Timeline for Why did the magi seek a king?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2016 at 0:09 | comment | added | James Shewey | It is certainly still valuable and relevant for a number of reasons. It may just no be as reliable. That being said, this may be of interest... | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 23:58 | comment | added | user34445 | ... assuming that scholarship is actually moving forward .. but that's a far cry from saying scholarship isn't relevant because it was published in 1938. If you have scholarship that lessens the value of Nyberg, I welcome it. | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 23:54 | comment | added | James Shewey | since destroyed. This means that their scholarship is valuable for telling us about records and history that has been lost to time. Unfortunately, that value diminishes as scholarship moves forward historical scholarship of the 17th and 18th centuries tends to be the weakest in the middle ground between the two. Scholars like Josephus and Herodotus also tended to have less cultural or at least a better grasp of differences between middle eastern society of the time of Jesus and modern western culture. | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 23:50 | comment | added | James Shewey | Archaeology really only began in earnest in the 19th and 20th centuries with most discoveries concentrated in the latter-half of the 20th. This has tended to boost the value more modern scholarship over historic scholarship - older scholars did not have the benefit of most archaeological discoveries. This doesn't make Nyberg wrong, but it would be helpful to have additional (more modern) references. The historic scholarship is great for gaining a perspective on what people used to think, but we generally assume that Herodotus and Josepus had access to libraries that have been | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 23:39 | comment | added | user34445 | In general I find scholarship remains relevant until more recent scholarship either improves, refutes, or clarifies the perspective. If none arises historical interpretation remains relevant. Hence - our continued use of Herodotus (c. 484–c. 425 BC) and Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100). If you know of anything that casts doubt on Nyberg please share. | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 23:34 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | When it's not mathematical theorems, but historical interpretation: yes. (Not necessarily, but in this case, yes!) Could you provide page numbers, please? Thanks! | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 23:20 | comment | added | user34445 | Also, I'm not sure why Nyberg being from 1938 makes him not relevant. The Pythagorean theorem was published in 16th century BC Babylon; the Chinese remainder theorem was 3rd century AD; and Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. They're still all used. Does scholarship 'time out'? | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 22:59 | comment | added | user34445 | Thanks for your comments Dɑvïd. I value your insight. Perhaps I'm less skeptical than you. Between ancient Persia and Babylon there were only a handful of religions with fire worship. Historians are happy to see parallels elsewhere (commonality re: creation myths, flood myths, etc) - why not parallels in Fire-worship? Specifically the apparent connection between 'purity' and 'fire'; the connection between 'eternal flames (skyward) and eternal flames (earthward) etc. There is little doubt Zoroastrianism was influenced by Judaism. Why not the cult of Molech? Skepticism seems unwarranted. | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 22:52 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | ... cont'd: See e.g. James Barr, "The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity", JAAR 53 (1985): 201-35 for a discussion of methodological issues. I don't know what you think Nyberg brings to the table. It was published in 1938, and there have been convulsions through the 20th C in the study of ancient Persia and its religion. So I persist in thinking that Molech is a red herring here. | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 22:50 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | Thanks for that. AFAIK, neither Day nor Heider draw lines of influence from Mol[e/o][k/ch] to Zoroastrianism, so we set them aside for the moment. The connections between Molech/Malik [sic] and Nergal are well known. Bivar's article, exploring that connection, considers possible influence on Mithras cult and broad ANE syncretism connecting dots with Zoroastrianism (via Mary Boyce, on p.285). This is still a long way from Molech having any explanatory power for the nature of the "magi". Of course, these parallels are speculative and are notoriously difficult to assess. .../2 | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 19:20 | comment | added | user34445 | A.D.H. Bivar "Religious Subjects on Achaemenid Seals" in J. R. Hinnells (ed.) Mithraic Studies, Vol 1. (1975) Zoroastrian dualism from neo-Babylonian religion (Nergal was identified with Moloch so made great headway in Persia during the peroid of Median supremacy prior to the rise of Cyrus the Great and inspired Roman Mithraism) Archaeology in Cilicia has since proved Bivar correct about Nergal being Molech. Also: G. Heider "The Cult of Molek (1985)" J. Day "Molech:A God of Human Sacrific in the Old Testaent (1989)" Nyberg "Die Religionen des alten Iran" | |
| Dec 27, 2016 at 13:52 | comment | added | Dɑvïd | Could you provide some source or documentation for your aligning the cult of Molech and Zoroastrianism the way that you do? That's a new one for me. Thanks. (I'm not sure myself that Molech contributes anything to this answer in any case, FWIW.) | |
| Dec 26, 2016 at 19:54 | history | edited | user34445 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Dec 26, 2016 at 19:47 | history | edited | user34445 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Dec 26, 2016 at 19:39 | history | answered | user34445 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |