Ted Hoffman

Freke and Gandy argue in The Jesus Mysteries that Jesus was modeled after the category of dying and rising gods that was identified as a category by Frazer and others. The Jesus Mysteries has faced a lot of criticism. Most of the criticisms have merit. Amongst these criticisms is their thematic reliance on James Frazer’s work. Below is a brief examination of eight such criticisms by one critic. This examination is restricted to the criticisms of Frazer as they are presented on the internet and at this stage, I have made no effort to read the texts that inform the critic, like Walter Burkert’s Ancient Mystery Cults or Mark S. Smith’s The Origins of Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.

Joel Ng writes in Putting the Mystery to Rest that Frazer’s “disappearance from scholarship� came about because his work about dying and rising gods exhibited “poor evidence, failure to make functional distinctions, and a lack of grounding in primary texts�
Joel criticizes Frazer’s work in a summary of Mark S. Smith’s The Origins of Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, from chapter 6, where Smith presents a methodological critique of the “dying and rising gods� category and in his summary of Walter Burkert's Ancient Mystery Cults (1987)
Joel’s criticisms include:

1. Frazer’s comparative method was not backed by a fieldwork carried out within the cultures he examined.

This is a critique of Frazer’s methodology, not of his theory. So we will evaluate the practicality of this methodology Frazer is faulted for his non-compliance with, and also analyze the significance of the omission Frazer is being accused of. Carrying out the fieldwork within the culture one is examining can help a lot but it is important to remember that Frazer himself lived thousands of years after the cultures he was studying, like the Akkadian civilization (where we find Tammuz), the Egyptian civilization (for Osiris) and so on. Because of occupation of the sites by various peoples across the ages, the vagaries of time, the rise and decline of empires and so on, the syncretism of various cultures, migrations, conquests and other influences, the cultures and ritualistic practices would have changed. In other words, the cultures Frazer was examining did not exist any more because they had evolved or had been replaced. This means that the critique above demands that Frazer was to engage in archaeological explorations of more than half the planet. This is not realistic or even possible.

But more importantly, one must note that several theories have been developed via linguistic and comparative study of the relevant texts without necessarily visiting the cultures under examination. For example, the German scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) explored oral traditions, genres and settings in life of the old testament texts and developed comparisons between the Bible and literature scattered all over the world and published his seminal work Legends of Genesis. He showed with respect to Genesis, that there was Egyptian influence in the Joseph romance. He showed Moabite influence in the Lot legends and demonstrated Babylonian influence in the stories of creation, flood and tower of Babel. His work also exposed Greek parallels in narratives such as the three visitors to Abraham, Reuben’s curse, and the quarrel between Esau and Jacob. In addition, he illustrated how Israel adapted foreign themes and content to serve her own religious interests. This pursuit for parallels, Phyllis Tribble notes in Rhetorical Criticism, Context, Method and the Book of Jonah (1994), p.23, “dislodged provincial interpretation to show that, far from being an isolated document, the Bible belonged to world literature�
This means that it is not sufficient for critics to fault Frazer’s methodology on the grounds that he did not visit the cultures he studied. The critics must demonstrate how his failure to do that made his theory incorrect.

2. Frazer’s abstractions were isolated from the historical and cultural contexts which were poorly attested and poorly understood, and resulted in imaginary categories.

A critique based on the paucity of the evidence is a critique of the entire field of Old and New Testament and ANE studies. Not a critique of Frazer. This paucity of evidence explains why we have maximalists and minimalists, and why we have had successive quests for the historical Jesus. So this criticism is not on target. The first section of the criticism is a conclusion based on the assumption that failure to visit the cultures one is studying results in incongruence between the actual cultural contexts and the resulting theories. It is an assumption that must first be demonstrated then shown to be applicable in Frazer’s case.

3. Frazer’s presentation of the similarities of rites failed to address the role of the human feelings and thoughts in the “patternism� – this was an argument made by Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The criticism here is that Frazer failed to factor in the role of the human feelings and thoughts in his work. But it does not, by itself, show that Frazer’s categories were incorrect. In the same fashion, one can argue that Frazer failed to elucidate the role of sexual fantasies in the make-up of fertility rituals. This criticism therefore fails to address Frazer’s theory.

4. Frazer’s similarities revealed more about Frazer’s own assumptions than about the cultures he studied. Frazer and like-minded scholars “abstracted generalizations and then assumed their validity�. This incongruence, critics assert, is an artifact of the fact that Frazer et al were outsiders to the religions they studied and as a result, “interpreted Semitic deities through identifications between gods of different religions�

This is a combination of the first two criticisms, which I have adequately addressed above.

5. The myth of dying and rising god is not clearly linked to the fertility rituals. For Baal, for example, the ritual was a royal funerary ritual and was not a celebration of the death and resurrection of the god.

The criticism above appears inattentive to the fact that myths vary with the rituals and both tend to reflect the political and economic conditions. Why would a king/royal need a funerary ritual? History is meaningless to the ritualist. History happens only once yet the ritualist is concerned with things that are done again and again. We know that crops are harvested and planted seasonally, every year. Braun, we recall, said about the human mind: “Nothing new is ever discovered as long as it is possible to copy�. Is it possible that this royal funerary ritual grew from a fertility ritual? In his summary of Smith, Joel himself indicates that in Baal’s myth, like the myth involving Osiris and Seth, “there is some association with fertility�. In addition, Joel’s summary of Smith indicates that “Seth is often actually identified with Baal in the New Kingdom Period� and that “Seth represents the fertility of the Nile valley with the river which regularly flooded it.� Of course, Joel points out that the “similarities end there�. The similarities have to be there and they do not damage Frazer’s theory because they are integral to it. Lord Raglan explains in The Hero: A Study in Tradition:

