500 BCE Vase of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

[Joseph D. L.]

Already asked and answered.
But since this will be may last post on this thread I will go over it one last time.

I doubt very much this will be your last response on this thread, since you've already said you were done in your previous post. But I do intend to make this my last response. So call it my the definitive statement. Afterward I will not respond, reply, or engage with you on this forum again.

Now, moving on.

1. The image provided by Ethan (page one of this thread) titled, Orpheus Bacchus, is not real. It comes from a book cover, "The Jesus Mysteries".

Fair enough. But I have never said that it was. My contention has been that it was visually enhanced version of an amulet that is shown in their book. I don't have a problem with such tactics, provided the author(s) show the original and explicitly state what they are doing. Freke and Gandy do do the former, but neglect the latter. If you have a problem with that, then I will tell that that is a trivial issue to get so up in arms about.

2. The picture on the book cover is not an actual photo of a tangible item like an amulet but a computerized cartoon enhanced image to make it look like it is real. Much like the cover of a romance novel.

No. It is modeled from the amulet shown in their book. But you don't have to be a publisher to know that that image, which is in black and white, would not be as eye-catching. In fact, and this is speculation, it was probably their publisher that persuaded Freke and Gandy to use this version. Scholastic integrity is one thing, but if your goal is to sell books then you need to take every opportunity that you can.

3. The cartoon is not based on a real amulet but most likely a logo/seal of a wine jug. Meaning it had no religious function like a Saint Christopher medal but rather like a trade logo stamped/sealed on a jug for easy identification of the company that made the wine.

Stuff and nonsense. Considering the overtly religious implications presented in the image, I can only imagine the only companies who would do this would be those who directly sell to churches.

But then you would have to explain why the caption reads ORPHEOS BAKKIKOS., meaning Orpheus becomes Bacchus, and why they bothered to imprint it in Ancient Greek?

Really, you have made the quantum leap into pure imagination, and may have left reality as we know it with this comment.

4. The writing on the cartoon is not the same as the wine seal in the book.

That's a blatant lie. It's such comments that lead me to believe you're either so unconscionably disingenuous that you're unable to accept when you're wrong, or you are knowingly and deliberately being dishonest.

Here is the image from the cover of Freke and Gandy's book that Ethan first posted:



And here is the image of the amulet Freke and Gandy provide in their book:



And just for the sake of being thorough, here are the two images side by side:



The writing on both the original and the visually enhanced version used by Freke and Gandy are one hundred percent a match.

5. The item in the book is no longer available for scholars to verify the authenticity and/or age.

But surely there are better arguments for dismissing it than merely saying that the most popular version of the image is a tampered copy? It's like flatearthers who jump on the opportunity to dismiss the spherical shape of the earth when NASA comes out and states that they routinely enhance their photographs of the earth to make it more aesthetically pleasing.

Just for a quick history of this object, here is a brief rundown...

This is the original object:



Here is a mould that the above object was pressed in when it was donated to the Kaiser Friedrich Museum:



Here is the image that appears in Freke and Gandy's book, which is the image in the mould, as can be discerned from the two chucks on either side that the original cylinder left:



And lastly, the image that appears on the cover of Freke and Gandy's book:



Besides the colouration, there is nothing amiss with the final image and the second. The image on it remains the same, the lettering is the same, and it even retains the bell shape of the mould.

So really, you have nothing--nothing at all--on Freke and Gandy, other than some poultry tripe about them colouring the object.

And for that, you have wasted my time, your time, and everyone's time, with your nonsensical blabberings that boarder on the psychotic.

Now, if you can arrogantly dismiss the evidence of deception with the cover of the book how can I possibly convince you of all the errors inside the mythcist book?

A mythicist is going to believe what a mythicist wants to believe or should I say what they want you to believe?

A really meaningless and patronizing statement. I think I've made my views on the historicity of Jesus--that he can be better understood as Lukuas Andreas--quite known on this forum. So I can't be considered a mythicist in its extreme definition. But I still remain sceptical of the history of Christianity and the historical reliability of the Gospels.

However, I can recognize general themes and motifs at play within the Jesus tale that existed in much older religions. Even early Christians admitted that shared motifs existed between Christians and pagans, going back so far as St. Paul himself.

