Is Christianity Pagan?

[livius drusus]

Many's the time on IIDB and elsewhere I've heard people assert that the early Christian church intentionally subsumed pagan imagery and ritual in order to de-Jewishify Christianity and appeal to the pagan masses. I've read that the very foundational notions of Christianity were based on pre-existing pagan beliefs -- savior god, born of a virgin, who dies and rises again (Mithras and Osiris are often mentioned).

What I haven't seen is any actual evidence. Imagery and rituals are often culturally-rooted, so the fact that savior gods have died and risen before Jesus was said to have done so doesn't mean that someone intentionally designed Jesus to fit that pattern, nor does it mean that one has even directly influenced the other. They could simply resonate enough to be carried forward by the population at large no matter what the official theology.

What I'm asking, then, is if anyone has come across any kind of primary or even well documented secondary source evidence which indicates Christianity as a theology and institution deliberately or even inadvertantly modelled its beliefs/images/rituals after pagan ones. The fact that some Christian beliefs/images/rituals seem similar is insufficient. The fact that some festivals in little towns in Italy (http://www.abruzzoheritage.com/magazine/2001_04/0104_c.htm) are very clearly pagan with a Christianized aspect is also insufficient.

This is not intended to be a determinant of the truth value of Christian doctrine, incidentally. Jesus could be totally original in every way and still be false, or he could be Dyonisis himself and still be true. I'm just fascinated by religious history and would like to pick some brains on this matter is all. :)

[Ronin]

What "actual evidence" would be sufficient to qualify for you, liv?

Here is a good link to the assorted Creation Myths (http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html) found throughout cultures and history.

I think that the strongest evidence for the evolution of prior rituals and myths to any newer meme is observable in the three dominant religions of our particular day...Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Note that Judaism subsumes the One Great God thesis of earlier cultures to dominate an era and then the younger pups add their own myths and tales to fit their respective cultures.

We also know that pagan imagery is most often derived from seasonal changes in order to lend observational credence to their supernatural claims...this technique was not lost on Christians (or others for that matter).

PS There is also some very good reading on the subject to be had here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm).

[LadyShea]

In The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity , Hyam Maccoby (apparently a noted Jewish scholar) posits that Paul was a pagan and incorporated many pagan ideas into his overall image of Christ. Maccoby uses the notes and records from the first century Jewish scholars to lay out his case.

Though not "proof", the fact that modern Christianity is heavily based on Paul's writings, and Paul possibly being pagan is quite interesting.

[godfry n. glad]

I guess my question would be "What do you mean by "pagan"?

First, I'd suggest that you divest yourself of the notion that Judaism, particularly Second Temple Judaism, was some kind of monolithic and cohesive religious institution. The evidence from Josephus is that there was a great deal of religious diversity within Judaism.

I suspect that early christianity was either a sectarian set of Judaic belief that eventually split off, or that it was a separate, non-Jewish, group that attempted to protect itself from the Roman tendency of the time of suppressing "new religious sects" by claiming that they were a subgroup of Jewish belief because the Jews had special dispensation from the Romans for their belief. Of course, following the razing of the Temple in 70, the suppression which followed and then the subsequent Jewish revolt of bar Kochba (deemed the Christ by Reb Akiba) around 135, which alienated the Jews from Roman affection...necessitating an eventual separation from the Jewish traditions.

Paul claimed to be a Jew. But then he would have been a Diasporean Jew...complete with a slightly separate understanding of the Jewish teachings. To me, his teachings are closer to those of the GJohn than any of the synoptics in terms of their Hellenistic tendencies. He has no stories of miraculous births, but he does take in some clearly Hellenistic pagan ideas...like the "third heaven"...there is no such thing in Jewish thought, it's entirely Hellenistic in it's genesis.

As to whether the early Church actually adopted pagan practices, I don't think that can be questioned....given the selection of the birthday of Sol Invictus for the birthdate of Jesus and his resurrection being timed to coincide with the advent of spring.... Then, the Church in the process of its expansion, after the Nicene and under the protection of the Emperor, was known to have taken over existing locations of a sacred nature to the pagans (usually springs or clearings in the forest) and convert the site into a christian church or other sanctified christian site.

However... There is no incontrovertible evidence to show any of this. The historical record has been inexorably muddied by the church itself with rewrites and propaganda since the time of Eusebius, in the early 4th century.

godfry

[Clutch Munny]

The fact that some festivals in little towns in Italy (http://www.abruzzoheritage.com/magazine/2001_04/0104_c.htm) are very clearly pagan with a Christianized aspect is also insufficient.

Why? Is evidence of this kind insufficient, or just evidence of this amount?

There's two questions one might ask:

1. What are the historical sources bearing on the paganization of early Christianity?

2. What is the reasoning that can be given in support of the claim that Christianity imported pagan traditions, rituals, and symbols?

You can be mostly or wholly interested in the first question without supposing that the second can only be answered in terms of the first. From your OP you sorta seem inclined to suppose this, though. Am I getting you wrong?

[livius drusus]

What "actual evidence" would be sufficient to qualify for you, liv?

Well, I suppose it depends on the claim. What I had in mind -- and clearly explained very poorly in what was a rather rushed OP :blush: -- were assertions of intentional pilfering, not religious evolution.

We also know that pagan imagery is most often derived from seasonal changes in order to lend observational credence to their supernatural claims...this technique was not lost on Christians (or others for that matter).

Okay here's something possibly akin to the notion of intentional adoption of beliefs for the purposes of self-promotion. When you say that this was a technique used to lend observational credence to supernatural claims, do you mean the imagery was recognized as resonant and therefore consciously selected to lend believability to a new doctrine?

PS There is also some very good reading on the subject to be had here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm).

I'm reading it as work permits, but so far very interesting link indeed. :thankee:

[livius drusus]

Though not "proof", the fact that modern Christianity is heavily based on Paul's writings, and Paul possibly being pagan is quite interesting.

Very, very interesting. I'll definitely add that book to the list. Thanks, Shea.

[livius drusus]

I guess my question would be "What do you mean by "pagan"?

Good question. I think I probably meant polytheistic but as Ronin pointed out, religious evolution can make it a hard to pinpoint which is the chicken and which the egg. I put the snake festival I linked to in my OP in the polytheistic Roman/Etruscan religion category, but I would imagine the symbolism of the snake goes back further than that to animistic religions.

First, I'd suggest that you divest yourself of the notion that Judaism, particularly Second Temple Judaism, was some kind of monolithic and cohesive religious institution. The evidence from Josephus is that there was a great deal of religious diversity within Judaism.

Color me divested. I had (and have) really only the vaguest concept of such things, so I'm very grateful to be schooled on the matter.

Do you think this diversity was widely known in early CE Roman territories? I'm having a hard time phrasing my questions at all intelligently right now, please excuse me, but what I'm trying to get at here is do you think there is reason to believe that nascent Christianity -- presumably in the form of early Church fathers/apostles -- would intentionally endeavor to distance itself from its Judaic roots? It seems to me that the diversity of Second Temple Judaism would be an argument in support of a more evolution of beliefs position rather than an intentional adoption of local beliefs for marketing purposes.

I suspect that early christianity was either a sectarian set of Judaic belief that eventually split off, or that it was a separate, non-Jewish, group that attempted to protect itself from the Roman tendency of the time of suppressing "new religious sects" by claiming that they were a subgroup of Jewish belief because the Jews had special dispensation from the Romans for their belief.

That's fascinating, godfry. The former is relatively familiar to me but this is the first I've heard of the latter. If you can explain to someone as biblically illiterate as myself (I've read it, mind you, but know next to nothing about the kinds of things you used to analyze so deftly in BC&H), I'd love to hear more about what has informed this theory.

Of course, following the razing of the Temple in 70, the suppression which followed and then the subsequent Jewish revolt of bar Kochba (deemed the Christ by Reb Akiba) around 135, which alienated the Jews from Roman affection...necessitating an eventual separation from the Jewish traditions.

How was this separation effectuated, do you think? I know, I know... There are probably volumes upon volumes of books written on the topic and I want you to give me a 3 sentence overiew. I'm sorry. I'd definitely love to get some sources, but meanwhile, if you could toss me a few theories I'd be very much obliged.

Paul claimed to be a Jew. But then he would have been a Diasporean Jew...complete with a slightly separate understanding of the Jewish teachings. To me, his teachings are closer to those of the GJohn than any of the synoptics in terms of their Hellenistic tendencies. He has no stories of miraculous births, but he does take in some clearly Hellenistic pagan ideas...like the "third heaven"...there is no such thing in Jewish thought, it's entirely Hellenistic in it's genesis.

Have you read the Maccoby book Shea mentions? Could the Hellenistic tendencies of his teachings inform the notion that he was more of a pagan than a Diasporean Jew?

As to whether the early Church actually adopted pagan practices, I don't think that can be questioned....given the selection of the birthday of Sol Invictus for the birthdate of Jesus and his resurrection being timed to coincide with the advent of spring....

I doesn't seem that cut and dried to me. Wasn't the name "Sol Invictus" coined by the Elagabalus in the third century? Also, from what I know there is no firm date other than around the solstice for SI's birth, and picking the solstice for Jesus' birth could just as well be one of those culturally resonant choices rather than an intentional adoption of pagan practices. The same could be said for the timing of Easter.

Also, I dimly recall reading around the time of onthedole's thread about gift giving that in fact different Christian communities assigned a wide range of dates to Jesus' birth, and that December 25th didn't stick for ages.

Then, the Church in the process of its expansion, after the Nicene and under the protection of the Emperor, was known to have taken over existing locations of a sacred nature to the pagans (usually springs or clearings in the forest) and convert the site into a christian church or other sanctified christian site.

Indeed. The Emperor Julian was very mad at the Antiochans for showing such impiousness. They also took marble from temples and arenas to make churches, but that doesn't really mean they were intentionally seeking to adopt paganism into Christianity, does it? It could just as well be pragmatic or even an attempt to display dominance over paganism.

However... There is no incontrovertible evidence to show any of this. The historical record has been inexorably muddied by the church itself with rewrites and propaganda since the time of Eusebius, in the early 4th century.

Oh, I didn't mean that I wanted incontrovertible evidence. I just wanted to get some idea of why the pagan influence on Christianity is so often phrased in definitive terms when it seems to me the reality is rather more complex than that and there are a myriad possible interpretations of any given factor.

The thing is, even had there never been rewrites or propagandists, it seems highly unlikely to me that something as amorphous and diverse as early Christianity can be said to have made conscious choices to intentionally incorporate pagan elements as such.

[livius drusus]

Why? Is evidence of this kind insufficient, or just evidence of this amount?

Kind, I think, but I may very well not be understanding the question.

There's two questions one might ask:

1. What are the historical sources bearing on the paganization of early Christianity?

2. What is the reasoning that can be given in support of the claim that Christianity imported pagan traditions, rituals, and symbols?

You can be mostly or wholly interested in the first question without supposing that the second can only be answered in terms of the first. From your OP you sorta seem inclined to suppose this, though. Am I getting you wrong?

No, I think you're right that I was kinda supposing this, and I think you're right that it's a faulty supposition. Hopefully my follow-up posts have clarified what it is I'm seeking, which is an explanation of point 2, particularly where "imported" is to be read as a conscious, intentional choice by Church leaders/dignitaries/thinkers/general big shots rather than an evolutionary perpetuation of culturally relevant themes.

[godfry n. glad]

Why? Is evidence of this kind insufficient, or just evidence of this amount?

Kind, I think, but I may very well not be understanding the question.

There's two questions one might ask:

1. What are the historical sources bearing on the paganization of early Christianity?

2. What is the reasoning that can be given in support of the claim that Christianity imported pagan traditions, rituals, and symbols?

You can be mostly or wholly interested in the first question without supposing that the second can only be answered in terms of the first. From your OP you sorta seem inclined to suppose this, though. Am I getting you wrong?

No, I think you're right that I was kinda supposing this, and I think you're right that it's a faulty supposition. Hopefully my follow-up posts have clarified what it is I'm seeking, which is an explanation of point 2, particularly where "imported" is to be read as a conscious, intentional choice by Church leaders/dignitaries/thinkers/general big shots rather than an evolutionary perpetuation of culturally relevant themes.

Okay... How's about St. Bridgid and St. Christopher? Both were considered saints of the Catholic Church until recently. To be considered a saint, there is a process whereby the church authorities review and authorize. Brigid, as I understood it, was such a popular pagan goddess amongst the Celtic peoples that it was deemed pragmatic to make the pagan goddess a intermediary for the church...an official church spokesperson, as it were. There were a number of saints who were "desainted" because the church felt that, in the 20th century, there was insufficient evidence to support their actually having existed. Mr. Christopher fell by the wayside, too.

godfry

Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

[Clutch Munny]

To talk entirely through my hat, here: Even were Christianity heavily paganized, and even were this the result of individually deliberate decisions, there's no obvious reason to expect that the decisions would be "top-down" from a central Church authority, except in recognition of some fait accompli. That is, there no reason to expect a paper trail of any sort.

For instance, building a church on a temple site is almost certainly a deliberate decision to co-opt the tradition and authority of an extant pagan worship. But it's a decision that might be made locally a thousand times over, without any particular case reflecting or influencing in turn a general or documented decision to incorporate pagan traditions into Christianity. Similarly, in the early Church every bishop was entitled to introduce a new feast day to the liturgical calendar -- an obvious invitation to accommodate local holy days, but one in practice not reflecting any centralized decision to do so, and unlikely to leave anything but circumstantial evidence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06132a.htm) behind.

In short, I think the "organic adaptations leaving circumstantial evidence" scenario is a variety of the "deliberate pilfering" scenario -- indeed, the most plausible variety, played out on the small and local scales.

On the other hand, I'm mostly making this up.


[edit to add] What I mean by endorsing a fait accompli is, eg, a situation in which the local bishop discovers that people are in fact continuing to worship some goddess figure in addition to Jesus, and a priest is finessing the matter by telling them it's fine to revere Mary, and so there's an ongoing percolation of something halfway between goddess worship and a Marian cult... so he says, Fine, let that slide. In my books that's as deliberate as any such decision was ever going to be; after all, Christianity was never going to incorporate pagan elements for no reason whatever, but only as a response to some extant practice. The most explicit forms of deliberateness might only come much later, when someone bothers to ask how this local practice squares with official doctrine. But by then, of course, it's ipso facto a local Christian practice. I'm trying, badly, to explain why I think "deliberate" and "evolutionary" cannot be disentangled. On one hand that may simply be your point; on the other hand, it also seems plausible to me that "micro-deliberate" is the only serious candidate for "deliberate" explanation, and that this is the most likely form that "evolutionary" explanation takes.

Am I agreeing with you? Or disagreeing? Or just demonstrating that my brain is cooked from an afternoon of meetings?

[livius drusus]

Okay... How's about St. Bridgid and St. Christopher? Both were considered saints of the Catholic Church until recently. To be considered a saint, there is a process whereby the church authorities review and authorize. Brigid, as I understood it, was such a popular pagan goddess amongst the Celtic peoples that it was deemed pragmatic to make the pagan goddess a intermediary for the church...an official church spokesperson, as it were. There were a number of saints who were "desainted" because the church felt that, in the 20th century, there was insufficient evidence to support their actually having existed. Mr. Christopher fell by the wayside, too.

godfry

Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

Much closer, thank you, although again there's a lot of grey in there. For instance, when was the process of beatification/cannonization formalized? Was it before or after Brigid and Christopher were revered as local saints? Because if it's after then it seems they Church might have grandfathered in an existing practice of the recently converted rather than take a pagan goddess and make her a saint in contravention of the process.

As an aside, I wonder what Sister Brigid, my twinkling-eyed, very Irish first grade teacher made of the news.

