From: George Murphy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 09:57:57 EST
> In a message dated 1/5/03 7:23:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> > . I don't believe that argument is compelling, in part because it's
> > far from clear that such traditions did influence Mt & Lk. In any case,
> > the presence of
> > this theme in other religions & cultures is a sword that can cut
> Would you entertain the possibility that some of the structure and nature of
> judeo-christianity may be from the rg veda via zoroaster with a smatter of
> Babylonian religion? I'm trying to understand your metaphor. Are you saying
> religions evolve in isolation and are best not examined for cross influences?
> "sword cuts both ways" - please clarify... what analyses are appropriate?
No, I don't think religions evolve in isolation. Babylonian
influenced Judaism, in large part negatively. (I.e., parts of II
Isaiah, Gen.1 &c are
theological polemic against Babylonian concepts.) Judaism seems to
have absorbed some
Zoroastrian concepts during the Persian period. But the question is
statements about virginal conception in Mt & Lk are due, in whole or
in part, to such
To clarify "the sword cutting both ways": There are (at
least) 2 ways of
arguing from the existence of ideas about virginal conceptions in
1) The existence of these ideas shows that virginal
conception is appropriate
for a divine being, and thus is used properly to speak about Jesus.
2) The existence of these ideas shows that the notion of
was, so to speak, "in the air", and thus Mt & Lk could have gotten
the idea from their
cultures rather than from any historical information about Mary's virginity.
Both assume that such ideas from other religions _did_
influence the Christian
accounts which, as I noted, is debatable. & neither line of argument
about such historicity.
-- George L. Murphy email@example.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 11:24:35 EST