You can now find me at Word Press

I've been playing around with three different blogging sites. Along with this blog, I have one on Word Press and one on My Opera. I liked different aspects of each, but probably liked this one the least. One reason I like My Opera is because the only blog I follow happens to be there. What made me finally decide was that whenever I posted from one blogging site to another, all of the formatting and links would be lost. So, I needed to make a choice and Word Press was the winner. Part of the reason is that I can save drafts there and I also appreciate that you can open it into full screen when writing a blog.

So, from now on all of my postings will be found on Word Press.

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/

NT Scholarship and Discussions: limits, failings

I often find myself attracted to intellectual discussions because it is a good way to engage new perspectives and learn new info. However, it almost always ends up more frustrating than satisfying. There are two factors to this that I’ve observed recently in terms of New Testament discussions.

First off, there are categories of people that just don’t see eye to eye… nor even want to try most of the time. There are: believers, atheists, agnostics, spiritual seekers, philosophers/theologians, scholars, curious bystanders, and of course trolls. Excluding the troll category, I find myself a mix of all of these

An even more basic division are those who want to debate (whether apologists, intellectual, or troll) and those who seek meaning. New Testament studies discussions attract mostly the former type. It consists of people arguing over the validity of some ancient reference or the proper translation of a word. It is rare for people to look at the big picture to see how it all fits together because nobody can agree to even a basic set of facts and premises. This is why mythicists have such a hard time because their position isn’t very convincing when you argue over a single detail. You have to enter the mindset of an ancient person and get at their fundamental perception and understanding of the world. In order to do this, it helps to step outside of ancient texts and engage other types of info from diverse fields (such as ethnology and comparative religion). However, to want to seek out a larger perspective one has to be a meaning seeker and not just an intellectual debater.

This brings me to the second factor New Testament studies isn’t primarily about meaning. Most of the discussion is about how Christianity and the scriptures developed rather than why. This is because considering why can’t as easily be answered, and it would require New Testament scholars (of the academic and armchair varieties) to step outside of their comfort zones. I’ve noticed scholarly types (and those who like to consider themselves as such) tend to stake out a territory. This happens on an individual level and within an entire field of study. Many scholars defend their field from the intrusion of scholars from other fields… even sometimes going so far as to say an authority on history or ancient languages aren’t worthy of commenting on New Testament because that isn’t their specialty (even if they spent their whole life studying the New Testament scholarship). The scholars that dismiss the scholarship of other fields usually do so out of ignorance. Academia has a way of creating tunnel vision.

Robert M. Price talks about this problem (http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/Pricejhc.htm). He is a good example of someone who seeks a broader understanding in order to resist getting trapped in the lowest common denominator of scholarly consensus. He writes about higher criticism, theology, apologetics, literary theory, comparative religion, and mythicism… along with unscholarly subjects such as Lovecraft’s horror writing and superheroes. More importantly, he refuses to identify entirely with any given theory.

Price is on the Jesus Project. I have some hope that the Jesus Project may open up the New Testament field. I was reading Richard Carrier’s view on it in his blog (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html) It sounds like the project is trying to get past the biases of past New Testament scholarship. No scholar is being rejected because their theory isn’t consensus opinion, and the participating scholars will actually judge eachother’s theories based on the the strength of the scholarship. Gee golly! What a concept! Carrier has another blog where he discusses the problems of the field in reference to a book he is writing about historicism (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/09/ignatian-vexation.html). He points out how New Testament scholars don’t follow the standard practices of historians in other fields. This is probably because the field has been controlled by apologists for centuries now. Interestingly, Carrier’s opinion about older scholarship (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/04/history-before-1950.html) disagrees with the opinion of Price (in the link from the above paragraph).

However, the Jesus Project doesn’t go far enough for me. I’d like to see some similar project about early Christianity that included scholars from all relevant fields: historians from other fields, ancient language expterts, literary theorists, comparative religionists, comparative mythologists, folklorists, archaeologists (including archaeoastronomers), anthropologists (including ethnologists and ethnoastronomers), astrotheologists, experts on ancient theology and philosophy, and New Testament higher critics. I’d only exclude apologists if they lacked appropriate objectivity. The basis of this project would be determining standards across fields in order to encourage discussion. I can dream.

Re: Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors (part 2)

This is a further response that began in my previous post:

Re: Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors

I said: This is where I think Acharya/Murdock has one key to understanding a larger perspective. There are only two baaic factors that all humans in all places and time periods have shared: a basic human nature and psychoological functioning; and a common enviornmental experience.

Verenna said: “I don’t accept that all humans have a common environmental experience. We all have “environmental experiences” but they are not common. The degrees by which they vary is why we have jerks and humanitarians and humanitarian jerks.”

I wasn’t talking about common environmental experience as a social factor, but that plays in as well because research shows that social development follows common patterns. Rather, what I was talking about is the physical environment: sun and moon, stars and planets; seasons along with daily and yearly solar cycles; migration and growth patterns; universal scientific laws. Et Cetera. These environmental experiences (including the social aspects as well) are common to “jerks and humanitarians and humanitarian jerks.” There is nothing overly controversial about my claim.

I said: As for the latter, the most universal experience humans share is the observation of the sky.

Verenna said: “I disagree. I think the most universal experience is death. Some cultures looked up and others looked down. Others still looked in the trees, in the water, in the wind… don’t let Acharya S pull the wool over your eyes. Not every culture looked up and saw the same thing. And not every culture looked down and saw the same thing.”

I certainly wasn’t arguing against other universal human experiences. Whichever is the most universal, both death and the sky are themes found in every culture.

Your constant condescension is rude and childish. You’ve already made it clear that you perceive yourself as a scholar whose insight is simply above my head and I’m a mere simpleton who has been duped. It’s good you have such a high appraisal of yourself. Personally, I prefer humility.

As I’ve already said, I read widely beyond Acharya/Murdock: other mythicists, comparative mythologists, psychologists and sociologists, socio-historical commentators, and much else. Not every culture looked up and came up with the exact same myth. However, every culture observerd the same patterns and there are plenty of examples where they interpreted them similarly. For example, cultural transmission can’t explain the similarities between myths in Americas with myths in the rest of the world. Many scholars have noted these types of similarities long before Acharya/Murdock and many scholars still do.

I said: The human mind evolved with people staring at the sky, and it offered a survival advantage.

Verenna said: “No, the human mind evolved when we started eating red meat.”

The human mind had many contributing factors. I said the mind evolved with people staring at the sky. I didn’t say that staring at the sky was the sole factor that caused the humand mind to evolve.

I said: The patterns of animals and plants also follow the patterns of the seasons, and knowing these patterns precisely could mean the difference between life and death for the people of the earliest civilizations.

Verenna said: “You don’t need to look to the sky to interpret seasons. Again, don’t let Acharya S pull the wool over your eyes. Nature has its own inherited mechanisms that function seasonally. Interpreting them was just as much a part of the process. In some cultures, like some Native American cultures, these natural phenomena were more influential than the stars and the skies.”

One doesn’t need to do anything. However, the seasons go hand in hand with the cycles of heavenly bodies. If you don’t realize this, then you can lessen your ignorance in two ways. You could study the appropriate scholars, or you could spend a year outside carefully observing nature and the sky. Are you serious when you say “Nature has its own inherited mechanisms that function seasonally”? Duh! Step outside of your preconceptions for a moment and study some science. The sun and moon directly influence nature and even human biology.

It is true that different cultures emphasized different aspects of the world. As you say, some Native Americans may have focused more on terrestrial phenomena, but they didn’t disregard the stellar phenomena. Other Native Americans, in fact, even worshipped the sun just like other cultures.

I said: As such, Christians didn’t need to borrow mythology from Pagans. The mythology of the heavens was common to the entire ancient world. Any educated person would’ve been familiar with it. Astrotheology was a common framework of knowledge that crossed cultural and linguistic barriers.

Verenna said: “Astrotheology is bs. Sorry to be so blunt about it. It rests on too many assumed variables which are, to be honest, more speculation and wishful thinking than anything else.”

Thanks for further demonstrating your ignorance. No, don’t worry at all. I don’t mind you showing everybody your confusion and misunderstanding. I imagine it must be rather refreshing for you to be so open about your lack of knowledge.

I realize within the field of New Testament studies, the focus of scholarship is generally narrow. However, astrotheology is an academic study But, outside of New Testament studies, academics would refer to it as either Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy.

I said: There is another aspect that most people forget. Ancient people experienced the world differently, and it isn’t helpful to place our standards and assumptions onto their stories and religions. I think it’s essential to understand cultural development on the largescale.

Verenna said: “But that is just as bad because then you end up generalizing.”
Science generalizes. So, I guess it depends if you think science is useful or not. By studying different cultures at different stages of development, theories have been put forth about social development and cultural experience.

Considering all of your comments, I think you need to pull your nose out of your New Testament scholarship books. There is a larger world out there and knowing about it might offer you much needed insight and perspective.

Re: Helping the Historicists Get it Right: What is Mythicism?

A link to a blog by Thomas Verenna and my discussion with him from the comments section:

Helping the Historicists Get it Right: What is Mythicism?

