If you don't believe in unicorns, you are against God's word

Post Reply New Topic

Let me explain, I was being a bit simplistic.
The Hebrews did not have a dramatic Day of Judgement or a world-ruling Devil in their religion. They had a Satan or possibly several Satans. Satan is an Accuser and he tempted other "angels" and humans into sin. He ratted on his victims after leading them astray. YHWE did not like Satan, but employed him. The Five Books of Moses mention no afterlife or judgement day. Later prophets indicated these things, only after the Hebrews came in contact with Persian Zoroastrians. Genesis is not clear as to whether the Serpent is actually Satan or perhaps one of several Satans.
The Book of Enoch is of dubious origin, but is reference in the New Testament Book of Jude. The Essenes valued Enoch and they influence the messianic movement in Judaism of which Jesus and Baptist John were part. The Ded Sea Scrolls have Enoch and other apocalyptic literature like Sons of Light. These texts show Zoroastrian doctrines more than Mosaic. The Zoroastrans originated the doctrine of Day of Judgement. Heaven and Hell. Damnation and Salvation. They created the Devil concept. Zoroastrian deity Angra Manyu or Ahriman is the Book f Revelations Devil. Devil has the origin from Aryan "Dev" , but then the Latin term diabolus comes into it as well. Ahriman is the Bad Guy who s beaten at end of world. He did not come from Judaism.
Christianity mixed Ahriman, Satan, Azazel, Baal, etc into one character and called him the Devil. They mixed Messianic Judaism (strong Zoroastrian influence) with Greek myth (they threw in a burning in Hell drama---Tartaros in Greek myth and tossed in the name Hades) and created a new religion more like Zoroastrian or Manichean than orthodox Judaism. Jesus is a teacher who rejected worldliness and in the desert is tempted by Satan (this time acting like the real Hebrew Satan). When Jesus passes the test, he then commands Satan.
The Qu'ran is written in classic Arabic, similar to Aramaic/Hebrew. It has the legalism of Mosaic Hebrew and stays strongly monotheistic. Yet it too adds Zoroastrian and Manichean ideas like Judgement Day, Heaven and Hell, etc to the older Mosaic ideas. The Devil in the Qu'ran is much closer to the original Hebrew Satan than the Christian Devil. This Islamic Devil Iblis, leads people astray and is more an enemy of man not of YHWE or Allah. The Qu'ran and Enoch explain better that there are different forms of beings than just "angels". The Qu'ran introduces the Djinn. Enoch gives a better idea of why there are so many dispute among the Malaqs, Serafs, Cherub, etc.
Of course, these books have trouble too. The Qu'ran is not clear on whether or not Iblis is doing his job or is bad. It is as inconsistent as the Bible. Enoch is a bit fantastical for many believers.

Enoch is a bit on the fantastic side, yes, and precise original form and content are a bit controversial.

I have to jump on a couple of linguistic points devil < diabolus < diabolos despite first appearances has nothing to to with IndoIranian daiw-. It is one of those stupid coincidences like my "discovery" of English day and Latin dies which prompted my father to give me a detailed lesson on regular phonetic correspondence. Classical Arabic is "like" Hebrew and Aramaic [and Akkadian and Sabaean and Geez and Ugaritic] only in that it is a Semitic language. Hebrew and Achaemenid Aramaic are much closer in time and in the scheme of Semitic to one another than either is to Classical Arabic, which ironically shows a more conservative phonology comparable to the early Canaanite Ugaritic.

But note importantly that the Old and New Testaments were written by and for monotheists; the Qur'an was written in a polytheistic milieu which is part of why Muhammad had a bit of trouble getting it going.

It is unclear to me if your analysis of the devil is your own construction or based on some other source. It is certainly clear that the Persian Empire gave the Arameophone community including large chunks of Jewry a lot of words and concepts - as did the Hellenistc kingdoms, of course. It is not clear when Zoroastrianism took over from the old IndoEuropean style gods in Persia.

If you were to submit this to me as a seminar paper [I know you are not] I would advise you:

Tighten the argument.

Pick a coherent thesis

Clarify which is your rrasoning and which derived from other sources

AND

Either drop the subject of devil evolution or come up with strong arguments as to why perceived changes cannot be independent developments rather than imports.

Well, Philologos, you are very informed. You picked out the parts f my theme that are unproven. I did not present this as a term or research paper, if I were to do that I would have to "tighten" the research, yes. I was being simplistic. I did not expect to encounter one as informed as you. I was simply being controversial. I wanted to get some reactions from the audience.
Since you are unexpectedly well versed in this subject, then I shall present it as a theory.
1. You agree that those who either believe in or totally reject the Bible simply based on a literal reading of the English (Greco-Latin translation of a Hebrew-Aramaic text) are badly informed.?
2. Semitic languages are vastly different from Greek and English.
3. The Devil, Satan or Satans, Lucifer are not the same and are not from the same languages. Demons and angels are not what they are in English Bibles. Hebrews and Muslims call them "Malaq" not angels.
4. The New Testament Satan-Devil is closer to Ahriman than to Hebrew Satan.
5. The Day f Judgement and Heaven and Hell are Zoroastrian and not Mosaic. Burning in Hell is Greek, not Hebrew.
You could say I have a theory that Christanity and to some extent Isam are more Zoroastrian than Mosaic. You are correct, I need more proof or detail. If I want to submit a paper. My reference to Devil having somewhat Persian origin in based on some reading I have done in Manichean literature. A spirit of Aryan origin called "Ashma Dev" is associated with a devil character. He inspired the Apocryphal Book of Tobit evil spirit with a Hellenized name Asmodeus. I theorize that the Christian character "The Devil" is a combination of two Aryan deities. The Greco-Roman Diabolus and the Aryan Ashma Dev. Yes, it is my theory. Sorry, that I presented it like fact. I was just being a propagandist.
I truly enjoyed your critique. You are most informed. By the way. I am aware that Arabic is not exactly the same as Aramaic. They still both share the same triconsonantal roots, do they not? The grammar seems similar. They are from different branches of the west Semitic family.