Kabane52 forces Rook Hawkins to face the evidence, but Rook runs away

I got this debate from RRS' forum. Rook Hawkins did more dodges than a game of dodge ball. Enjoy:

Question on the Pagan Parallels for the Jesus Mythicist

Kabane52:

Hello everyone. I am Kabane52 from YouTube. I think the Jesus Myth theory is nonsense that was righly abandoned by scholars in the 19th century. But apparently Bad Boy Flemming read too much of Earl Doherty and produced the "documentary" The God Who Wasn't There" which uses the hilarious "16 Crucified Saviors" list, which includes figures like Beddru. Do you know who Beddru is? He is made up. Never worshipped. But Bad Boy Flemming forgot to do his research.

My question is as follows.

What is the evidence for the following pagan parallels regarding Mithra.

Born of a virgin

Had 12 disciples

Crucified

Resurrected

I have seen these parallels parroted everywhere, but have not seen any evidence for it. So, your evidence that people thought Mithra had these four attributes is?

Oh, and by the way, the evidence has to predate Christianity. Take your best shot.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Okay. Try the Zoroastrian tradition of Mithraism which DOES predate Christianity.

Born of the virgin Anahita - which was impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster much like Christ is said to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit bringing the seed of David unto Mary.

I agree about the 12 disciples, the 12 disciples is a trope reflecting the tradition in the Torah where Moses asks for one man from every tride to represent that tribe and lead it.

I also agree that he wouldn't have been crucified, although he did shed blood for salvation of man. This was a common hellenistic theme, a trope going back as far as the Elusian mysteries.

He did ascend into heaven, in fact after a last supper (or sacred meal). His ascension, however, is not based on the Old Testament trope of Enoch like that of Jesus' ascension in Luke. Mithras ascends on a chariot (similar in means like that of Elijah) to become the cosmic ruler.

Also, now that you've shown that you have no idea what the mythicist position is, what did you tend to offer in return for your contest?

...

How come it was abandoned in the 19th century?

Mythicism was not abandoned in the 19th century. It's been a continuing part of scholarship for two hundred years since the establishment of the historical-critical method and the establish of many redaktiongeschichte schule. Additionally, most of scholarship has always been oriented away from secularism. Especially after the turn of the 20th century. The two historical Jesus quests (1st one starting in the early 18th century and ending with Schweitzer in 1911, 2nd one following Kasemann's lecture and article establishing additional traditions of his teacher and colleague Bultmann and ending with Robinson's evaluation of the quest in the same frame of mind of Schweitzer who categorized the quest prior to his book) established many methods which now are invalid and have been shown to be flawed for decades now. This is in part due to much better dating techniques, new archaeological finds and additional advancements in the fields of sociology, anthropology and archeology (among other fields). There is no modern historical-critical evaluation and refutation of the mythicist position as it stands today (put forth by Price, Carrier, Thompson and Doherty).

===============================

Kabane52:

You make the claims. Back it up by evidence.

You claim followers of Mithra thought Mithra

1. Was born of a virgin

2. Shed blood for the sins of mankind

3. Had a last supper

4. Ascended on a chariot into heaven

That is super! Where is the evidence for that which predates Christianity?

As for scholarly opinion of the Jesus Myth, yes, it was mostly abandoned in the 19th century. Even the Jesus Seminar, pinnacle of liberal scholarship, admits that Jesus existed. (At least most of them)

The mythicist position is refuted in depth here: (All of these are just linking you to the letter of the last name. Scroll down to see the rebuttal pages.)

Doherty: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.htm

Price: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-P.html

Carrier: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html

Never heard of Thompson. What has he written?

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

You make the claims. Back it up by evidence.

You claim followers of Mithra thought Mithra

1. Was born of a virgin

2. Shed blood for the sins of mankind

3. Had a last supper

4. Ascended on a chariot into heaven

That is super! Where is the evidence for that which predates Christianity?

Any academic publisher within the last ten years which has published on Mithraism. Why don't you start there, and after you've read those books, you and I will be on the same level.

