radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
BB--where did you get that sentence from?
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
You mean?
Yeah I find this true as well, I have no quarrel with mojo, but he is a bit...single-minded.
Yeah I find this true as well, I have no quarrel with mojo, but he is a bit...single-minded.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
As I posted earlier, this is all rather poor research and even worse science. Very little truth here. What are your sources?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
"The weight of the combined archeological, historical, and linguistic evidence. The ancient Greeks cross-verify that Darius (550BCE), and Cyrus (600BCE) before him were real personages. Darius was responsible for several inscriptions that make reference to only one God, Ahuramazda. This monotheistic statement, alone, is made before any references to Yahweh in the monotheistic context are made. "
We do not know the context of the use of "Ahura-Mazda". It is very likely (see Henning, Brunner or any of the "classic" Zoroastrian scholars) that in this context, it is a lot like the pre-Elijah contexts of "Yhwh". That is "Ahura-Mazda" is the creator god, but only one among many.
The Gathas themselves are very fuzzy about the exact nature of the monotheistic Gyd (if there was ever one before the advent of the Muslim onslaught). If there is very little "archeological evidence" of the Old Testament before Josephus, I am afraid, old bean, there is even less conclusive evidence of the pure monotheistic Zoroastrianism you seek.
Both are probable and possible, but one must remain balanced in one's approach.
We do not know the context of the use of "Ahura-Mazda". It is very likely (see Henning, Brunner or any of the "classic" Zoroastrian scholars) that in this context, it is a lot like the pre-Elijah contexts of "Yhwh". That is "Ahura-Mazda" is the creator god, but only one among many.
The Gathas themselves are very fuzzy about the exact nature of the monotheistic Gyd (if there was ever one before the advent of the Muslim onslaught). If there is very little "archeological evidence" of the Old Testament before Josephus, I am afraid, old bean, there is even less conclusive evidence of the pure monotheistic Zoroastrianism you seek.
Both are probable and possible, but one must remain balanced in one's approach.
M
mojobadshah
Guest
Disagree. Like I said we have the names 1. David 2. Ahab 3. Israel 4. the name Yahweh in non-Jewish inscriptions. The steles that make reference to these anomalies describe little more than battles waged against them. The name Yahweh is said to have been written on vessels, but THAT'S IT. What Yahweh's status is is not described at all. There is no mention of Elijah in a secondary source that can be corroborated by contemporary authors until Josephus. Whereas Zoroaster is mentioned by in Greek sources 4 centuries prior and he's described as not only the founder of the magi, but the son of Ahuramazda. The same goes for the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. The same rule that presupposes that the Septuagint was composed earlier than later is the same rule that presupposes the Aryan Bible was composed before Darius's inscriptions. Darius's belief system is not pantheistic. Darius is described as the creator of the heavens and the earth and the highest of the Daeva. Daeva is an Old Persian synonym for Yazata. In the Zoroastrian religion both God and the angels and even men, worthy of praise, are called Yazata. But the rest of the Yazata do not share divine status with Ahuramazda.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
You gave no sources, merely spurious claims. I gave you proof of both Pre-Josephus Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament. Can you find a single fragment of the Gathas before the dispora (from Iran to India)? I can find not one serious reference in any text to a pre 1000 copy in existence.
Let us not bait and switch, you ask for something before Josephus, I gave you plenty, no rteurtn the favor.
Linguistic references do not cut it, I want actual archeological references of Avestian scrolls which date to before 1000. Good luck!
Let us not bait and switch, you ask for something before Josephus, I gave you plenty, no rteurtn the favor.
Linguistic references do not cut it, I want actual archeological references of Avestian scrolls which date to before 1000. Good luck!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
If the fact that pre-Josephus fragments of Old Testament in both Greek and Hebrew do not cut it, then let us make it simple... show me your pre-1000 AD texts.
True, that means from the Greek sources both the Old Testament and Zarathustra are vouched for (not the Zoroastrian monotheistic faith, which is not vouched for in classic texts).
This is your argument, not mine. I just state that a paper copy (okay papyrus or parchment) of the Old Testament pre-dates any of the existing Avestian texts. Not the same thing.
