Talk:The Jesus Mysteries

Sunday Times 2005

"The Sunday Times, on the other hand, judged it to be one of the top 20 books available at the time of its review, and the Daily Telegraph named it Book of the Year saying that it was "An erudite and well-researched book stuffed with controversial ideas - Book of the Year"." References please. If none can be provided, I'll remove this. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I saw the same quote from the Daily Telegraph on Amazon's review of the book. I wonder if this came from there, or perhaps both have the same source. -- llywrch 22:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Updating myself) Just did a quick Google on the phrase, & it's more than likely that the title "Book of the Year" is not the opinion of the Daily Telegraph, but of the reviewer, a poetess by the name of Fiona Pitt-Kethley. I found her webpage, but there's very little there that would offer help understanding her familiarity with the subject or even her critical competence. Not precisely a rousing endorsement. (Other reviews of this work can be found at http://www.bookfinder.us/review0/0609807986.html .) -- llywrch 23:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As no source is being provided for this, and due to the dubiousness of the claim that it was "Book of the Year" by the Daily Telegraph, I'm going to remove this. It most definitely sounds like it was book of the year for the reviewer. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I work for the Daily Telegraph. It had official recognition of this position. If you are willing to subscribe to our website, you will find it amongst the archives. The New Pope 21:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. If you'd be willing to source the article, that would be fine however. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. more fool the Daily Telegraph. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the page to add a couple of links to my work, point out the cover image is probably fake and add a few more criticisms of F&G. Presently the reviews are mainly positive so some balance is required for this highly controversial book. James Hannam 24/8/05 (bede@bede.org.uk).

Dubious

Wow. The book gets more dubious by the minute. Freke and Gandy have a BA and MA between them, and their footnotes are from (mostly) out of date books. On top of this, the gem that features prominently on their book is a forgery. I really don't think that this book would pass peer review of a historical journal. And I might point out that the quotes on the bottom of the article are from people who are not schooled in ancient history. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Romans on whether Jesus existed

Roman and Jewish writers at the time believed Jesus existed, but these writers were not Christians. Mainstream atheist historians believe Jesus existed, but not the supernatural parts of the story. This book to is not a serious work.

The references to Jesus by Jewish and Roman Historians are later Christian interpolations, or they are ambiguous and not nessecarily about a historical personage. Josephus' Antiquities contains the only clear references to jesus and most scholars unanimously agree that these are later Christian interpolations without any agreement on what may have been the original passages if there was any. The Roman references are not likely about a historical person, such as Suetonius' mention of "Chrestus" which is latin for "Good One", and all Rabbinical references post date the 3rd century. You really don't know what you are talking about when you say mainstream atheist historians, and why should atheism have anything to do with the Historical Jesus??

Is This Even History?

...is the question people should ask themselves when they read this book. As far as I can tell, this book had zero impact in academia, and for good reason. Anyone trained in historical methods, who has some familiarity with the ancient sources and the modern literature, can tell after five minutes with this book that it is not well researched. I don't think it should be read as history, since Freke and Gandy (esp. Freke) advertise their New Age seminars. I think it should be read as a piece of religious-seeker awaken-yourself literature where the history is irrelevant.

But people DO read it as history. And they think it is well researched simply because the authors have read a lot, and they have degrees. Its complete non-seriousness means there is no serious refutation to cite for Wikipedia. Oh well. Maestlin 19:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tim Freke and Peter Gandy's Response to claims in this article

We are concerned about unfounded and potentially libellous claims being made about our 1999 book The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God? These all seem to originate from an article in the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia entitled The Jesus Mysteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries

Did Freke and Gandy post this message here, in Wikipedia? Or has it been copied from elsewhere? What is the basis for the statement that the "potentially libellous claims" originate from Wikipedia? At least some of the criticism in the article seems to have based on bede's website, which is referenced in the External links section and for the statement that the amulet has been suspected of forgery. Please explain. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the article is biased and inaccurate throughout, our major concern is with the claims made about the Orphic ring-stone or amulet that was used as the cover illustration of The Jesus Mysteries. This illustration was an artist’s reproduction based on a line drawing, but we also included a photograph of a cast made from the original gem in the plate section.

