Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MarkA · 03-25-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

From Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology - 'God the Father of the Christian Trinity, the father-creator of Mary, God the Holy Ghost, her spouse, and God the Son, her slain and resurrected child, reproduce for a later age the Orphic mystery of Zeus in the form of a serpent begetting on hisown daughter Persephone his incarnate son Dionysus.'

Incarnate son???

What are the primary sources he adduces for these claims? Ther certainly aren't the NT for the ones he makes about Jesus.

And Dionysius the offspring of Presephone was never resurrected -- and certainly not in the sense that the idea of "resurrection" had in Jewsih thought.

Quote:

Adonis died, was reborn each spring after being immaculately conceived. Attis, another name for Adonis was intimately and consciously associated with Jesus. Frazer in The Golden Bough says, 'At least it is a remarkable coincidence, if it is nothing more, that the Christian and the heathen festivals of the divine death and resurrection should have been solemnised at the same season and in the same places. For the places which celebrated the death of Christ at the spring equinox were Phrygia, Gaul, and apparently Rome, that is, the very regions in which the the worship of Attis either originated or struck deepest root. It is difficult to regard the coincidence as purely accidental.'

Leaving aside the matter that Jesus was never thought to be "immaculately conceived (that's Mary in Christian tradition), what source does Frazer adduce that attests to Attis being such?

More importantly, Attis and Adonis are not resurrected. And they certainly weren't criminals who suffered execution. The parallels are forced.

Jeffrey

Are you regarding the NT as history? That is that these stories represent real events and not a mythological narrative? Do you think Jesus needed to be struck down by a thunderbolt and not crucified to be regarded by the later Gentile church as divine?

These parallels are not forced they are part of the mythological and religious traditions of the Near East and Greece. Clearly the writers of the NT were influenced by these traditions and they could not help but be influenced.

Jesus was not immaculately conceived? He was born with Original Sin? Where in the Christian tradition is that? Primary sources please. 1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus the Immaculate Lamb. Both Frazer and Campbell have been carefully analyzed and examined for long enough over the years and if you doubt their veracity or accuracy you should say so and tell us there is no evidence for their claims.

mountainman · 03-25-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Here's a review of Hart that appeared in Bull. Hist. Med., 2002

Quote:

Gerald D. Hart. Asclepius, the God of Medicine. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2000. xx + 262 pp. Ill. £17.50 (paperbound, 1-85315-409-1).

Gerald D. Hart is a retired hematologist and an amateur numismatist whose purpose in this volume is “to popularize Asclepius and interpret the present-day use of his staff and serpent symbol by various disciplines of the healthcare team”(p. xvii). Hart makes no claim to originality. He largely reproduces the views of Emma Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein in their magnum opus, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1945; reprinted 1998).

..[trimmed]...

Given that the book is largely derivative, professional historians cannot look for the historical rigor that they would normally expect of a historical monograph that deals with so controversial a figure as Asclepius.

..[trimmed]...

The strength of the volume lies in the attention that the author gives to the numismatic evidence for the cult of Asclepius. Of 513 sites at which the god was worshipped, 267 were connected with coins, and 211 sites are known only through numismatic evidence. This is an area that was conspicuously overlooked by the Edelsteins (who focused on literary rather than on archaeological or numismatic evidence), and Hart provides a popular introduction to the subject illuminated by many coin illustrations. While the professional historian will find much to criticize in this volume, the attention given to numismatic and archaeological evidence (especially from Roman Britain) sheds light on the cult of Asclepius that is missing from the Edelsteins’ study.

Gary B. Ferngren
Oregon State University
Soranos

Jeffrey

The primary review is Edelsteins’. Do you have a similar review for the earlier work of the Edelsteins’? Obviously the scholarship, or lack thereof to which you refer is reliant upon the estimation of the primary material of the Edelstein's, republished 1998.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-25-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Incarnate son???

What are the primary sources he adduces for these claims? Ther certainly aren't the NT for the ones he makes about Jesus.

