Jeffrey Gibson

Well, it's not obvious to J.Z. Smith (Drudgery Divine: ON the Comparison of Early Christianity and the Reigions of Late Antiquity), Hans-Joseph Klauck (The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco Roman Religions), Manfred Clauss (The Roman Cult of Mithras), B. Metzger ("Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity"), A.J. M. Wedderburn (Baptism and Resuurection: Studies in Pauline Theology Against its Greco-Roman Background), G. Wagner (Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries), E. Fergusen (Backgrounds of Early Christianity), A.D. Knock ("Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian Sacraments"), C. Colpe (Mysterienkult und Liturgie: Zum Vergleich heidnischer Rituale und christlicher Sakramente), D.H. Weins ("Mystery Concepts in Primitive Christianity and Its Envioronment"), A. Tripolitus (Religions of the Hellenistic Age), and W. Burkert (Greek Mystery Religions) -- who are each extremely clear headed.

Could you please tell us specifically which Hellenistic mystery religions "Christianity borrowed from"? Could you also specify where to you this borrowing is evident?

Jeffrey

Richard Carrier

As I said, I haven't time to engage debates here. As my forthcoming book will show (so you can wait for that to engage the evidence), (a) elements of neurophysiology did exist as a scientific field in antiquity and had made many relevant advances by Tertullian's time, (b) in ancient parlance philosophers were the ones doing scientific research, even when they were doctors and thus doing it for the benefit of medicine.

As Aristotle explains and all subsequent authors concurred, a "doctor" sought to engage actions to heal, and thus when he instead sought to "know" through conducting research he was instead doing "philosophy," in particular "natural philosophy," which was the nearest ancient word for the modern term "science" (again as my book will demonstrate). Tertullian does speak directly on the uselessness of natural philosophy (which in antiquity constitutes a rejection of theoretical science), and in more texts than just the one at issue here.

In my talk I also distinguished modern and ancient science and the different responses, between pagans and Christians, to the methodological failings of ancient science, which at the time was called natural philosophy, and hence was a branch of philosophy.

Roger Pearse

I know that Jeffrey prefers to rely on appeals to standard academic sources. But as someone whose education wasn't big on these, I'd like see the ancient evidence for the proposition of borrowing (which is generally less voluminous, less easy to argue with, and involves real data). I'd like to see some of the Christian comments on paganism addressed -- do these show an attitude in which borrowing was possible?

Incidentally may I hope faintly that any reply will avoid indulging in the common fallacy that similarity or 'parallels' prove connection or derivation?

For those unfamiliar with it, this fallacy goes like this (this is a real case, unfortunately):

1. There are pyramids in Egypt.
2. There are pyramids in Mexico.
3. This proves that:
a. Egyptians sailed across the Atlantic.
b. Mexicans sailed across the Atlantic.
c. Atlantis really existed
d. A nation of spacemen who founded all our ancient civilisations really existed
e. All of the above.

In reality of course anyone who has square thingies will inevitably pile them in a pyramid-shape at some point, as is dictated by the common properties of being human and the force of gravity. (The number of people who imagine that eating and bathing are not activities of the same kind is quite astonishing, incidentally).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

If early xianity did not borrow ideas from the surrounding cultures it was "embedded" in, where did its ideas come from?

As I understand it there is "nothing new under the sun", everything has its roots in some-one else's thoughts and ideas - language would be impossible if we did not learn from others.

Co evolution is an equivalent biological term. Interaction a sociological term.

GakuseiDon

I think that this misconception is at the heart of a lot of misunderstandings, and I suspect that Carrier (as well as Malachi) hold the same kinds of misconceptions. These types of fringe groups -- including nearly all conspiracy groups (and I personally include Jesus Mythers in here as well) -- are not "anti-science", in the sense that they oppose science. They believe that if people could only look at the evidence with unbiased eyes, then science will support them. They are in effect "anti-mainstream". It is the current academic consensus that is the problem, not science per se. Creationists believe that a "true" scientist would recognise the truth in creationism.

IMHO there is a parallel that can be seen in the writings of early Christians. They were not "anti-natural philosophy", but rather they disagreed with how it was being used by the pagan philosophers of the day. They would have believed that the "true" philosopher would recognise the truth of Christianity (a point that Justin Martyr and other early pagan converts liked to drive home).

But this had nothing to do with the experimental sciences or encouragement for learning. AFAICS the early Christians actively encouraged such ideas. At worst, they were neutral to them.

I'm sorry, but I think that is simply incorrect. Tertullian rejected Greek philosophy where it touched on elements of Christian theology (like on the soul, bodily resurrection, etc), but AFAIK didn't reject learning about natural philosophy ("theoretical science"). Tertullian, like other Christians of his day, believed that the ancient Greeks developed their philosophical ideas from Scriptures, but perverted them. I suspect that he'd have thought that "true natural philosophy" would support the Scriptures.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd like to see it too. In fact, my request to Magdyln to "tell us specifically which Hellenistic mystery religions "Christianity borrowed from" was to be followed, should Magdlyn have answered that request, with another for concrete evidence from ancient sources that demonstrate that what was allegedly borrowed from the specified mysteries is really to be found in the mysteries that she'd point us to.

But please keep in mind that what I was responding to above was Magdlyn's claim that, after reviewing the evidence, "clear headed" people would find it self evident, and do nothing but conclude, that "Christianity in general, borrowed heavily from Hellenistic mystery religion".

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

Is not belief in the supernatural by definition anti intellectual?

Jeffrey Gibson

You are assuming that early Christianty was (and that early Christians thought of themselves as) somehow something other than a Judaism/something other than Jews. So the way you put things is a little question begging, since its premise (early Christianity was a separate entity, Christians were, and regarded themselves as, "other", vis a vis Judaism) is not established.

Besides that, even should we assume for early Christianity the situation in which "borrowing" occurs (sociological distinctiveness and initial cultural separation), the way you put things is not on point. The question is not whether Christianity "borrowed" any ideas from its environment (even assuming that the Hellenistic Mystery religions were in any way a part of "its" [Mark's Christianity? Matthew's? John's? Hebrews?] but whether it borrowed from a specific part of its environment -- the Hellenistic Mystery religions.

It's also whether Magdlyn's assertion that any clear headed person will/must, given the evidence, see as a self evident fact "that Christianity in general, borrowed heavily from Hellenistic mystery religion" has any validity.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

It would probably be unfair to pillory *Magdlyn* for repeating uncritically what others have foolishly said. We've all done this once, and few of us probably enjoyed the mauling that we got in return. I'm sure that he means no harm.

I would speculate that he is spending too much time reading that lower grade of atheist literature which relies on flattering the reader with his knowingness, all while stuffing his head full of ignorant falsehoods. The use of 'clear-headed' and 'intellectual' merely to signify 'person with whom we agree' is characteristic of this kind of writing.

It is merely that he has had the misfortune to repeat some of it here where it may be queried by the educated and knowledgeable.

Let's be kind to each other. It's unfair to blame the victim for being abused by dishonest scribblers, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon

I suspect that this is Carrier's argument, also, though I don't want to misrepresent him on this score, and am keen to see how he lays it out in his book. My fear is that he will produce the following type of argument:
1. Tertullian disagreed with elements of pagan philosophy
2. Pagan philosophy included natural philosophy
3. Therefore Tertullian disagreed with natural philosophy.

Tertullian certainly makes statements about the supernatural, and these are as much "at odds" with science today as 2000 years ago. But I don't think that believing in the soul or resurrection makes someone "anti-intellectual". Such a person may well have no problem with believing that theoretical sciences and the pursuit of knowledge is a good thing.