar’s theory was given re-spectability by N. Sims-Williams (apud Boyce1990, 7), whereby Boyce (op. cit.) was inclinedto regard the theory as credible. Sims-Williamsbypasses the fictive Sasanian MPers. sahrbed,obviously anachronistic in phonology as a sourceof the early Hellenistic Sarapis, and opines in-stead that Sarapis from Xsaqrapati- is possiblevia an early sporadic *-hr- < *-qr-, citing formslike Elam. Irdaksara, Gr. ÂrtoxavrhÍ, BabylonianAr-tah-sá-ri from Artaxsáqra-. Such evidence isinconclusive, since neither the cuneiform lan-guages nor early Greek had a sound q (dentalfricative), so that *qÚ could have been approxi-mated as *hr (Greek ÂrtoxavrhÍ may have en-tailed dental dissimilation as well). It is notablethat the alleged substandardism does not occurin texts in Aramaic (which could indicate q). Andwhy should a substandard form be used for thegod’s cultic name abroad?

The fact is that there is no reason whatsoever,ideological or iconographic, to derive Sarapisfrom Iran, let alone from Mithra. In greater Iranit is only among the Bactrians that the cult of

s c h w a r t z : Apollo and Khshathrapati, the Median Nergal, at Xanthos

148

Sarapis flourished, and here SARAPO (with s- andnot s-) is clearly from the Greek. The magisterialstudy of Stambaugh 1972 (ignored by Bivar)should leave no doubt of the Egyptian prove-nience of Sarapis. From linguistic and textualconsiderations it is clear that this divine nameis from Greek (< Late Egyptian compound of“Osiris” + “Apis”) OSERAPIS (also OSORAPIS),metanalysed as O *SERAPIS, O *SORAPIS, fur-ther supported by papyrological evidence fromthe middle of the 4th century b.c.e. (see Stam-baugh 1972, 5 and 11) and by iconographic evi-dence and Classical testimonia (Stambaugh 1972,6, 44, 52, 61 and passim). It may be added thatthe oblique form Sarapid-, whose final dentalwas compared by Bivar with that of his fictivesahrbed < *Xsaqrapati-, is based on Âpid-, cf.∆Isid-, ∆Osirid-, etc.

Thus the entire series of divine names similarto Xsaqrapati- —Phoenician sdrpª/SatravphÍ, Man.Sogd. (´)Xses-pat, and Greco-Egyptian SavrapiÍ—is merely due to coincidence. One may compare(among many such banal random similaritiesamong names of gods as Akkad. Assur: VedicÁsura-); the Phoenician Melqart: CorinthianMelikevrthÍ; and West Semitic Dagan, Dagon:Southern Nuristani Dagon, Dagan.5

It has been seen that no Iranian data supportthe thesis that at Xanthos Mithra lies behind theisolated occurrence of Khshathrapati. Nothing,moreover, accounts for the putative substitutionthere of the name Khshathrapati for Mithra (agod who, as his hymn [Yt. 10.56] stresses, mustbe addressed by his proper name).

The new solution for the identification ofKhshathrapati on the Xanthos stela will emergemore clearly after a new consideration of theGreek and Aramaic aspects of the inscription.Rather than mention Apollo (and Artemis) ex-plicitly, the Greek text speaks of “Leto and herprogeny,” which reflects the centrality of Leto,into whose sanctuary Pixodaros, as per the in-scription, imported the cult of a god of Kaunosfrom Caria. Leto was of particular importance atXanthos as patroness of the Lycian Confedera-tion. Her cult at Lycia was distinguished by herpresiding over graves (Burkert 1985, 172). To thischthonic profile of the goddess may be addedthat the Greek inscription mentions, after Letoand her progeny, the Nymphs, who represented alocal volatile spring which (during Alexander’slifetime, according to Plutarch) spontaneously

“upheaved from its depths” (and cast forth a tab-let inscribed in ancient letters! See citation inBoyce 1990, 9 n. 38). Leto’s daughter Artemis (forwhom no Iranian equivalence was at hand) wasassociated with the realm of death as mistress ofcruel and bloody sacrifices, and like Apollo (seebelow) as shooter of arrows (Burkert 1985, 152).

Now to Apollo himself. The Aram. juxtaposi-tion ªrtmws ˙strpty provides the names of thesibling pair called in Greek “the progeny ofLeto,” and we may now see ˙strpty (= Apollo),and not *˙strptys = xsaqrapatis (nominative), asreflecting a grammatical linkage in the Old Ira-nian phrasing which lies behind the Aramaic:xsaqrapati, instrumental case, “(together) withKhshathrapati.” Humbach (1981, 33) took ˙strptyas a frozen vocative.

The larger context, in which Khshathrapati ismentioned alongside Artemis in series with theAbyss, Leto, and the Nymphs—all chthonic—would point to a chthonic aspect of Apollo whichis reflected in his translation as Khshathrapati.Now, Apollo in western Anatolia had chthonicassociations due to his presiding over healingvia incubation in artificial grottoes called Char-oneia (or Plutoneia). The most famous Charon-eion, admiringly described by Strabo three centur-ies after Pixodaros erected his inscription, wasat Characa, in the Carian homeland of Pixodaros.

