| |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The staff ate the rest of the staffs. | |
| ▲ | schrectacular 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Magi" were priests of Zoraster. It is true that our current word for magic is derived from this root but that doesn't mean that the text is saying they were _magicians_. | | |
| ▲ | bambax 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > "Magi" were priests of Zoraster That's the etymology of the word, but there is no indication in the gospel of Matthew (the only one to even mention this) that it's a reference to Persia. That would be like saying when anyone who mentions "algorithm" is really talking about Uzbekistan, because al-Ḵwārizmī means 'the man of Ḵwārizm' (now Khiva). | | |
| ▲ | wahern a day ago | parent [-] | | AFAIU, in Ancient Greek culture Magi were often considered like Plato's Philosopher Kings. Greeks didn't have an accurate understanding of Zoroastrianism or the structure of Persian government, but for some reason they saw Persian leaders, and Magi in particular, as possessing a synthesis of political, religious, philosophical and scientific virtues. For example, they thought Persian leaders' grasp of astronomy meant the laws they promulgated were what we might call today, science-based. Magi represented idealized leadership rooted in reason, similar to the way today people of one country like to point at some other country du jour as an exemplar of rational governance, especially when critiquing their own government or society. Aristotle and others specifically said that the Magi did not practice metaphysical sorcery. They believed the Magi could, for example, divine the future, but doing so through their study of astronomy (i.e. their science-y astrological knowledge). The biblical account of the Magi and the star they followed perfectly matches the mythos of Persian Magi in Greek culture. The story itself tells the reader not only that those rational leaders over yonder were convinced about the importance of Jesus, but that they knew because "science" revealed it to them. | | |
| ▲ | nivertech 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think there was a distinction between science, magic and religion (or rather, cults, since there were no organized religions in the modern sense). | | |
| ▲ | wahern 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, modern science wasn't a thing, per se; would have been part of natural philosophy and not well delineated. But philosophy, religion, and magic were broadly speaking understood as distinct, similar to today, at least from the perspective of the learned, and notwithstanding some esoteric cults (which also exist today). This is fairly obvious from the works that have survived, from Plato, Lucian (Syrian satirist), and many others, because they distinguish them similar to how we do today. Even atheists likely were also somewhat common, though it definitely wasn't something discussed as heavily as today. Plato specifically and literally mentions atheism--in Laws he says it's a typical phase for young adults, though it may be more fairly understood today as shirking, loose disbelief, or agnosticism. It's a fair deduction that Lucian was an atheist as we understand that term, and the popularity of his work strongly suggests atheism, or at least skepticism of religion and magic, were widespread. Point being, while our particular categories aren't perfect fits for the ancient and classical worlds, the general human and cultural dynamics were quite similar. They weren't unsophisticated rubes blind to their own ignorance; not much more, if at all, than we are today. What really distinguishes us is our wealth, and how a much larger fraction of our society has the opportunity to study and debate ideas like patricians and philosophers of yore. | | |
| ▲ | nivertech 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know about ancient philosophers, but for ordinary folks there was no distinction between a religious scholar and a scientist (both were learned men who read books). This still happens today, when many people mix history and genetics with religion and politics. If you have some relevant references that would be helpful. | | |
| ▲ | wahern 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's difficult to know specifically what ordinary folks believed, let alone the literati. But as you said, even today people mix religion and politics even when they at least superficially understand them as distinct and separable. I think starting from the assumption that people today, at a fundamental level, think and behave the same as people from millennia ago, is a good starting point, just as it's a good starting point when understanding different cultures and ethnic groups today. When we depart from that initial assumption, even with good intentions (e.g. some other culture is more rational, etc), prejudice rapidly creeps in. But it's a choice, nonetheless, and can lead in different directions. AFAIU, many historians believe, at least tacitly, that atheism wasn't a thing in the ancient world, and therefore that religious and mystical ideas were unconsciously and hopelessly intertwined and melded with other knowledge and beliefs, at least much more than today (assuming they even admit we still do it today). Probably because they understand atheism, and implicitly agnosticism and religious skepticism, as a modern ideology; which, as an "ideology", it is, but that's skipping ahead a few steps. They look for evidence to refute that assumption, and it's relatively scant (though not non-existent), for all the reasons most of history is lost to us. But if you start from the opposite assumption, that people think and behave similarly, I think the evidence strongly supports that the same intellectual dynamics were at play, certainly among the learned. Emphases and perspectives are different--even today each generation is more interested in certain questions than others. And of course literacy and, presumably, exposure to diverse ideas was less common (that was my point about wealth). But AFAICT and IMHO all the same threads are there, the distribution is just different. If you were teleported to 100 BC, I'm confident you could find people with very modern ideas and perspectives, they'd just might be more difficult to locate. But I think even the general milieu wouldn't be too foreign, depending on time and place. (If you teleported to the US during one of the Great Awakenings, the milieu would be much more religious than at other earlier and later times.) What definitely stands out in the surviving works is that atheism was generally cast in a negative light. While there's often open derision of magic and aspects of foreign and cult religions, religion was generally understood as an important element of a healthy polity. Though, in Plato's works its arguably (IMO conspicuously) ambiguous whether sincere belief is necessary, or just tacit acceptance and active participation in rituals. But none of that is unlike the situation until 50-100 years ago in the modern Western world. Anyhow, among the few books that directly speak to this topic are Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (1922), https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28312, and Atheism at the Agora: A History of Unbelief in Ancient Greek Polytheism (2023). They contain lots of references and quotations to classic works. The first book I came across via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9gtbs6/comme... |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rhet0rica 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The two concepts were often one in the same—a "magician" was simply any art that "we" considered to be not in keeping with "our" religious practices. The label was slung about freely for some thousand years. There are some philosophers who attempted to divide miracles from magic. They tended to classify the latter as esoteric science confined entirely to the natural world with no supernatural elements, and the former as invoking the aid of some confirmed divine being. When one considers souls and demiurges to be part of the natural world, however, even this most imaginative delineation is an inherently blurry one. |
| |
| ▲ | ch4s3 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here It's a pun on the staff ate. | |
| ▲ | danhau 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These depictions can probably be dismissed, just as any other depiction of Jesus. That painting has been made long after his death. The only clues to his likeness are deductions from biblical texts and historical context. For example, he most likely didn‘t have long hair (1. Corinthians 11), and he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious). | | |
| ▲ | barry-cotter 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious). Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines all look very similar and Jesus was definitely of the Levant. I hope you won’t deny Spaniards and Greeks are European. | | |
| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography. Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant. | | |
| ▲ | williamdclt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Never heard of spanish people or greeks not being considered "white". | | | |
| ▲ | watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe. | | |
| ▲ | rhet0rica 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Generally the matter is one of blood purity, as with all racism. Southern Spain, Italy, and Greece were all occupied at one time by Arabs, which contributed certain hair textures, skin tones, and facial features to the local gene pool. Those with no knowledge of history or civilization tend to be terrified of acknowledging the artistic and cultural contributions of al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire. As you probably know, the northern reaches of Italy are more German than Romance, on account of those pesky invasive Lombards. Of course the true absurdity of all this comes when two people from the same parents end up with different physiognomical and racial labels; since these traits are rarely as simple as idealized Mendelian characteristics, it is entirely possible for them to be passed on a couple of generations before re-coalescing. (The case of Summer on The Sopranos comes to mind—while her parents both have fairer skin than she does, the result is otherwise not all that unrealistic.) | |
| ▲ | throw0101d 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe. Not that they should actually be listened to about anything, but the KKK (and others) did not consider Italian (immigrants) to be white. One of the reasons for Columbus Day was people of that background wanting to show their 'American-ness'. | |
| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Because you are, as I suspect many people will, intentionally misreading the context of my comment. I am implying that the use of "European" herein does not literally refer to the geographic region known as "Europe," but rather that in the context of a statement about the likely physical appearance of Jesus it should be understood as a statement about race and ethnicity whereby "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white," as is represented in Western depictions of Jesus, particularly where traits like skin color, eye color and hair color are concerned. | | |
| ▲ | watwut 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 1.) Look, Spaniards are Europeans by any reasonable definition. They are part of Western Europe. 2.) Traditional western depiction of Jesus looking like Spaniards would be no exception. Traditional western depiction of Jesus tend to look sorta kinda like locals do. 3.) Europeans do have wild range of eye colors and hair colors. The eye color and hair being some specific colors even for whites is weird, because even whitey whites have all kind of hair colors and eye colors. > "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white, No it is not and to the extend it is, it is absurd whistleblowing attempt - the one that ends up redefine Western Europe as a place that excludes Spaniards. | |
| ▲ | barry-cotter 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 99.99% of the population of the Mediterranean basin at the time Jesus lived were white, almost certainly more given that the trans-Saharan slave trade was a creature of the camel and post dated the Arab conquest of North Africa. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | “White” didn’t exist at that time and the people of the Mediterranean certainly didn’t think of themselves as one homogeneous group. The various peoples had prejudices about each other which only consolidated into a hierarchy when the trans-Atlantic slave trade needed to legally define who couldn’t be property. Prejudices by, for example, the English or American against Greeks or Italians lasted into the 20th century. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Weird which of these two comments was downvoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#H... > in terms of physical appearance, the average Judean of the time would have likely had brown or black hair, honey/olive-brown skin, and brown eyes This entire digression has been brought to you by someone who didn't understand an obvious pun. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | swat535 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are at least 2 ancient pagan flood stories: The Gilgamesh Epic and the Atrathasis Epic, both originating in ancient Mesopotamia. Because both sources predate the source of Noah's story, many scholars have concluded that Noah's flood story was borrowed from these. However, consider the following objections: - When a historical event is retold to different audiences over time, the story generally becomes more mythical and embellished, and poetry and exalted language are used. It is the opposite when Noah's and the pagan stories are compared. Noah's story is simpler and told in a straightforward narrative, while the pagan stories are told in a more mythical and embellished style. - Noah's story is monotheistic, and the characters are ethically moral. The pagan stories are polytheistic, and the characters are ethically capricious. The pagan gods are implied to be selfish, jealous of each other and lie to each other. Moreover, in the Atrathasis Epic the gods discover that due to the flood, they have wiped out their only source of food (people's sacrifices) implying that they depend on humans. - The shape of the ark in Noah's story is the only one that can be considered seaworthy, being rectangular and in dimensions similar to more modern cargo barges. The pagan stories describe an ark that is round or cubic, which would make an ark less stable for floatation and also more vulnerable to damage/overturning by wave impact. It is therefore more likely that Noah's story with its later source is faithful to the actual historical event; while the pagan stories are versions modified to suit the polytheistic religion/culture of their audiences. At the same time, it is remarkable that the pagan stories confirm that a history changing flood did occur. | | |
| ▲ | bambax a day ago | parent [-] | | > the characters are ethically moral How is it ethical to drown every single human, including children, because you're displeased with what they do? And how is it ethical to also destroy "the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground" which have nothing whatsoever to do with human wickedness?? This is exactly what a Bond villain would say. Today, Bond villains are usually considered the acme of evil. |
| |
| ▲ | velcrovan 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not that great of an opportunity, to be honest | |
