The Dying and Rising Gods

I have posted the introduction to what is going to be a glossary of the Dying-and-Rising Gods. It takes a serious look at the Talmud, the Toledot Yeshu, and the history of the Onias dynasty as legitimate sources for the construction of the historical Jesus.

Any comments for the article would be greatly appreciated.

This entry was posted in History, Religion by Jeff Q. Bookmark the permalink.

About Jeff Q

I live in New Orleans. I have a Bachelors in Computer Science and a Masters in English Literature. My interests include ancient history, religion, mythology, philosophy, and fantasy/sci-fi. My Twitter handle is @Bahumuth.

7 thoughts on “The Dying and Rising Gods

  1. hello, gee you have a really fantastic website and i can only be grateful you have set it up. wondering … im researching serapis from 3oo bc and on your site you have a great article, the article ends with a magnificent sculpture of ” Antinous as Serapis ” . Do you have any information on where i may research that sculpture?

    thanks anyway if you dont or if you do…. great work must have its own reward…

  2. I’m about 40 percent with you and 60 percent against on this pro-mythicist piece:

    Few notes
    1. Hoffmann, in a book about it, appears to take the Toledoth chronology, and other things, more seriously than the gospels. Of course, it was not too long after his thesis, Marcion, etc.
    2. I don’t think Ehrman is as bad as you, or other mythicists, crack him up to be.
    3. You TOTALLY lost me with the idea of Freud, Jung, Frazier and Campbell as “experts.” First, depth psychology in general is a crock of shit. Second, Freud stopped researching hysteria in women the moment he realized child sexual abuse was behind a fair chunk of it. Third, on Jung, you must read “The Aryan Christ” biography of him. The title says a fair chunk of it all right there. Fourth, Frazier, and myth-and-ritual comparative religion, have long been partially if not totally rejected. Fifth, Campbell not only came from myth-and-ritual, he was also a New Agey blissmeister.

    Other pieces on your whole site, the 40 percent agree, 60 percent disagree would apply in general, with a note, speaking of science, that correlation does not mean causation, especially when the degree of correlation is being stretched.

  3. It seems to me that Hoffmann used to be far more reasonable in the past but then he had a very bad experience with the Jesus Project that has made him very bitter towards mythicists. I have a sneaking suspicion that his current opinions are overly influenced by a personal grudge against Richard Carrier.

    Ehrman as a whole may not be that bad, but his book “Did Jesus Exist?” is probably the worst attempt at historical Jesus scholarship I have ever read.

    I am not talking about depth psychology or hysteria in women and I don’t think they are relevant to the current discussion. I think the current hatred of Freud is really strange in the same way that I would find people hating on Newton for not understanding relativity strange. His book “Moses and Monotheism” is still one of my favorite reads.

    I think “Frazier has been rejected” has become the line for people who do not want to read him. I’m sure you can find some errors but I have not seen anything like a complete refutation of his primary arguments.

    I have read several Campbell books and have not run into any New Age bliss but plenty of archaeological evidence for Christian/pagan syncretism.

  4. You mentioned those four people, the first two of which are the high priests of depth psychology, on the post I linked, so, you were talking about depth psychologists.

    My comments were all part of showing how pseudoscientific they are. If you don’t want to accept that, it goes to your credibility.

    And “follow your bliss” isn’t New Agey?

  5. “My comments were all part of showing how pseudoscientific they are. If
    you don’t want to accept that, it goes to your credibility.”

    Genetic fallacy.

  6. “Follow your bliss” comes from an interview with Bill Moyers and I’m not even sure it made it into the documentary. It maybe has a “New Agey” flavor but he fully admits its a “superstition”.

    I welcome any criticisms about what is pseudoscientific about MY arguments but you failed to provide anything substantive. “Hoffman used to take the Toledot seriously” hardly points to that conclusion. “Ehrman is as bad as you” is completely uninformative, and then you go off on a completely unrelated topic. What am I supposed to take from that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.