Marmalade

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 a 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”