maryhelena

This is what Robert Price said in his review of Murdock's book, 'Christ in Egypt'.
Is this all so very much different from what Price said in his review of Jonathan Smith's 'Drudgery Divine'? He makes a point in that review that perhaps needs to be re-stated - particularly in view of the issue being made over his recent comments on Murdock's book.
Perhaps Price has just stated his position more clearly in the review of Mudock's book - but the basis of that position is already stated in the previous review of Smith's book....Price is viewing the dying and rising god mythology as a 'yardstick' - a yardstick which he can apply to the Jesus mythology within the gospel storyline. Whether one calls the dying and rising god Jesus, or Horus or Osiris or Tammuz or Dummuzi - thats all simply updating an ancient mythology. These mythological stories are all connected via the same 'yardstick' - all resemble the original prototype in some basic function - i.e. a story about a dying and rising god. All are simply variations on a theme.

Actually, of course, if one wanted to be really and truly exact - point by point - then none of the above would be in line as a 'true' parallel with the original dying and rising god mythology. For the very simple, but overlooked fact - the original, the oldest record, of a dying and rising god is not a god at all - it is the goddess Innana...


Sumarian Mythology
Inanna's Descent Into the Netherworld
(Edited & Condensed Version 1.07)
by James W. Bell © 2004

The Anunnaki fastened on Inanna
The eye of death.
They spoke against her the word of wrath.
They uttered against her the cry of guilt.
They struck her.

Inanna was turned into a corpse,
A piece of rotting meat,
Hung from a hook on the wall.

When, after three days and three nights,
Inanna had not returned,
Ninshubur set up a lament for her by the ruins.

The corpse was given to them.
The kugarra sprinkled the food of life on the corpse.
The galatur sprinkled the water of life on the corpse.
Inanna arose.

Inanna was about to ascend
When the Annunaki, the judges of the Netherworld,
Seized her.

They said:
“No one ascends from the Netherworld unmarked.
If Inanna wishes to return from the Netherworld,
She must provide someone to take her place,
We will send the galla demons with her
To make sure she does."

In Kullab, under the big apple tree,
Dumuzi, the husband of Inanna,
Was dressed in his shining Me garments.
He sat on his magnificent throne.
He did not move.

Inanna fastened on Dumuzi
The eye of death.
She spoke against him
The word of wrath.
She uttered against him
The cry of guilt.
“Take him away!
Take Dumuzi away!”

“They came and found Dumuzi,
The galla have taken my brother away,
Down into the Netherworld
Where he is destined to remain forever
In your stead.”
When Inanna heard the words of Dumuzi’s sister
She wept at being the cause of her own loss.

Geshtinanna sought to comfort her.
“My Lady, let me take my brother’s place
For six months out of twelve,
So that, each spring, when they call for me
Your husband will be released.”

Inanna blessed the goodness of Geshtinanna,
She blessed Dumuzi's kind sister.

This is the story of how it happened
That Dumuzi came to be sentenced
To spend six months out of each year
Living below in the Netherworld.

Rick Sumner

It is absurd to suggest that symbolic literature is written for a literal audience? :huh:

Rick Sumner

No leap of faith necessary. It's exactly what the author tells us it is, which puts the burden on the dissenter. That it uses revelation and symbolism to preach its message does not inherently negate that that is the intended recipient. It's the same reason the burden is on the person who says "To the Corinthians" isn't addressed to the Corinthians.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Price betrays his own lack of familiarity with the subject matter in that review. Mithraism, by all evidence, never practiced taurobolium, a rite that belonged to the cult of Cybele and Attis.

While I'd agree that his approach is reasonable, he is pretty clearly operating outside his field, such that even the dilettante can, with little digging, discern that it is quite certainly not peer-review. He's ill-equipped to be reviewing Smith in the first place.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

Mythical entities born of a virgin PREDATE the Jesus story, possibly by hundreds of years.

This is Trypho the Jew in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" COMPARING the mythical virgin birth of Jesus to the FABLES of the virgin birth of a mythical Greek God.

"Dialogue with Trypho" CHAPTER LXVII

And in fact mythical entities born of a virgin cannot be found in Hebrew Scripture, it is therefore highly likely that the virgin birth of Jesus was lifted or copied from some pagan source.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Solo

I think what Price might be suggesting is that the Taurobolium practice by Cybele/Attis was inspired by, or adapted from, the symbolism of Mithraic Tauroctony.

Jiri

Rick Sumner

I think you're being too generous. He's pretty explicit about the borrowing of the taurobolium in particular. He's just wrong, and probably relying on Cumont (or someone else who relied on Cumont).

Toto

Price's reference to the Mithras/Tauroboleum connection is too brief to be called "explicit."

This article "Taurobolium" supports the idea that there was no connecton between Mithras and the rites of the Magna Mater, but notes Roger Pearse has a comment here on one very late inscription that seems to link Mithras to the Tauroboleum.

Rick Sumner

That the bull's blood has "life giving properties" is rather the basis of the entire cult. That doesn't mean they enact the taurobolium.

So far as I know, the only book length dissection of the rite of Taurobolium was penned by Robert Duthoy. I seem to recall a publication date for an English translation, but can't seem to find it anywhere online. Readers who can manage French might be interested in it.

And one must wonder if you know what "explicit" means. Here is the relevant passage:

I don't know that it could be any more explicit. The immediate preceeding context addresses another direct, explicit, clear case of what Price considers borrowing. Not borrowing a "theme," borrowing a specific element. "Phrygian cap" wasn't a metaphor. It didn't intend to convey that there was borrowing of themes. It was a specific element. Taurobolium is next on the list and is quite clearly intended to be read as exactly what it is.

He's wrong. At the time of his writing he was widely acknowledged wrong for about 30 years, and suspected wrong for 50. He's relying on outdated, highly speculative scholarship. Suggesting otherwise is just making apologetics for him.

Solo

The point Price made in the earlier review is that syncretism does not simply mean updating a previous version of a myth. You are taking the Smith review quote out of context and badly misreading the intent of the remark. Price broils against Smith's blanket dismissal of the 'dying and rising god' mytheme, and I agree with him that that is an overkill.

But again that is just an example of what Price used to dislike about the black-and-white (Judaic-or-pagan) approach to the Christian traditions. In reality it is a tricky interplay of Jewish traditions within a dominant (Greek) culture absorbed into a multicultural political (Roman) entity.

There can be little doubt e.g. that Paul's Christ was influenced by different cultures of pagan soteriology except we just do not know how. These were subtle influences, which were not a part of Paul's design. He did not speak about them as he believed himself to be working 100% within Judaism. But in the end Paul's product was a mythical Redeemer and the way to him a spiritual resurrection, neither of which concepts were not found on the Jewish books, although that too is oversimplification because there was a Messianic Son of Man in Enoch which was a supernatural personage and the Essene Teacher of Righteousness who was expected to return. So it is hard to gauge what exactly belongs where in the Jesus synthesis that took place in the heads of the Nazarene visionaries and Paul and later in the gospel writers.

I thought 'yardstick' was a gizmo to compare things with not to connect things with. And again I have to ask myself what is this really explaining : there was an original prototype of dying and rising god begetting more dying and rising gods begetting more dying and rising gods......maybe I'm missing something (and I I'm sure you will tell me what) but isn't this an example of a cabbage patch kid insisting that all kids are the same ?

Thank you for sharing: I'll spread around the good news. :wave:

Jiri