As for scholarly opinion of the Jesus Myth, yes, it was mostly abandoned in the 19th century. Even the Jesus Seminar, pinnacle of liberal scholarship, admits that Jesus existed. (At least most of them)

No it was not. Your opinions on scholarship are naive at best.

The mythicist position is refuted in depth here: (All of these are just linking you to the letter of the last name. Scroll down to see the rebuttal pages.)

Doherty: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.htm

Price: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-P.html

Carrier: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html

And all of these authors have responded to Holding (which is not a historian or a scholar but rather an apologist who flings insults instead of evidence). Holding has yet to respond to any of their refutations. All of which can be viewed in their recent books and publications in peer reviewed journals. That is more to say then your Holding source, which is neither peer reviewed nor has he ever been published. Would you like to present a good source or would you prefer to present false information that historians pay no credence too? (All four of the scholars I presented by the way are credentialed - Holding is not)

Never heard of Thompson. What has he written?

Over 100 articles in peer reviewed journals and he is the editor of a scholarly monograph. Again...what has Holding done besides fling insults and criticize his betters?

NEXT!

===============================

Kabane52:

We're getting off topic here. The question was about the pagan parallels, so let's deal with those. How about we narrow it down to one parallel that we can discuss at a time.

The Virgin Birth of Mithra

What evidence is there for this that predates Christianity?

...

Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin.

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

That link is not an apologetics website, and it is written by a credentialed scholar, but it shows some evidence that Mithra was born of a rock. Mithra never died, he killed a bull, but this is only in Roman Mithraism, which postdates Christianity. We know very, very little about Iranian Mithraism.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Are you incapable of reading comprehension? I said the Zoroastrian tradition, not the Roman Tradition you silly person, you!


===============================

Kabane52:

Exactly. The parallels are only in Roman Mithraism (not Zoroastrian), and even there they are pretty weak. Tell me, in Zoroastrian Mithraism, what evidence is there that the followers thought that Mithra was born of a virgin?

...

Ah, good. So Rook hasn't abandoned the argument after all. We are discussing the virgin birth. So, Rook, what evidence that predates Christianity demonstrates that in Zoroastrian tradition, Mithra was thought to be born of a virgin?

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

What gives you this impossible idea that the Zoroastrian tradition doesn't demonstrate parallels? Why would you think that the Roman tradition is the only tradition that resembles Christ (which is false)? Zoroastrian tradition resembles Christ just as other early traditions hold common tropes. There is no doubt of that. Please consider the following sources on parallelism between old and new testaments and extra-biblical religions:

Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth ; The Early History of the Israelite People; The Mythic Past; The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Niels Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition; Miller-Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; Phillip Davies, In Search of "Ancient Israel"; Matthews-Benjamin, Old Testament Paralles: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East; James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement; Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel; Myth and History in the Bible; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History; Gosta Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (To name a few)

Many of those deal with general parallel's, but here aresome specifically dealing with Mithraism:

Robert Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire; Michael Patella, Lord of the Cosmos: Mithras, Paul, and the Gospek of Mark; Payam Nabarz, The Mytseries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief that Shaped the Christian World; Manfred Clauss (trans. Richard Gordon), The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries (again...to name a few)

These deal specifically with the influence of Zoroastrian tradition on the Romans, and how it shaped their understanding of Mithras (You apparently don't seem to realize that the Romans adopted the religion from Mithraism and that they really just altered a very small portion of the myth - much of it remained the same). These books will help you understand further the similar tropes between the two Gods.

I am not making the claim that Jesus is a carbon copy of ANY one God, specifically. That's a silly claim to make and one I fight against. However the fact that Jesus is a trope invented using manyvarious tropes is a fact. There is no dispute among scholarship about this. In fact, many historicists admit this, as did those even at the beginning of the first quest for Jesus which started with Strauss. However, that is the very problem. Once you admit it's all mythology and trope, you are essentially picking and choosing which part of the myth to take as "historical" (such as Crossan using the argument that Jesus's resurrection was probably historical, and the rest of the story parable). This is an underlining presupposition among scholars who claim Jesus existed - they start from the conclusion that Jesus must have existed, and then work backwards from that assumption (in their minds...something MUST have happened). This claim is automatically dubious, as nobody would claim (without gaining some sort of criticism from the consensus of scholarship) that the death of Dionysus, or Orpheus were actual historical events simply because they had followers (which is the only claim for Jesus to make). This is not how historical research and acumen is handled, and to think it is can only be viewed as naivety.

