Iasion

Greetings all,

Tercel asked : Well,
naturally I reached for
Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris"
which was written near the turn of the 1st/2nd centuries.

Plutarch,
explaining Isis and Osiris said -
if you think these "deeds and occurrances actually took place" then you are mistaken (lit. need to spit and cleanse your mouth - Aeschylus - Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag., 354).

But he also noted they are not just -
"loose fictions and frivolous fabrications" as made up by poets.

Rather,
they are -
"reflections of some true tale which turns back our thoughts to other matters".

Plutarch explicitly disagrees with the "deceitful utterances" of Euhemerus who argued the gods were merely early kings and such, later deified.

He notes the "better judgement" of those who hold these figures such as Osiris were demi-gods who surpass us humans, but share our lower nature.

He also expounds various simple allegories and symbolisms to which the myths can be applied.

But then (at 32), he introduces the opinion of those who are
"most perspicacious .. for expounding matters philosophically..."
who say that
"Osiris is the Nile consorting with the Earth, which is Isis"
and that they
"give the name Osiris to the whole source and faculty creative of moisture"

Plutarch continues at length on various symbolic and esoteric interpretations of the Osiris and related myths, especially relating Osiris to the element of Water, and the male creative principle.


Ovid
mentions Osiris early 1st century in his Metamorphosis as a God-like being.


Lucan
mentions Osiris early 1st century in his Civil War as a God-like being.


Josephus mentions Isis as a Godess.


Aristides
dismissed Osiris as delusion (early 2nd century?) :
XII. The Egyptians, moreover, because they are more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth, have themselves erred more than all. For ... they introduced some also of the nature of the animals, and said thereof that they were gods, and likewise of creeping things which are found on the dry land and in the waters. And of plants and herbs they said that some of them were gods. And they were corrupted by every kind of delusion and defilement more than every people that is on the earth. For from ancient times they worshipped Isis, and they say that she is a goddess whose husband was Osiris her brother.


Tacitus
early 2nd century just calls him a God :
Such is the most popular account of the origin and introduction of the God Serapis. ... The God himself, because he heals the sick, many identified with Aesculapius; others with Osiris



Minucius Felix
mid 2nd century argued Euhemerism - that the Gods such as Osiris were merely dead men.



Athenagoras
late 2nd century argued Osiris is merely a principle of nature :
while they deify the elements and their several parts, applying different names to them at different times: calling the sowing of the corn, for instance, Osiris (hence they say, that in the mysteries, on the finding of the members of his body, or the fruits, Isis is thus addressed: We have found, we wish thee joy),


Celsus,
according to Origen, considered the Osiris myth symbolic :
The mysteries relating to the Titans and Giants also had some such (symbolical) meaning, as well as the Egyptian mysteries of Typhon, and Horus, and Osiris.


Theophilus
late 2nd century, dismisses the Gods as dead men :
And, indeed, the names of those whom you say you worship, are the names of dead men. ... the god who is called Osiris is found to have been tom limb from limb, whose mysteries are celebrated annually, as if he had perished, and were being found, and sought for limb by limb.


Clement of Alexandria
seems to be an Euhemerist, saying Isis was a person -
Cadmus, the father of Semele, came to Thebes in the time of Lynceus, and was the inventor of the Greek letters. Triopas was a contemporary of Isis, in the seventh generation from Inachus. And Isis, who is the same as Io, is so called, it is said, from her going (ienai) roaming over the whole earth.


Its hard to say what view was more common, the excerpts above are not a carefully considered sample, just what fell easily to hand.

There seem to be several views discernable :[list=1][*]Osiris was a real person[*]Osiris is a God[*]Osiris is a story[*]Osiris represents some principle or element or something[/list=1]


These references may help to show the differing points of view held by the various parties.

Its rather interesting that the argument we are having here today about Jesus is not dis-similar to the argument they were having then about Osiris - its quite instructive to see the same sorts of issues were raised two millenia ago

Quentin

GreggLD1

What a cool resource! I think I'll have to nab a copy.Which was, of course, the point I was trying to make in bringing up Osiris in the first place. I'm not sure what asking the question "But do you really KNOW that such-and-such a god or such-and-such a myth wasn't based on a real person or event at its earliest stage" is supposed to accomplish. I mean, people have worshipped jillions of gods in the past few thousand years. Just observing all the things human beings can dream up should tell you that they're perfectly capable of inventing all the gods and goddesses their hearts desire without the need for some historical model to get things started. Geez--look at the Hindu pantheon. Would Tercel argue that there was a historical figure behind each and every one of those gods?