Excuse me chum, unless you were there when the Darian inscriptions were made or you have one single iota of proof that the "Aryan Bible" was in existence before they were made, you've not a leg to stand on. All the inscriptions say is that Ahura Mazda or Darius is a creator god. Read the inscriptions, MBS. There is nothing much more there than what was put forward in Abraham's day... that there was a special creator god of the tribe. The inscriptions are a long way from the well-thought out eloquence of Elijah arguing for monotheism, not the mono-idolatry of his predecessors (that is how I read him).
M
mojobadshah
Guest
But that's just my point. There are no references to an Hebrew Bible PERIOD until Josephus 75AD. There are fragments that mention the name 1. David, but little more to point that it was the David of the OT 2. Ahab, but nothing to connect him to monotheism 3. Israel, but so what? The Assyrians mention the Medes too. That's hardly proof that everything in the OT was written during that time. 4. Yahweh, but nothing to show that Yahweh was even a god. It could have been someone's name for all we know. The Greeks however make reference to Zoroaster connect him to the Persians, the Magi, and Ahuramazda 400 BC, and the Old Persian inscriptions describe Ahuramazda as the supreme God and creator of heaven and earth 500BC.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Not quite MBS, read my post again. I gave three examples of papyrus Greek texts that predate Josephus, and about 25% of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You have yet to show one single even made-up source of anything that old as an example of your "Aryan Bible"?
Can't find it?
The Greeks merely mention Darius and Zoroaster and Magi and Ahura Mazda. There is no classic source whatsoever that stipulates that the religion of Zoraster was monotheistic (as we think of it nowdays). None, nana. If I am wrong, please point me to it (some academic or archeological text or reference, not some insubstantial line of reasoning).
M
mojobadshah
Guest
No, the Old Testament isn't vouched for in any Greek source. It's only vouched for by Josephus.
Paper copy or orally transmitted it makes no difference. There is no chemical process, like carbon dating, to determine when a text was written.
Abraham's day? Abraham isn't even mentioned in a text that can be cross-referenced until Josephus.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
But in the final argument, it is the oral tradition that wins out I think. Not the written texts (they grow old or disused like the words of Mani), and certainly not the vain-glorious inscriptions of kings and emperors.
On that level, the Axial age centers of Meso-America, the Yellow River Valley, the Indus Valley, the Iranian Highlands, Meopotania, Egypt, and the Greek isles and mainland are all pretty level. Does it really matter who discovered beer or figs first? Or astronomy? Or theology? No. These are things that we as human beings, as descendents of these Wise Old Ones, have to hold.
On that level, the Axial age centers of Meso-America, the Yellow River Valley, the Indus Valley, the Iranian Highlands, Meopotania, Egypt, and the Greek isles and mainland are all pretty level. Does it really matter who discovered beer or figs first? Or astronomy? Or theology? No. These are things that we as human beings, as descendents of these Wise Old Ones, have to hold.
M
mojobadshah
Guest
That's one more reference than there is of anything Jewish until Josephus. In detail, anyhow.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
It is a Greek source (the Septuagint). You are the one making thius outrageous claim, what is your source?
It is called science, radio-carbon dating or other archeological in-situ dating. If the papyrus and parchment and ink date from 100 years before Josephus (as they do in the case of the Qumran scrolls), that pretty much lets you know they weren't werittewn after that.
Still awaiting for you to come up with a pre 1000 C.E. copy of the Gatha.
Per your preevious point, if the dating cannot be made, what makes you state that Abraham was not mentioned before Josephus? If your grandeous "Aryan Bible" theory is really only founded upon a few faint scribbings of some ancient empire that has returned to the sands, or the writings of the Greeks (who never ever, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to refute, considered Zarathustra any kind of monotheist) and my "Old Testament" theoiry upon the vast corpus of the Qumran find, which should I choose? Why not both?
arthra
Baha'i
Eblaite names and ancient Hebrew
Many ancient Hebraic names that have not been found in other Near Eastern languages have been reported to occur in similar forms in Eblaite (Adamu, H’à-wa, Jabal, Abarama, Bilhah, Ishma-el, Isûra-el, Esau, Mika-el, Mikaya, Saul, David, et al.).
