Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-06-2007, 12:14 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
1. Critical texts (for example, the entire SC series). 2. Monographs or studies that present the original evidence (for example, the chapter in R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (or via: amazon.co.uk), that deals with the Ascension of Moses). 3. Topical compilations of excerpts (for example, D. Theron, Evidence of Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk)). If the assertion or argument is that Marcion failed to include such-and-such a verse in his edition of Luke, I want to see something from Tertullian, Epiphanius, or Adamantius in the footnote. That way, and only that way, I can make up my own mind on the issue. That, BTW, is the strength of Eusebius, to my mind. Even where he wants to interpret some early statement to his own advantage, he often gives us the actual words of Clement or Irenaeus or Papias or Polycarp or Polycrates or whomever so we can see for ourselves whether we buy his interpretation. Ben. |
|
10-06-2007, 12:15 PM | #12 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Inner Space
Posts: 2,707
|
I would say the influence was significant.
"Persian belief was reorganized by the prophet Zarathushtra according to a strict dualism of good and evil principles, light and dark, angels and devils. This crisis profoundly affected not only the Persians, but also the subject Hebrew beliefs, and thereby (centuries later) Christianity." -Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a thousand faces (or via: amazon.co.uk) "The development of the concept of Satan as the personal power of evil, who had his counterpart in the archangel Michael, the champion of cause of man in God's purpose of creation, was probably developed under the influence of Persian Zoroastrian belief in the two conflicting spirits of good and evil...." -John Gray, Near Eastern Mythology (or via: amazon.co.uk) http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4zoroa94.html |
10-06-2007, 01:41 PM | #13 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
|
Quote:
This is why regardless of how many texts you collect or how fancy your website is or how overtly polite you act, you have little credibility IMO. |
|
10-06-2007, 01:46 PM | #14 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
T.D.Barnes Tertullian (1971) is a liberal education; every statement footnoted and very thoroughly. Unfortunately his later books are less wonderfully thorough, although I think his scholarship is still as good -- it just isn't as obvious. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All the best, Roger Pearse |
||||||
10-06-2007, 01:48 PM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
|
Quote:
All the best, Roger Pearse |
|
10-06-2007, 03:21 PM | #16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago Metro
Posts: 1,259
|
Quote:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=589&letter=J You might be able to find something to assist you there, or at least, maybe a lead in the right direction. Hope this helps! Sarai |
|
10-06-2007, 05:26 PM | #17 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is something very necessary, I think, about seeing all passages from a certain range of texts dealing with the topic, say, of blasphemy of the holy spirit. Such a catena lets one know the range of the evidence. But then, for me, the point of the excerpts becomes (eventually, at least) to study each one in its original context. I think, for example, of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. On one level it is a complete and critical Greek text of all four gospels (a translation is available in a separate volume, IIRC); on another level, it is also a collection of excerpts, since for each pericope the apostolic fathers and other texts up to about Justin Martyr are culled for parallels, allusions, or outright quotations of the passage in question. The scope of the work simply would not allow a presentation of the complete texts of Justin, Ignatius, Hermas, and so forth. But, of course, it becomes important at some point to go ahead and use the excerpt to find the original context in each of those works. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think his Church History was so popular that many of the Greek fathers after him did not even bother to look up the original passages for themselves; they just cribbed from Eusebius. Same thing happened to Jerome amongst later Latin authors. Ben. |
|||||
10-07-2007, 06:40 AM | #18 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