[Ymir's blood]

Wiki article on Canonization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization)

The process of an individual being declared a saint in the Roman Catholic Church began in the 900s, when the church in Rome demanded that all saints throughout her jurisdiction be added to an official list to be kept in Rome. Before that time, the name "saint" was applied more informally, and many early saints have never been formally canonized. The first saint to be added to this official list was Saint Ulrich of Augsburg, who was canonized in 993.

[godfry n. glad]

To talk entirely through my hat, here: Even were Christianity heavily paganized, and even were this the result of individually deliberate decisions, there's no obvious reason to expect that the decisions would be "top-down" from a central Church authority, except in recognition of some fait accompli. That is, there no reason to expect a paper trail of any sort.

For instance, building a church on a temple site is almost certainly a deliberate decision to co-opt the tradition and authority of an extant pagan worship. But it's a decision that might be made locally a thousand times over, without any particular case reflecting or influencing in turn a general or documented decision to incorporate pagan traditions into Christianity. Similarly, in the early Church every bishop was entitled to introduce a new feast day to the liturgical calendar -- an obvious invitation to accommodate local holy days, but one in practice not reflecting any centralized decision to do so, and unlikely to leave anything but circumstantial evidence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06132a.htm) behind.

In short, I think the "organic adaptations leaving circumstantial evidence" scenario is a variety of the "deliberate pilfering" scenario -- indeed, the most plausible variety, played out on the small and local scales.

On the other hand, I'm mostly making this up.


[edit to add] What I mean by endorsing a fait accompli is, eg, a situation in which the local bishop discovers that people are in fact continuing to worship some goddess figure in addition to Jesus, and a priest is finessing the matter by telling them it's fine to revere Mary, and so there's an ongoing percolation of something halfway between goddess worship and a Marian cult... so he says, Fine, let that slide. In my books that's as deliberate as any such decision was ever going to be; after all, Christianity was never going to incorporate pagan elements for no reason whatever, but only as a response to some extant practice. The most explicit forms of deliberateness might only come much later, when someone bothers to ask how this local practice squares with official doctrine. But by then, of course, it's ipso facto a local Christian practice. I'm trying, badly, to explain why I think "deliberate" and "evolutionary" cannot be disentangled. On one hand that may simply be your point; on the other hand, it also seems plausible to me that "micro-deliberate" is the only serious candidate for "deliberate" explanation, and that this is the most likely form that "evolutionary" explanation takes.

Am I agreeing with you? Or disagreeing? Or just demonstrating that my brain is cooked from an afternoon of meetings?

Well, I'm going to agree with you, Clutch. Because I don't think there is any real way to delineate a "concious decision" as versus some indeterminate syncretic activity. When someone acted to change, or even "clarify", some teaching of the collective calling themselves "christians", it was usually done with a purpose. Generally a high purpose. (Ehrman suggests that often this is "protection of the church against heresy" willfully changed scripture to exclude interpretations not to their liking...."they" of course, eventually became "orthodoxy". Keeping in mind that the "others" who would become the "heretics" were doing the same with their scriptures. This process was ongoing during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. The purpose of the Nicene is to put the squabbling to rest, so the emperor can use it.)

I suspect that early christianity had to make its way amongst the goyim (non-Jews) by adapting to the prevaling thinking of the time. According to my understanding of the development of christianity, there are not only those in Jerusalem who revere a christ (delieverer of the Jewish people) and call themselves christians. There are those who, as pagans in a world in religious ferment and transformation and a society upended by nearly constant war, social collapse and suppression by foreign powers sought community which was moral and self-sustaining. The Jewish communities, particularly in the Diaspora, has many pagan hangers-on who wanted to become Jews. Paul, whether Jew or goy, represents himself as a teacher of the same belief as a group of Jews in Jerusalem. If we take his epistles to be fairly accurate and reliable, then he was a Jew who preached a teaching that got him thrown out of the Jewish communities (I hesitate to say synagogue, as I'm not clear as to whether such existed at that time....it is pre-destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple.) So...who was he teaching to? The goys, Greeks, who had been hanging about hoping to gain acceptance in the Jewish communities. Paul's teaching of the "risen Jesus" anticipates what is to come...His Jesus is clearly transcendent and has only vague references to his once being human. (There are hideous, protracted arguments about this...actually about all of this)

My supposition to add to what Clutch has spoken through his hat (so I'm talking through my hat, too.), is that if we accept Paul as chronologically primary, then comes Mark, Matthew, Luke and John...reputedly in that order (which, of course, is a matter of debate, as this all is - I will say that it's not my preferred chrono order). Note that Mark is the most barebones in terms of the conveyed gospel. Matthew and Luke have immaculate conception, murder of the innocents, the manger birth and the flight to Egypt, which, from my understanding most testamental scholars accept as latter additions to the narrative. These additions to the scripture seem to be aping some of the characteristics of some of the popular pagan gods of the time. I suspect it to be accretion of various parts of the story as circumstances demanded in mission work. If their god had a miraculous birth, well then....so did Jesus.

I perceive the Jesus story is cobbled together over a long period of time and yes, that some of it was in response to the needs of expanding the community through mission work and adaptation of the story of the mendicant teacher who died on the cross (and martyr-making was a prime example of Jewish action...his death for the community can be taken to be a very Jewish action). So... I deem the earliest christian teachings to have been basically Jewish in nature, but they very quickly and very early in the development, became very controversial, and then cause for expulsion. If Paul was teaching as early as thought (late 50s through 60s), you must keep in mind that he reports being expelled from the synogogues because of his teaching.

From the point that Paul and any other preachers of the Christ (he alludes to such false teachers) would be more attuned to tinkering with their message to appeal to pagans.

That the church accepted pagan demands in the denial of the necessity for circumcision and the suspension of the dietary laws. The dogma was tailored early...why not later, with juicier stuff to attract more converts. Hey...How about that salvation that Paul was talking about? What's that all about?

That's not Jewish.

The belief of the resurrection is not Jewish, even though many Jews of the time were said to believe in the physical resurrection. That belief, in and of itself, is syncretic from the exposure of the Hebrew ruling elite to the Zoroastrianism of the liberating Persians, as per Norman Cohn in Cosmos, Chaos and the World Hereafter.

Heaven and Hell...They're not Jewish. Where'd that stuff come from, if not pagan sources?

What more do you need?

Then, there are those who question whether Paul existed and if not, whence came those epistles with his name attached? Warrented, they are a very, very small splinter group of testamental scholars (the Radicakkritik school), but their questions keep prying open more questions.

You need to remember that prior to Nicene, there were multiple variant schools of thought and interpretation amongst self-described christians. Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities is an excellent book to get an overview of this period in the development of christian thought. Let's just select out the Gnostics. Now, there seems to be a developing understanding that there were gnostic pagan groups, but there was most definitely a "Christian" gnostic group. We have several of their teachings, the most notable being the Gospel of Thomas....which the Jesus Seminar included in their "Five Gospels". These teachings lead to an understanding of a christianity with Jesus and not one, but two, or even more, gods. Is this Jewish? Possibly, but it's much easier to accept that multiple gods are pagan in nature...no? Well, Marcion, an early christian who reputedly used an expurgated version of Luke and the letters of Paul to propogate a belief where Yahwah, the god of the Hebrews, was a evil god, as is clearly discernable from the Jewish scriptures, who had trapped the divine spark in human flesh. The more powerful god had sent Jesus with the message that humans all had a spark of the divine and he had the way and the knowledge....

But we digress far from our goal. Is Marcion, or are the Gnostics, christians, or pagans? There seems to be plenty of evidence for a wide variation of belief that still included Jesus as "Christ"...of course, the interpretation of what christ meant depended on who was using it...as did "God".

I'm rambling....

Does any of this help?

Keep in mind now, anything I've said is can credibly countered by any number of other suppositions. I'm basing most of my understanding on Ehrman and Burton Mack, particularly his Who Wrote the New Testament?

Man...This stuff goes all over the map.

I gotta shut up for a while.

godfry

[Ronin]

[edit to add] What I mean by endorsing a fait accompli is, eg, a situation in which the local bishop discovers that people are in fact continuing to worship some goddess figure in addition to Jesus, and a priest is finessing the matter by telling them it's fine to revere Mary, and so there's an ongoing percolation of something halfway between goddess worship and a Marian cult... so he says, Fine, let that slide. In my books that's as deliberate as any such decision was ever going to be; after all, Christianity was never going to incorporate pagan elements for no reason whatever, but only as a response to some extant practice. The most explicit forms of deliberateness might only come much later, when someone bothers to ask how this local practice squares with official doctrine. But by then, of course, it's ipso facto a local Christian practice. I'm trying, badly, to explain why I think "deliberate" and "evolutionary" cannot be disentangled. On one hand that may simply be your point; on the other hand, it also seems plausible to me that "micro-deliberate" is the only serious candidate for "deliberate" explanation, and that this is the most likely form that "evolutionary" explanation takes.

Am I agreeing with you? Or disagreeing? Or just demonstrating that my brain is cooked from an afternoon of meetings?

Well, I think you're dead on here, Clutch.

Yaqui myth evolves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/sw/yml/yml04.htm).

The characters in early Yaqui stories are not elaborately drawn. They represent the common Yaqui social personality, conception of supernaturals, and the animals. New characters entered folk traditions as the Indians became familiar with Bible traditions, European history and folk stories. Eventually the Catholic pantheon merged with and partly submerged the aboriginal one; Spaniards, Moors, and the Devil joined Yaqui historical characters, and rogues, adventure-seekers, and kings of European folklore became a part of Yaqui folk traditions. The characterization of heroes reflects changing standards from early times to the present. For instance, heroes of early tales are often obedient, wise, powerful, and great leaders or hunters. In Jesuit-period myths and tales, they become pious or sinful, according to Yaqui-Catholic standards. More recent stories feature pranksters, merchants, warriors, or cowboys.

In short, I very much doubt you'll find a memo from Origen detailing the proposed methodical use of pagan tradition within the formally organized Canon.

On the other hand...The Arian Heresy (http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/history/nicene.htm).


:wink:

I gave the Catholics some air time, so I thought I'd pony up some WCG.

[LadyShea]

Paul claimed to be a Jew.

Maccoby addresses that too. Basically (IIRC) he thinks Paul converted to Judaism and wanted to be a Pharisee (he also states Jesus was probably a Pharisee which is some kind of debating scholar or some such shit). Apparently converts could not achieve the high ranks. He further states that the way the Pharisees and Sadducees are presented by Paul (as being assholes) is simply not in step with the reality of the time based on the records that exist.

Now, I have always felt Paul had a bone to pick with someone, and wanted to have some kind of authority/power and Maccoby's presentation made intuitive sense to me in addition to being well reasoned and documented.

This book was really sort of a turning point for me. So many questions I had were answered with some kind of plausibility...I said "That makes total sense" a lot..., especially regarding Mythical Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's a short book and I can't recommend it enough, even if just to read a different hypothesis, which I don't think has been presented elsewhere really.

[godfry n. glad]

Paul claimed to be a Jew.

Maccoby addresses that too. Basically (IIRC) he thinks Paul converted to Judaism and wanted to be a Pharisee (he also states Jesus was probably a Pharisee which is some kind of debating scholar or some such shit). Apparently converts could not achieve the high ranks. He further states that the way the Pharisees and Sadducees are presented by Paul (as being assholes) is simply not in step with the reality of the time based on the records that exist.

Now, I have always felt Paul had a bone to pick with someone, and wanted to have some kind of authority/power and Maccoby's presentation made intuitive sense to me in addition to being well reasoned and documented.

This book was really sort of a turning point for me. So many questions I had were answered with some kind of plausibility...I said "That makes total sense" a lot..., especially regarding Mythical Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's a short book and I can't recommend it enough, even if just to read a different hypothesis, which I don't think has been presented elsewhere really.

Sure. Maccomby is excellent, for sure. I've never read his material and should, but I've tended to rely upon Geza Vermes for my Jewish source. I appreciate the recommendation. His name is fairly well known...to me, at least.

Pharisees and Sadduccees were basically two sects. The Sadduccees basically playing the role of the conservative element in the priesthood. The Pharisees, a minority of the time in which the Jesus story is supposed to have taken place, were the most well known minority reform party amongst the Temple priests and the the learned of Jerusalem. There are, as I understand it the possibility of a great number of variant schools of thought amongst the teachers in Jerusalem. The ruling caste - the priesthood - had basically sold out the the conquerers in order to maintain control. The high priest was approved by the Romans. We are aware of the Essenes, and there is another reference to the Therapeutae. I suspect that given the case, the further from Jerusalem, the more likely to have deviations from the Temple priesthood's preferred worship....at the temple. With the disappearance of the Temple in 70, there was no more priesthood. So what happened to the Jews? Well, they'd lived there for some time, why go anywhere? Indeed, as I understand it, one Jewish teacher was given leave to leave the Jerusalem area and go elsewhere and reconsider their religion without a temple....This is during the time the nascent christian church reputedly took refuge across the Jordan....away from Jerusalem. Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both have their inceptions inextricably intertwined with the destruction of the Temple, it seems.

See: Jacob Neusner et al (ed.) Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era

Also,

Richard Horsley is an excellent source for social history of first century Judea and Samaria. His Bandits, Prophets & Messiahs is superb for giving a feel of the social and political situation in Palestine in the early first century. His Jesus and the Spiral of Violence is a fair rendering of the situation (although I think he tends to overlook the realpolitik of Judea's place in the geopolitics: close to Parthia. Indeed, the previous century, Parthia had taken Jerusalem and held it for a time [I'm not certain about how long]. I think that was during Pompey and his forays through the country. Parthia had whoooped Rome's ass big time....BIG WHOOOPASS. Crassus, I believe it was, who lost his life to the Parthian cavalry from the desert at Carrhae.)

Then there is the Diaspora. I don't know nearly enough about the Diaspora and it's role early in the development of christianity.

Blather, blather, blather.

godfry

[LadyShea]

Interesting blather! Thanks for the titles, they are on my list.

[Clutch Munny]

Yeah, I think Paul's a bit unfair. I've been a seducee before, but at worst that makes me weak-willed.

[godfry n. glad]

Titles?...I got titles....

For a really, really decent historicist view, read John Dominic Crossan's twin pieces, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus.

I think it's the best of the historicist speculations. He's done some interesting social science applications to the some questions and done a good job of giving it a credible explanation. He's a priest who gave up his priesthood. For imprimatur, see John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew trilogy. Meier draws heavily upon the work of his mentor, Raymond Brown, both priests in the Catholic church.

WARNING: Some of these can be real :yawn: if you're not rillyrilly interested in them. But if you like Maccomby...then who knows?

godfry

[livius drusus]

an obvious invitation to accommodate local holy days, but one in practice not reflecting any centralized decision to do so, and unlikely to leave anything but circumstantial evidence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06132a.htm) behind.

Now that was just good, clean fun. The topsy-turvy festivals were always my favorite. One of these days we'll have to give all y'all mod rights and see what happens.

In short, I think the "organic adaptations leaving circumstantial evidence" scenario is a variety of the "deliberate pilfering" scenario -- indeed, the most plausible variety, played out on the small and local scales.

I think that's fair. I would say, however, that some of the claims I've seen of the latter scenario are far more grandiose than the former scenario would lead one to believe. Granted, they mainly came from BC&H newbies starting threads on how Mithras is teh Jebus, so I should consider the source and all.

Am I agreeing with you? Or disagreeing? Or just demonstrating that my brain is cooked from an afternoon of meetings?

I see elements of each, but the overriding groove is a big Barry White-style agreement.

[Ronin]

I think that's fair. I would say, however, that some of the claims I've seen of the latter scenario are far more grandiose than the former scenario would lead one to believe. Granted, they mainly came from BC&H newbies starting threads on how Mithras is teh Jebus, so I should consider the source and all.

I blame Acharya S (http://www.truthbeknown.com/) fer dat.

Great primer for the noob...I even have her "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" signed edition (a thowback from my comicbook collection tendencies...yeah...SO?)

In any event, I found that her style also gives way fairly simply to teaching skepticism of skepticism...which is always a good thang, imho.