Ebla | Ask.com Encyclopedia
Many ancient Hebraic names that have not been found in other Near Eastern languages have been reported to occur in similar forms in Eblaite (Adamu, H’à-wa, Jabal, Abarama, Bilhah, Ishma-el, Isûra-el, Esau, Mika-el, Mikaya, Saul, David, et al.).
Ebla | Ask.com Encyclopedia
M
mojobadshah
Guest
Outrageous? Show me one reference to the Septuagint in Greek or Roman before Josephus. Like I said I can only find a few names and scanty details of the Jews before Josephus.
They can't carbon-date ink. Where did you read about the dating the ink of the Qumran scrolls?
The Gathas were passed down in the oral tradition like a human tape recorder. Your not going to be able to prove that any text was recorded before 1000 C.E. through chemical means.
Because he's not and nor is the Septuagint. Albeit the language of the Septuagint may show an archaic form of Koine, but Koine was used up until 300AD.
No, but they mentioned Zarathushtra and show that the Persians were followers of Zarathushtra. Plutarch 100-200 mentions both Ahuramazda and his rival Ahriman. Still a bit garbled, but you're not going to understand how the religion of Zarathushtra was monotheistic unless you read it in it's pure or native form.
And speaking of pure forms: It's hard to find loans in the Gathas, not to mention the Gathas don't mention either the Persians or the Medes, nor do they mention the Jews. Whereas the Hebrew Bible shows Zoroastrian influence.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
You should avoid using this, it is kind of like saying "God told me and only me, listen to me I know the truth".
Quite a bizarre suggestion.
So if Josephus claimed himself to be a Jew, and wrote about the Jews, then you are saying that Josephus was the founder of Judaism?
More seriously, have a look at Redaction Theory (Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis): Torah Torah Torah : Interfaith) which makes quite a serious suggestion at how the OT texts developed over centuries.
Basing the age of a faith on linguistic evidence of a translation is an obvious fallacy.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Originally Posted by radarmark
It is a Greek source (the Septuagint). You are the one making thius outrageous claim, what is your source?
Outrageous? Show me one reference to the Septuagint in Greek or Roman before Josephus. Like I said I can only find a few names and scanty details of the Jews before Josephus.
I did, please note the references to nine pre 50 BCE fragments, the Rohlfs fragments 801, 802, 803, 805, 819, 848, 942, 943, and 957. Three are 2nd century BCE. That predates Josephus by 250 years or so.
Originally Posted by radarmark
It is called science, radio-carbon dating or other archeological in-situ dating. If the papyrus and parchment and ink date from 100 years before Josephus (as they do in the case of the Qumran scrolls), that pretty much lets you know they weren't werittewn after that.
They can't carbon-date ink. Where did you read about the dating the ink of the Qumran scrolls?
Try “AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient Japanese documents of known age” in Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 255;2;375-379 (really, really concise reference). Radiocarbon dating is done with carbon… the black stuff in most ink (whether soot or octopus ink). For Biblical refs, try the beginner’s text “Bible and Radiocarbondating” (Levy and Higham; 2005). As for radio-carbon dating of ink in Qumran, try “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the science and new technologies” in Dead Sea Scrolls 11;2; 133-42 or “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (pt 1 Radiocardon 43(1)127-32 and Pt 2 Radiocarbon 51(3)1005-22—warning these are hard texts) or any of their 60 or so references.
Originally Posted by radarmark
Still awaiting for you to come up with a pre 1000 C.E. copy of the Gatha.
The Gathas were passed down in the oral tradition like a human tape recorder. Your not going to be able to prove that any text was recorded before 1000 C.E. through chemical means.
Fine, why not extend the same courtesy to the Old Testament? If the Gathas (in some form) were really set down pre-1000 BCE by followers of Zarathustra, why is it not possible the sons of Abraham set down their texts in same period. Notice I do believe both were extensively re-written. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If one logically can make the claim you assert (Gathas passed down) then it must be logically true that the same can be said for the Old Testament.
