Abstract
Aogǝmadaēčā is a funeral oration delivered for the peace of the deceased’s soul and the consolation of the mourners, recited during the porsa (memorial ceremony) and miyazd (ritual feast). This oration is one of the significant texts in Zoroastrian Pahlavi literature. In the Pazand version, the text consists of 111 sections, 29 of which are in Avestan; in the Pahlavi version, it contains 105 sections, 30 of which are in Avestan. Some scholars consider the original Aogǝmadaēčā to have been composed in Pazand; however, based on the evidence presented by the author - regarding script, meaning, and the order and sequence of sections and phrases it appears that the Pazand and Pahlavi versions - represent two distinct versions. Purpose of this research which is done in analytic method, also correcting some phrases, is the answer to the question that is editing the Pahlavi version on the basis of the Pazand version is methodologically valid? Based on the evidence discussed regarding the Pahlavi version and its parallels in other Pahlavi texts, it can be concluded that studying the two versions of Aogǝmadaēčā - Pazand and Pahlavi - separately may be more beneficial, and that imposing the Pazand reading upon the Pahlavi version is not necessary.
Keywords: Aogǝmadaēčā, oration, Avesta, Pahlavi, Pazand, Emendation.

Introduction
Aogǝmadaēčā is one of the important Zoroastrian texts dealing with death, preparation for death, and the fate of the soul after death. In connection with the myāzd ritual and the escorting of the soul of the deceased, it preserves aspects of the ancient beliefs and traditions of Iran. The text has survived in several versions, namely Avestan, Pazand, Pahlavi, and Sanskrit. Among these, the Pazand and Pahlavi versions are of particular importance. Nevertheless, the relationship between these two versions and the manner in which the text was transmitted between them remain important and much-debated issues in Aogǝmadaēčā studies. The central question of the present study is whether the Pazand and Pahlavi versions should be regarded as two independent textual traditions of Aogǝmadaēčā or as different forms of a single textual tradition. Furthermore, if the latter hypothesis is accepted, can the reading of the Pahlavi version, in cases of divergence, legitimately be emended on the basis of the Pazand version? The significance of this issue becomes particularly evident in the critical edition of Jamasp-Asa (1982), in which the Pazand version is used in certain instances as the basis for establishing the Pahlavi text.
Materials and Methods
This study employs an analytical approach and is based on library research. The data were collected through the examination and collation of the extant manuscripts and published editions of Aogǝmadaēčā and were analyzed in accordance with the principles of philology and the historical linguistics of the Iranian languages. In addition, disputed readings were evaluated in light of previous scholarship and through comparison of lexical items, syntactic constructions, and corresponding forms attested in other Pahlavi texts. In analyzing the divergences between the two versions, the internal textual and linguistic evidence of each version was considered independently.
Discussion & Result
An examination of the evidence indicates that the relationship between the Pazand and Pahlavi versions cannot be explained solely in terms of differences in script and orthography. Although the Pahlavi version is clearly related to the Pazand version in certain respects, the Pazand version itself contains evidence that may point to the scribes’ familiarity with the Pahlavi form of the text and to the influence of a Pahlavi stage in its transmission history. For example, in section 50, a word represented in the Pahlavi form as wahmān is recorded in the Pazand version as van, meaning “tree.” This discrepancy may have resulted from a reinterpretation or an erroneous direct transmission of the Pahlavi form, suggesting that the transmission of the text between different scripts and Iranian linguistic forms was not always mechanical or uniform. On the other hand, lexical and semantic differences between the two versions point to their relative textual independence. For example, in section 28, the Pazand version has ganā. var. aβaganē, whereas the Pahlavi version has gannāg garō. aognǝšnī. The word var in the Pazand version means “fortress,” whereas garō in Pahlavi means “mountain” or “mountain pass.” The discrepancy between these forms, therefore, cannot be attributed merely to differences in orthography. Another important piece of evidence is a section that occurs after section 81 in the Pahlavi version but has no corresponding passage in the Pazand version. This section begins with the phrase guftaš ohrmazd and, in terms of both content and structure, constitutes an independent portion of the text that is absent from the Pazand version. The presence of such a section indicates that the Pazand version cannot in all cases be regarded as a direct and complete reflection of the Pahlavi version. Furthermore, differences in the verbal forms found in the two versions—including vaziţ and šawēd in section 60 and nē kunaţ and nē padīrēd in section 72—as well as differences in the wording of sections 31 and 38, demonstrate that the divergences between the two versions are also observable at the lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels. These pieces of evidence strengthen the hypothesis that textual transformations occurred during the transmission of Aogǝmadaēčā.
Conclusion
The evidence as a whole indicates that the Pazand and Pahlavi versions of Aogǝmadaēčā cannot be regarded as two completely corresponding forms of a single text. The presence of certain Pahlavi lexical forms in the Pazand version, including ohrmazd in sections 29 and 57, points to the existence of a Pahlavi stage in the textual transmission. At the same time, lexical, syntactic, verbal, and semantic differences, together with divergences in the extent and structure of the two versions, strengthen the possibility that Aogǝmadaēčā was transmitted through two distinct lines, or at least through two different stages of transmission. Accordingly, the two versions should be studied and analyzed independently, while due attention is given to their historical and textual interrelationships. On this basis, the generalization of, or imposition of, readings from the Pazand version upon the Pahlavi version is not methodologically justified, particularly in cases where the linguistic and internal textual evidence points to differences between the two versions. Such a practice may obscure or overlook the distinctive characteristics of the Pahlavi textual tradition of Aogǝmadaēčā.