Firstly the claim is made that the amulet is a fake. Secondly and more seriously, the author claims that we knew this at the time of writing and yet made no mention of it in our book. In order to rebut these charges we will first present our sources for the amulet, then the claims we made for it in our book. Finally we will give our response to these charges.

Our Sources:

We first came across this object in two books:

Orpheus - The Fisher Comparative Studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism Robert Eisler Preface dates to 1920 (This book has been recently republished by Kessinger Publications we believe) “Plate XXX1 to face p.54 The Crucified Christ as Orpheus Haematite seal-cylinder in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum of Berlin. Reproduced from a drawing five times the size by A Becker, executed under the supervision of the present writer after plaster impressions, which were most kindly supplied by Dr. Wulff, director of the Early Christian and Byzantine Collection of this Museum.” (Eisler follows this with a brief description of the symbolism of the amulet)

and:

Orpheus and Greek Religion WKC Guthrie Originally published London 1952 republished Princeton Paperback 1993 where the amulet is reproduced on p265 with the following description: “fig 19 - Haematite Seal-Cylinder or Amulet of the Third Century AD now in Berlin” Guthrie also provides a brief analysis of the object and a footnote in the text refers to O. Wulff Altchristliche Bildwerke, 1 (1909) 234, no 1146, tab. 56. Guthrie mentions that it is also reproduced in Eisler’s book and gives a brief, two page summary of his views on the amulet.

Looking at Guthrie again we are confused by his comment made in 1952 that the amulet was “now in Berlin” as we read elsewhere that it had been destroyed in the bombing of 1945. Our publishers may have got that information when they sought permission from Berlin to reproduce the picture. I note that the picture credit at the back of The Jesus Mysteries refers to the Staatliche Museum zu Berlin, Breubishcer Kulturbesits, Museum fur Spatantike und Byzantische Kunst, which would be the place to start for anyone seeking further information about this object.

Our comments in The Jesus Mysteries

We refer to this object twice. In the introduction we write:

‘As the final pieces of the puzzle were falling into place, we came across a small picture tucked way in the appendices at the back of an old academic book. It was a drawing of a 3rd century CE amulet which we have used as the cover of this book. It shows a crucified figure which most people would immediately recognise as Jesus. Yet the Greek words give us the name of this figure as ‘Orpheus Bacchus ’ - one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus. To the author of the book in which we found the picture, this amulet was an anomaly. Who could it have possibly belonged to? Was it a crucified Pagan deity, or some sort of Gnostic synthesis of Paganism and Christianity? Either way it was deeply puzzling. For us, however, this amulet was perfectly understandable. It was an unexpected confirmation of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. The figure could be seen as either Jesus or Osiris-Dionysus. To the initiated, these were both names for essentially the same figure.’

We include this quotation only because we have read some claims (not made in the Wikipedia article) that our entire thesis rests on this amulet. This is false. As we state, almost all the evidence for our thesis had been gathered before we came across the amulet. Some of this evidence is provided in our next reference in Chapter 3.

If it's not in the Wikipedia article, the target of this response essay, why bring it up? Keep the focus on what is important so that editors can fix any problems. This looks like misdirection. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

‘It seems incredible that Osiris-Dionysus could have been portrayed as meeting exactly the same death as Jesus, but this is what the evidence suggests. On some vase representations the idol of Dionysus is constructed on a crucifix. The church father Arnobius is scandalised that in the Mysteries of Dionysus initiates passed around a holy cross. A sarcophagus of the third century CE from Rome pictures an aged disciple bowing low before the divine child Dionysus, and bringing him a crucifix. One modern scholar describes this cross as “an intimation of the child's ultimately tragic fate”.

From the same period we also have a remarkable talisman which shows a crucified figure immediately recognisable as Jesus - yet it is actually Osiris-Dionysus. The inscription under the crucified figure reads ‘Orpheus-Bakkikos’, which means ‘Orpheus becomes a Bacchoi’. Orpheus was a great legendary prophet of Dionysus who was so respected that he was often regarded as the godman himself. A ‘Bacchoi’ was the name for an enlightened disciple of Dionysus who had become completely identified with the god. The talisman, therefore, represents Dionysus dying by crucifixion, symbolising the initiate’s mystical death to his lower nature and rebirth as a god.