Benjamin Steele Says:April 6, 2009 at 2:46 pm

“More recent mythicist arguments deal with exegesis, Gospel genre (if the Gospels weren’t written for the purpose of “telling what happened” but rather “telling a good story” there clearly is reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ), intertextuality (the models used by the authors of the Gospels to create narrative—and how much of the Gospel can be traced back to models), Jewish socio-cultural studies in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (did the Jews of the original “Christian” sect expect a historical savior or a spiritual one?), religious-meme change (how quickly did religious trends change and how much could they have changed over that period of time—for example, euhemerizing a legendary figure of Jesus into a historical setting), and proto-Christian origins (was there a “Christianity” before the first-century CE and where did it originate?) . Clearly April would be correct if the mythicist position was reliant only on pagan myth parallels. It’s a good thing then that modern mythicists generally do not rely on pagan parallels whatsoever.”

I agree with you about mythicism not being reliant only on pagan myth parallels. On the other hand, I disagree with how you seem to be rather critical of those who point out those parallels such as Acharya. It isn’t a matter of either/or thinking. I’m not a defender of Acharya, but I am an interested party who seeks out all viewpoints. I’ve read a variety of mythicist theorists and I think all of them have something useful to add.

Anyways, Acharya doesn’t simply rely on pagan parallels. If you dismiss Acharya based on this assumption, then you are falling into the same trap as the historicist scholars. She goes out of her way to consider the subject from multiple perspectives. There is no need to try to smash Acharya’s head down in your attempt to climb the scholarly ladder of peer respectability. In case you didn’t know, both Doherty and Price have given positive reviews of Acharya’s work.

Tom Verenna Says:April 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm

"I agree with you about mythicism not being reliant only on pagan myth parallels. On the other hand, I disagree with how you seem to be rather critical of those who point out those parallels such as Acharya. It isn’t a matter of either/or thinking. I’m not a defender of Acharya, but I am an interested party who seeks out all viewpoints. I’ve read a variety of mythicist theorists and I think all of them have something useful to add."

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but that’s a rather naive opinion. Not all scholars have something useful to add. Some have nothing useful. Some have a lot to offer while others have a mix of useful and unhelpful points that, overall, make their contributions mediocre at best. Acharya S does not have anything useful to add (in my opinion–others are welcome to disagree). I’ll give my reasons for thinking this below.

"Anyways, Acharya doesn’t simply rely on pagan parallels. If you dismiss Acharya based on this assumption, then you are falling into the same trap as the historicist scholars. She goes out of her way to consider the subject from multiple perspectives. There is no need to try to smash Acharya’s head down in your attempt to climb the scholarly ladder of peer respectability. In case you didn’t know, both Doherty and Price have given positive reviews of Acharya’s work."

My problem with Acharya S is more than just pagan parallels. She uses grossly outdated source material. Here are a few examples:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

Gerald Massey, John Remsburg, Albert Churchward, Edward Carpenter, Franz Cumont, and so on. None of these individuals lived past the middle of the twentieth century. Their scholarship is so dated that using them can only hurt her points, not help make them. This is the underlying problem with Acharya S; she does not adequately research modern credible sources–only dated sources. If only dated sources can be used to make her points, then she needs to reevaluate her points. To give you an analogy of how horrific it is to use dated sources in academia, it would be akin to using a science book from the nineteenth century to back up a new model for the theory of relativity–without using anything that Albert Einstein, or any contemporary era physicist, had written. Her whole astrotheology perspective which she promotes comes from these sources–comes from parallelism that is dated and useless–and thus her usefulness is nil. That may be a hard criticism, but its one she should take to heart and consider.

Despite what you may have read or think you know, my criticisms of Acharya S have nothing to do with me “climbing the scholarly ladder”. It has everything to do with individuals such as yourself, who are trying to do honest research into the question of mythicism, who get sidetracked by this garbage–passed off as academia (of which it is not). The fact that you think she has something useful to say at all is evidence that you’ve bought into her deception. But how can you know, as a layman, what is credible and what isn’t? You have to have done an extreme amount of research to fact-check her claims to know she is full of it. If you haven’t done the research because you think she is an authority (I’m not claiming I am, either, by the way), then you’re the person I’m trying to reach. It is because serious intellectuals like you want to be educated that I come down hard on her–you need to know that what she has to say is severely flawed.

I’m not saying I’m perfect, but I don’t use sources that are from the 1880’s. Unlike Acharya S, I change my opinions to fit the facts (she is stubborn about changing her opinion and has not retracted anything she has been wrong about, not that I’ve seen or read anyway). I want my readers to be able to fact-check me and be able to raise contentions with what I write if they need to. Acharya S, on the other hand, has a group of fanboy cronies who she sends out from her message board to attack any dissenter. Often times these cronies spam other message boards and blogs with more garbage in a trollish and annoying fashion. I wouldn’t hold Acharya S responsible for her fan base, but she sends them out.

Now I’m not attacking Acharya S personally. I don’t know her personally. I can only judge her material. And I’m not the only one. While Bob Price and Earl Doherty speak of her kindly (which is their right), Richard Carrier and others have been outspoken about her inaccuracy. So just because two scholars speak favorably does not mean the whole community of experts agree. And while I respect Earl Doherty a great deal, I am dismayed that he uses her for source material and, unfortunately, he is also guilty of using dated material as well. (Doherty is far better at using modern sources for his material than Acharya S is, however, and overall Doherty’s work is substantially more credible)

To be clear: I would, in fact, be quite interested if Acharya S dropped her pseudonym (as I did) and start using her real name, started revising her theories to conform to existing, relevant, current data, and published academically or, at least, had a group of scholars review her work and offer suggestions (which she should consider, at least). I would read that book and, if it were credible, I would even promote it. But as of yet, that is a future I do not see her ever attaining. Not because she can’t, but because she has no desire to.

Benjamin Steele Says:April 6, 2009 at 5:11 pm

You can call my opinion naive if it makes you happy. By my comment, I didn’t mean one should be undiscerning about what one reads. I was just implying that all perspectives should be considered in order to grasp a more comprehensive understanding.

If your main source of info about Acharya is from Zeitgeist, then that explains a lot. She only consulted on that project once it had already begun, and she didn’t agree with all of the details.
BTW she wrote a supplement that can be obtained as an e-book that was intended to supply more supporting evidence for the Zeitgeist claims, and she then wrote a nearly 600 page book to flesh it out (Christ In Egypt). Also, she does now go by her real name (D.M. Murdock) which is the name on her recent book.

In Christ In Egypt, she attempted to synthesize all of the scholarly work that has been done so far that relates to the connections between Horus nd Jesus. She references works never published in English before and works never published at all before (such as the academic journals of a German scholar). She probably references Egyptologists more than any other type of scholar, but she does reference other contemporary mythicists (G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, and Richard Carrier).

In particular, she has a whole section where she describes a disagreement with Carrier about the Luxor inscriptions. I’m sure Carrier claims she is inaccurate, and Acharya claims he is inaccurate (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html). If you want to see a neutral viewpoint (by someone they both respect), check out Doherty because he discusses this disagreement on his site. I noticed that Carrier considers Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle to be the best presentation of the mythicist position.

She intentionally uses a wide range of scholars from older to newer, from Christian to non-Christian, from academia to the Catholic Encycopedia, etc. She does this so people like you have no basis to simply dismiss her claims. Anyways, before criticizing older scholarship, I’d recommend you read this article by Robert M. Price:

http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/Pricejhc.htm

How can I, as a layman, know what is credible or not? I guess I do it like anybody else who seriously studies a subject. I read a wide variety of authors, and I debate the issues with other informed individuals.

As for her being stubborn about her opinion, I don’t specifically know what your talking about. If you could detail your allegation, I would gladly research it for myself. As for her defenders, I always advise looking at the argument and the evidence rather than the person presenting it. Too often mythicists get dismissed by mainstream scholars who haven’t read their work, but it is even more shameful when other mythicists do this as well.

The last issue you bring up, I can’t speak for her. But, as I said, her theories do take into acount “existing, relevant, current data”. I don’t know if she plans on publishing academically and I don’t know what scholars may or may not have reviewed her work. I do know that Price wrote a foreword to her book Who Was Jesus?, but I can’t say if he reviewed it. One of Acharya’s sources is Massey and he is often dismissed even though his work was reviewed by some of the best scholars of the time (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/who-is-gerald-massey.html).

Benjamin Steele Says:April 7, 2009 at 1:35 pm

In case that wasn’t adequate, I’ll give a some of the modern Egyptologists she references: Rudolf Anthes, Jan Assman, Hellmut Brunner, Claas J. Bleeker, Bob Brier, Henri Frankfort, Alan H. Gardiner, John Gwyn Griffiths, Erik Hornung, Barry Kemp, Barbara Lesko, Bojana Mojsov, Siegfried Morenz, William Murnane, Margaret A. Murray, Donald B. Redford, Herman te Velde, Claude Traunecker, Reginald E. Witt, and Louis V. Zabkar.

