FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-06-2007, 12:14 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I'm a sad git. I don't believe *anything* any more unless I can see the basis for it. I just don't find opinion interesting, never mind right or wrong.
I find that the most useful books to me are always, always those that present the original texts in their original language(s), and a modern translation is a good bonus. Therefore, the best books are, roughly in order:

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.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 10-06-2007, 12:15 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Inner Space
Posts: 2,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl LaFong View Post
Would you say the influence was marginal or significant?
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
Student of Sophia is offline  
Old 10-06-2007, 01:41 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gone
Posts: 4,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post

I don't believe *anything* any more unless I can see the basis for it.
But *anything* ,of course, doesn't include the resurrection of Jesus and other Christian tall tales of which you are a believer in. You are biased towards alleged "facts" that fit in with your Christian world view.

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.
Yellum Notnef is offline  
Old 10-06-2007, 01:46 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I'm a sad git. I don't believe *anything* any more unless I can see the basis for it. I just don't find opinion interesting, never mind right or wrong.
I find that the most useful books to me are always, always those that present the original texts in their original language(s), and a modern translation is a good bonus.
I agree, except that the translation is essential. I could cheerfully strangle the fool who decided to publish Eusebius' Commentary on Isaiah only in Greek.

Quote:
Therefore, the best books are, roughly in order:

1. Critical texts (for example, the entire SC series).
The Sources Chretiennes is pretty marvellous, and doesn't go overboard. It makes most anglophone stuff look childish. They've just done an excellent version of Tertullian's De pallio.

Quote:
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, that deals with the Ascension of Moses).
I agree. One of the few merits of Gaston Halsberghe's generally wretched monograph The cult of Sol Invictus is that he began by marshalling every single literary reference to 'Sol Invictus' in ancient literature. His book is wretched precisely because pages go by, pages full of assertions, without a single footnote. (That said I think possibly the chap was committed to the thesis as a PhD or something, and began to get this awful feeling part way through that he was *wrong* -- but still had to do the book anyway. We can all sympathise with a man with his hand in a trap).

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:
3. Topical compilations of excerpts (for example, D. Theron, Evidence of Tradition).
I see the need for collections of excerpts. That said I'm a 'complete text' man. Tertullian in particular suffers badly in quotation.

Quote:
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.
Agreed. If it isn't in them, it doesn't exist. Does an English version of Adamantius exist? The translation of Epiphanius will go online only when you and I are dead.

Quote:
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.
I agree entirely. Furthermore, isn't he rather a pioneer in doing so, in ancient literature? In effect he invented that approach, and his HE was so influential that it sparked off the modern approach.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 10-06-2007, 01:48 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheistic Mystic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl LaFong View Post
Would you say the influence was marginal or significant?
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

"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

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4zoroa94.html
Unfortunately all of this could perfectly well be baloney. Where's the evidence?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 10-06-2007, 03:21 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago Metro
Posts: 1,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl LaFong View Post
What little I remember (I think the author was Cavendish) is that the Jews spent some time in Persia...
Are you maybe thinking of the Babylonian exile? Here's a link to several articles from a Jewish source.

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
Sarai is offline  
Old 10-06-2007, 05:26 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I agree, except that the translation is essential. I could cheerfully strangle the fool who decided to publish Eusebius' Commentary on Isaiah only in Greek.


Quote:
I see the need for collections of excerpts. That said I'm a 'complete text' man.
Which is why I put this kind of text in third place.

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:
Does an English version of Adamantius exist?
I do not know.

Quote:
The translation of Epiphanius will go online only when you and I are dead.
One of the few texts the original Greek of which is available online long before a translation.

Quote:
Furthermore, isn't [Eusebius] rather a pioneer in doing so, in ancient literature? In effect he invented that approach, and his HE was so influential that it sparked off the modern approach.
That is the impression I get.

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.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 10-07-2007, 06:40 AM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl LaFong View Post
To what extent was the Bible influenced by Zoroastrianism?
Would you say the influence was marginal or significant?
It depends on your postulates of chronology
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
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-07-2007, 11:41 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post

I'm a sad git. I don't believe *anything* any more unless I can see the basis for it. I just don't find opinion interesting, never mind right or wrong.
The point of the poster's question, however, was to remind you that there is a small baseline of facts in any conversation that is taken as a 'given'. Otherwise, every conversation will have to start out with pedantically stating facts that everyone already stipulates to.

"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:
Relation to other religions

The debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology.

Isaiah 40–48 offers striking parallels with the Gāthā 44:3–5, as has been shown by Morton Smith. Besides the common procedure of rhetorical questions, there is the notion of a god who has created the world and, notably, light and darkness. The very idea of a creator god may be common to all of the western part of the Semitic world. But the notion that God created light and darkness appears in both prophets. It is true that Zoroaster associates light and darkness only to waking and sleep and that no Iranian text says that God created good and evil. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition, in Isaiah, of light–darkness with good–evil sounds remarkably Iranian.

