GakuseiDon

The specifics of why TJM is a load of cobblers are mainly:
(1) "Join the dots" arguments, where they try to lead the reader to a conclusion based on hints and suggestions
(2) Evidence that can't be verified, or is vaguely relevant to the topic
(3) Footnotes that refer to books long out of print - often when citing from primary sources.

I won't cover the footnotes much here. Often people say that TJM are "well referenced", but I suggest you read the footnotes as you go through the book, to see how many of them are relevant or helpful to the reader.

For me, the "Death of the Godman" section is my 'favorite'. It contains quite a few "join the dots" arguments, a LOT of superficial statements that don't attempt to prove anything, and a couple of truly astounding claims.

To start with: having read the book, what impression did you get on how Dionysus or Osiris died? F&G actually do say how they died, but it is difficult to locate in the book. In fact, in the "Death of the Godman" section, how do ANY of the godmen mentioned die?

Let's look at the first paragraph of the "Death of the Godman" section. F&G start off by saying that "cross" has a general meaning of "stake", discuss how Jesus was said to have been "hung from a tree" in some parts of the NT, and finally mention Attis and Adonis. Based on that first paragraph, would it surprise you to learn that Attis's and Adonis's death have nothing to do with stakes, trees, or wooden implements of any kind?

Second paragraph: F&G discuss Dionysus. Firstly, they say that "a mask was hung on a pole". Dionysus had many roles - a god of ivy and grapes, and wine, wild behaviour and madness, as well as the god of the theatre. F&G don't say WHY the mask on a pole is relevant, but in a section called "Death of the Godman" that has already talked of "stakes" it can only be to imply that it is related to his death. Yet nothing in that paragraph has anything to do with that. Things like wearing purple and drinking wine have nothing to do with Dionysus's death, and are so superficial I wonder why F&G include them. There is no attempt to offer analysis - they are simply put out there for the reader to draw their own conclusions.

The "mask on the pole" is used to represent Dionysus, in theatres and in rituals. This isn't related to Dionysus's death, but rather in his capacity of the god of ivy. Notice the plates of vases that F&G give in that section. You can see the branches shooting from the tree on which Dionysus is represented.

Third paragraph: F&G start by saying that, of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, one goes to Heaven and one to Hell. In fact, only Luke has Jesus promise one of the robbers going to Heaven. There is nothing about the other going to Hell (though this isn't unreasonable). Mark (15:27) has Jesus crucified between two thieves to conform to Scripture (that Jesus was "numbered among the transgressors"). There is nothing about their ultimate destination. The rest of the paragraph talks of torches used by followers of Dionysus and Mithras, but I can't verify that any of this is true, or relevent.

Fourth paragraph: F&G say that "in some myths, it is Dionysus's adversary, representing the initiate's lower self, who dies the godman's death in his stead". They mention how King Pentheus is 'lifted into a tree'. In fact, it is Dionysus himself who does this, in order to punish the King, who has offended Dionysus. But King Pentheus doesn't die in the tree - it only holds him. Dionysus orders his (female) followers to pull King Pentheus off the tree and rip him to pieces, which they do. F&G don't mention any of this. (F&G distort the story of the Bacchae throughout TJM).

F&G then say that King Lycurgus was crucified. In fact, he was drawn and quartered, again under the orders of Dionysus. There is no myth where Lycurgus is crucified, nor do F&G give any primary source where this comes from.

Fifth paragraph: this is one of those astounding claims. F&G say "This suggests that while in some Mystery traditions Dionysus was hung on a tree, in others his fate was crucifixion" Yet they haven't even shown that Dionysus was hung on a tree at any stage! There is no Mystery tradition where Dionysus was hung on a tree.

Then they discuss Plato's "just man crucified". This is the quote from Plato's Republic here:
Is this relevant? F&G doesn't analyse Plato's idea. It surely requires a more thorough analysis than just using "just man crucified". Again, it is left for the reader to "join the dots".

