The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by neilgodfrey »

Most of us are familiar with the confessional reflections that so many biblical scholars drop in at the close of their scholarly works on Jesus. Sometimes this confessional is found in the prologue or preface as well. It is like a little prayer uttered by the devout believer thanking and praising the Lord for the academic study he has produced. It is particularly obnoxious when found in the dedication of a formal higher degree thesis. "Obnoxious" because it betrays an interest and motivation that is not entirely scholarly: it is scholarship motivated by confessional interests.

Examples:
  • Indeed, for Christians, the unending conversation about Jesus is the most important conversation there is. He is for us the decisive revelation of God. . . . (last para of Borg's Jesus)
  • And yet, despite everything, for those who have ears to hear, Jesus, the millenarian herald of judgment and salvation, says the only things worth saying, for his dream is the only one worth dreaming. . . . (Allison, last para of Jesus of Nazareth)
  • Jesus will always be for me the way to God. . . . (Spong, last para of Liberating the Gospels)
  • For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction. . . . If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in. (Crossan, final words in The Historical Jesus)
And so on.

So it occurred to me that if I am correct in coming to realize that D.M. Murdock (Acharya S) is just as devoted to a religious view of Christian origins and writes with a view to sharing her belief system in the same way, then in her more neutral and "academically" minded books I should find the same confessional statements, most probably in the epilogue.

I have read sections of Christ in Egypt before but this time I turned to conclusion and here is what I found:
We are currently in a position to recognize fully our natural surroundings, based not on blind belief but, rather, on scientific observation as well as aesthetic appreciation. Regardless of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, as human beings we can all relish the splendor of the natural world, with most people able to cherish an exquisite sunset or full moon, for example. . . . .

The comprehension of the astrotheological and nature-worshipping perception behind the world's religious ideologies and greatly imaginative and creative capacity of the human mind but also the beauty and awe of creation that inspire and unite mankind beyond the divisive and destructive beliefs. In the end we are free to develop true human community based . . . on shared, common experiences and reference points, such as the mysterious and marvelous planet upon which we all live.
And if there is any doubt about what is meant by this humanity saving comprehension of astrotheology, Murdock makes it clear in the Introduction:
Astrotheology -- the reverence for the sun, moon, stars, planets and other natural phenomena . . . .
Now we understand more clearly why Robert Tulip speaks worshipfully of the restoring the "dignity" of the moon to its "rightful" place and excoriates those of us who do not duly "respect and honour" the scientific facts of the planetary system. It also explains why Murdock in the above quote limits her examples to sunsets and the full moon: appreciation of waterfalls, flowers, other positive attributes of our fellow species, etc etc would distract from her intended point.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by Peter Kirby »

On the other hand, none of this implies that Borg/Allison/Spong/Crossan/Murdock are wrong in their historical conclusions. So I'm wondering. Now that this non-scholarly motivation is evident, what have we learned from it?

Is there anyone with nothing but "scholarly motivation" anyway, publishing on this subject? This is a genuine question because I cannot think of one.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Toto
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:25 pm

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by Toto »

Richard Carrier has a scholarly motivation - he has changed his mind on the existence of Jesus, based on evidence. I think that both Bart Ehrman and Reza Aslan have a primarily scholarly motivation.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by neilgodfrey »

I am sure their motivations are scholarly. One and all. At the same time it is useful to be aware of the personal interest a scholar has invested in their scholarlship.

No-one is without bias of some kind. What is important is that bias be recognized and factored in -- both by the author in his/her discussion and by the reader in his/her reading.

It is always a worry if either does not recognize their own and each other's bias.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by Peter Kirby »

Toto wrote:Richard Carrier has a scholarly motivation - he has changed his mind on the existence of Jesus, based on evidence. I think that both Bart Ehrman and Reza Aslan have a primarily scholarly motivation.
The distinction concerning a "primary" motivation is a potentially useful one.

But it also implies "secondary" motivations that are not scholarly.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote:I am sure their motivations are scholarly. One and all. At the same time it is useful to be aware of the personal interest a scholar has invested in their scholarlship.

No-one is without bias of some kind. What is important is that bias be recognized and factored in -- both by the author in his/her discussion and by the reader in his/her reading.