The sun, the moon, the stars (and the "patterns" in the stars), the planets, the tides, the ebb and flow of rivers, the elements, the weather, the cycles of the seasons, life, death, birth, sex, illness, emotions, animals, the hunt, planting and harvest, war, power, suffering...all of these things and more were available to provide an impetus to the fertile imagination of ancient man (and woman). We hardly needed direct historical prototypes in order to fill the world around us (and the skies above) with imaginary deities of all kinds. (I say "direct" in the sense of a specific individual being elevated to god status. Making a war god look like a bigger version of a typical tribal warrior is not the same thing. And, of course, neither is making a god or spirit out of an animal.) And as societies grew more sophisticated, it's not hard to see "primitive" deities tied to more or less "concrete" things evolving to represent more abstract concepts and ideas, such as laws and ethics. Again, there doesn't have to be an actual, historical "lawgiver" who gets turned into a god.

It's just illogical to think that every god or mythical event humankind has come up with has to be based on some specific person or some specific historical event. Some undoubtedly were, probably many, many more weren't. Obviously, in the vast majority of cases, we'll most likely never know for sure.

Gregg

GreggLD1

I've been thinking about this whole issue some more, and one thing that's clear to me is that many Christians don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around the fact that the way people (including Christians) thought and believed in the first century was different from the way people think and believe today. They insist on interpreting things through their modern perspective, and they seem to believe that all Christians have always thought and believed pretty much the same way, even 1st century Christians and 21st century Christians, despite all the contrary evidence in the form of raging debates stretching clear back to Paul's time and even wars and persecutions over doctrinal disagreements both major and minor, not to mention the existence of hundreds of Christian sects since the Protestant Reformation right up to the present day.

Because they, personally, would never believe in or die for a cosmic redeemer deity whose sacrifice and sin offering took place in a neo-Platonic heavenly dimension, they think they can call such a belief "stupid" or "silly" and confidently assert that 1st century Christians would feel exactly the same way as they do.

I believe that this is a classic example of the "argument from personal incredulity."

What's most astonishing about modern Christians using this argument, IMO, is that none of them would deny that millions of Jews and Muslims have, and would, lay down their lives in the name of G-d or Al'lah--invisible gods that are eternally separate and distinct from the world of matter, and which believers are absolutely forbidden to depict in any way, shape, or form. Yet modern Christians feel that they can assert with all confidence that there's no way a 1st century Christian could possibly have believed in, loved, and have been willing to die for a god who got as close to humankind as he could possibly get, descending to the lowest heaven, taking on the likeness of flesh, and suffering, bleeding, and dying to secure salvation for believers.

Gregg

Iasion

Greetings Peter et al,

You were right, that quote about the subsistence of Jesus did not support my view after all.

QuentinJ

Tercel

Why do you insist on labelling your own assumptions/beliefs as "fact"?

Given that 21st century Christians have spent 20 centuries studying the writings of those 1st century Christians, I'd say that's a fairly well justified belief.

Wars? Over doctrinal disagreements?


Who on earth has used the argument that they wouldn't believe in, love, or die for a non-physical Jesus? (something more specific than "modern Christians" would be nice. I'm a modern Christian but I'd rather be caught dead than make that argument.)

Radorth

Huh? My basic beliefs are found in the Nicene Creed and I don't think many Christians would disagree in principle, other than cult members.

Rad

Radorth

I don't get your point as it seems to contradict Doherty. Anyway I'm saying there is no way Christians would have been as plentiful, or would have gone through what they did unless the story had many witnesses, there were actual miracles, Gospels floating around, Jesus' marvelous parables and metaphors being related, twelve or more apsotles teaching them and setting an example to follow, and unless many people were telling very similar stories.


What would be more incredible to me is that they could have invented the whole thing in such a short time, a time made shorter, ironically, by the late dating of the Gospels. First we here there is no complete Gospel canon until 150 or so, and then they suddenly appear in complete form. And then they don't agree very well according to skeptics. (Well some say they agree to well depending on what they are arguing that day) It is as if JMer's find all this "evidence" for their myth theories, but it ends up contradicting itself, or raising all sorts of whodunit issues.

First we hear the Gospels are too different to be believed. Then Doherty tells us they were "copied" and are too similar to be believed. (He even accuses the author of John of copying) I figure they are just right, neither too variant nor too rigidly similar to be believed.