It's clear that Christianity is the product of a much more broader synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic thought and religious expression. But so to were the cults of Dionysus and Sabazios. And early Christians prided themselves on being deeply indebted to pagan philosophies, going so far as to honour them as fellow Christians.

With that, I am done with this thread but for those that want to learn more about the hoax of the mythicist movement I suggest you read (for starters) Bart Ehrman's book, "Did Jesus Exist?".

I sincerely doubt that this will be your final--or second final--leave of this thread as your ego will not allow you to accept such a unassailable refutation of your arguments. And if Ehrman's book is where you have received your knowledge of mythicism, then I truly pity you you.

But, for everyone else, I hope you enjoyed the show.

[Joseph D. L.]

A question: assuming that the gem is a forgery, who could made it and why? Were there mythicists (more precisely, mythicists who would have liked "to prove" the pagan origins of Christianity) already in the Middle Age?

Even if he could prove that it was a forgery, he would still have to acknowledge the many stamnoi and lekythoi that show Dionysus upon a cross, an upright stauros surmounted with a horizontal capital, are genuine and pre-Christian. Those are indisputable. You will notice that he has not once made one comment towards them.

[Giuseppe]

A question: assuming that the gem is a forgery, who could made it and why? Were there mythicists (more precisely, mythicists who would have liked "to prove" the pagan origins of Christianity) already in the Middle Age?

Even if he could prove that it was a forgery, he would still have to acknowledge the many stamnoi and lekythoi that show Dionysus upon a cross, an upright stauros surmounted with a horizontal capital, are genuine and pre-Christian. Those are indisputable. You will notice that he has not once made one comment towards them.

ok but my point is that I may easily imagine a forger of a such gem only today, in this our time, when it is so common to reduce mythicism to "the view that Christian origins were pagan", when it is ignored that the reasons to really doubt are well others. It is hard to imagine these ideas in the mind of a presumed forger of the gem from two centuries ago.

[Joseph D. L.]

ok but my point is that I may easily imagine a forger of a such gem only today, in this our time, when it is so common to reduce mythicism to "the view that Christian origins were pagan", when it is ignored that the reasons to really doubt are well others. It is hard to imagine these ideas in the mind of a presumed forger of the gem from two centuries ago.

The forger would also have to be aware of the subtle teachings of the mysteries clearly portrayed on the amulet. It isn't enough that it depicts a crucified figure and it call him Bacchus, as Bacchus was the Lord of wine, because the caption makes it explicitly clear that it is actually showing Orpheus undergoing a ritualistic crucifixion to become Bacchus. The major function of the mysteries was that the neophytes had to emulate the diety of their respective cult. The fact that it shows Orpheus being crucified, and the caption says that he is being turned into Bacchus, is a big indicator that the object is authentic. That kind of information didn't exist two hundred years ago.

The only contention that is beyond reproach is it's origins. It was probably created in Italy during the fourth-fifth centuries, when the Bacchic mysteries were still practicing. So well withing the Christian era. But that brings us to the much, much older traditions of hanging images of Dionysus/Bacchus on crosses. Any argument saying that it was influenced by Christianity, must consider the likelyhood that it was just a continuation of this tradition.

When all the facts are considered, the possibility that the amulet is a modern forgery is simeply not there.

[GakuseiDon]

A question: assuming that the gem is a forgery, who could made it and why? Were there mythicists (more precisely, mythicists who would have liked "to prove" the pagan origins of Christianity) already in the Middle Age?

Even if he could prove that it was a forgery, he would still have to acknowledge the many stamnoi and lekythoi that show Dionysus upon a cross, an upright stauros surmounted with a horizontal capital, are genuine and pre-Christian. Those are indisputable. You will notice that he has not once made one comment towards them.

ok but my point is that I may easily imagine a forger of a such gem only today, in this our time, when it is so common to reduce mythicism to "the view that Christian origins were pagan", when it is ignored that the reasons to really doubt are well others. It is hard to imagine these ideas in the mind of a presumed forger of the gem from two centuries ago.

I think it is easy to imagine, Giuseppe. Remember that, from the 18th C, but more particularly the 19th C, the idea that all religions were a derivation of a common theme was highly influential among the educated public. There were many Christian scholars who wanted to prove that Krishna and the other gods throughout the world shared many similarities with Christ, since they thought that this would show that Christianity shared a universal truth; and there were atheist scholars who looked to show the same things, since they thought that this would show that Christianity shared a universal falsehood. Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy" is a wonderful compendium of those early sources.

