Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 01-15-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I myself see some (Greco-)Roman influence in the titles ascribed to Jesus in the NT, as well as in the birth narratives. Augustus was called savior, son of God, divine, and so forth, and had a gospel. It seems to me that at least some of the NT biography of Jesus was modelled after the dogma of the emperor cult.

Ben.

Provide examples, and I'll be happy to prove you wrong

Examples of which? Of the NT calling Jesus divine, the son of God, and savior? Or of Augustus being called those things?

Ben.

dog-on · 01-15-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You see no solar imagery (whether intentional or not) in the gospel story, at all?

I see all kinds of imagery, including solar, but so what? There are only so many popular images in human religious culture. Of course, there is bound to be overlap. Again, it is the implication of intent that bothers me.

Julian

Would intent imply something particularly negative, if such imagery was simply part of the existing culture?

PhilosopherJay · 01-15-2008, 08:13 AM

Hi Malachi151 and Peter.

I only read her early work, so I cannot comment on her new stuff. In defense of her, I would say that she's approaching the subject from the point of view of genera - ancient Gods. This is different than those of us who are approaching the subject from the point of view of the species -- Christianity from the 1st-4th centuries. We naturally deal in very different specific issues regarding the historical development of the specific religion. Think of a person who is studying modern wars in general and a person studying the war in Iraq in particular. The generalities of the person discussing all modern wars will seem like cliches and quite unhelpful to the person who is examining every specific detail of a specific war. On the other hand, the specific differences of the Iraq War to every other war will seem unimportant and simply a matter of insignificant detail to the person looking at how the Iraq War resembles other modern wars.

As far as making mistakes, we could counter the "clock is always right twice a day" commonplace with the commonplace that "only the person who remains silent is never wrong."

While many of her theories may be from the 18th-19th centuries, sometimes it can be very helpful to go over older theories and use them as a new starting point for new investigations.

It is probably true that she does not test claims in what may be called a vigorous manner. She certainly does not examine every claim from several different sides, measuring each angle down to the the fifth degree, and folding them six different ways. (It is interesting to think about how often too-vigorous testing methods bring poor results.) Rather, she takes reasonable claims and puts them together to form reasonable hypotheses. It is up to us to test them.

Her writing style may not be well annotated, but it is clear, funny, charming and honest and that accounts for her deserved popularity. Is this really undermining the field or just expanding it beyond its small core of (overwhelmingly male) academics?

I am now putting my other foot on the ground.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

Incidentally, Malachi151, you or some one, I believe, mentioned that you have one or two books out. Can you tell me where I may purchase them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I've seen plenty of stuff that rubbishes the pseudonymous author, and nothing with any credibility to salvage it, that at this point the only question on my mind is: Can anyone put forward an argument, while standing on one foot (time is a factor), that would show quite clearly that she is worth giving any additional attention as a purveyor of research? If no, then no more attention will be given.

Agreed. I mean seriously, anyone who puts an image of a Medieval Irish figure of Jesus being crucified in their book and calls it an "Irish Budha or Krishna crucifix", and then proceeds to tell us that its not an image of Jesus because he's not wearing a crown of thorns, instead he's wearing a royal crown, thus its not Jesus, simply isn't even in any reasonable realm of scholarship at all.

A blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. Perhaps a few things of value happen to randomly fall into her writing, despite her best efforts, but 9 out of 10 statements made are wholly uncredible.

I have yet to find any original ideas or analysis in The Suns of God anyway. The book should really be called, "a compilation of old and discredited 18th-19th century works." Every argument made is just a repetition of arguments made by others. Its a matter of taking a bunch of different claims made by people in the past and lumping them all together, without any critical assessment of any of the ideas.

Her treatment of the dating of the Gospels and the Testimonium Flavianum is a perfect example. She just repeats bogus arguments about the Gospels being very late, written in the late 2nd century - 3rd century, and repeats arguments about the TF having been the product of a conspiracy by Eusebius.

There is nothing at all new in these arguments, and actually they undermine the case against historicity anyway. There is nothing cohesive or coherent in this book, its just throwing mud at all a wall to see what sticks.