I’ve noticed many mythicists use Hornung as a reference. Another interesting scholar (from an earlier time) is Wallis Budge. Acharya/Murdock along with other mythicists reference him. I was having a discussion with an apologetic NT scholar recently, and I noticed in a peer-reviewed article by him that he had also referenced Budge.

Re: Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors

Here is a link to a blog by Thomas Verenna with a comment I posted:

Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors

It is quite humorous that I mixed you up with that other blogger. I didn’t get enough sleep last night and my mind was apparently a bit fuzzy.

This blog post has good info. I’ll have to think more about the distinction between legend and mythology. Do you think most religions begin with legends? And do you think legends usually begin in some historical model or inspiration?

There is one place where I see a mixing of myth and legend. Some savior god-men are also identified with the creator god and/or considered to have existed since the beginning. But I don’t know if either the legend or the myth comes first or if they co-evolve.
I can only juggle so many fields as well, but my curiosity is always distracting me. I sometimes wonder why I get obsessed about something like mythicism. I’m more interested in the comparative mythology side of it and how it relates to modern culture as represented in various media (specifically storytelling).

I’m more of an idea person in that I prefer philosophy and psychology over history, but of course it all blends together. My desire to analyze ancient texts is mostly limited to how I perceive the ideas to still be vibrant within contemporary culture. I find it fascinating how certain ideas can act as memes that take hold of the shared experience of a culture for centuries and even millennia.

One of the earliest books I read that started me in the direction of studying all of this was Carl Jung’s Answer to Job. It was his most personal book, but also it was where he most deeply engaged the mythology of Christianity. I tend to lean towards an archetypal view of mythology. Most basically, archetypes are patterns in the psyche, but they’re also patterns in the environment in which the human psyche evolved. It is very strange how different cultures often come to similar meanings and mythologies about the world.

This is where I think Acharya/Murdock has one key to understanding a larger perspective. There are only two baaic factors that all humans in all places and time periods have shared: a basic human nature and psychoological functioning; and a common enviornmental experience.
As for the latter, the most universal experience humans share is the observation of the sky. The human mind evolved with people staring at the sky, and it offered a survival advantage. The patterns of animals and plants also follow the patterns of the seasons, and knowing these patterns precisely could mean the difference between life and death for the people of the earliest civilizations.

As such, Christians didn’t need to borrow mythology from Pagans. The mythology of the heavens was common to the entire ancient world. Any educated person would’ve been familiar with it. Astrotheology was a common framework of knowledge that crossed cultural and linguistic barriers.

Thinking along these lines, I suspect that these patterns (in the sky and in the mind) precede the storytelling. Either legends emerge from this pattern-seeking tendency or legends that arose independently become adapted to the requirements of these patterns.

There is another aspect that most people forget. Ancient people experienced the world differently, and it isn’t helpful to place our standards and assumptions onto their stories and religions. I think it’s essential to understand cultural development on the largescale.

Some examples are ideas such as the Axial Age, Julian Jayne’s view of the pre-literate mind, and the socio-cultural developmental model of spiral dynamics. The clash of ideas beginning in the Hellenistic period was a clash of paridigms of reality. I sense this has something to do with the clash between Gnosticism and Christianity… something about the emerging literalist mind… along the lines of Weber’s rationalization of culture.

Or so it seems to me. I don’t know how this fits into what you’re talking about, but that is the context I’m considering.

Is your book being published soon? Will it be available on Amazon?

Re: Arguments Jesus Mythicists Should NOT Use

A blog post at the link below and my response below that:

Arguments Jesus Mythicists Should NOT Use

1. Cite the work of Freke and Gandi.

It is a good general rule to be wary of referencing in a scholarly debate any writer who acts as a popularizer of ideas. Popularizers serve a purpose, but they usually do so by simplifying. There are exceptions to this rule as some popularizers are also good scholars, but I agree that Freke and Gandy aren’t exceptions.

2. Cite the work of Achyara S or Zeitgeist the Movie.

Along with the first general rule, I’d add that anyone claiming to be a scholar should be judged by their scholarship (assuming that person making the judgment is claiming to be scholarly). This requires reading the author to a significant extent, but sadly few critics of Acharya/Murdock ever read her work (beyond maybe an online article).

As for Callahan, I assume you realize she wrote a rebuttal (http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html). As for her claims about Egyptian connections, she also wrote an almost 600 pg book (Christ In Egypt).

In it, she references the contemporary mythicist scholars Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, G.A. Wells, and she has a large section where she discusses her disagreement with Richard Carrier. Both Price and Doherty praise her work and reference it, and Price wrote a foreword to one of her books (Who Was Jesus?).

Also, here are some of the modern Egyptologists she references: Rudolf Anthes, Jan Assman, Hellmut Brunner, Claas J. Bleeker, Bob Brier, Henri Frankfort, Alan H. Gardiner, John Gwyn Griffiths, Erik Hornung, Barry Kemp, Barbara Lesko, Bojana Mojsov, Siegfried Morenz, William Murnane, Margaret A. Murray, Donald B. Redford, Herman te Velde, Claude Traunecker, Reginald E. Witt, and Louis V. Zabkar.

I don’t care if you disagree with her, but just do so based on facts and rational arguments.

3. Cite pagan parallels to Jesus which you have not read about yourself from ancient sources.

This is good advice to strive towards, but isn’t practical for the average person. The scholars have spent their lives reading the originals and the many translations. And scholars are constantly arguing over specific words that can alter the entire meaning of a text. This takes years if not decades of study to comprehend.

Also, translations can be deceiving if you don’t know the original language. You have to read many translations before you can even begin to grasp a particular myth. Plus, many translations and inscriptions aren’t available online.Furthermore, the ancients usually had numerous versions of any given story.

So, yes read what is available to you. But don’t necessarily base your opinion on a single translation of a single version of a single myth. However, when making a specific argument, it is wise to cite specific examples that you are familiar with… which isn’t to say you can’t also cite reputable scholars on examples you’re less familiar with.

Still, it depends on your purpose and your audience. If you’re simply involved in an informal discussion, then primary sources aren’t required.

4. Argue that pagan parallels to Jesus prove he did not exist.

This is very true. A number of mythicist scholars don’t deny a historical Jesus (e.g., Robert M. Price) and some even accept a historical Christ (e.g., G.A. Wells). The two issues are really separate debates even though they’re often covering the same territory.

5. Argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

True, but… the absence of evidence where one would expect evidence corroborates an argument of absence and increases its probability. Despite the commonality of prophets and messiahs, the fact that no contemporary of Jesus wrote about him is surprising considering the claims made about him and his followers.

However, (discounting the historical validity of the grandiose claims of the gospels) if we just take Jesus as any other insignificant historical figure, then your point stands.

Re: Meri, Mary and the Mother of the Saviour

Meri, Mary and the Mother of the Saviour by Stephen J. Bedard

And my response:

Those are good criticisms. D.M. Murdock responds to them, but you’d have to be the judge of how well she does.

The main point probably is that, by the Christian era, Isis was one of the most (if not the most) well known Egyptian deity, and one of the most widely worshipped in the Roman Empire. So, it’s possible that the term Meri was beginning to be identified with her. However, Isis (and Isis syncretizations) were referred with meri and similar terms all the way through the centuries prior to Rome being Christianized.

Even though the Egyptian term Meri could refer to even inanimate objects, I don’t know if there is any evidence that Jews and Romans would’ve been familiar with that meaning. It probably would’ve been most known as an epithet or, as Murdock argues, maybe even as a name. Very few non-Egyptians could tell an ipethet or a name apart when it was stated both as Isis-Meri and Meri-Isis. Murdock sees evidence that Meri was beginning to be used by itself.

As for the second problem, Mary isn’t used exclusively for either Egyptians or for Jews. Mary was a common name for Pagan goddesses. So, it isn’t surprising that it was a popular name for people as well. As for the 6 Marys of the NT, Murdock mentions this and hypothesizes a possible connection to 6 Hathors (as Hathor was the goddess of love that became identified with Isis).

All of this is is just one tiny aspect of the mythicist theory. It doesn’t stand or fall on one single detail. Meri is just a possible connection that many reputable scholars have written about. There are many other possible connections that mythicists point out. As the possible connections increase so does the probability of those connections.

Response to Bedard’s Hellenistic Influence and the Resurrection

Stephen J. Bedard posted a blog where he linked to an article of his that was published in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/hellenistic-influence-and-the-resurrection/

HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE ON THE IDEA OF RESURRECTION
IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

http://www.jgrchj.net/volume5/JGRChJ5-9_Bedard.pdf

I must say I was very impressed with that article. It is exactly the kind of scholarship that interests me. You did a good job of conveying the complexity of the Graeco-Roman world. You showed the subtle connections that are missed by thinking of religions as being entirley isolated from eachother.

I haven’t read as much about Judaism, and so I was glad to see you go into some detail about the Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. I knew Judaism had contact with Hellenism, but I’m not very familiar with the specifics beyond having read about Philo.

