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 04-27-2005, 11:36 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
In 2 SA 23:1 God does the ordering.
Just a reality check: You do mean 2 SA 24:1. Don’t you?
Loomis is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 11:41 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anat
Loomis, I thought Chronicles is ascribed to the 'Chronicler' (duh) who wrote in 2nd temple times (5th century BCE or maybe 4th), long after the El vs Yahweh (vs Baal) conflicts. OTOH this would also mean living in a culture that had been exposed to Zoroastrianism and/or its derivatives.
Anat,

I confess – I don’t know shit about Zoroastrianism. Maybe you could point me to a good book - and magically create time for me to read it!

What is it about Zoroastrianism that conflicts with what I am trying to say here?

What is the origin of the Zoroastrian concept of Satan?

It’s not enough to say that “the concept of Satan as enemy of God is the result of Zoroastrian influence� because we still need to know where that idea originated. See what I mean?

I am just trying to make sense of four issues in the OT.

1) Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says Yahweh was a son of god.

2) Psalm 82 says the sons of god turned into bad guys.

3) Job 2:1 says Satan was a son of god.

4) 1 Chronicles 21 combined with 2 Samuel 24:1 identify Satan as Yahweh.

I hope no one freaks out because Job 2:1 calls god Yahweh. I hope that everyone is familiar with the argument that Yahwists walked over old El stories and replaced the word “El� with the word “Yahweh.�

I think it’s important to remember that the various authors of these stories:

1) Need not know the origins of the characters they are writing about.

2) Need not agree on who the “good guys� were and who the “bad guys� were.

I’m I making any sense?

Also, there is an interesting fragment (4Q246) from the Dead Sea Scrolls to support the idea that Satan began life as a fallen Yahweh. It mentions a powerful bad-guy figure called “the son of God� and “son of the Most High� who would mislead the nations for a short time.

Come on. Think about it. If Yahweh was not an original cast member then it stands to reason that some folks would object to him. They would write him into their minority religion as a false/ evil god that penetrates his way into El’s pantheon.

This fragment is exactly what we should expect to see.

Right?
Loomis is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 12:16 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
What is the origin of the Zoroastrian concept of Satan?
IIUC, Zoroastrianism introduced the concept of an "ultimate" evil power that opposes the "ultimate" power for good. Creative reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures does the rest.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 12:28 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mesa, AZ USA
Posts: 583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loomis
1) The god in question is Yahweh.

2) ‘Satan’ is not the spirit creature’s proper name. A better translation is ‘the satan’ or ‘the adversary.’

Consider the hypothesis (presented by Lloyd Barre and many others) that says that Yahweh was a foreign god who was assimilated into El-worship. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 has El dividing up humanity amongst his sons and assigning Yahweh to guard over the nation of Jacob. Barre’s hypothesis says that this was an attempt to combine Yahwism and El-worship (by portraying Yahweh as one of El’s 70 sons).
Loomis,

Awesome post. I studied Deuteronomy in high school and never caught that. I wonder what a lot of the Christian hacks in GRD who say such generalized, cookie cutter things about "God" would say if faced with such an intriguing hypothesis.

I had long been aware of the Zoroastrian/Dualist influence -- I believe it came about when the Persians freed the imprisoned Hebrews from the Babylonians. But this shows divisions of powerful beings going back a lot further than that.

~Justin
Justin Z is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:19 AM.

Top

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