mountainman

Dear LogicandReason,

In The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography provides the following observation which I hope you find to be in line with your OP.

Have you or anyone else read this "history of Pietro Giannone"? Momigliano (an ancient historian) would not have selected this specific citation unless it was of vitally important exemplar of his knowledge. The question (to which I do not know the answer at present) is this: does the "history of Pietro Giannone" involve the HJ and/or an MJ? Is there any earlier "history" in this area before 1742 (in which year Edward Gibbon was about five years old) Who knows? Who reads Italian? Anyone been inside the Vatican archives?

Best wishes,


Pete

andrewcriddle

The problems with the article are both specific points of fact eg Is actually from Lucian The Syrian Goddess (This actually matters in terms of how and when ideas of resurrection gradually crept in to the worship of Adonis which probably originally entirely lacked them.)

and problems of interpretation eg it is IMO misleading to regard Osiris' status as the great listless one ruling in the realm of the dead as one of being resuscitated and going to heaven.

There are also issues of selective citation. The article very properly mentions Mettinger who does indeed believe in ancient dyng and rising Gods but fails to mention that Mettinger agrees that Osiris was not a dying and rising God see Riddle of Resurrection

Andrew Criddle

EarlDoherty

When I read that 'review' and encountered that, I was about to run off to Isis and Osiris and try to find the reference, because it certainly didn't ring a bell. Fortunately, I read your comment first and saved myself the time.

But you're right, a resurrection for Adonis did not appear until about the middle of the 2nd century, just before Lucian. What is significant about that, however, is that Wagner (in a rare moment of honest clarity) acknowledged that the cult of Adonis was hardly the first originator among the pagan mysteries to come up with the idea of resurrection and that it probably picked it up syncretistically from elsewhere, and he admitted it might have been from Osiris. (Of course, he ruins the moment by also suggesting they might have picked it up from Christianity in an effort to "compete".)

But since Adonis was a relatively minor savior god, and maybe not even deserving of that moniker, if there was syncretism or borrowing going on it was undoubtedly from some other mystery cult, and Osiris is as good a candidate as any. The conclusion? "Resurrection" (of one form/definition or another) preceded the period of the mid 2nd century. Not only would that make it too early for any thought of the cults 'borrowing' from an upstart and despised new sect, but early enough to regard the general idea as a staple which Christianity itself drew on.

And thanks, Toto. The linked article was a real hoot.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Jeffrey, the point is not what I technically may have said or not said, expected or not expected, or what you undertook to do or did not undertake to do, and so on or not so on (not to mention all the words and bandwidth you use to give us absolutely nothing of substance)…

It is whether, as a diversion from your regular practice (yet another tedious example above), you ever contribute an original thought or rebuttal to anything being discussed on any thread, whether you ever choose to actually engage with the arguments and positions you so scornfully dismiss with your air of superiority, and do so on your own terms rather than drawing on endless quotes from someone else which may or may not be pertinent or which you may or may not understand yourself…

I cannot honestly recall any original point you have ever contributed here—

Oh, wait. Yes, there was one.

The nominative plural of ARCHWN is ARCHONTAI.

I guess that was pretty original.

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Yes, it didn't ring a bell with me, either. Unfortunately I didn't see Andrew's post in time!

This may or may not be useful for people in this thread, but I found it interesting. Plutarch is great in summarizing the various beliefs in his time. Plutarch views the Isis and Osiris myth through the lens of his four classes or rational beings: human, heroes, daemons and gods.

On Osiris, the myths that Plutarch recounts makes it sound like the body (where Osiris had a body and isn't a representation of natural forces) didn't rise again, and that it remained in the ground:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/b.html

Eudoxus says that, while many tombs of Osiris are spoken of in Egypt, his body lies in Busiris; for this was the place of his birth; moreover, Taphosiris requires no comment, for the name itself means "the tomb of Osiris."

