Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

More relevant, in simplified terms Acharya claims Jesus is a fish and a lamb. On the surface these claims - man as fish and sheep - are absurd, so we should expect resistance. And yet there is allegorical meaning within them that is valuable to explicate. I am not aware of similar feline allegory.

But that's the point. You can't just 'make up shit' and move from there. There has to be a justification for assuming something about the gospel. Even if you use Theodotos's reference to the apostles being twelve is related to the zodiac it is imperative that you work through Theodotos's thought and demonstrate how far that would go to support your other ideas. You can't just start with astrotheology and then take bits and pieces out of context to support a thesis that doesn't have any support as of yet. You need to start with something like 'this is the culture that produced the gospel' and then move to how that culture interpreted the gospel, wrote the gospel etc. I never get the sense that any of what you say has any grounding in reality. I just think you like astrotheology and you figure that it might be useful in some selfish way to interpret the gospel as astrotheology. There's really no effort to actually prove that the gospel was written as astrotheology in any systematic way hence your vilification here at this forum. You're probably a nice guy. I don't doubt that. But it's stupid to promote astrotheology at a forum devoted to making sense of Biblical traditions because you haven't made the case yet that astrotheology was one of the founding principles of early Christianity.

Robert Tulip wrote:In terms of a functional analysis of religion, you argued for seeing the miracle as “a midrash on various OT passages (Psalms, Exodus, 2 Kings) demonstrating the superiority of Jesus to the prophets and the superiority of the new Israel to the old.” That places it squarely within the Jewish social tradition, and fails to engage with a higher meaning in terms of cosmology.

Yes, midrash is the method, and we have the remaining NT corpus to give us direction on how the early Christians interpreted such images and concepts. There is no need to look for any other hypothesis that proves unable to explain nearly as many of the details of the miracle.

Yes, my explanation does "fail to engage with a higher meaning in terms of cosmology" for a very good reason. My explanation explains the data far more comprehensively than does yours. My explanation accounts for multiple points in the data and yours for only a few. The miracle is explained without any need to invoke "a higher meaning in terms of cosmology".

Yes, midrash or whatever one likes to call it is the method. My explanation of purpose and meaning is consistent with the other evidence we read in the early Christian corpus. Your cosmology meaning is assumption read into the evidence. You have no evidence that the evangelists were mindful of some "star clock of history" and your interpretation fails to account for most of the details of the miracle. My explanation accounts for most of the miracle's details therefore my explanation is to be preferred.

Robert Tulip wrote:Okay, maybe 'derided' is too strong. What I was getting at what that you characterised my view that “any explanation that does not mesh with cosmology is wrong or inadequate” as confirmation bias. So, you have stated that an adequate explanation of the loaves and fishes material is possible that ignores a possible cosmological intent, and that to insist on a cosmological dimension in the miracle story is just reading into it what I want to find, like some sort of pareidolia. Combined with your earlier blanket dismissal of astrotheology, I think it is fair to read that as deriding the cosmic dimension in this miracle story.

Again, please read what I say. I nowhere said “any explanation that does not mesh with cosmology is wrong or inadequate” is confirmation bias. Again, you seem to only read every second word of any criticism of your approach.

Again, I have never made a "blanket dismissal of astrotheology". Again, do read what I say, please. I have from the beginning -- before we met on this forum as you know -- been arguing that the method used to argue astrotheology is fallacious. That's why I dismiss it. It is not because I have some bias against astrotheology at all. I would be very willing to embrace such an explanation if it could be established by valid methods.

Robert Tulip wrote:I am not arguing for any simplistic mystical enchanted view, but my point is that to understand the ancients, this dimension of their philosophy has to be taken into account, in a way that can be difficult from a purely disenchanted Weberian sociology. . . .
Against the desacralized anomie of modernity, Carl Jung called for recognition of archetypal symbols as a means for the numinous to return from the unconscious. . . ..

Yes, and modern methods of anthropology and historical and literary analysis are I believe capable of interpreting the evidence as it exists. Jungian archetypes etc are a hypothesis that cannot be imputed into the evidence without some valid testing.

Robert Tulip wrote:The cosmic heuristic as a method to study ancient thought is not circular logic.

But your use of it is.

Robert Tulip wrote:The question here is whether ancient views of human identity were framed by cosmology. Cosmology has long been central to religion. Cosmology is why for example churches are still built with their altars to the east. Cosmology is why Christmas follows the solstice and Easter follows the equinox. Cosmology is why the Apocalypse encodes the Milky Way Galaxy in its allegory of the River of Life, and the zodiac in its allegory of the Tree of Life. Cosmology is why Ezekiel described the four cardinal stars as the four living creatures. Cosmology is why The Lord’s Prayer says “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. Cosmology is why Genesis 1:14 says “God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years."