I noticed you mentioned Set and Osiris. Murdock writes about some theories of Set. Based on several quotes from scholars, she proposes that Set was originally the Samaritan god Seth, and that Seth entered Egyptian religion when the Samaritans conquered Egypt. The scholars she refers to are: James Bonwick, Dr. Samuel Sharpe, Dr. Louis Herbert Gray and Rev. Dr. Sayce
She also points out that Set originally wasn’t considered evil, but only later became the opponent of Osiris by playing a negative role in his death and resurrection story. Interestingly, Osiris and Set were considered brothers and were even combined as the dual god, Horus-Set.

Murdock doesn’t write about this, but I see a potential connection with the Coptic Gospel of Thomas attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas. I was reading elsewhere that, in later tradition, Judas “the twin” was considered the twin of Jesus. This isn’t to say that Set was a direct borrowing superimposed upon Judas. But, in the way you demonstrate in your article, Set may have been an influence on certain traditions about understanding Judas’ role.

The following quote from your article reminded me of something else that Murdock writes about.

“For a long time, the Egyptian idea of resurrection would have held little attraction for the Hebrews as it originally was a privilege only for the Pharaoh, and later for the very wealthy who could afford the elaborate burial procedures. However, the Middle Kingdom brought great theological advancements…”

Prior to the New Kingdom, love (mri) was bestowed upon a subordinate by a superior which also included by a god bestowing love to a follower, but this was strictly hierarchical except in certain situations such as a leader being beloved by his people. With the New Kingdom, love became a more common ideal where the follower could offer love to a god. There was an equality in that the person could, through love, join with their god. It was at this time that the epithet meri became extremely popular and was applied widely, in particular with Isis.

This is where Murdock points out that there is good evidence for an etymological connection not only between meri and Christian Mary but also meri and Jewish Miriam. She references a couple of sources that hypothesize that Miriam may have been an Egyptian name (the Catholic Encyclopedia and an editor’s note in Faiths of Man by Major-General James G.R. Forlong). She also references Rev. Dr. William Robertson Smith as connecting Miriam with Meri, and references Rev. Henry Tomkins as connecting Mary and Meri. Furthermore, she references both Dr. James Karl Hoffmeier and Alan H. Gardiner as connecting both Mary and Miriam with Meri.

Response to Bedard’s Laozi, Jesus and the Virgin Birth

My response to Bedard’s blog post about Laozi:

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/laozi-jesus-and-the-virgin-birth/

“You are correct that most often it is a supernatural birth and not a virgin birth. But that is not how Jesus myth proponents state it. They describe pagan myths using New Testament language, even if it is not accurate in describing the myth,”

This is irrelevant. Yes, there are different words in different languages. But often meanings are similar if not the same. Words even etymologically evolve between languages as do other cultural elements such as religious motifs. For instance, Egyptian meri and Christian Mary may be etymologically linked.

Many goddesses were called virgins even after they gave birth. This is because their virginity was an inherent characteristic. When speaking about these issues, we are talking about mythology and not biology.

Another issue is that scripture says that Jesus has brothers and scripture doesn’t say that they weren’t Mary’s children. If they weren’t Mary’s children, scripture would’ve mentioned it. Anyways, Mary gave birth and still was considered a virgin. Obviously, her hymen was broken at least when Jesus came out. Also, considering that Paganism had examples of goddesses and women remaining or regaining virginity after sex, there is no reason to assume Joseph and marry never had sex.

Responding to Bedard’s Christ as Orpheus

Stephen J. Bedard had another blog I commented on: Christ as Orpheus.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/christ-as-orpheus/

And he linked to an article in the Biblical Archaeology Review, but it cost money and so I didn’t read it. The article he mentioned supposedly disproved that Christians borrowed from Pagans. However, I can’t argue against that article as I don’t know what it says. Interestingly, I did find another article at the Biblical Archaeology Review which supports borrowing.

Borrowing from the Neighbors: Pagan Imagery in Christian Art
by Sarah K. Yeomans

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/pagan-imagery.asp

You are correct that, for Christian apologetics, “It does not help that there seems to have been some sort of early Christian building that had a mosaic of Orpheus as a picture of Christ.” Nonetheless, it is a fact. And images like this are numerous.

Showing a pagan parallel doesn’t prove a Christian borrowing from Paganism, but the cumulative evidence is immense. Nothing is proved absolutely in that we can only speak of probabilities. Specific examples are only telling in relation to other examples. This is why scholars of comparative religion and comparative mythology tend to provide many examples to back up any hypothetical connection. To argue against the connection, you would need to argue in detail against the whole body of evidence.

Anyways, what all of this does show is that early Christians were knowledgeable of other religions and incoporated into Christianity motifs from those religions. Also, it causes one to suspect that the incorporating went further.

These Pagan images weren’t merely stylistic conventions. Within the Christianized Pagan images, there are obvious Pagan mythological motifs. Let me use some examples from another article I found at the Biblical Archaeology Review website.

The use of the image of Helios within both Judaism and Christianity is telling because it goes beyond imagery. Some of the respectable early Church fathers referred to Jesus as the “sun”. This was simply a common way in the Pagan world to refer to a savior god-man, but it also entails a complex solar theology that was pervasive throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
More relevant to this blog are the images of the Orpheus-Christ. Orpheus descends into the underworld and this same motif was used by Christians. Significantly, as far as I know, this motif isn’t supported by Christian scripture even though it was found within early Christian tradition. If it didn’t come from scripture, where did it come from? Maybe the same place the images came from. Also, the descent into the underworld was another common motif of solar mythologies in general.

The article also states outright that Christians borrowed the image of Mary nursing baby Jesus from the Egyptians. Isis was one of the most popular deities worshipped in the Roman Empire. Temples, shrines, statues, and icons of her were found all across Europe. As you know, many have theorized the Black Madonnas were originally Isis statues. Murdock spends about a hundred pages detailing the similarities between Isis and Mary. She does this by referring to Egyptian scholarship including that of Christian scholars, and she analyzes the relevant hieroglyphics of virgin birth nativities. Hieroglyphics are important to keep in mind because they’re not merely images and artistic styles but also a religious language based in religious concepts.

So, you seem to be admitting that early Christians borrowed imagery from the Pagans. Also, I think I noticed in another blog you admitted that Christians borrowed their holidays from Pagans. Are you trying to argue that all of this is mere superficial detail? If you took awasy all of the Pagan elements, what would be left?

All of the elements of Christianity can be found in prior Pagan religions: historical god-men, virgin births, slaughter of the babes, resurrection deities, salvific messages, and the list goes on and on. Some of these elements preceded Christianity by thousands of years.

No one can prove that there wasn’t a historical Jesus and no one can prove there was. Even if you could prove a historical Jesus, it doesn’t disprove that the stories of him were partly lifted from Pagan mythology. Removing the Paganism won’t prove the Good News of Christ’s coming to earth. Paganism and Christianity have become so entangled that I would argue they’re practically fused together. Considering what may be original to Christianity is important. But, ultimately, that may be more of question for faith than for scholarship.

Despite your criticisms of Harpur’s scholarship, why not embrace his vision? Wouldn’t a Christ figure that revealed himself to all cultures all over the world be more inspiring than a historical figure that no one of significance took notice of while he was alive? Anyways, plenty of reputable scholarship can be found elsewhere (such as in the Biblical Archaeology Review article).
The other article you linked, I couldn’t read because I don’t have the money to spend. If you could tell me the basic argument, I could respond.

Murdock on Justin Martyr’s Admission of Parallels

D.M. Murdock, Christ in Egypt, pp 517-19:


Regarding this matter of precedence for parallels, Witt advocated proceeding with caution, but was also certain that the Egyptian religion influenced Christianity, remarking:

“Historians, generally, and specifically those who trace the development of
religious ideas, need to avoid the trap of confusing the chronological order
with cause and effect: post hoc ergo propter hoc. On the other hand, the veneration (hyperdulia) of the Blessed
Virgin Mary was certainly introduced at about the same time Theodosius ordered
the destruction of pagan temples, including the Serapeum and other shrines of the Egyptian
gods. Here, we may think, lies a reason for the absorption of elements, ideas and
usages from the old religion into the new.”

As can be seen, the evident borrowing by Christianity continued well into the common era, during Theodosius’s time in the fourth century. Thus, simply because borrowing occurred during the “Christian era” does not mean it was by Paganism from Christianity. Again, what is designated as the “Christian era” did not descend suddenly upon the entire world after the year 1 AD/CE but is relative, and to this day there remains places that are still pre-Christian, showing no knowledge of or influence by Christianity.

In capitulating to the fact there are indeed very serious correspondences between the Egyptian and christian religions, apologists insist that these motifs can only be found dating to the middle of the second century at the earliest. When Justin Marty discussed them in detail, thereby supposedly showing that Paganism must have borrowed from Christianity. In the first place, this present work reveals otherwise, as practically everything significant within Christianity existed in one form or another in the Egyptian religion long before the common era, much of it revolving around the characters of Osiris, Isis and Horus.


Moreover, in his First Apology (54) Justin specifically claims these parallels, including the Greek god Bacchus/Dionysus’s ascension into heaven, as well the virgin birth and ascension of Perseus, were the result of “the devil” anticipating Christ’s story:

“For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that Christ was to come…
[the wicked demons] put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the
impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things
which were said
with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said
by the poets.”