And Dionysius the offspring of Persephone was never resurrected -- and certainly not in the sense that the idea of "resurrection" had in Jewish thought.

Leaving aside the matter that Jesus was never thought to be "immaculately conceived (that's Mary in Christian tradition), what source does Frazer adduce that attests to Attis being such?

More importantly, Attis and Adonis are not resurrected. And they certainly weren't criminals who suffered execution. The parallels are forced.

Jeffrey

Are you regarding the NT as history? That is that these stories represent real events and not a mythological narrative? Do you think Jesus needed to be struck down by a thunderbolt and not crucified to be regarded by the later Gentile church as divine?

We're not talking about the later Gentile church. We are talking about about the early/NT church. And we are talking about whether the items that Campbell points to when he's noting parallels can be found as part of early Chirtsian belief as well as whether he's represented correctly what ancient witness that date from before the writing of the NT say about Attis, Adonis, and Dionysius.

That's why I asked you to tell me the particular sources upon which Campbell's claims about these figures rest, so we can check to see whether what he claims was believed about them was really part of the 1st century portrait of these figures.

Why have you not given them to me?

Quote:

These parallels are not forced they are part of the mythological and religious traditions of the Near East and Greece.

So cite the sources that attest to these traditions and that demonstrate that they were part of 1st century mythological and religious traditions of/about Dionysius, Attis, and Adonis.

Quote:

Clearly the writers of the NT were influenced by these traditions and they could not help but be influenced.

And your evidence for this -- as well as for the antiquity of the traditions you adduce and the accuracy with which Campbell reports them -- is what?

Quote:

Jesus was not immaculately conceived?

Please show me where the NT states this.

Quote:

He was born with Original Sin?

False dichotomy and well as an appeal to an anachronism.

Quote:

1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus the Immaculate Lamb.

Which has noting to do with his birth.

Quote:

Both Frazer and Campbell have been carefully analyzed and examined for long enough over the years

And have been found by classicists to have cooked their evidence to fit certain aprioii

Quote:

and if you doubt their veracity or accuracy you should say so and tell us there is no evidence for their claims.

You made the claim (in your appeal to what these men say to demonstrate your point) that they are accurate in their statements about Adonis and Attis and Dionysus. The burden is on you to show what this evidence is and that it has been reported accurately and not anachronistically by Campbell and Frazer.

I suspect that the reason that you have not done so the first time I asked, but instead engaged in the rhetorical burden shifting exercise you just engaged in, is that you cannot do it.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-26-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Here's a review of Hart that appeared in Bull. Hist. Med., 2002

Gerald D. Hart. Asclepius, the God of Medicine. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2000. xx + 262 pp. Ill. £17.50 (paperbound, 1-85315-409-1).

Gerald D. Hart is a retired hematologist and an amateur numismatist whose purpose in this volume is “to popularize Asclepius and interpret the present-day use of his staff and serpent symbol by various disciplines of the healthcare team”(p. xvii). Hart makes no claim to originality. He largely reproduces the views of Emma Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein in their magnum opus, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1945; reprinted 1998).

Ludwig Edelstein (1902-1965)

Quote:

was a classical scholar and historian of medicine. He left Germany in 1933, and took up an appointment at Johns Hopkins University in 1934. Subsequently he taught at the University of Washington, the University of California, and the Rockefeller Institute.

If you have a problem with Gerald Hart's source .... now is the time speak up Jeffrey.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

03-26-2008, 12:25 AM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Jesus was not immaculately conceived?

Mate -
Jesus was born of a virgin,
but
MARY was immaculately conceived.

Getting them mixed up is a common noob error.

Iasion

MarkA · 03-26-2008, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Jesus was not immaculately conceived?

Mate -
Jesus was born of a virgin,
but
MARY was immaculately conceived.

Getting them mixed up is a common noob error.

Iasion

I do not know what a noob is but I am sure you can enlighten me.

