reviews and a rant...
Jul. 13th, 2004 09:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sigersonBooks Read Whilst In Wisconsin, Part 1
Re-read books:
Deed of Paksenarrion, Dreamsnake, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I turn to familiar fantasy or sf for a break, it seems. Plus there’s wonderful joy in a hammock and J.K. Rowling.
New books, with brief reviews:
Angels and Insects, A.S. Byatt. –The second novella is superior to the first, which struck me as a bit reminiscent of V.C. Andrews’ interminable family sagas. Ruminations on fictions, afterlife, and love versus Love were far more compelling than thwarted dreams, scientific study, and incest.
What Went Wrong? , Bernard Lewis—Interesting and convincing study of possible reasons or contributions to the comparative decline of the Islamic world in the last three centuries. Especially because he doesn’t say “it’s all due to Islam” or, for that matter, any one scapegoat. Clear-eyed and, to an uninformed observer, impartial. Worth a look. (Any recommendations from others on the subject?)
The Red Tent, A. Diamant. Lent to me by my boss when she learned of my prospective fields of study. Good reinterpretation with deep female characters, although the men seem to all get short shrift. I liked it. Not for people queasy about references to menstruation.
The Five People You Meet in Heaven, Mitch Albom. Lent to me by my housemate after a discussion about death. He said it made him very sad, when considering its philosophy applied to his own life. I can understand that. Pleasing and just deep enough to spark lots of thinking without leaning on specifics. Also good hammock reading.
The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy. Um. For this, I’ll need an lj-cut. Short version is, a fascinating theory wrecked by poor arguments.
The basic theory is this: that the historical Jesus never existed; instead, Christianity was a Jewish version of the Greek Mysteries (i.e., Adonis, Dionysus, etc.); the Gnostic religion based on this was forcibly suppressed by those who wished to have a ‘Literalist Christianity’.
They provide a lot of interesting evidence. The problem is, most of it is stuck in a logical fallacy, the evidence can be interpreted in several ways, the idea of a monolithic Pagan culture is assumed, and the agenda and tone of the book wrecks its credibility.
-- If A is similar to B, then B is another version of A. If Christian mythology of Jesus’s life is very similar to various mystery narratives, then it must be a version of the same. So says the book. However—much of the evidence they cite to prove similarity is from second and third century CE, where intermingling could have already happened in both cases. Of course the Gospels are mixed with Platonism, with Greek thought! But that does not prove that they are a fabrication—just that there’s Greek thought mixed with Hebrew prophecy. That can happen in several ways, couldn’t it? But only one is discussed.
-- Over and over, evidence that (to me) looked inconclusive, incomplete, or even pointing to a different interpretation was cited without any indication that there was any other way to look at the question.
--The book starts by assimilating all the various Mystery traditions into one “Osirus-Dionysus” tradition. Yes, there was a great deal of syncretism in the first and second century, so it’s probably likely that a fair amount of Mysteries shared material. That does not make them identical; it does not make them equivalent. However, it does give the authors nine or ten differing myths from which to pull similarities to Jesus. He’s like Mithras in this way, like Osirus in this way, like Pythagoras in another…Convenient. And too much like Fraser’s reductive study of ‘vegetation myths’ to be completely sound.
-- The agenda, clearly stated, is to support a Gnostic renewal, a seeking of the Christ in all of us. Many times, the authors muse about the central Truth common to all religions. I consider this idea to be valid, but in such a way as to be meaningless. There’s another LJ entry time for that, tho. I distrust Gnosticism, because I believe that it leads quite easily to elitism, dualism, and contempt; also because it seems to be spiritual teaching with no suggestion for actually existing in the day-to-day world. With this plan and these goals, can we trust the authors to seek alternate explanations for their evidence and give them serious thought? We could, except…
--The tone is not one of a serious piece of research. Yes, I know. Picking on tone is nit-picking. But it is very important, when reading a piece that seeks to convince me, to feel that the ‘other side’ has been given a fair shake. And although the authors insist that they are not anti-Christian, they are clearly anti-‘Literalist Christian’. This is how they describe Christian writers who took anti-Gnostic or literalist positions: “Ludicrous”, “ridiculous”, “loony”, “foolish”, “stupid”, “propagandist”, “toadying”, “laughable”, on and on and on. They set up Justin Martyr as a straw man, describe modern Christianity as ‘saturated with lies’…One of my greatest weaknesses/strengths is the desire to stand on the side of those who are being attacked or insulted. (This is also why I have trouble with some Michael Moore techniques, but again, another day.) So even when I don’t stand for orthodox Christianity, I can’t help but internally defend them when reading this kind of polemic.
And I thought the theory was quite interesting! I have many of the same problems with mainstream Christianity! But I cannot agree with this book as long as it is poorly argued, stuffed with vitriol, and incapable of addressing alternate ideas with any fairness!
