Llyricist

Why just _a_ person? Why not several? Why isn't Q just a collection of sayings and parables collected over decades---centuries.. or whatever?

capnkirk

Ultimately, I doubt there will ever be enough evidence to say definitively, nor is it a particularly important issue insofar as establishing the the mythological origins of Xtianity. This is something of a chicken and egg conundrum: did the earliest groups come together and write Q1 as a way to keep the ideas of its source alive? or did groups gather around an extant Q1 and themselves attribute it to a single source? In either case, it appears that the two threads join together with the initial Jesus movement groups who then created Q2 and Q3 as they evolved. So just how important is it which variant is closer to the (historically lost) truth?

The reason I lean towards a single person is because I basically agree with Mack's insight into the origins of the Jesus movement groups as described in the first two chapters of his WWtNT? I don't think that I could distill that information down to a single post-sized synopsis, so I won't try. Let's just say that it is a much more reasonable and insightful analysis than what F&G offer in the OP-referenced book.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Amaleq13

I agree that Mack's book is preferable. I enjoyed F&G's book but I have to agree with GD's assessment that their scholarship is too sloppy too often.

I found Doherty's review of Mack to be interesting as well. I think he makes a good point that it is difficult to understand how the plethora of "interpretations" Mack describes could have been inspired by the same historical figure's teachings/ministry. Would you say, considering Maccoby's work, that this multiplicity is more a case of different interpretations of Paul's theology rather than the actions/teachings of any historical figure?

CX

I confess I've not read Freke & Gandy (Bad moderator! Bad, bad moderator!) as I'm not all that interested in the debate between HJers and Mythers. I recall hearing though that F&G are self-professed gnostics. Is that the case? If so are there obvious biases in their work with that in mind?

Paradox

I did wonder about the validity of this book and did a small amount of research after reading it.
I had a hunt through a book I have on Greek mythology and found that Dionysus was torn into small pieces by one of the other gods and later reassembled - but that's about the closest similarity I could find with Jesus.
I haven't found out much about Osiris or the Bacchae either yet so tell me more.

Their theory (though it has been resurrected from other scholars) does still seem to be a reasonable hypothesis to me though - but I think I'll wait until I've read the book that Capn Kirk has suggested.

Celsus

TJM certainly indicates that they are.
Well TJM reads like an evangelical tract at times. It's pretty sloppy, but I don't think that the sloppiness has to do with their gnosticism as much as it has to do with their credulity and reliance on tertiary sources (Hoffmeier's (or is it Hoffman?) restoration of "On the True Doctrine" by Celsus especially).

Joel

capnkirk

The weakness that I see in Doherty's point is that the plethora of interpretations all claim the same source. He doesn't offer a plausible alternative; that is, if there were a number of independent simultaneously developing philosophies, why would they all claim to be "the" interpretation of the same common source. In support of Mack's view, it is primarily because the Jesus who was that source is so far removed from any familiar image (I don't think Mack would agree that Jesus had a "ministry" or a set of picked disciples.) that the observed variety of interpretations came about.

Consider this crude analogy: In a modified version of the familiar game of gossip, one person (the source) tells not one but 20 people each the exact same thing, starting 20 independent gossip chains of say 15 people each. How different would you expect the 20 different resulting versions to be? Besides, I don't think Mack claims all that much variance in the earliest Jesus movement groups. The really strong divergences don't appear until after the fall of the 2nd Temple.

That is not to say that there were not varied interpretations to Paul's Christology too. Mack sees Paul as a Diaspora Jew who probably only set foot in Jerusalem twice, but who had significant training in the Greek schools of logic and rhetoric. I would disagree with Mack's acceptance of Paul's Pharisee credentials though, and would question whether he was a Jew at all. It seems that his knowledge of Jewish scripture comes from LXX rather than the Hebrew (because in every instance where Paul quoted Hebrew scripture and there was a difference between LXX and the Hebrew, he used the LXX translation) indicating that he was not fluent in Hebrew which would preclude Pharisaic training.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Toto

Timothy Freke is in the business of running spiritual seminars on the gnosis - see here. I think that F and G aim to rescue true Christianity from the morass of literalist orthodoxy it has fallen prey to, and get back to the True Religion, based on goddess worship and the embrace of the divine feminine (I think, although I have not read the second book in the series.)