| ▲ | throw__away7391 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it’s just intended as a pun, “staff” == “staff”, and not as a religious statement, but I could be mistaken. | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | While the serpent had a dark role in the Epic of Gilgamesh too, it is extremely sad how the Genesis has twisted completely the beautiful story of how Shamkhat has civilized the wild Enkidu, whom God had made from clay (by showing him the pleasures of a city, as opposed to the harsh life in the wilderness: eating bread, drinking beer, being massaged with oil and making love), into the ugly story of how Eve has committed the unforgivable sin with Adam, of seeking knowledge on par with God, and her descendants shall be for ever punished for it. | | |
| ▲ | bambax 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know if it's sad; it's a different story, it's a kind of riff on the same themes. In Genesis III, it's necessary for Adam and Eve to acquire knowledge and leave the garden, because in so doing they have sex and make children. While in the garden, they didn't know they were naked, and presumably didn't have sex or reproduced. Also, when God finds out, he fist asks the man, who accuses "the woman you gave me". So then God turns to the woman, who says the snake deceived her. But here God stops his inquiry. We know the snake can talk because he talked to the woman, so why didn't God ask the snake why he did what he did? An interpretation is that the snake ("the most clever of all animals God had made") is in fact God's instrument. He works for the boss. | | |
| ▲ | chuckadams 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a rather obvious allegory for the loss of childhood innocence. We all have to leave The Garden at some point. See also Puff the Magic Dragon. | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is a different story but which is without any doubt derived from the Enkidu story and modified to suit different conceptions about the role of women in society and about what is valuable for mankind. While in the Enkidu story the role of the woman was positive, because she has taught Enkidu about the advantages of civilized life, making him leave the wilderness where he lived since being created by God, in the Genesis story Eve was despised for the same thing, i.e. for teaching Adam more than his creator did. I certainly side with the anonymous author of the Old Babylonian story about Enkidu and not with the editor of the Genesis book who has transformed it. | | |
| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Like Pandora's box, it's a just so story about why women are the source of all mens' problems and why patriarchy is just and necessary. And why women have pain in childbirth. And why people are afraid of snakes. And why we die. But mostly about why women suck (from the point of view of ancient Hebrew culture.) And that attitude transfers to Christianity in 1 Timothy when Paul says women should not be allowed to teach or have authority over men, but should remain quiet because it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent, and who then deceived Adam. | | |
| ▲ | bambax 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes but in Genesis 3, 20 (at the end of this very story), it is said: "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." That's not dismissive at all. It can be argued that Paul brought his own prejudices to a text which was much less prejudiced than he was. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | williamtrask 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive, this is a good thing (that the Old Testament has similarities to other major works). Implies a kind of evolutionary algorithm for truth. Likely implies these stories are more true because they’re more tried and tested. Societies who believed them became strong. If truth is about repeated experimentation or journalistic records (a very new concept in history of writing - less than 500 years), then perhaps this is of concern. I accept both definitions, but when they’re in conflict, the former tends to be more end-to-end, while the latter tends to overfit to the moment. Mostly because data is scarce and life is a very complex distributed system. On the other hand, the former changes slowly while the latter perhaps keeps up with the pace of change. Except the point of life is probably to thrive more than to collect a list of facts. So when in conflict, I lean towards the former. Personal choice tho. I expect most of HN leans the other way. | | |
| ▲ | chris-orgmenta 2 days ago | parent [-] | | To expand not refute, > If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive This is 'metaphorical truth' to be precise. But it's only a part of the virality of memes, not the whole. Propagation can occur not just due to usefulness, but to other factors such as simplicity/replicability, human susceptibility / 'key in a lock' etc. If survival was purely metaphorical truth, then all surviving lifeforms would be 'the most true' (including viruses being 'true' to us). Which can be argued, at a philosophical level - But then we've expanded the definition so much as to lose relevant meaning at the pragmatic level. Porcupine throwing quills, and all that. | | |
| ▲ | williamtrask a day ago | parent [-] | | Nice comment! I had forgotten about metaphorical truth. Sent me on a nice rabbit hole. I think 'metaphorical truth' is correct but slightly too narrow. Pragmatic truth includes metaphorical truth but is slightly wider. And while I agree with your assertion in the short run, I'm inclined to doubt its correctness in the long run. Most things eventually have consequences. |
|
|
|