(Roberts, A., ANCL, II, 53-54)

In chapter 56 of his Apology, Justin pointedly states that the “evil spirits” were making their mischief “before Christ’s appearance.” (Roberts, A., ANCL, II, 55) In other words, Justin — and others using the same “devil did it” excuse, such as Tertullian and Lactantius — did not dishonestly deny the parallels, as have many modern apologists.” Indeed, these early Church fathers happily used these correspondences in their polemics and apologies to make Christianity appear less ridiculous — and ridiculous it evidently was perceived to be by the educated Greeks and Romans of the time. To these latter groups, the gospel story could not have been any more “real” or “historical” than that of Apollo or Neptune, and surely doubted Christ’s existence as a “historical” figure in ancient times. Moreover, nowhere does Justin Martyr claim that the Pagans copied Christianity after Christ’s alleged advent, which he certainly would have done, had the copying occurred in that direction.


It is obvious from Justin’s “devil got there first” excuse that these mythical motifs existed before Christ’s purported manifestation on Earth and that there were those n his time who sensibly questioned the historical veracity of the gospel story, essentially calling it “mere marvelous tales” – in other words, a myth. In Dialogue with Trypho (69), in fact, Justin again invokes the “devil got there first” argument, specifically stating that these Pagan “counterfeits” were likewise “wrought by the Magi in Egypt.” (Roberts, A. ANCL, II, 184) Now, which “counterfeits” and “Magi” would these be? The “Magi” must be the Egyptian Priests, apparently called as such by people of Justin’s era, while the “counterfeits” must refer to at least some of the Egyptian gods. Justin also specifically names the Greek gods Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius as those whose “fables” were emulated by the devil in anticipating Christ. As we have seen, these gods have their counterparts in Egyptian mythology as well, in Osiris and Horus, as prime examples.

Faith of the Early Apologists

Acharya S (aka D.M. Murdock), The Christ Conspiracy

pp 24.25:

Indeed, the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels, mass of impossibilities and contradictions that it is, has been so difficult to believe that even the fanatic Christian “doctor” and saint, Augustine (384- 430), admitted, “I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so.” Nevertheless, the “monumentally superstitious and credulous Child of faith” Augustine must not have been too resistant, because he already accepted “as historic truth the fabulous founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, their virgin birth by the god Mars, and their nursing by a she-wolf…”

Apparently unable to convince himself rationally of the validity of his faith, early Church Father Tertullian (c. 160-200) made the notorious statement “Credo quia incredibilis — I believe because it is unbelievable.” An “ex-Pagan,” Tertullian vehemently and irrationally defendedhis new faith, considered fabricated by other Pagans, by acknowledging that Christianity was a “shameful thing” and “monstrously absurd”:

“… I mean that the Son of God was born; why am I not ashamed of maintaining such a thing? Why! but because it is itself a shameful thing. I maintain that the Son of God died; well, that is wholly credible because it is monstrously absurd. I maintain that after having been buried, he rose again; and that I take to be absolutely true, because it was manifestly impossible.”

Early Apologists Speaking Honestly

"The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was neither New nor Strange."

~ Bishop Eusebius (264-c.340 AD/CE), The History of the Church (2:4)


"For what is now called the Christian religion existed of old and was never absent from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh. Then true religion which already existed began to be called Christian."

~ St. Augustine (354-430 AD/CE), Retractiones (1:13)

Tarnas on Agustine’s Anti-intellectualism

I own The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas. I don’t normally read books about history except when they directly relate to religion, but this is a good book. It covers a lot of territory and sometimes I wish the author would go more deeply into certain aspects. Besides that minor complaint, the author does manage to capture some central streams of development. He spends a decent amount of time on Christianity and the Roman Empire, and that is why I was looking at it recently.

The following excerpt is about Augustine and the early Christian attitude toward science and rationality.

pp 113-14: Moreover, in the new self-awareness of the late classical and early Christian era, most acutely epitomized in Augustine, the individual soul’s concern for its spiritual destiny was far more significant than the rational intellect’s concern with conceptual thnking or empirical study. Faith alone in the miracle of Christ’s redemption was enough to bring the deepest saving truth to man. Despite his erudition and appreciation for the intellectual and scientific achievement of the Greeks, Augustine proclaimed:

“When, then, the question is asked what we are to believe in regrd to religion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by those whom the Greeks call physici; nor need we be in alarm lest the Christian shoud be ignorant of the force and thenumber of the elemetns; the motion, and order, and eclipses of the heavenly bodies; the form of the heavens; the species and natures of animals, plants, stones, fountains, rivers, mountains; about chronology and distances; the signs of coming storms; and a thousand other things which those philosophers either have found out, or think they have found out…. It is enough for the christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator, the one true God; and that nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from him.” (Enchiridion, in Augustine, Works, vol. 9, edited by M. Dods; Edinburgh (Edinburgh; Clark, 1871-77), 180-181.)

With the rise of Christianity, the already decadent state of science in the late Roman era received little encouragement for new developments. Early Christians experienced no intellectual urgency to “save the phenomena” of this world, since the phenomenal world held no significance compared with the transcendent spiritual reality. More precisely, the all-redeeming Christ had already saved the phenomena, so there was little need for mathematics or astronomy to perform the task. The study of astornomy in particular, being tied to astrology and the cosmic religion of the Hellenistic era, was discouraged. The monotheistic Hebrews had already had occasion to condemn foreign astrologers, and this attitude persisted in the Christian context. with its planetary deities, annd aura of polytheistic paganism, and with its proneness to a determinism antithetical to both divine grace and human responsibility, astrology was officially condemned by Church councils (with Augustine especially seeing the need for confuting the astrological “mathematicians”), as a result of which it gradually declined despite its occasional theological defenders. In the Christian view, the heavens were devoutly perceived as the expression of God’s glory and, more popularly, as the abode of God and his angels and saints, and the realm from which Christ would return at the Second Coming.

Even though this gives good context, I think Tarnas missed the heart of the matter. Augustine didn’t prize human responsibility above all else, and not all ancient astrology was deterministic (and certainly no more deterministic than Augustine’s theology). Early Christians were anti-intellectual (in particular towards astrology) because too much analysis would prove Christianity’s indebtedness to other religions and philosophies.

In seeming contradiction with what Augustine said in the above quote, he had also written that when the scriptures conflict with science that the believer should give authority to the latter. But I imagine that he was mostly thinking of the Old Testament when he wrote this. Augustine was fine with interpreting allegorically such scriptures as Genesis. However, his scientific education was surely rather limited and I doubt he ever considered the possibility that science might one day develop so far as to demonstrate the impossibility (i.e., reasonable doubt) of dead people resurrecting and other miracles.

What I find intriguing here is how Augustine correlated Paganism with rationality, science and basically any interest in the world whatsoever. He dismisses all of this as being irrelevant to Christianity. This is extremely significant because to this day orthodox Christianity still has a troubled relationship with rationality and science. The sad part here is that so many Christians over the centuries have perceived a non-existent conflict. Augustine says that all a Christian needs to know is that all things were created by a good Creator. Was he so clueless as to not realize that one could worship both the Creator and his Creation? Was he utterly ignorant of the fact that some Pagans (and some Gnostic Christians) did worship both the Creator and his Creation? I’m reminded of Augustine’s distinction between the sun and the Creator of the sun. He was implying that Pagans hadn’t made this distinction when, for example, the Egyptians had made this precise distinction.

And this isn’t just a theological issue. It was because Christians felt so little interest towards rationality and science that they didn’t realize the great intellectual tradition they were losing. In fact, as Augustine wrote about this subject in 420, the Catholic Church was in the process of destroying all knowledge it could get its hands on. How could a great intellectual like Augustine be so indifferent? Was he so cynical about the world that he was contented to see the Church (and the whole Roman Empire with it) commit intellectual suicide? Was he hoping this wholesale destruction would hasten the Second Coming or something?

The Non-Unique Messiah: It Doesn’t Matter.

I came across an intelligent blog about the Jewish tablet that describes another supposed messiah prior to Christianity. What is interesting is that this messiah was resurrected after 3 days. But this isn’t anything new. This 3 day motif related to a savior is found withn pre-Christian Paganism. It’s an astrotheological motif about the solar cycle. Similar 3 day motifs can be found within Jewish scripture as well, but what is significant is that it is directly related to the messiah in this tablet. If orthodox Christianity was actually based on the evidence of historical documents, there would be a mass loss of faith at hearing such news.

Below is an excerpt from the blog and below that are some excerpts from the comments.

The Non-Unique Messiah: Does It Matter?

Frankly, if you’ve been paying attention or looked into history at all, this shouldn’t be that surprising. That a story about rebirth and resurrection should crop up while the Roman Republic was reinventing itself, and while its newly appointed Princeps Augustus was touting his reign as rebirth on a national scale, is no coincidence. During the first half of what we now call the first century C.E., rebirth was a common religious theme: mystery cults built around rebirth, like the cult of Isis and Osiris, were cropping up everywhere. New religions always mirror and appropriate temporal events to the divine (look at Mormonism). Christianity is no different, and it’s not immune from history. That the non-uniqueness of the Christian story should be so strikingly and starkly presented by this tablet may be shocking, but that human events beget religious beliefs is an anthropological Law.