Is this some sort of semantic game that Jeffrey is playing as well? Or are you both defending Catholic Dogma? Jesus was conceived by a union between the Holy Ghost and Mary. I presume that you do not imagine a spirt physically impregnated a human. Since Jesus could not be born in human form with Original Sin the theology meant that logically Mary had to be immaculately conceived, that is without Original Sin. Since the parents of Jesus were both without Original Sin he must have been born by immaculate conception. Please note the absence of capitals for immaculate conception meaning I do not see it as dogma in this argument but as a concept. I am not defending or defining Catholic Dogma merely explaining how a logical interpretation of these claims should be viewed.

MarkA · 03-26-2008, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Are you regarding the NT as history? That is that these stories represent real events and not a mythological narrative? Do you think Jesus needed to be struck down by a thunderbolt and not crucified to be regarded by the later Gentile church as divine?

We're not talking about the later Gentile church. We are talking about about the early/NT church. And we are talking about whether the items that Campbell points to when he's noting parallels can be found as part of early Chirtsian belief as well as whether he's represented correctly what ancient witness that date from before the writing of the NT say about Attis, Adonis, and Dionysius.

That's why I asked you to tell me the particular sources upon which Campbell's claims about these figures rest, so we can check to see whether what he claims was believed about them was really part of the 1st century portrait of these figures.

Why have you not given them to me?

So cite the sources that attest to these traditions and that demonstrate that they were part of 1st century mythological and religious traditions of/about Dionysius, Attis, and Adonis.

And your evidence for this -- as well as for the antiquity of the traditions you adduce and the accuracy with which Campbell reports them -- is what?

Please show me where the NT states this.

False dichotomy and well as an appeal to an anachronism.

Which has noting to do with his birth.

And have been found by classicists to have cooked their evidence to fit certain aprioii

Quote:

and if you doubt their veracity or accuracy you should say so and tell us there is no evidence for their claims.

You made the claim (in your appeal to what these men say to demonstrate your point) that they are accurate in their statements about Adonis and Attis and Dionysus. The burden is on you to show what this evidence is and that it has been reported accurately and not anachronistically by Campbell and Frazer.

I suspect that the reason that you have not done so the first time I asked, but instead engaged in the rhetorical burden shifting exercise you just engaged in, is that you cannot do it.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Jeffrey

Are you asking for proof that first century christians believed there was a link between the classical conceptions of divinity and their beliefs about Jesus? Demonstrating, like Campbell does, that these concepts existed and demonstrating, like the Bible passages that say Jesus was raised in Nazereth only a short walk from one of the important Greco-Roman cities in Judea do, and demonstrating that classical mythology as well as Near Eastern beliefs had been interacting with and influencing Judaism for centuries has been demonstrated many times by many people including by Campbell. If you dispute these conclusions then it is your responsibility to give your reasons and citations.

Campbell and Frazer are both perfectly acceptable references and my citing them is sufficent. I have no reason to question their conclusions. If you have objections then it is your responsibility to say what those objections are so further investigations can be done. Do not shift the burden of providing evidence to me when you are the one who has questioned the sources. What is your evidence that the primary sources are in conflict with the conclusions reached by these authors?

It puzzles me why you are so obsessed with disputing well known and accepted versions of myths. You may interpret their meaning differently and dispute the significance of their impact on christianity but you must give your reasons why not simply say I need to provide more evidence.

As for the immaculate conception please refer to my reply to Iasion.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-26-2008, 06:52 AM

[QUOTE=mountainman;5232408]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Here's a review of Hart that appeared in Bull. Hist. Med., 2002
[INDENT]

Ludwig Edelstein (1902-1965)

If you have a problem with Gerald Hart's source .... now is the time speak up Jeffrey.

Why?

And where in Edelstein & Edlestein do the pair make the particular "comparison" between, or the claims about, Jesus and Asclepius that Hart makes?

You haven't read Edelstein & Edelstein, have you, Pete?

mountainman · 03-26-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Here's a review of Hart that appeared in Bull. Hist. Med., 2002[INDENT]

Quote:

Gerald D. Hart. Asclepius, the God of Medicine. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2000. xx + 262 pp. Ill. £17.50 (paperbound, 1-85315-409-1).

