The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight
- Thread starter heretic888
- Start date
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Insofar as the Levitical laws goes, God himself lists a bat as a bird. This is not a name but a classification. Nowhere else in the Bible does it indicate that Adam called it a bird, though he supposedly gave it the name "bat" in the second chapter of Genesis.
Given that a bat has teeth, fur in lieu of feathers, nurses the young it gives live birth to...it is clearly not a bird. God would know that. A primitive barbarian making up a creation myth might not notice it. I find it easier to accept the myth explanation over the notion that of an all-powerful deity coming up with nonsense that doesn't survive analysis.
Let us keep that in mind when it comes to your attempts to harmonize the more difficult passages of the Bible. Given they're my posts, and this is a public forum, I don't need anyone's permission to state what I find "likely." I guess that's why the term "freethinker" is so appealing to me...and I'll be darned if I'm going to dull Occam's razor.
You're having a tad bit of difficulty accepting that an omnipotent being would--or ought to-- write a perfect text. So be it. I'll keep hammering that point though, if not for you than for some anonymous lurker here who might take time to consider it.
A safe thing to say, given the logistical improbability of that task. It might be easier if you found a reputable scholar who disagreed with the "most scholars state" line and then post it. As is, no matter how many references we post from scholars (as I did above) you'll be able to refute it by falsely claiming an argument from exclusion. As it is, in my readings I have NEVER found a claim by any reputable scholar that the Gospels were anything but anonymous.
(This is where you condescendingly chortle over the "my readings line.")
Regards,
Steve
Given that a bat has teeth, fur in lieu of feathers, nurses the young it gives live birth to...it is clearly not a bird. God would know that. A primitive barbarian making up a creation myth might not notice it. I find it easier to accept the myth explanation over the notion that of an all-powerful deity coming up with nonsense that doesn't survive analysis.
7starmantis said:
Let us keep that in mind when it comes to your attempts to harmonize the more difficult passages of the Bible. Given they're my posts, and this is a public forum, I don't need anyone's permission to state what I find "likely." I guess that's why the term "freethinker" is so appealing to me...and I'll be darned if I'm going to dull Occam's razor.
You're having a tad bit of difficulty accepting that an omnipotent being would--or ought to-- write a perfect text. So be it. I'll keep hammering that point though, if not for you than for some anonymous lurker here who might take time to consider it.
7starmantis said:
A safe thing to say, given the logistical improbability of that task. It might be easier if you found a reputable scholar who disagreed with the "most scholars state" line and then post it. As is, no matter how many references we post from scholars (as I did above) you'll be able to refute it by falsely claiming an argument from exclusion. As it is, in my readings I have NEVER found a claim by any reputable scholar that the Gospels were anything but anonymous.
(This is where you condescendingly chortle over the "my readings line.")
Regards,
Steve
I guess reputable in your opinion right?hardheadjarhead said:
This never ceases to amaze me. Again you take what I post and run with in in a direction opposite from its context and meaning. I didn't say your not welcome to, or need permission to post your feelings or beliefs. My point (which I think was pretty obvious) is that in a debate like this, feelings, opinions, and terms such as "likely" or "One would think" hold little merrit. In fact, while being criticized for using terms like "always" or "never" its interesting that terms such as "likely" or 'one would think" are so widely accepted.hardheadjarhead said:
You really shouldn't take our disagreements so personal.hardheadjarhead said:(This is where you condescendingly chortle over the "my readings line."
7sm
Ray
Master Black Belt
"....the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects." -http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.htmlhardheadjarhead said:
Can anyone verify this?
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Last I checked into the verse in question in Leviticus there was a sidenote that said that the meaning, or the correct translation, of some words was uncertain. Meaning that the word 'bat' for example was just a best guess by the transators at the time. Sometimes a wrod is used, like unicorn, based on both the translators uncertainty of the word coupled with incomplete zoological informtion. Not really much to get worked up about.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
In reference to my claim of reputable religious scholars stating the anonymity of the Gospels, 7Star wrote below:
Oh, gee...let's look at just one of them:
Bart Ehrman is chair of the department of Religious Studies at UNC, Chapel Hill. He graduated with a B.A. from Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), in 1978. He earned his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), in 1985.
He's written or edited thirteen books on the subject, including one college level text. He's spoken as a guest lecturer at nineteen universities, including Cornell, Yale, University of Birmingham, Duke, and Union Theological Seminary.
He served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, he was book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature. In addition he was editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field. I mentioned as well he's done a series of lectures for The Teaching Company.
He won the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.
Perhaps you need to write more clearly. May I suggest less time with the Greek, more time with English?
Regards,
Steve
7starmantis said:
Oh, gee...let's look at just one of them:
Bart Ehrman is chair of the department of Religious Studies at UNC, Chapel Hill. He graduated with a B.A. from Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), in 1978. He earned his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), in 1985.
He's written or edited thirteen books on the subject, including one college level text. He's spoken as a guest lecturer at nineteen universities, including Cornell, Yale, University of Birmingham, Duke, and Union Theological Seminary.
He served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, he was book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature. In addition he was editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field. I mentioned as well he's done a series of lectures for The Teaching Company.
He won the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.
7starmantis said:
Perhaps you need to write more clearly. May I suggest less time with the Greek, more time with English?
Regards,
Steve
OP
OP
heretic888
Senior Master
Let's get a few things straight here....
1) Claiming that I'm interjecting my own words into the Pauline epistles is extremely disingenous in this context. Psyche and pneuma are the terms used in the original Greek, I didn't make them up. Explain to me how psyche (and related words) translates to "unbeliever". Also, explain to me how translating pneuma as pertaining to "being given by the holy ghost or christian conscience" or, alternatively, as "believer" is in any way an honest translation of what is actually written. I'm not the one interjecting here.
That isn't a direct translation of what's actually said, but merely an interpretation based on Appeals To Belief.
2) This, of course, all just falls back to a point Tim Freke and Pete Gandy make in their works. Namely, that the common interpretation of Pauline epistles rests on inadequate (some would say intentionally deceptive) translations of ancient Greek into popular language. This is done to reinfoce the circular belief paradigm as well as to simultaneously mask the authors' reliance on Gnostic and Orphic terminology.
Why else would we interpret sarkic to mean "sinful", psychic to mean "unbelieving", pneumatic to mean "believing", teleioi to mean "mature" or "perfected", or even archones to mean "powers and principalities"??
This is why I take pretty much all "popular" translations of the New Testament with a very hefty grain of salt. They're so full of self-confirming bias and intentional revisionism.
3) It is a laughable Strawman Argument to claim I don't understand the idea of the twofold nature of man as expounded in Platonism, Orphism, Mithraism, Pythagoreanism, Buddhism, or any other major world religion. This is hardly a novelty of Christianity, although it is expounded in greater detail by later Christian mystics --- such as St. Bartholomeu's hierarchy of the eye of flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of spirit.
4) The Pauline authors' descriptions of different levels of understanding are very important, because it undermines the ridiculous literalist explanations that are being expounded as just-so statements on this thread.
5) I see we are still relying on retroactive historical projectionism to validate the circular Appeal To Belief, eh? Paul must have meant X because Y was said 100 years later, huh?? Sure.
6) I like how when I'm asked for evidence to support my claims, I provide direct quotations from my sources in response, and now I'm "appealing to authority". Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
7) I see my megapost is still being ignored, as are the majority of Pauline excerpts in my last post. Gee, imagine my surprise.
Laterz.
1) Claiming that I'm interjecting my own words into the Pauline epistles is extremely disingenous in this context. Psyche and pneuma are the terms used in the original Greek, I didn't make them up. Explain to me how psyche (and related words) translates to "unbeliever". Also, explain to me how translating pneuma as pertaining to "being given by the holy ghost or christian conscience" or, alternatively, as "believer" is in any way an honest translation of what is actually written. I'm not the one interjecting here.
That isn't a direct translation of what's actually said, but merely an interpretation based on Appeals To Belief.
2) This, of course, all just falls back to a point Tim Freke and Pete Gandy make in their works. Namely, that the common interpretation of Pauline epistles rests on inadequate (some would say intentionally deceptive) translations of ancient Greek into popular language. This is done to reinfoce the circular belief paradigm as well as to simultaneously mask the authors' reliance on Gnostic and Orphic terminology.
Why else would we interpret sarkic to mean "sinful", psychic to mean "unbelieving", pneumatic to mean "believing", teleioi to mean "mature" or "perfected", or even archones to mean "powers and principalities"??
This is why I take pretty much all "popular" translations of the New Testament with a very hefty grain of salt. They're so full of self-confirming bias and intentional revisionism.
3) It is a laughable Strawman Argument to claim I don't understand the idea of the twofold nature of man as expounded in Platonism, Orphism, Mithraism, Pythagoreanism, Buddhism, or any other major world religion. This is hardly a novelty of Christianity, although it is expounded in greater detail by later Christian mystics --- such as St. Bartholomeu's hierarchy of the eye of flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of spirit.
4) The Pauline authors' descriptions of different levels of understanding are very important, because it undermines the ridiculous literalist explanations that are being expounded as just-so statements on this thread.
5) I see we are still relying on retroactive historical projectionism to validate the circular Appeal To Belief, eh? Paul must have meant X because Y was said 100 years later, huh?? Sure.
6) I like how when I'm asked for evidence to support my claims, I provide direct quotations from my sources in response, and now I'm "appealing to authority". Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
7) I see my megapost is still being ignored, as are the majority of Pauline excerpts in my last post. Gee, imagine my surprise.
Laterz.
*sigh* Here we go...hardheadjarhead said:
OK, I was not referign to anyone in particular but to your generic statement of "reputable" scholars. I wasn't doubting any of your sources or your heroed "scholars". Man, can we forget about your dislike of me and just have some honest debate over this topic?
Before it was I didn't have a passing familiarity with the greek language or the bible and now I need to spend less time with the ancient (dead) greeks?hardheadjarhead said:
C'mon, if you dont have a rebuttle to a point I make, just forget it and move on, and lay off the personal attacks eh?
It seems you are all too eager to ignore points contrary to your beliefs system and post about semantics or personal attacks. I'm still waiting on a source of your claim of rape commanded by god, but I doubt I'll get one....it seems I need to spend less time with the greeks but more time with greek writings. :idunno:
7sm
OP
OP
heretic888
Senior Master
Okay, I realize the tail-end of my last post may have been a bit too snappy. I apologize if I upset or offended anyone, but its a little frustrating to see my actual arguments being summarily ignored merely because they disagree with conventional Church dogma (which is my perception of what's going on here).
I am, however, willing to listen to counter-arguments that rely on the source materials being used or contemporary sources that draw upon said materials. For example, how does one explain that only 'heretics' like Valentinus and Marcion draw upon Paul as an authority before the 190's CE, when the Pastoral Letters and Acts of the Apostles had become available?? This is an interesting line of research worth discussing, in my opinion.
Again, my apologies if I offended anyone.
Laterz. :asian:
I am, however, willing to listen to counter-arguments that rely on the source materials being used or contemporary sources that draw upon said materials. For example, how does one explain that only 'heretics' like Valentinus and Marcion draw upon Paul as an authority before the 190's CE, when the Pastoral Letters and Acts of the Apostles had become available?? This is an interesting line of research worth discussing, in my opinion.
Again, my apologies if I offended anyone.
Laterz. :asian:
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
7starmantis said:
You wrote:
"Again, it would be interesting to see your source for this claim as well."
I responded with several authors. You then wrote:
"I guess reputable in your opinion right?"
I responded properly by documenting the curriculum vitae of a Biblical author I cited earlier. When you write something like that, it would be appropriate to post the credentials of the person cited. You got what you asked for.
7starmantis said:
I referenced this in my response to Ray, with directions on how to find it three posts later. I'll narrow your search: Look in Deuteronomy.
Now get your Bible out.
Regards,
Steve
Whoa! Thats some nice footwork! I almost lost sight of you all together.hardheadjarhead said:
7sm
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
7starmantis said:Whoa! Thats some nice footwork! I almost lost sight of you all together.
7sm
Anyone else want to show me they've actually READ the Old Testament accounts in question before I post the references? So far 7Star has gotten an "F" in Bible study. He obviously can't find it, and clearly hasn't read it.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Once again, the topic is rape, as ordered by God and Moses.
Second hint: The book of Numbers. That and the portion of Deuteronomy I alluded to support each other.
Third hint and definition: rape n. 1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes: To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on. 2. To seize and carry off by force. 3. To plunder or pillage.
Middle English, from rapen, to rape, from Old French raper, to abduct, from Latin rapere, to seize.
Regards,
Steve
Wow, your funnier than I thought. I've read the entire old testament (as well as the new) many, many times and committed many books of the old testament to memory....oh wait, now you have backpeddled and defined "rape" as abduction.hardheadjarhead said:
Your bravado is embarrasing as well as your backpeddling.
Anyone else interested in honest debate? Ah hah, heritic...we can at least hold an honest discussion.
7sm
Its not disingenuous at all. You are simply isolating soletary words and translating them without regard to their usage. This is probably the most occuring mistake in translation of especially ancient greek. This is basically the equivalent to "sound biting" or sound bite politics". This is where someone takes a sound bite (or quote) and pulls out specific keywords without regard to context and creates a completely different message from actual words of the speaker. It is easy to do that and make almost anyone say anything you like. This is the same thing, although I wouldn't say as intentional. Your taking one word and assigning a complete ideological movement or meaning to each words, thus making one statement or writing contradict its very self. To translate correctly, one must take each word as a part of a whole. You cannot translate one word at a time without regard to the usage.heretic888 said:
Now to address your quoting of 1 Cor 2:14-15. I assume your first term "psychic" you are taking from yucikovß - which would be psuchikos. Is this correct? This word literally translated means natural as in sensual. Pertaining to having breath or characteristics of animals. This is precisely seperated from phusikos which would be more physical or instinctive. It is also seperated from pneumatikos which is non-carnal or supernatural.
Your defining it as a seperate "entity" if you will, from other "types" of man listed is simply not accurate. It is not refering to differing types of people but people of differing intent, or driven by something different. Tkae for example Kung Fu. My sidai (younger kung fu siblings) have a very different understanding of kung fu than I do as does my sifu from me. Is only one of us truley doing kung fu? No, we all are, just we understand at different levels. My sifu sees much more of the picture than I do. Same kind of thing here.
I'm off to bed, I'll address the rest of this scripture tomorrow.....
nighty night kids
7sm
OP
OP
heretic888
Senior Master
Just a few tidbits to add.
On the non-historicity of what scholarship generally holds to be the earliest canonical gospel, the Gospel of Mark:
"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way to Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying, 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10 v 12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce."
(Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984)
On the non-historicity of what scholarship generally holds to be the earliest canonical gospel, the Gospel of Mark:
"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way to Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying, 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10 v 12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce."
(Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984)
OP
OP
heretic888
Senior Master
On the moral stature of the God of the Old Testament:
"Although fanatically concerned about a supposed decline in moral values, Fundamentalists hold up the barbarous Old Testament as a divinely inspired account of the works of the one and only god Jehovah. Let's just have quick look at the sort of god they are worshipping. In The Book of Genesis Jehovah destroys all living things on the Earth by flood (Genesis 7), but somehow managed to also find the time to specifically execute one individual man for letting his semen spill when having sex (Genesis 38:9). In The Book of Exodus he inflicts hideous plagues on Egypt for not letting the Israelites leave, despite the fact that it was he himself who 'hardened Pharaoh's heart' (Exodus 7-11). He also kills all the firstborn Egyptian children (Exodus 12), assists the Israelites in slaughtering an entire tribe of Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-16), makes it allowable to beat a slave to death (Exous 21:20-21) and, after rumors that Israelites have worshipped a rival god, orders faithful Israelites to kill their friends and relatives, leading to the death of 3,000 people (Exodus 32:27-29).
Not content with this, in The First Book of Samuel Jehovah takes vengeance on the people of Gath by giving all the men a fatal dose of haemorrhoids (1 Samuel 5:8-9). In The Book of Leviticus he condones human sacrifice (Leviticus 27:28). In The Book of Deuteronomy he orders the Israelites to utterly destroy the people of the cities that he bequeaths to them as their 'inheritance', commanding them 'not to leave anything that breathes alive' (Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:16). In The Book of Numbers he orders a man to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and sends a plague which kills 14,700 people (Numbers 16:49). He also gives the Israelites power to utterly destroy the Canaanites (Numbers 21:3,6) and exterminate the people of Og (Numbers 21:35), advising with regard to captured women and children:
'Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourself all the young girls who have not known a man intimately' (Numbers 31:9,17-18).
You can see why the Christian Gnostic Marcion nicknamed Jehovah 'the exterminator'. And when it's not being gruesome, the Old Testament is so culturally foreign and outdated it is just plain daft. The Book of Leviticus tells us that we must have no contact at all with a menstruating woman (Leviticus 15:19-24), but it's fine to buy slaves from neighboring states (Leviticus 25:44). Eating shellfish is out, however. That's apparently an 'abomination' (Leviticus 10:10). The Book of Exodus insists that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death, which I guess means most of us deserve to die (Exodus 35:2). The Book of Deuteronomy decrees that a son who will not obey his parents is to be stoned to death by the whole town outside the city gates, so if you're male, and your dad's a Fundamentalist, and you're reading this, you're in big trouble (Deuteronomy 21:18-20)!
If you do literally believe that God wrote or personally inspired infallible books, as Fundamentalists do, then this is the sort of ridiculous mess you end up in. You can see why Paul regarded the Old Testament as so 'rickety' that it wouldn't 'be around much longer' (Hebrews 8:13)! It's a shame he was so completely wrong."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Harmony Books, 2001)
"Although fanatically concerned about a supposed decline in moral values, Fundamentalists hold up the barbarous Old Testament as a divinely inspired account of the works of the one and only god Jehovah. Let's just have quick look at the sort of god they are worshipping. In The Book of Genesis Jehovah destroys all living things on the Earth by flood (Genesis 7), but somehow managed to also find the time to specifically execute one individual man for letting his semen spill when having sex (Genesis 38:9). In The Book of Exodus he inflicts hideous plagues on Egypt for not letting the Israelites leave, despite the fact that it was he himself who 'hardened Pharaoh's heart' (Exodus 7-11). He also kills all the firstborn Egyptian children (Exodus 12), assists the Israelites in slaughtering an entire tribe of Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-16), makes it allowable to beat a slave to death (Exous 21:20-21) and, after rumors that Israelites have worshipped a rival god, orders faithful Israelites to kill their friends and relatives, leading to the death of 3,000 people (Exodus 32:27-29).
Not content with this, in The First Book of Samuel Jehovah takes vengeance on the people of Gath by giving all the men a fatal dose of haemorrhoids (1 Samuel 5:8-9). In The Book of Leviticus he condones human sacrifice (Leviticus 27:28). In The Book of Deuteronomy he orders the Israelites to utterly destroy the people of the cities that he bequeaths to them as their 'inheritance', commanding them 'not to leave anything that breathes alive' (Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:16). In The Book of Numbers he orders a man to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and sends a plague which kills 14,700 people (Numbers 16:49). He also gives the Israelites power to utterly destroy the Canaanites (Numbers 21:3,6) and exterminate the people of Og (Numbers 21:35), advising with regard to captured women and children:
'Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourself all the young girls who have not known a man intimately' (Numbers 31:9,17-18).
You can see why the Christian Gnostic Marcion nicknamed Jehovah 'the exterminator'. And when it's not being gruesome, the Old Testament is so culturally foreign and outdated it is just plain daft. The Book of Leviticus tells us that we must have no contact at all with a menstruating woman (Leviticus 15:19-24), but it's fine to buy slaves from neighboring states (Leviticus 25:44). Eating shellfish is out, however. That's apparently an 'abomination' (Leviticus 10:10). The Book of Exodus insists that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death, which I guess means most of us deserve to die (Exodus 35:2). The Book of Deuteronomy decrees that a son who will not obey his parents is to be stoned to death by the whole town outside the city gates, so if you're male, and your dad's a Fundamentalist, and you're reading this, you're in big trouble (Deuteronomy 21:18-20)!
If you do literally believe that God wrote or personally inspired infallible books, as Fundamentalists do, then this is the sort of ridiculous mess you end up in. You can see why Paul regarded the Old Testament as so 'rickety' that it wouldn't 'be around much longer' (Hebrews 8:13)! It's a shame he was so completely wrong."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Harmony Books, 2001)
OP
OP
heretic888
Senior Master
On the Synoptic gospels as originally being scripts for Hellenistic mystery plays:
"For the moment we can leave aside the alleged biography and the teaching contained in the gospels. We must turn to the crucifixion story to see whether this description of the sacrifice of a god-man bears the characteristic marks of a dramatic performance, in light of what we already know of such rituals. The mere possibility that we may be reading the transcript of a play, the basic plot of which is very ancient, meets with instinctive resistance. Yet it is a fact that mystery plays, so far from being uncommon, were a striking feature of the popular religions of Greece and Egypt. There is nothing instrinsically unlikely in the hypothesis that such a drama was in vogue among the Christians.
The sufferings and death of Osiris, for example, were enacted in a sacred drama once a year. Again, Adonis and Attis were represented by effigy in a dramatic ritual. The same is true of Mithra and Dionysus. A performance of the myth of Demeter and Persephone was the central attraction to the Eleusinian mysteries.
There is nothing surprising or unusual in acting our a religious myth. In fact one would expect Christians to imitate paganism and dramatize the Nativity, the Holy Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. There is a hint of such drama in the epistle to the Galatians, 'before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified.' And again: 'I bear in my body the marks of Lord Jesus.' There are other expressions in the epistles describing the devotee as mystically crucified and as having become one with the crucifed Lord. They strongly suggest that in the early stages of the cult it dramatically adopted the teaching of the Egyptian Book of the Dead where in the saved and Osirified soul declares: 'I clasp the sycamore tree; I myself am joined into the sycamore tree and its arms are opened unto me graciously.' Further, 'I have become a divine being by the side of the birthchamber of Osiris; I am brought forth with him, I renew my youth.'
The parallels are clear, but we have yet to establish how the drama of Christ's Supper, Passion, Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion actually originated. The proof, I submit, lies before men's eyes in the actual gospel narrative. It has always lain there, but pre-possessions set up by age-long belief have prevented believers and unbelievers alike from seeing it.
Let the reader carefully peruse the series of episodes given in their least sophisticated form in Matthew and Mark. From Matt. xxvi, 17 or 20, the narrative is simply the presentation of a dramatic action and dialogue. The events are huddled one upon the other exactly as happens in all drama that is not framed with a special concern for plausibility. In many plays of Shakespeare and even in the work of Ibsen, the chief master of modern drama -- in Hedda Gabler, for example -- there is a compression of incidents in time to minimize change of scene and develop the action rapidly. To realize fully the theatrical character of the gospel story it is necessary to keep in view this characteristic compression of the action in time, as well as the purely dramatic content. The compression of events not merely proves the narrative to be pure fiction; the reason for the compression is that they are presented in dramatic form."
(J. M. Roberston, Pagan Christs, Dorset Press, 1966)
"For the moment we can leave aside the alleged biography and the teaching contained in the gospels. We must turn to the crucifixion story to see whether this description of the sacrifice of a god-man bears the characteristic marks of a dramatic performance, in light of what we already know of such rituals. The mere possibility that we may be reading the transcript of a play, the basic plot of which is very ancient, meets with instinctive resistance. Yet it is a fact that mystery plays, so far from being uncommon, were a striking feature of the popular religions of Greece and Egypt. There is nothing instrinsically unlikely in the hypothesis that such a drama was in vogue among the Christians.
The sufferings and death of Osiris, for example, were enacted in a sacred drama once a year. Again, Adonis and Attis were represented by effigy in a dramatic ritual. The same is true of Mithra and Dionysus. A performance of the myth of Demeter and Persephone was the central attraction to the Eleusinian mysteries.
There is nothing surprising or unusual in acting our a religious myth. In fact one would expect Christians to imitate paganism and dramatize the Nativity, the Holy Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. There is a hint of such drama in the epistle to the Galatians, 'before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified.' And again: 'I bear in my body the marks of Lord Jesus.' There are other expressions in the epistles describing the devotee as mystically crucified and as having become one with the crucifed Lord. They strongly suggest that in the early stages of the cult it dramatically adopted the teaching of the Egyptian Book of the Dead where in the saved and Osirified soul declares: 'I clasp the sycamore tree; I myself am joined into the sycamore tree and its arms are opened unto me graciously.' Further, 'I have become a divine being by the side of the birthchamber of Osiris; I am brought forth with him, I renew my youth.'
The parallels are clear, but we have yet to establish how the drama of Christ's Supper, Passion, Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion actually originated. The proof, I submit, lies before men's eyes in the actual gospel narrative. It has always lain there, but pre-possessions set up by age-long belief have prevented believers and unbelievers alike from seeing it.
Let the reader carefully peruse the series of episodes given in their least sophisticated form in Matthew and Mark. From Matt. xxvi, 17 or 20, the narrative is simply the presentation of a dramatic action and dialogue. The events are huddled one upon the other exactly as happens in all drama that is not framed with a special concern for plausibility. In many plays of Shakespeare and even in the work of Ibsen, the chief master of modern drama -- in Hedda Gabler, for example -- there is a compression of incidents in time to minimize change of scene and develop the action rapidly. To realize fully the theatrical character of the gospel story it is necessary to keep in view this characteristic compression of the action in time, as well as the purely dramatic content. The compression of events not merely proves the narrative to be pure fiction; the reason for the compression is that they are presented in dramatic form."
(J. M. Roberston, Pagan Christs, Dorset Press, 1966)