:detect:

[LadyShea]

I liked one Maccoby book, and it was very short ;).

[livius drusus]

Wiki article on Canonization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization)

Gracias for the link, Ymir's blood. It's a good overview (although inexplicably leaves out the late, great Devil's Advocate). In other news, tomorrow's is Brigid's saint day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigid_of_Ireland). :staymad:

[Ymir's blood]

That occured to me whilst perusing the link. IIRC doing away with the postion occurred within the last century or so. Google was useless though, as 'devil's advocate' is such a common phrase.

[livius drusus]

Within the last few years or so, I thought, Ymir, but yeah, Google is no help at all.

[Clutch Munny]

In short, I think the "organic adaptations leaving circumstantial evidence" scenario is a variety of the "deliberate pilfering" scenario -- indeed, the most plausible variety, played out on the small and local scales.

I think that's fair. I would say, however, that some of the claims I've seen of the latter scenario are far more grandiose than the former scenario would lead one to believe. Granted, they mainly came from BC&H newbies starting threads on how Mithras is teh Jebus, so I should consider the source and all.


Ah, I understand. Yeah, no disagreement there. I know what you mean about the BC&H newbies who seem convinced that The Whole Thing was planned in every detail from K.A.O.S. Headquarters. Yuck.

[godfry n. glad]

I liked one Maccoby book, and it was very short ;).

Then, I recommend Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?

John P. Meier's work is a trilogy, fer christ's sake.

Dominic Crossan stuff is verbose and somewhat convoluted, but he's trying to do the intellectual equivalent of nailing jello to the wall. He does a good job of it, though. (Interestingly, he thinks that Jesus' body was not only not resurrected, but it probably wasn't entombed or even buried. He thinks the most likely thing is that his body was either thrown to the dogs or into the lime pit.) His books are big and the prose is well done but challenging.

I think these are all on the recommended reading list in BC&H @ IIDB. Peter Kirby did an overview on most of the writers in the field. Worthy of a scan for those who like Maccoby.

Of course, these recommendations are all upon my most subjective opinion. I wouldn't have it any other way.

godfry

[Celsus]

If I may add my two cents worth, from someone who isn't very well-read on the subject...

Christianity certainly was influenced by the cultures around it. That's to be expected since cultures are always intermingling and cannot be viewed as isolated entities. For instance, it's long recognised that early Jewish and Christian writers (Philo of Alexandria and Augustine, particularly) drew on Plato and Aristotle... I believe one early Christian writer even claimed Plato was a Christian who didn't know it, but I can't remember who. Certain terms that were common in the Hellenistic world were certainly co-opted, particularly logos--which may mean a number of things, but in John 1:1 becomes the Word. Syncretism--that is, the merging of various religious practices from one group to another--was very common, especially in this period, because they did not have the exclusivist impulses that many modern religions have today.

As for parallelism such as dying and rising gods, the reason I am so against them in principle is because the sort of thinking that comes with them usually represents a very superficial approach to the ideas of ancient religions. Secondly, they gloss over much of the nuances of those religions themselves, such that we are unable to look at those religions on their own terms, separated from early Christian views of them, and then of modern disfigurements of what they represented. It is largely irrelevant to me that the vast majority of parallels have been shown to be complete rubbish--what concerns me more is the way both the religions being looked at are reduced absurdly into caricatures for easy comparison.

Take for instance Osiris. He was an Egyptian god, with Egyptian myths associated with him, particularly related to the mortuary cults of the pharoahs. His death and then passing into the underworld as lord was a metaphor for the death of the pharoah, who then takes reign in the underworld, perpetuating his lordship for eternity. He is replaced (IIRC) by Seth in this world (who is also his murderer), who represents the new pharoah. Another potential metaphor comes from his identification with the Nile, which periodically floods, only to recede in the dry season. Once the Greeks co-opted this into Osiris mystery cults, the metaphors were translated. The relation between the Isis-Osiris mysteries and the Dionysus-Demeter mysteries are very ancient, which disfigured the original Egyptian myth considerably. The major source on that is Plutarch's On Isis and Osiris, and is very much seen through Greek lenses, the way Western forms of Buddhism differs significantly from Eastern forms but magnified much further. What becomes of the religion in Greek eyes is similar to the Demeter myth in which knowledge, experience and becoming play crucial roles in the transformation of an initiate. Unfortunately, because of the "mystery" nature of these religions, much of what is said about them is very difficult to decipher, especially this far away from them in time.

Perhaps that helped a little, I don't know. The thing is, everyone from Acharya S to Freke & Gandy treat the mystery religions in an ahistorical, essentialist fashion that does them no justice. Here are some links I've prepared on the topic:
Ancient Mystery Cults (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/misc/amc.html)
Putting the mystery to rest (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=508)
Unfortunately, these have sometimes been co-opted by fundamentalist Christians into believing that parallelism=dead => Christianity=unique. Such is emphatically not the case. On the flip side, as the second link demonstrates, holding the middle line gets you attacked by parallelomaniacs too.

Now if you want to speak about the polytheistic origins of Judaism, I can state some less uneducated guesses (I'm actually preparing an article on the development of monotheism in the Near East, but it's being constantly put on the backburner for lack of references and how much background knowledge is required to even discuss it intelligibly (i.e., I keep having to introduce new stuff, and then reformulate older material to take it into consideration), and because I want this to be an opus à la Mark S. Smith).

Joel

[Ymir's blood]

Within the last few years or so, I thought, Ymir, but yeah, Google is no help at all.
Well, the last few years is the same thing as within the last century, isn't it? :wink:

[godfry n. glad]

If I may add my two cents worth, from someone who isn't very well-read on the subject...

Heh...Yeah, right. You're better read in it than I.

Christianity certainly was influenced by the cultures around it. That's to be expected since cultures are always intermingling and cannot be viewed as isolated entities. For instance, it's long recognised that early Jewish and Christian writers (Philo of Alexandria and Augustine, particularly) drew on Plato and Aristotle... I believe one early Christian writer even claimed Plato was a Christian who didn't know it, but I can't remember who. Certain terms that were common in the Hellenistic world were certainly co-opted, particularly logos--which may mean a number of things, but in John 1:1 becomes the Word. Syncretism--that is, the merging of various religious practices from one group to another--was very common, especially in this period, because they did not have the exclusivist impulses that many modern religions have today.

As for parallelism such as dying and rising gods, the reason I am so against them in principle is because the sort of thinking that comes with them usually represents a very superficial approach to the ideas of ancient religions. Secondly, they gloss over much of the nuances of those religions themselves, such that we are unable to look at those religions on their own terms, separated from early Christian views of them, and then of modern disfigurements of what they represented. It is largely irrelevant to me that the vast majority of parallels have been shown to be complete rubbish--what concerns me more is the way both the religions being looked at are reduced absurdly into caricatures for easy comparison.

Take for instance Osiris. He was an Egyptian god, with Egyptian myths associated with him, particularly related to the mortuary cults of the pharoahs. His death and then passing into the underworld as lord was a metaphor for the death of the pharoah, who then takes reign in the underworld, perpetuating his lordship for eternity. He is replaced (IIRC) by Seth in this world (who is also his murderer), who represents the new pharoah. Another potential metaphor comes from his identification with the Nile, which periodically floods, only to recede in the dry season. Once the Greeks co-opted this into Osiris mystery cults, the metaphors were translated. The relation between the Isis-Osiris mysteries and the Dionysus-Demeter mysteries are very ancient, which disfigured the original Egyptian myth considerably. The major source on that is Plutarch's On Isis and Osiris, and is very much seen through Greek lenses, the way Western forms of Buddhism differs significantly from Eastern forms but magnified much further. What becomes of the religion in Greek eyes is similar to the Demeter myth in which knowledge, experience and becoming play crucial roles in the transformation of an initiate. Unfortunately, because of the "mystery" nature of these religions, much of what is said about them is very difficult to decipher, especially this far away from them in time.

Perhaps that helped a little, I don't know. The thing is, everyone from Acharya S to Freke & Gandy treat the mystery religions in an ahistorical, essentialist fashion that does them no justice. Here are some links I've prepared on the topic:
Ancient Mystery Cults (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/misc/amc.html)
Putting the mystery to rest (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=508)
Unfortunately, these have sometimes been co-opted by fundamentalist Christians into believing that parallelism=dead => Christianity=unique. Such is emphatically not the case. On the flip side, as the second link demonstrates, holding the middle line gets you attacked by parallelomaniacs too.

Now if you want to speak about the polytheistic origins of Judaism, I can state some less uneducated guesses (I'm actually preparing an article on the development of monotheism in the Near East, but it's being constantly put on the backburner for lack of references and how much background knowledge is required to even discuss it intelligibly (i.e., I keep having to introduce new stuff, and then reformulate older material to take it into consideration), and because I want this to be an opus à la Mark S. Smith).

Joel

Nice piece, Joel.

I'm not much for the evidentiary power of parallelism.

I think Freke & Gandy are fine for the folks reading Holy Blood, Holy Cross. It's a definite step up. But you're right, it's not definitive. I shall make a point of picking up Professor Burket's book. I've read Cumont. What's your opinion of Ulansey?

I'd always wondered about the claim of the similarity to the mystery cults... Why not a similarity to the popular religions? Not everything was mystery cults. I suspect that there were widespread popular beliefs about "who would save us from our predicament" that have the ability to syncretize fairly easily. I've always rather assumed the eschatological message was refined for practical missionary reasons...parts were added or deleted or emphasized or ignored depending upon their usefulness to those spreading the message. Accretion through necessity.

Concious...well, yeah...at the local level, but when effetive in accomplishing some objective of the wider organization, it becomes coopted and more widespread. I would think the concept would have a high likelihood of mutating far from the original if it crosses a cultural boundry, like language. Or, in the case we started discussing here, mindset regarding the divine.

If the story was originally in Hebrew, we don't have much evidence of that. (I understand that there is controversy over Hebrew UrMatthew - I don't know it well.) All the original gospels and epistles were written in Greek.

godfry

[Celsus]

Heh...Yeah, right. You're better read in it than I.

I somehow doubt that, since the sum total of complete books I have read on this particulary subject is 3 (Mack, Burkert, Smith). Edit: Oh and F&G but does it really count?
What's your opinion of Ulansey?
I've only ever browsed Ulansey in bookstores, so I don't have enough to judge him properly. What I have read, however, seems to me to retroject modern ideas of astrology into the Persian concept of it, and this should ring warning bells to anyone. The circumstantial evidence is that none of the scholars I know pay any attention to him, so I'd defer to CX's views on him, which is that he's a step up from some of the nutcases out there, but still completely wrong.
I'd always wondered about the claim of the similarity to the mystery cults... Why not a similarity to the popular religions? Not everything was mystery cults. I suspect that there were widespread popular beliefs about "who would save us from our predicament" that have the ability to syncretize fairly easily. I've always rather assumed the eschatological message was refined for practical missionary reasons...parts were added or deleted or emphasized or ignored depending upon their usefulness to those spreading the message. Accretion through necessity.
You're probably right. It's interesting that some dying-and-rising gods such as Hercules never spawned any sort of mystery religion, nor did other comparable candidates like Apollonius of Tyana. Certainly the Christian motif did not necessitate that it took the form of a mystery religion, and its concept of salvation differed significantly. Thus, as a popular religion it turned out to be much more successful, probably by virtue of its missionary stance, though the same cannot be said of Mithraism (Burkert compares it quite fairly to the Masons) or to Meter. Both of these could not survive in the absence of the social conditions that had allowed them to flourish, whereas Christianity proved to be much more durable for whatever reasons. F&G's thesis that there was a mystery component whitewashed out of history is simply unsupportable conspiracy theory, backed up only by parallels that aren't there.
If the story was originally in Hebrew, we don't have much evidence of that. (I understand that there is controversy over Hebrew UrMatthew - I don't know it well.) All the original gospels and epistles were written in Greek.
The only one arguing for the Aramaic (not Hebrew) origins of the gospels seems to be judge, and I've seen him thrashed by everyone from Christians at TheologyWeb to spin at IIDB in debates, so I'm not sure it's really a "controversy" at all.

Joel

[Celsus]

FWIW, The Rise of God (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/intbibarch05.html). I decided to chuck all the Hebrew mythology and put it in a separate article to come.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

FWIW, The Rise of God (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/intbibarch05.html). I decided to chuck all the Hebrew mythology and put it in a separate article to come.

Joel

Hebrew stuff? O boy! :mememe:

So, like you know the minimalist controversy and things like Margaret Barker's stuff?

godfry

[Celsus]

Hebrew stuff? O boy! :mememe:
I'm glad to see enthusiasm. Hebrew mythology is extremely fascinating, particularly for one who happens to have listed Revelations as his favourite book as a kid. :D
So, like you know the minimalist controversy and things like Margaret Barker's stuff?
I've never heard of her... Googling Ms Barker, it appears she banks heavily on the Josianic reform. So my answer to that is, as a minimalist, I don't buy the Josianic reform at all (not that I disagree with it, only that I think there's no reason to elevate that story above others which I think are fictional), and frankly I see Deuteronomy as exilic/post-exilic. What else has Barker said? I really haven't a clue.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

Hebrew stuff? O boy! :mememe:
I'm glad to see enthusiasm. Hebrew mythology is extremely fascinating, particularly for one who happens to have listed Revelations as his favourite book as a kid. :D

What kind of child reading program were you in, anyway?

So, I'm tangentially interested in Hebrew mythology. Are you familiar with Norman Cohn's Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come? he discusses what he considers to be clear signs of Hebrew religious syncretism of Zoroastrian themes, evidently during the exile or shortly thereafter. The eschatology being an important syncretic adoption.


So, like you know the minimalist controversy and things like Margaret Barker's stuff?
I've never heard of her... Googling Ms Barker, it appears she banks heavily on the Josianic reform. So my answer to that is, as a minimalist, I don't buy the Josianic reform at all (not that I disagree with it, only that I think there's no reason to elevate that story above others which I think are fictional), and frankly I see Deuteronomy as exilic/post-exilic. What else has Barker said? I really haven't a clue.

Joel

I haven't the damnedest as to her opinion on Josianic reform, but I'd made my best attempt at reading and understanding her The Great Angel: Israel's Second God. I came away from that book with the impression that she read the Hebrew bible as being replete with indicators that Yahweh as a unitary god (monotheism) was a rather late attempt at suppressing a wider popular religion by the Temple priests (one that could be worshipped in places other than the centralized Temple)...and these religious minorities had adherents even unto the Christian era....indeed, that the Christian movement was one of many expressions of this resistance to the corrupted Temple priesthood.

It's popular Hebrew religion, rather than mystery religions.

I shall await your Hebrew mythos post with interest, but I suspect I'm one of very few here who actually might be interested.

I shall be interested in those authors you recommend.

godfry

[Celsus]

So, I'm tangentially interested in Hebrew mythology. Are you familiar with Norman Cohn's Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come? he discusses what he considers to be clear signs of Hebrew religious syncretism of Zoroastrian themes, evidently during the exile or shortly thereafter. The eschatology being an important syncretic adoption.
Well I did mention in The Rise of God that Zoroastrianism has difficulties as an explanation of where the monotheistic impulse came from (and I also just realised I never mentioned Akhenaten, probably a good thing). Eschatology-wise, a case might be made for origins and influence in Zoroastrianism. I haven't heard of Cohn either (interestingly I haven't heard of anybody you've heard of, it seems). However, I am relatively new to later Jewish literature since I was spending most of my time on archaeology and the Pentateuch. However from what I do know, Jewish apocalypticism is very late, probably 2nd century or later, and precursors to the apocalyptic material can be found in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which may (or may not) predate Persian contact. Lawrence Boadt has a nice table (you know of my reading list (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/reference.html)? His book is in there), though the dates are controversial (spin thrashed me on the date of the latter chapters of 1 Enoch a while back, arguing for a common era composition):

586-572: Ezekiel 38-39; Early vision of a cosmic battle
520: Isaiah 56-66; Visionary hopes of divine intervention
450s (?): Isaiah 24-27; Cosmic images of final days
400 (?): Zechariah 9-14; Developed images of the world to come
168: Daniel; Cosmic battle, afterlife
165-100: 1 Enoch, Jubilees; Extensive speculation on the world to come
40-1: Psalms of Solomon, Assumption of Moses; Special revelations about the future from great figures of the past
50 A.D.: Mark 13 [; Little Apocalypse]
66-70: Apocalypse of Moses
70-132: Sibylline Oracles, 4 Ezra, Book of Revelation, Apocalypse Baruch; Strong elements of secret revelations [Sibylline Oracles], the end of the world [all the rest]
Unfortunately, there appears to be no good way to put tables into bulletin boards without HTML...