for the new testament part of the bible since the Hebrew Bible part of the Constantine Bible had itself been around the empire in Greek since perhaps 250 BCE. Zoroastrianism was created by the King of Kings Ardashir c.220 CE out of a few ancient hymns called "The Avesta" which were written by the long established Parthian empire. Ardashir then burnt and destroyed every single line of the ancient Parthian writings. One front Zoroastrian priest was called Mani, who saw success until c.270, but who was then executed by another changing of the Persian/Sassanian/Iranian "state". There was a certain degree of freedom for Jews under Ardashir and Shapur (220-270) so long as they lived under Sassanian Law and paid taxes. Consequently much of what is gathered about Zoroastrianism comes though the writings of Mani, established by Ardashir, or his son Shapur I, as the "Prophet of Zoroastrianism". The question then becomes, when was the New Testament written. If is was written before 220 CE then we might expect to find Parthian notions in it, because Zoroastrianism did not get formed until after this date. If the New Testament were written after 220 CE, we might expect to see the influence of Zoroastrainism and Manichaeism. According to "mainstream opinion" the new testament was written in the first and/or second century. As such, IMO, one should not expect any Zoroastrian influence whatsoever, because Zoroastrianism did not then exist. Certainly Zoroastrianism would have been formed from an earlier Parthian belief system, but would not have been known under the name. According to my theory of the invention of christianity, the new testament did not get scripted until the fourth century, under Constantine. At this time, the disciples of Mani had been executed and persecuted in Iran (Persia) and Diocletian had edicted for the destruction of the Manichaean writings (ie: Zoroastrian) in a number of cities of the empire, and for the burning of the followers along with their writings. Persecution of Manichaeans (ie; Zoroastrians) peaked in the Roman empire perhaps in the 290's CE under Diocletian. These persecutions were bent to a story of "christian" persecutions which IMO never happened. It was not the christians who were persecuted, it was the Maniachaeans/Zoroastrians. The christians were a literary invention of Constantine, and came into existence on at the Council of Nicaea. They came into the world persecuting non-christians and with an imperially sponsored intolerance for anything other than self-referential authority. It was a racket. Constantine was a brigand. Does this assist? Best wishes, Pete Brown |
|
10-07-2007, 11:41 AM | #19 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
|
Quote:
"According to the bible..." "What's a bible? Prove that such a thing exists." In the Book of Genesis..." Prove that this bible contains such a book.' "While the Israelites were under the dominion of Babylon..." "Israelites? Who are they? Babylon? Sounds like a bad movie title to me. Dominion? Prove that Babylon became an empire. Then prove that they were contemporary with Jews. Finally, prove that they established dominion over them. Your request for evidence about the basic facts of Zoroastrianism falls into this category of deliberate pedantics, conducted for no good reason. The tenets of Zoroastrianism that the poster mentioned are all well-known and easily verified. That Zoroastrianism had *some* influence upon Judaism is likewise easily verified by a good first-line source like Britannica: Quote:
Quote:
There really is a baseline here that allows for a contextually valuable discussion to be conducted. It's not a lot of baseline, but it does exist. And your knee-jerk request for proof of the baseline only bogs down the discussion for no reason. That is, no reason except to provide you with an opportunity to steer the conversation in the only direction that you are comfortable with: ancient texts. Quote:
Quote:
The problem is that 'ancient sources' are not the only method of recording such a hypothetical transmission of ideas between cultures. And worse for you: sources do not automatically trump all other forms of evidence from the ancient world. Merely because you like playing with sources and are comfortable with them, does not mean that ancient documents magically go to the head of the line when it comes to usefulness (or reliability) as evidence. Sources can be forged, corrupted, or self-serving. Or they may very well be simply *wrong*, due to limited knowledge of the author. I realize you'll be crying in your beer all day to hear that, but you *have* been warned of these limitations before. Sheesh -all you have is a hammer, so to *you*, everything looks like a nail. |
|||||
10-07-2007, 01:51 PM | #20 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 701
|
Here's Plutarch on Persian religion:
Quote:
- cosmic dualism - symbolism of Light/Darkness for the two sides - war between the two sides - defeat of evil - age of happiness Along with the cosmic dualism went an ethical dualsim of Truth/Lie, as in this inscription from the time of Darius: Quote:
Quote:
- ethical dualism of Truth/Injustice - cosmic dualism symbolised by Light/Darkness - war between the two sides - defeat of evil All of which was picked up by Christian writers, e.g. John 12:31, Rev. 12, 20. |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|