I certainly hope you don't hold this position, as it only reflects poorly on your thinking abilities.

===============================

Kabane52:

You still haven't given me your shred of evidence yet.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

I don't have too. The books I've presented do that work for me. I've given you the resources so YOU can do your own research on it, as it is clear by your naivety you are clueless. I am writing a book which takes up most of my time and as such I don't have the hours needed to present you with the evidence (which I'd basically be taking from these books). If you want to know, and you are being honest about your question, there should be no reason for you not to check those books out. If you are, however, just being a prick and are asking because you think you know-it-all, then you can honestly go fuck yourself. If the later is true, I'm just wasting my time anyway. If you are however being honest, and really want to know - go read those books.


===============================

Kabane52:

Works like Heidel's and Pritchard's note parallels but do not endorse any sort of "borrowing" thesis; in fact Heidel says that Genesis did NOT depend on Babylon's material. Nabarz is an occultist, not a religious scholar. Clauss does not support your case. Patella is a scholar but his work is considered fringe: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5409_5703.pdf and note that it speaks of general concept correspondence, not specifics like you want.
Could you cite specifics?

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

I would say that you are either misreading Heidel or you are pulling that conclusion from somewhere else. Can you please cite me where Heidel says that Genesis did not borrow from Gilgemesh? I can't seem to find that in my copy.

Further, the works are supplemental. They don't all have to support my opinion individually, as many of the works I mention utilize the manuscripts and provide adequate and up-to-date information regarding the borrowing of tropes and ideas in older manuscripts.

I'll retract Nabarz if you agree to retract J.P. Holding.

You say that Patella is fringe, but I find that irrelevant. Why would it matter if his work is fringe or not, especially when the reviewer (which you posted) stated that "Happily, the overall thesis of this book is at the very least plausible." (p. 2) You say it fails with specifics, but that makes me wonder if you even read the article at length or perhaps you just skimmed it, as the particulars Patella is missing are not at all detrimental to his case in the least. This is actually backed up BY the review, "It is significant that the problematic details are not specific to Patella’s book but rather an issue for Markan scholarship as a whole." (emphasis mine, p. 3)

In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer (James G. Crossley), that there are lots of gaps in Markan scholarship, and where Crossley admits there are gaps, also suggests many scholars interpret too much into the book and claim Mark says what it really doesn't. This is where the somewhat new (last ten years) scholarship of Dennis McDonald come into play, where we see many instances in the New Testament, but especially that in Mark where the Homeric epics are used as a formation of many key events, including the boy who tosses the mantle off his back before running off naked away from Jesus, and the three women who visit the tomb of Jesus at the end of the narrative to name a few; as well as the calling of Judas to the Sanhedrin to ask him to identify Jesus (when many of their ilk would have known who Jesus already was, being that he had rebuked a number of them and overthrew the tables of the money changers outside their front doors!)

You say Clauss does not agree with me...have you read the book or are you just guessing? "Moreover, the similarities between the two religions adduced above must have encouraged Mithraists in particular to become Christians. They had no need in their new faith to give up the ritual meal, their Sun-imagery, or even their candles, incense and bells. Some elements of Mithraism may well have been carried oer into Christianity, which partly explains why even in the sixth century the Church authorities had to struggle against those stuli homines, those simply clowns, who continued on the very church-steps to do obeisance to the Sun early in the morning, as they always had done, and pray to him." (p. 172)

I also agree with Clauss when he says, "Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Greco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world." (p. 168) This sets up my point nicely, in fact, that when you have mutualy similar religions fighting to save souls, ideas will be passed between the two when converts from one go to another and gain places of power in that community. This cannot be denied, and this is why Clauss admits this on page 172 (quoted above). The similarities are there, and exist. But they had to come from somewhere, and if Clauss even admits that they are similar because they came from earlier traditions in Greco-oriental (ancient near eastern Hellenistic) culture they could not be from events that actually happened in 30-33 CE.