So for me, the Zoroastrian influence, while possible, is largely unnecessary--the ancient Jews managed quite well on their own, and it flourished long after Persian influence would have diminished. It's quite possible that Deutero-Isaiah was strongly influenced by Persian thought, though it has a Babylonian context. Trito-Isaiah, against Boadt's date, is probably Persian for me as well, so there probably is something to that one as well. The thing about cosmic battles is that we find them all the way back to Sumer, but in Hebrew terms, maybe only the goddess Anat qualifies as a proto-bad-goddess (and she does kick serious ass--I think she goes about killing off Baal's followers after a bad day at the office, and killed Aqhat for erm reasons that aren't very clear). However, for the most part, the gods were benevolent, even Anat who sometimes stood in as a fertility goddess when Asherah went missing.

The clearest example of how the myths are continuations of older themes (and not necessitating Zoroastrian influence) is a comparison of Psalm 74:12-17 vs. the proto-apocalyptic Isaiah 27:1. While the Psalmist demonstrates God crushing Leviathan, Yamm (usually translated as "sea" or "waters" but was actually a Canaanite god), and tannin (seven-headed dragons of the sea, similar to Leviathan) in the mythic past, Isaiah 27 transposes the defeat of Leviathan and tannin to a battle that is to come--end times (and it's completely forgotten who Yamm is, or at least the significance of Sea). The diminishing esteem of Yamm and tannin finds a nice intermediary in Job 7:12, where their significance is acknowledged, but their equality with Yahweh is not. Incidentally, all these enemies were originally the enemies of Baal (at Ugarit), but when Yahweh took over Baal's role, he had to deal with Baal's baggage. Poor bloke, but at least he did well for himself. :D The directions in which Leviathan could have gone are demonstrated in 1 Enoch, where he is the final enemy par excellence, whereas in Job 41, he may as well be an unusually large fish. As Yahweh became more powerful, so his enemies needed to be elevated as well to be a match (so at least the ancient writers knew a little about dramatic tension, even if, like Boys Own magazines, we all know who's going to win).

Ok, sorry to bore you, but at least I did warn you what to expect if you asked me anything about Jewish religion. :P
I haven't the damnedest as to her opinion on Josianic reform, but I'd made my best attempt at reading and understanding her The Great Angel: Israel's Second God. I came away from that book with the impression that she read the Hebrew bible as being replete with indicators that Yahweh as a unitary god (monotheism) was a rather late attempt at suppressing a wider popular religion by the Temple priests (one that could be worshipped in places other than the centralized Temple)...and these religious minorities had adherents even unto the Christian era....indeed, that the Christian movement was one of many expressions of this resistance to the corrupted Temple priesthood.
Yeah, not much disagreement in the general thesis I suppose. It is ironic when Jews complain about their religion being co-opted by Christians that they did the very same thing 2300-2600 years ago to the poor Israelites (that is, those people living in the Levant). As for the Temple priesthood being corrupted, haven't you read Eisenmann about how pure James was? :rolleye1: But yes, the reaction to the Temple did spur on a lot of sectarian groups, but I don't think it was only that. Oh well. I find the pre-Christian era much more interesting, since I get to talk about LEVIATHAN. WHo R0CKXZ.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

So, I'm tangentially interested in Hebrew mythology. Are you familiar with Norman Cohn's Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come? he discusses what he considers to be clear signs of Hebrew religious syncretism of Zoroastrian themes, evidently during the exile or shortly thereafter. The eschatology being an important syncretic adoption.
Well I did mention in The Rise of God that Zoroastrianism has difficulties as an explanation of where the monotheistic impulse came from (and I also just realised I never mentioned Akhenaten, probably a good thing). Eschatology-wise, a case might be made for origins and influence in Zoroastrianism. I haven't heard of Cohn either (interestingly I haven't heard of anybody you've heard of, it seems). However, I am relatively new to later Jewish literature since I was spending most of my time on archaeology and the Pentateuch. However from what I do know, Jewish apocalypticism is very late, probably 2nd century or later, and precursors to the apocalyptic material can be found in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which may (or may not) predate Persian contact. Lawrence Boadt has a nice table (you know of my reading list (http://www.eblaforum.org/library/bcah/reference.html)? His book is in there), though the dates are controversial (spin thrashed me on the date of the latter chapters of 1 Enoch a while back, arguing for a common era composition):

586-572: Ezekiel 38-39; Early vision of a cosmic battle
520: Isaiah 56-66; Visionary hopes of divine intervention
450s (?): Isaiah 24-27; Cosmic images of final days
400 (?): Zechariah 9-14; Developed images of the world to come
168: Daniel; Cosmic battle, afterlife
165-100: 1 Enoch, Jubilees; Extensive speculation on the world to come
40-1: Psalms of Solomon, Assumption of Moses; Special revelations about the future from great figures of the past
50 A.D.: Mark 13 [; Little Apocalypse]
66-70: Apocalypse of Moses
70-132: Sibylline Oracles, 4 Ezra, Book of Revelation, Apocalypse Baruch; Strong elements of secret revelations [Sybilline Oracles], the end of the world [all the rest]
Unfortunately, there appears to be no good way to put tables into bulletin boards without HTML...

So for me, the Zoroastrian influence, while possible, is largely unnecessary--the ancient Jews managed quite well on their own, and it flourished long after Persian influence would have diminished. It's quite possible that Deutero-Isaiah was strongly influenced by Persian thought, though it has a Babylonian context. Trito-Isaiah, against Boadt's date, is probably Persian for me as well, so there probably is something to that one as well. The thing about cosmic battles is that we find them all the way back to Sumer, but in Hebrew terms, maybe only the goddess Anat qualifies as a proto-bad-goddess (and she does kick serious ass--I think she goes about killing off Baal's followers after a bad day at the office, and killed Aqhat for erm reasons that aren't very clear). However, for the most part, the gods were benevolent, even Anat who sometimes stood in as a fertility goddess when Asherah went missing.

The clearest example of how the myths are continuations of older themes (and not necessitating Zoroastrian influence) is a comparison of Psalm 74:12-17 vs. the proto-apocalyptic Isaiah 27:1. While the Psalmist demonstrates God crushing Leviathan, Yamm (usually translated as "sea" or "waters" but was actually a Canaanite god), and tannin (seven-headed dragons of the sea, similar to Leviathan) in the mythic past, Isaiah 27 transposes the defeat of Leviathan and tannin to a battle that is to come--end times (and it's completely forgotten who Yamm is, or at least the significance of Sea). The diminishing esteem of Yamm and tannin finds a nice intermediary in Job 7:12, where their significance is acknowledged, but their equality with Yahweh is not. Incidentally, all these enemies were originally the enemies of Baal (at Ugarit), but when Yahweh took over Baal's role, he had to deal with Baal's baggage. Poor bloke, but at least he did well for himself. :D The directions in which Leviathan could have gone are demonstrated in 1 Enoch, where he is the final enemy par excellence, whereas in Job 41, he may as well be an unusually large fish. As Yahweh became more powerful, so his enemies needed to be elevated as well to be a match (so at least the ancient writers knew a little about dramatic tension, even if, like Boys Own magazines, we all know who's going to win).

Ok, sorry to bore you, but at least I did warn you what to expect if you asked me anything about Jewish religion. :P
I haven't the damnedest as to her opinion on Josianic reform, but I'd made my best attempt at reading and understanding her The Great Angel: Israel's Second God. I came away from that book with the impression that she read the Hebrew bible as being replete with indicators that Yahweh as a unitary god (monotheism) was a rather late attempt at suppressing a wider popular religion by the Temple priests (one that could be worshipped in places other than the centralized Temple)...and these religious minorities had adherents even unto the Christian era....indeed, that the Christian movement was one of many expressions of this resistance to the corrupted Temple priesthood.
Yeah, not much disagreement in the general thesis I suppose. It is ironic when Jews complain about their religion being co-opted by Christians that they did the very same thing 2300-2600 years ago to the poor Israelites (that is, those people living in the Levant). As for the Temple priesthood being corrupted, haven't you read Eisenmann about how pure James was? :rolleye1: But yes, the reaction to the Temple did spur on a lot of sectarian groups, but I don't think it was only that. Oh well. I find the pre-Christian era much more interesting, since I get to talk about LEVIATHAN. WHo R0CKXZ.

Joel

Yep... Co-opted. I've seen claims that the post-exilic "return" was more of a forced placement of a new ruling class over the peasant peoples of Judea, sponsored by the Persian empire and claiming to have it's antecedents in the First Temple...whether they really did or not.

I don't see the syncretism of monotheism in Zoroastrianism, either. Rather, the dualism, judgement of good and bad (sons of light, sons of darkeness), and the stench of brimstone in the eternal afterlife of punishment.

I'm interested in your commentary. Now, I'm not particularly well versed in Hebrew materials, but is seems you're saying that the Isaiah has multiple redactors? You've got a proto-apocalyptic Isaiah, a deuteuro-Isaiah and a trito-Isaiah. At least three redactions? Is that right? Have they all estimated dates and speculated rationales for the redactions?

Where does Isaiah 45:1-4 come in? Where Cyrus is referred to as the messiah? Which Isaiah does this fall into?

And then, this: 50 A.D.: Mark 13 [; Little Apocalypse]

You're dating the Little Apocalypse prior to the destruction of the Second Temple? By twenty years? Why is that? I would not date that until post destruction; so, 70 CE or later, possibly into the 2nd century, but clearly within the living memory of the destruction of the Temple....but hardly before.

godfry

[Celsus]

I'm interested in your commentary. Now, I'm not particularly well versed in Hebrew materials, but is seems you're saying that the Isaiah has multiple redactors? You've got a proto-apocalyptic Isaiah, a deuteuro-Isaiah and a trito-Isaiah. At least three redactions? Is that right? Have they all estimated dates and speculated rationales for the redactions?
Generally, Isaiah is divided into two if not three sections (and I guffed on the labelling in my hurry, no thanks to a certain onlooker pushing me to post): Proto-Isaiah (1-39), Deutero-Isaiah (40-55), and Trito-Isaiah (56-66). Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah are sometimes viewed as a unified work that got tacked on to Proto-Isaiah. The evidence is quite clear: Proto-Isaiah speaks of Hezekiah's time, which is pre-exilic. It is argued generally that 1-12 comes from Isaiah's early ministry, 13-23 from his middle years, and 28-33 from his final years. 24-27 is an apocalyptic addition, as is 34-35, while 36-39 borrows wholesale from 2 Kings 18-19 (which must be exilic at the earliest), with practically the same words used.

However, the poetry in Deutero-Isaiah mentions God delivering them in Babylon (43:14; 48:14,20; etc.) and in fact is so obsessed with Babylon that a Babylonian context is unavoidable. 2nd Isaiah is further subdivided into 40-48, and 49-55 where the emphasis from Israel in the first part moves to Jerusalem and Zion in the latter. Presumably, we have here two merged oracles.

Trito-Isaiah is somewhat disputed, but is clearly the view of someone who has returned to Israel. The reason for this dispute comes from those who believe Deutero-Isaiah to be similarly post-exilic. (I mistakenly thought that Boadt had placed the Isaian apocalypse as part of 2nd Isaiah and then said it post-dated 3rd Isaiah, but he's quite correct that the apocalyptic material post-dates 3rd Isaiah, but 2nd Isaiah doesn't post-date 3rd Isaiah). Confused yet? I am.
Where does Isaiah 45:1-4 come in? Where Cyrus is referred to as the messiah? Which Isaiah does this fall into?
You spotted it already: Isaiah 45:1. Only thing is, most translations put "annointed" instead of "messiah" there (and they are generally right in this case because the messianic impulses had not yet appeared in Judaism). The interesting thing about Cyrus and other Persian (Achaemenid) rulers is that they enacted decrees all over the ANE to revive small dying-out religions being the tolerant cultural relativists that they were. Cyrus II was particularly proud of reviving the Babylonian gods, and Marduk in particular, and is said to have paid respects at the sanctuary in Sais in Egypt. Diodorus even states that Darius was deified because of his support for Egyptian religions. That sets a nice context for the sort of praise that Cyrus got from the Jews.
And then, this: 50 A.D.: Mark 13 [; Little Apocalypse]

You're dating the Little Apocalypse prior to the destruction of the Second Temple? By twenty years? Why is that? I would not date that until post destruction; so, 70 CE or later, possibly into the 2nd century, but clearly within the living memory of the destruction of the Temple....but hardly before.
And I'd agree with you. That date is Boadt's, and I disagree with him on practically all of his dates, barring Daniel (even then it should be 167-165 BCE, and the apocalyptic material separated from the narrative material) and the ones I know nothing about (Psalms of Solomon, Ass. of Moses, Sibylline Oracles, etc.). As I said in my reading list, his is a very conservative position (though he's obviously not a fundamentalist).

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

I'm interested in your commentary. Now, I'm not particularly well versed in Hebrew materials, but is seems you're saying that the Isaiah has multiple redactors? You've got a proto-apocalyptic Isaiah, a deuteuro-Isaiah and a trito-Isaiah. At least three redactions? Is that right? Have they all estimated dates and speculated rationales for the redactions?
Generally, Isaiah is divided into two if not three sections (and I guffed on the labelling in my hurry, no thanks to a certain onlooker pushing me to post): Proto-Isaiah (1-39), Deutero-Isaiah (40-55), and Trito-Isaiah (56-66). Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah are sometimes viewed as a unified work that got tacked on to Proto-Isaiah. The evidence is quite clear: Proto-Isaiah speaks of Hezekiah's time, which is pre-exilic. It is argued generally that 1-12 comes from Isaiah's early ministry, 13-23 from his middle years, and 28-33 from his final years. 24-27 is an apocalyptic addition, as is 34-35, while 36-39 borrows wholesale from 2 Kings 18-19 (which must be exilic at the earliest), with practically the same words used.

Hezekiah's time = "good old days"?

However, the poetry in Deutero-Isaiah mentions God delivering them in Babylon (43:14; 48:14,20; etc.) and in fact is so obsessed with Babylon that a Babylonian context is unavoidable. 2nd Isaiah is further subdivided into 40-48, and 49-55 where the emphasis from Israel in the first part moves to Jerusalem and Zion in the latter. Presumably, we have here two merged oracles.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Trito-Isaiah is somewhat disputed, but is clearly the view of someone who has returned to Israel. The reason for this dispute comes from those who believe Deutero-Isaiah to be similarly post-exilic. (I mistakenly thought that Boadt had placed the Isaian apocalypse as part of 2nd Isaiah and then said it post-dated 3rd Isaiah, but he's quite correct that the apocalyptic material post-dates 3rd Isaiah, but 2nd Isaiah doesn't post-date 3rd Isaiah). Confused yet? I am.

Yes.