Apollo became a sun-god only gradually, origi-nally being an underworld god. The foregoinglocal circumstances would have tended to pro-long Apollo’s older chthonic nature, his beingunderstood as a sun-god in the Greek world grad-ually taking place from the 5th century onwards(Burkert 1985, 149).

Apollo’s sojourns in the underworld, his closerelation to obscurity and death, and his shoot-ing arrows of disease, as well as his healing, arefeatures which make him parallel to the Meso-potamian underworld god Nergal. Furthermore,both Apollo and Nergal are represented by ravens,and are associated with palm trees, snakes, andlions. Both Apollo and Nergal, in aspects of theirmyths, represent the sun in the netherworld. SeeBurkert 1985, 149 and 405 n. 22; Kingsley 1999,82–84, 88–92, 134, 242–43; Bivar 1975, 289.

Now, Nergal’s name goes back to a Sumerianphrase “Lord of the Great City” (Wiggermann2001, 218–19), which refers to a durable Mesopo-tamian conception of the realm of the dead as alarge urban settlement. This points to the con-

149

s c h w a r t z : Apollo and Khshathrapati, the Median Nergal, at Xanthos

ception of Nergal, as lord of such a realm, beingcalqued in Iranian as Xsaqrapati- “Lord of theCity” (xsaqra- > “city” in West Iranian).

The necessary evidence for an Iranian nether-world god *Xsaqrapati- comes from Armenianmaterials conveniently brought together in Rus-sell 1987, 330–32. In a digression to Arm. sahap“satrap,” Russell mentions the Xanthos Khsha-thrapati and gives (apparently independently ofBivar, and without equation with Mithra), a se-ries of names which we have seen to be irrele-vant: SatravphÍ (and by implication sdrpª); Man.Sogd. xsyspt (bgw); and SavrapiÍ, adding a sugges-tion for a Middle Persian etymology of a Coptic“Sasabed,” the latter based on a misprint in earlyeditions of J. R. Robinson’s translation of theNag Hammadi library; correctly Sasabek). Whatconcerns us is Russell’s data on sahapet, a super-natural being or category of such beings. The ci-tations from the 13th cent. Oskiberan, in whichvarious pagan divinities are detailed as sahapet-sof trees and vines, attest a connection withvegetation consonant with an ancient chthonicgod. The much older citations from the Classi-cal Armenian Agathangelos and Eznik indicatethat sahapet is associated with tombs and thenetherworld, as well as with aquatic and terres-trial reptiles, in particular with serpents, whoseforms the sahapet can assume, leading men toabandon God for worship of snakes. The latterdetails, which imply the worship of a sahapetintimately connected with snakes, recalls theiconography of Nergal in the Parthian period atHatra, with snakes all around the god and beingpart of his accoutrements.6 We have here evi-dence of Nergal = sahapet, which must derivelinguistically from *xsaqrapati-, like sahap <*xsaqrapa 8– “satrap,” hazarapet < *hazarapati-“chiliarch,” etc. This confirms that Khshathra-pati “Lord of the (underworld) City/Realm” (adescriptive epithet with the tabuistic advantageof serving to avoid naming the sinister god) wasmodeled after Nergal.

Such a divinity on ancient West Iranian soilprobably lies behind the vague designation of“the god under the earth” to whom Xerxes andAmestris brought human sacrifices, according toHerodotus VII.114. This god, patently non-Zoro-astrian, would have been brought to Persia bythe Magians as part of their old religion. ThusKhshathrapati would have come to Persia fromthe Magian homeland, Media, and specifically

Media Atropatene. This provenience would suitthe northern Mesopotamian history of the Ner-gal cult, and the origin of the Armenian Sahapet.

Linguistically, too, xsaqrapati- conforms toMedian rather than Old Persian phonology; cf.the Median PN *Xsaqrita- (Darius, Behistun)vs. OPers. xsaça- “empire,” and Arm. sahap <*xsaqrapa 8– “satrap” vs. OPers. xsaçapa 8– “id.”Specifically Median phonology in fact charac-terizes ª˙wrªnys = Axuranis “the Nymphs,”attested in Old Avestan as Ahuranis (for thereading ª˙wrªnys, see Humbach 1981). The non-Persic xu < hu is shown to be Median by thename rendered as Greek KuaxavrhÍ “Cyaxares” =*Xuwaxstra- < *Huwaxstra-.

The presence of the Median god Khshathrapatiat Xanthos could be due to the foundation, underCyrus’ dispensation, of the city of Xanthos byHarpagos the Mede and his retinues, includingtroops and their families, inevitably with a rep-resentation of the Median priesthood, i.e. Magi.Later on, the continuation of Magian religiouspractices would have been tolerated by Darius(as at Persepolis itself ), and even under the laterAchaemenids, with their syncretistic Zoroastri-anism, there is no reason to think that old localtraditions on the periphery of the empire wouldhave been opposed, especially in a matter suchas an Iranian rendering for a Greek god in thecontext, moreover, of an intrusive satrapal Car-ian religiosity.