Sorry, it's just all to amazing for the skeptical Christians here. I like the swoon theory ten times better. You don't have to accuse 500 people for three centuries of making up stuff, burning evidence, lying, plagarizing, redacting, etc.


Rad

Radorth

At least with the swoon theory, you may reasonably assume that Jesus himself thought he was dead, and had some sort of NDE experience. Thus he and the apostles are simply mistaken and this argument is very hard to defend against.

Rad

Vorkosigan

It's a bad sign, Rad, when you reply to your own sterile and repetitive post.

Vorkosigan

Gregg

Well, explaining specifically HOW it contradicts Doherty would be helpful.But Rad, we've been over this already. The ground was already fertile and prepared--you had ancient myths of dying/rising savior gods enjoying new and widespread popularity through the mystery cults; you had people using the Jewish practice of midrash to draw new meanings and interpretations from Scripture; you had evolving ideas about who/what the Messiah would be; you had Greek and Jewish scholars and philosophers positing the Logos, the divine messenger or Revealer, and making connections between it and Wisdom or spirit and the Son of Man from the Jewish scriptures; you had widespread interest in Judaism, you had a general shift away from reason and toward faith and mysticism; you had a conviction among most Jews, and many non-Jews besides, that the end of the age was nigh. All these elements were in place and cooking away well before Jesus was supposedly crucified outside Jerusalem around 30 AD.

And in any case, it's already been pointed out to you that other religions have spread just as fast, if not faster. Mormonism is just one example. This was the Roman Empire--the roads were good, travel was relatively safe, there was a fair amount of literacy, word got around quickly.

And AGAIN:

1. If there were all these witnesses and all these miracles, WHY is Jesus not unambiguously attested to in the non-Christian record, outside of two controversial passages in Josephus (later references are all reactions to Christians and their beliefs, not to Jesus himself).

2. If the Gospel was being spread by the twelve Apostles and by other believers from Palestine, many of them eyewitnesses, and many of them still alive at the time of Paul's writing, why did SERIOUS disagreements arise so quickly over basic points of doctrine, such as whether there was a resurrection of the dead, or whether one had to follow the Jewish dietary restrictions? Why isn't there anything in Paul's letters like "Look, you heard the same Gospel I did, from people who knew Jesus personally, heard his words, saw his resurrected body. So why are you now entertaining all these ridiculous ideas? Are you deaf?" And for that matter, how could Paul himself have the sheer arrogance to disagree with James and Peter about anything, or argue that his experience of the risen Christ was exactly like theirs?

3. Why did all these Christian communities, most of which evidently had literate members, take at least 35 years to put the gospel story on paper--and then just one person does it, followed by a few others who copy much of "Mark's" work instead of writing their own, independent accounts?ONE PERSON, "Mark," "invented the whole thing," and he didn't invent it out of whole cloth. Most of the elements and motifs of his story were drawn from the Jewish scriptures. His intent may have been to provide a set of liturgical readings for his Chistian community, based on the Jewish liturgical calendar.Because earlier copies didn't survive, Rad. Copies were few in the first place (no printing presses), and preservation techniques weren't very advanced back then. Besides, once the scribe penned a fresh new copy, the old, worn one probably went into the trash. Another thing we've already been over. You try to single out Doherty on this, but he is just going by scholarly consensus on the Synoptics, and even though the view that John based his gospel on a Synoptic is not as widely held, Doherty didn't come up with it himself.

AGAIN, Rad...the Gospels are both very similar and quite different, AT THE SAME TIME. Large sections of them are clearly copied. The overall structure is clearly borrowed. On the other hand, there are also many differences--editorial changes, additions, deletions, etc. This is the opinion of literary experts and textual critics who have spent vast amounts of time studying this sort of thing. Doherty didn't make it up. First, Rad, most likely they didn't "burn" evidence, they just didn't bother to preserve documents after they'd been recopied. Deliberate destruction wouldn't have started until the power struggles began. Second, most of them weren't consciously "lying." Third, people have been "making stuff up" for centuries, if that's what you want to call writing allegorical stories and myths. Fourth, "plagiarizing" was a common practice back then. There were no copyrights. Nobody saw anything wrong with it. Fifth, the same held true for using literary license and redacting somebody else's work.

Sixth, if you think people WOULDN'T make stuff up, burn evidence, lie, or plagiarize if they thought it would help their cause, you must not know much about human nature. Once the struggle for power in the Christian church began, no serious historian would deny that *deliberate* fabrication, burning of evidence, lying, etc. took place. But no, I guess good Christians just wouldn't be capable of such things.

Gregg