We also have a seemingly strange piece of ancient graffiti carved behind a pillar in Rome sometime between 193 and 235 CE. It sketches a man with a donkey's head crucified on a cross, with the caption "Alexmenos worships his god". This graffiti has been interpreted as a Pagan insult towards Christianity, but it is far more likely that it is a Dionysian representation of the crucifixion of the lower ‘animal’ nature, which, as we have already discussed, was symbolised by a donkey.

It is a remarkable fact that we have no representations of the crucified Jesus before the 5th centuries CE. If this piece of graffiti and the talisman of Orpheus are taken as references to Christianity, we are in the bizarre position of saying that the first portrayals of the crucifixion of Christ are a Pagan joke and a talisman in which he is called Orpheus - both of which are dated to centuries before any genuine Christian portrayals! This does not seem very credible. The simple and obvious solution to these puzzles is that in certain myths of Osiris-Dionysus, the godman was portrayed as meeting his death by crucifixion.’

Is the object a fake?

There is another related article at Wikipedia about the Christ-Myth theory at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

This has a header warning that ‘The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed’. Unfortunately, the article on The Jesus Mysteries does not. But it should have. It is hostile throughout and most of its claims are unsupported by references. For now we only wish to take issue with the two following statements.

This paragraph is false in my opinion. The article is not "hostile throughout" and it is not true that "most of its claims are unsupported by references." (Only one short section really calls for references, the short Criticism and support section.) The article includes a nearly neutral introduction with just a hint of negativity, that perhaps should be cleaned up, a neutral summary of the book's contents that is referenced to the book, a section of partial criticism, and a mix of positive and negative reviews. Or does anyone think that An erudite and well-researched book stuffed with controversial ideas is hostile? Point to specific problems, but don't make vague allegations. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

‘The cover of The Jesus Mysteries features a gem of Dionysus/Orpheus. This gem was pronounced a forgery by Otto Kern’

and

‘Among common complaints are that Freke and Gandy make selective use of quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), that they use out of date scholarship and that they are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda. The most damaging allegation has been that the striking image on the cover of the book of a 4th century amulet showing Orpheus crucified has long been suspected of being a fake. Freke and Gandy knew this but gave no hint of it in their book.’

Neither of these statements is supported by either evidence or references. The link to Otto Kern merely leads to a three-line biography that says that the German linguist was chairman of the Society of Friends and attained a doctorate of philosophy in 1888. There is no reference to Kern’s alleged views about the amulet.

The link to Otto Kern gives no information because it is not a reference for the statement about Kern's views about the amulet. It is a link that gives you a little information about who Kern was, for curious but ignorant readers. The caption to the picture, which is what you seem to be complaining about, simply repeats information which is also in the text, where the reference belongs. The reference, an external link, was in the text. It wasn't working when I tried it, so I fixed it with an edit. If you follow that link, you will find this near the bottom of the webpage:

I found an endnote to the 1952 edition of Guthrie's work (page 278) states:

"In his review of this book [Orpheus and Greek Religion] in Gnomon (1935, p 476), [Otto] Kern [unfeasibly esteemed German expert on Orpheus] recants and expresses himself convinced by the expert opinion of Reil and Zahn [more distinguished Germans] that the gem is a forgery."

There's your reference. Not elegant, but a reference nonetheless. I would look it up myself and give a more direct reference for the statement about Kern, but our library doesn't carry early issues of Gnomon. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of the article

You clearly have no idea of how Wikipedia works. Some articles have one main author, but most have several contributors. You can easily look at the history of the article to find out who contributed what. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

attacking us at Wikipedia claims that we knew that the object had ‘long been suspected of being a fake.’ And, most insultingly, that we ‘knew this but gave no hint of it’ in our book.

Our reply to the first charge is to ask for references to support the assertion that the object has ‘long been suspected of being a fake.’ We know of no such suspicions, nor did we come across any in our research. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, has the object ever been proved to be a fake. And it is hard to see how anything might be proved one way or the other now, for sadly it appears that the amulet no longer exists.

