مفهوم گناه و ماهیت گناه نخستین در اساطیر و ادیان باستانی ایران، یونان و میانرودان

انسان اساطیری در نگرش و بینش خود، برای حوادث اتفاقی جایگاهی قائل نبود. او درباره انگیزه و بنیاددهنده هستی و خویش، برداشتی پندارگونه داشت و برای مصائب و ناخرسندی‌های دنیای پیرامون و حتی ویژگی‌ها، محدودیت‌ها و محرومیت‌هایی که با آن سروکار داشت، دلایل و فلسفه‌ای را باور داشت. بر این مبنا یکی از مسائل مهم در اساطیر تمدن‌های کهن، بحث گناه و نافرمانی نخستین انسان یا زوج نخستین در مقابل نیروهای نامرئی و خدایان است که مصیبت‌هایی را برای آدمی به ارمغان آورد. ماهیت و چرایی تحقق این گناه و پیامدهای ارتکاب به گناه نخستین برای بشریت نیز از مسائل مهمی‌اند که در هر یک از تمدن‌های ایرانی، میانرودانی و یونانی مطرح شده‌اند و تمایزها و تشابه‌هایی دارند. بر اساس این، در این پژوهش تلاش شده است با بهره‌گیری از منابع و اسناد مهم دینی، اساطیری و حماسی و با رویکرد مقایسه‌ای، مفهوم گناه در هر یک از سه تمدن باستانی توصیف شود و با واکاوی روایت‌های مذکور، چرایی، چگونگی و پیامدهای گناه نخستین تحلیل شوند. نتایج نشان دادند تمدن‌های باستانی ایران (مزدیسنی)، میانرودان و یونان در مفهوم گناه، چرایی و چگونگی ارتکاب انسان به گناهِ نخستین تفاوت‌هایی دارند؛ این تفاوت‌ها به فراخور بینشی از فلسفه پیدایش انسان و ویژگی‌های آدمی و به‌ویژه براساس نگرش موجود در آموزه‌های دینی اقوام و ملل مختلف به خدایان و خواسته‌های آنان است و نیز جایگاهی که در آفرینش برای آدمی قائل می‌شوند؛ البته به سبب الگوی فکری مشترک، تشابه‌ها و همسانی‌هایی دربارۀ پیامدها و عقوبت این گناه در تمدن‌های مزبور وجود دارد.

The Concept of Sin and the Quiddity of the Original Sin in the Mythology and Religions of Iran, Greece, and Mesopotamia

Abstract The concept of sin and the nature of the first sin in ancient myths, religions of Iran, Greece, and Mesopotamia in mythical human thought, the world, and the world around it had rules and frameworks. More importantly, the human belief was that there was an invisible order between the beings and the universe. Of course, he considered himself to have duties to the universe and to the beings and gods, so his best job was to coordinate with this order because God created human for some reasons and he was required to obey divine commandments to attain salvation. On this basis, even in various religions, the wrongdoing of some human beings (especially in the early age of human life) could have consequences for the whole of humanity. Sin in ancient civilizations could have different origins in such a way that in the Iranian sense of sin (in ancient times) not only did the wrongdoer have an unfortunate consequence, but other creators were also at risk and harmed by the wrongdoer. On the other hand, in the Zoroastrianism view, sin was not only in relation to the gods and in disobeying the divine commandments in performing religious rituals, but also in dealing with selffellow human beings and other beings. Thus, harming the right of other creatures, even plants, is also a human error in God’s cause, because they are all Ahurasad’s creations and should be cherished. This attitude to sin is also evident to some extent in other civilizations, especially in Greece and Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, and in virtually all ancient religions, the man was made a god or gods and thus the hometown of man was the place of living;the gods and humans were companions and neighbors of gods. Thus, gods lived in the myth and beliefs of Iranian, Mesopotamian, and Greek civilizations and especially the first human or first human Couple in land and place that enjoyed all blessings and did not think about death and did not face worldly suffering. But, the event caused the goddess, also a supreme divine creature, to be driven out of the gods and living in the shadow of the divine grace and the Garden of Eden (Paradise) and engaged in a lowyielding and diminishing habitat. Accordingly, ancient religions and myths have each offered reasons for depriving humans of eternal life, as well as being driven out of the gods and habitat of the first human being.  There are some narrations with somesimilarities and in some cases some differences. However, what makes the myths of these civilizations different is the positive or conversely the unfavorable attitude  to the human character and godly devotion to man.  In the Iranian thought, because Ahuramazda (as the overall creator) has chosen man as the best creature, he has no role in committing sin In the Iranian thinking,the seducers are considered the first evil couple and evil forces and even the gods do not make him die him for the sins; rather, the sinful man is endangered by the difficulties because of moving toward evil deeds. But, in Mesopotamian and Greek civilizations, asthe philosophy of human creation has been to save the gods.In a civilization like Greece (and even in Mesopotamia), a god or Titan has had a role in the creation of man and giving him blessings without the participation of the great God. . The gods no longer have a positive attitude toward the man and even try to deprive him of divine attributes and get him into suffering. So, in such myths, these are gods who directly (with their false guidance) and indirectly (because of the inherent human nature) cause human beings to commit original sin and deprive themselves of the eternal life and prosperity. Thus, the gods play the role of human seductors; gods who sometimes appear so vicious and vindictive of Iranian and Mesopotamian thought that they take revenge and retribution from humanity, because the creation of man was contrary to the will of the gods and gods created disasters and suffering to hurt man or his creator (Prometheus). Also, the Greeks sometimes considered the root of the sin to be hereditary and believed that it completely deprived one of the rights to sin.