An example is Count Volney's "The Ruins", written around 1790. He writes:

• Finally, these traditions went so far as to mention even his astrological and mythological names, and inform us that he was called sometimes Chris, that is to say, preserver,* and from that, ye Indians, you have made your god Chrish-en or Chrish-na; and, ye Greek and Western Christians, your Chris-tos, son of Mary, is the same; sometimes he is called Yes, by the union of three letters, which by their numerical value form the number 608, one of the solar periods.** And this, Europeans, is the name which, with the Latin termination, is become your Yes-us or Jesus, the ancient and cabalistic name attributed to young Bacchus, the clandestine son (nocturnal) of the Virgin Minerva, who, in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians, that is, of the star of day, of which they are each of them the emblems.

That's not enough to solve the mystery of the amulet, but there are plenty of examples of claims from a few hundred years ago that early gods were crucified just like Christ, for it to not be that hard to imagine a forger making the amulet, perhaps inspired by images on wine jugs as provided by Joseph D.L.

[Joseph D. L.]

I think it is easy to imagine, Giuseppe. Remember that, from the 18th C, but more particularly the 19th C, the idea that all religions were a derivation of a common theme was highly influential among the educated public. There were many Christian scholars who wanted to prove that Krishna and the other gods throughout the world shared many similarities with Christ, since they thought that this would show that Christianity shared a universal truth; and there were atheist scholars who looked to show the same things, since they thought that this would show that Christianity shared a universal falsehood. Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy" is a wonderful compendium of those early sources.

An example is Count Volney's "The Ruins", written around 1790. He writes:

• Finally, these traditions went so far as to mention even his astrological and mythological names, and inform us that he was called sometimes Chris, that is to say, preserver,* and from that, ye Indians, you have made your god Chrish-en or Chrish-na; and, ye Greek and Western Christians, your Chris-tos, son of Mary, is the same; sometimes he is called Yes, by the union of three letters, which by their numerical value form the number 608, one of the solar periods.** And this, Europeans, is the name which, with the Latin termination, is become your Yes-us or Jesus, the ancient and cabalistic name attributed to young Bacchus, the clandestine son (nocturnal) of the Virgin Minerva, who, in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians, that is, of the star of day, of which they are each of them the emblems.

That's not enough to solve the mystery of the amulet, but there are plenty of examples of claims from a few hundred years ago that early gods were crucified just like Christ, for it to not be that hard to imagine a forger making the amulet, perhaps inspired by images on wine jugs as provided by Joseph D.L.

But the problem with such reductionistic proposals is that it neglects an honest appraisal of the history of religion trend that was popular at the time. It's easy to be dismissive of the kind of things being promoted at the the time, but this was before we had better technology and dating methods, as well as a better understanding of ancient cultures. Some of the proofs that the proponents would use to satisfy their claims were either misidentified, or misdated. (Just off the top of my head, Lundy and Higgins misidentified a crucifix from Tuam, Ireland, as showing Krishna, thus confirming for them an Asiatic influence as far as Europe; while Massey miscalculated the dating of the Denderah zodiac to be some fourth thousand years before Christ, thus confirming for him that the Horus-cycle was the oldest mythotype in the world and that all religions were based on it).

These objects were not manufactured to capitalize on a trend that was known for being obscure. They are just examples of the emerging nature of science and scholarship.

So this raises the alarm and that only someone aware of the school, and aware of the mysteries and their procedures, could have made the amulet. An inside job, no less.

Now, I'm not one for conspiracy theories. Conspiracies do happen regularly, from geopolitics, corporate espionage, and outright assassinations. Even my view that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but that the Bush administration, as well as corporate lobbyists and military factions, jumped on the opportunity to wage war on three entire countries and to overthrow their respective governments and establish a pseudo-imperialistic front in the Middle East, would still be a conspiracy. Is full blown war really the natural response to a terrorist attack, when it should have been investigated, and the masterminds extradited to America to face their criminal charges? Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia even offered to arrest and extradite the suspects for the American government. They knew who they were, and knew where they were. 20/20 even did an in person interview with Osama bin Laden two months after 9/11. Yet Bush and his supporters decide to go in and kill innocent civilians, and take over a government that had nothing to do with it. Is three-thousand people worth the lives of four-hundred thousand?