I have now given you the reference for the suspicion. Agreed, it can't be proven, which is why the article only says "suspected." I agree that the claim you knew about the suspicion has no support. I have removed it and I encourage other editors not to add anything like that without strong evidence, because it is a strong claim. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Our reaction to the second charge of calculated dishonesty is one of indignation. This is not only the lowest form of ad hominem attack, it is also libellous. Neither of our sources mentions any doubts about the authenticity of the amulet, nor do they refer to any other scholar who had expressed such a view. Both Eisler and Guthrie clearly accept the object as genuine as they advance theories about its meaning and significance. This would be absurd if either had any doubts about its authenticity. The fact that neither professor expresses such doubts, or refers to doubts that may have been expressed by any other scholars, undermines the charge that the object ‘has long been suspected of being a fake.’ If Kern had pronounced the object a fake then why do neither Eisler and Guthrie refer to this? We can only conclude that they were either unfamiliar with his work, or that they found his evidence unconvincing and not worth repeating.

Eisler could not have referred to Kern's assessment because it didn't exist yet, if the date you give for Eisler's introduction means anything. Guthrie, apparently, does reference Kern and you perhaps missed it, since it's what bede quoted. I will try to confirm or dispute this reference today. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We are now making enquiries as to the best way to seek redress for our complaints and to have the Wikipedia article changed. At the very least we suggest that it should have a header warning readers that ‘The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.’

Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy May 17, 2006

My suggestions for the best ways you can have your concerns addressed ("redress" sounds like a legal word--are you seeking legal action? I can't help you with that):

1. Don't edit any article which is about you or your work. This is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. It raises questions about the neutrality and objectivity of the article, no matter how well-intentioned or careful you might be. Instead, restrict your discussion of yourself and your work to the talk space of articles. Friendly editors will help.
2. Focus on what you want changed here. Don't get involved in what someone, somewhere, has done to misrepresent your work unless it shows up on Wikipedia.
3. Learn about the process of creating and editing Wikipedia articles. Instead of complaining, wrongly, about "the author," you will be able to identify specific editors who have a pattern of hostility.
4. If you really think this article is hostile throughout, explain. Lots of it looks neutral or positive to me.
5. If you have made a mistake, admit it. If you learned something, acknowledge it. Maestlin 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Postscript--I verified the quotation from Guthrie and edited the article accordingly. This removes one link from the citation chain (a scholarly source is cited directly) and avoids linking to a blog (see Wikipedia:External links on linking to blogs). The two main concerns expressed above have been addressed: a sound reference is given for the statement that the amulet is a suspected forgery, and the claim that Freke and Gandy knew about it has been removed.

I have to say that this does not look good for Freke and Gandy, assuming that they are the authors of the post above. They appeal to Guthrie's book regarding the forgery, asking why he doesn't refer to Kern's decision that it was a fake, yet Guthrie states plainly that Kern decided it was a fake. What is more, they confess themselves confused that Guthrie writes about the amulet as if it were in Berlin in 1952. They apparently did not realize that the 1952 edition is a second edition. Guthrie originally wrote about the amulet in 1935, before it was destroyed. If they didn't know it was a suspected forgery, then they did some slipshod research. Given their ignorance about the publishing history of Guthrie's book, I think the latter.

Now that Freke and Gandy's concerns have been addressed, I am going to remove the warning templates. If they have further concerns, I recommend they be expressed on this talk page. I have already explained why. I will be happy to address their concerns to the best of my ability. But to call an article like this "hostile throughout" is, in my opinion, unjustified. Maestlin 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So this critique of the Wikipedia article really was written by Mr's Freke and Gandy, or maybe just Gandy, and later uploaded here. Freke's homepage has a blurb about it, which says this, among other things: "The source of this rumour is a slanderous wikipedia article penned by a fundamentalist Christian." I am curious how they identified the article as being penned by a fundamentalist Christian, since some of this article was edited anonymously. Perhaps they saw some scrap of evidence I overlooked. It will be interesting to see if they make any changes, or if they continue to call this article "slanderous." Maestlin 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