Where does Isaiah 45:1-4 come in? Where Cyrus is referred to as the messiah? Which Isaiah does this fall into?
You spotted it already: Isaiah 45:1. Only thing is, most translations put "annointed" instead of "messiah" there (and they are generally right in this case because the messianic impulses had not yet appeared in Judaism). The interesting thing about Cyrus and other Persian (Achaemenid) rulers is that they enacted decrees all over the ANE to revive small dying-out religions being the tolerant cultural relativists that they were. Cyrus II was particularly proud of reviving the Babylonian gods, and Marduk in particular, and is said to have paid respects at the sanctuary in Sais in Egypt. Diodorus even states that Darius was deified because of his support for Egyptian religions. That sets a nice context for the sort of praise that Cyrus got from the Jews.

Now this is where I really get interested. I understood this to be the case as well and that the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gihon ('zat right?) was built under the same sponsorship as the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

The Persians are the empire before Alexander. They are pre-Hellenic cultural power. Were the Parthians were the Persians risen from the Seleucid ashes? The entire Second Temple time frame is what? Would this temple rule not have been imposed upon an existing people (probably with an existing set of beliefs) along with all the rights to tax and tithe the dwellers?

This is all stuff I'm real hazy on.


And then, this: 50 A.D.: Mark 13 [; Little Apocalypse]

You're dating the Little Apocalypse prior to the destruction of the Second Temple? By twenty years? Why is that? I would not date that until post destruction; so, 70 CE or later, possibly into the 2nd century, but clearly within the living memory of the destruction of the Temple....but hardly before.
And I'd agree with you. That date is Boadt's, and I disagree with him on practically all of his dates, barring Daniel (even then it should be 167-165 BCE, and the apocalyptic material separated from the narrative material) and the ones I know nothing about (Psalms of Solomon, Ass. of Moses, Sibylline Oracles, etc.). As I said in my reading list, his is a very conservative position (though he's obviously not a fundamentalist).

Joel

Interesting.... Well I obviously need to know more and would like to have you recommend some directions. So you know what I have:



Anderson, Bernhard W.; Understanding the Old Testament (4th ed.)

Beltz, Walter; God and The Gods: Myths of the Bible

Blinkensopp, Joseph; The Pentateuch]

Eisenmann, Robert & Wise, Michael; Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered

Finklestein, Israel & Silberman, Neil Asher; The Bible Unearthed

Friedman, Richard Elliot; Who Wrote The Bible?

Goodspeed, Edgar J.; The Apocrypha

Horsley, Richard A. & Hanson, John S.; Bandit, Prophets & Messiahs: Popular Movents in the Time of Jesus

May, Herbert G. (ed.); Oxford Bible Atlas

Neusner, Jacob (ed.); Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian Era

Thompson, Thomas L.; The Mythic Past

Whitelam, Keith W.; The Invention of Ancient Israel

:student:

That's pretty much it. Not much. A smattering. Plus, I haven't read the Apocrypha stuff. I've been toying with historical Jesus stuff and necessarily had to stumble into some Judaic studies. Plus, my wife was a Jew, so I got all the Maccabbean stuff come holiday time. I'm more interested in the history than the theology, but to properly appreciate, I self-educate. Well, in hope thereof.

Anyway.... Do you know anything about the Parthians seizing Jerusalem and holding it for three or so years? In the mid-first century BCE? I'm very curious about this. Rome did not have secure hegemony in Palestine. They came into the area with Pompey, right? A contemporary of Julius and an elder to Augustus, who was stepfather to Tiberius...which places their arrival in the vicinity about two generations prior to the Christian era. Given Isaiah, I've always wondered how deep sympathies for the Persians/Parthians ran amongst the populace of Judea. They were, after all, just over the river and through the desert. They had helped before.

You know anything about that...or do you just stick to scripture?

godfry

[Celsus]

Hezekiah's time = "good old days"?
Definitely.
The Persians are the empire before Alexander. They are pre-Hellenic cultural power. Were the Parthians were the Persians risen from the Seleucid ashes?
I don't quite understand this question...
The entire Second Temple time frame is what?
Ezra (if you believe the accounts, which I do not--I find Ezra too contradictory with Nehemiah for either of them to survive reliability tests) arrives in about 450 BCE according to the Biblical chronology (and therefore actually post-dates Nehemiah (what I just said), but that's another story). So the "Second Temple period" lasts from sometime there till the destruction of Jerusalem. That's a pretty long time, so is generally divided into Persian, Greek, and Roman periods, with smaller divisions for Seleucid, Maccabean, Hasmonean and Herodian periods.
Would this temple rule not have been imposed upon an existing people (probably with an existing set of beliefs) along with all the rights to tax and tithe the dwellers?
If you check Blenkinsopp's book, the last chapter has his theory of the Pentateuch as a Persian constitutional document. Pretty cool stuff. Mendenhall's arguments about suzerainty treaties (and the Pentateuch's similarities to them) are probably not completely off the mark, even if his dating is. The Persians operated under a relatively decentralised system, allowing local peoples a limited self-autonomy, and, in contrast with the Babylonians and Assyrians, were not interested in cultural annihilation. On the other hand, to what extent they were "reviving" old religions or creating new ones under the guise of old religions is debatable. One of the minimalists (I forget who) has argued that the people of Israel never left, and the people returning never were from Israel in the first place. I don't find that argument compelling though obviously not everyone left for the exile (i.e., Samaritans).

Persia's indigenous support makes sense of Zerubabbel's appointment as governor, being the last of the line of David, though his mysterious disappearance from mention (and subsequent prophecies against his line) has been speculated to signify some dispute he had with his masters. It is likely that the Persians taxed the regions as a whole, not involving themselves in the mundane matters within locales though they would have needed acquiescent governors.
This is all stuff I'm real hazy on.
It's not your fault... The Persian period has always been very hazy because there hasn't been a lot of evidence coming out of that period for whatever reasons. We know less about the Persian era than, say, 2nd millenium Egypt.
Interesting.... Well I obviously need to know more and would like to have you recommend some directions.
Actually I can't remember where I've read everything, but McKenzie and Graham's book is a concise overview of the Bible, showing recent trends.
Anderson, Bernhard W.; Understanding the Old Testament (4th ed.)
Good, but conservative. His views are very similar to Boadt's.
Beltz, Walter; God and The Gods: Myths of the Bible
Never heard of it or him.
Blinkensopp, Joseph; The Pentateuch
Wonderful introduction.
Eisenmann, Robert & Wise, Michael; Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered
Er...
Finklestein, Israel & Silberman, Neil Asher; The Bible Unearthed
Good book, but probably too simple for your purposes, and not related to textual criticism at all.
Friedman, Richard Elliot; Who Wrote The Bible?
I find him a waste of time. See here (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=575) and here (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=999) and compare it with Blenkinsopp.
Goodspeed, Edgar J.; The Apocrypha
I haven't read much on the Apocrypha, I'm afraid. My favourite whodunit in the Bible is still Bel and the Dragon though.
Horsley, Richard A. & Hanson, John S.; Bandit, Prophets & Messiahs: Popular Movents in the Time of Jesus

May, Herbert G. (ed.); Oxford Bible Atlas

Neusner, Jacob (ed.); Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian Era
Haven't read these, and don't really have much interest in messianism to be honest.
Thompson, Thomas L.; The Mythic Past
Nice book to undermine everything you thought you knew about the Bible, but unforgiveably has no footnotes or references. Also, of the minimalists, I think he's the most sloppy (Dever got one thing right I suppose).
Whitelam, Keith W.; The Invention of Ancient Israel
Good book, but not particularly relevant. Whitelam's work on historiography (e.g. here (http://www.cwru.edu/affil/GAIR/papers/2003papers/whitelam.htm)) is first rate.
That's pretty much it. Not much. A smattering. Plus, I haven't read the Apocrypha stuff. I've been toying with historical Jesus stuff and necessarily had to stumble into some Judaic studies. Plus, my wife was a Jew, so I got all the Maccabbean stuff come holiday time. I'm more interested in the history than the theology, but to properly appreciate, I self-educate. Well, in hope thereof.
Heh. I was probably about that level of reading on this subject only a year ago. I like people to think I've read more than I actually have. :eek:
Anyway.... Do you know anything about the Parthians seizing Jerusalem and holding it for three or so years? In the mid-first century BCE? I'm very curious about this. Rome did not have secure hegemony in Palestine. They came into the area with Pompey, right? A contemporary of Julius and an elder to Augustus, who was stepfather to Tiberius...which places their arrival in the vicinity about two generations prior to the Christian era. Given Isaiah, I've always wondered how deep sympathies for the Persians/Parthians ran amongst the populace of Judea. They were, after all, just over the river and through the desert. They had helped before.
I think the sympathies by that point were many centuries too late to be related to Isaiah. Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE and defeat of the Hasmoneans marks the beginning of the Roman period (and Pompey himself entered the Holy of Holies to find an empty room). The Parthian capture of Jerusalem was sponsored by some Jewish groups angry with Antipater (Herod the Great) and Hyrcanus II, IIRC (we have records of Jewish complaints to Mark Antony about Phasael (Hyrcanus' short-lived successor) and Herod but these fell on deaf ears since he named them tetrarchs of Judea). Antigonus, whose Hasmonean father Aristobulus II was captured by Pompey, allied himself with the Parthians (who were fighting both Syria and Judea) in the hopes of a seat on the Judean throne, and he was successful in this when the Parthians took Jerusalem. Most of this was internal political rivalry, not necessarily falling along cultural or ethnic lines, but I'm pretty sketchy on this myself. Herod and the Roman Ventidius defeated the Parthians and then with Ventidius' replacement, Sosius, took back Jerusalem shortly after. There is a great discussion on Hyrcanus II as Teacher of Righteousness here (http://scrollsforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37), if you've got a few hours to kill.
You know anything about that...or do you just stick to scripture?
Actually I stick to Bronze/Iron Age archaeology and biblical historiography for the most part. My knowledge of the Roman period is probably less than yours.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

The Persians are the empire before Alexander. They are pre-Hellenic cultural power. Were the Parthians were the Persians risen from the Seleucid ashes?I don't quite understand this question...

Are they the same peoples, the Persians and the Parthians? Just separated by a time period of Hellenistic domination? Of course, there's the whole deal with the Medes, Farsi, Parthians...

Of course, I probably don't know what I'm asking, either.

It just seems that the Persians/Parthians are perceived as "wise", even as late as the interpolation of the term "magi" (a clearly Zoroastrian term) into the nativity of the New Testament gospels. There seems to be a "nod to the east."

The entire Second Temple time frame is what?
Ezra (if you believe the accounts, which I do not--I find Ezra too contradictory with Nehemiah for either of them to survive reliability tests) arrives in about 450 BCE according to the Biblical chronology (and therefore actually post-dates Nehemiah (what I just said), but that's another story). So the "Second Temple period" lasts from sometime there till the destruction of Jerusalem. That's a pretty long time, so is generally divided into Persian, Greek, and Roman periods, with smaller divisions for Seleucid, Maccabean, Hasmonean and Herodian periods.

I was under the impression that Ezra and his cohorts were the contractors/installers and Nehemiah was the official "governor".

Would this temple rule not have been imposed upon an existing people (probably with an existing set of beliefs) along with all the rights to tax and tithe the dwellers?
If you check Blenkinsopp's book, the last chapter has his theory of the Pentateuch as a Persian constitutional document. Pretty cool stuff. Mendenhall's arguments about suzerainty treaties (and the Pentateuch's similarities to them) are probably not completely off the mark, even if his dating is. The Persians operated under a relatively decentralised system, allowing local peoples a limited self-autonomy, and, in contrast with the Babylonians and Assyrians, were not interested in cultural annihilation. On the other hand, to what extent they were "reviving" old religions or creating new ones under the guise of old religions is debatable. One of the minimalists (I forget who) has argued that the people of Israel never left, and the people returning never were from Israel in the first place. I don't find that argument compelling though obviously not everyone left for the exile (i.e., Samaritans).

I shall have to look again. I started Blenkinsopp, but got diverted before I got a third of the way through. It sits with bookmark, next to my reading chair (along with about 30 others).

I think Thompson alludes to the greatest portion of the Judaic population having never left. He seems to think that only the political and social elite were carried into captivity by the Babylonians.

I seem to remember running across a mention that the Samaritans were yet another displaced and relocated people. It seems the Assyrians and Babylonians also followed a policy of wholesale relocation of defeated opponents.

Persia's indigenous support makes sense of Zerubabbel's appointment as governor, being the last of the line of David, though his mysterious disappearance from mention (and subsequent prophecies against his line) has been speculated to signify some dispute he had with his masters. It is likely that the Persians taxed the regions as a whole, not involving themselves in the mundane matters within locales though they would have needed acquiescent governors.
[quote]This is all stuff I'm real hazy on.
It's not your fault... The Persian period has always been very hazy because there hasn't been a lot of evidence coming out of that period for whatever reasons. We know less about the Persian era than, say, 2nd millenium Egypt.
Interesting.... Well I obviously need to know more and would like to have you recommend some directions.
Actually I can't remember where I've read everything, but McKenzie and Graham's book is a concise overview of the Bible, showing recent trends.

Okay... So, you've noted that Thompson fails to support his assertions with decent footnotes. I agree. Do you have sources that you consider a worthy (and understandable for the layman) reference to the minimalist position? Davies? Lemeche?

Anderson, Bernhard W.; Understanding the Old Testament (4th ed.)
Good, but conservative. His views are very similar to Boadt's.

Yeah, that's why I have it.

Beltz, Walter; God and The Gods: Myths of the Bible
Never heard of it or him.

Neither have I, but he delves into the mythic predecessors of El/Yahweh with the Ugaritic materials.

Blinkensopp, Joseph; The Pentateuch
Wonderful introduction.

Yeah, now I just need to finish it.

Eisenmann, Robert & Wise, Michael; Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered
Er...

Not an Eisenmann fan? Is there a problem here?

Finklestein, Israel & Silberman, Neil Asher; The Bible Unearthed
Good book, but probably too simple for your purposes, and not related to textual criticism at all.

No, but it is related to the archeological support for textual claims. I seem to remember this book discussing the whole "gates of Hazor" issue, with the author suggesting that the style gate was very similar to that of the Assyrians of the same time period. Not at all "unique".

Friedman, Richard Elliot; Who Wrote The Bible?
I find him a waste of time. See here (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=575) and here (http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=999) and compare it with Blenkinsopp.

That's what I was doing...comparing. Friedman seems to be pointed to a lot by the mainstream apologist types. If they are going to point to it, I think I need to read it...and listen to critiques.

Goodspeed, Edgar J.; The Apocrypha
I haven't read much on the Apocrypha, I'm afraid. My favourite whodunit in the Bible is still Bel and the Dragon though.
Horsley, Richard A. & Hanson, John S.; Bandit, Prophets & Messiahs: Popular Movents in the Time of Jesus

May, Herbert G. (ed.); Oxford Bible Atlas

Neusner, Jacob (ed.); Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian Era
Haven't read these, and don't really have much interest in messianism to be honest.

Oh, I understand. The atlas is just that, a reference text to orient myself. Horsley's material is more focused on 1st century Judea and the social upheaval and consequent social responses of the time and place. Neusner has been useful in getting across the basic point I want to impress on so many interlocutors with whom I converse about the lack of concensus on many areas of belief in Judaism at the turn of the millenium.

Thompson, Thomas L.; The Mythic Past
Nice book to undermine everything you thought you knew about the Bible, but unforgiveably has no footnotes or references. Also, of the minimalists, I think he's the most sloppy (Dever got one thing right I suppose).

Well, I haven't had any opportunity to compare him with any of the others and found this book interesting, even though, like you, I was extremely upset at the lack of footnotes and a decent linked bibliography.

Whitelam, Keith W.; The Invention of Ancient Israel
Good book, but not particularly relevant. Whitelam's work on historiography (e.g. here (http://www.cwru.edu/affil/GAIR/papers/2003papers/whitelam.htm)) is first rate.

To be honest, I found Invention... to be excessively strident. It's almost as though he feels the need to scream (in print) about the idiocy and blatant propaganda of the whole biblical/archeological approach to the history of the region. It almost reads like a conspiracy theory hypothesis.

