Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[LEDO]

Here is Campbell elaborating on that issue:

Toward the end of close of the Age of Bronze and, more strongly, with the dawn of the Age of Iron (c. 1250 B.C. in the Levant), the old cosmology and mythologies of the goddess mother were radically transformed, reinterpreted, and in large measure even suppressed, by those suddenly intrusive patriarchal warrior tribesmen whose traditions have come down to us chiefly in the Old and New Testaments and in the myths of Greece.

and,

For it is now perfectly clear that before the violent entry of the late Bronze and early Iron Age nomadic Aryan cattle-herders from the north and Semitic sheep-and-goat-herders from the south into the old cult sites of the ancient world, there had prevailed in that world an essentially organic, vegetal, non-heroic view of the nature and necessities of life that was completely repugnant to those lion hearts for whom not the patient toil of earth but the battle spear and its plunder were the source of both wealth and joy. In the older mother myths and rites the light and darker aspects of the mixed thing that is life had been honored equally and together, whereas in the later, male-oriented, patriarchal myths, all that is good and noble was attributed to the new, heroic master gods, leaving to the native nature powers the character only of darkness--to which, also, a negative moral judgment now was added. For, as a great body of evidence shows, the social as well as mythic orders of the two contrasting ways of life were opposed. Where the goddess had been venerated as the giver and supporter of life as well as consumer of the dead, women as her representatives had been accorded a paramount position in society as well as in cult. Such an order of female-dominated social and cultic custom is termed, in a broad and general way, the order of Mother Right. And opposed to such without quarter, is the order of the Patriarchy, with an ardor of righteous eloquence and a fury of fire and sword. 2

The Masks of God-Occidental Mythology

1. pg 7
2. pg 21

Further, Campbell does reference the Mother as representing "Space, Time and Matter," which is fairly concrete reference to the cosmic myth. The shift as male dominance enters the picture is fully discussed, and I do not see Campbell allowing as to a failing to understand here, but rather, that the change is not completely natural.

Except Campbell has it all wrong. The death of the godess started at the end of the Early Bronze Age and can be seen in the earliest copy of Gilgamesh. The godess was blamed for the Great Famine and the destruction of 2 Babylonian cities. "Space time and matter" is fairly broad and vague and does not represent anything in the cosmos.

The simple reason why we switched is Ishtar worshipped was blamed for meteor destruction in Babylon. In Egypt, Hathor was blamed for the Great Famine and in Greece it was Kore. What Campbell writes is the classic psycho babble of people who don't understand the myths and want so desperately to assign a meaning to them.

Take for instance the grand-daddy of them all: The Oedipus complex. Ancient stories/myths are filled with sons becoming their mother's constort after killing his father. The psycho babble claims this is because boys subconsciencely want to kill dad and have sex with mom. This is nonsense.

Venus is the woman. The Moon is the male supreme god the father. They give birth to the sun/son. The moon and Venus are seen in the sky together. Then at some time Venus is seen in the sky with the sun and no moon. Hence the son/sun has killed father moon to copulate with mother Venus. It has nothing to do with any inane hidden desire. But Campbell and his kind will give you this glorious explanation, when it is clear he doesn't have the whole picture.

[Epimethean]

I think he did the myth of replacement great justice, which you did not do right up above, but which is much more supported by modern psychology than anything astrology has brought to the table. He didn't get it all wrong at all. The first love of every male child is his mother, and his first great adversary is very often his father.

[cratehorus]

You are looking for an "Ah ha" moment and I don't think you are going to find one.

What do you mean?

[Minimalist]

You are looking for a point in time when someone sat down and concocted the jesus myth. You aren't going to find it.

It was a process that took a long time and was edited to suit the needs of a growing power structure based in Rome.

[FallentoReason]

What's hard about tracing back the roots of Christianity is that the other mystery cults wrote nothing down (to my knowledge). We can only gather what they were like from early Christians, because as they say, history is written by winners.

Justin Martyr, a Christian living around 150 A.D, wrote about the competing religion called Mithras and how those 'devils' copied their rituals like putting oil on their foreheads, eating and drinking the blood of Christ etc. Basically what I'm trying to say is that Christianity is only one facet to the myth. To properly understand where it all came from you need to understand all the other cults and trace all of them back which isn't easy to do.

[Epimethean]

Remember, of course, what the Jews said about christianity. A rip off gone bad at the hands of a lunatic.

[Minimalist]

The reason they were called "mystery cults" was precisely because they did not have written books but instead relied on secret knowledge which was passed on from higher ranking priests to initiates. Oddly, that sounds quite a bit like gnostic xtianity so it too may have started out that way.

The problem which developed is one branch, which Ehrman calls the proto-orthodox, began developing a whole bureaucratic structure of bishops and other such shit. They eventually won out much as the Bolsheviks won out over the more numerous Mensheviks in Russia because of superior organization and discipline.

[DeistPaladin]

You are looking for a point in time when someone sat down and concocted the jesus myth. You aren't going to find it.

It was a process that took a long time and was edited to suit the needs of a growing power structure based in Rome.

I would add, forgive me if I've already posted this, you can see the development over time if you read the Gospels in order, Mark, Matt, Luke and John.

• John the Baptist get lower and lower on his knees with each telling of the baptism, until John's Jesus doesn't need a baptism at all.
  
• Jesus goes from being a modest holy man in Mark who even rebukes a rich admirer for calling him "good" to John's Jesus who has no problem claiming to be one with his father Yahweh.
  
• The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being clearly a separate being from God, completely subordinate, to John's Trinitarian Jesus
  
• Matthew reads like an elaboration of Mark, with faulty points of Hebrew theology corrected, and plenty of bogus claims to fulfillment of prophecy.
  
• By the time John was written, "the Jews" become a separate and hostile religious group
  
• The last words of Jesus go from Jesus being a holy man ("my god, my god, why have you forsaken me") to being one who is God fulfilling a mission ("it is finished")
  
• The resurrection account got better with the telling. The original ended at Mark 16:8. A later version of Mark extended this story. Future versions got more elaborate with sightings of the resurrected Jesus until the one in Acts of the Apostles has the risen Jesus milling about for 40 freaking days preaching his word to the masses!
  

[FallentoReason]

Good post Deist!

My favourite 'evolution' of story that appears in the Gospels is that from Mark to Matthew where Matthew copied over the part of the fig tree but clearly misunderstood what Mark's intention was. Mark is referencing the OT but at face value it sound stupid because he says Jesus inspects the tree for fruit when it's off season. So Matthew changes that into the party trick we all know about Jesus making it whither and his disciples being amazed yet again.

[LEDO]

I think he did the myth of replacement great justice, which you did not do right up above, but which is much more supported by modern psychology than anything astrology has brought to the table. He didn't get it all wrong at all. The first love of every male child is his mother, and his first great adversary is very often his father.

---

I think he did the myth of replacement great justice, which you did not do right up above, but which is much more supported by modern psychology than anything astrology has brought to the table. He didn't get it all wrong at all. The first love of every male child is his mother, and his first great adversary is very often his father.

To extrapolate that love into sex and murder is inane. Campbell creates lofty ideas and principals that in all seriousness no one today cares about anymore than they would have 4000 years ago. The man is blowing smoke. I showed where the Oedpus complex arose. Are you saying you want to kill your father and have sex with your mother?