When I suggest you go to a library and read the books I suggest you do so, otherwise you only show yourself to be foolish when somebody who actually has read them shows that you have not.

===============================

jcr4runner weighs in on Rook's attitude problem:

This is an interesting exchange. I see in one place where Rook criticizes J.P. Holding because he's "only an apologist and knows how to fling insults." Then I read about a dozen ad hominems directed toward Kabane including Rook telling Kabane (a 13-year-old kid!) that he's a "pr**k" and to go F*** himself.

Rook, if you did YOUR research and "read some books" on the law you'd know you could be brought up on charges for this -- sexually harrassing a minor -- whether ignorant or not, it's a tortious offense. At the very least you should be ashamed. But I guess atheists have no reason to be ashamed of anything.

All he's asking you to do is cite some evidence and you're reply is that your "job" keeps you way too busy and that you are too smart to inform a 13-year-old with some valid questions. It doesn't help either your case or your credibility.

Then you pass off not being able to cite an example by telling him to "go read some books." If Kabane is 13-years-old and can think like this, then he obviously has read some books. I wnat to see the discussion develop and see where Kabane will be at in 7 years or so.

He's not a historian yet -- and neither are you since you have no credentials by which to call yourself that -- but his father is a professor of history -- or so I heard? But I predict Kabane will probably have his PhD while you'll still be caliming to be a historian with no credentials.

Do you think the rest of the world can't see this for what it is?

BTW: I saw in one place where you called Holding a fraud. At least Holding does have an M.A. in library science which makes him a credible researcher -- and you have your degree in ???

For the record, I have degree in Psychology and English literature and am a certified teacher of English. So I do have some formal training in social sciences and literary analysis. But it's only a B.A. and I don't claim to be someone that I am not.

What you have proven is that you are able to find lots of books that support your atheistic longings. But you haven't done a lot of serious thinking or writing on your own. You aren't published. I've been reading for a year now that you are "writing a book." That should be a great laugh when it's finished.

Essentially, you are a parrot. There hasn't been any NEW Higher Criticism in the past 150 years. All of the refutations of Higher Criticism that were done more than 50 years ago still stand.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Apparently, this is nothing more than an attempt to attack me without providing any more insight to the debate. Once more, because this thread seems to be hijacked, I will repost this for kabane or anybody else. Please keep in mind that Kabane has been citing things that he has apparently not read, as I've shown below. I've cited near forty sources above and all of them should be considered. I have and will continue to be patient and wait for a response. Note how I call him out below:

Works like Heidel's and Pritchard's note parallels but do not endorse any sort of "borrowing" thesis; in fact Heidel says that Genesis did NOT depend on Babylon's material. Nabarz is an occultist, not a religious scholar. Clauss does not support your case. Patella is a scholar but his work is considered fringe: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5409_5703.pdf and note that it speaks of general concept correspondence, not specifics like you want.
Could you cite specifics?

I would say that you are either misreading Heidel or you are pulling that conclusion from somewhere else. Can you please cite me where Heidel says that Genesis did not borrow from Gilgemesh? I can't seem to find that in my copy.

Further, the works are supplemental. They don't all have to support my opinion individually, as many of the works I mention utilize the manuscripts and provide adequate and up-to-date information regarding the borrowing of tropes and ideas in older manuscripts.

I'll retract Nabarz if you agree to retract J.P. Holding.