Plutarch also talks about Orisis in allegorical terms, though he doesn't say whether the body rises or not (given what he wrote previously, my guess is that Osiris is the force that allows renewal rather than being renewed himself):
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Osiris*/D.html

For by one general process of reasoning do we come to the conclusion that these gods have been assigned to preside over every portion of what is good; and whatever there is in nature that is fair and good exists entirely because of them, inasmuch as Osiris contributes the origins, and Isis receives them band distributes them.

In this way we shall undertake to deal with the numerous and tiresome people, whether they be such as take pleasure in associating theological problems with the seasonal changes in the surrounding atmosphere, or with the growth of the crops and seed-times and ploughing; and also those who say that Osiris is being buried at the time when the grain is sown and covered in the earth and that he comes to life and reappears when plants begin to sprout.

It's interesting that Plutarch seems to be missing a tale of Osiris actually rising bodily.

dog-on

kinda like Paul, imo...

mountainman

Dear Resurrection Seekers,

I dont see the resurrection of Asclepius being cited by the people looking for resurrections in antiquity. Is Asclepius skipped over for any reason? Asclepius has got a waggon load of archaeology 500 BCE to 500 CE. The resurrection of Asclepius is cited in the following is a summary of arguments made by the author Gerald D. Hart in his book Asclepius: The God of Medicine

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Technically speaking the "resurrection" of Asclepius is not "cited". It is only asserted.

In any case, where's the documentation of Hart's claim? Upon what ancient text or texts about Asclepius is this assertion based? Do you know, Pete? And if you do, will you share this information with us, please?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

A few days ago, Pete asked

And the he noted:

To this I not only noted that

But. more importantly, asked:


I note now with interest that there's been no reply from Pete on these matters. Perhaps he overlooked them or forgot that I had asked him what I did above.

So I'll ask Pete again:

Upon what ancient text or texts (or archaeological evidence, for that matter) is Hart's assertion about Asclepius being widely known in the ancient world as one who had been resurrected based? Do you know, Pete? And if you do, will you please share this information with us?

Should I take the fact that you didn't respond to my question the first time I asked it an indication that you have no idea not only about what this evidence is, but whether there actually is anything in ancient testimony to and about Asclepius that supports Hart's assertion?

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

If Jeffrey were really interested in learning anything, and in giving us his own judgments about what an author on a given subject were saying, he could go to Hart’s book himself and see what he has to say about the documentation regarding Asclepius’ “resurrection.” After all, the average person on this board (which for the most part is just about everyone except Jeffrey) often hears about or is directed to some author on a subject under discussion and has been quite willing to try to look up that book and comment on the views being expressed. Jeffrey, of course, will have none of that, since that would mean he would be making a contribution of his own.

That said, it is at least incumbent upon Pete to refer to the Hart book he has pointed us to and give us some indication of what Hart bases his statements on. Toward that end, I’ll also give him some further info which should help him in tracking down the basis for such assertions. (I see no need for myself to do this work, as I am not the one making the claim or whom Jeffrey has challenged.)

Everett Ferguson (Backgrounds of Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.172-3, a book I deal with at length in my website Mysteries series recently referred to), in dealing with Asclepius, says:

Ferguson says that on Asclepius “I follow largely the work of the Edelsteins listed in the bibliography”—which is:

Edelstein, Emma J., and Ludwig Edlestein. Asclepius: A collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. (or via: amazon.co.uk) 2 vols. Baltimore, 1945. Reprint. New York, 1975.

Another useful source would be:

Walton, Alice. The Cult of Asklepios. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 3. Ithaca. N.Y., 1894. Reprinted 1979 as Asklepios: The Cult of the Greek God of Medicine (or via: amazon.co.uk).

On the other hand, since Jeffrey seems to have easy and unlimited access to texts of all kinds (all of which he is of course intimately familiar with), and from which he often takes the trouble to quote in order to enlighten us, perhaps he would be willing to look up the subject for us in these books (they are seemingly quite reputable) and contribute something to the discussion. Oh wait, if memory serves, he usually takes that trouble only when he thinks such quotes will kneecap the other poster and save himself having to lay out any of his own knowledge. To actually look things up simply in order to further the discussion is undoubtedly against his religion.

(It might further demonstrate a positive answer to a question asked earlier.)

Earl Doherty