Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

So here is where I'll use an example:

Ahmad Al-Jallad, “Echoes of the Baal Cycle in a Safaito-Hismaic Inscription,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Religions 15 (2015), pp. 5-19. The Arabic inscription specifically reads (7):

“Mot has celebrated a feast; the scorner eats / established is the succession of his nights and days / and behold, Baal is cut off; cut off indeed, but not dead.”

How can one compartmentalize this with the idea that Ba'al dies and rises, when in fact, it is clear that they did not conceptualizing him as dying?

The answer lies in how the narrative is being used at Ugarit. The narrative does not reflect the belief. I.e. simply because Ba'al is presented as dying, does not mean that this actually is being applied to the god. This is why N. Wyatt, M. S. Smith, and M. Suriano are important, because they demonstrate that the narrative is not about Ba'al in its actual meaning. It is about kingship and the ascension of the new king after the passing of the first. In effect, the narrative is not about the god. It is about the social event. We can parallel this with Marduk in the "Marduk Ordeal Text." Marduk is presented as dying, but this is *not* a dying-rising text because it isn't reflecting any communal beliefs or conceptions of Marduk. It is a political propaganda piece where Marduk is representative of something bigger. It is not about the god. It is about the society.

And this is why the dying-rising category really makes little sense. Just because a narrative occurs, does not mean that it means what it says on the surface. Seldom does this ever happen.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by MrMacSon »

Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:00 pm I'm reaching out to Rüpke, so I'm putting this conversation on hold until I get confirmation from the person himself. I don't care to play games of "who is interpreting vague statements best" when the author is stilling living and can be contacted.
The issue isn't "who is interpreting vague statements best", it's how one contextualises vague information and new information. It's not about Rüpke for me, it's about how a wide-ranging account -as Pantheon is- contextualises the period, and uses that context to propose aspects of the genesis and early development Christianity (and it's likely he's using new information or concepts of new info; info that he only briefly alludes to).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by nightshadetwine »

Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:12 pm And yes, Osiris was believed to be bodily reconstituted. There is no rejecting that. But is that body alive the same way a human person is? No. It is alive in the afterlife, it is alive but represented as a green mummy, it is alive AND dead. As Frankfort pointed out, Osiris was paradoxical as both a living and dead deity simultaneously.
It doesn't matter if Osiris is alive the same way a human is. To the Egyptians, he was alive and completely overcame death. He was referred to as "risen". That's why they hoped to share in his resurrection and live forever like him.

Mark J. Smith, “Osiris and the Deceased,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. W. Wendrich (Los Angeles: 2008):
In obtaining justice against Seth, Osiris regained full life, since his death was an injustice. By his justification, he gained total mastery over death. In the same way that Osiris was restored to life and declared free of wrongdoing, so all who died hoped to be revived and justified, as a result of the mummification process and its attendant rituals.

Following Osiris(Oxford University Press, 2017), Mark Smith:
There were important developments in the Egyptian conception of Osiris during the course of the first millennium BC, not all of which directly concerned his relationship with the deceased. Among these were an increased emphasis on the association of Osiris with kingship, and a tendency to portray him not just as the ruler of the underworld, but as the ruler of this one as well... Connected with this was an increased tendency, in hymns and other types of text, to see in Osiris as much a god of the living as a god of the dead.

A prominent theme in hymns to Osiris at Philae is the god’s royal status, in particular, his universal kingship... One of these, inscribed in the chapel of Osiris lord of eternity at Karnak, has already been cited in section 6.12.1 as evidence for the growing importance of the conception of Osiris as ruler of both the living and the dead in the first half of the first millennium. A scene on one of the architraves of the pronaos of the temple of Isis emphasizes Osiris’s universal kingship over the sky, the two lands, and the underworld. Hieroglyphic inscriptions from the island of Bigga likewise stress the status of that god as ruler over everything.

"The Festivals of Osiris and Sokar in the Month of Khoiak: The Evidence from Nineteenth Dynasty Royal Monuments at Abydos", Katherine J. Eaton
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Bd. 35 (2006), pp. 75-101
It reports the use of three major barques in the procession from the Osiris Temple to Peker--the great barque, the nsmt-barque and the barque "Truly-arisen-is-the-Lord-of-Abydos"--along with a portable shrine.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

My contentions with the dying-rising god are far more technical than parallels. Parallelism is, in reality, an exceedingly weak system to use epistemologically, because there are numerous alternatives that it cannot actually decide between (polygenesis or reliance, if reliant in what direction, etc). It only works when we can demonstrate a genetic relationship, i.e. Osiris and Dionysos works because we can actually show where ancient authors conflated them.
And we can see where Christians themselves made similar conflations with Jesus and pagan gods. Even Paul made similar proposals in Acts of the Apostles. Nor are we limited to just what ancient writers thought. Where would such a line of distinction even be? If Herodotus, Diodorus, and Plutarch never made such assessments, would we then not be able to make the same assessments? So your pseudo-philosophical dismissal for parallelism is nothing but a weak attempt at confusing the issue.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

And yes, Osiris was believed to be bodily reconstituted. There is no rejecting that. But is that body alive the same way a human person is? No. It is alive in the afterlife, it is alive but represented as a green mummy, it is alive AND dead. As Frankfort pointed out, Osiris was paradoxical as both a living and dead deity simultaneously.
Did you not even read the scholars and the primary sources I quoted that emphatically said that Osiris is resurrected?