Their biases show up in their boosterism of all of the first century heretics, who they portray as enlightened and rationalist, much more intelligent and compassionate than the orthodox Christians. They may be correct, but their judgment just may be clouded, or they may be drawing conclusions based on less evidence than scholarship feels comfortable with.

I would not rely on the Jesus Mysteries uncritically. But I think that there may be some interesting insights there.

Amaleq13

I think Doherty does offer an alternative though plausibility may be in the eye of the beholder. The plethora of interpretations stems from the esoteric and ambiguous nature of the "original" belief. The concept of an intermediary Son of God is clearly open to interpretation and it is obvious how such a concept might inspire multiple applications. The actuality of an executed messianic claimant does not seem to offer the same level of ambiguity. Multiple early interpretations seem to me to make more sense as inspired by a philosophical concept rather than a historical figure. The latter certainly might result in divergent interpretations but I would expect that sort of expansion to take place much later after whatever initial impact the historical events created had diminished.

Perhaps I should have used the term "emphases" rather than "interpretations". I'm referring to the various communities Mack identifies as producing various individual texts and source documents. This seems to me to make more sense as inspired by a theology or philosophy rather than the actions or teachings of a historical figure.

I agree that Mack is mistaken in accepting Paul's status as a Pharisee. IMO Maccoby makes a very strong case against that claim.

GakuseiDon

You did the right thing on checking other sources of Greek mythology. You can see how F&G only give half a picture to fit in with their hypothesis.

In the "Death of the Godman" section, none of the gods they mention die through trees, stakes or wooden implements of any kind. But that is the thought that F&G try to put into the reader's head in the first couple of paragraphs.

For the gods/people mentioned in that section:

They say "Adonis was known as he on the tree". What they don't tell you is that he was killed by a wild boar.
Attis was killed after self-castrating himself.
Dionysus was ripped to pieces and eaten by the Titans when he was a baby. (He got better).
Osiris was ripped to pieces by his enemy, Seth.
Mithra wasn't killed at all.
King Pentheus is actually lifted up on the tree [b]by Dionysus himself[\b], and then ripped to pieces under the orders of Dionysus.
King Lycurgus was NOT crucified, but pulled to pieces by wild horses, under the encouragement of Dionysus. You don't piss Dionysus off and live to tell the tale! (Read the link, and instead of asking "What would Jesus do", ask "What would Dionysus do?")

The story of the Bacchae can be find on the net, and I urge you to read it, then go back and compare what F&G half-say about it.

In brief, the story is: King Pentheus has cheesed off Dionysus by not giving due deference to the god, so Dionysus decides to punish him. He takes on bodily form, goes to the King's city, and starts making remarks about the King. He also drives the women of the city, including the King's mother, bonkers and the women go out into the forest to live.

The King has Dionysus arrested and brought before him. Dionysus convinces the King to dress up in women's clothing, and leads him out to Dionysus's followers in the forest. Dionysus then puts the King up in the tree, and has his followers (including the King's mother) rip the King to pieces. Dionysus leaves, satisfied.

Compare that with F&G's description of Dionysus in the "Just man and the tyrant" section, where they compare Jesus's story with the Bacchae: "Like Jesus in Jerusalem, Dionysus is a quiet stranger with long hair and a beard who brings a new religion."

Now, that's just a couple of examples. There is no way that F&G can't know they are distorting the story. And the book is filled with distortions like that. But don't take my word for it - if you are interested, check out these things for yourself. Reread the book, take note how they deal out information in piece-meal fashion and check references for yourself.