lpetrich

13A: Introduction and Survey of the Cult - Apologetics in modern scholarship on the Mysteries / Survey of Eleusis, Dionysos, Orphism, Isis & Osiris, Attis, Mithras

13B: On Comparing the Cults and Christianity - Divorcing Christianity from the Mysteries: Reviewing Everett Ferguson, Walter Burkert, Hugo Rahner, Jonathan Z. Smith

13C: A Review of Gunter Wagner's Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries - A critical examination of Wagner's analysis of Romans 6:1-11 and defense of Christian independence from the Mysteries

13D: A Cult of Parallels: Pagan Myths and the Jesus Story - Did Christianity plagiarize mystery cult and Graeco-Roman hero mythology?

Earl Doherty covers a lot of ground in these ones. He first notes that similarities between the two were noted by early Xians, but that they explained away the similarities as a result of the Devil inventing fake versions of Xianity to keep people from following the True Religion.

And over the last century or so, apologists have been embarrassed enough by the similarities to make a big issue out of the differences. But even there, some similarities come through, like Jesus Christ being somewhat secretive about himself and his mission in the Synoptic Gospels. And Paul stating that he has conveyed a revelation that God had kept a secret until he came along. And secrecy was such an important part of the mystery religions that we don't know much about their initiates-only features.

After discussing the better-known mystery religions in detail, he goes on to rebut critics of comparisons. He is very careful to note differences, like Jesus Christ having an earthly resurrection in the Gospels, though he concludes that the Epistles have no earthly resurrection but more of a divine destiny as pagan dying gods had had. They helped the dead have happy afterlives instead of drab or tormented ones.

He also notes that the mystery religions are based on the premise that death is necessary for new life, and what may be their ultimate origin: the death and resurrection of crop plants.

He goes on from there to criticize Xian apologists for being shamelessly self-congratulatory, he often prefers pagans, especially philosophical pagans like the Stoics, though he is certainly critical of them at times.

He notes that while Xianity could well have influenced 4th cy. paganism, that the influence could also go in the opposite direction, from paganism to Xianity, especially in earlier centuries.

Pagans were not exclusivists -- worshipping one god did not preclude worshipping another, and early Xians like Paul would get very worked up over converts continuing to worship pagan gods. I think that many of us IIDBers seem to think that Abrahamic features like exclusivism are universal features of religion in general -- exclusivism is rare in non-Abrahamic religions.

He then goes into a detailed rebuttal of Gunter Wagner's Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, which attempts to rebut any mystery-religion connection to Xianity. That work is a favorite among amateur Xian apologists, which is why Earl Doherty went into such detail.

And among what he discussed was this oddity:
Romans 6:3, "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

In his final page in the series, he gets into the history of parallelism and how it went from popular to unpopular in academia. He notes that some alleged parallels do not fit very well; he concludes that Mithras was not necessarily born in a cave or attended by shepherds when he was born -- he was born from a rock.

He then concludes that the parallels are more in the manner of salvation than in biographical details, and states that Paul's Christ had no real biography. He got crucified and he then triumphed over death -- and that's all.

However, there are a few biographical parallels with pagan mythology, notably the virgin birth. Divine impregnations were common in pagan mythology, even extending to such historical figures as Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar, but were rare or absent in the Old Testament.

He mentions parallels with the biographies of Krishna and the Buddha, then goes on to Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile. As he so rightly points out, it's rather obvious that JC is a rather close fit, and such additional incidents as JC being a child prodigy in the Temple are also common folklore motifs.

He concludes by discussing some Nativity-story motifs; he concludes that they represent commonplace mythical motifs rather than conscious borrowing.

Something which he preceded by an announcement that he was working on the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Zeichman

It's unfortunate that he doesn't actually apply the Smith-like reservation to his discussion of Q. If all mythicists were familiar with Jonathan Z. Smith, most discussions on the topic wouldn't need to take place.

I've only read a bit of it, but there was one spot where he was mixing up analogical comparisons and generic associations, or perhaps even conflating the two. Needless to say, where he deviates from Smith is where he is the weakest. I still need to read all of it, but it's nice that he makes his views so well known on this matter.

youngalexander

I am working my way thru the articles, and have reached the discussion of the god Smith.

Needless to say, not having encountered this beast previous, I sent for his works forthwith!

Zeichman

If you're being sarcastic, I would recommend buying them anyway. Drudgery Divine is a classic. If not, cheers.

Looking back at my post, I see that I come off as a bit obsessed with him. Perhaps I am.

youngalexander

Just a gentle barb. Divine Drudgery is on the way.

13D: A Cult of Parallels: Pagan Myths and the Jesus Story - Did Christianity plagiarize mystery cult and Graeco-Roman hero mythology?

According to Euclid, parallel lines never meet. But Euclid didn't work in the field of comparative religion. There, parallels between the mysteries and Christianity seem to intersect all over the place.