This is Justin Martyr on Plato's "Doctrine of the Cross":
Is this relevant? Perhaps, but again F&G don't analyse these passages to show relevance. This is left to the reader to assume.

The next paragraph is more of the same.

Paragraph 7 has the next astounding claim: F&G say "It seems incredible that Osiris-Dionysus could have been portrayed as meeting exactly the same death as Jesus, but this is what the evidence suggests" AFAICS, they have presented no actual evidence for this, though certainly they've given suggestive comments in that direction. How would you summarise their evidence for this claim IYO?

F&G refer to Arnobius's outrage of the "holy cross" being used in the Mysteries of Dionysus. I couldn't find it in the works cited by F&G.

Next comes my favorite sentence: "A sarcophagus... pictures an aged disciple bringing the divine child Dionysus a large cross. One modern scholar describes this cross as 'an intimation of the child's ultimately tragic fate." This is absolutely true... except that "the cross" that F&G mentions is actually a dagger. Dionysus dies only as a child. He is chopped up and stewed by the Titans, who kill him using a sacrifical dagger. So the dagger is indeed 'an intimation of the child's ultimate fate'... except the fate is probably immediate. You can check Dionysus's story for yourself elsewhere on the Net. The picture F&G represent even looks like a dagger.

I'll stop here at this point before continuing. I should stress that it's not that F&G telling out-and-out lies, but that there are so many half-truths on which they build their case. And, given their apparent credentials, to me it is impossible that they aren't aware of what they are doing.

GakuseiDon

To anyone joining in on this thread: I'm not really interested in arguing the Christ Myth at this stage (it all seems to come down to Paul, anyway). I'm only interested in discussing the reliability of Freke & Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries". If the thread moves away from the OP topic, I don't mind, but I won't be involved in or answer anything off-topic.

ichabod crane

I think you're pointing out some legitimate flaws with F&G. I'd be interested in broadening the debate a bit though: I want to develop the most credible version of the Jesus Myth theory possible in order to evaluate its worth compared to other views. Suppose that we say that the parallels between Jesus' death and resurrection and pagan stories are not close but only loose; would that affect the Jesus Myth story much? I don't think so. Also, we wouldn't want to say that Christianity was a mystery religion, perhaps only that it had some influences from Hellenistic paganism. I think we could argue that it arose from a Hellenistic Jewish context, in which allegorical readings of the Old Testament culminated in the heavenly Jesus myth. Does that make the theory more consistent with the evidence?

GakuseiDon

To summarise what I hope I've presented in the OP: I find that F&G are disengenious in their portrayal of evidence. They try to lead the reader to a conclusion, without trying to perform any analysis to show relevance.

I suggest the reader asks three questions about statements in TJM:
(1) What are F&G actually claiming?
(2) What are they trying to get the reader to believe they are claiming?
(3) Do they actually establish a case, or provide any analysis?

For example, F&G claim that Jesus may have been hung on a tree or staked. Then they say that Attis and Adonis were associated with trees (even though they had nothing to do with their deaths).

So: (1) F&G are presenting two statements, but don't state any overt conclusion about them.
(2) I suggest that they want the reader to conclude that there is a relationship between the two statements.
(3) Adonis was actually born from a tree (hence 'he in the tree'), and Attis died from castration, so there is no relationship between the two statements.

The same applies to many of the statements in my OP. Jesus wore purple, Dionysus's followers wore purple. Jesus drank wine at some stage, so did Dionysus's worshippers. But how do these provide evidence for F&G's theory? F&G don't attempt to show how this fits - they leave it up to the reader. You'll find this technique throughout their book.

I'll finish off the "Death of the Godman" section here:

In paragraph 8, F&G present their 'remarkable talisman', which they say dates from 3rd C CE. They mention it on p 16 and p 64 (paperback edition), but give no source for it, other than it was held in the Museum of Berlin and disappeared during WWII. For such a critical piece of evidence, there is little information. What do scholars think it means? Has anyone else in fact seen it? Why the lack of details on its discovery? What is the context of the discovery?

