Actually, I should say that it’s not typical of Late Antique Greco-Roman mythic literature. I don’t know how typical it is of actual religious traditions in the ancient Levant.
Harpur does cite this book and I may give it a try.
One of the things we discussed at our book club last night is that Harpur almost needs to broadcast the ‘I’m still a Christian’ message - otherwise few Christians would pick up the book at all. Part of the motivation for some in our club was how does a christian call christ pure myth and still want to describe themselves as a christian. I don’t doubt that Harpur defines himself as a Christian though I doubt many in certain denominations would agree. Our club is filled with folks who used to go to church - only one still does. We’re somehow I think grasping to find something fulfilling in the religious text we grew up with, without having to turn off our rational brains to do so.
In our discussions we’ve decided to act as a jury and it does seem that we’re coming to this conclusion. I am almost left wishing Harpur didn’t bring up the whole Egyptian thing - left it at ‘the mythology of christ was influenced by various dominant cultures of the time’. It’s ultimately detracting from the rest of his arguments which seem much more sound.
Yes -w e’re just getting into this. We’re still deciding on whether a purely mythical reading is truely providing more profound insight into the text than if we believed there is a fragmented historical core to the story. And for me anyway, I’m really evaluating whether it matters at all.
Do tell - what is the Tanakh?
Harpur’s book is hardly original. The defrocked Church of England priest Robert Taylor advanced the same arguments for the mythical character of Jesus and the Egyptian origin of Christianity in his Diegesis (Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity
Never Yet Before or Elsewhere so Fully and Faithfully Set Forth) published in 1829.
See in particular Chapter VII -" Of the Essenes or Therapeuts … Differences of opinion with respect to them … Every thing of Christianity is of Egyptian origin … Apostolic and Apotactic monks … The Therapeuts were Christians before the Augustan Era … Eclectics …The forgery of the gospel ascribed to mongrel Jews."
The Hebrew Bible, AKA the Old Testament.
As Diogenes said, the Jewish Bible, equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament. Deuterocanonicals (“The Apocrypha”) are not included.
The name’s interesting – it’s an acronym (remember that Hebrew script shows vowels by diacritic marks rather than actual letters):
T = Torah, the five books of the Law
N = Neba’im, the books of the Prophets (which, in addition to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Malachi, and the rest, includes Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings, the “historical books,” which are regarded as focusing on the prophets whose work is recorded in them)
Kh = [a Hebrew word I don’t recall], “the Writings” – Psalms, Proverbs, Esther, Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Solomon, and suchlike non-Law, non-Prophet books
These look helpful - very much appreciated.
Thanks
Harpur believes that the old testatment, particularly the penteteuch and the king david/solomon stories are all myth, and yes, that they too are reliant on egyptian mythology. So yes, the n.t. is echoing the o.t. - Harpur is simply going farther back than that in trying to draw out the origins of all these stories.
He readily admits the parallels are not really direct in that hundreds and thousands of years have put the stoires through a mix of cultures and mixing with other stories and agendas.
I’m believing more and more that Harpur’s thesis is only weakened by trying to draw everything back to the egyptians as the rest of case for Jesus as myth is much more convincing. (note stuff on paul above)
Harpur readily admits he’s not putting forth a new idea as far as the egyptian sources go - he’s really just repeating the ideas made by others but trying to bring attention to it. I think essentially he’s published the book to try to undermine fundamentalists - but really no typical fundamentalist would even pick up the book.
An interesting link to Robert Taylor’s work - I’ll take a look at chap 7 - looks interesting.
I had no idea - I thought it was just called the Torah - thanks for the englightenment.
Diogenes…
That being the case see my response to old testatment - it also being myth and shaped by egyptian mythology (according to harpur anyway).
Ok, let us start with the Man I like to call the Historical Jesus. A young man out of Nazareth, he became interested in religion, and began teaching. This was pretty common for that time- many teachers, Rabbis, messiahs, prophets and such like were extant during that period. It is not impossible that Jesus’s parents (one, the other or both- more likely his Mother) could trace a line back to a figure who could trace a somewhat more tenuous line back to the Semi-mythical King David. Likely thousands could at that time. (Note that the great Rabbi Hillel- who died around AD10- was also thought to be able to trace his lineage back in that manner). Nothing miraculous or taken from any Pagan faith is nessesary for this part.
