Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Are you sure your cite is correct?

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

There is something there about Psychological Phenomena and the psychological origins of myth. Freudian psychology made more sense than Jungian psychology in my view but a lot has happened and the DSM IV does not have neurosis or psychoneurosis as a psychological problem.
As I noted in my review of Otto Rank, In Freudian psychology, gods symbolize parents. In Jungian psychology, parents symbolize gods. And gods symbolize father and mother archetypes, which are components of the personality of the hero. Unlike Rank and Freud though, Joseph Campbell sees the relationship with gods as representative of the relationship between the subconscious and the ego – different sides of the personality.
One theory is that archetypes, which comprise the father and mother, are unconscious not because they are repressed but are dormant and have simply not been awakened or made conscious.
Segal notes in In Quest of The Hero that, "For Jung and Campbell, myth originates and functions not, as for Freud and Rank, to satisfy neurotic urges that cannot be manifested openly but to express normal sides of the personality that have just not had a chance at realization...While identifying himself with the hero of a myth, Campbell’s mythmaker vicariously lives out in his mind an adventure that even when directly fulfilled, would still take place in his mind. For parts of his mind are really what he is really encountering."

One of the things I would like to do one day, given time and resources, is to plough through the following books and hammer out the issues: Mark S. Smith’s The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Walter Burkert’s Ancient Mystery Cults alongside The Myth of the Birth of The Hero (1909), by Otto Rank, An outline of The Hero: A Study in Tradition (1956), by Lord Raglan and Drama and The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus (1976), by Alan Dundes and works by by anthropologists, psychologists, folklorists and comparative religion scholars like James Frazer (The Golden Bough), Joseph Campbell (The Hero with a Thousand Faces).

Time. :banghead: Time :banghead: Grrrr :banghead:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Or perhaps Christ draws his great mystical parable from his own Jewish tradition:

Rabbi Hillel said, "There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already eaten him in the days of King Hezekiah." (Sanhedrin 99a)

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

But what can it mean? Is this Micah 3:2-4? Who was eaten in the days of King Hezekiah?

Originally Posted by No Robots

I haven't a clue. The point is that the eating of the Messiah was a familiar trope.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Assuming the citation to be accurate, what is the context of the verse?

Originally Posted by No Robots

I haven't a clue. The point is that the eating of the Messiah was a familiar trope.

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quite certain. Here is a discussion. 99a is the folio number, not the chapter. You can read it here (warning: this is an antisemitic website that has posted the Talmud for its own reasons). This version uses the euphemism "enjoyed" in place of the literal "eaten".

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Ah, I see why I'm getting confused. I'd assumed when you referred to Jesus' "own Jewish tradition" that you were referencing the Mishnah, since it's substantially earlier than the remainder of the Talmud. My bad.