littlegirlost

I hope this is the correct forum for this post...

While participating in a post on a different BB regarding the influence of the mystery religions on NT texts/the early church, I noticed there was a small amount of debate regarding the reliablility and interpretation of research on this topic.

So, this led me to wonder what historic materials are available to scholars for this kind of research?

Toto

There is a problem with historic materials in this area. The mysteries were secret, and scholars can only guess at what went on based on indirect references or charges by opponents of the mystery religions.

Freke and Gandy in the Jesus Mysteries make some inferences about the mysteries which are interesting, but they are not scholars (they are proponents of their own version of the mysteries.)

I suspect that Richard Carrier's comments on Kersey Graves are applicable here:

Magdlyn

I guess it depends on how closely you define scholar. I think they qualify.


A learned person.
A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.

Anyone who writes a book with hundreds of notes has to have done some research.

And like dado said about the Adam and Eve myth, until something more popular comes along, it will have to do.

Joseph Campbell does a good job IMHO, analyzing the images on the Orphic Pietrosa Bowl that shows the initiation of a person into the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone, comparing the story to Xtian myth of the descent and the return. The Mythic Image.

Toto

When I say that they are not scholars, I mean that they are not part of the academic guild. They have written a popular book(s), with the aim of promoting their point of view and their own seminars, not works aimed at academic specialists. They have done a lot of research and have footnoted their work, but they have not necessarily evaluated their sources the way a professional historian would, and they do not participate in the give and take of scholarly debate.

Peter Kirby

You will be interested in Meyer's The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook. It is the only book of its kind (as far as I know) and dirt cheap.

best,
Peter Kirby

Magdlyn

Can you give any examples of the way they have fallen short of professional historianism? Esp, how does their evaluation of sources go wrong? Then, what give and take you refer to amongst scholars, or the academic guild, have they avoided? Can you perhaps point me to a detailed article or two, on how far astray they wander in their books?

Thanks very much in advance.

Is the "academic guild" an actual organization? Do you two belong to it?

The Yahoo group, TheJesusMysteries, seems rather rigorous in its research of historicla sources (AFAIK, being a layperson), and bears the name of F&G's book.

IMO, littlegirlost still might want to read TJM and its sequel, Jesus and the Lost Goddess, bearing in mind some specific pitfalls they may contain, as the field is admittedly so unexplored, along with the 2 Mithras books and the one PK recced, if they are somewhat less speculative.

Or is reading TJM a total waste of time?

MysteryProf

A few suggestions:

Ancient Mystery Cults by Walter Burkert
Greek Religion also by Walter Burkert (These books give widely respected historical background.)

After that, I've had a hard time finding good scholarly work. There are some interesting lecture compliations from the Eranos conferences in the '50s, one of which is called "The Mysteries." It's compiled by Joseph Campbell and you'll have to find it used. Abebooks.com might have a copy you can order inexpensively. I generally depend on history books and have to draw conclusions from there. Sometimes it helps a little to read about Greco-Roman occult practice, as well (especially in relation to theurgy, Hermes Trismegistus, etc.).

I thought The Jesus Mysteries was a pretty good read -- I just don't trust the authors entirely because they're clearly promoting a kind of spirituality. As we all know, that can lead to distorted evidence.

Plus, I've had a hard time tracking down what some of their sources originally said. Even some stuff they attribute to Karen Armstrong hasn't been easy for me to find in her work, which, frankly, makes me uncomfortable. Also, their translations of documents like "The Bacchae" aren't always very much like more established, respected renditions. Sometimes the impressions they give you about certain philosophers/works/etc. are a bit off.

Magdlyn

LGL might enjoy this site, The Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth:

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index_FLASH.html

CX

Caveat Lector

Magdlyn

Care to offer specific criticisms of TJM and/or this site then? Or an online rebuttal? I am open minded!