Priests of asclepieia (p. 71)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Why?

And where in Edelstein & Edlestein do the pair make the particular "comparison" between, or the claims about, Jesus and Asclepius that Hart makes?

You haven't read Edelstein & Edelstein, have you, Pete?

The point is Jeffrey that Hart has. And his coins analyses are novel and quite thought-provoking. The appearances of Alscepius and/or Salus on the imperial coinage from the first century through to the year 324 CE - the year Constantine became the supreme being.

Constantine hammers the asclepia.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-26-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

You made the claim (in your appeal to what these men say to demonstrate your point) that they are accurate in their statements about Adonis and Attis and Dionysus. The burden is on you to show what this evidence is and that it has been reported accurately and not anachronistically by Campbell and Frazer.

I suspect that the reason that you have not done so the first time I asked, but instead engaged in the rhetorical burden shifting exercise you just engaged in, is that you cannot do it.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Jeffrey

Are you asking for proof that first century christians believed there was a link between the classical conceptions of divinity and their beliefs about Jesus?

No, I'm not. I'm asking what their particular conceptions of "divinity" was and whether there is any assertion in the NT of the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Quote:

Demonstrating, like Campbell does, that these concepts existed and demonstrating, like the Bible passages that say Jesus was raised in Nazereth only a short walk from one of the important Greco-Roman cities in Judea do, and demonstrating that classical mythology as well as Near Eastern beliefs had been interacting with and influencing Judaism for centuries has been demonstrated many times by many people including by Campbell.

Campbell demonstrates no such thing - and he asserts on the basis of anachronisms.

Moreover, where is his appeal to Sephoris, let alone that Sephoris was a hot bed of Attis and Addonis and Dionysiam worship?

Quote:

If you dispute these conclusions then it is your responsibility to give your reasons and citations.

I want to know what the basis of these conclusions are? What are the sources upon which Cambpell makes his claims and when are these sources dated?

Quote:

Campbell and Frazer are both perfectly acceptable references and my citing them is sufficent.

No it's not. No more than citing Bulfinch's Mythology or Edith Hamilton's Mythology is sufficient -- since they are paraphrasers and since Campbell and Frazer work from certain apriorri of the Myth and Ritual school that few contemporary experts in mythology view as valid (See Kirk, The Greek Myths, among others).

Quote:

I have no reason to question their conclusions. If you have objections then it is your responsibility to say what those objections are so further investigations can be done. Do not shift the burden of providing evidence to me when you are the one who has questioned the sources. What is your evidence that the primary sources are in conflict with the conclusions reached by these authors?

In other words, just as I suspected, you have no idea what the sources are upon which Cambpell and Frazer base their claims, let alone whether they are accurately and non anachronistically reporting what their sources say.

Thanks for confirming this.

Quote:

It puzzles me why you are so obsessed with disputing well known and accepted versions of myths.

But thats the point at issue. Were the versions of the myths of Adonis and Attis and Dionysius that Campbell outlines ones that were current in the first century? Or has Campbell cobbled together from later versions of these myths into a version that no one knew then?

You have begged the question by assuming -- without evidence --the latter and you have consistently avoided testing your own claim. Why is that?

Quote:

You may interpret their meaning differently and dispute the significance of their impact on christianity but you must give your reasons why not simply say I need to provide more evidence.

You do need to do so if you want anyone to accept your claim that in this instance Campbell and Frazer are to be trusted.

Quote:

As for the immaculate conception please refer to my reply to Iasion.

I saw this. And your proof that Jesus was "immaculately conceived" (a theologumen that was not articulated of anyone until the mid 1800s) is an assertion that is derived from a syllogism that is based on a question begging premise that the idea of original sin, especially as it was articulated by Augustine and subsequently by others, was something that first century Christians. let alone all (or any) of the Gospel authors, believed in.

It's rubbish.

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.