The Jesus Mysteries

[John T]

"The more we studied the various versions of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus, the more it became obvious that the story of Jesus had all the characteristics of this perennial tale. Event by event, we found we were able to construct Jesus' supposed biography from mythic motifs previous relating to Osiris-Dionysus"...The Jesus Mysteries, pg 5, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

**********************************

Here is the basic myth of Dionysus:

"The Dying and Rising God. Because crops die in winter and return in spring, Dionysus was seen as a symbol of death and resurrection. In another story about his birth, Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Demeter, the goddess of crops and vegetation. Hera was jealous of the child and convinced the Titans to destroy him. Although Dionysus was disguised as a baby goat, the Titans found him, caught him, and tore him to pieces. They ate all of his body except his heart, which was rescued by Athena *. She gave the heart to Zeus, who gave it to Semele to eat. Semele later gave birth to Dionysus again. The story represents the earth (Demeter) and sky (Zeus) giving birth to the crops (Dionysus), which die each winter and are reborn again in the spring."...Myths Encyclopedia

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Cr-Dr/Dionysus.html

Yep, sure sounds like a perfect match about Jesus. Not!

The reason for this bizarre book is just as bizarre as their reasoning. "It was a drawing of a third-century CE amulet. We have used it as the cover of this book. It shows a crucified figure which most people would immediately recognize as Jesus. Yet the Greek words name the figure Orpheus Bacchus, one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus....The "chance" discovery of this amulet made us feel as though the universe itself was encouraging us to make our findings public."....The Jesus Mysteries pg 12-13.

So, just which old academic book was this drawing tucked away in the appendices? As far as I can tell Freke & Gandy do not tell.
1. Can anyone find the original drawing?
2. Can anyone produce the original amulet?

On this flimsy pseudo-evidence they concluded Jesus is a myth based on Osiris-Dionysus?!?

How can we take them seriously when they take us for fools?

John T

[andrewcriddle]

There is a discussion about the Orpheus Bacchus amulet at http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm

The amulet is now lost, it did definitely exist, but is (or was) probably an early modern forgery.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

Jesus and Dionysus in Acts (John Moles: classics scholar)

Jesus and Dionysus in John (Mark Stibbe: bible scholar)

Jesus and Dionysus (John Taylor: classics scholar)

Interestingly not one of the publications discussed in any of these series of posts is by a mythicist. Each one of the authors writes from the perspective that Jesus was a historical figure.

[neilgodfrey]

Roger Viklund on the amulet: https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... n-english/

[outhouse]

How can we take them seriously when they take us for fools?



John T

You take any of them seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

Most modern biblical scholars and historians today, both conservative and liberal, reject most of the parallelomania between the cult of Dionysus and Christ, asserting that the similarities are superficial at best, most often vaguely general and universal parallels found in many stories, both historical and mythical, and that the symbolism represented by the similar themes are radically different

[neilgodfrey]

Most modern biblical scholars and historians today, both conservative and liberal, reject most of the parallelomania between the cult of Dionysus and Christ, asserting that the similarities are superficial at best, most often vaguely general and universal parallels found in many stories, both historical and mythical, and that the symbolism represented by the similar themes are radically different

Tell me, who are the "biblical scholars and historians, both conservative and liberal" who reject the biblical scholar Mark Stibbe's argument that the Gospel of John subverts the myth of Dionysus by deliberately drawing parallels between Jesus and Dionysus?

Then tell me who these scholar are who likewise reject the arguments of the classics scholars I mentioned above.

[Peter Kirby]

I like the work you are doing lately, John T.

Digging at the roots of the matter and getting behind all imposture and pretension.

Good work.

Since you are a fair-minded and serious fellow, when will you turn your criticism to the evidences of the historicity of Jesus? Once you're done skewering the other side?

And I should also ask, will you be reviewing anyone in detail and with sympathy, or will you treat everyone the way you treat the mythologues?

"One loosey-goosey take at reading the relics of the past, and you're out!" It is a hard saying. I'm afraid some of the disciples of Craig, Casey, Hoffman, et al. would have to turn away themselves, if that were the general standard.

Perhaps there will be one serious German scholar left whom you can trust. Or maybe a Dutchman, possibly an Anglican but I doubt it. Let us know.

[outhouse]

Mark Stibbe's argument that the Gospel of John subverts the myth of Dionysus by deliberately drawing parallels between Jesus and Dionysus?

.

His work is noted. But still applies to one gospel and everything in the wiki quote applies.

the similarities are superficial at best, most often vaguely general and universal parallels found in many stories, both historical and mythical, and that the symbolism represented by the similar themes are radically different

So lets look at them closely

1.In both the play and the gospel the prologue introduces themes of a divine being going to his home but being rejected by his family and his own people;
2.The protagonist is an unrecognized deity, a stranger from heaven, facing intense hostility and unbelief from the ruling elite of the city;
3.The goal of each deity is to alleviate man’s sufferings, and this through wine or symbolic wine;
4.The tragedy in both works lies in a failure to recognize a promised one who is really their own (Pentheus is actually a cousin of Dionysus — Cadmus was their grandfather);
5.In both the final suffering (passion/pathos) consists of ◦being dressed in humiliating garments;
◦being led out of the city to a cursed hill;
◦being hoisted on to a tree;
◦and there killed.

6.In both stories the women fulfill the role of the true worshipers of the visiting deity;
7.The enemies attempt to stone each deity;
8.“In both stories, the deity is ambiguous and elusive, often speaking and acting in such a way as to escape definition and capture.”
9.Each story is set a city that was noted as the centre of institutionalized worship, and becomes infamous for its unbelief;
10.Both Jesus and Dionysus have miraculous powers;
11.The tragic action is not centred on one hero only: the Jews and Pilate are also major victims in the gospel, as are Pentheus, his mother and Cadmus in the play.


Most of these qualify, do they not?

[John T]

I like the work you are doing lately, John T.

Digging at the roots of the matter and getting behind all imposture and pretension.

Good work.

Since you are a fair-minded and serious fellow, when will you turn your criticism to the evidences of the historicity of Jesus? Once you're done skewering the other side?

And I should also ask, will you be reviewing anyone in detail and with sympathy, or will you treat everyone the way you treat the mythologues?

"One loosey-goosey take at reading the relics of the past, and you're out!" It is a hard saying. I'm afraid some of the disciples of Craig, Casey, Hoffman, et al. would have to turn away themselves, if that were the general standard.

Perhaps there will be one serious German scholar left whom you can trust. Or maybe a Dutchman, possibly an Anglican but I doubt it. Let us know.

I'm sorry that I misconstrued the purpose of Christian Texts and History was to discuss Christian texts and history, not mythicism or astrotheology.
I thought this was a place to enjoy discussions like, the Council of Nicaea i.e. Arianism. Or about the ante-Nicene writers and heresy, no matter how loosey-goosey that may be. I would even enjoy a debate about the reformation and in skewering the false doctrine of predestination. But at last, the fault is mine for not knowing the true nature of the lay of the land.

With that said, I accept the admonishment from Peter and I shall end this thread to avoid further antagonizing of the mythicists and astrothologists.

Best wishes in finding what your looking for.

John T

[Peter Kirby]

Before you leave this thread, go over what Freke and Gandy actually said about the amulet in their book:

The reason for this bizarre book is just as bizarre as their reasoning. "It was a drawing of a third-century CE amulet. We have used it as the cover of this book. It shows a crucified figure which most people would immediately recognize as Jesus. Yet the Greek words name the figure Orpheus Bacchus, one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus....The "chance" discovery of this amulet made us feel as though the universe itself was encouraging us to make our findings public."....The Jesus Mysteries pg 12-13.

Close reading always pays dividends. It's not enough just to say that it is "bizarre" and give up. Basically they are saying it is on the cover because it is striking. They don't make much use of it in their book. (I can't remember what exactly they do in their book, and I don't have it any more, but I do remember this much. The amulet on the cover truly existed, even though it is enhanced with color, but they don't attempt to use its alleged third century provenance as much of an argument.)

"Mythicism" is part of the subject of "Christian texts and history."

If you wanted to talk about Arianism, starting a thread about it might be a good way to get there.