Horatio Parker

when I read this passage and thought of the recent thread about how/when Xtian belief became literal:

"....whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom, since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks. Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters. So also Ochus, the most cruel and terrible of the Persian kings, who put many to death and finally slaughtered the Apis and ate him for dinner in the company of his friends, the Egyptians called the "Sword"; and they call him by that name even to this day in their list of kings. But manifestly they do not apply this name to his actual being; they but liken the stubbornness and wickedness in his character to an instrument of murder. If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is not less and evil than atheism."

Isis and Osiris

GakuseiDon

Yes, the allegorical approach was quite common at that time, and early Christians attacked the pagans for it. Here is Tatian:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory... Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed.

Aristides, writing probably around 120-130 CE, attacks the Greek gods as inventions:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html

And he (Zeus) cast out Kronos fettered into darkness. Great then is the error and ignominy which the Greeks have brought forward about the first of their gods, in that they have said all this about him, O King. It is impossible that a god should be bound or mutilated; and if it be otherwise, he is indeed miserable...

And again they say of Tammuz that he is a god. And he is, forsooth! a hunter and an adulterer. And they say that he was killed by a wound from a wild boar, without being able to help himself. And if he could not help himself, how can he take thought for the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or should die by violence is impossible...

All this, then, O King, have the Greeks brought forward concerning their gods, and they have invented and declared it concerning them.

Origen speaks on the difficulty of separating history from 'figurative' accounts:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to show, with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility. For suppose that some one were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or AEneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans? And suppose, also, that some one disbelieved the story of OEdipus and Jocasta, and of their two sons Eteocles and Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of half-virgin, was introduced into the narrative, how should we demonstrate the reality of such a thing? And in like manner also with the history of the Epigoni, although there is no such marvellous event interwoven with it, or with the return of the Heracleidae, or countless other historical events. But he who deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep himself also from being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as to what statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such inventions, and from what statements he will withhold his belief, as having been written for the gratification of certain individuals.

(ETA) In a way, i think this lies behind some of the subtext behind Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

[Trypho said:] "But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," [Justin] said. "For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

Then again those who were in his company laughed, and shouted in an unseemly manner.
...

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

Horatio Parker

One difference would be that Xtianity specifies events at a certain point in history, whereas the Greek and Egyptian myths occurred in a primordial past.

Logos or empirical thinking was still a new concept and perhaps by the rather loose standards of the time, the Gospels fulfilled that requirement. I'm reading "The Messiah Myth" (or via: amazon.co.uk), and if it's true that there are no really new ideas in the NT, that it's a rehashing of centuries of near eastern tropes, then why Xtianity have the success it has had? It would seem to be because of the very thing that now works against it: inerrancy and literalism.

aa5874

It was Constantine the Emperor of Rome who made Jesus the New God of Rome and before that Christians were RIDICULED and called ATHEISTS and CANNIBALS.

The Emperor Julian thought the Jesus story was a MONSTROUS fable but died too soon to make any lasting changes.

It must NOT be forgotten that there were NUMEROUS sect called Christians and NOT all believed the Jesus story. Some Christians LAUGHED at those who Believed in the story of Jesus.

Horatio Parker

That's good to know; although they lost to the literalists.

Can you recommend any reading on the subject?

Roger Pearse

That is very interesting. Few people in online fora read these sorts of works; they tend to quote mine them instead. Are you reading the "Moralia" as a whole? (Quite a large task!) I'd like to get into Plutarch.

The tendency to allegorize the myths of the gods, and in particular elements which were shameful or embarassing, predates Christianity. I believe (iirc) that it belongs to the Hellenistic period. The pagan myths were under steady attack by the philosophers during this period, and consequently people were obliged to allegorise the objections away.

Likewise I seem to recall reading that the Jews in Alexandria in the same period started to apply the same technique to the Old Testament, and for much the same reasons. I don't know on what that is based, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Horatio Parker

We were visiting and our host had a shelf of classics. I'd never read Plutarch, but I read his life of Alexander. I liked him.

I read somewhere that Plutarch wrote the best account of Egyptian religion, that's what drew me to Isis and Osiris. Thank you NYC public library.

I'm not planning on reading all of the Moralia at this time.

mountainman

That is a very interesting observation Horatio Parker.


Constantine managed to convinced himself that he'd had a religious experience.

jgoodguy

Microsoft got big in its early years by marketing other folks ideas. Other examples may be out there.

Horatio Parker

Are you arguing that the success of Xtianity was dependent on Constantine? I'd guess the outlawing of other religions had more to do with it than a single emperor. If not Constantine, then somebody else. And in turn that raises the question that maybe there's something intrinsic about Xtianity that caused the reversal of centuries of religious tolerance. IE that it was "scientific" fact. Just a guess, really.