Leonardo_Drakon wrote:Astar_Mundi wrote:Leonardo_Drakon wrote:The PGM is a collection of spells and techniques from all over the Hellenic world that was compiled and kept in one personal library in Thebes (Egypt)...it's not a rehash of anything as it was simply a compilation of magical material with no overarching religious or philosophical paradigm.
We need to think of it as a magical cookbook with a collection of various diverse recipes from late antiquity, not a monolithic religious tome. There is no singular worldview or system being expressed other than the ability of the ritualist to interact with the spirit world.
To single out Zoroastrianism as the "influence" is a silly thing. All the traditions of the Near East, North Africa and Mediterranean are undoubtedly "influences" since it is the folk magical practices of these regions that have been recorded in the papyri. The emphasis is on "folk" as very little of any of the centralized state or canonical religions is to be found within the papyri. The focus of the PGM is practical magic not theological doctrine.
So you agree that it is no more than surviving fragments and remnants of old magic from the Mediterranean region. That was exactly what I was saying, and of course, you have failed to put into historical context the origins of the dominant mystical movements from that region. Which was Zoroastrian.
It is a direct, yet watered down and altered, descendant of Zoroastrianism. To understand this would require you to have actually studied Zoroastrianism, which I can infer from your response as too high a bar to set. The common folk took knowledge from the Priest class, who were using knowledge directly from Zoroastrian and Chaldaen origins.
If you actually knew anything whatsoever about ancient Chaldean Priesthood you would find that practical magic and theological doctrine are one and the same for them. Magic was practical engineering at a higher level than banging rocks about.
To say you have either a theological manual or a practical manual is petty religious thinking at the most base level.
You are making incorrect assumptions and as usual your tone is accusative and offensive. I'm not going to draw out in a long argument with you, but for posterity of those coming to this topic I will say that the magical and religious panorama of late antiquity is far more complex and diverse than what you are stating.
My usual response when someone's first response is a trite Ad Hominem is to disregard the rest of whatever they have to say.