What I wonder is whether that should be troubling. No doubt many believing Christians will feel threatened by the discovery that their religion has roots older than the name “Jesus,” and no doubt it proves that religion is always affected (and at least partially inspired) by humans. It may even suggest that it therefore might be fabricated. But if you really believe in the truth of the underlying story - i.e., if you’re truly spiritual and not just religious - that shouldn’t matter.

9 Gotchaye // Jul 8, 2008 at 10:03 pm

…it seems to me that a witness who maintains that someone performed a miracle is a whole lot more persuasive by himself than he would be if we’d already heard (and discounted the testimony of) other witnesses making similar claims about other people.

12 Gotchaye // Jul 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm

…as the number or likelihood of possible explanations for something increase, the likelihood of any other explanation being correct decreases. This tablet is at least suggestive of other explanations for our observation that modern Christianity (or something indistinguishable from it beforehand) exists, and so other explanations (including that Jesus actually rose) must be seen as less likely.

Criticism of the Apologetic use of Josephus

I’ve been interacting with some apologists lately. One of the issues that came up was Josephus and whether he refers to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum. I don’t care about the issue in and of itself. Even if Josephus refers to Jesus, this is still a reference after Jesus’ death. There is no reference to Jesus or any of the events in Jesus life while Jesus was alive. Besides, proving that some person mentioned a person named Jesus really doesn’t prove anything. ‘Jesus’ is just a name. The theological and supernatural beliefs of Christians can’t be justified by history, but for some reason Christians think it does.

History is not a science. Even the soft sciences have more claims for objectivity than New Testament scholarship. When someone says that scientists have come to a consensus, I tend to respect their authority. However, the concensus of New Testament scholars doesn’t really add up to much. Most New Testament scholars are Christians trained at Christian schools. According to their beliefs, they have strong motivation to prove orthodox opinion. And, as many of them teach at Christian schools, their jobs even might be risked if they voiced criticisms too openly.

Some of the scholars doubt Jesus historicity are scholars in fields such as ancient languages and history. These fields are directly relevant to New Testament studies, but apologists tend to dismiss these scholars because their opinions are inconvenient. As an example, when an apologist says that most Josephus scholars accept Josephus, it’s simply pleading to authority.

For anyone who wants to explore the criticisms for themselves, I’ll offer two articles about Josephus by Earl Doherty and two thread discussions where there are links to other info including an article by D.M. Murdock. After those links, I’ll offer a link to the discussion page on the Wikipedia article about “Josephus on Jesus” which gives a good overall view of the debate between believers and nonbelievers.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm

http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=2441

http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=953

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus

Origins of Christian Values

I've been writing a fair amount about the mythological parallels between Christianity and previous religions, but I haven't written much about how this relates to values. Christians could argue that the mythological similarities are just superficial details. It is true that details are just details and in some ways Christians did put those details together in a new way. Then again, so has every other religion. Despite literalist Christians insistence on worshipping a particular narrative, a story is still just a story. What actually matters is the values out of which the story formed.

There are several traditions that influenced Christian moral and theological beliefs. I went into great detail about Augustine who was influenced by Gnosticism, NeoPlatonism, and Stoicism among other traditions.

Many Gnostics had an ascetic attitude towards the material world and the body. The Christian mistrust of sexuality is based in this. Also, this is part of the Hellenistic atmosphere in general. Egyptian and Greek philosophy had elements of dualism. NeoPlatonism gave Christianity its love for higher truth and reality where God is absolute, but also NeoPlatonism offered the hope of an intuitive knowing, a faith that God would reveal himself. Stoicism in particular lent an ascetic bent to Christianity with its ethics of Natural Law (which is particularly important as modern Democracy is built upon it). Zoroastrianism created the extreme dualism of dark and light, good and evil; and this emphasized God as being in polar opposition to evil. This was conceived as a battle for souls where God was fated to win.

This metaphor of light and dark was part of the solar theology that had become popular prior to the common era. Egypt had a major hand in popularizing solar theology which portrayed God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God according to solar theology was both far away and yet close like the sun and sunlight. God was present to his believers and responsive to their prayers. God was in the world as light shines in the dark and yet above the world unsullied by the material realm. Egyptian religion also made the distinction between God who created the sun and the sun itself as the solar disk. God was the spiritual light that could be experienced within.

Along with Judaism, all of these traditions had concepts of monotheism or monism. Egyptian religion is the earliest known example of monotheism.

Another element is savior theology which was very popular in all cultures at the time. These saviors were conqurerors of evil. They were teachers, healers and miracle workers. They offered themselves as examples to live by and they acted as guides, as mediators, as shephards. As godmen, they stood between earth and heaven. They were personally accessible to prayers and they acted as guardians. Saviors are resurrection deities that provide the pathway of rebirth for their followers. As tradition says of Jesus, some of these saviors even go down into the underworld before ascending.

Related to saviors, were their virgin mothers. Godmen tended to have strange conceptions and births. The concept of their mothers being virgins doesn't make sense rationally or scientifically, but it symbolizes deep archetypal truths. These virgin mothers are fertility deities (even when made into historical figures). As such, they are virgins because their fertility is eternal and infinite, their purity and goodness is inviolable. They are the source out of which all life emerges. The birth of the savior is the birth of us all. The savior is similar to the first man, and this is why Jesus is called the Second Adam. Death had been brought into the world at an earlier time, and the savior comes to defeat death. Without the Goddess, the God couldn't manifest in order to accomplish this. The Goddess gives form. The Virgin Mary gave Jesus his body, and when Jesus was placed into the womb of the cave his spiritual body was given form.

The name Mary has its most likely etymological origin in the Egyptian epithet of meri which means 'beloved'. This epithet could apply to any god or goddess, but Isis became increasingly popular. By Roman times, shrines and temples of her were found widely to the very borders of the Empire and beyond. The image of Isis nursing Horus is also the most likely prototype of the image of Mary nursing Jesus. To this day, some of the Black Madonnas worshipped in Europe were originally Isis statues. The importance of this meri epithet is that it represented an ideal of love. In earlier Egyptian culture, love was something given by a superior to a subordinate. This was the relationship of the worshipper to an Emperor or to a god. Sometime around the New Kingdom (16th to 11th century BCE), the understanding of love changed. Love became an ideal of equality. A god didn't just offer love but also received love. The believer could join their god in a relationship of love.

This seems related to the Axial Age (800 to 200 BCE). Some common traits of the Axial Age religious traditions: a quest for human meaning, idealization of an absolute and eternal reality beyond the mind and senses, development of a spiritual elite and travelling scholars, questioning gender roles in particular in terms of Patriarchy, and a challenging of authority. The latter is interesting because of the ideal within Christianity of martyrdom, but Christianity was a later emergence of Axial Age principles. Christianity inherited its martyrdom tradition from the Stoics who challenged authority in the hopes of being persecuted. Also, in challenging authority, Axial Age prophets challenged the rulling religious dogma which included the gods and the conceptions of the gods. This led to a popularization of monotheism and monism, but it also led to the first signs of atheist philosophy. Also, allegorical thinking was developed. Stories and personifications were symbols of a higher truth, but were deceiving and even idolatrous if taken literally.

As you can see, Christian moral ideals and understandings didn't arise within a vacuum. Just like every mythological motif, the cherished values of Christianity preceeded Christianity.

Response to “Atheism: Light or Heat?”

Another response to a blog.

http://kreitsauce.com/2009/03/22/atheism-light-or-heat/

I just want to give a quick response. Just because athiests disbelieve (or rather believe in a lack of a) God, it doesn’t follow they don’t have beliefs. God isn’t necessary for a moral belief system. Look into Natural Law which may or may not include a belief in God. Natural Law originated with the Greeks, and it was the Stoics who made into an ethical system that influenced Christianity.

I’m not an atheist myself because I see it as pointless to believe in a lack of a God. I’m agnostic with a strong spiritual bent. I sense that there is something more, but I feel no inclination to formulate it as a specific belief for or against anything in particular.

Atheism isn’t really a belief system as it’s merely a negation. Atheism includes a wide variety of moral beliefs. If you want to consider atheism and morality, you’d have to look at specific organizations and belief systems.

There are a some atheist religions and religions that are accepting of atheism. Buddhism and Taoism are two examples, but I’m sure there are others.

Also, you might be interested in researching Unitarian-Universalism. They accept atheists, agnostics, and religious believers. They’ve developed an ethical code that seeks what is acceptable to all of its members.

Response to an Apologist about The Jesus Mysteries

An apologist wrote a review about the book The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy. I normally try to avoid getting involved in discussions with apologists, but I felt like responding this time for some strange reason. As always, I don’t actually feel like arguing about any of it. I just wanted to show that scholarly opinion is not so clear. I suppose it’s unlikely an apologist would consent to any significant doubt, but hopefully he won’t delete my comment so that readers of his blog may see it and make up their own mind.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/jesus-mysteries/

I have this book, but it’s been a few years since I read it. Even though I enjoy their work, I think there are more scholarly writers out there.