I'm getting off topic.

But what seals its authenticity for me is the fact that it doesn't show Dionysus/Bacchus on the cross, like one familiar with the Lenaia vases would replicate. Instead it shows Orpheus, and the caption states that he has become Bacchus through this act. Only two types of people could have appreciated this subtle teaching of the mysteries: actual participants, or modern day scholars who specialize in the mysteries.

So that leaves us with one of two options: either the amulet is genuine, or it was forged by an academic who's own motives are not known.

[GakuseiDon]

So that leaves us with one of two options: either the amulet is genuine, or it was forged by an academic who's own motives are not known.

As to which option I have no view. My response was to Giuseppe's comment that it is hard to imagine the forgery being done several hundred years ago. My point was that claims of pagan parallels to the Christian story have been around from at least since that time. Count Volney's statement in 1790 that "Bacchus... in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians" might have inspired such a forgery. It might not have been deliberately deceptive, but from a belief that Orpheus and/or Bacchus really were crucified.

The story of Orpheus seems to have been popular over the centuries. From Wiki:

• The Orpheus motif has permeated Western culture and has been used as a theme in all art forms. Early examples include the Breton lai Sir Orfeo from the early 13th century and musical interpretations like Jacapo Peri's Euridice (1600, though titled with his wife's name, the libretto is based entirely upon books X and XI of Ovid's Metamorphoses and therefore Orpheus' viewpoint is predominant). Subsequent operatic interpretations include Claudio Monteverdi's L'Orfeo (1607), Christoph Willibald Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice (1762), Joseph Haydn's last opera L'anima del filosofo, ossia Orfeo ed Euridice (1791), Franz Liszt's symphonic poem Orpheus (1854)...

If the amulet is genuine, and reflects an early belief in a crucified Orpheus, how do you see it impacting the stories that have come through that had Orpheus being torn to pieces by women? Do you see crucifixion as a variant belief about Orpheus that existed at some stage? Or that crucifixion was a prelude to being torn to pieces, like Pentheus being hoisted on a tree by Dionysus (Bacchus) before being dismembered?

[Giuseppe]

I think it is easy to imagine, Giuseppe. Remember that, from the 18th C, but more particularly the 19th C, the idea that all religions were a derivation of a common theme was highly influential among the educated public. There were many Christian scholars who wanted to prove that Krishna and the other gods throughout the world shared many similarities with Christ, since they thought that this would show that Christianity shared a universal truth; and there were atheist scholars who looked to show the same things, since they thought that this would show that Christianity shared a universal falsehood.

I agree. Dr Carrier has made it clear that only the death and resurrection of the god can and should be considered a feature shared by all the hellenistic gods. As to the gem, I think that it is not necessary to argue the same case (that the death by crucifixion was a common fate of these gods). See above the death of Marsyas for an example (he seems really the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses!).

[Joseph D. L.]

As to which option I have no view. My response was to Giuseppe's comment that it is hard to imagine the forgery being done several hundred years ago. My point was that claims of pagan parallels to the Christian story have been around from at least since that time. Count Volney's statement in 1790 that "Bacchus... in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians" might have inspired such a forgery. It might not have been deliberately deceptive, but from a belief that Orpheus and/or Bacchus really were crucified.

But as I noted, the parallels were either misconstrued by misidentifying artifacts, or misdating them. Not with forgeries. So this would make the amulte the only example of forgery in support of the history of religion school.

Count Volney's statements could have been inspired by a reading Justin's First Apology, in which he makes several comments about Bacchus and the sons of Jupiter leading lives and having deaths similar to that of Christ. Justin also comments that Bacchus and Herculs ascended into heaven upon their deaths, again like Jesus.

The story of Orpheus seems to have been popular over the centuries. From Wiki:

• The Orpheus motif has permeated Western culture and has been used as a theme in all art forms. Early examples include the Breton lai Sir Orfeo from the early 13th century and musical interpretations like Jacapo Peri's Euridice (1600, though titled with his wife's name, the libretto is based entirely upon books X and XI of Ovid's Metamorphoses and therefore Orpheus' viewpoint is predominant). Subsequent operatic interpretations include Claudio Monteverdi's L'Orfeo (1607), Christoph Willibald Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice (1762), Joseph Haydn's last opera L'anima del filosofo, ossia Orfeo ed Euridice (1791), Franz Liszt's symphonic poem Orpheus (1854)...

If the amulet is genuine, and reflects an early belief in a crucified Orpheus, how do you see it impacting the stories that have come through that had Orpheus being torn to pieces by women? Do you see crucifixion as a variant belief about Orpheus that existed at some stage? Or that crucifixion was a prelude to being torn to pieces, like Pentheus being hoisted on a tree by Dionysus (Bacchus) before being dismembered?

Religion is not static and evolves with humanity. What the amulet shows is Orpheus being inducted into the mysteries of Bacchus.

Let me make this point as clear as I can, because I have expressed it several times and yet I don't think you are getting what this means.

In the mysteries, especially those of Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, and Mithras, the initiate would take on the role of the patron diety. So everything that deity underwent, including his passion, had to also be done by the initiates. So in the mysteries of Attis, the neophyte had to castrate themselves; and in Mithraism, the initiate had to be surrounded by twelve other men and sacrifice a bull themselves.

Perhapes the clearest example of such a need of emulation was that of Osiris. Upon death, everyone would be honoured with an Osiris name, and had to undergo the same ritualistic precedures and rites as Osiris had done. This is made explicit in the Pyramid Texts, where the King/Queen is described in such terms as to be confused with Osiris. Their mother's were Nut, their father's were Geb; they were intered into the underworld; they were shut up in a tree; they climed a ladder that reached the Imperishable Stars, or were swept up in a dustdevil. Everything that Osiris had done, they too had to do.

When the cultural exchange between Egypt, Greece and Rome occurred there was a synthesis of certain kinds of religious expression. Both Osiris and Dionysus had rituals in which effigies and figures of the gods were placed upon crosses and trees, and so it was only natural for them to be synthesized with one another. The difference between the two, however, was that initiates into the Osiris mysteries--i.e. the deceased--had to also be placed upon a cross. This was satisfied by painting the cross onto the backside of the coffins. Egyptian art is such that anything that was created was believed to be imbued with the Ka spirit. The coffins were thus permenant incubation chambers for the deceased's bodies as they awaited resurrection and rebirth, by being perserved by Nut on the upper part of the coffin. Just as Osiris had been placed on the cross, so to were the deceased.











Transposing such a concept to the Dionysus mysteries, then, would not be beyond the realm of possibilities. Both Osiris and Dionysus were hung on trees and crosses, so it would stand to reason that the initiates would too be suspended on trees and crosses so as to better emulate their deiety.

But this brings us back to the amulet. The amulet shows Orpheus being suspended on a cross, with the caption reading Orpheus becomes Bacchus. The reason for this is actually simple: Orpheus was believed to have introduce the mysteries of Dionysus/Bacchus to the world. He would thus be the initiate par excellence. A close comparison to this would be Paul's comments about how he too had been crucified with Christ, for he was alone in recieving the revelation of the mysteries of Christ. So the amulet is completely in accordance with the teachings of the mysteries. No one two hundred years ago would have known about this particular practice of emulation in the mysteries.

So any question of a forgery is simply out of the question. There wuld be no reason to forge it, and the knowledge shown on it did not come about until the last century.

The only question that remains is the date. I would love to see a comparison between the style of writing shown on the amulet to the styles of writing in the early centuries. The most propable date is ca. 300-400 ad. An earlier date isn't impossible, but the kind of rounded art style is typical of that period.

With that, I think I've said all I can say on this subject.

[nightshadetwine]

And other than that, you have absolutely nothing. You have yet to acknowledge the numerous vases provided by both me and Ethan that unambiguously show Dionysus on a cross (Karenyi even describes it as such), and have blatantly ignored the passage from Virgil that says Bacchus too was hung on trees and vineposts.

Hi Joseph D.L.,

I'm someone who is convinced that Christianity is a mix of Greco-Roman mystery cults and Judaism so I find your posts here interesting. I was wondering if you can supply me with the source where Karenyi describes Dionysus on the cross?