That's pretty much it. Not much. A smattering. Plus, I haven't read the Apocrypha stuff. I've been toying with historical Jesus stuff and necessarily had to stumble into some Judaic studies. Plus, my wife was a Jew, so I got all the Maccabbean stuff come holiday time. I'm more interested in the history than the theology, but to properly appreciate, I self-educate. Well, in hope thereof.
Heh. I was probably about that level of reading on this subject only a year ago. I like people to think I've read more than I actually have. :eek:
Anyway.... Do you know anything about the Parthians seizing Jerusalem and holding it for three or so years? In the mid-first century BCE? I'm very curious about this. Rome did not have secure hegemony in Palestine. They came into the area with Pompey, right? A contemporary of Julius and an elder to Augustus, who was stepfather to Tiberius...which places their arrival in the vicinity about two generations prior to the Christian era. Given Isaiah, I've always wondered how deep sympathies for the Persians/Parthians ran amongst the populace of Judea. They were, after all, just over the river and through the desert. They had helped before.
I think the sympathies by that point were many centuries too late to be related to Isaiah. Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 BCE and defeat of the Hasmoneans marks the beginning of the Roman period (and Pompey himself entered the Holy of Holies to find an empty room). The Parthian capture of Jerusalem was sponsored by some Jewish groups angry with Antipater (Herod the Great) and Hyrcanus II, IIRC (we have records of Jewish complaints to Mark Antony about Phasael (Hyrcanus' short-lived successor) and Herod but these fell on deaf ears since he named them tetrarchs of Judea). Antigonus, whose Hasmonean father Aristobulus II was captured by Pompey, allied himself with the Parthians (who were fighting both Syria and Judea) in the hopes of a seat on the Judean throne, and he was successful in this when the Parthians took Jerusalem. Most of this was internal political rivalry, not necessarily falling along cultural or ethnic lines, but I'm pretty sketchy on this myself. Herod and the Roman Ventidius defeated the Parthians and then with Ventidius' replacement, Sosius, took back Jerusalem shortly after. There is a great discussion on Hyrcanus II as Teacher of Righteousness here (http://scrollsforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37), if you've got a few hours to kill.
You know anything about that...or do you just stick to scripture?
Actually I stick to Bronze/Iron Age archaeology and biblical historiography for the most part. My knowledge of the Roman period is probably less than yours.

Joel

Thanks for the synposis.

I checked into the DSS site and found Alan Segal and Philip R. Davies there, along with a set of characters who were involved in the Jim/Joe/Josh ossuary flap at IIDB's BC&H forum a couple of years back....Cox and Kilman, as well as John Lupia.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

So... I come up to breathe and realize that we've derailed this thread.

This is officially a train wreck.

So.... I guess it comes down to what one means when one asks "is christianity pagan?" Which christianity are we referencing, first. Then, what do you mean by "pagan"? Does that mean, "Are there parts of understanding of the church that are not "Jewish"? Is that the focal point of someone labelling someone else a "pagan"? In the world of the reputed Jesus, in first century Palestine, you were Jew or you were not Jew. Not jew is pagan. This could mean any number of different things. If that's what you mean and the question is did the christian faith adopt any pagan beliefs...I'd say "Yes, you believe in an eternal saviour, a divine intermediary. Many celebrate your relationship with that saviour in an act of sacred cannibalism. Those are anaethema in Hebrew belief." If that belief, and that is core belief of christianity, is not Jewish, is it not pagan?

Then there is the question, "What is Jewish?" ....from what I can tell, there's a fair room for interpretation there, too.

So...You can see I don't really have a handle on the Jewish stuff. Or its antecedents.

godfry

[Ian Beardsley]

I think christianity is a spin off of zoroasteriasm but includes pagan rituales under other names to appeal to the pagans, early on.
Ian

[livius drusus]

Based on what evidence do you think that?

[Celsus]

Are they the same peoples, the Persians and the Parthians? Just separated by a time period of Hellenistic domination? Of course, there's the whole deal with the Medes, Farsi, Parthians...

Of course, I probably don't know what I'm asking, either.

It just seems that the Persians/Parthians are perceived as "wise", even as late as the interpolation of the term "magi" (a clearly Zoroastrian term) into the nativity of the New Testament gospels. There seems to be a "nod to the east."
Possibly, though I'm not very clear myself. I think the Parthians would be as related to the Achaemenids as Jews to the Judahites (i.e., not a lot, though they claimed ancestry to elevate their heritage).
I was under the impression that Ezra and his cohorts were the contractors/installers and Nehemiah was the official "governor".
Didn't Thompson suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah were myths? If it's not in The Mythic Past, then it's in Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel'.
I shall have to look again. I started Blenkinsopp, but got diverted before I got a third of the way through. It sits with bookmark, next to my reading chair (along with about 30 others).
It's well worth the slog, if you're into the Pentateuch.
I think Thompson alludes to the greatest portion of the Judaic population having never left. He seems to think that only the political and social elite were carried into captivity by the Babylonians.
I think that's the common view. Less common is the idea that the returning exiles weren't actually originally from Judah. Is that in Thompson (it's been a long time since I read his book, and with no index there isn't a rat's chance I'm going to comb through it again for that tidbit)?
I seem to remember running across a mention that the Samaritans were yet another displaced and relocated people. It seems the Assyrians and Babylonians also followed a policy of wholesale relocation of defeated opponents.
Well the Samaritans are an interesting bunch. The Samaritan Pentateuch, for instance, attests to some sort of common tradition between them and the Jews. I think the important point is that the Biblical traditions have been taken a little too seriously, in that when the Bible says that Israel was dispersed and disappeared under the Assyrians, we take that at face value, but in fact a good deal of them remained. However, archaeological evidence suggests that after 722, the population in the Levant dropped significantly, so there is something to the tale.
Okay... So, you've noted that Thompson fails to support his assertions with decent footnotes. I agree. Do you have sources that you consider a worthy (and understandable for the layman) reference to the minimalist position? Davies? Lemeche?
Lemche's work is usually pre-monarchic, but is fascinating. Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel' is pretty good, and he's just rereleased the book, so it's worth checking out. I believe JSOT books are hideously expensive though.
Beltz, Walter; God and The Gods: Myths of the Bible
Never heard of it or him.
Neither have I, but he delves into the mythic predecessors of El/Yahweh with the Ugaritic materials.
If you do get round to reading him, you'll have to let me know whether it's worth splurging on...
Not an Eisenmann fan? Is there a problem here?
Eisenmann is like alternative history for me. Several years ago, I slogged through about 800 pages of JtBoJ before realising I'd wasted my time, so no, not a fan.
No, but it is related to the archeological support for textual claims. I seem to remember this book discussing the whole "gates of Hazor" issue, with the author suggesting that the style gate was very similar to that of the Assyrians of the same time period. Not at all "unique".
Out of curiosity, have you read my introductions to biblical archaeology? I discussed the six-chambered gates very briefly in part 4, but that's probably the piece I need to do the most reworking on.
That's what I was doing...comparing. Friedman seems to be pointed to a lot by the mainstream apologist types. If they are going to point to it, I think I need to read it...and listen to critiques.
Well if you remember Doctor X... He's a Friedman fundamentalist of sorts (or at least gives the impression that the only person worth reading is Friedman). The documentary hypothesis is dead in my opinion, but Friedman and his followers are still spouting the same tired old crap about it.
To be honest, I found Invention... to be excessively strident. It's almost as though he feels the need to scream (in print) about the idiocy and blatant propaganda of the whole biblical/archeological approach to the history of the region. It almost reads like a conspiracy theory hypothesis.
I guess you're not a fan of Edward Said? ;) It's important to understand the sort of people he's directing the critique at... the 'rights: W.F. Albright, G.E. Wright, and John Bright who set the discourse of archaeology firmly in order to compare it with the Bible, plus smatterings of people who still give "Israel" pride of place in archaeology while giving hardly any time to the Philistines, Idumeans/Edomites, Moabites, etc. (and usually only to compare them with the Israelites). If you've read older archaeological monologues and publications, you might think he hasn't gone far enough. I think his critique is also still valid with a lot of scholarship in the English-speaking world, whereas say, the Italians, are much more interested in Syria.
I think christianity is a spin off of zoroasteriasm but includes pagan rituales under other names to appeal to the pagans, early on.
So what did you make of my comments on the lack of a clear relationship between Judaism and Zoroastrianism? How did Christianity get influenced by a religion far to the east when there was little contact between the two areas?

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

Are they the same peoples, the Persians and the Parthians? Just separated by a time period of Hellenistic domination? Of course, there's the whole deal with the Medes, Farsi, Parthians...

Of course, I probably don't know what I'm asking, either.

It just seems that the Persians/Parthians are perceived as "wise", even as late as the interpolation of the term "magi" (a clearly Zoroastrian term) into the nativity of the New Testament gospels. There seems to be a "nod to the east."
Possibly, though I'm not very clear myself. I think the Parthians would be as related to the Achaemenids as Jews to the Judahites (i.e., not a lot, though they claimed ancestry to elevate their heritage).

Ah, yes...a distinct possibility.

I was under the impression that Ezra and his cohorts were the contractors/installers and Nehemiah was the official "governor".
Didn't Thompson suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah were myths? If it's not in The Mythic Past, then it's in Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel'.
I shall have to look again. I started Blenkinsopp, but got diverted before I got a third of the way through. It sits with bookmark, next to my reading chair (along with about 30 others).
It's well worth the slog, if you're into the Pentateuch.

Actually, I'm more interested in the "other end" of the Hebrew Bible, but the recommendation on Davies is appreciated. As for Thompson suggestion regarding Ezra and the boys...I don't remember. I read it long ago (for my memory, at least).

I think Thompson alludes to the greatest portion of the Judaic population having never left. He seems to think that only the political and social elite were carried into captivity by the Babylonians.
I think that's the common view. Less common is the idea that the returning exiles weren't actually originally from Judah. Is that in Thompson (it's been a long time since I read his book, and with no index there isn't a rat's chance I'm going to comb through it again for that tidbit)?
I seem to remember running across a mention that the Samaritans were yet another displaced and relocated people. It seems the Assyrians and Babylonians also followed a policy of wholesale relocation of defeated opponents.
Well the Samaritans are an interesting bunch. The Samaritan Pentateuch, for instance, attests to some sort of common tradition between them and the Jews. I think the important point is that the Biblical traditions have been taken a little too seriously, in that when the Bible says that Israel was dispersed and disappeared under the Assyrians, we take that at face value, but in fact a good deal of them remained. However, archaeological evidence suggests that after 722, the population in the Levant dropped significantly, so there is something to the tale.
Okay... So, you've noted that Thompson fails to support his assertions with decent footnotes. I agree. Do you have sources that you consider a worthy (and understandable for the layman) reference to the minimalist position? Davies? Lemeche?
Lemche's work is usually pre-monarchic, but is fascinating. Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel' is pretty good, and he's just rereleased the book, so it's worth checking out. I believe JSOT books are hideously expensive though.[/quote]

Hmmm...Well, I can always look at it first....I work in a library.


Beltz, Walter; God and The Gods: Myths of the Bible
Never heard of it or him.
Neither have I, but he delves into the mythic predecessors of El/Yahweh with the Ugaritic materials.
If you do get round to reading him, you'll have to let me know whether it's worth splurging on...[/quote]

Don't bother. He's a mythologist who relies heavily upon the standard DH materials as a framework. German. I got mine at a garage sale. Cheap Penguin paperback.

Not an Eisenmann fan? Is there a problem here?
Eisenmann is like alternative history for me. Several years ago, I slogged through about 800 pages of JtBoJ before realising I'd wasted my time, so no, not a fan.[/quote]

Still not quite sure why. It's my understanding that he's the reason the DSS was finally released for wider academic, and then public, consumption.

[/quote]No, but it is related to the archeological support for textual claims. I seem to remember this book discussing the whole "gates of Hazor" issue, with the author suggesting that the style gate was very similar to that of the Assyrians of the same time period. Not at all "unique".
Out of curiosity, have you read my introductions to biblical archaeology? I discussed the six-chambered gates very briefly in part 4, but that's probably the piece I need to do the most reworking on.[/quote]

Nope. Sorry, Celsus. You're a familiar name to me from IIDB BH&C forum, that's about it.

That's what I was doing...comparing. Friedman seems to be pointed to a lot by the mainstream apologist types. If they are going to point to it, I think I need to read it...and listen to critiques.
Well if you remember Doctor X... He's a Friedman fundamentalist of sorts (or at least gives the impression that the only person worth reading is Friedman). The documentary hypothesis is dead in my opinion, but Friedman and his followers are still spouting the same tired old crap about it.

I guess you're not a fan of Edward Said? ;) It's important to understand the sort of people he's directing the critique at... the 'rights: W.F. Albright, G.E. Wright, and John Bright who set the discourse of archaeology firmly in order to compare it with the Bible, plus smatterings of people who still give "Israel" pride of place in archaeology while giving hardly any time to the Philistines, Idumeans/Edomites, Moabites, etc. (and usually only to compare them with the Israelites). If you've read older archaeological monologues and publications, you might think he hasn't gone far enough. I think his critique is also still valid with a lot of scholarship in the English-speaking world, whereas say, the Italians, are much more interested in Syria.

Ah, Ed and the 'rights. All just names to me. Is Said worth the read? Is his stuff the critique of "Orientalism"?


I think christianity is a spin off of zoroasteriasm but includes pagan rituales under other names to appeal to the pagans, early on.
So what did you make of my comments on the lack of a clear relationship between Judaism and Zoroastrianism? How did Christianity get influenced by a religion far to the east when there was little contact between the two areas?

Joel

Well I don't agree with either of you and I suspect there was more contact than you might think. I note Petra, Aleppo, Akko and Damascus. Contact with China is confirmed at the battle of Carrhae, 1st century BCE. I don't think christianity is a spin off of Zoroasterism at all. I do think it was influenced by ideas from such. And many other sources available in the area.

godfry

[Celsus]

Forgot about this...
Ah, Ed and the 'rights. All just names to me. Is Said worth the read? Is his stuff the critique of "Orientalism"?
Yep to both questions. Said draws on Foucault, and Whitelam drew upon both of them. I took to Said the first time I read him, but then I'm sort of Asian with a Western upbringing.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

Forgot about this...
Ah, Ed and the 'rights. All just names to me. Is Said worth the read? Is his stuff the critique of "Orientalism"?
Yep to both questions. Said draws on Foucault, and Whitelam drew upon both of them. I took to Said the first time I read him, but then I'm sort of Asian with a Western upbringing.

Joel

Well, I finished Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. An interesting read, which, of course, panders to my prejudices on several topics in "bib crit". Surprisingly quick, too. I will say that Sheffield Academic Press needs some better copyeditors. But, best of all...I lurve all those footnotes! I'll have to review it just to mine citations for additional sources.

Now I shall have to engage with Said. My area of scholastic area of interest was, and I guess still is, the "Far East"; China, Japan and Central Asia. It's my understanding that his critique of western histories of "the Orient" are focused upon the "Near East". It should be interesting to see how well the critique applies.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Okay... My dive into the joint catalogs of 24 institutions of higher education has generated 92 separate listings for Edward W. Said. Now, many of those multiple listings of the same title, and some are where he is a coauthor, editor or commentator. Still, his output is prodigous....

Have you a title recommendation for the neophyte?

godfry

[Seven of Nine]

Since I just recently joined, I'm going to back up to answer the OP. Sorry for any interruption in the flow of the thread. :blush3:

Many's the time on IIDB and elsewhere I've heard people assert that the early Christian church intentionally subsumed pagan imagery and ritual in order to de-Jewishify Christianity and appeal to the pagan masses. I've read that the very foundational notions of Christianity were based on pre-existing pagan beliefs -- savior god, born of a virgin, who dies and rises again (Mithras and Osiris are often mentioned).