Originally Posted by radarmark
Per your preevious point, if the dating cannot be made, what makes you state that Abraham was not mentioned before Josephus?
Because he's not and nor is the Septuagint. Albeit the language of the Septuagint may show an archaic form of Koine, but Koine was used up until 300AD.
See my first point—there are nine clear examples of pre-50 BCE Septuagint.
Originally Posted by radarmark
If your grandeous "Aryan Bible" theory is really only founded upon a few faint scribbings of some ancient empire that has returned to the sands, or the writings of the Greeks (who never ever, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to refute, considered Zarathustra any kind of monotheist) and my "Old Testament" theoiry upon the vast corpus of the Qumran find, which should I choose? Why not both?
No, but they mentioned Zarathushtra and show that the Persians were followers of Zarathushtra. Plutarch 100-200 mentions both Ahuramazda and his rival Ahriman. Still a bit garbled, but you're not going to understand how the religion of Zarathushtra was monotheistic unless you read it in it's pure or native form.
Nonsense, the classic Greek references (including Plutarch) clearly state that the religion of Zarathustra was polytheistic, not even monodolatric. In “their pure form” (if you accept that, I do not, the text itself, like the OT, indicates layer upon layer of rework) the text can only be dated to sometime after 1000 CE. That is a long, long, long time later.
Saying that “you’re not going to understand Zarathustra was monotheistic unless you read it in it’s pure form” is like saying “you cannot understand gravity until you master Einsteinian relativity”. Balderdash. Then the Salafists are right saying you can only comprehend the Quran in the original or Kach are right saying you cannot understand the OT unless you read Hebrew.
For example, I read Russian (a cold war leftover) and can pretty much tell you that the “Gulag Archipelago” in English is quite true to the original, ditto for the latest translation of “Joseph and His Brothers”. Some word-play and mythic elements may be missing, but they are missing from it when I read the original because I am me and not a German reader from the WWII era.
And speaking of pure forms: It's hard to find loans in the Gathas, not to mention the Gathas don't mention either the Persians or the Medes, nor do they mention the Jews. Whereas the Hebrew Bible shows Zoroastrian influence.
So? The point I am making is not that there is not a Babylonian influence on the OT (I can read it for myself). The point is that it is not half-bad history (read the entire corpus of Finkelstein and the Iron Age excavations in Israel), which indicates that a pre-50 BCE dating (the minimum given per the science of the Septuagint fragments) is highly likely. You need not believe it, but do not think your belief has anything to do with reality.
The point is, be fair in your analysis (this is what science and all beneficial communications should be all about). If you claim that the "Aryan Bible" was completely as it exists today when the petrographies were incused, that is fine with me. The hard right of the Kach then is equally correct in stating that the inerrant word of Gyd (in Hebrew) was existant by 1200 BCE. You cannot claim one without allowing the other.
It is a Greek source (the Septuagint). You are the one making thius outrageous claim, what is your source?
Outrageous? Show me one reference to the Septuagint in Greek or Roman before Josephus. Like I said I can only find a few names and scanty details of the Jews before Josephus.
I did, please note the references to nine pre 50 BCE fragments, the Rohlfs fragments 801, 802, 803, 805, 819, 848, 942, 943, and 957. Three are 2nd century BCE. That predates Josephus by 250 years or so.
Originally Posted by radarmark
It is called science, radio-carbon dating or other archeological in-situ dating. If the papyrus and parchment and ink date from 100 years before Josephus (as they do in the case of the Qumran scrolls), that pretty much lets you know they weren't werittewn after that.
They can't carbon-date ink. Where did you read about the dating the ink of the Qumran scrolls?
Try “AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient Japanese documents of known age” in Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 255;2;375-379 (really, really concise reference). Radiocarbon dating is done with carbon… the black stuff in most ink (whether soot or octopus ink). For Biblical refs, try the beginner’s text “Bible and Radiocarbondating” (Levy and Higham; 2005). As for radio-carbon dating of ink in Qumran, try “The Dead Sea Scrolls, the science and new technologies” in Dead Sea Scrolls 11;2; 133-42 or “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (pt 1 Radiocardon 43(1)127-32 and Pt 2 Radiocarbon 51(3)1005-22—warning these are hard texts) or any of their 60 or so references.