Abstract
Aogǝmadaēčā is a funeral oration delivered for the peace of the deceased’s soul and the consolation of the mourners, recited during the porsa (memorial ceremony) and miyazd (ritual feast). This oration is one of the significant texts in Zoroastrian Pahlavi literature. In the Pazand version, the text consists of 111 sections, 29 of which are in Avestan; in the Pahlavi version, it contains 105 sections, 30 of which are in Avestan. Some scholars consider the original Aogǝmadaēčā to have been composed in Pazand; however, based on the evidence presented by the author - regarding script, meaning, and the order and sequence of sections and phrases it appears that the Pazand and Pahlavi versions - represent two distinct versions. Purpose of this research which is done in analytic method, also correcting some phrases, is the answer to the question that is editing the Pahlavi version on the basis of the Pazand version is methodologically valid? Based on the evidence discussed regarding the Pahlavi version and its parallels in other Pahlavi texts, it can be concluded that studying the two versions of Aogǝmadaēčā - Pazand and Pahlavi - separately may be more beneficial, and that imposing the Pazand reading upon the Pahlavi version is not necessary.
Keywords: Aogǝmadaēčā, oration, Avesta, Pahlavi, Pazand, Emendation.

Introduction
Aogǝmadaēčā is one of the important Zoroastrian texts dealing with death, preparation for death, and the fate of the soul after death. In connection with the myāzd ritual and the escorting of the soul of the deceased, it preserves aspects of the ancient beliefs and traditions of Iran. The text has survived in several versions, namely Avestan, Pazand, Pahlavi, and Sanskrit. Among these, the Pazand and Pahlavi versions are of particular importance. Nevertheless, the relationship between these two versions and the manner in which the text was transmitted between them remain important and much-debated issues in Aogǝmadaēčā studies. The central question of the present study is whether the Pazand and Pahlavi versions should be regarded as two independent textual traditions of Aogǝmadaēčā or as different forms of a single textual tradition. Furthermore, if the latter hypothesis is accepted, can the reading of the Pahlavi version, in cases of divergence, legitimately be emended on the basis of the Pazand version? The significance of this issue becomes particularly evident in the critical edition of Jamasp-Asa (1982), in which the Pazand version is used in certain instances as the basis for establishing the Pahlavi text.
Materials and Methods
This study employs an analytical approach and is based on library research. The data were collected through the examination and collation of the extant manuscripts and published editions of Aogǝmadaēčā and were analyzed in accordance with the principles of philology and the historical linguistics of the Iranian languages. In addition, disputed readings were evaluated in light of previous scholarship and through comparison of lexical items, syntactic constructions, and corresponding forms attested in other Pahlavi texts. In analyzing the divergences between the two versions, the internal textual and linguistic evidence of each version was considered independently.
Discussion & Result
An examination of the evidence indicates that the relationship between the Pazand and Pahlavi versions cannot be explained solely in terms of differences in script and orthography. Although the Pahlavi version is clearly related to the Pazand version in certain respects, the Pazand version itself contains evidence that may point to the scribes’ familiarity with the Pahlavi form of the text and to the influence of a Pahlavi stage in its transmission history. For example, in section 50, a word represented in the Pahlavi form as wahmān is recorded in the Pazand version as van, meaning “tree.” This discrepancy may have resulted from a reinterpretation or an erroneous direct transmission of the Pahlavi form, suggesting that the transmission of the text between different scripts and Iranian linguistic forms was not always mechanical or uniform. On the other hand, lexical and semantic differences between the two versions point to their relative textual independence. For example, in section 28, the Pazand version has ganā. var. aβaganē, whereas the Pahlavi version has gannāg garō. aognǝšnī. The word var in the Pazand version means “fortress,” whereas garō in Pahlavi means “mountain” or “mountain pass.” The discrepancy between these forms, therefore, cannot be attributed merely to differences in orthography. Another important piece of evidence is a section that occurs after section 81 in the Pahlavi version but has no corresponding passage in the Pazand version. This section begins with the phrase guftaš ohrmazd and, in terms of both content and structure, constitutes an independent portion of the text that is absent from the Pazand version. The presence of such a section indicates that the Pazand version cannot in all cases be regarded as a direct and complete reflection of the Pahlavi version. Furthermore, differences in the verbal forms found in the two versions—including vaziţ and šawēd in section 60 and nē kunaţ and nē padīrēd in section 72—as well as differences in the wording of sections 31 and 38, demonstrate that the divergences between the two versions are also observable at the lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels. These pieces of evidence strengthen the hypothesis that textual transformations occurred during the transmission of Aogǝmadaēčā.
Conclusion
The evidence as a whole indicates that the Pazand and Pahlavi versions of Aogǝmadaēčā cannot be regarded as two completely corresponding forms of a single text. The presence of certain Pahlavi lexical forms in the Pazand version, including ohrmazd in sections 29 and 57, points to the existence of a Pahlavi stage in the textual transmission. At the same time, lexical, syntactic, verbal, and semantic differences, together with divergences in the extent and structure of the two versions, strengthen the possibility that Aogǝmadaēčā was transmitted through two distinct lines, or at least through two different stages of transmission. Accordingly, the two versions should be studied and analyzed independently, while due attention is given to their historical and textual interrelationships. On this basis, the generalization of, or imposition of, readings from the Pazand version upon the Pahlavi version is not methodologically justified, particularly in cases where the linguistic and internal textual evidence points to differences between the two versions. Such a practice may obscure or overlook the distinctive characteristics of the Pahlavi textual tradition of Aogǝmadaēčā.