Dave31

Right, she says at the top of her mythicist article that the WORD mythicism has been around for centuries. What's new is her succinctly explained mythicist position.

The Mythicist Position video (read the links in the info box too)



What is a Mythicist?

mountainman

Thanks Dave31.

DCHindley

I got the impression from reading their book The Jesus Mysteries that they believe in a set of universal myths, much like Jung's archetypes (subconscious concepts imprinted in our genetic makeup, instinct like) that manifest themselves in our consciousness as myths about x or y.

They do manage to identify a great number of mythical elements in ancient literature (Gandy is a Classicist), which Freke (a professor of philosophy) manages to give a new-agey sort of spin.

So, if one wants to see the origin of Christianity as one more expression of an uber myth about a dying god who comes back to life, these are the guys to see. Many of us, on the other hand, find the idea a bit warm and fuzzy and syrupy sweet.

Here is my review of their book posted on Crosstalk2 waaay back in 2001:

----- Original Message -----
From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:01 PM
Subject: [XTalk] Freke & Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries_

I was able to buy a copy of this book a couple days ago. According to the dust jacket, Timothy Freke has a BA in philosophy and Peter Gandy has a MA in classical civilizations, and [the two] have co-authored three previous books, _The Complete Guide to World Mysticism_, _Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharoahs_ and _The Wisdom of the Pagan Philosophers_. Pretty much popular level stuff, it seems.

Usually when I check out a new book I look first at the critical notes. These take up about 64 pages out of a total of 343 (18% of the book), and it appears they want this book to be taken seriously. These cite all sorts of authorities, including primary sources, but rely heavily on secondary sources even for points that are seminal to their thesis. They also have a bibliography (7 pages with roughly 220 works cited), which features authors who are all over the map as far as orientation. I noticed J. Allegro, G. R. S. Mead, G. A. Wells, and Carl Jung mixed in with specialists on the Greek mysteries and translations of the classics (no LCL editions, only Penguin editions).

Another technique I like to employ is to look at the final chapter first, as this usually tells you the most about the authors' orientation and/or agendas. They appear to believe that "[m]ystics of all spiritual traditions have taught that there is only one Truth, ever present and never changing" (pg 255). To them, Christian mythology was created to serve the purposes of a mystery religion and is not based in any way on a real Jesus, but rather is synthesized from the common myths of mystery religions in general. This truth has been hijacked in the interests of "Literalist Christianity," which "has ... been the cause of deep divisions". They hope that their Jesus Mysteries Thesis (it's official, I guess) will offer an "opportunity to heal the wounds left in the Western soul by these dreadful schisms" (pg 254).

Reading through several chapters, I found them using generalities quite a bit more than made me comfortable. The portions on the mysteries themselves are less tedious than those on Christianity, which almost come across as a lecture (in the negative sense). They come across as people who "know" exactly what has going on in ancient minds, and all things seem to be interpreted from their perspective that a universal mystical truth existed (and exists).

As for the parallels between Christian traditions and the myths of the mystery religions, which on the face of things do make me scratch my head and ponder, I would think that the reader would derive most benefit by tracing back the footnotes to the primary source documents and creating a database of parallels as well as devising a means to grade their similarities and differences. The worse that could happen would be that the reader would know a whole lot more about such parallels than s/he did before. I am very probably going to do just this at some point in the future, solely due to the prompting of this book.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Eh, maybe it's just me.

DCH

Dave31

For the record, here's a quote from Richard Dawkins about part 1 of Zeitgeist on religion:

Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1

And here's Carrier saying Zeitgeist and all copies of it should be burned in front of an audience at a lecture

Richard Carrier on Zeitgeist part 1

And a response to them.

Dave31

DCHindley,

Freke & Gandy seem to have gone off in a completely different direction from their book The Jesus Mysteries from 2001. That's why I say I seriously doubt that they'd even be interested in a mythicist project. I just don't think they'd be interested.

Dave31

While I do consider myself an atheist in the weak/negative sense, I do agree with Sam Harris in this video of his lecture at the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) '07' conference about the "dangers" of "atheism":

Sam Harris on the "dangers" of "atheism" - skip to 4 minutes


Which is largely why I posted this thread here on the mythicist position. It may be a better argument to make to some theists and agnostics (even some atheists need to learn about the case for mythicist) etc. Arguing atheism to theists is and always has been a non-starter since they're scared to death of it. Perhaps the mythicist position argument wouldn't scare theists nearly as bad?

The case for mythicism and the mythicist position demonstrates with primary source evidence that the origins of religious concepts are founded on natural phenomena. It's an Occam's Razor explanation that I would think most atheists would appreciate including Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest:

Acharya's Work Complements Sam Harris's Philosophy

Toto

What's your point here, in your own words?

For the record, you posted these before. Carrier was speaking informally and probably sarcastically about burning copies of Zeitgeist, but anyone who views the video will get a good idea of his position - by promoting bad or easily debunked arguments for mythicism, Zeitgeist has made life more difficult for a responsible mythicist.

We have seen this in action here. ApostateAbe has said that he arrived at his current position because he initially believed some of Acharya S's arguments, and found that they couldn't stand up to a challenge.

Toto

Peter Gandy is currently participating in the JesusMysteries list on yahoogroups.

Freke and Gandy have been consistently interested in mysticism and a sort of neo-gnosticism from the beginning. They are more interested in the religious aspects of the subject than a purely academic study.

If you like videos, this is interesting: Freke and Gandy on psychedelics in the initiation of mystery religions

eta:

aa5874

Well, you made a remark about Acharya S that is erroneous and have failed to admit you were wrong. That is the point.

Acharya S did NOT claim the term "mythicism" and by promoting erroneous information about Acharya S, using YOUR OWN WORDS, "you have made life more difficult for a responsible mythicist"

You are promoting a strawman argument.

You know that ApostateAbe thinks that Doherty's argument are weak for the SUB-LUNAR.

Dave31

Toto "Carrier was speaking informally" ???

He was speaking in front of an audience at a lecture. Why do you insist on making excuses for him? Carrier merely demonstrates his own prejudism and biases with such irresponsible outbursts as claiming "Zeitgeist and all copies of it should be burned" in front of an audience at a lecture. It's very unprofessional and unbecoming of a professional scholar. There is absolutely no excuse for Carrier. Carrier's unprofessionalism and irresponsible outbursts make life more difficult for responsible mythicists who actually know what they're talking about.

Carrier has made egregious and sloppy errors in his criticisms of Acharya's work before, such as his Luxor critique, for example:

These arguments in response to historian Dr. Forbes seem stronger than any argument I've ever seen Carrier make on the case for mythicism.

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

Those who really know what academia is will recognize the list above as the best of the best and most highly respected institutes of higher learning. Hand-waving dismissals like Carrier's or Dawkin's simply will not suffice.

Carrier and Dawkins are welcome to review the 'Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes' as well as write a review for the 'New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010).' If they find errors I'm sure Acharya will make any necessary adjustments.

ApostateAbe's debate was several years ago and I've never seen him provide a link to it. It seems to me that it may have had more to do with his own debate skills at that time. ApostateAbe is obviously still upset over it as he has been blaming her for his lost debate and smearing her for it ever since. He's still bludgeoning her to death for it to this day. I think it's time for him to grow up and get over it. Maybe he would have greater appreciation for her book Christ in Egypt.