“First of all, they too easily discount the evidence for the historical Jesus. They gloss over Josephus, Paul and the Gospels, even though if this was for any other historical figure it would be plenty of evidence.”

Many scholars doubt or dismiss the mention of Jesus Christ by Josephus. You can find those who do accept it, but there is no consensus of its authenticity. The Wikipedia article about Josephus on Jesus does a fairly good job of showing the complexity of debate.

As for Paul and the Gospels, there are many theories. It’s an endless debate also without concensus amongst scholars. However, if you’re looking for more scholarly support for Freke and Gandy, then I’d advise checking out Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty.

“Secondly they artificially blend a number of gods into a composite being that no ancient person would recognize. They claim that Jesus is a form of Osiris-Dionysus and by that they mean that they can take little bits from a dozen or so unrelated myths and see some similarity with the Gospels. “

Actually, Osiris-Dionysus was a name of the godman that was syncretized during the Hellenistic period prior to Christianity. Egyptian religion and Hellenism were very syncretistic, and this combining of attributes and names was very common. If you want more scholarly support for this, then check out Christ in Egypt by D.M. Murdock.

“Thirdly, they misrepresent the role of Gnosticism. I think they are right to see Gnosticism as playing a parellel role to the pagan mystery religions, socially if not theologically. However, they fall into the popular trap of saying that there were numerous Christianities right from the beginning, suggesting that Gnosticism might even have been earliest, with orthodox Christianity only later emerging.”

Yes, this is speculative because so little survived from the first century, but there is support for it. The earliest commentators on the New Testament were all Gnostics (Basilides being the earliest). In particular, some of the earliest commentators (Marcion and Valentinus) wrote the first commentaries on the earliest NT texts (Paul).

“The earliest Christian texts that we have (which are found in the New Testament) are in continuity with what became orthodox Christianity and in opposition to Gnosticism. To get where they want to be, they have to make some ridiculous claims such as Paul being a Gnostic and many of the New Testament books having a late date, well into the second century.”

There are other scholars that argue that Paul never writes about a historical figure and never gives physical details. Doherty, in particular, writes extensively about Paul.

There is a logical reason for arguing for a late dating for NT books. As I understand, the earliest copies come from the second century. It’s traditional to date them earlier, but there is no hard evidence from the first century.

“They are totally out of touch even with critical scholarship and their claims are far from the evidence.”

They’re not out of touch, but they present just one perspective. Scholars show a great variety in their conclusions.

Technology: Information, Imagination, and more

Technology, of course, is having a massive influence on society. But it isn’t technology itself but what it makes possible. Two aspects to this are information and imagination. Human potential is increased and so are moral issues.

Individuals and groups have more information technology which offers more power. The results of this are too numerous to list. A simple example is how cellphones have given oppressed people a quick and easy way to organize. A protest can form and disappear before the police even realize what is going on. On the other hand, technology offers better ways for the government to control its citizens and propaganda is becoming more advanced.
On the level of imagination, it’s even more interesting to consider the consequences. Television and movies have opened wide the gates of our collective imagination. And other things (such as cameras, software, and websites like YouTube) have given an opportunity for average people to create and explore possibilites.

The problem is that the more people know and imagine the more they become dissatisfied and restless. And our normal lives pale against the fantasies we obsess over, whether porn or pop stars or travelling. And this is the moral issue. In the past people repressed their imaginations. Thinking about unnatural sexual acts? Just repress it and say 100 Hail Marys. That often works, but often doesn’t. Even priests end up acting on some of those urges. And repression works even less in a culture like ours where everything you can imagine satiates the media.
Right now, many governments are trying to figure this all out. Violence and sex are legislated, but imagination is more difficult to legislate. It only becomes an issue when someone’s imagination becomes a product, something to be shared. There has been many cases in the past decade about animated porn and violence. In the US, violent video games have been mostly winning this battle as some big cases have been thrown out of the court.

Anime porn is an even thornier issue. Art has often been held above the level of pop culture, but the distinction grows less with advancement of technology. Is a picture of an underage nude person porn? Does it matter the intentions of the photographer? Is there such a thing as tasteful nudity? Is the human body to be considered a respectable subject of art? Is it simply a matter of age? If so, what about a painting of a nude underage person? Or what about anime? How legal officials determine the legality of photographic or video porn is by determining the person’s age, but how does one determine the age of an animated figure? An anime character isn’t real and so how does age of consent apply? And who is the victim? Is society as a whole a victim?

It’s well-known that a certain sector of Japanese culture is obsessed with images of young girls. And this has gone beyond anime. There has been computer programs created that portray a cute underage girl you can play with and give gifts to. There have been robots created to look young. Would sex with an android that looked like a child still be pedophilia? These are real questions society will be struggling with very soon.

I have some interest in virtual worlds, but I’ve only been on a couple of them such as Second Life. I’ve heard of another one called Red Light Center. It’s designed so that people can use avatars to have sex with other people’s avatars. I don’t know but something seems missing in the equation. Having virtual sex with a stranger’s virtual self doesn’t overly appeal to me. But the concept of it is fascinating.

This type of thing is just the beginning. Such technological imaginations are also used towards practical ends. Architects, chemists, and doctors all use these technologies to portray information visually. Also, if you consider what science has learned, it’s going to be a brave new world. Science has researched about how the brain works and various techniques to read minds and alter functioning. Scientists now understand how brainwashing works and much money has been put into light and sound machines that can have powerful effects on the brain.

On a really dark note, the development of robots and AI have been put to military use. The US has thousands of unmanned robots operating overseas. I read about a problem when something went wrong with one robot and it started targeting US soldiers. Wars of the future will be technological. Warfare is already happening on the internet. I forget which country, but one of Russia’s neighbors had its whole internet system knocked out. Fortunately, they were prepared for such an attack, but many countries such as the US supposedly aren’t prepared.

PKD Trumps Harpur and Ligotti

Sometimes I wonder why I write a blog. When I write in my journal, I never wonder about this... I suppose because there is no potential audience to make me self-conscious. But a blog is a public spectacle... and so I wonder what purpose it serves. I sometimes hope someone reads it and at least finds it interesting, and at other times I'd rather be left alone with my rambling thoughts.

I'm wondering about this specifically in relation to my recent blogs about Christianity. I partly write just to give my thoughts form and to make notes about the subjects I study. However, I'm also trying to communicate... afterall, that is what writing is about. I'm sure like everyone my motives are mixed. There are various aspects to my personality, various hopes and fears. Plus, blogging is simply a good distraction from other more responsible activities such as washing my dishes.

In writing about Christianity, part of me wants to persuade. I believe in truth and I want others to believe in truth. I have this lingering faith that truth can somehow win out against all the BS in the world. Along with this, I'd like to believe that religion can be something more than history too often demonstrates it to be. Tom Harpur writes about the horrific side of Christian history, but he also writes about hope... about the possibility that spiritual truth (whatever it may be) can rise above the politics and superficialities that mainstream Christianity has consisted of for centuries. I was raised a New Age Christian and so this message resonates with a part of me that is still innocent and earnest in my sense of faith. Who knows, maybe society can change. Maybe religion can become something more than a means of social control. Tom Harpur believes that if Christianity was willing to face up to its own dark past that a bright future is possible. What a happy thought that is.

But then my inner Thomas Ligotti speaks up. Going by Zappfe, Ligotti the pessimist dismisses such New Agey hopes as just another attempt to avoid suffering. Life is suffering and everything we do is an attempt to avoid the awareness of suffering. Sadly or fortunately, we're simply incapable of even comprehending the horror of our existence. It doesn't matter what cruelties any particular religion was built upon because our whole society is built upon misery. We're just f*cked! Then again, if I have to waste my life in some manner or another, maybe that is all the more reason to sit around contemplating spiritual truths... even if they are nothing more than pretty lies.

I do on occasion think of myself as a Christian, in spite my constant criticisms. My friend tells me I'm a Christian... and, heck, why not? I'm a Christian and many other things besides. It's all good. To be serious, I actually do feel drawn to Christianity, specifically certain Gnostic ideas. Plus, I'm just fascinated by these great myths that percolated down through the millennia to finally take form in the figure of Jesus and the rest of the cast. When I contemplate these stories and symbols, I do sense a deeper truth, something that feels real.

In the end, neither Harpur nor Ligotti wins out. Their voices fade away, and I see Philip K. Dick sitting with one of his cats and he is bantering about something or another. It is true that he was crazy, but crazy in an entertaining and mostly harmless way. He had a playful imagination and an overactive one at that. Harpur and Ligotti, on the other hand, seem like such serious fellows. I can often be quite serious myself. Still, I'd rather be a fool like PKD. He took various random ideas (including ancient mythology and Gnosticism) and he made it his own. He wasn't a good person, he wasn't a bad person. He was just a guy who liked to tell stories and who had an insatiable curiosity. Who needs hope or pessimism if they have curiosity?

