Re: New Theory on the Evolution of Egypt
- --- In ANEemail@example.com, "Samuel Lerner" <samulern@...> wrote:
>There is a bit more - perhaps others would be interested. The
> --- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "richfaussette" <RFaussette@> wrote:
> > I am not a scholar. I do not presume to know what the scholars on
> > this list know. I have simply looked at the evolution of religion
> > from a Darwinian perspective rather than fight the common fight,
> > religion versus science and the result after a quarter century of
> > effort has been productive for me.
> Thanks, this is all I wanted to know.
> Shana tova.
> .... Samuel Lerner
following lines appear in wikipedia (we'll use it as a resource for
the purposes of illustration).
"Nonetheless, "the precarious condition in which they lived for a
considerable period made it impracticable for them to keep up their
former proselytizing zeal. The instinctive fear of disintegration and
absorption in the vast multitudes among whom they lived created in
them a spirit of exclusiveness and a strong feeling for the
preservation of the racial characteristics and distinctive features
of their community. Living in an atmosphere surcharged with the Hindu
caste system, they felt that their own safety lay in encircling
their fold by rigid caste barriers" (Dhalla, 1938:474). Even so, at
some point (perhaps not long after their arrival in India), the
Zoroastrians - perhaps determining that the social stratification
that they had brought with them was unsustainable in the small
community - did away with all but the hereditary priesthood (called
the asronih in Sassanid Iran). The remaining estates - the
(r)atheshtarih (nobility, soldiers, and civil servants), vastaryoshih
(farmers and herdsmen), hutokshih (artisans and laborers) - were
folded into an all-comprehensive class today known as the behdini
("followers of daena", for which "good religion" is one translation).
This change would have far reaching consequences. For one, it opened
the gene pool to some extent since until that time inter-class
marriages were exceedingly rare (this would continue to be a
problem for the priesthood until the 20th century). For another, it
did away with the boundaries along occupational lines, a factor that
would enamour the Parsis to the 18th and 19th century British
colonial authorities who had little patience for the unpredictable
complications of the Hindu caste system (such as a clerk from one
caste who would not deal with a clerk from another)."
Now recall Pierre Bryant's description of the Persian diaspora as a
socioethnic elite (From Cyrus to Alexander) as you consider the
conscious decision by the Parsis above to shed priest/warrior
stratification to live in diaspora in India. Now further consider the
conquest of Canaan in the Hebrew bible as a nation building exercise
in which just the opposite occurs. Rather than being shed, the
stratification is created (priesthood and military organized by
Moses). So, the split into priest/warrior classes is described in the
bible, but where do we see the same priestly/pastoral diaspora social
structure described for the Parsis in the Hebrew bible?
We find it in Genesis.
My essay on this matter will be published this fall in the Occidental
Quarterly. It is titled THE BOOK OF GENESIS FROM A DARWINIAN
The Hebrew bible contains a formula for nation building and another
formula (allegorized in the book of genesis) for living in diaspora.