They have every right to be upset. Those slanderous remarks survived on the page for ten months! Considering how many sites scrape their content from wikipedia, they will survive on the net for much longer. In addition, many people mistakenly consider wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. (I guess not everybody reads the disclaimer. :P) Someone who plugs in "Jesus Mysteries" at Answers.com will still walk away believing Freke and Gandy deliberately deceived their readers.[1] Their reputations have been tarnished. Wikipedia editors and admins should be appalled at this situation.^^James^^ 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim is so strong and so potentially damaging that it shouldn't have been added as a statement of fact, or without careful and obvious references as to the source. But Wikipedia was not the originator of the claim that Freke and Gandy knew the amulet was a suspected forgery. That claim was first made by "Bede" on pages that were referenced obscurely in the article. Bede wrote (in his blog and his book review, respectively):

• And one can also have suspicions as to why they didn't give a reference to where the picture came from.[2]
• This is their piece de resistance and they even put a pictures of the likely fake on the cover of their book without breathing a word about the doubts about its veracity.[3]

It's not stated as plainly as the Wikipedia article had it, but there is no doubt in my mind what Bede wants us to think. For a followup, see Bede's update on the amulet and this Wikpedia article. [4]

What about Freke and Gandy's other claims? They say, for instance, that the Wikipedia article is "hostile throughout." Do you agree? Do you think that the claim, posted by a popular writer on religion, will have no impact on how Wikipedia is perceived? And what about this statement they made?

• This would be absurd if either had any doubts about its authenticity. The fact that neither professor expresses such doubts, or refers to doubts that may have been expressed by any other scholars, undermines the charge that the object ‘has long been suspected of being a fake.’

The suspicion of forgery was already verified in the article, all I have done is make it more evident. Is this sort of attack excused because Freke and Gandy were also targets? Do they get to cry "you started it"? They need to check their facts before they start crying slander and libel. I don't like binaries, but I see only two options here. Either they are monstrously incompetent when it comes to research and fact-checking and their "statement" is an example of it; or they are deliberately deceptive and their "statement" is an attempt to intimidate Wikipedians into creating a rosy review. Maestlin 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Common Complaints?

Regarding "Among common complaints..." - I'd like to see some citations there. Common complaints from whom? ^^James^^ 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are quotations and links to book reviews across the spectrum. If you want a more clear attribution, use the links to create notes in the article in a way that satisfies you. The complaints are common: I have seen them many times, but not in ways that are really verifiable by WP standards. That particular phrase should be replaced. Maestlin 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: According to some critics, Freke and Gandy make selective use of quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), use out of date scholarship, and are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda. I'd like to know who these critics are. I am guessing JP Holding is one. I'll go read his review. Who are the others? ^^James^^ 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My Revert Edit Summary

Oops! I meant WP:RS.^^James^^ 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO this blog has now become quite relevant to the article. Maestlin 21:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bede here

I've slightly edited the article to reference my real name and to my blog, not to the Tektonics quotation of me.

I have received an email in which Gandy admitted that the claim in Guthrie's book that the amulet is fake was highlighted by him in his copy. That is strong enough evidence that he knew the amulet was probably fake and suppressed that information. I am surprised that they still maintain they knew nothing about these claims. When I have time, I'll write a full article on this sorry saga with chapter, verse and a summary of why the amulet was rejected by scholars in the first place.

For the record, I completely stand by my opinion that the Jesus Mysteries is duplicitous and deliberately misleading. --86.132.30.210 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read what Freke and Gandy wrote above, I see they are still denying what Gandy admitted to a friend was true. Also (whoops) I forgot to sign in.

Gandy emailed a supporter on 19 May 2006 who sent it on to me which reads (regarding the amulet):

"The plot thickens! I have to admit that James Hannam is correct. Kern's comment is indeed in Guthrie's book! However, it is not in the endnotes but in a two page 'Supplement' that follows the endnotes. I was surprised to find that I had even marked it up! I then spent a few minutes wondering how I missed in our recent discussion, and looked again for a reference to this Supplement in the main text or endnotes but couldn't find one. (If Hannam can point to such a reference I will demur.) I then spent a few minutes wondering why Guthrie hadn't referred to this Supplement and realized that the answer is provided by the supplementary note itself. It makes clear that Kern's comments were made in a review of Guthrie's book, and hence after it was published. Therefore this Supplement can only have been added to later editions. Clearly I had come across Kern's comment some nine years ago when I originally read this book, and yet I ignored it then as irrelevant."