You say that Patella is fringe, but I find that irrelevant. Why would it matter if his work is fringe or not, especially when the reviewer (which you posted) stated that "Happily, the overall thesis of this book is at the very least plausible." (p. 2) You say it fails with specifics, but that makes me wonder if you even read the article at length or perhaps you just skimmed it, as the particulars Patella is missing are not at all detrimental to his case in the least. This is actually backed up BY the review, "It is significant that the problematic details are not specific to Patella’s book but rather an issue for Markan scholarship as a whole." (emphasis mine, p. 3)

In this, I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer (James G. Crossley), that there are lots of gaps in Markan scholarship, and where Crossley admits there are gaps, also suggests many scholars interpret too much into the book and claim Mark says what it really doesn't. This is where the somewhat new (last ten years) scholarship of Dennis McDonald come into play, where we see many instances in the New Testament, but especially that in Mark where the Homeric epics are used as a formation of many key events, including the boy who tosses the mantle off his back before running off naked away from Jesus, and the three women who visit the tomb of Jesus at the end of the narrative to name a few; as well as the calling of Judas to the Sanhedrin to ask him to identify Jesus (when many of their ilk would have known who Jesus already was, being that he had rebuked a number of them and overthrew the tables of the money changers outside their front doors!)

You say Clauss does not agree with me...have you read the book or are you just guessing? "Moreover, the similarities between the two religions adduced above must have encouraged Mithraists in particular to become Christians. They had no need in their new faith to give up the ritual meal, their Sun-imagery, or even their candles, incense and bells. Some elements of Mithraism may well have been carried oer into Christianity, which partly explains why even in the sixth century the Church authorities had to struggle against those stuli homines, those simply clowns, who continued on the very church-steps to do obeisance to the Sun early in the morning, as they always had done, and pray to him." (p. 172)

I also agree with Clauss when he says, "Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Greco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world." (p. 168) This sets up my point nicely, in fact, that when you have mutualy similar religions fighting to save souls, ideas will be passed between the two when converts from one go to another and gain places of power in that community. This cannot be denied, and this is why Clauss admits this on page 172 (quoted above). The similarities are there, and exist. But they had to come from somewhere, and if Clauss even admits that they are similar because they came from earlier traditions in Greco-oriental (ancient near eastern Hellenistic) culture they could not be from events that actually happened in 30-33 CE.

When I suggest you go to a library and read the books I suggest you do so, otherwise you only show yourself to be foolish when somebody who actually has read them shows that you have not.

===============================

Kabane52:

Discussing the opinions of authors is not relevant. I discuss evidence. So provide the evidence, and I will respond. If you continue to tell me to read some books, then the discussion is over, because you refuse to cite a piece of evidence for a virgin birth predating Christianity.

===============================

Rook Hawkins:

Discussing the opinions of authors is not relevant.

More naivety.

I discuss evidence.

You don't even know what "evidence" is.

So provide the evidence, and I will respond.

Those books clearly lay out the evidence for you. Read them. Stop avoiding the work load. Answers don't come easy, you actually need to work to find them.

If you continue to tell me to read some books, then the discussion is over,

Because apparently you are unread, and wish to remain so.

because you refuse to cite a piece of evidence for a virgin birth predating Christianity.

I have cited 50 books which discuss and show the evidence. The work is there and cited, you refuse to do anything about it. This is now a thread which not only displays your ignorance but your inability to be intellectually honest. You've so far lied and been dishonest throughout this whole thread and all you have done to suppliment that is show how incredibly lazy you are. Keep it up. Everyone with a third grade reading level can see you've done nothing but complain throughout this whole thread, while I've backed up and cited more than what you deserve. This has been an gross waste of my time.

And Rook, don't criticize JP Holding for not being a historian, when he does not claim to be.

I'm criticizing your use of somebody who has no understanding of historical methods and how the science of history is applied. You utilizing him as a resource is just one more additional nail in the metaphorical coffin; that coffin, by the way, is that which holds whatever integrity and respect you might have had, had you approached this subject from a more honest vantage point.
Yet you claim to be a historian and ancient texts expert because Richard Carrier(PhDless himself) told you you were. Get over yourself.

Another lie. Back this up please - and I still await your apology for lying about knowing those resources which you claimed above.

===============================

How to do the "Rook Hawkins" shuffle:

Whenever you're asked to provide evidence for something, dodge it by saying "just read these books" and that settles the problem. So, the next time Rook Hawkins asks you to provide evidence for a historical Jesus, just tell him to read more books, then you got him! That's how "scholars" like Rook Hawkins answers questions.