It is always a worry if either does not recognize their own and each other's bias.
Fair enough.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi neilgodfrey,

I think prayers to Jesus and prayers to the Earth, Sun, Moon and Stars are quite different things. Prayers to Jesus in a work on Christian History expose a strong bias towards certain supernatural conclusions that runs contrary to investigating history based on evidence. It raises real questions about the writer's objectively. Prayers to nature, on the other hand, are a humanist thing and we find them in works from Shakespeare to Carl Sagan. Getting a warm and tender feeling watching the stars or thinking about the planet is pretty harmless. It should not stop one from objectively investigating human history or practicing good critical and scientific inquiry.
Only if you can show that Archaya S. wants everybody to say "Thank you, Sun," on rising every morning or "Thank you, Moon," every night before going to bed does it become an argument that her work is biased.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
neilgodfrey wrote:Most of us are familiar with the confessional reflections that so many biblical scholars drop in at the close of their scholarly works on Jesus. Sometimes this confessional is found in the prologue or preface as well. It is like a little prayer uttered by the devout believer thanking and praising the Lord for the academic study he has produced. It is particularly obnoxious when found in the dedication of a formal higher degree thesis. "Obnoxious" because it betrays an interest and motivation that is not entirely scholarly: it is scholarship motivated by confessional interests.

Examples:
  • Indeed, for Christians, the unending conversation about Jesus is the most important conversation there is. He is for us the decisive revelation of God. . . . (last para of Borg's Jesus)
  • And yet, despite everything, for those who have ears to hear, Jesus, the millenarian herald of judgment and salvation, says the only things worth saying, for his dream is the only one worth dreaming. . . . (Allison, last para of Jesus of Nazareth)
  • Jesus will always be for me the way to God. . . . (Spong, last para of Liberating the Gospels)
  • For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction. . . . If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in. (Crossan, final words in The Historical Jesus)
And so on.

So it occurred to me that if I am correct in coming to realize that D.M. Murdock (Acharya S) is just as devoted to a religious view of Christian origins and writes with a view to sharing her belief system in the same way, then in her more neutral and "academically" minded books I should find the same confessional statements, most probably in the epilogue.

I have read sections of Christ in Egypt before but this time I turned to conclusion and here is what I found:
We are currently in a position to recognize fully our natural surroundings, based not on blind belief but, rather, on scientific observation as well as aesthetic appreciation. Regardless of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, as human beings we can all relish the splendor of the natural world, with most people able to cherish an exquisite sunset or full moon, for example. . . . .

The comprehension of the astrotheological and nature-worshipping perception behind the world's religious ideologies and greatly imaginative and creative capacity of the human mind but also the beauty and awe of creation that inspire and unite mankind beyond the divisive and destructive beliefs. In the end we are free to develop true human community based . . . on shared, common experiences and reference points, such as the mysterious and marvelous planet upon which we all live.
And if there is any doubt about what is meant by this humanity saving comprehension of astrotheology, Murdock makes it clear in the Introduction:
Astrotheology -- the reverence for the sun, moon, stars, planets and other natural phenomena . . . .
Now we understand more clearly why Robert Tulip speaks worshipfully of the restoring the "dignity" of the moon to its "rightful" place and excoriates those of us who do not duly "respect and honour" the scientific facts of the planetary system. It also explains why Murdock in the above quote limits her examples to sunsets and the full moon: appreciation of waterfalls, flowers, other positive attributes of our fellow species, etc etc would distract from her intended point.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by Ulan »

PhilosopherJay wrote:I think prayers to Jesus and prayers to the Earth, Sun, Moon and Stars are quite different things.
I don't know. They are both "prayers", which means they have some religious connotation.
PhilosopherJay wrote:Prayers to Jesus in a work on Christian History expose a strong bias towards certain supernatural conclusions that runs contrary to investigating history based on evidence. It raises real questions about the writer's objectively. Prayers to nature, on the other hand, are a humanist thing and we find them in works from Shakespeare to Carl Sagan. Getting a warm and tender feeling watching the stars or thinking about the planet is pretty harmless. It should not stop one from objectively investigating human history or practicing good critical and scientific inquiry.
While "getting a warm and tender feeling" is indeed pretty innocuous in and itself, prayers to Nature are no different than prayers to Jesus. It's about assigning qualities to a concept that go beyond its basic meaning, be it that of Jesus as a human being or nature as an expression of natural laws. Prayers to nature give nature some kind of personality, a supernatural aspect that the concept of "nature" itself does not provide. Why else would you pray to something, if you are sure you cannot be heard?