Gandy wrote this on 19 May but has not seen fit to correct what he has written on this page, although it is wrong. The fact is, he did know nine years ago about the suspicions that the amulet was fake. He ignored them. I find that dishonest and his protestations now even more so. I will edit the article to say Gandy did know that the amulet was probably fake. --James Hannam 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Freke & Gandy's response

According to Freke & Gandy, (see [5]) there are "unfounded and potentially libellous claims" in Wikipedia revision, 01:56, 5 April 2006. How interesting. Firstly, the authors do provide us with an old photo of the amulet in their plates section (plate 6, to be precise - I bought the book some time ago). What I find interesting about their use of words is that they believe that it gave them an "unexpected confirmation of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. The figure could be seen as either Jesus or Osiris-Dionysus." Yes, certainly it is not their entire thesis, but really, surely this is clutching at straws? To my mind, this shows evidence of authors who seemed certain of their conclusions and were hunting for confirmation to fit their theory. Secondly, it does show a certain lack of checking of sources. I think perhaps largely because of their consternation that we didn't cite our sources about Kern believing the amulet to be a forgery, we now have a source:

"In his review of this book in Gnomon, 1935, 476, Kern recants and expressed himself convinced by the expert opinion of J. Keil and R. Zahn (AGGELOS, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde, 1926, 62 ff.) that the ORPHEOC BAKKIKOC gem is a forgery." W. C. K. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), p. 278, n. to p. 265.

Freke and Gandy's direct challenge has been met.

"Our reply to the first charge is to ask for references to support the assertion that the object has ‘long been suspected of being a fake.’ We know of no such suspicions, nor did we come across any in our research. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, has the object ever been proved to be a fake. And it is hard to see how anything might be proved one way or the other now, for sadly it appears that the amulet no longer exists."

I do think that their argument that "we don't know if it is a fake or not, because it is now destroyed" is a little disingenious. These are, remember, the people who placed the amulet on the front cover of their book! If they knew it was destroyed, and they aren't certain if it was real (which they seem to be readily admitting), then why are they so upset when someone points out the issue to them? This looks strongly to me like the authors are doing a rapid backpeddle on the issue...

However, it is regrettable that the text "Freke and Gandy knew this but gave no hint of it in their book" was added in this revision. This violates the no personal attacks policy, and doesn't really do much for the critic who added it in. I notice it has since been removed. I can't apologise for the whole of Wikipedia, but I can say I am sorry to see the text in the article history. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have quoted an email above where Gandy does admit he knew about the allegations and ignored them. Thus, there is no need to apologise as the allegation was true and is substantiated. --James Hannam 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think an email is valid substantiation. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So what would be? Do you want a confession signed in blood? ;) Unless Gandy denies the email is from him, it is quite adequate. If you are unhappy, ask him.

My asking them doesn't matter one way or the other. If it isn't reliably verifiable, then the info doesn't go into Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"They hate the idea that the incarnation of the Son of God and his resurrection could have been a matter of actual flesh and blood and time and place."[1]

Oh come on, this is hardly a scientific argument against this works historicity, most educated people would think the idea is ludicrous, and it is. In fact, the onus is on this Bishop to prove his frankly absurd belief that God became a human being in first century Palestine, was born of a virgin, and died and came back to life and then floated up on a cloud to heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A scientific response to a historical controversy. How novel. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Christians using semantics to denegrate a point that is absolutely valid and says nothing in response to the point. Thats not novel unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.210.26 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"they virtually ignore the more direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy"

Hmm. Kind of an unhelpful quote. "Direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy"?? The Jewish tradition and prophecy was that a *political* leader would come -- not a spiritual leader. The Messiah was a title given to leaders of the Jews. The prophecy simply said that the Jews would once again find a leader. It wasn't a prophecy of a savior. I'd consider dropping this CNN reporter's quote -- it's uninformed and bogus.