Are you prepared to listen to other explanations that explain that distant origins or associations of customs do not necessarily mean those explanations are still valid or that some other interest has taken over in time?

Robert Tulip wrote:To illustrate the centrality of sun worship in Ancient Israel, see this article about the book Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel by Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor.

How much of this book have you actually read and how carefully? Can you point to anything in Taylor's work that supports your or Murdock's argument for astrotheology?

Robert Tulip wrote: And how interesting that a google search for solar worship in ancient Israel primarily turns up material discussed by Murdock.

Which is why a google search is not necessarily the best form of scholarly inquiry. Search the same terms on Google Scholar and compare your results.

Robert Tulip wrote: The problem of anti-cosmic bias is deeply entrenched, and in fact goes back to the real ten commandments of Exodus 34, where the patriarchal victory is celebrated with the Josiahite injunction “break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and cut down their Asherim.” The astrotheological suggestion for equality for the Asherim goes against this entrenched Biblical patriarchal prejudice.

Robert, Robert, Robert . . . . how many times have I to repeat this .... I have no "anti-cosmic bias" as you put it. I do have a "bias" against the methods you use to validate your hypothesis. That's why I reject your cosmology hypothesis. Not because I am biased against the results. I'm not. I don't believe it is valid because of the methods by which it is affirmed. The methods are fallacious. You do not use "hypothetico-deductive" reasoning as you say you do.

Robert Tulip wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: You dismiss any scholarship that does not accept your views.

That is untrue. Yes, I do dismiss all scholarship that unquestioningly assumes the historical existence of Jesus Christ, or that promotes miraculous fantasy, to that extent, just as physicists will dismiss scholarship that fails to take into account current knowledge. But I have learned a lot from reading conventional theology, and true ideas come through amidst the dross.

There is a huge difference between physics and the humanities and social sciences. The comparison is invalid.

It's a shame you dismiss the bulk of biblical scholarshp (it nearly all, at least in NT/Christian origins studies) assumes the historical existence of Jesus. It's a shame because you have missed so much. I have learned much about "Jewish social traditions", literary critical analysis, etc etc etc through the scholarship you dismiss.

Robert Tulip wrote:Ulansey rejects Frank Zindler’s argument that Christ is Avatar of the Age of Pisces, so it is clear that Ulansey has a superficial understanding of precession in religion. This illustrates that scholarly debate on these topics is in its infancy.

Do the actual arguments count for anything or does the fact that he disagrees tell you all you need to know?

Robert Tulip wrote:A hypothesis should extend beyond what is provable by evidence to present an argument for how the evidence can fit into a coherent and predictive story.

A hypothesis can suggest much, but only what is testable, provable, should be presented as what has been tested and proved. That is where you and Murdock jump the rails.

Robert Tulip wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: new-age books like [The Forbidden Universe] go way beyond the evidence. Yes we know science grew out of ancient concepts. Alchemy produced chemistry; astrology produced astronomy, etc. But to say that modern physics somehow validates hermeticism and is garbage.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about here Neil. Your description of The Forbidden Universe as “new age” is telling, as if that were a serious criticism. Hermetic thinkers such as Giordano Bruno, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Copernicus and Newton provided foundations for modern thought which have been treated in a highly selective way by the dominant disenchanting trend, which has ignored the rational cosmology that started the Renaissance and enabled the empirical discoveries of the scientific enlightenment.

Yes, Newton, Kepler and co all believed heaps of rubbish at the same time they were making brilliant insights. Just because they still were products in so many ways of the remnants of dark ages does not mean we should return to those remnants too.

I called it new age because that's how it would be classified in most book shops. If you don't like the term then I'm happy to use another one for sake of argument. But it won't be found in the science shelves, and that's because it is based on fallacious, unscientific methods.

Robert Tulip wrote:More relevant, in simplified terms Acharya claims Jesus is a fish and a lamb. On the surface these claims - man as fish and sheep - are absurd, so we should expect resistance. And yet there is allegorical meaning within them that is valuable to explicate. I am not aware of similar feline allegory.

Along those lines, when Jesus said I am the light of the world it was meant to be understood that Jesus literally was the light of the world, i.e, the sun?

arnoldo wrote:when Jesus said I am the light of the world it was meant to be understood that Jesus literally was the light of the world, i.e, the sun?

No, not literally, allegorically. Nothing about Jesus Christ is literal. It is all invented. All of the "I am" statements are symbolic - door, vine, way, truth, life, light of the world, resurrection, bread, good shepherd, Son of God, King of the Jews, before Abraham was, from above.

Acharya has a very good e-book, Jesus as the Sun Throughout History that explores how from the earliest times of Christian history, Jesus Christ has been identified with the sun.