The Suns of God, and all of her works as far as I can see, are a step backwards for critical scholarship and mostly serve to remind us just how bad much of the 18th-19th criticism of Christianity was. Mostly her works just undermine the field of religious criticism, they do nothing to bolster it.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-15-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Did the Romans, pre-christianity (at least :angel: ), happen, by chance, to worship the sun???

Unlikely, since there are no Roman cult places dedicated to Sol, are there?

What is certain is that the Greeks did not worship the sun:

Quote:

Helios and Eos (Dawn) seem to be, along with Zeus, the only Greek deities with, 'impeccable Indo-European lineage both in etymology and in their status as gods" Burkert 1985:17); yet classical Greeks could consider the worship of Sun and Moon distinctly barbarian practice (Aristophanes, Peace 406-13). Certainly, Helios' descendants - Medea, Circe, Pasiphae - are a decidedly outlandish bunch, and cults of luminaries were somewhat anomalous, though not necessarily (in the case of Helios) rare. Although important divinities were associated with luminaries from an early date, for example Apollo with the sun, they were never identified with luminaries; that had come to seem alien. Helios, Eos, and Selene were not just sidelined; existing on the sidelines seems to have been their main function, namely to be minor" deities that other more important deities were not the same as; thus they too helped to keep Greek religion "Greek." James Davidson, "Time and Greek Religion"" in A Companion to Greek Religion (or via: amazon.co.uk), Daniel Ogden ed. [Blackwell, 2007] p. 205).

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-15-2008, 08:29 AM

In the interests of historical accuracy, Freud said that sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. It was Mae West who used the banana as a symbol of that other object of early religious devotion.

dog-on · 01-15-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Did the Romans, pre-christianity (at least :angel: ), happen, by chance, to worship the sun???

Unlikely, since there are no Roman cult places dedicated to Sol, are there?

What is certain is that the Greeks did not worship the sun:

Quote:

Helios and Eos (Dawn) seem to be, along with Zeus, the only Greek deities with, 'impeccable Indo-European lineage both in etymology and in their status as gods" Burkert 1985:17); yet classical Greeks could consider the worship of Sun and Moon distinctly barbarian practice (Aristophanes, Peace 406-13). Certainly, Helios' descendants - Medea, Circe, Pasiphae - are a decidedly outlandish bunch, and cults of luminaries were somewhat anomalous, though not necessarily (in the case of Helios) rare. Although important divinities were associated with luminaries from an early date, for example Apollo with the sun, they were never identified with luminaries; that had come to seem alien. Helios, Eos, and Selene were not just sidelined; existing on the sidelines seems to have been their main function, namely to be minor" deities that other more important deities were not the same as; thus they too helped to keep Greek religion "Greek." James Davidson, "Time and Greek Religion"" in A Companion to Greek Religion, Daniel Ogden ed. [Blackwell, 2007] p. 205).

Jeffrey

Sol Invictus? Metaphor???

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-15-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Unlikely, since there are no Roman cult places dedicated to Sol, are there?

What is certain is that the Greeks did not worship the sun:

Jeffrey

Sol Invictus? Metaphor???

Sol Invictus pre Christian Roman?

Jeffrey

dog-on · 01-15-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Sol Invictus? Metaphor???

Sol Invictus pre Christian Roman?

Jeffrey

...not to my knowledge...maybe concurrent with...

Didn't the Romans adopt a certain religion in the 4th century? Maybe they simply made it their own.

gstafleu · 01-15-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In the interests of historical accuracy, Freud said that sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. It was Mae West who used the banana as a symbol of that other object of early religious devotion.

You sure about that? I thought he said that sometimes a pussy is just a cat.

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse · 01-15-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Did the Romans, pre-christianity (at least :angel: ), happen, by chance, to worship the sun???

Unlikely, since there are no Roman cult places dedicated to Sol, are there?

There was an ancient temple of Sol and Luna in Rome. Sol Indiges was worshipped, albeit in a minor way. The gens Aurelia was associated with it.

Steven Hijmans, "The sun that did not rise in the east" has some stuff on this, iirc (sorry, but I'm away from home).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2008, 08:29 AM	#35
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	In the interests of historical accuracy, Freud said that sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. It was Mae West who used the banana as a symbol of that other object of early religious devotion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.