Originally Posted by radarmark
Still awaiting for you to come up with a pre 1000 C.E. copy of the Gatha.
The Gathas were passed down in the oral tradition like a human tape recorder. Your not going to be able to prove that any text was recorded before 1000 C.E. through chemical means.
Fine, why not extend the same courtesy to the Old Testament? If the Gathas (in some form) were really set down pre-1000 BCE by followers of Zarathustra, why is it not possible the sons of Abraham set down their texts in same period. Notice I do believe both were extensively re-written. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If one logically can make the claim you assert (Gathas passed down) then it must be logically true that the same can be said for the Old Testament.
Originally Posted by radarmark
Per your preevious point, if the dating cannot be made, what makes you state that Abraham was not mentioned before Josephus?
Because he's not and nor is the Septuagint. Albeit the language of the Septuagint may show an archaic form of Koine, but Koine was used up until 300AD.
See my first point—there are nine clear examples of pre-50 BCE Septuagint.
Originally Posted by radarmark
If your grandeous "Aryan Bible" theory is really only founded upon a few faint scribbings of some ancient empire that has returned to the sands, or the writings of the Greeks (who never ever, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to refute, considered Zarathustra any kind of monotheist) and my "Old Testament" theoiry upon the vast corpus of the Qumran find, which should I choose? Why not both?
No, but they mentioned Zarathushtra and show that the Persians were followers of Zarathushtra. Plutarch 100-200 mentions both Ahuramazda and his rival Ahriman. Still a bit garbled, but you're not going to understand how the religion of Zarathushtra was monotheistic unless you read it in it's pure or native form.
Nonsense, the classic Greek references (including Plutarch) clearly state that the religion of Zarathustra was polytheistic, not even monodolatric. In “their pure form” (if you accept that, I do not, the text itself, like the OT, indicates layer upon layer of rework) the text can only be dated to sometime after 1000 CE. That is a long, long, long time later.
Saying that “you’re not going to understand Zarathustra was monotheistic unless you read it in it’s pure form” is like saying “you cannot understand gravity until you master Einsteinian relativity”. Balderdash. Then the Salafists are right saying you can only comprehend the Quran in the original or Kach are right saying you cannot understand the OT unless you read Hebrew.
For example, I read Russian (a cold war leftover) and can pretty much tell you that the “Gulag Archipelago” in English is quite true to the original, ditto for the latest translation of “Joseph and His Brothers”. Some word-play and mythic elements may be missing, but they are missing from it when I read the original because I am me and not a German reader from the WWII era.
And speaking of pure forms: It's hard to find loans in the Gathas, not to mention the Gathas don't mention either the Persians or the Medes, nor do they mention the Jews. Whereas the Hebrew Bible shows Zoroastrian influence.
So? The point I am making is not that there is not a Babylonian influence on the OT (I can read it for myself). The point is that it is not half-bad history (read the entire corpus of Finkelstein and the Iron Age excavations in Israel), which indicates that a pre-50 BCE dating (the minimum given per the science of the Septuagint fragments) is highly likely. You need not believe it, but do not think your belief has anything to do with reality.
The point is, be fair in your analysis (this is what science and all beneficial communications should be all about). If you claim that the "Aryan Bible" was completely as it exists today when the petrographies were incused, that is fine with me. The hard right of the Kach then is equally correct in stating that the inerrant word of Gyd (in Hebrew) was existant by 1200 BCE. You cannot claim one without allowing the other.
Look at the jewish star. Do you know its really a symbol for half being male of god. When you place another jewish star with that one its the whole thing. The star represents angelic beings, males. I was talking about angelic beings being more of a combination of gender but being say if its a male being more male than humans and female being more female . The more you combine genders the more feminine if female it is or masculine it becomes if male. This concept is hard to understand but true. The combination of the two stars really shows the one entity named JEHOVAH in english translated from the original hebrew. I do not think that most people knew that star represented angelic beings but I wonder if those like pharoeh knew that which is why they enslaved them.
Also note the jewish star represented jesus because hes the male but also half . Get it.