"Roman and Jewish writers at the time believed Jesus existed, but these writers were not Christians. Mainstream atheist historians believe Jesus existed, but not the supernatural parts of the story."

Show us the money. Please. Show us the historical evidence. What Roman and Jewish writers at the time believed Jesus existed? Who said it, and when, in what works? What mainstream atheists believe Jesus existed? Why do they, and why does that change what these authors are proposing?

Whoever you are, add a {{fact}} tag and take the argument to another article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Honorable Mention in the Quran

Surah Tawbah (Repentance), Chapter 9, verse 30: The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of God and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of god.” Such are the baseless things they utter with their tongues, following in the footsteps of the former unbelievers. (Translated approximately from Arabic).

The former unbelievers, might refer, to the previous prevailing religion of Osiris-Dionysus. The Quran takes a stand, of stating that Jesus did exist, he was born miraculously of a virgin birth (comparing the miracle as simpler than creating Adam initially), he was mighty prophet and a wonder-man (comparable to previous miracle prophets likes Abraham, Moses, etc). Quran make a strong point as to Jesus was not killed, but appeared to be, he was raised from the earth indicating that he is still alive and might return.

The Hadees, Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) traditions, does mention that Jesus will appear again at the end of time, to end the reign of Dajjal (today popularly known as The Anti-Christ).

Besides these points, Jesus Mystery, in majority, doesn't contradict with the Quranic version of the Jesus and perhaps complements it to establish the fact that calling Jesus, a son of god, is largely based on the former unbelievers theory, that is Orisis-Dionysus and so is a false belief.

- Nabeel Aejaz Nabeelaejaz (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but we're discussing the article, not whether Jesus was born or not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mystical writers?

"Mystical writers" or rather "authors on mysticism" perhaps? Although they're rather gnostics, not mysticists, so maybe "gnostic authors" or "authors on gnosticism"? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorialising

The following is, IMO, editorialising:

---

While this idea may be new and controversial to today's critics, it was well known to the early church fathers. The similarity between Christianity and the Pagan Mysteries (Osirus-Dionysus, Horus, Mythras, Iris etc.) so disturbed some of the early Christian fathers, such as Justin Martyr (100 -165 CE), that some of them had to resort to the most bizarre of reasons to explain the similarity to the Pagan cults. This is what Celsus had to say about early Christianity;

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God".

The 2nd century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, on being countered with the statement that Christianity had borrowed all its basic features from the existing cults of the Greco-Egyptico-Romano-Persian world, had this to say;

"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly amongst men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirit [Satan] put forth many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvelous tales, like the things that were said by the poets".

The church father Tertullian also used the 'diabolical mimicry' excuse to explain the close similarity between Christianity and the pre-existing cults at the time. Said Tertullian:

"The devil, whose business [it] is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine".

Essentially, these early Christian apologists were saying, "So what, our religion looks similar to your religions, but we did not copy from you. The Devil mimicked our religion in your religion in anticipation of the advent of our religion". Incredible as this may seem, this was nonetheless the standard excuse given by the early church apologists; one which has basically not changed at all in the entire two thousand years of the evolution of Christianity.

---

This is interesting, but has a few problems:

• no citations
• opinion - someone's point if view - hence not neutral and frankly pushing the line taken by Freke and Gandy as if it were Wikipedia's stance.
• not entirely relevant to this book - it would be better incorporated into another article.

I've removed it, because we don't heed to argue for it against the book. If there is supporting material, then add it to the reception section. - Letsbefiends (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The section titled "Reception" is anything but and would be better served with the title "criticism", given how selective contributors have been in what is included here. Even where a source has commented positively upon the book, David Allan Dodson as an example, the editors have carefully selected a section which clearly supports their bias that the works thesis is incorrect.

I understand that religion and spirituality is an emotive subject and that people dislike, often passionately, having their belief system questioned but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry not a place for supporting our beliefs - whatever they might be.

I can see little alternative but to rename this section unless anyone would like to provide some balance to it. I can do this myself but it would take some time. Longer than more "persistent" wiki editors could do. --SlaineD (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Jesus Mysteries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070921085911/http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/ to http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070921085911/http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/ to http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/387a/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)