In paragraph 9, F&G discuss the graffiti 'Alexmenos worships his god'. This is usually claimed to be a Pagan insult towards Christianity, but F&G claim that it is in fact 'a Dionysian representation of the crucifixion of the lower animal nature which... was symbolised by a donkey'. In the footnotes, F&G say that 'it is only Christian prejudice that prevents us from seeing this graffito for what it is'.

But that Christianity was mocked in such a way is recorded by apologists of that period. In Octavius, opponents of Christianity charged that:
Tertullian records:
I simply can't believe that F&G didn't know this. At the least, claiming 'Christian prejudice' as the reason why people nowadays don't recognise the meaning of the graffiti is the extent of their analysis.

Finally, F&G claim that there is no representation of the crucified Jesus before the 5th C CE. Even if this is true, why is it relevant? Christian literature certainly described it for the previous 300 years. Why the lack of representation is evidence for F&G is not explained.

In the final paragraph, F&G sum up: 'The simple and obvious solution is that in certain myths of Osiris-Dionysus, the godman was portrayed as meeting his death by crucifixion'. What do you think, Magdlyn?

Magdlyn

... so little time!

I just got done reading and responding to Jacob Aliet's rebuttal of the Bede's tektonics drivel. (Now that I looked at Bede's website and see he was raised in boarding shcools in GB, then found Jesus in a NJ McDonald's or perhaps its parking lot, I understand his position much better.) I haven't read your OP yet, GDon, but will now. Thanks for starting the "Load of Old Cobblers" thread! LOL!

Magdlyn

Hi,

I went and dug out my copy of TJM, found and reread the "death of the godman" section you critiqued. For those playing along at home, it is in the Diabolical Mimicry chapter, pg 50 in the US paperback.

As I read, I referred to the notes as well. I did see that many of the refs are from books from the 1950s or before. Some have complained F&G depend too much on outdated research.

CX has complained about the incorrect Mithras information.

GD seems to focus on the incorrect implication that other dying and rising godmen were crucified like Jesus.

Now that I reread the section with that in mind, I can get your point, GD. Thank you for explaining it in so much detail.

As far as mode of death of the pagan godmen, the only one I was familiar with when I first read the book, was Osiris.' He was put in a box, dropped in the Nile, floated on the Mediterranean, ended up on shore in a tree, finally chopped up by his brother and scattered. After his reassembly by his sister-wife, Isis, he managed to magically impreganate her with Horus (in this case, as in Moses/Joshua, the god is represented by 2 gods, one dying, one carrying on in his stead as a kind of purified reincarnation). No crucifixion for Osiris (I do not think Egyptians ca 3000 BCE had it) but certainly an association with a tree/pole/column and the cycle of vegetation. Not to mention the sacred marriage hinted at in the Xtian narratives.

I see what you are saying, that F&G try to (dishonestly?) make more associations between Jesus and his forbears than actually exisit. I have to wonder why they felt the need to sensationalize or exaggerate the links, when the broad outline ichabod c refers to, should suffice.

I still think hanging the eidolon of Dionysus on a tree/pole is a valid precursor to the cross display of Christ. I still think the ceremonial use of bread and wine in both rituals was linked theologically.

And I still think early Xtianity was and still could become again, a mystery religion. What about the assertion in TJM that the mythological creation of the passion of Dionysus was concurrent with the invention of Greek drama? Are F&G correct in saying the Dionysus godman's creation came after the Greeks were exposed to the tale of Osiris ca 700 BCE?

The idea that the passion drama was part of the Greek and Xtian mysteries, seems to link to Paul's insistence to the apostacising (sp) Galatians that Christ's crucifixion was openly displayed to them before their eyes, when Galatia is quite far from Jerusalem (not to mention Paul's Christ is not historical).