He had a good speaking style, and a ready store of Parables, humorous stories, and such. Jesus had a ready wit and a quick comeback for those trying to corner him theologically. Some of His teachings are rather close to that of Hillel- love, forgiveness, "do unto others’ and such, and were not unlike some of the more liberal Pharisaic teachings. Nothing miraculous there- just a Man who was very good at putting into words some of the teaching that were coming into vogue at that time- and likely adding a few of His own, of course. Again, nothing that seems to be taken from the Egyptians (and trust me, with thousands of gods, a powerful preisthood that didn’t want the populace to* think* about anything, and a religion that goes back for 3000 years with plenty a large changes- you can either get very little straight dope- or anything at all you want out of Egyptian Mythology). Just a simple man and a great teacher.
He gathered a few apostles, and likely had a few hundred loyal followers. Again- nothing extraordinary for that place and time. In fact, if the story had stopped there, Christianity would likely have become a minor Jewish cult like the Essenes. It isn’t even impossible that a few teachings of Jesus would have made it into the rabbinical works compiled a few decades later. Some few Talmudic experts might speak today of one “Joshua of Nazareth- a devotee of the Hillel school”. Perhaps there were a few minor miracles on the "lay on hands’ type- all of which can now be explained by the power of postive thinking and pychosomatic injuries. Again- no real Miracles required, or Pagan Mythology or whatever- holy men have been laying on hands since the first Shaman, some million years ago.
But then, due to Politics- this man was crucified. Again- not uncommon for that period (Romans were famous for it, even), doesn’t require any Egyptian teachings, mythology or anything. Not suprising, even.
After His death- some of his Apostles stayed together. They likely had a book of His teachings. Not a biography or history- just His Words. The- the Miracle occured. A man- likely the Greatest Salesman in the history of Mankind- a Jew named Saul- had a vision and an epiphany, and went out and “sold” those teachings to the Gentiles.
All the rest- the “Virgin Birth” and such- could well have been taken down afterwards, when the Gospels were written. In fact- none of the Gospels were apparently written by men who had personally known Jesus. The lone possible exception is the Gospel of John- IMHO dictated by that Apostle while on his death bed, sometime in John’s 90th year or so. Note that the Gospel of John skips all that “Virgin birth” stuff and other rather doubtful and strained early biography that the Synoptic Gospels contain.
Thus, if one assumes that Matthew and co tacked that stuff onto the story of the “real Historical Jesus”- one needs only to assume that they thought that would help convince people, and it was a “pious fiction”-- and some of that could have been based upon some Easterm Mystism prelevant in that area at that time. or, even given them the complete benefit of the doubt- they went around and asked about the Biographpy of a man several decades after he died- and gathered up all the 'best parts" that people remembered (or mis*-remembered) as “Gospel”. Look at George Washington- a very very real histocial figure, and a great man- and all the Myths that dudes ‘remembered’ and passed down about him. Just because the tales of the Cherry tree and the dollar thrown across the river are Myths- doesn’t mean there wasn’t a real Geo Washington, a real hero and great man. I’d have to say the opposite is true- the fact that there are myths about a real Historical figure just validates that persons reality.
DrDeth, that’s pretty much exactly how I see it as well. If I had anything to add it would only be that I suspect that he was a disciple of John the Baptist before he began his own ministry.
Well, yes- I failed to mention that- perhaps* disciple *might be too strong a word for the relationship. But I basicly agree.
Well, I only meant “disciple” in its benign Latin sense- “student.”
You guys aren’t far from my perspective, except that I think two or three of the Gospel writers are who they’re identified as (Matthew being the definite exception, for reasons Diogenes and I have riffed on several times before, and John being either the work of the Beloved Disciple or the mysterious John the Elder, building on teachings of the Beloved Disciple).
Two questions, though, arise:
- WTF is the deal with the post-Resurrection appearances? It’s one of Paul’s big hoo-hahs – while he essentially ignores the historical Jesus pre-Crucifixion, he’s hot on the post-death appearances. And all four Gospels, as we have them, make a point of mentioning them (never mind what ending Mark started out with – I really don’t think it cut off with verse 8).
Something happened to motivate the Apostles to make a big deal about this, and to make that kind of impression on Paul. I don’t necessarily demand the rescuscitation of the crucified physical body – but I’m firm that something out of the ordinary underlies all those stories. (See I Corinthians 15 for Paul’s take – a “spiritual body” as opposed to either a limited physical resurrection or a disembodied spirit.)
I don’t have a problem with leaving this “a mystery.” (In John’s usage, not the sweep-it-under-the-carpet sense of modern usage.) But I do insist on the idea that it was not purely whole-cloth invention.