Too many people in the world have answers. Even though I have many opinions, I know I don't have any answer myself. But part of me wants an answer. And that is fine to an extent. Maybe we can't live without some answer or another to hold onto. Even so, I don't want to ever stop questioning. If life ever becomes so depressing or boring to me that I lose my sense of curiosity, then what would be the point?

So, I can get annoyed at fundies who present apologetic self-deception as truth. That is their answer and it seems a fairly stupid answer to me. Then again, I get annoyed at lots of things in life. I pretty much get annoyed at anyone who claims any final conclusion about anything. And I get annoyed at life for its lack of a conclusion, its lack of a clear point to it all. I must admit I get too easily annoyed. It must be nice being a fundie, or a fanatic of any variety for that matter, who possesses unquestioning certainty. There is no doubt that fundies get annoyed as well, but at least they have conviction in their annoyance. As for me, I just end up turning my annoyance back on myself. I get annoyed even at my own attempts at finding answers.

Its just with every answer comes a role to play. The fundie is playing their role of righteous believer and some of them can really embrace that role, but there are many other roles besides. I get tired of roles. I go to work and play various roles... for my supervisor, for my fellow employees, for the customers. And then there are all the family roles I'm stuck in... son, brother, brother-in-law, uncle, etc. It almost makes me feel envious of the people playing the role of homeless... a much simpler role to play in many ways even with its drawbacks. There is this one homeless schizophrenic guy that I often suspect has life figured out. That is almost the perfect role because then everyone leaves you alone.

It makes me wonder what conclusion I've come to in my own life order to play the roles I play. I guess any story has to have its roles to be played. Maybe I just don't like the story I'm in. When I'm blogging, I'm usually playing the role of the intellectual. It's a role I'm good at to an extent, but intellectuality can bring out the cynic in me. I suppose I could play the role of the person who has no opinion at all... except I'm too opinionated to attempt that role. I've tried many roles in my life. I've even tried to play the optimist a number of times, and I really suck at it. I'm almost attracted to the role of the Christian miserable sinner except that role doesn't seem like very much fun, and the dogma of the role of the righteous Christian would give me brain cramps.

I somewhat admire Ligotti in his adamant pessimism which almost feels like a stoic fatalism. His view seems so simple and straightforward. Ultimately, I don't understand such a view. I'm a spiritual person. One of the best roles I've found for myself is the spiritual seeker who never finds. It isn't always a perfectly satisfying part to play, but it keeps me occupied. As an endlessly questioning seeker, I feel some connection to Philip K. Dick. He definitely had restless mind syndrome.

Another aspect to PKD was that he had great interest in social roles. One of my favorite stories by him is his novel A Scanner Darkly. That story has a strong Gnostic theme. It's a bit dark in it's portrayal of society and relationships, but I oddly find it gives me a sense of hope or else something related to hope. The main character Arctor never gives up. He is confused and split, but he continually questions and in some ways sees more clearly than the other characters. Partly, he tries to step outside of the roles he finds himself in... even though he ends up stepping into other roles. No perspective gives him absolute clarity, but more significant is his nagging sense of doubt. In Arctor, I see something akin to my own seeking nature, my own seeking without knowing what I'm seeking. The seeker is just another role I suppose, but at least it isn't a mindless role. There is a sense in this that there is something more than the masks we wear. In Arctor's shifting perspectives, he at times nearly forgets all roles and a deeper aspect seems to emerge.

Arctor is very much a Christ-like figure. There is the dual nature, the sacrifice and suffering, the descent, the emergence of something new. The dual nature aspect is particularly compelling. Saviors tend to be dual natured in several ways. There is the well-known duality of God and man combined. However, saviors are unifiers of duality in general. Many savior figures combine human and animal features for instance. Another duality is that between good and evil personified as Jesus and Satan or Horus and Set. The relationship of the latter two is a really good example because they were even at times represented as a singular dual-natured god, Horus-Set.

What is interesting about Arctor is that he has a split personality such that one half of him is both spying on and looking out for his other half. Meanwhile, sweet little Donna is playing the role of Judas, but in a sense Arctor willingly plays into this betrayal by his past choices. Arctor is both outside and within the oppressive system, pretending to be a narc. Still, he holds something back from the drama of it all. Donna may think she knows the game, but she doesn't really know Arctor. Despite her larger perspective, she is more identified with the role she is playing than Arctor is. Most of the characters seem to be stuck in roles. Even though outwardly the story is about drug addiction, the story is really about social roles and social control, about how people get stuck in patterns of mind.

And beyond all of that, there is another message. Those who think they're in the know may not know as much as they think. Instead, at the bottom of loss of all certainty, one might discover something unexpected. It isn't nihilism for there is a different kind of certainty within the faith that allows one to survive the descent. There is some kind of balance in it however precarious it may be.

In real life, however, many people don't survive the descent. Staying within the confines of conviction is much safer. Although, how I see it is that such descents are part of a story, and I suspect we ultimately don't choose the stories we are in. I happen to be sympathetic to the story of Arctor, but I'm biased. Maybe ideally I should try to feel compassion for everyone in their respective stories. And maybe I should do many things. Compassion for fundies? I'll have to work on that.

Egyptian Symbols within Christianity

Besides the obvious crosses and crucifixes in many religions across the world that predated Christianity, there are also other non-Christian symbols found within Christianity. As I’ve been focusing on Egypt lately, I’ll give two examples from that culture. But realize there are many other such symbolic similarities that can also be shown. I also chose the following quote because the author demonstrates that early Christians (including Augustine) were aware of these symbols and their meaning.

The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur

pp 88-89: The Egyptian Christ, manifested in the sign of Pisces, was fore-ordained to be Ichthys (Greek word for “fish”), the fisherman and to be accompanied by fishermen followers. Doctrinally, he was the “fisher of men”. Horus, the best-known Egyptian Christ figure was associated from time immemorial with the fish, and Massey’s Natural Genesis features a reproduction of an Egyptian engraving showing Horus holding a fish above his head. Several of the early Christian Fathers refer to Christ also as Ichthys, or “that great fish,” and the mitre worn by succeeding popes “in the the shoes of the fishermen” is shaped exactly like a fish’s mouth. It’s well known that the Greek word ichthys forms an acrostic meaning “Jesus Christ the Son of God (Our) Savior.” Having been in Rome numerous times during my dozen years covering religion around the world for the Toronto Star, I have seen first-hand how frequently the outline of a fish occurs in catacombs as a Christian symbol. It also doubled as a sign of the Eucharist. Prosper Africanus, an early Christian theologian, calls Christ “that great fish who fed from himself the disciples on the shore and offered himself as a fish to the world.” Commenting on this same passage from the end of John’s Gospel, St. Augustine says that the broiled fish in the story “is Christ.” The art found in ancient Egyptian tombs commonly shows fish, fishermen, nets, and fishtraps of varying kinds. All have the same spiritual meaning.

Much more important, however, is the fact that the Egyptian texts bear witness to an “only begotten god” (meaning begotten of one parent only), whose symbol was the beetle because in ancient science this creature was thought to be “self-produced, being unconceived by a female.” Massey says, “The only begotten god is a well-known type [symbol], then, of divinity worshipped in Egypt. In each cult, the Messiah-son and manifestor was the only-begotten god. This, according to the Egyptian text, is the Christ, the Word, the manifestor in John’s Gospel.” In fact, in one early version of the Greek text of the New Testament’s Gospel of John, the phrase “the only begotten son of God” actually reads “the only begotten god”! Its very unorthodoxy makes it likely that it is the preferred, original reading.

The truth thus came forcefully home to me that this Egyptian Christ is indeed the express image of the Christ of John’s Gospel, who begins in the first chapter without father or mother and is the Word of the beginning, the opener and the architect, the light of the world, the self-originated and only-begotten God. I found that the very phraseology of Jonh often echoed the Egyptian texts, which tell of he who was “the Beginning of the becoming, from the first, who made all things but was not made.” Some of the Fathers of the Church knew that the beetle was a symbol of Christ. Augustine, indeed, writes, “My own good beetle, not so much because he is only begotten (God), not because he, the author of himself, has taken on the form of mortals, but because he has rolled himself in our filth and chooses to be born from this filth itself” - like the dung beetle.

When the god Osiris came to the earth as a savior, he came as his own son, the child Horus. He was born “like or as a Word.” The Egyptian text says that he came to earth as a substitute. Indeed, an ancient Egyptian festival celebrating the birth of Horus was called “The Day of the Child in His Cradle.”

When Horus comes to earth in the Egyptian story, he is supported or given bread by Seb, who is god of the earth, “the father on earth.” He is thus the divine father on earth of the messiah-son, who manifests in time. Just as Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, provides shelter and food for his son, so Seb (Jo-seph) cares for Horus. The consort of Seb is the mother of heaven, named Nu; Meri (Mary) is another name for the mother of the messiah. Massey concludes, “Thus Seb and Meri for earth and heaven would afford the two mythic originals for Joseph and Mary as parents of the divine child.” There are seven different Marys in the four Gospels. They correspond with uncanny fidelity to seven Marys, or Hathors in the Egyptian stories.