After the exile, the traditional hope in a messiah-king of the House of David who would reestablish Israel as an independent nation and make it triumph over all enemies gave way gradually to a concept at once more universal and more moral. The salvation of Israel was still essential, but it had to come about in the framework of a general renewal; the appearance of a saviour would mean the end of this world and the birth of a new creation; his judgment of Israel would become a general judgment, dividing mankind into good and evil. This new concept, at once universal and ethical, recalls Iran so stronglythat many scholars attribute it to the influence of that country. John R. Hinnells has seen this influence especially in the saviour's defeat of the demons, his gathering of men for the judgment scene, his raising of the dead, and his administration of the judgment. The occasion of this influence, according to Hinnells, may be found in the contacts between the Jews and the Parthians that were initiated in the 2nd century BC but that reached a climax in the middle of the 1st century BC.
And this as well:
Quote:

Angels are generally grouped in orders of four, six, or seven in the first ranks, of which there may be several. The use of four, which symbolically implies perfection and is related to the four cardinal points, is found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islām. Early Zoroastrianism, much influenced by the astronomical and astrological sciences of ancient Iran, coordinated the concept of the seven known planetary spheres with its belief in the heptad (grouping of seven) of celestial beings—i.e., the amesha spentas of Ahura Mazdā: Spenta Mainyu (the Holy Spirit), Vohu Mana (Good Mind), Asha (Truth), Ārmaiti (Right Mindedness), Khshathra (Kingdom), Haurvatāt (Wholeness), and Ameretāt (Immortality). In later Zoroastrianism, though not in the Gāthās (the early hymns, believed to have been written by Zoroaster, in the Avesta, the sacred scriptures), Ahura Mazdā and Spenta Mainyu were identified with each other, and the remaining bounteous immortals were grouped in an order of six. Over against the bounteous immortals, who helped to link the spiritual and the material worlds together, was the counterpart of the Holy Spirit, namely Angra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit, who later became the great adversary Ahriman (the prototype of the Jewish, Christian, and Islāmic Satan), and the daevas, who weremost likely gods of early Indo-Iranian religion. Allied with Angra Mainyu against Ahura Mazdā were Akōman (Evil Mind), Indrā-vāyū (Death), Saurva (a daeva of death and disease), Nāñhaithya (a daeva related to the Vedic godNāsatya), Tauru (difficult to identify), and Zairi (the personification of Haoma, the sacred drink related to the sacrifices of both ahuras and daevas). Among other demonic figures is Aēshma (violence, fury, or the aggressive impulse that consumes man)—who may well be the demon Asmodeus of the book of Tobit, Āz (Concupiscence or Lust), Mithrāndruj (He Who Lies to Mithra or False Speech), Jēh (the demon Whore, created later by Ahriman to defile the human race), and many others (see also Zoroastrianism).

Angelology and demonology in Judaism became more highly developed during and after the period of the Babylonian Exile (6th–5th centuries BC), when contacts were made with Zoroastrianism. In the Old Testament, Yahweh is called the Lord of hosts. These hosts (Sabaoth) are the heavenly army that fights againstthe forces of evil and performs various missions, such as guarding the entrance to Paradise, punishing evildoers, protecting the faithful, and revealing God's Word to man. Two archangels are mentioned in the canonical Old Testament: Michael, the warrior leader of the heavenly hosts, and Gabriel, the heavenly messenger. Two are mentioned in the apocryphal Old Testament: Raphael, God's healer or helper (in the book of Tobit), and Uriel (Fire of God), the watcher over the world and the lowest part of hell (in II Esdras). Though these are the only four named, seven archangels are noted in Tob. 12:15. Besides the archangels, there were also other orders of angels, the cherubim and seraphim, which have been noted earlier.

Under the influence of Zoroastrianism, Satan, the adversary, probably evolved into the archdemon. Other demons included Azazel (the demon of the wilderness, incarnated in the scapegoat), Leviathan and Rahab (demons of chaos), Lilith (a female night demon), and others. To protect themselves from the powers of the demons and unclean spirits, Jews influenced by folk beliefs and customs (as with Christians later) often carried charms, amulets, and talismans inscribed with efficacious formulas (see also Judaism).
Now you can debate to what *extent* one religion influenced the other. But to question the statement of influence is silly.

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:
It's the sheer tedium of watching someone fail to tell us anything, anything at all, that gets me.
If you're interested in avoiding tedium, then being selective when you ask for evidence would be a great way to start.

Quote:
If anyone actually knows anything factual about transfer of ideas between Jews and Zoroastrians and can document this from ancient sources, that would be a blessing.
Ah, and now we arrive at your fetish - ancient sources.

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.
Sauron is offline  
Old 10-07-2007, 01:51 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 701
Default

Here's Plutarch on Persian religion:
Quote:
The great majority and the wisest of man hold this opinion: they believe that there are two gods, rivals as it were, the one the Artificer of good and the other of evil. There are also those who call the better one a god and the other a demon, as, for example, Zoroaster the sage, …He called the one Oromazes [Ahura Mazda] and the other Areimanius [Angra Mainyu]…

Oromazes, born from the purest light, and Areimanius, born from the darkness, are constantly at war with each other; and Oromazes created six gods…But Areimanius created rivals, as it were, equal to these in number.

Theompompus says that, according to the sages, one god is to overpower, and the other to be overpowered, each in turn for the space of 3000 years, and afterward for another 3000 years they shall fight and war, and the one shall undo the works of the other, and finally Hades shall pass away; then shall the people be happy, and neither shall they need to have food nor shall they cast a shadow.
So we have:
- 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:
Saith Darius the king: For this reason Ahura Mazda bore aid, and the other gods who are, because I was not hostile, I was not Lie-follower, I was not a doer of wrong…
Now compare this with the Community Rule from the Dead Sea Scrolls (3:18-4:1):
Quote:
He has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of truth and injustice. Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of injustice spring from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of Darkness.

The Angel of Darkness leads all the children of righteousness astray, and until his end, all their sin, iniquities, wickedness, and all their unlawful deeds are caused by his dominion in accordance with the mysteries of God… for all his allotted spirits seek the overthrow of the sons of light. But the God of Israel and His Angel of Truth will succour all the sons of light

For it is He who created the spirits of Light and Darkness and founded every action upon them and established every deed upon their ways. And He loves the one everlastingly and delights in its works forever, but the counsel of the other he loathes and forever hates its ways.
We have:
- 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.
robto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.