Clearly the geometry is incorrect. Elliptical geometry is what is required!

You have to hand it to Earl. Having disposed of the early refutations of Mythicism Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case (with no counter response?), he now meets head on the dread Parallels!

Down they go, Ferguson, Burkert, Rahner and even the redoubtable Jonathan Z, (he, from whom one must not deviate). Then to the final bout, but what is this? A non-Euclidian curve ball!!

the fact [is] that in the earliest record of Christianity, as in Paul and other epistle writers, there is no sign of ... 'biographical' parallels. In fact, there is no biography at all.

Paul cannot be accused of 'borrowing' any of this stuff from the mystery myths ...

And since nothing biographical about the early Christian Christ can be found before the Gospels, the biographical elements become the responsibility, as far as we can see, of the evangelists.

Well, there you go. Game, set and, not quite match, but ...
I have left out the parallels, but you can read them up for yourself.
What say you Zeichman?

EarlDoherty

Don't worry, Alex, Chris will have a lot that will need saying when I post my lengthy "Fear and Loathing of Doherty's Use of Q" rebuttal to his own "Fear and Loathing" article. A lot of problems there!

It should be up by the weekend. I'll let you know.

P.S. Does anyone know if Gunter Wagner is still around? I'd love to alert him to my rebuttal article (13C) on his (1963) book. I don't think I've ever seen anyone call him on it. It's almost holy scripture.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Zeichman

I look forward to reading it, Mr. Doherty.

Alexander, I'm afraid I'm not going to have time to read through the full Doherty article for a while (exams, papers, whatnot), and it sounds like I'll have my hands tied up shortly with his response to my essay too. I appreciate the quick response time on that.

youngalexander

In my enthusiasm for geometry, I overlooked GW, of whom it has been sed;

"When I hear the word syncreticiser, I reach for my Wagner"

Ah, I miss them not!
I shall be off myself soon, for a few weeks in the wild of Tasmania.

xaxxat

That Jonathan Z. Smith must be a real character...

"He has had beef with Jay-Z, since he was the first with the moniker, and is the only person to defeat him in an MC battle."

"Smith is well known in the university community as a colorful character with unusual appearance (long white hair and beard, hunched cane-assisted gait, exceedingly large glasses, missing teeth) and a penchant for irreverence (he has been known to serve Miller Lite to students and flip the bird to the university's then-President Hugo Sonnenschein as a part of the annual Scavenger Hunt)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Z._Smith

Ted Hoffman

I have just read the first three articles - I am awed and impressed. The ease, the stylistic quality, the depth, the rich insights and the dexterity with which Doherty handles the issues and sifts through the texts is simply awesome.
Reading the articles, one gets to understand why Doherty is the doyen of JM hypothesis. His ability to digest huge amounts of texts across ages and to bring them together and forge new understandings and excavate new ideas is remarkable to say the least.
I for one, am guilty of buying the "Osiris cannot be compared with Jesus because he never really resurrected but was a king of the dead" nonsense. Doherty dispatches similar nonsensical ideas that are the stock in trade in apologetic sites like Tectonics and that HJers peddle here as a matter of course.
Most of us have encountered these apologetic arguments and sort of accepted them as valid in a blase way. The ferocity with which historicists have beaten back the parallels between Christianity and mystery cults and other religions has been intense and severe enough to make several people fold up their ideas in fear of unbridled derision and refutations. So loud and widespread has the collective campaign against what they came to label as "parallelomania" that the apologists were just about to consider that dragon slayed. But they may need to take off their sights from their new quarries and revisit this subject. At least the honest ones.
Doherty confronts the argments by scholars like Walter Burkert and Gunter Wagner directly and incisively demonstrates that their protestations against comparing Christianity with other religions are ill-founded and illegitimate. He does it thoroughly and he does it comprehensively. The dragon is awakened and my my my, NT scholarship is in trouble. Whether they stay their craven course and keep their heads in the sand or whether they muster the courage to drag them out and do the work they need to do. Of course, Price had also covered lots of ground in Deconstructing Jesus on this subject, but his attempts were somewhat veiled because of his ambiguous position (regarding the question of the historicity of Jesus) and they never got the highlight they deserved.
This is a very commendable effort and I can only thank Doherty for rescuing this dragon that was already falling in a fiery pit surrounded by historicist scholars and apologists holding pitchforks. I can't imagine anyone on the planet who could have done similar work and I think his contribution is simply invaluable. In my view, this is work is a turning point in NT scholarship and I hope it culminates in a published book. Preferably, the book's focus should stick to the same subject: ancient (mystery) religions and Christianity so that this subject is thoroughly banged and this work emerges as a definitive resource for anyone interested in comparing Christianity and other religions.
I just with Joel Ng was here because he had one fine mind and he was pretty impressed by Walter Burkert. I also expect Rick Sumner to have something to say in reaction to Doherty's articles because this was a subject we discussed at Ebla.