- I see absolutely no reason why the Virgin Birth is at all important to the story. Unlike a bunch of Christian theologians with sexual hangups, the God of the Bible seems to like the idea of sex – He invented it, called it good, encouraged people to marry and enjoy it. But if I assume that the background story on Luke is largely accurate, then clearly he, who if anybody ought to know the mechanism of baby-making, is reporting what he got “straight from the horse’s mouth” – since he’s alleged to have become good friends with the B.V.M. in the years after his own conversion. I have no clue why such an event is important, or how it came about, but my best guess is that it’s not an attempt to duplicate Mithras or any of the other fatherless demigods wandering around the religious landscape of the Middle East in ancient times, but a strange bit of factual occurrence.
And that irks me – it’s one of the elements I find least essential to a faith in Christ. But it seems to be valid, nonetheless, even though there’s an excellent explain-it-away-as-a-legend-duplicate scenario that would work perfectly well.
Odd.
That’s alot of bandwidth boys
How 'bout some cites?
I’ll avoid another debate about traditional authorship and politely walk past the Virgin Birth thing and just skip to the Resurrection. My working hypothesis for HJ is still stalled on working out exactly how the appearance traditions began, who they began with and exactly what their nature was. The earliest written tradition is from Paul but he’s rather vague on details. He says that Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the 12 (which seems to suggest that Paul is unaware of that whole Judas thing) and then “500 bretheren” but it’s not clear at all what Paul means when he says that Jesus was “seen” by anyone, nor is it clear when they were seen and Paul’s chronology does not comport with any of the Gospels. Paul also says nothing about an empty tomb.
The appearance narratives in the Gospels are hopelessy contradictory and muddled.
For reasons I’ve argued before, I think the empty tomb was a Markan invention, that the apostles fled to Galilee after Jesus was arrested and that the location of his body was unknown either to the disciples or to Paul or the authors of the Gospels.
John Crossan has argued that the first Easter was probably something like a ten year period and that the first appearances were visionary experiences by Peter and later others. I’m not really satisified with that.
A story I find intriguing is the story of the Apostles on the road to Emmaus. They meet a stranger and when they stop to break bread with him, they recognize that the stranger is Jesus.
If (as Crossan argues quite strongly) nuch of Jesus’ ministry was activated by the practice of common dining (and the abolition of class divisions and prohibitions associated with it) then it would be satsifying to me personally to view the apperances as being symbolic recognitions of the “presense” of Christ during this ritual. IOW, the Apostles recognized the Christ was “with” them at the moment they activated the ritual of common dining.
Extending this out, I would hypothesize that the earliest proto-Christans began to speak of a symbolic or spiritual “resurrection” of Christ which Paul spoke of metaphorically and which the gospels later historicized.
I do think that Paul really did have a genuine transformative exerience of his own that motivated his mission and that he sincerely believed that Christ had spoken to him. Whether the specific story about the Road to Damascus was accurate, I don’t know but I do think Paul got gobsmacked somewhere along the way and that he practically invented Christianity after that.
Cites for what?
I agree. No doubt in my mind that Saul/Paul and others saw something that convinced them. I may not have much faith, but I believe that. Saul’s conversion was far too sudden, radical & convincing. The Apostles saw something that affirmed their faith. What that was- I don’t know.
As to the Gospels- Luke was likely written by Luke (a companion or Physician of Paul perhaps)- who indeed never met Jesus.
The Gospel of Mark seems likely to have been written by a disciple of Peter by that name. It is doubtful if then Mark then ever met Jesus in person, other than perhaps very briefly as narrated in Mark 14:51, when Mark would have been rather young. Perhaps Jesus’s brother Peter narrated part of this Gospel to his (Peter’s) “son” (as Peters referred to Mark once- we think). If indeed, it’s the same Peter that was the brother of Jesus, and if it’s the same Mark. Both very common names. “Mark” *could *have been the 1st written Gospel.
But if the Gospel of Matthew really was written by that Apostle, I’ll eat my hat.
I’m 100% there on (1.), but on (2.) I’m very far away. Hey, Luke’s gospel begins with the admission that the author is relying on other documents. And that’s exactly what modern scholarship has concluded as well: he used at least 2 (Mark and Q), and possibly more. So the idea that Luke and BVM hung out and drank beer seems far-fetched, to say the least. (Where does that legend come from, BTW? I’ve never run across it before.) Why would he rely on written accounts if he had the facts, ma’am, straight from the Mother of God?