What I haven't seen is any actual evidence. Imagery and rituals are often culturally-rooted, so the fact that savior gods have died and risen before Jesus was said to have done so doesn't mean that someone intentionally designed Jesus to fit that pattern, nor does it mean that one has even directly influenced the other. They could simply resonate enough to be carried forward by the population at large no matter what the official theology.

I'm in agreement with you. I have seen no proof that any "paganizing" of the early Christian church was intentional. As you pointed out, imagery and rituals are culturally rooted, and so natural to us that we rarely examine them. In addition, once Christians began to be persecuted, it's my understanding that they often hid in plain sight, meeting together in relative safety during, for instance, the Festival of Mithras.
This was far preferable to having your church barred from the outside and set on fire while you were in it.

What I'm asking, then, is if anyone has come across any kind of primary or even well documented secondary source evidence which indicates Christianity as a theology and institution deliberately or even inadvertantly modelled its beliefs/images/rituals after pagan ones. The fact that some Christian beliefs/images/rituals seem similar is insufficient. The fact that some festivals in little towns in Italy (http://www.abruzzoheritage.com/magazine/2001_04/0104_c.htm) are very clearly pagan with a Christianized aspect is also insufficient.

Except for the fact that churches were often built over pagan shrines, I have none.

There was a move to change Sabbath keeping from Saturday to Sunday, but that was ostensibly for other reasons. (I can get you a just a few quotes regarding this practice in Scotland and Wales).

I do have friends who are Torah observing believers, and some of them speak of a pernicious "Hellenizing" influence, but they aren't agreed on exactly what that constitutes.

This is not intended to be a determinant of the truth value of Christian doctrine, incidentally. Jesus could be totally original in every way and still be false, or he could be Dyonisis himself and still be true. I'm just fascinated by religious history and would like to pick some brains on this matter is all. :)

What a relief! :D
I get somewhat tired of discussing the truth value of Christianity, as you know, and would love to take a break from it at FF.
I do love discussing history, though. :)



off-topic: Have you ever heard of the Lost Kingdom of Prestor John?

[godfry n. glad]

Welcome, 7o9 -

I'm still of the opinion that the terminology of the question is coloring the answer. If it was not pagan, what was it? We can distinguish those that were practices existant prior to a recognizable christianity and were associated with say, Judaic practices (i.e., Hebrew)...those are not pagan, right?

Then, if the practice does not have a Judaic precedent, it probably had a pagan one...wouldn't it?

Unless, of course, the practice came into being, born anew as it were, with the nascent christianity. I have my doubts regarding such "invention". My suspicions are more along the lines of "innovation" of existing practices to meet the needs of the practitioners.

[Celsus]

g.f.n.g.: Said's essay Orientalism (in a book by the same name) is the classic Said in full-swing.
Since I just recently joined, I'm going to back up to answer the OP. Sorry for any interruption in the flow of the thread. :blush3:
Don't worry, godfry and I managed to thoroughly derail it already. Getting back on topic at last:
... meeting together in relative safety during, for instance, the Festival of Mithras.
Nitpick: Mithraic festivals were private, hush hush affairs held in private homes or caves, and so we know little about them outside of iconography. Christians would probably have had more to fear from pickpockets than Mithras' followers during a festival.
I do love discussing history, though. :)
Oh good.
off-topic: Have you ever heard of the Lost Kingdom of Prestor John?
Derailing nicely again... Yes I have, the latest fun I've had was with a (crackpot) theory about Prester John being a certain not-very-Christian Mongol emperor. (Khan, Khun, Hun, Iun, Iohn, John or something). Funnily enough, it was written by a Christian missionary to Mongolia. I think Genghis should have stayed in Africa, less chance of arthritic problems there than in the cold Mongolian winter. You don't actually buy any of the Prester John madness do you?

Joel

[Celsus]

Well, I finished Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. An interesting read, which, of course, panders to my prejudices on several topics in "bib crit". Surprisingly quick, too. I will say that Sheffield Academic Press needs some better copyeditors. But, best of all...I lurve all those footnotes! I'll have to review it just to mine citations for additional sources.
Good luck. I couldn't get the two references I most wanted out of that book (Gosta Ahlstrom and Volkmar Fritz) at Amazon.com. Shopping for ridiculously expensive JSOT books at Amazon.co.uk would probably have left me wearing sackcloth and begging in the streets.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I finished Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. An interesting read, which, of course, panders to my prejudices on several topics in "bib crit". Surprisingly quick, too. I will say that Sheffield Academic Press needs some better copyeditors. But, best of all...I lurve all those footnotes! I'll have to review it just to mine citations for additional sources.
Good luck. I couldn't get the two references I most wanted out of that book (Gosta Ahlstrom and Volkmar Fritz) at Amazon.com. Shopping for ridiculously expensive JSOT books at Amazon.co.uk would probably have left me wearing sackcloth and begging in the streets.

Joel

I can get ahold of most anything, provided it circulates out of the home library. I may not be able to purchase it (and Amazon is not the best source for out-of-print stuff in my estimation...I'd go with Alibris or Abebooks), but at least I'll get to read them. Such is the benefit of being a university library employee.

Now, if was just proficient in three of four ancient languages and a few modern ones....well, I'd be a pig in slop.

Thanks for the tip on Said. I suspected that Orientalism was a common starting point, but figured I'd ask somebody who knows the territory. My requests are winging their ways to other universities as you read this.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I finished Davies' In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. An interesting read, which, of course, panders to my prejudices on several topics in "bib crit". Surprisingly quick, too. I will say that Sheffield Academic Press needs some better copyeditors. But, best of all...I lurve all those footnotes! I'll have to review it just to mine citations for additional sources.
Good luck. I couldn't get the two references I most wanted out of that book (Gosta Ahlstrom and Volkmar Fritz) at Amazon.com. Shopping for ridiculously expensive JSOT books at Amazon.co.uk would probably have left me wearing sackcloth and begging in the streets.

Joel

I just checked on Abebooks using both author names and there a titles listed which are very reasonably priced. Is this one of your sought after titles?

The City in Ancient Israel (ISBN:1850754772)
Fritz, Volkmar

Price: US$ 10.00 [Convert Currency]
Shipping: [Rates and Speeds]

Book Description: Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Trade Paperback. Good. 6 1/8" x 9 1/8". 197 pages. A type of ex-library. Cover has been laminated and damaged. Pockets and stickers have been removed with damage. Edge is marked with black marker. Interior is completely clean, unmarked and tight. This comprehensive, informative and entertaining account is illustrated throughout with concrete examples takenb from the latest archaeological research, illustrated with numerous maps and plans. Bookseller Inventory #0294

Bookseller: Chapman Books (Dundas, ON, Canada)

godfry

[Celsus]

Is this one of your sought after titles?

The City in Ancient Israel (ISBN:1850754772)
Fritz, Volkmar
'Fraid not. I was looking for his Introduction to Biblical Archaeology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1850754268) (for obvious reasons), as well as The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1850756295) with P.R. Davies. Although Amazon claims that both are in stock and would ship in days, they put it on hold for months until I got fed up and cancelled. Ditto Ahlstrom's Who Were the Israelites? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0931464242/) and The History of Ancient Palestine (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800627709). Nevermind, I'm trying to sort out a book deal with Eisenbrauns for Ebla, which means I'll probably be buying from them once it's finalised. If you do run into any of those cheap, do let me know though.

Joel

[Seven of Nine]

<snip>
[QUOTE=Seven of Nine]Since I just recently joined, I'm going to back up to answer the OP. Sorry for any interruption in the flow of the thread. :blush3:
Don't worry, godfry and I managed to thoroughly derail it already. Getting back on topic at last:
... meeting together in relative safety during, for instance, the Festival of Mithras.

Nitpick: Mithraic festivals were private, hush hush affairs held in private homes or caves, and so we know little about them outside of iconography. Christians would probably have had more to fear from pickpockets than Mithras' followers during a festival.

First of all, I don't consider that a nitpick at all. Christians had no reason to fear the followers of Mithras, as far as I know.
Second, I was groping for that point, but failed to express it clearly, especially when I used the misleading term "church", since early Christians met in each others' homes.

off-topic: Have you ever heard of the Lost Kingdom of Prestor John?

Derailing nicely again...

Not for long, I hope. (Wanna start a thread?)

Yes I have, the latest fun I've had was with a (crackpot) theory about Prester John being a certain not-very-Christian Mongol emperor. (Khan, Khun, Hun, Iun, Iohn, John or something). Funnily enough, it was written by a Christian missionary to Mongolia. I think Genghis should have stayed in Africa, less chance of arthritic problems there than in the cold Mongolian winter.

Interesting. I enjoy crackpot theories!

You don't actually buy any of the Prester John madness do you?

Joel

Nope, but find the history of belief in his Kingdom fascinating, and a valuable insight into Medieval thought, which is hardly extinct today.

[Celsus]

Cool! I'm willing to talk about Prester John in a new thread (but I did like this private thread of ours we had until you barged in. ;)) I'll have to go hunt that book down though... My collection of "crap" is distinctively larger than my collection of "quality". By the way, if either of you (or any lurkers interested) have a few spare moments, have a look at the TheoWiki (www.theowiki.com) project that Peter Kirby's started up. At the moment, it's only about 3 of us getting the skeleton up, while some others are writing small articles.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

Is this one of your sought after titles?

The City in Ancient Israel (ISBN:1850754772)
Fritz, Volkmar
'Fraid not. I was looking for his Introduction to Biblical Archaeology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1850754268)

Abebooks lists 51 available copies, usual price being $12.50 US.


(for obvious reasons), as well as The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1850756295) with P.R. Davies.

Only one copy of this title, at $39 US. Ouch. But I've seen worse.


Although Amazon claims that both are in stock and would ship in days, they put it on hold for months until I got fed up and cancelled. Ditto Ahlstrom's Who Were the Israelites? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0931464242/) and The History of Ancient Palestine (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800627709). Nevermind, I'm trying to sort out a book deal with Eisenbrauns for Ebla, which means I'll probably be buying from them once it's finalised. If you do run into any of those cheap, do let me know though.

Joel

Of the two Ahlstrom titles, Abebooks had none of the former title and eight of the latter, varying in price from a low of $20 to a high of $74, all US$.


godfry

[Celsus]

Ah, ok. I had a look at abebooks, and I remember why I don't use them--they list small independent booksellers in the US for the most part, and practically none of them ship to Singapore, which is where I am. Oh well...

Joel

[Seven of Nine]

Cool! I'm willing to talk about Prester John in a new thread

Great!

(but I did like this private thread of ours we had until you barged in. ;))

That's all liv's fault! She lured me in with that opening post, that temptress! :D

I'll have to go hunt that book down though... My collection of "crap" is distinctively larger than my collection of "quality".

I love both!

By the way, if either of you (or any lurkers interested) have a few spare moments, have a look at the TheoWiki (www.theowiki.com) project that Peter Kirby's started up. At the moment, it's only about 3 of us getting the skeleton up, while some others are writing small articles.

This resource will be composed of only fascinating articles, including a number on really fun crappola, true? :cool:

[godfry n. glad]

Cool! I'm willing to talk about Prester John in a new thread

Great!

(but I did like this private thread of ours we had until you barged in. ;))

That's all liv's fault! She lured me in with that opening post, that temptress! :D

I'll have to go hunt that book down though... My collection of "crap" is distinctively larger than my collection of "quality".

I love both!

By the way, if either of you (or any lurkers interested) have a few spare moments, have a look at the TheoWiki (www.theowiki.com) project that Peter Kirby's started up. At the moment, it's only about 3 of us getting the skeleton up, while some others are writing small articles.

This resource will be composed of only fascinating articles, including a number on really fun crappola, true? :cool:

ooo....ooo...

Will there be somebody who can explain Manicheanism and Nestorian christianity?

I suspect that Nestorian christianity has a lot to do with the whole Prester John nonsense. There are rumors within the Mongol tradition that have it that Genghis' mother was a christian...a Nestorian christian.

godfry

[Celsus]

Will there be somebody who can explain Manicheanism and Nestorian christianity?
We already have a short entry on Mandaeanism (same thing as Manicheanism), but it's nicked from the II glossary that Vork, CX, and Jacob Aliet came up with. It will take a while before there are really substantive articles on anything though (hence we need more grunt workers so that us sysops can indulge ourselves in our pet subjects!).
I suspect that Nestorian christianity has a lot to do with the whole Prester John nonsense. There are rumors within the Mongol tradition that have it that Genghis' mother was a christian...a Nestorian christian.
Shit, here I go getting ahead of myself again...

Though I don't know too much about Genghis' mother being a Christian (I have heard of it before), I'm willing to bet that that was a Christian missionary invention. I don't know a great deal about the Eastern Churches, but Prester John's mythic power only appeared in Western Christianity. The most tangible leads are probably related to the Coptic or East Syriac churches I thought (is Nestorian East Syriac?). The stuff about him showing up in the Congo were hilarious though (he was immortal by then too, IIRC). Unfortunately I read it when I was a teenager--no way to trace that one down again. :(

Joel

[Seven of Nine]

I'm not sure it's all that complex. When the Crusades, and such, began to go badly, people needed to believe that he would come to their rescue, and a number of people essentially "dined out" on stories of their visits to his Kingdom, and so the Legend grew and grew and grew over time. So saith Daniel Cohen, whose book is probably out of print?

[Seven of Nine]

About TheoWiki: it's possible I might be able to make a humble contribution to "Methodism", in terms of listing the major Wesleyan denoms, at least (with links). Would that be of any help?

[Celsus]

About TheoWiki: it's possible I might be able to make a humble contribution to "Methodism", in terms of listing the major Wesleyan denoms, at least (with links). Would that be of any help?
It would indeed! Don't worry about formatting, that will be fixed (though as a hint, put == External Links == as the title before you place them). Are you familiar with wiki markup? Eh actually, don't worry if you're not, someone will be along to touch it up.

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

Will there be somebody who can explain Manicheanism and Nestorian christianity?
We already have a short entry on Mandaeanism (same thing as Manicheanism), but it's nicked from the II glossary that Vork, CX, and Jacob Aliet came up with. It will take a while before there are really substantive articles on anything though (hence we need more grunt workers so that us sysops can indulge ourselves in our pet subjects!).
I suspect that Nestorian christianity has a lot to do with the whole Prester John nonsense. There are rumors within the Mongol tradition that have it that Genghis' mother was a christian...a Nestorian christian.
Shit, here I go getting ahead of myself again...

Though I don't know too much about Genghis' mother being a Christian (I have heard of it before), I'm willing to bet that that was a Christian missionary invention. I don't know a great deal about the Eastern Churches, but Prester John's mythic power only appeared in Western Christianity. The most tangible leads are probably related to the Coptic or East Syriac churches I thought (is Nestorian East Syriac?). The stuff about him showing up in the Congo were hilarious though (he was immortal by then too, IIRC). Unfortunately I read it when I was a teenager--no way to trace that one down again. :(

Joel

I can't really claim to know whether Genghis' mother being Christian being a missionary invention. Nestorian christians are notoriously far from the orthodox (as I understand it) that it'd be unlikely that later christians would willingly claim them as antecedents. It is entirely possible that she was. I have seen with my own eyes, a "caravansai" that reeks of being 9th or 10th century Nestorian ascetic monestary in the middle of the Tian Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan...very, very close to the home of the Mongols (indeed, the native Kyrgyz are a Mongol people, unlike most of their neighbors, who have ethnic Turkic or Farsi backgrounds).

