Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
11-11-2012, 02:04 PM | #121 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
Quote:
Earl Doherty |
||
11-11-2012, 02:28 PM | #122 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
And I didn't get anything wrong about the "world of myth" in TJP. I greatly expanded upon it in JNGNM in terms of evidence in ancient literature. That, too, is simply ignored by GDon. As he did with my rebuttal to his book review's reading of Plutarch which I thoroughly demolished. You're damn right I can get prickly! Earl Doherty |
||
11-11-2012, 02:59 PM | #123 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
By the way, have you all seen the ranting review Roo put up on Amazon for my e-book "The End of an Illusion", my Vridar rebuttal to Bart Ehrman? He complains--indeed, he foams at the mouth--about my bloated and impenetrable prose, my sleep-inducing attention to detail, and in far more bloated and profuse verbosity than anything I've ever been guilty of. He sounds like a demented English professor intent on burying a recalcitrant student under a pile of prolix ridicule and diarrheic windiness I could never hope to emulate (though I can try). I mean, just look at his posting here. Not even Abe, or Don, or the late-lamented Jeffrey Gibson reached such gibbering heights. What is with this guy? My response? A quote from another Amazon reviewer a few years ago: "He is a clear writer. As clear as I've read." Well, everyone to his own opinion, I guess. Earl Doherty |
|
11-11-2012, 03:53 PM | #124 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
So instead of this constant urging of others to ‘investigate my arguments’, and because you've made it clear that your knowledge of the subject is more than sufficient to dismiss them, why not examine them and refute them yourself, right here? Enlighten us all. After all, I’ve presented the evidence you claim to discount and dismiss. It’s now up to you to respond to that evidence, not up to me to repeat it all here in hopes that you’ll finally deign to address it. Take my JNGNM chapter 12 apart, piece by piece. Show that it in no way indicates how the ancients thought about the heavenly world and what could go on in it, show that such documents and imaginings are irrelevant as indicators for not only how the mystery cult devotees interpreted their myths (as well as various Jewish sectarian writers as in the Ascension of Isaiah) but for how Paul and the other epistle writers could have interpreted the myth of their Jesus’ crucifixion at the hands of “the rulers of this age.” In other words, do some of the actual work yourself, in direct refutation to what I have presented. If tackling an entire chapter is just too much for you, I’d even settle on you taking my Appendix 6 in TJP and answering that in detail. Or is that too demanding as well? And by the way, as an addendum to my earlier posting on ‘nuance’ and clarification of what I meant in TJP in those broken-record passages you keep shoving in my face, the opening paragraphs of that Appendix made it clear that in TJP I was speaking of the views of the myths as interpreted by the cults: Quote:
Earl Doherty |
||
11-11-2012, 04:12 PM | #125 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
I can’t go along with this tendency to ‘reinterpret’ ancient mythology in terms of modern apologetic techniques which not even theologians can get across with succinct credibility. It’s all done in the interests of rescuing and spin-doctoring ancient thought in light of modern sensibilities, like rendering the creation myth in Genesis as allegory. (Nor can I sympathize with maryhelena’s seizing of Andrew’s straw to find a way to anchor Paul’s crucifixion of Christ on earth. Neither does she have a single piece of text—other than the widely-judged interpolation in 1 Thess. 2:15-16—in a Pauline letter, or any other epistle writer of the first century, to support it. But I do have to acknowledge her increasing ability to emulate modern theologian-babble.) Earl Doherty |
|
11-11-2012, 04:40 PM | #126 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
I needed to have stressed that it was only in the context of interpretations within the mystery cults themselves, and not those of the common man-in-the-street or the average writer speaking of the traditional myths (such as the historian Tacitus or the geographer Pausanias), that I am claiming that a reorientation to the upper world took place for the activities of the savior gods, under the influence of Platonism.... which is remarkably convenient, since while we have the writings of educated pagans like Tacitus, we have none from the mystery religions. If mystery religions did reorient the activities of the saviour gods, it would have been from ancient earth-based myths into allegories of natural forces, along the lines of thought at that time. We have good evidence from Plutarch and other Middle Platonists that an allegorical view of the myths developed. The Emperor Julian -- who was an actual mystery religion devotee -- had such an allegorical view. Part of the problem of Doherty's indicators is that he is trying to pass off allegorical views as 'indicators' of a "World of Myth". But where does the "World of Myth" fit in? Nowhere. The evidence we do have survives quite nicely without it. Actually, that is very perceptive of you. Yes, I do. In fact, I think that this will be Richard Carrier's approach in the book he will publish in 2013. Carrier holds Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" as (from memory) 90% speculative digression. I doubt he will be using many of Doherty's 'indicators' on the pagan side (though Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris" will almost certainly be in there.) |
|||
11-11-2012, 06:47 PM | #127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
I'm talking about writers such as Philo, Porphyry, Numenius and Proclus and making the general point that these authors, when exploring the higher meaning of myth, Homer in particular, seem to regard the characters as historical. |
|
11-11-2012, 06:47 PM | #128 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll bow out of this thread now, to start work on the new thread. Not that I think another thread between you and me will mean anything. No-one will check things for themselves. Rlogan will still attribute weird position statements to me. Toto will still mutter darkly of motives. I regard your work as pretty much irrelevant now that Carrier is taking up the challenge of moving the mythicist position forward in the book that he is publishing next year. As far as I know, Carrier will be using the descending-ascending god model rather than the "World of Myth" concept. It means your concept will be consigned to the fringe theories graveyard, along with astrotheology, and only supported by die-hards who don't really care one way or the other, as long as the answer is "no historical Jesus". |
||||||
11-11-2012, 06:49 PM | #129 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
"Just as today we perceive natural laws and forces working in nature and the universe, the ancients perceived spiritual forces operating between the natural world and the supernatural, between the present, earthly reality and the primordial past or higher divine reality."The quote that GakuseiDon retrieved from your website seems even plainer. "For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the 'genuine' part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the 'air' and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven."Sorry if this bothers you, but your present position (only ancient mystery cults believed in a "world of myth") seems significantly different from your past position (the whole pagan world believed in a "world of myth"). Unfortunately, you seem to be digging yourself deeper into this particular trench, and it seems unnecessary. If you merely changed your mind, then I would take it as a sign of honesty. I certainly wouldn't hold it against you. That is what honest scholars do. Bart Ehrman is on record as having changed his own stated position in the course of his own career. I appreciate him for that. Of course, I can't speak for your many loyal readers who tend to treat your claims as gospel truth, and I can see how that may be a problem. At least now I know what position you are willing to defend and what you want your readers to believe, which is progress. I am willing to put this matter behind us if you are willing to discuss the most relevant points. So, any time you are ready, you can supply the evidence that ancient mystery cults believed in this "World of Myth" you have in mind. It is an extraordinary position, because I understand that we know hardly anything about what ancient mystery cults believed ("mystery" being a key word). |
||
11-11-2012, 07:43 PM | #130 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: East Coast
Posts: 34
|
ApostateAbe:
Quote:
The Invincible Mithras The Gospel of Mithras The Companions of Mithras with a magnificent collection of pictures, which are nearly more illuminating than the text. Nothing similar must be available for the other godly heroes, I presume. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|