Post by sankari on Oct 4, 2012 9:51:05 GMT
This Is The Sun?: Zeitgeist and Religion (Volume I: Comparative Religion). Albert McIlhenny, Labarum Publishing: 2011.
This book is an epic tour de force of the pseudo-academic nonsense underpinning claims about Christianity in Zeitgeist: the Movie. McIlhenny was kind enough to send me a free .pdf edition, which I have recently finished reading.
I have included substantial quotes in this review because I believe the quality of the work is best demonstrated by allowing it to speak for itself.
McIlhenny's primary goal is to debunk Zeitgeist's claim that Jesus was a mythical character who served as a metaphor for a pagan solar deity. The book has three main parts:
In Part One we are introduced to Hermeticism and its chequered history through the ages. McIlhenny shows how this bizarre muddle of incoherent nonsense was variously celebrated and perpetuated by charlatans, quacks, and the credulous over many centuries. Despite numerous refutations there was always someone willing to resurrect it, dust it off, and reinvent it yet again:
In Part Two McIlhenny explains astrotheology, and demonstrates the irredeemable weakness of its convoluted foundations:
Like Hermeticism, astrotheology has been refuted many times throughout the ages, even in its formative years. Central to its thesis is the role of the zodiac, yet McIlhenny shows that this concept appears far too late in history to support the conclusions of astrotheology.
The associated allegation of Christians borrowing from pagan mythology collapses in the face of evidence proving that the material allegedly borrowed was at best contemporary with early Christianity and in most cases emerged long afterwards:
In Part Three McIlhenny examines and refutes the 'mythic hero' and 'dying/rising god' archetypes, typically used to argue that Jesus was just another pagan crossover.
Not only does he show that Jesus doesn't match the 'mythic hero' archetype; he also demonstrates that advocates of this theory must perform extraordinary gymnastics, variously bending and breaking their own criteria to suit the needs of the argument.
Proponents of the 'dying/rising god' myth will be horrified to learn that it never existed in antiquity but was fabricated by modern scholars (and pseudoscholars) with ideological motivations.
Opponents of Christianity are invited to consider the most parsimonious explanation of its origins: that it emerged as a Jewish sect within a strictly Jewish context. No alternative theory matches the textual and historical evidence:
McIlhenny's final conclusion is highly perceptive and deserves a wide audience:
If you've ever wanted a handy reference for refuting the 'Christianity = repackaged paganism' canard, McIlhenny's book should be your weapon of choice. It's an easy read and extremely informative. Strongly recommended.
This book is an epic tour de force of the pseudo-academic nonsense underpinning claims about Christianity in Zeitgeist: the Movie. McIlhenny was kind enough to send me a free .pdf edition, which I have recently finished reading.
I have included substantial quotes in this review because I believe the quality of the work is best demonstrated by allowing it to speak for itself.
McIlhenny's primary goal is to debunk Zeitgeist's claim that Jesus was a mythical character who served as a metaphor for a pagan solar deity. The book has three main parts:
- Origins
- Astrotheology
- Later Comparative Theories
In Part One we are introduced to Hermeticism and its chequered history through the ages. McIlhenny shows how this bizarre muddle of incoherent nonsense was variously celebrated and perpetuated by charlatans, quacks, and the credulous over many centuries. Despite numerous refutations there was always someone willing to resurrect it, dust it off, and reinvent it yet again:
The key to understanding the origins of the religious ideas presented in Zeitgeist is to understand the roots of Renaissance soterica. The mixture of Hellenistic philosophy with existing religious systems in late antiquity had produced movements such as Neoplatonism and Hermetism that were revived in Renaissance religious thought. The legendary figure of Hermes Trismegistus was synonymous with ancient wisdom and his reputation continued through the medieval period in alchemical texts credited to him. It reached new heights when other texts (CH) were recovered focusing more on philosophical issues.