Speaking of missionary constructs, have you stumbled across Manufacturing Confucianism? The authors attempt to construct the case that Confucianism, as known in the West, is a product of the Jesuits....Cardinal Ricci and his cohorts in China.

godfry

[Celsus]

I can't really claim to know whether Genghis' mother being Christian being a missionary invention. Nestorian christians are notoriously far from the orthodox (as I understand it) that it'd be unlikely that later christians would willingly claim them as antecedents. It is entirely possible that she was. I have seen with my own eyes, a "caravansai" that reeks of being 9th or 10th century Nestorian ascetic monestary in the middle of the Tian Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan...very, very close to the home of the Mongols (indeed, the native Kyrgyz are a Mongol people, unlike most of their neighbors, who have ethnic Turkic or Farsi backgrounds).
Oh boy, the plot thickens. I will absolutely try my best to find this book now! The Prester John link is still cack, but I ought to look back at what else they said.
Speaking of missionary constructs, have you stumbled across Manufacturing Confucianism? The authors attempt to construct the case that Confucianism, as known in the West, is a product of the Jesuits....Cardinal Ricci and his cohorts in China.
Heard of it, don't really buy it. Don't we have Confucian writings that predate the Jesuits? (I have no idea about that to be honest) How did the Jesuits invent him and also precisely give him a date in the Zhou dynasty that allowed his followers to be persecuted during the Qin and venerated in the Han? Doesn't make much sense to me. I use to tutor Asian Civilisations for secondary school, but I never really looked beyond what the textbooks said. Or do you just mean inventing the Analects?

Joel

What topic are we straying to next? Place your bets on what we'll be talking about by the next page--I'm placing money on Aztec human sacrifice.

[livius drusus]

Hey guys, look what I just found!

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice4.gif

[Ronin]

Grand Theft Auto - Machu Picchu?

[Celsus]

Hey! Hey! I paid you to put that picture up when we hit page 4 godammit. Grr...

Joel

[godfry n. glad]

I can't really claim to know whether Genghis' mother being Christian being a missionary invention. Nestorian christians are notoriously far from the orthodox (as I understand it) that it'd be unlikely that later christians would willingly claim them as antecedents. It is entirely possible that she was. I have seen with my own eyes, a "caravansai" that reeks of being 9th or 10th century Nestorian ascetic monestary in the middle of the Tian Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan...very, very close to the home of the Mongols (indeed, the native Kyrgyz are a Mongol people, unlike most of their neighbors, who have ethnic Turkic or Farsi backgrounds).
Oh boy, the plot thickens. I will absolutely try my best to find this book now! The Prester John link is still cack, but I ought to look back at what else they said.

I have a friend who is a published Taoist scholar and is now working in Mongol studies (wants to go study in Ulan Bator)....I asked him once what he thought of the Nestorian mother, but I don't remember his answer. I shall have to inquire of him again.

Speaking of missionary constructs, have you stumbled across Manufacturing Confucianism? The authors attempt to construct the case that Confucianism, as known in the West, is a product of the Jesuits....Cardinal Ricci and his cohorts in China.
Heard of it, don't really buy it. Don't we have Confucian writings that predate the Jesuits? (I have no idea about that to be honest) How did the Jesuits invent him and also precisely give him a date in the Zhou dynasty that allowed his followers to be persecuted during the Qin and venerated in the Han? Doesn't make much sense to me. I use to tutor Asian Civilisations for secondary school, but I never really looked beyond what the textbooks said. Or do you just mean inventing the Analects?

Joel[/quote]

Weeeeellllll.....

No I don't really accept it myself. (a BIG CAUTION here :hand: I have NOT read the thing myself). I picked it up on the cheap at a bookstore sale and then heard my Chinese History professor refer to it...ambivalently. It piqued my curiousity. I'm one of those who suspects that Confucius might be entirely a construct. But I'm pretty sure it's a very old construct. I think much was ascribed to him by a group of late Zhou scribe/teachers that was even further refined through the early Han dynasty. I don't buy that Ricci and his band of Jesuits invented what we know as Confucianism. I'd say he was, however, a major element in the translation of Confucianism into western thinking and therefore probably has a great deal to due with how the western mind apprehends the Chinese mindset.

Sinocentrism is just as distorting as Bibliocentrism, isn't it?

What topic are we straying to next? Place your bets on what we'll be talking about by the next page--I'm placing money on Aztec human sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I just finished Brian Fagan's The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization...and he mentioned the "Ice Man" of Ovitz. Is that stuff too early for you? I've heard rumors that his ditty bag had something of extreme interest considering the chronological point in time he'd been estimated to have been trapped and frozen.....

Know anything?

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Ah, ok. I had a look at abebooks, and I remember why I don't use them--they list small independent booksellers in the US for the most part, and practically none of them ship to Singapore, which is where I am. Oh well...

Joel

Well, if you're really desperate and see a decent price, I could probably obtain and mail.

And, I live practically on top of Powell's Books, which is one of the largest new and used book dealers in the US (yes, they have a site, too). I don't understand why Singapore is such a big deal...there certainly is plenty of surface and air traffic out of this region (US Pacific NW) bound in that direction.

godfry

[Seven of Nine]

About TheoWiki: it's possible I might be able to make a humble contribution to "Methodism", in terms of listing the major Wesleyan denoms, at least (with links). Would that be of any help?
It would indeed! Don't worry about formatting, that will be fixed (though as a hint, put == External Links == as the title before you place them). Are you familiar with wiki markup? Eh actually, don't worry if you're not, someone will be along to touch it up.

Joel

I was going to beg you to come along to touch it up!!

erm...out of deference to those denoms which don't use the term "Methodist", and for accuracy's sake, you might consider changing "Methodist" to "Wesleyan". or not.

I would love be able to contruct a Methodist timeline to show the various Methodist Episcopal Church splits and unifications, but, alas, I cannot.

Great image, liv! :D

[Seven of Nine]

Welcome, 7o9 -

I'm still of the opinion that the terminology of the question is coloring the answer. If it was not pagan, what was it? We can distinguish those that were practices existant prior to a recognizable christianity and were associated with say, Judaic practices (i.e., Hebrew)...those are not pagan, right?

Then, if the practice does not have a Judaic precedent, it probably had a pagan one...wouldn't it?

That wouldn't make the change purposeful, which was liv's point?

Unless, of course, the practice came into being, born anew as it were, with the nascent christianity. I have my doubts regarding such "invention". My suspicions are more along the lines of "innovation" of existing practices to meet the needs of the practitioners.

Meeting on Sunday and the relative equality of women in Grecian regions might be two?

[Celsus]

I have a friend who is a published Taoist scholar and is now working in Mongol studies (wants to go study in Ulan Bator)....I asked him once what he thought of the Nestorian mother, but I don't remember his answer. I shall have to inquire of him again.
This will be quite fun. I wonder what we'll come up with. My father travels to Mongolia every year actually, so I have access to a fair number of books on the country as he buys books from every country he visits (yes, all 60 or so of them--he got a book on Van Gogh the first time he visited the Netherlands just last year, and I was shocked he'd never been there before... Sadly, that was the last country in the world that I had been to and he had not).
No I don't really accept it myself. (a BIG CAUTION here :hand: I have NOT read the thing myself). I picked it up on the cheap at a bookstore sale and then heard my Chinese History professor refer to it...ambivalently. It piqued my curiousity. I'm one of those who suspects that Confucius might be entirely a construct. But I'm pretty sure it's a very old construct. I think much was ascribed to him by a group of late Zhou scribe/teachers that was even further refined through the early Han dynasty. I don't buy that Ricci and his band of Jesuits invented what we know as Confucianism. I'd say he was, however, a major element in the translation of Confucianism into western thinking and therefore probably has a great deal to due with how the western mind apprehends the Chinese mindset.
Oh yeah, he's completely mythical, since the histories they wrote of him were not histories the way we think of them. When I mentioned the Analects, I had a sneaking suspicion that there could be no way that Ricci was so well-versed in Chinese culture (and more importantly, the presuppositions that come with them) to write something like that. There was a case of a European crank who pretended to be from "Formosa" (modern Taiwan) way back in the 1500s or so and proceeded to describe a detailed but thoroughly European mythical island. I forget his name though. Hell, Ricci showed up in China garbed as a Buddhist monk, only to find that nobody where he was was Buddhist, so the story goes. Similarly, first contact (or early contact) is characterised by cultural misconceptions and stereotypes, especially during the colonial period. It would be extraordinary indeed if I could invent something that seemed completely, er, Navajo or something within a couple years of meeting people from that culture.

The reason I mentioned this is (Derail #29381) that colonial contact that I'm familiar with (mostly British anthropologists of the late 19th/early 20th century) have had a grossly distorting effect on not just the way we understand certain foreign cultures, but on the way the cultures understand themselves (though the latter is fortunately an exception). I remember at university when a guest lecturer who had been working as a consultant in Afghanistan (he'd been there about 10 years but left because of the American invasion) and told us there was no such thing as a "Pashtun" before the British arrived, and that this was a British anthropological invention. The current ethnography I'm reading right now, Purity and Exile by Liisa Malkki, says exactly the same thing about the "Hutu" of Rwanda--another colonial invention that homogenised the hill tribes of Burundi and Uganda who, while having a "Hutu" identity (more accurately, this was a caste rather than an ethnicity), were more readily identified by geography (and therefore neighbouring Tutsi and Twa were closer "kin" than faraway Hutu). Interestingly, she quotes one of the later anthropologists from 1970 predicting future, "devastating", conflict between these artificially constructed groups--tragically, he was proven correct 2 years later in Burundi, and 24 years later in Rwanda.
Hmmm... I just finished Brian Fagan's The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization...and he mentioned the "Ice Man" of Ovitz. Is that stuff too early for you? I've heard rumors that his ditty bag had something of extreme interest considering the chronological point in time he'd been estimated to have been trapped and frozen.....

Know anything?
You got me on tihs one. I haven't actually got a clue about South American stuff (except for some Von Daniken :D)

Joel

[Celsus]

Well, if you're really desperate and see a decent price, I could probably obtain and mail.
That is awfully generous of you. Shipping books is expensive business, and I don't have checquing account in American dollars. Still I might be able to work something out, so I'll keep it in mind...

7of9, I don't see the entry on the TheoWiki page...?

Joel

[koan]

I started a thread called "Jesus: Man or Myth?" recently on the forum where I moderate. I found information by googling "Jesus Myth". There have been a number of people trying to debunk Christianity since the early 1900s by showing the pagan sources of the Jesus story. BTW some of the google results were wacky and a complete waste of time.

I have been posting one issue at a time questioning the myth of Jesus and then looking for the follow up Christian response to post as counter evidence. There was a great pic of Dionysus nailed to a cross exactly as Christ is depicted. Of course the virgin birth thing has been done, I believe, 19 times before in prior mythology.

There is a Christian scholar on the other site that has run off to do some research. I am eagerly awaiting his input. This scholar calls himself a Christian Pluralist as he believes in the basic correctness of all major religions. An unusual and delightful man. His main commentary includes the application of midrash to all the stories of the bible. My belief is that a man named _________ who became known as Jesus lived and said a lot of great things. To create a powerful religion that would spread his message and make a lot of dough, the myth of the bible was written utilising many myths that has seen some success in the past. It does not, to me, take away from the import of what Jesus was trying to do but does take away from the literalist, better than any other prophet attitude. I think it's pretty obvious that some of the stories were...embellished.

[Celsus]

Hi koan,
There was a great pic of Dionysus nailed to a cross exactly as Christ is depicted.
Are you thinking of the one on the cover of Freke & Gandy's book? Unfortunately, it's a forgery, though I don't have a link handy.

Joel

[koan]

Hi koan,
There was a great pic of Dionysus nailed to a cross exactly as Christ is depicted.
Are you thinking of the one on the cover of Freke & Gandy's book? Unfortunately, it's a forgery, though I don't have a link handy.

Joel
Don't recall if it was on the cover or not. Here's the pic. If it's a forgery let me know the proof so I can post it!

[Celsus]

Hi koan,
[QUOTE=koan]There was a great pic of Dionysus nailed to a cross exactly as Christ is depicted.
Are you thinking of the one on the cover of Freke & Gandy's book? Unfortunately, it's a forgery, though I don't have a link handy.
That's the one. While Bede isn't exactly the most unbiased source in the world, he's quite right on this point (http://www.bede.org.uk/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html). Do have a look at my links I posted earlier in the thread as well, if you have the time...

Joel

[koan]

Hi koan,
[QUOTE=koan]There was a great pic of Dionysus nailed to a cross exactly as Christ is depicted.
Are you thinking of the one on the cover of Freke & Gandy's book? Unfortunately, it's a forgery, though I don't have a link handy.
That's the one. While Bede isn't exactly the most unbiased source in the world, he's quite right on this point (http://www.bede.org.uk/2004/07/some-news-and-thoughts-on-crucified.html). Do have a look at my links I posted earlier in the thread as well, if you have the time...

Joel
Thanks. That's the site I got the pic from but couldn't find the other info at the time. I scanned through all the pages but missed your links. I'll go back and check. The scholar will be happy to see this.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, koan...

I spent several years combing the "historical Jesus" literature and was struck with how much of it starts with the preconception that Jesus existed and then launched into an attempt to describe "the real Jesus". After five years, including a couple of years as one of the initial moderators at the JesusMysteries@yahoogroups.com site, I have become a hard-boiled Jesus agnostic. I think there is just as much evidence (or lack thereof) to suggest that Jesus is a literary construct in toto as there is for his having been some kind of mendicant teacher per your musings.

I highly recommend checking out the JesusMysteries site and perusing the archives for resources and perspectives. The site is not some kind of dedicated fan group for Freke & Gandy's hypothesis. It gets discussed, but isn't given a great deal of credibility. In retrospect, we should have co-opted Robert Price's fresh title of the time, Deconstructing Jesus, rather than Freke & Gandy's title, as the site has become closer to that descriptive term than Jesus Mysteries. The site is strictly moderated to keep it as close to historical studies and away from confessions of faith as is possible.

As for a worthy source, I heartily recommend Robert M. Price's most recent publication, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? as a decent starting point.

Other authors whom I have found helpful include John Dominic Crossan (an historicist), George Wells (a mythicist), Bart Ehrman (historicist), Earl Doherty (mythicist) and Burton Mack (difficult for me to tell what his opinion is of an historical Jesus).

Did a historical Jesus really exist? I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else. The Bede whom Celsus names is a volunteer polemicist for the Roman Catholic Church.

[koan]

Thanks for the link godfry. I will definately check it out. I'm moving in a week so I'm jammed for time :boxedin: the links here will, hopefully, save a lot of time.

I'm into presenting both sides for consideration. I like to keep which side I'm on a mystery on FG. I believe Christ existed but I don't think there is a single accurate record of what he really said. Don't know why I think he existed. Just do.

[livius drusus]

In short, I think the "organic adaptations leaving circumstantial evidence" scenario is a variety of the "deliberate pilfering" scenario -- indeed, the most plausible variety, played out on the small and local scales.

I think that's fair. I would say, however, that some of the claims I've seen of the latter scenario are far more grandiose than the former scenario would lead one to believe. Granted, they mainly came from BC&H newbies starting threads on how Mithras is teh Jebus, so I should consider the source and all.


Ah, I understand. Yeah, no disagreement there. I know what you mean about the BC&H newbies who seem convinced that The Whole Thing was planned in every detail from K.A.O.S. Headquarters. Yuck.

Just in case anyone reading this thread might not know what we were talking about in the quotes above, here's a good example (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117440), although he's actually somewhat more circumspect than others I've seen.

For godfry:

Has anyone here ever researched the Persian Deity Mithras? I find the stories circulating about him to be rather interesting, since the supposed divine qualities and actions of the christ figure appear to have been borroed heavily from Mithras's only mythology. Of these the wine and bread sacrament, figure as the son of the all powerful omnibenevolent God, death and resurrection, three wise kings visiting the birthsight, and an apocalyptic end of the world almost identical to revelation, among many numerous similarities. How do creationists respond to these claims?

On a side note, I have found several online sources in the past (Which I hope to post soon) that seem to imply much more similarities, including a Trinity view of the God, twelve disciples, a last supper, virgin birth, etc. Are these claims substantiated? I haven't seen them in mainstream mythology books, and have only seen them on certain internet websites that may or may not be credible.

-Father Mithras, Prophet of the Renewed Light of Mithra cult