Toto

Robert M. Price sometimes drops tantalizing hints in his podcasts. A recent one mentioned something about Jews in the Roman Empire who identified YHWH with Osiris, but there's no easy way to search for that reference, and I'm not sure at this point if he spoke about Romans who thought that Jews worshiped Osiris or Jews who identified YHWH with Osiris, or both.

I suspect that most of the apparent references to Egyptian or Hellenistic themes in Christianity come indirectly from Hellenistic Judaism.

ETA: it was the Feb 19th podcast, and I misremembered the connection: "Connection between Yahweh and Dionysus"

stephan huller

But the connection between the Jewish god and Dionysus is at least witnessed by Plutarch. One has to be obsessive about finding ancient witnesses for things.

stephan huller

But that's the difference again between saying Ezra wrote the Pentateuch and Mark wrote the gospel from the cult of Osiris. The pagans, Jews and early Christians all kind of acknowledge that Ezra probably wrote the Pentateuch (or at least show respect to the possibility).

This is also why it is so important to have the proper linguistic tools to do any analysis of the Bible. The use of Persian loanwords and religious concepts (pardes, eshdat lamo, the shape of the Garden of Eden) cement the deal. We should also remember that the idea of divine authorship of the Pentateuch is not the original position. This makes later Christian claims about the gospel particularly jarring.

The Samaritans and Sadducees (and thus the oldest traditions) said that only the ten utterances were written by God's finger (fire etched on stone tablets). The rabbinic tradition is surprisingly sophisticated in its exegesis of the Pentateuch. Many argue that Deuteronomy was written later or by Moses himself. The earliest position being that Moses wrote the Pentateuch on his own authority and God only the ten utterances. Thus there is already the inkling that the present text is subsequent to the actual events described therein.

Duvduv

Did Ezra leave a video about how he did that or did you go back in time and schmooze with him? And how do you know he existed altogether??

stephan huller

Brilliant. A new standard of idiocy at the forum - it only exists if it is 'on video.'

Duvduv

So then HOW THE HELL do you know whether he existed or not to be so confident of your statements about him writing the Torah?
Wait until the Samaritans find out they are following a Torah written by their arch enemy Ezra!

DCHindley

I posted this on Crosstalk many moons ago (Sun Oct 24, 1999 5:49 am):

The word "Legion" is also loaded with meaning. Technically, a Legion is a military unit of the Roman regular army. At full strength, it consisted of nine Cohorts of six Centuries each, each Century having 80 foot soldiers, and a tenth "1st cohort" consisting of five, or sometimes six, Double Centuries of 160 foot soldiers. To this add a 120 man cavalry unit and an Artillery unit of about 60 men. Staff officers averaged about 55 per standard Cohort. Total strength would then be 5,120 to 5,280 foot soldiers + 120 + 60 + (11*55) = 5,905 to 6,065 fighting soldiers. However, not all Legions were at full strength!

The 2,000 unclean spirits, if referring to soldiers, would mean about four fully manned Cohorts of men, including staff. Interestingly enough, there is an account in Josephus that may support the hypothesis that the pig incident is secondary. In Jewish War, Book II, Ch XVIII, Sect 9 (vs 499ff) it says of the early days of the revolt:

" … so Cestius [Gallus] took part of his forces [the total of his forces was a full Legion, plus 2,000 each from the other three Legions stationed in Syria, plus something like 14,000 Auxiliaries] and marched hastily to Zebulon, a strong city of Galilee, which was called the City of Men [Williamson renders this "a frontier town"], and divides the country of Ptolemais from our nation; this he found deserted by its men, the multitude having fled to the mountains, but full of all sorts of good things; those he gave leave to the soldiers to plunder, and set fire to the city, although it was of admirable beauty, and had its houses built like those in Tyre, and Sidon, and Berytus. After this he overran all the country, and seized upon whatsoever came in his way, and set fire to the villages that were round about them, and then returned to Ptolemais. But when the Syrians, and especially those of Berytus, were busy in plundering, the Jews pulled up their courage again, for they knew that Cestius was retired, and fell upon those that were left behind unexpectedly, and destroyed about two thousand of them."
[Whiston]

The town in question was probably Asochis, situated about 10 miles from the Mediterranean Sea and not too far from Jotapata. The synoptic account of the pigs could then be seen as related to this route of the "Syrian" forces who were lagging behind Cestius while in pursuit of loot, and thus be a secondary element that must have entered the text after 66 CE.

DCH

stephan huller

I find it likely that he existed because so many sources point to his presence in history (pagan, Jewish etc). With regards to the Samaritan question the way around that of course is that Ezra wasn't his real name. There is a conflicting tradition as to the proper name of Ezra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shealtiel

The author of the Deuterocanonical apocalyptic work 2 Esdras describes himself as "I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra" (3:1). For this reason, the work is also sometimes known as Ezra Shealtiel. However, this Ezra is not the Shealtiel of the royal genealogies nor the priestly prophet Ezra, whose lineage is given in Book of Ezra 7:1-5 and in 2 Esdras 1:1 (Latin version), which agree that the prophet Ezra was the son of Seraiah, and a Levite.

While the author of the article disregards the possibility it is surprisingly similar to the role that Marqe plays in the Samaritan tradition. Marqe was not a high priest but managed nonetheless to reshape and map out the entire tradition even as it stands now (not withstanding the subsequent reforms of Commodus and Baba Raba).

The point is that it has always puzzled even Samaritans that Marqe wasn't a high priest. Indeed one could further argue that Marqe wasn't a priest at all, his connections to Amram are tenuous at best http://books.google.com/books?id=iLg...levite&f=false

stephan huller

And if you look at the reference to Marqe in Abul Fath you see the perplexing mystery of the man who founded Samaritainism. All Abul Fath can only say that 'it is said' that Amram is his father. This would be like saying 'it is said that Jesus's mother was Mary' or 'it is said that Amram was Moses's father.' Indeed I suspect that because Marqe is like Moses (the Samaritans make endless reference to Mark = 345 = Moses) that Amram became his father. The Samaritans in fact are an orphaned tradition. They paradoxically claim to maintain 'the original orthodoxy' even though they were founded by Mark, a man they hardly know anything about some time in the Common Era. Josephus mentions Samaritans and Samaritans existed prior to Marqe you say. Yes, but Samaritanism - the religion that survives to this day - is only as old as Marqe.

Adam

And who is "Marqe"?