Ben C Smith

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.

Student of Sophia

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

Yellum Notnef

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.

Roger Pearse

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.

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.

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.

I see the need for collections of excerpts. That said I'm a 'complete text' man. Tertullian in particular suffers badly in quotation.

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.

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

Unfortunately all of this could perfectly well be baloney. Where's the evidence?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sarai

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

Ben C Smith

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.

I do not know.

One of the few texts the original Greek of which is available online long before a translation.

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.

mountainman

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

Sauron

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:

And this as well:
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.

If you're interested in avoiding tedium, then being selective when you ask for evidence would be a great way to start.

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.

robto

Here's Plutarch on Persian religion:
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:
Now compare this with the Community Rule from the Dead Sea Scrolls (3:18-4:1):
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.