One more issue:

The torch theme as part of the mysteries I had come across before. In the mysteries of Persephone and Demeter, Persephone is led to Hades. The downward pointing torch is understood to represent her journey down into the darkness. The other one, her return. I think, unlike you, Jesus is not "numbered among the transgressors" so generally. I see the significance of him being displayed/killed between only two. If you can get ahold of a copy of J Campbells' The Mythic Image and look at pg 388, you will see his explanation of a rare depiction of the 2 goddesses' mystery, including the use of the torch symbolism. The entire ritual is depicted upon the Pietroasa Bowl.

I am not Mithras expert, but I think I recall CX saying Mithras' two companions held torches as well, according to Clauss.

Finally, creating a "dot to dot," in which the reader must make the connections, to me, does not seem so sinister. Why spell everything out? Going into less detail than perhaps GD would like also keeps the book shorter for the casual reader.

"Upon this load of fruit pies I build my church."

GakuseiDon

A broad outline (without trying to show exact similarities) would indeed suffice, if the analysis is there. It is the lack of analysis in F&G that I have a problem with. "Jesus wore purple, so did Dionysus's followers, therefore..." is fine. But F&G continually stop before the "therefore", and this is what I find dishonest.

But what is "the passion of Dionysus"? F&G refer to it a few times, but they never explain what it is.

Can you tell me what "the passion of Dionysus" is, according to F&G?

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can find a copy from the library.

True enough, I guess.

diana

I hope y'all don't mind, but I emailed Mr. Tim Freke and asked him to take a look at this thread, and if he has the time, to address some of the points here made. Considering this scope of this board's readership, it may well be worth his time to engage his questioners.

[Don, I think you make good points. That's precisely the sort of thing that makes me uncomfortable about accepting the thesis outright. I am still intrigued with the thesis and feel it may have merit, but I'm not comfortable enough with the primary sources and the conclusions being drawn from them to become an advocate of it.]

d

Toto

I am not going to dig out my copy of the JM, but as I recall, the chapter on pagan parallels was not presented as proof of much of anything. It was an introductory chapter just meant to get you in the mood for the rest of the book. I did not get the impression from the book that F&G stated that many other godmen were crucified (and that therefore Jesus' crucifixion was copied); it was clear to me that they were pointing out some common themes of death / rebirth, death of a king, or "hanging in a tree". If you think of religion and culture as the manipulation of symbols, there is enough similarity there to comment on.

Freke and Gandy state somewhere that there is (barely) enough evidence for the existence of Jesus so that you could believe that there was such a person if you wanted to; but that they prefer their interpretation as making more sense of history and of religion.

I thought that the core of the book was their explanation of the heretics' and gnostics' religious stances and their interpretation of the ancient mysteries using classical sources. I wish that people would concentrate more on these issues. Can we regard Docetists as early mythicists, as F&G suggest?

I think that if the book had been written in a more scholarly manner, some statements would have been qualified more, there would have been more equivocation, more discussion of the problems in the source material. But it was written as a popular book, and it will be up to someone else to do the scholarly version.

We've had a lot of discussions on this issue, which seems so obvious that I am not sure why they should discuss it in detail. If you think that Jesus was a historical figure who was mythologized, you would expect to find early concrete stories about him that become more fantastic as time goes on; you would expect to find early physical descriptions or pictures. Instead, you find that the earliest stories about Jesus are the most mythological, that details of his life are supplied later, and physical representations much later - which implies that the original Christ was a spirit, and later Christians invented the human to go along with the stories. The earliest references to Jesus being crucified (in Paul) could be read as allegory; the more explicit gospel references are embedded in obvious fiction; and it is only centuries later that anyone constructs a picture of the actual crucifixion.

Llyricist

But if they said "therefore"..... well anything.... that would be one giant non-sequitor for you to pounce upon wouldn't it? We all know correlation does not equal causation necessarily. So any conclusions drawn from similarities are ripe for the non-sequitor criticism.