GakuseiDon

I'm not sure where that leaves us, then. If they supply a heap of statements (say, p74&75 at the end of Chap 3), and they haven't really provided much in the way of analysis to show relevance, then all they have are assertions.

For example, in their Conclusion list at the end of Chap 3, they say:
"Jesus is hung on a tree or crucified, as is Osiris-Dionysus". Yet this is not supported by the evidence that they present.

It would be interesting to go through each of the 30 assertions of that part of the book, and analyse them with regards to both accuracy and relevance.

Would anyone like to go through TJM and show F&G's evidence for "Jesus is hung on a tree or crucified, as is Osiris-Dionysus".?

Some other assertions on that page:

* Jesus is portrayed as a quiet man with long hair and a beard; so is Osiris-Dionysus.
* Jesus's corpse is wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh, as is the corpse of Osiris-Dionysus.
* Jesus is baptised, a ritual practised for centuries in the Mysteries.
* Jesus is surrounded by twelve followers; so is Osiris-Dionysus.
* Jesus turns water into wine at a marriage on the same day that Osiris-Dionysus was previously believed to have turned water into wine at a marriage.
* Jesus's empty tomb is visited by three women followers; Osiris-Dionysus also has three women followers who visit an empty cave.

Magdlyn

* Jesus is portrayed as a quiet man with long hair and a beard; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

Didn't see this in the chapter. I know however, Pharoahs and Osiris himself wore a beard. Sometimes a Pharoah tied one on for ceremonies if he didn't actually have one. I highly doubt all dying rising godmen had beards, as some were born and died as children. Many were quite young men. The pix I have seen of Mithras do not show him bearded. A wandering preacher would be more likely to have a beard and long hair as he didn't have easy access to toiletries.

* Jesus's corpse is wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh, as is the corpse of Osiris-Dionysus.

So were all embalmed corpses of those days

* Jesus is baptised, a ritual practised for centuries in the Mysteries.

Yes, ritual water cleansing was common for followers/mystees

* Jesus is surrounded by twelve followers; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

Common zodiacal reference, also so was YHWH "surrounded" by 12 tribes

* Jesus turns water into wine at a marriage on the same day that Osiris-Dionysus was previously believed to have turned water into wine at a marriage.

They mentioned I think Attis? doing this on Jan 6

* Jesus's empty tomb is visited by three women followers; Osiris-Dionysus also has three women followers who visit an empty cave.

This was covered as well--the triple goddess mytheme. It is late and I am not so anal as to provide pg numbers. You do know when they say Osiris-Dionysus they may not mean either one, but Attis, or Adonis, or Tammuz, etc., right?

ichabod crane

This is an extremely good question, and is where the heart of the issue lies for me. Docetists denied that Jesus had a human physical body, and claimed that he was a spiritual being who just appeared in human form. This obviously has some affinities with the JM theory, but also some differences. For instance, a Docetist could say that Peter saw Jesus in downtown Jerusalem at such-and-such a date and time.

The reason this is so crucial is that both the Pauline epistles and the gospel of John show, in somewhat different ways, Docetic tendencies (in my humble opinion). So finding a link between Docetism and the JM would certainly make it more believable.

We might fairly call the JM theory "Ultradocetism". But I think this line of investigation deserves more thinking about.

GakuseiDon

Sorry for the late reply, Magdlyn, this one sort of slipped through.

There are so many things wrong with F&G's statement: where is Jesus portrayed as 'a quiet man with long hair and a beard' in the first few centuries? Where is Osiris-Dionysus portrayed as such? And even if they both were, is this relevant to anything? As you've pointed out, such a similarity is not unlikely.

Yep, common practice (though I checked F&G's reference in Plutarch, and Isis uses 'perfume', not 'myrrh').

We also have the example of John the Baptist, so this doesn't necessarily have been copied from pagans (though no doubt there may have been influences through the centuries).

Possibly. But again, the example doesn't necessarily have to come from pagan sources.

This is a similarity that would be hard for Christians to explain. See if you can find it from the references that F&G give.

Oh yes, indeed.

If you get a chance, look at their claim in their Conclusion list at the end of Chap 3, where they say:
"Jesus is hung on a tree or crucified, as is Osiris-Dionysus". Then try to work out where they actually present evidence that Osiris-Dionysus was hung on a tree or crucified.

The closest you'll get is this (from the "Death of the Godman" section):
This suggests nothing of the sort. Given F&G's qualifications, there is no way I can imagine them getting this so wrong without it being deliberate. It is true that some of Dionysus's adversaries "die the godman's death", and this is sybolic of his death, but "in his stead" is disengenious. Dionysus died after being ripped to pieces by the Titans. Pentheus and Lycurgus were ripped to pieces on orders by Dionysus. Pentheus was hung on a tree, but he was pulled off it before being ripped to pieces. Neither were killed in a tree or crucified. The similarity here is a "being torn to pieces" motif. There is no way that F&G can't know this. But they conclude: "Jesus is hung on a tree or crucified, as is Osiris-Dionysus".