It is due to these circumstances that there isrecoverable at Xanthos a unique trace of the oldMedian pantheon: Khshathrapati, the Nergal ofWestern Iran.

Notes

1. Boyce 1990, 8 n. 10, wrongly has “Keeper ofSplendour” instead of the Living Spirit.

2. For the Syriac evidence of “Possessor of Splen-dor” in Ephraem and, later, Theodore, see Jackson1932, resp. 303 and 296–97 with fnn.; the interveningmaterial in Jackson is informative for my discussionof the five emanations of the Living Spirit.

3. Sogd. psªªbr, pysªªbr “provision(s)” is better ex-plained from *paqyabara- “that which one brings onthe way”; cf. Henning apud Driver 1965, 61.

4. Further material on the Manichean realia may beseen in the well-indexed Sundermann 2001.

5. It is Dagan on a coin of Mazaeus’ satrapy. Thecereal god holds an ear of grain, and is identified as bºl

s c h w a r t z : Apollo and Khshathrapati, the Median Nergal, at Xanthos

150

dgn “the lord Dagan,” not bºl trz. The coin is fromSyria, not Tarsus (Lemaire 1991, 45, 47–51). The coinhas nothing to do with Mithra or Nergal, contra Bivar1998, 33, and Boyce 1990, 4.

6. For the iconography of Nergal with serpents atHatra, see Drijvers 1978, 174–75, where remarks rele-vant to the discussion of Nergal in the present articleare also to be found; Drijver’s paper also cogently dis-misses Bivar’s identification of Mithra with Nergal.

Bibliography

Bivar 1975 A. D. H. Bivar. “Mithra in Mesopotamia.” In Mithraic Studies, II, ed. J. R. Hinnells, 275–89. Manchester.

Bivar 1988 . “An Iranian Sarapis.” BAI 2:11–17.

Bivar 1998 . The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature. New York.

Boyce 1990[1992] M. Boyce. “Mithra Khsathra-pati and His Brother Ahura.” BAI 4:3–9.

Burkert 1985 W. Burkert. Greek Religion. Translated by J. Raffan. Cambridge, Mass.

Drijvers 1978 H. J. W. Drijvers. “Mithra at Hatra?” In Études mithri-aques, ed. J. Duchesne-Guillemin, 151–86. ActIr 17. Leiden.

Driver 1965 G. R. Driver. Aramaic Docu-ments of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford.

Dupont-Sommer A. Dupont-Sommer. “L’énigme1976 du dieu ‘Satrape’ et le dieu

Mithra.” CRAI, 648–60.Gershevitch 1975 I. Gershevitch. “Die Sonne das

Beste.” In Mithraic Studies, I, ed. J. Hinnells, 68–79. Manchester.

Henning 1937 W. Henning. Ein Manichäi-sches Bet- und Beichtbuch.Berlin.

Humbach 1981 H. Humbach. “Die aramäi-schen Nymphen von Xanthos.” Die Sprache 27:30–33.

Humbach and H. Humbach and P. O. Skjærvø.Skjærvø 1983 The Sassanian Inscription of

Paikuli. Pt. 3.2. Wiesbaden.Jackson 1932 A. V. W. Jackson, Researches in

Manichaeism. New York.Kingsley 1999 P. Kingsley. In the Dark Places

of Wisdom. Inverness.Lemaire 1991 A. Lemaire. “Notes d’épigra-

phie nordouest-sémitiques, 28: Monnaie de Mazdaï avec légende BºL DGN.” Semitica 40:39–54.

Metzger et al. 1974 H. Metzger, E. Laroche, andA. Dupont-Sommer. La stèle trilingue récemment décou-verte au Létôon de Xanthos. CRAI, 82–93, 115–25, 132–49.

Metzger et al. 1979 H. Metzger, E. Laroche,A. Dupont-Sommer, and M. Mayrhofer. Fouilles de Xanthos, VI: La stèle trilingue du Létôon. Paris.

Russell 1987 J. R. Russell. Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Cambridge, Mass.

Schwartz 1974 M. Schwartz. “Sogdian Frag-ments from the Book of Psalms.” Altorientalische Forschungen 1:255–63.

Schwartz 2006 . “From Healer to Hyle: Levantine Iconography as Manichean Mythology.” Journal of Inner Asian Artand Archaeology 1:145–47.

Stambaugh 1972 J. Stambaugh. Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies. Leiden.

Sundermann 2001 W. Sundermann. Manichaica Iranica, ed. C. Reck [et al.]. Rome.

Wiggermann 2001 F. A. M. Wiggermann. “Ner-gal.” In Reallexikon der Assyr-iologie, IX, 215–23. Berlin.