The only exception I would make would be for a poet. There, the prayer may be just a play with words that puts the own thoughts about nature and one's own place in it into a pleasant form.

By the way, this personified veneration of abstract concepts seems to be deeply engrained into human nature. You can see this prayer-like language regarding "nature" even sometimes in scientific publications.
jackmark
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 6:12 am

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by jackmark »

This comment by Pete from Neil's blog pretty much sums it up:
You cannot possibly be serious. Neil, your biases against Acharya is glaringly obvious. You don’t treat anybody else like this so, I have to wonder if you’re a misogynist. You’re starting to sound like James McGrath and his horrendous attempt to compare mythicists with creationists.

I own a few of Acharya’s books including ‘Christ in Egypt’ and to even attempt to claim she actually worships this stuff is just asinine. All you’ve done here is quote-mine a quote completely out of context to confirm your own biases.

Very disappointing and disgraceful.
Neil Godfrey "It also explains why Murdock in the above quote limits her examples to sunsets and the full moon: appreciation of waterfalls, flowers, other positive attributes of our fellow species, etc., etc., would distract from her intended point."
How convenient, your own quote:
"Astrotheology — the reverence for the sun, moon, stars, planets and other natural phenomena . . . . (Christ in Egypt, p. 17)"
The full quote:
"In any event, the case demonstrating that “astrotheology”—the reverence for the sun, moon, stars, planets and other natural phenomena—has been the main motivating factor behind major religious myths and rituals the world over can be found in my book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled."

- Christ in Egypt, p. 17
Wow, how dishonest can you possibly be Neil?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Confessional Epilogue: Christians and Acharya

Post by neilgodfrey »

jackmark wrote:
Neil Godfrey "It also explains why Murdock in the above quote limits her examples to sunsets and the full moon: appreciation of waterfalls, flowers, other positive attributes of our fellow species, etc., etc., would distract from her intended point."
How convenient, your own quote:
"Astrotheology — the reverence for the sun, moon, stars, planets and other natural phenomena . . . . (Christ in Egypt, p. 17)"
The full quote:
"In any event, the case demonstrating that “astrotheology”—the reverence for the sun, moon, stars, planets and other natural phenomena—has been the main motivating factor behind major religious myths and rituals the world over can be found in my book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled."

- Christ in Egypt, p. 17
Wow, how dishonest can you possibly be Neil?
I would think most of us would think that if "astrotheology" is about reverencing anything it is about reverencing things "astral". If you think I am being dishonest I cannot help that and can do no more than try to quote fairly.

Reactions like yours are one of the reasons for my post. I think it is misleading for you and others following Acharya's views to suggest you have no bias towards some sort of "religious" or "spiritual" belief-system and that your arguments are entirely grounded in and directed towards scientific and historical understanding.

Christian scholars undertake studies to learn more about the object of their faith and share those findings with others. Sometimes along the way they refine the nature of their faith or belief systems. A few might even jettison their faith altogether. Honest scholars -- and there are many of them -- are not ashamed to hide their bias in this respect. That's good. It helps the reader to evaluate their works. It also helps guide the authors in how they present information that may not necessarily accord with their personal religious beliefs.

What Acharya, Robert, yourself could do to gain more respect from others is to likewise be open about your bias.

Robert has made it very clear that astrotheology is a religion of sorts. Not like an organized religion of course. Not even like an organized sect or cult. But it is a religious or spiritual belief system of some sort. You say it is grounded in science and that makes it different from others. Well, yes, every religion is different from others in some respect -- even Christian Science and Scientology that also (from what I understand) claim to be grounded in science and teach the enlightened ones to live in accord with "true science".

But why the denial? Have I misrepresented or been dishonest with my treatment of Spong and Crossan? How exactly have I been dishonest with Acharya? Are you denying outright that she sees astrotheology as a "spiritual enlightenment" of some sort however much grounded in the material observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply