the following is from: cosmos, chaos and the world to come (pp.
222-224), norman cohn.
yale university press.
That's quite correct. Just Google for daeva. The Jews' and Christian's angelology derives similarly.
Most the the OT as we have it is the product of the 6th century BCE and later.
The "Judaism" of the "Old Testament" is not the Judaism of Jesus and his contemporaries. Much took place during the intervening centuries.
Doug
the following is from: cosmos, chaos and the world to come (pp.
222-224), norman cohn.
yale university press.
If anyone does purchase the book by Cohn, make sure you read the "Afterword" and especially the "Appendix".
Doug
the following is from: cosmos, chaos and the world to come (pp.
222-224), norman cohn.
yale university press.
Not a problem. I sent you a pm.
Doug
the following is from: cosmos, chaos and the world to come (pp.
222-224), norman cohn.
yale university press.
Search the www for sites that discuss the relationships, such as with: Zoroastrianism and Judaism.
This is interesting information from a Jewish Perspective:
http://collections.americanjewisharchives.org/ms/ms0603/ms0603.053.010.pdf
Doug
the following is from: cosmos, chaos and the world to come (pp.
222-224), norman cohn.
yale university press.
[A Parsee – an adherent of Zoroastrianism – speaks:] Because if you study carefully the details of the laws, rites and precepts which are supposed to come directly from Moses, you will not find, in any article, a hint — even a tacit one — at what now constitutes the theological doctrine of the Jews and their offspring the Christians. Nowhere will you find a trace either of the immortality of the soul, or of an afterlife, or of hell or heaven, or of the revolt of the angel who is supposed to be the main author of the evils of mankind, etc. … So, added the Parsee priest, addressing the rabbis, it is only after the time of your first kings, that these ideas appear in your writers; and they appear only bit by bit — furtively at first, in accordance with the political relations which our fathers had with your ancestors; it is chiefly when your fathers, conquered and dispersed by the kings of Nineveh and Babylon, and brought up for three generations in succession in our country, that they assimilated the manners and opinions which until then had been rejected as contrary to their Law. When our king Cyrus had delivered them from slavery, their hearts warmed to us [Zoroastrians] out of gratitude; they became our imitators, our disciples, the most distinguished families, which the kings of Babylon had had educated in Chaldaean sciences, brought new ideas back to Jerusalem, foreign doctrines. …
The Pharisean or Parsee doctrines prevailed; and, modified according to your genius and the ideas which are peculiarly yours, it gave rise to a new sect. You expected a king who would restore your power, we announced a redeemer and saviour God; and from the combination of these ideas, your Essenes made the basis of Christianity; and Jews, Christians and Moslems, you are, in your system of spiritual bangs, nothing but the straying children of Zoroaster. (Cohn, 238-239)
i can think of two to start off with .
john 1:1 and luke 23:43 ,what others can you come up with ?.
The Watchtower are amateurs when it comes to changing texts to suit their conclusions.
The text has undergone changes ever since the ink dried on the initial scroll. Scribes believed it was their duty to correct the text according to their current beliefs.
"Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible" provides examples in the Hebrew Scriptures, as does "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible". The Essenes had two versions of Jeremiah concurrently.
There is no such thing as "THE" Bible. It is a library and there is a number of different collections. Just consider the number of books in the Ethiopian Bible and in the Orthodox Church's Bible.
No one ever voted that the Protestant list is correct.
Doug
the following is from: cosmos, chaos and the world to come (pp.
222-224), norman cohn.
yale university press.
The following is from: Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come (pp. 222-224), Norman Cohn. Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
To return to the Book of Daniel: even linguistically there is something odd about the work, for chapters 2 to 7 are written, not like the rest of the Old Testament in Hebrew, but in the language of the Iranian empire, Imperial Aramaic; and they contain no less than twenty Persian loan-words.
More importantly, in chapter 2 there is an image which has a close parallel in Zoroastrian lore: the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, with its head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet part iron and part terracotta. In the Iranian apocalypse Zand i Vahman Yasht (meaning ‘Commentary on the hymn in praise of the god Vohu Manah’), Zoroaster dreams of a tree with branches of gold, silver, steel — and iron mixed with clay.
Nebuchadnezzar’s statue and Zoroaster’s tree both symbolise the same thing: a succession of four historical periods. The concept of four ages, symbolised respectively by gold, silver, bronze and iron is to be found already in an eighth-century Greek work, Hesiod’s Work and Days; but the addition of iron mixed with clay is an innovation, and such a curious one that it cannot be coincidental. Nor is there much doubt as to which is the original, Nebuchadnezzar’s statue or Zoroaster’s tree. Although the extant version of the Zand-i Vahman Yasht is — like all Zoroastrian texts — late, its origin is very ancient. Some scholars hold that it goes back to the time of Alexander the Great, others that it goes back further still. What is certain is that it is far older than the Book of Daniel.
That being so, one would expect the Iranian interpretation of the dream to be more natural, more persuasive than the Jewish. And so it is — especially the interpretation of ‘iron mixed with clay’. In the Zand-i Vahman Yasht the image symbolises the age when ‘non-Iranians will be mixed with Iranians’ — that is, when the good strong iron of Zoroastrian Iranians will be weakened by an influx of infidel foreigners. In Daniel ‘iron mixed with clay’ is interpreted as the time when Seleucid rule will be weakened by unsuccessful dynastic marriages — a forced comparison if ever there was one!