Hermetism was taken as a form of true religion and its legendary sage was believed to be a prophet of monotheism and some believed he was the Egyptian teacher of Moses. The system of Egyptian polytheism was reinterpreted to minimize the remaining barriers with Judeo-Christian teachings and Hermetism read as a proto-Christianity.
Even when the Hermetic texts were proven to have been written far later than the time of the ancient pharaohs, the appeal of the “secret wisdom of Egypt” endured in groups such as the Rosicrucians, Freemasons, and others. The Freemasons recycled Hermetic ideas in some of its manifestations and claimed their rituals, often using astrological symbolism, were descended from earlier Egyptian rites. All of this was absurd as they were a modern organization rehashing ideas from the Hellenistic period as seen through a Renaissance lens but this set the stage for others to build upon.
Hermetism was taken as a form of true religion and its legendary sage was believed to be a prophet of monotheism and some believed he was the Egyptian teacher of Moses. The system of Egyptian polytheism was reinterpreted to minimize the remaining barriers with Judeo-Christian teachings and Hermetism read as a proto-Christianity.
Even when the Hermetic texts were proven to have been written far later than the time of the ancient pharaohs, the appeal of the “secret wisdom of Egypt” endured in groups such as the Rosicrucians, Freemasons, and others. The Freemasons recycled Hermetic ideas in some of its manifestations and claimed their rituals, often using astrological symbolism, were descended from earlier Egyptian rites. All of this was absurd as they were a modern organization rehashing ideas from the Hellenistic period as seen through a Renaissance lens but this set the stage for others to build upon.
In Part Two McIlhenny explains astrotheology, and demonstrates the irredeemable weakness of its convoluted foundations:
While the sun is at the center of the story in Zeitgeist, it is not the whole story. The basis of astrotheology is the sun's travel through the zodiac with different “ages” associated with astrological signs determined by the precession of the equinoxes. It is claimed that religions going back millennia were based upon this system. So how do these claims stack up against actual history? The answer is resoundingly negative.
Like Hermeticism, astrotheology has been refuted many times throughout the ages, even in its formative years. Central to its thesis is the role of the zodiac, yet McIlhenny shows that this concept appears far too late in history to support the conclusions of astrotheology.
The associated allegation of Christians borrowing from pagan mythology collapses in the face of evidence proving that the material allegedly borrowed was at best contemporary with early Christianity and in most cases emerged long afterwards:
But the facts have a way of upsetting the most elaborate of theories. Much of what was assumed about solar deities comes not from ancient beliefs in Egypt or Babylon but from Neoplatonism and other beliefs that are at best contemporaries of early Christianity. In fact, the winter solstice was not celebrated as a solar birthday in the Roman Empire until late antiquity.
As far as the zodiac goes, it was developed in the first millennium B.C. in Babylon and had no role in Egypt until the Ptolemaic era. Thus to assume it was the basis of earlier mythologies is nonsensical. In late antiquity, when such ideas were prominent, some mythologies were reconfigured to include solar elements but these were largely post-New Testament developments.
Nor do the astrological ages make much sense in the historical picture. First of all, the zodiac was not in existence until far too late for the theory to make any sense. Next, precession was discovered in the last few centuries B.C. Finally, the division of the sky used by Zeitgeist supporters to delineate the supposed ages is modern.
Things become even more strained when enters the winter solstice enters the picture. It was assumed the solar deity rose on December 25, three days after the winter solstice on December 22, to symbolize the period when the movement of the sun rested at its low point. However, not only was Jesus never associated with the date until centuries later, but the three day period was not fixed to the dates of December 22 – December 25 until the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1582.
As far as the zodiac goes, it was developed in the first millennium B.C. in Babylon and had no role in Egypt until the Ptolemaic era. Thus to assume it was the basis of earlier mythologies is nonsensical. In late antiquity, when such ideas were prominent, some mythologies were reconfigured to include solar elements but these were largely post-New Testament developments.
