Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-05-2006, 04:50 AM

Some more rubbish from wiki to edit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Heaven

Clivedurdle · 07-05-2006, 05:01 AM

This belief that "mithras unknown 50 BCE - 50 CE" sounds like a creationist delineation of "kinds" and misses the point that ideas evolve, change, mix!

Bacteria resistant to penecillin did not exist before penecillin, but bugs very similar to them did! Beliefs very similar to mithraism definitely existed, but what caused what - are there any causal relationships? People copy from each other all the time - our brains are set up to do that!

yummyfur · 07-09-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I happened to be at a colloquium today (a rare event for me) and heard a fascinating paper describing Oxyrhynchus papyrus POxy. 1802, by Francesca Schironi of Harvard University.

This is a fragment of an ancient Greek glossary or lexicon, in strict alphabetical order. Most of the words on the fragment begin with μ.

The words are all ones that are unusual, of foreign origin, or used in an unusual way. The definitions mostly refer to books (mainly now lost) rather than current usage, and the latest such book is of the 1st century BC. The papyrus itself is 2-3rd century AD, which suggests that this is a copy of an older work from the late Ptolemaic-early Roman period. Among the words given is this:

Mithras: Prometheus, according to others the sun among the Pers[ians].

This indicates that the name of Mithras was itself an unusual word at this period, and is perhaps evidence of the non-existence of the cult at the time of composition?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

How does a word having two meainings, show that the word is not well known at the time? This isn't suprising when one meaning is from a foreign loan word. Since we know Mithras is a foreign loan word, it being in this particular glossary doesn't say anything we don't already know, and doesn't mean it's unusual or rare, like the other meanings/words collected in this glossary that aren't foreign loan words or meanings.

Also Xenophon mentions Mithras, as does I think Strabo, though in the sense of a Persian diety. Let alone all the Parthian kings with Mithras as part of their names, who were well known to everyone.

It seems possible the meaning as to Prometheus, or possibly merely foresight, might be due to some shortening of, or associating it with some unusual form of the word manthano or word derived from manthano.

Also, is the "according to others" possibly an indication by the author of the glossary, that this meaning is a foreign loan word meaning?

andrewcriddle · 07-09-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

How does a word having two meainings, show that the word is not well known at the time? This isn't suprising when one meaning is from a foreign loan word. Since we know Mithras is a foreign loan word, it being in this particular glossary doesn't say anything we don't already know, and doesn't mean it's unusual or rare, like the other meanings/words collected in this glossary that aren't foreign loan words or meanings.

Also Xenophon mentions Mithras, as does I think Strabo, though in the sense of a Persian diety. Let alone all the Parthian kings with Mithras as part of their names, who were well known to everyone.

It seems possible the meaning as to Prometheus, or possibly merely foresight, might be due to some shortening of, or associating it with some unusual form of the word manthano or word derived from manthano.

Also, is the "according to others" possibly an indication by the author of the glossary, that this meaning is a foreign loan word meaning?

IIUC the point is that if Mithras was, at the time, well known as the principal God of a mystery religion popular among soldiers then one would expect
either a/ that as a well-known word, the ultimate foreign origins of which had become unimportant, it would not appear in the glossary at all.
or b/ that the glossary would say something like Mithras: divine bull slayer, also the sun.

Andrew Criddle

darstec · 07-09-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I happened to be at a colloquium today (a rare event for me) and heard a fascinating paper describing Oxyrhynchus papyrus POxy. 1802, by Francesca Schironi of Harvard University.

This is a fragment of an ancient Greek glossary or lexicon, in strict alphabetical order. Most of the words on the fragment begin with μ.

The words are all ones that are unusual, of foreign origin, or used in an unusual way. The definitions mostly refer to books (mainly now lost) rather than current usage, and the latest such book is of the 1st century BC. The papyrus itself is 2-3rd century AD, which suggests that this is a copy of an older work from the late Ptolemaic-early Roman period. Among the words given is this:

Mithras: Prometheus, according to others the sun among the Pers[ians].

This indicates that the name of Mithras was itself an unusual word at this period, and is perhaps evidence of the non-existence of the cult at the time of composition?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I know fundies grasp at straws to validate their superstitions but this isn't even a staw. It is more like the lengthwise slit of the plastic sipper. Your assertions on this forum and most especially Usenet are getting more and more like theirs as time goes on.