The Egyptian afterlife wasn't a parallel dimension. It was the same, corporal world that everything exists in. The mummy is used, so that the deceased may resurrect in his physical body.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

nightshadetwine wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:37 pm
Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:52 pm Osiris was bodily, physically resurrected.
I've had a run-in with this Chris Hansen character before. They seem to be one of those people that dismisses any possible connection or parallel if every detail doesn't 100% match. So in order for there to be gods that die and rise/resurrect, they all have to be exactly the same. It's pretty absurd.
So far I'm not impressed with anything he's had to say. Just the typical collage student who thinks he knows more than someone else, because he went to collage.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

nightshadetwine wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:36 pm
Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:12 pm And yes, Osiris was believed to be bodily reconstituted. There is no rejecting that. But is that body alive the same way a human person is? No. It is alive in the afterlife, it is alive but represented as a green mummy, it is alive AND dead. As Frankfort pointed out, Osiris was paradoxical as both a living and dead deity simultaneously.
It doesn't matter if Osiris is alive the same way a human is. To the Egyptians, he was alive and completely overcame death. He was referred to as "risen". That's why they hoped to share in his resurrection and live forever like him.
Actually, it does matter. Egyptians did not conceptualize him as living in the same way a person was. He was living in his own right, but not the same as a human on earth. It is well worth noting because this is on conflict juxtaposition to how Jesus rises. Jesus is alive in every way we are to Christians, he humanly resurrects on Earth.

Also you don't need to block quote at me. I've read all the books you've cited and have them on my shelves.

I'd add Osiris is such a huge problem not even Mettinger considers him a dying-rising god as of 2004.
MrMacSon wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:27 pm The issue isn't "who is interpreting vague statements best", it's how one contextualises vague information and new information. It's not about Rüpke for me, it's about how a wide-ranging account -as Pantheon is- contextualises the period, and uses that context to propose aspects of the genesis and early development Christianity (and it's likely he's using new information or concepts of new info; info that he only briefly alludes to).
Which is irrelevant to whether or not Rüpke is a mythicist. A mythicist (as I define in my book) is someone who holds that it is most likely that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. You've not demonstrated anything in there which comes close to making this true.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:38 pm And we can see where Christians themselves made similar conflations with Jesus and pagan gods. Even Paul made similar proposals in Acts of the Apostles. Nor are we limited to just what ancient writers thought. Where would such a line of distinction even be? If Herodotus, Diodorus, and Plutarch never made such assessments, would we then not be able to make the same assessments? So your pseudo-philosophical dismissal for parallelism is nothing but a weak attempt at confusing the issue.
No actually they didn't conflate them. Osiris and Dionysos were actively said to be the same figure. There is only, to my knowledge, one singular conflation of Jesus with a pagan god, and that occurs in a 4th century forged letter in Historia Augusta, where Jesus is conflated with Serapis. Also, Paul never makes any such conflations in Acts. Parallelism tells us precisely nothing without genetic relationships being established which you can't do with the NT texts, which Mettinger and most recent John G. Cook fully acknowledge. Not to mention, even if he did, Acts is probably 2nd century and so rather irrelevant to the construction of earliest Christianity and has long been considered to be unreliable or historical. So... it really tells us very little except that was in the early 2nd century mindset.
Last edited by Chrissy Hansen on Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:44 pm So far I'm not impressed with anything he's had to say. Just the typical collage student who thinks he knows more than someone else, because he went to collage.
Then go away and stop bothering me, because I'm not impressed with someone whose only tactic is amateurish parallelomania.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:42 pm
And yes, Osiris was believed to be bodily reconstituted. There is no rejecting that. But is that body alive the same way a human person is? No. It is alive in the afterlife, it is alive but represented as a green mummy, it is alive AND dead. As Frankfort pointed out, Osiris was paradoxical as both a living and dead deity simultaneously.
Did you not even read the scholars and the primary sources I quoted that emphatically said that Osiris is resurrected?

The Egyptian afterlife wasn't a parallel dimension. It was the same, corporal world that everything exists in. The mummy is used, so that the deceased may resurrect in his physical body.
... yes... in the afterlife...

And I've read literally every single book and source you cited cover to cover. Literally every single one.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Also if my ideas were "pseudo-philosophical" I wonder why they are the consensus of scholars of religion... like with Russell McCutcheon. There is a reason the dying-rising god has only survived in Biblical studies and basically nowhere else at all... because Bible scholarship (like mythicists as a whole) are exceedingly slow and outdated on method.
Post Reply