Nor do the astrological ages make much sense in the historical picture. First of all, the zodiac was not in existence until far too late for the theory to make any sense. Next, precession was discovered in the last few centuries B.C. Finally, the division of the sky used by Zeitgeist supporters to delineate the supposed ages is modern.
Things become even more strained when enters the winter solstice enters the picture. It was assumed the solar deity rose on December 25, three days after the winter solstice on December 22, to symbolize the period when the movement of the sun rested at its low point. However, not only was Jesus never associated with the date until centuries later, but the three day period was not fixed to the dates of December 22 – December 25 until the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1582.
In Part Three McIlhenny examines and refutes the 'mythic hero' and 'dying/rising god' archetypes, typically used to argue that Jesus was just another pagan crossover.
Not only does he show that Jesus doesn't match the 'mythic hero' archetype; he also demonstrates that advocates of this theory must perform extraordinary gymnastics, variously bending and breaking their own criteria to suit the needs of the argument.
Proponents of the 'dying/rising god' myth will be horrified to learn that it never existed in antiquity but was fabricated by modern scholars (and pseudoscholars) with ideological motivations.
Opponents of Christianity are invited to consider the most parsimonious explanation of its origins: that it emerged as a Jewish sect within a strictly Jewish context. No alternative theory matches the textual and historical evidence:
When astrotheology as a basis for religion was rejected, this did not spell the end of such comparisons but only the beginning. In fact, it can be considered an important but failed step in the development of the study of comparative religion. However, it also set a pattern soon to be repeated in many other such endeavours as comparative religion often veered from studying legitimate commonalities of religions and sought to “prove” Christianity was based on earlier religions apart from Judaism.
The most prominent theories have included the “dying and rising gods” thesis, the mythic hero thesis, and supposed origins within the mystery religions and Gnosticism. All of these and lesser theories failed to withstand serious scrutiny as sources for early Christianity. The clear indication is, regardless of what one makes of its claims, that Christianity was an outgrowth of Second Temple Judaism.
The most prominent theories have included the “dying and rising gods” thesis, the mythic hero thesis, and supposed origins within the mystery religions and Gnosticism. All of these and lesser theories failed to withstand serious scrutiny as sources for early Christianity. The clear indication is, regardless of what one makes of its claims, that Christianity was an outgrowth of Second Temple Judaism.
McIlhenny's final conclusion is highly perceptive and deserves a wide audience:
Even for those accepting a completely naturalistic explanation for some or all religions, the theory is a losing proposition. Any cultural manifestation, religion included, is subject to the myriad of influences upon that culture. Thus, reducing a culture's beliefs to representations of a single class of phenomena, such as astronomical events, is doomed to fail. Such reductionism, particularly to astronomical data, is a relic of the Enlightenment when classical physics was seen as the model for all intellectual endeavours. In reality, many religious beliefs of ancient cultures might reflect a complex interaction of social, political, and natural phenomena we might never completely understand.
Such reductionist fallacies are certainly the case when one turns to Zeitgeist. Their view of ancient pagan beliefs is hopelessly naive as they reduce numerous religious systems in disparate cultures with little interaction to a single mythological pattern. They compound this error by then taking Christianity and forcing onto it the same pattern applied elsewhere while never bothering to see if these supposed connections are more easily explained within its natural Jewish context. Such an approach not only fails to explain Christianity but pagan beliefs as well.
Such reductionist fallacies are certainly the case when one turns to Zeitgeist. Their view of ancient pagan beliefs is hopelessly naive as they reduce numerous religious systems in disparate cultures with little interaction to a single mythological pattern. They compound this error by then taking Christianity and forcing onto it the same pattern applied elsewhere while never bothering to see if these supposed connections are more easily explained within its natural Jewish context. Such an approach not only fails to explain Christianity but pagan beliefs as well.
If you've ever wanted a handy reference for refuting the 'Christianity = repackaged paganism' canard, McIlhenny's book should be your weapon of choice. It's an easy read and extremely informative. Strongly recommended.