This fact is readily demonstrated through the study of ancient texts, including the Bible and works of the early Church fathers, as well as Christian traditions, rituals, architecture and artifacts. From a wide variety of sources, it is clear that associating, identifying and equating Christ with the sun began in ancient times and has continued abundantly over the many centuries since then. Includes many primary sources and quotes from credentialed authorities. Jesus as the Sun throughout History examines ancient texts, including the Bible and works of the early Church fathers, as well as other writings, art, artifacts and traditions to demonstrate that Jesus has been perceived as the sun, both spiritually and as the actual, physical solar orb, many times over the centuries by numerous people, including religious authorities and common people. Why were the Christians in ancient times considered to be "sun worshippers?" Discover how from ancient times Christ was labeled as the "Sun of Righteousness," was identified with Apollo and was depicted as the sun god.

Robert Tulip wrote:

arnoldo wrote:when Jesus said I am the light of the world it was meant to be understood that Jesus literally was the light of the world, i.e, the sun?

No, not literally, allegorically.

So are you saying that Jesus is here said to be an allegory of the sun?

Recall your claim to use the hypothetico-deductive method.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Gather data and look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture (hypothesis): When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis: if you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test (or Experiment): Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This formal fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

Point #1: Can you outline the previous or other existing explanations for what was meant by Jesus being the light of the world? What is inadequate about each explanation? You need to be able to do that to justify introducing the new hypothesis that the passage means Jesus is an allegory of the sun.

Point #2: "Jesus is here said to be an allegory of the sun" (assuming you have completed the step above.)

Point #3: What would we expect to find in the surrounding verses if the hypothesis at point #2 is correct? What would we expect to find in the book of John as a whole if it is correct?

This is where you need to take a bit of time and list what we would expect to find if the passage indeed meant that Jesus is an allegory of the sun. The predictions need to be specific enough to validate your hypothesis, and not be so general that they could be used to justify other hypotheses as well.

Point #4 -- We can do this only after we see a list of predictions that your hypothesis involves. I can think of several things your hypothesis would lead us to expect. I can start off if you like. But I think/hope you'd rather have first shot at this.

(In the previous case of the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, my model predicted that most of the details in the narrative would be found to derive from the same sources and convey a meaning of a new people of God with images used to portray the old. It passed the test. My explanation was grounded in the h-d method you advise us to follow.)

bcedaifu wrote:

Andrew Criddle wrote:To add to Neil's interpretation of the details, the overall story could simply have been intended to teach early Christians that the size of their contributions didn't matter since Jesus could turn whatever was given him into something great. An "every little bit counts" type of story.

A bit of a stretch, in my view, Andrew. Neil is arguing that Robert errs in thinking that the "story" -- or "miracle" of the fishes and bread in Mark is based on ancient cosmological data. Neil appears, to my reckoning, to seek to emphasize, as a different explanation for the focus of the myth, a continuation, or extension of pre-existing stories from the traditional Jewish literature (LXX, probably well known throughout the Roman Empire, because of the translation from Hebrew, into Greek, the lingua franca of the era), as the fundamental inspiration for this particular anecdote in Mark's gospel. In essence, if we remove the twenty pages of fluff, exchanged between Robert and Neal, what remains is one guy arguing for a pagan impetus as the foundation of Christianity, while the other argues contrarily, for the ancient Jewish tradition serving as pedestal for the religion.
.............................................................

FWIW this was a post by Andrew who is not the same as Andrew Criddle

apologies, Andrew and Andrew Criddle, for confounding your names. Mea culpa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolut ... coelestium

Wikipedia wrote:Even before the 1543 publication of De revolutionibus, rumors circulated about its central theses. Martin Luther is quoted as saying in 1539:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon ... This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

When the book was finally published, demand was low, with an initial print run of 400 failing to sell out. Copernicus had made the book extremely technical, unreadable to all but the most advanced astronomers of the day, allowing it to disseminate into their ranks before stirring great controversy. And, like Osiander, contemporary mathematicians and astronomers encouraged its audience to view it as a useful mathematical fiction with no physical reality, thereby somewhat shielding it from accusations of blasphemy.

It was not Copernicus who had made the nifty diagram illustrated here:
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chron ... p_c05.html

It was Aristarchus, and maybe, who knows, perhaps someone even earlier, whose papyrus had been stored in the library at Alexandria, where Aristarchus had served as chief librarian.

I don't have access to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentariolus
distributed to Copernicus' friends in 1514. Apparently Tycho Brahe had a copy. Did that copy contain an acknowledgement, or a preface, or an author's introduction, identifying the role played by Aristarchus? I don't have proof, but I believe that it did.

The wikipedia article makes very clear, why Copernicus did not cite an Egyptian heathen, whose work was written, not in Latin, but in Greek, language of the infidels and pagans. Aristarchus had been born centuries before the arrival of our saviour, hence his work was irrelevant, at best. Similarly, Copernicus could acknowledge Albategnius, a heretic, but at least someone following in the footsteps of Abraham, and most importantly, someone whose publications were acknowledged by the Vatican.

You referenced in your previous post, Robert, the notion that Copernicus had become "famous". Kepler and Galileo both dropped the ball, so to speak. Both of them should have investigated the antecedent Greek publications, and they did not.

What is fascinating is that quote from Luther, identifying the conventional position of geocentrism, as held by the early church. What makes it so fascinating to me, is that these days, the uber Catholic Polish revere Copernicus as a near saint, and it would appear that the conventional Christian churches, all of them, now accept heliocentrism as valid, absolute truths. Why? How can they gloss over the meaningless deaths and torture imposed on hundreds, ?thousands, who faced the ultimate threat, in proclaiming the importance of a scientific, rational approach to the study of our universe, and the laws that govern it.

Copernicus' concern was such that he delayed publication for four decades, fearing not only for his own life, but that of his entire family, and friends.

Yes, sure, Copernicus' student Rheticus had been a Lutheran, not a Catholic, but as the quote from Luther shows, there were no fundamental differences between the Protestants and the Catholics on matters of "heresy", i.e. challenging the veracity of the biblical accounts. Heretics were burned alive at the stake: Michael Servetus: sought for execution as an heretic by the Catholics, for having proclaimed, in his own publication, that the original Greek and Hebrew texts did not support trinitarianism, fled to Geneva, seeking asylum from the fanatical Catholics. Calvin arrested him, as heretic, and he was burned alive, by Calvin, with full accord given for his hideous execution, by Luther.

Avi,
Martin Luther(10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546)
Michael Servetus (29 September? 1509 or 1511 – 27 October 1553),

neilgodfrey wrote:list what we would expect to find if the passage indeed meant that Jesus is an allegory of the sun.

The allegory between Christ and the Sun as the light of the world makes complete sense in terms of the natural observational cosmology available to the ancient world. Everyone knows the sun is the light of the world, shining equally on the just and the unjust. This allegory appears in theological interpretation of Malachi 4:2, the "Sun of Righteousness" as a reference to Christ, as seen for example in the popular carol Hark the Herald Angels Sing, and in the first conventional theological commentary at the verse link, "By the Sun of Righteousness we understand Jesus Christ."

Working through a cosmic reading, we would expect that ancient knowledge of the apparent movement of the sun would form the framework for John's doctrine of cosmic reason, the word made flesh. We would expect that as we read the Fourth Gospel, we would find a range of references to this natural observed order of the structure of time, understood as the cyclic path of the aeons.

And in fact just such a coherent Gnostic vision of time does appear in John. The method to look for this has to start from science, from actual current astronomical knowledge of the cycles of the solar system, then looking to what extent current accurate knowledge could have been known in ancient times. Obviously we do not look for the modern physics of lunisolar torque in John, but what we do look for is the unfolding cycle of zodiac ages as calculable by long term naked eye observation.

For example, the snake on the pole at John 3:14, immediately preceding the theory of eternal life, indicates an ancient tradition, seen in Moses' comment about the snake on a pole, and also in the serpent in the tree of life in Eden. This symbol appears also in the Mithraic God of Time, Aion, the man-lion with eagle wings encoiled by a snake, with its six coils representing the six ages from the Golden Age of Leo the lion to the restoration of divine understanding in the Age of Aquarius the man.

This model of six ages of fall followed by an age of redemption is a possible interpretation of the woman at the well, whose six husbands are succeeded by the true seventh husband Christ.

Several years ago I wrote an extended essay on Astrotheology in John's Prologue. My key point there is that the actual cosmic order visible to the ancients provides the basis for the doctrine of the word of God. In that essay I explore the allegory between Christ and the earth is in terms of the earth's relation to the sun, as the axis of cosmic order.

Another precessional theme in John's prologue, and also seen in Paul, is the idea of the new covenant of grace replacing the old covenant of law. John says "the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." This is a directly precessional statement. To see that, we have to understand that the Aries-Pisces spring movement is part of a cosmic axis, and at the other end of this axis, at the autumn equinox, the sun precessed at the time of Christ from Libra into Virgo. The ancient symbolic understanding of this shift, flowing through into modern astrology, was that Libra, representing the position of the equinox in the Age of Moses, is symbolised by the scales of justice, or law. Virgo, representing the Age of Christ, is symbolised by the virgin, whom Christian doctrine celebrated as full of grace. So John's allegory of law and grace has a direct observable counterpart in the ancient observation of the slow movement of the star clock of history.