Celsus

The way forward then, is to learn Greek, get yourself copies of the originals, in the original language, and examine the alleged parallels for yourself. Don't rely on things like Hoffman's reconstruction of Celsus' On the True Doctrine (like F&G do) or shoddy translations by Egyptologists no one's ever heard of from a century ago (as Tom Harpur does), nor conflate all the various Osiris-Dionysus god-stories together and drawing only the parallels against the Gospel story. Instead, you have to look at the mystery religions from a sociological point of view, and examine the context of these religions. Was there an overarching "framework" which had to be followed? Were the traditions borrowed, and from where, and when? Did they have contact with the other mystery religions? What do the experts have to say about these cults in their social context? Then you have to go into textual dating of the myths, which is impossibly convoluted and which no one can really agree upon. When you've reached that point, you can put forward a scholarly treatment of the parallels, but until then, you'll have to acknowledge that F&G's work put out is New Age sewage.

Joel

ichabod crane

Thanks Celsus. I already know both Hebrew and koine Greek, and I intend to do just what you suggest. But I haven't read enough yet to be able to make confident statements about the subject.

Magdlyn

Hyperbole.

Magdlyn

That's OK, GD.


I am just going to have some fun with this.

Jesus is said to have his beard pulled during his trial. I do not read any refs to his length of hair. I think this is just an assumption from what we imagine Galileean fisherman and carpenters looked like 1 CE. (I understand however the 1st representation of X has him in the short Roman hairstyle, clean shaven. But ya gotta allow for artistic lisence.)

Osris is depicted as bearded. The wigs the Pharaohs wore were, of course "long."

Dionysus' effigy on the "tree" is shown to be long haired and bearded.

Meek? No, J seems rather fiery to me. As in Sun God, LOL. He did praise the meek tho!


Too bad Plutarch was not more specific. It is common knowledge however, the Egyptians used myrrh and aloe in embalming. Do we have evidence an effigy of Osiris was yearly mourned and symbolically embalmed? Not that I know of.


OK. "Influences" or just a common understanding that water will clean your skin--to--water will symbolically clean your soul. No big whoop.


Possibly? Jesus as the sun, surrounded by the 12 contellations? Obviously, IMO. Found everywhere, not just Tanakh. Covens ideally had 12 members too. 12 months of the year. Day and night having 12 hours each. Babylonian astology/onomy?

Aside: Did you know one of the Jewish months carries the name of the Babylonian god Tammuz?

Did you know Robt Price speculates the word Pharisee comes from Parsee, as in Persian?

One gnostic gospel has Jesus in the center of the circle of the 12, who sing and dance a call and response with him. This was part of the Last Supper celebration. Heard of the Lord of the Dance?

OK, that one I cna't do off the top of my head. I will look it up later and get back to you.


So you saw the triple goddess ref? Maiden, mother, crone? As in, the seasons of the moon?

I will try to later in the day. Hung on a tree, easy tho. Lots of tree refs in much mythology. Dionysus' image is hung on a pole. Osiris' casket ends up in a tree/column. Goddesses were also associated with trees. Myrrh, Isis, Asherah's "poles", just to name three.

The tree of life in Eden and Kabbalah. One can hardly escape the trees! I see the Roman cross torture device used as another morphing of the common (pagan/jewish) tree symbol. Kind of an icky morphing, JMHO.

I ask again, why did F&G push it tho, to suggest other gods were crucified?

Celsus

Imagery aside, I disagree. There is nothing scholarly about their writings, and the more they get dissected, the more skeletons keep showing up in their closet. Care to say anything else about my post? Or make the case that F&G are, in fact, good scholarship? Emphasising parallels without discussing the differences is something no responsible scholar should do. It's the sort of thing I expect from Albright (in the 1920s-60s), but not from modern day scholars. Their methodology is at best comparable with someone like Layard and other competent 19th century Assyriologists.

Joel

Edit: I'll get out my copy of F&G as soon as someone makes a case that they are to be taken seriously.

Magdlyn

I guess you and GD are pretty angry. Dirty paving stones and poop imagery.

I am open to dissecting TJM, as should be obvious. Slinging around scatological refs is not aiding in the deconstruction. It was fun at first, but need we extend it?

I admit, I am not a trained scholar, so am asking for your patience. If the discussion makes you too mad, you can skip it! I'm not trying to be an a--hole.