Recently I had the opportunity to read the first three or four chapters of a very interesting book: The Jesus Mysteries : Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? I regret that circumstances prevented me from completing my reading. I may choose to purchase a copy of this book for my personal library, and so that I can finish reading it.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609807986
If anyone doesn't know it already, amazon.com quotes media reviews of books, and indivuduals may add their own evaluations. (I've reviewed a few books at amazon.com, and one of my acquaintances has reviewed more than 200 books for them....)
From the back of the book jacket, here are some of the controversial ideas this book advances, stated in question form:
What if . . .
* there were absolutely no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?
* for thousands of years Pagans had also followed a Son of God?
* this Pagan savior was also born of a virgin on the twenty-fifth of December before three shepherds, turned water into wine at a wedding, died and was resurrected, and offered his body and blood as a Holy Communion?
* these Pagan myths had been rewritten as the gospel of Jesus Christ?
* the earliest Gnostic Christians knew that the Jesus story was a myth?
* Christianity turned out to be a continuation of Paganism by another name?
The review by Publisher's Weekly states:
" This is at once a wonderful and a terribly flawed book; at times it is absolutely on target, and yet it yields to such vitriol and inflated language that it will be easily dismissed. The authors postulate that Christianity as we know it, regardless of the teachings of its founder, ultimately distilled and usurped the greatest wisdom inherent in pagan traditions. Specifically, they charge that Christianity looted the traditions of the Osiris/Dionysus cults - borrowing, synthesizing and domesticating what was most sacred to Greco-Roman civilization. Freke and Gandy assert that Christian history is "nothing less than the greatest cover-up of all time. Christianity's original Gnostic doctrines and its true origins in the Pagan Mysteries had been ruthlessly suppressed by the mass destruction of the evidence and the creation of a false history to suit the political purposes of the Roman Church." The authors compare the revolution of the imperial Christian church (which finally suppressed pagan worship) to the Communist revolution in Russia, arguing that both saw enormous bloodshed and suppression of all dissent. This kind of polemic detracts from the usefulness of this study. The book's great tragedy is that many of its most scholarly kernels of insight, such as the authors' discussion of Secret Mark or their tantalizing analysis of the Lazarus material, will be lost to responsible discussion. In sum, this is a disappointing, sensationalist polemic ."
I often (usually!) find myself disagreeing with Publisher's Weekly's reviews, and this one is no exception. It appears likely to me that this review was written by someone whose religious toes got stepped on by the facts as brought out in the book, and their too-obvious implications - or someone who is trying to anticipate the reactions of such people, and to "speak for them," in effect. Again, I've only read a portion of the book, but I thought the authors showed admirable objectivity abnd restraint. They assert that they both came from Christian backgrounds, and began their research with pro-Christian biases. Their conclusions, they say, are those that are simply most reasonable in the light of the evidence they present, and I found no exceptions to that rule in the chapters that I read.
Literalist Christianity, a.k.a. (self-described) "orthodox" Christianity, will find itself under attack by the authors' thesis and research, and it is to be expected that resistance, in the form of negative reviews and otherwise, will flow from that camp.
For me, The Jesus Mysteries presents a new, alternative, rational explanation of origins of Christianity, that appears to be very soundly and firmly based in a balanced consideration of historical fact - "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," rather than merely the half-truths, lies, and distortions that have been passed down as "history" to serve the purposes of the worldly and religious powers of Christendom.
To me, considering the work of these authors, and accepting the bulk of their conclusions as valid, does not invalidate or demean Christian tradition, although it certainly requires a reinterpretation that abandons an entrenched insistence on taking literally anything in the New Testament or in orthodox Christian theology.
As a person who has spent some time struggling internally with the supposed sharp distinction (underlined and emphasized by orthodox Christianity, and particularly sects like the JWs) between monotheism and polytheism, I particularly appreciate the authors' analysis of this issue, wherein they view Paganism through a monotheistic lens (using the words of classical philosophers and historians) and Christianity through a polytheistic one (quoting the Bible itself, as well as expressions of mainstream Christian theology), ultimately showing that the apparent dualistic division between the two approaches to Divinity is largely artificial, and much blurrier than is commonly supposed.
As I understand it, the authors conclude that the only essential differences between Christianity and the Mysteries of classical Paganism are 1. unreasonable, superstitious insistence on a literalist interpretation of the basic teachings (NONE of which are unique to Christianity); and 2. The insistence that we humans have exactly one chance for salvation by choosing the one and only right way in this life, with eternal blessings or cursings to follow as a result of that choice.
The removal of these peculiar features would leave the world with essentially a Gnostic form of Christianity - a religion that would be a tool for spiritual growth, and a source of motivation to moral and ethical excellence, but that would not be dogmatic and exclusionary in nature, and that would not be a suitable tool for the control of the many by the few.
I fully realize how difficult it will be for someone who is still in the JW religion but having a few (though possibly serious) doubts, or someone who has recently left the faith after being sincerely convinced that it was "the Truth," or even someone who has left the JWs and turned (or returned) to orthodox Christianity, to approach material like this open-mindedly. I myself would not have been comfortable reading this book until fairly recently (having left the WItnesses in early 2000).
Love and regards,
George