It is amazing you got all that from this :http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POx...a.01.hires.jpg and this: http://163.1.169.40/gsdl/collect/POx...a.02.hires.jpg. That is it, the sum total of this "lexicon".

How do you know it is strict alphabetical order as there is only a part of one page to base your assertion on? The best one can say is that this little fragment is in alphabetical order.

How do you know that "the words are all ones that are unusual, of foreign origin, or used in an unusual way?"

And more importantly, how many words do you think this little fragment gives definition to, or how many books they refer to that are lost?

Others put the fragment at third through fifth centuries CE. And why just because it was of that late date does one (namely you) presuppose it is a copy of one from an earlier date? Do we have any other fragments of this so-called earlier lexicon from other sources or collections?

Haran · 07-09-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

I know fundies grasp at straws to validate their superstitions but this isn't even a staw.

This is exactly the junk wording that is not needed in a forum for intellectual and rational thought.

Roger is quite intelligent and helpful. His arguments should be entertained, not ridiculed. Moderators? I feel like their "proxy" today...

Toto · 07-09-2006, 01:35 PM

Complaints about moderation or lack thereof do not belong in the thread. Please use the "report post" button.

Haran · 07-09-2006, 01:39 PM

Toto, I used the report post button in another thread. In fact, I used it about 4 times. This is not the first time it has happened this way. Is there something wrong? Do you guys get a doorbell ding or something? Do you even pay attention when a theist has a complaint?

None of your options seem to work and you all seem quite content just to let these things through no problem... I know, I know...no complaints in the thread... This will be it...

darstec · 07-09-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

This is exactly the junk wording that is not needed in a forum for intellectual and rational thought.

I think the very same thing about all of Roger's posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Roger is quite intelligent and helpful.

I await the day he demonstrates that, with bated breath. So far, in every post, both here and on Usenet, his point of view comes straight from RC Catechism 101. No variation, no indication that orthodox Christianity might have gotten something wrong, ever. Ever since the thirteenth century with the writings of Roger Bacon, Credo ut intelligam has given way to Intelligo ut credam. One would have thought somebody living 800 years later would have caught on by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

His arguments should be entertained, not ridiculed. Moderators? I feel like their "proxy" today...

You do mean entertaining rather than entertained, do you not? And of course you would be a proxy for Roger, your agrumentation comes from the same RCC, and from what I see, as invarient as his.

Toto · 07-09-2006, 01:44 PM

When you use the report post button, an email goes out to all the moderators and a thread is automatically started in a special forum for complaints.

Just like you think God hears all prayers, but sometimes the answer is NO, the mods read all complaints and often discuss then and disagree.

Remember the rules. We edit personal insults. We do not edit language just because it is offensive to Christian ears, since that would effectively give Christians veto power over what is said. Things that may sound inflammatory to you may just sound like advocacy to someone else.

And don't expect an instant decision.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-05-2006, 04:50 AM	#31
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Some more rubbish from wiki to edit! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Heaven

07-05-2006, 05:01 AM	#32
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	This belief that "mithras unknown 50 BCE - 50 CE" sounds like a creationist delineation of "kinds" and misses the point that ideas evolve, change, mix! Bacteria resistant to penecillin did not exist before penecillin, but bugs very similar to them did! Beliefs very similar to mithraism definitely existed, but what caused what - are there any causal relationships? People copy from each other all the time - our brains are set up to do that!

07-09-2006, 01:35 PM	#37
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Complaints about moderation or lack thereof do not belong in the thread. Please use the "report post" button.

07-09-2006, 01:39 PM	#38
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Toto, I used the report post button in another thread. In fact, I used it about 4 times. This is not the first time it has happened this way. Is there something wrong? Do you guys get a doorbell ding or something? Do you even pay attention when a theist has a complaint? None of your options seem to work and you all seem quite content just to let these things through no problem... I know, I know...no complaints in the thread... This will be it...

07-09-2006, 01:44 PM	#40
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	When you use the report post button, an email goes out to all the moderators and a thread is automatically started in a special forum for complaints. Just like you think God hears all prayers, but sometimes the answer is NO, the mods read all complaints and often discuss then and disagree. Remember the rules. We edit personal insults. We do not edit language just because it is offensive to Christian ears, since that would effectively give Christians veto power over what is said. Things that may sound inflammatory to you may just sound like advocacy to someone else. And don't expect an instant decision.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.