There is other, even more convincing evidence of Zoroastrian influence. When Nebuchanezzar asks Daniel to interpret this same dream, Daniel invokes ‘a God in heaven who reveals mysteries … mysteries of what is to be’ — and the word for ‘mysteries’ is rz. It is the very same word as is used in the Scrolls to denote the secret knowledge which the Qumran community treasured above all things: knowledge of God’s plan for the world, and especially for the end of time. And it is a Persian word, much used by Zoroastrians in precisely the same sense.
if you enjoy a challenge, i recommend this book: mind the gap: how the jewish writings between the old and new testament help us understand jesus, by matthias henze.
fortress press.. one example from the book:.
while there are several individuals in the bible who are said to be anointed, the word “messiah” or “anointed one” is never used in the old testament to designate a future anointed redeemer figure.
Hi Phizzy,
The Qumran Community believed they were living in the very last of the Last Days.
Judaism was never homogenous, and is still not. Further, it continually evolved, so that the Judaism when the Scriptures were worked on at the time of the Babylonian Exile was not the Judaism at the time of the Judaism of Jesus and his contemporaries. Features of Jesus' Judaism included features that did not exist when the OT texts were being written:
The religion of the Old Testament is not the Judaism of Jesus. While in the New Testament, Jesus studies and teaches in the synagogues, there are no synagogues in the Old Testament. While in the New Testament, Jesus’s disciples call him rabbi, there are no rabbis in the Old Testament. While in the New Testament, Jesus is often involved in conversations with the Pharisees, there are no Pharisees in the Old Testament. While in the New Testament, Jesus expels demons and unclean spirits, there are no demons in the Old Testament. The list goes on. These are not incidental matters in the life of Jesus. They all stem from the Jewish world to which Jesus belonged. (Henze, page 2)
And their texts had evolved as the scribes kept making amendments while making the necessary copies.
The Qumran community appears to have expected two Messiahs, one a king the other a priest, with the latter taking precedence.
The NT writers were aware of the Qumran sect. For example, when Luke has Jesus provide the evidence to John the Baptist (Luke 7:20-22), he adds parts from the Qumran Community's Messianic Apocalypse.
To answer John [the Baptist]’s doubts and, at the same time, reaffirm Jesus’s identity as the Messiah. Jesus’s reply is remarkably similar to the list in the Messianic Apocalypse from Qumran. The first and last element in Jesus’s response, “to give sight to the blind” and “to proclaim good news to the poor,” are also found in the text from Qumran.
And there is a third element shared by both texts, the raising of the dead. There is no resurrection language in Isaiah 61. The Messianic Apocalypse and the Gospel of Luke draw heavily on the prophecies found in the book of Isaiah in their respective descriptions of the messiah, and yet, they both go a step further and add to their set of messianic expectations the hope for the resurrection of the dead.
Luke leaves no doubt that Jesus is the anointed of Isaiah. But he also makes clear that there is more. He adds the resurrection of the dead. That addition, we now know from the Messianic Apocalypse, was not Luke’s invention, but had become a fixed part of the messianic expectations in early Judaism by the time Luke wrote his Gospel. By including it in Jesus’s response, Luke not only draws on the prophet Isaiah, he responds to the expectations expressed in the Messianic Apocalypse. (Henze, page 77)
Doug
if you enjoy a challenge, i recommend this book: mind the gap: how the jewish writings between the old and new testament help us understand jesus, by matthias henze.
fortress press.. one example from the book:.
while there are several individuals in the bible who are said to be anointed, the word “messiah” or “anointed one” is never used in the old testament to designate a future anointed redeemer figure.
Thanks, Magnum.
There is one book that I yearn for but it's expensive:
Companion to Ancient Israel (ed. Susan Niditch; Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2013).
The article that created my interest is by Mark Smith at Jismor 9.
http://www.cismor.jp/uploads-images/sites/3/2014/07/723615e7fc0170b6f8c05dd145dd429d4.pdf
Doug
if you enjoy a challenge, i recommend this book: mind the gap: how the jewish writings between the old and new testament help us understand jesus, by matthias henze.
fortress press.. one example from the book:.
while there are several individuals in the bible who are said to be anointed, the word “messiah” or “anointed one” is never used in the old testament to designate a future anointed redeemer figure.
If you enjoy a challenge, I recommend this book: Mind the Gap: How the Jewish Writings between the Old and New Testament Help Us Understand Jesus, by Matthias Henze. Fortress Press.
One example from the book:
While there are several individuals in the Bible who are said to be anointed, the word “messiah” or “anointed one” is never used in the Old Testament to designate a future anointed redeemer figure.
In other words, there are no texts in the Old Testament that know of the concept of a messiah as an awaited agent of God, a descendant of David who will appear to reign over a restored kingdom of Israel at the end of time. That concept of a future messiah was only developed in later times, after the Old Testament.
There are several “messiahs” in the Old Testament, to be sure, but they are not divine figures of the end of time. They are the kings, priests, and prophets of ancient Israel.
And yet, when Andrew tells his brother Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” or when the Samaritan woman declares, “I know that the Messiah is coming,” they are not referring to an earthly king, priest, or prophet. They are expressing the hope for a future redeemer figure, the messiah of the end time. We find that concept develop in the literature that was written during the gap years in between the Old and the New Testament.
There are no texts in the Old Testament that speak of a future messianic
figure of the end time. (Henze, pages 58-59)