Phew.
I’m done now.
Re-read books:
Deed of Paksenarrion, Dreamsnake, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I turn to familiar fantasy or sf for a break, it seems. Plus there’s wonderful joy in a hammock and J.K. Rowling.
New books, with brief reviews:
Angels and Insects, A.S. Byatt. –The second novella is superior to the first, which struck me as a bit reminiscent of V.C. Andrews’ interminable family sagas. Ruminations on fictions, afterlife, and love versus Love were far more compelling than thwarted dreams, scientific study, and incest.
What Went Wrong? , Bernard Lewis—Interesting and convincing study of possible reasons or contributions to the comparative decline of the Islamic world in the last three centuries. Especially because he doesn’t say “it’s all due to Islam” or, for that matter, any one scapegoat. Clear-eyed and, to an uninformed observer, impartial. Worth a look. (Any recommendations from others on the subject?)
The Red Tent, A. Diamant. Lent to me by my boss when she learned of my prospective fields of study. Good reinterpretation with deep female characters, although the men seem to all get short shrift. I liked it. Not for people queasy about references to menstruation.
The Five People You Meet in Heaven, Mitch Albom. Lent to me by my housemate after a discussion about death. He said it made him very sad, when considering its philosophy applied to his own life. I can understand that. Pleasing and just deep enough to spark lots of thinking without leaning on specifics. Also good hammock reading.
The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy. Um. For this, I’ll need an lj-cut. Short version is, a fascinating theory wrecked by poor arguments.
The basic theory is this: that the historical Jesus never existed; instead, Christianity was a Jewish version of the Greek Mysteries (i.e., Adonis, Dionysus, etc.); the Gnostic religion based on this was forcibly suppressed by those who wished to have a ‘Literalist Christianity’.
They provide a lot of interesting evidence. The problem is, most of it is stuck in a logical fallacy, the evidence can be interpreted in several ways, the idea of a monolithic Pagan culture is assumed, and the agenda and tone of the book wrecks its credibility.
-- If A is similar to B, then B is another version of A. If Christian mythology of Jesus’s life is very similar to various mystery narratives, then it must be a version of the same. So says the book. However—much of the evidence they cite to prove similarity is from second and third century CE, where intermingling could have already happened in both cases. Of course the Gospels are mixed with Platonism, with Greek thought! But that does not prove that they are a fabrication—just that there’s Greek thought mixed with Hebrew prophecy. That can happen in several ways, couldn’t it? But only one is discussed.
-- Over and over, evidence that (to me) looked inconclusive, incomplete, or even pointing to a different interpretation was cited without any indication that there was any other way to look at the question.
--The book starts by assimilating all the various Mystery traditions into one “Osirus-Dionysus” tradition. Yes, there was a great deal of syncretism in the first and second century, so it’s probably likely that a fair amount of Mysteries shared material. That does not make them identical; it does not make them equivalent. However, it does give the authors nine or ten differing myths from which to pull similarities to Jesus. He’s like Mithras in this way, like Osirus in this way, like Pythagoras in another…Convenient. And too much like Fraser’s reductive study of ‘vegetation myths’ to be completely sound.
-- The agenda, clearly stated, is to support a Gnostic renewal, a seeking of the Christ in all of us. Many times, the authors muse about the central Truth common to all religions. I consider this idea to be valid, but in such a way as to be meaningless. There’s another LJ entry time for that, tho. I distrust Gnosticism, because I believe that it leads quite easily to elitism, dualism, and contempt; also because it seems to be spiritual teaching with no suggestion for actually existing in the day-to-day world. With this plan and these goals, can we trust the authors to seek alternate explanations for their evidence and give them serious thought? We could, except…
--The tone is not one of a serious piece of research. Yes, I know. Picking on tone is nit-picking. But it is very important, when reading a piece that seeks to convince me, to feel that the ‘other side’ has been given a fair shake. And although the authors insist that they are not anti-Christian, they are clearly anti-‘Literalist Christian’. This is how they describe Christian writers who took anti-Gnostic or literalist positions: “Ludicrous”, “ridiculous”, “loony”, “foolish”, “stupid”, “propagandist”, “toadying”, “laughable”, on and on and on. They set up Justin Martyr as a straw man, describe modern Christianity as ‘saturated with lies’…One of my greatest weaknesses/strengths is the desire to stand on the side of those who are being attacked or insulted. (This is also why I have trouble with some Michael Moore techniques, but again, another day.) So even when I don’t stand for orthodox Christianity, I can’t help but internally defend them when reading this kind of polemic.
And I thought the theory was quite interesting! I have many of the same problems with mainstream Christianity! But I cannot agree with this book as long as it is poorly argued, stuffed with vitriol, and incapable of addressing alternate ideas with any fairness!
Phew.
I’m done now.