[Emphasis mine]

The result of this is that it is not enough to assert that there is no link between myth and ritual as has been done in the criticism above. Especially since myths follow rituals. S. H. Hooke, in Myth and Ritual, p.17, describes myth as “the spoken part of a ritual: the story which the ritual enacts�. The myth is the narrative linked to a ritual. For example, the ritual of circumcision being linked to the story of Abraham, or Moses, or Joshua. In several cases, myths (the explanations for the ritual) have got nothing to do with rituals and serve to appropriate or explicate rituals. Raglan states:

At this point, it should be reasonably clear that the argument that “For Baal, the ritual was a royal funerary ritual and was not a celebration of the death and resurrection of the god,� is not sufficient as a basis for excluding Baal as an example of a dying and rising god, whose myth possibly underwent change because of political situations, like the presence of royal class/King in a pastoralist society, as opposed to having a society centered on an agrarian economy.
The fact that at one point the ritual was a royal funerary ritual does not mean that that is what the ritual always was. Plus, royal funerary rituals like the Egyptian ones, were closely linked to the flooding and receding of the Nile, and consequently crop fertility.

6. Frazer’s categories assume applicability across thousands of miles, multitudes of cultures and thousands of years.

People traveled thousands of miles and myths were copied across cultures as Herman Gunkel demonstrated. For transmission across generations, and across cultures, time is required, the longer the period the greater the chances of both transmission and evolution. It is unclear how the above is a criticism against Frazer’s theory.

7. The deities vary widely in character and some do not rise. Some are not even gods. Some are too poorly attested to comment conclusively about them.

I have already dealt with the “poor attestation� argument. I have also dealt with the variation in the characters of the deities, which is to be expected as the times, political, economic and cultural situations differ.

8. The bulk of the evidence regarding the dying and rising gods come from late classical authors whose information second hand. This evidence is also potentially anachronistic and likely to be misleading.

This may very well be the case, but it has to be demonstrated, on a case by case basis, and specifically, how the second-handedness of the sources impacts on Frazer’s theory. The presumption cannot be that the evidence is anachronistic or misleading without clear illustrations of how this happens to be the case. The above argument tells us more about the skepticism of the critics and not necessarily the sources in question.

andrewcriddle

One should note that the 'Myth and Ritual' school of which Hooke was a prominent member is regarded as dubious by most modern scholars.

That doesn't mean Hooke is necessarily wrong but his views (let alone Raglan's) should not be regarded as generally accepted in modern scholarship.

Andrew Criddle

Ecrasez L'infame

Thanks for this, Ted. I cut my mythological teeth (now there's an image!) on Frazer and long long felt that this erudite, witty and wise man deserves more respect then he gets from recent generations of intellectuals.

As for how right he was - as you say, he must be argued on a case-by-case basis; but surely the success of Freke & Gandy and the Da Vinci Code show that he was, at least, mythologically right? (A thought that would have tickled him pink.)

Regards

Robert

Clivedurdle

Which modern scholars? What subjects?

Michael Woods, Myths and Heroes, and much of my understanding of social anthropology, sociology and psychology agrees with these ideas.

The comment that myth may be the spoken form of ritual is a very valuable insight.

The practices we can observe today - for example in the classic catholic mass, can be with difficulty, unpicked and their roots seen.

In any case dying god men is not a xian invention, they are all over the place, and need to be seen in their context of the many myths and legends that are around.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of JG Frazer is James I and the way he healed with the King's touch.

To be honest, is the problem that there does not seem to be a Huxley to Frazer's Darwin in mythological studies and religion was willing to give ground on biology but myth is far too close to the bone for religion?

Clivedurdle

Ted, what are you arguing?

You start by noting FG's dependence on Frazer and state criticisms have merit then demolosh succinctly all the criticisms of Frazer!

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough

This article comments that Frazer is a modernist critique.

The above quote, I think is reflecting post modernist sensibilities, and i would therefore argue strongly that this is a fashionable psuedo politically correct critique and therefore Frazer is definitely worth another look without these psuedo scientific criticisms!

andrewcriddle

myth can certainly be the spoken form of ritual, the problem with the 'myth and ritual school' is that they tried to make this the central explanation of myths in general.

Some myths are linked to rituals some aren't.

For myths linked to rituals it is often unclear whether the myth developed out of the ritual or vice-versa.

See for example Online
http://www.crystalinks.com/mythology2.html
Offline GS Kirk "The Nature of Greek Myths" and "Myth its Meaning and Function..."


Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

"Structure and function in everyday life" or something similar was the title of one of my sociology courses! Talking about gifts, the classic is RM Titmuss the Gift Relationship.

This propaganda that the monotheistic religions are somehow above myth really gets me - wine into blood, bread into flesh....hmmm!

Our mythmaking today is evidentially based and the stories we create probably have an equation or two and a clear logic and rationale - not like the study of myths called biblical studies pretending to be rational and poo pooing excellent early attempts like Frazer!

The wiki article notes later editions put his comments on Christ and myth into an appendix and then edited them out.

Clivedurdle

http://www.salon.com/it/col/pagl/1999/03/10pagl.html

Another view about Frazer!

Ted Hoffman

Clivedurdle, I have no interest in defending F & G. I have been reading Otton Rank's In Quest of The Hero, on Carrier's recommendation and I have realized in the process that I have to review Frazer.
At Ebla (www.eblaforum.org), Frazer is discredited harshly and I have posted this thread there too. I am also looking at what JP Holding has written on him and I want to confront these accusations honestly and thoroughly.
I am hoping Joel will respond, or Rick Sumner, Bede and the rest.
The mystery shall not be put to rest without incident.
Criddle, please provide specific arguments against Hooke.
Thanks for the links. Clivedurdle.