Where Did Frazer Get It Right??

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm calling for a productive discussion about what in Frazer's Golden Bough still stands. His distinctions between magic, religion, and science, some of his universalization of the killing of kings, and some of the accuracy of his ethnographic reports have been challenged, and yet, some act as if everything has been rebutted.

What do you find of value in Frazer and consider to still be true? This is a relevant "Wiccan Paths" topic precisely because so much builds or falls upon Frazer. For this discussion, I am not interested in arguments of appeal to authority, but a reasoned discussion.

Frazer's genius was to take Mannhardt's collection of European agrarian field-reports and see the outlines of the Arician Priesthood combined with the Dying-Rising God material from antiquity, and demonstrate the connection between all three by drawing on a vast collection of global lore, from the closest to the furthest cultural strata.

In the latter, he has been criticized and rejected by modern Particularism, which throws the baby of cross-cultural comparison out with the bathwater, and accuses all such comparison of comparing apples and oranges. It is likely that a nuanced critique of Frazer will validate this charge in several cases, but it is also likely that such a sweeping generic critique will not abolish Frazer's claims but only qualify them with rich nuance (and that nuance may shed light on other things as well).

Mannhardt's collection of European agrarian field-reports is a goldmine of ethnographic richness, and to my knowledge, has been virtually unchallenged in terms of its validity.

Whenever one has a broad spectrum of ethnographic variation, the selection of priority from amongst this variation is always a point of intense disputation. Can exceptional instances be described as genealogically originative, or are they merely random, deviant variants? The latter is the argument of dismissal and minimalization.

Frazer's selection from the Mannhardtian material highlighted those cases which most stood out as parallels to both the ancient Dying-Rising God material and the Arician King of the Woods material. It is absolutely and undoubtedly true that in at least two cases, there are undoubted parallel figures to Tammuz (/Osiris, etc.) amongst early modern European peasants, one Baltic, the other Slavic, and Frazer highlights exceptional material amongst Western European material as prototypic, amply demonstrating how these asserted-prototypic examples indeed parallel the Tammuz,etc.-material in the form of distinct traces. (This assumes the reasonable idea that development always leaves traces.)

The idea that seasonal holiday celebrations involved a symbology of dying and rising folk figures connected with notions of harvest and sacrifice is obviously an important one to modern paganism, neo- and otherwise. Is this a purely modern religion, or did Frazer get at least some of it correct? I suspect that this will be a highly contentious question, but a careful re-examination could yield fruit.

For my part, I will agree with Hutton's assessment of a general tendency to interpret ancient pagan material with a somewhat Gothic eye, highlighting the most gory as the most typical, and I do think that Frazer overemphasizes the goriest kinds of sacrifice as prototypical (although to his credit he is able to summon material that does seem to fit the model). But the notion of sacrifice, of having to give up, of needing to yield, of going down in order to go up, is a sophisticated concept capable of a wide range of variation. The question here is, were the more gory and literal enactments of the notion of sacrifice the most original and prototypical, or were they deviations from a more general and varied conception of giving up and yielding. Frazer, of course, views the early modern "substitutes" as deriving from an original gory model where people felt the need to literalize the sacrifice. Undoubtedly such literalizations took place in various times and places ; are they prototypical? (If we need to make this another thread, I'd prefer that the discussion of this particular point, important as it is, not overshadow the general thrust of the topic.)

[Carla O'Harris]

Here is a relatively recent bit of scholarship in the journal African American Review on the question of divine kingship. Frazer is not referenced at all, but nevertheless, it obviously impinges upon our subject matter in relevant ways.

The link is here :

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_n4_v29/ai_18173078/pg_1

The article is entitled "The African sacrificial kingship ritual and Johnson's 'Middle Passage.'", authored by Celestin Walby in the Winter, 1995 edition of the African American Review.

The relevant quotations are :


The Bambara initiation rite, the Dogon creation myth, and the Egyptian Osiris-Horus-Seth myth all employ the ritual sacrifice, death, and resurrection of the god-king through which, in many African cosmologies, the unity of the kingdom and the universe were established and continue to be sustained.( (emphasis mine)


Symbolic death and resurrection or spiritual rebirth into a state of esoteric knowledge may be part of many African kingship and priest initiation rituals...


The god-king in many African tribes represents the perfect union between God and man, body and spirit. He is also the re-embodiment of the first culture-.hero/god who conquered primordial chaos and created the order of the universe as well as of the community that has sustained humanity since the beginning of time (Zuesse 117). However, as the incumbent king, with age, loses his power to maintain order, his failure to live up to kingly ideals is regarded symbolically as the rebellion of a rival king, the return of the spirit of disorder challenging the spirit of the first culture-hero (Zuesse 118). His personal concerns, his failing body inhibit his capacity to extend himself to the larger outside world; and so, the last selfless service that the failing king must perform is to sacrifice himself bodily, and transmit his spirit to the new king in order to renew social order. But before the new king can take the throne and reestablish order, he too must first be "killed," sacrificed in a mock battle. That is, he must first explicitly perform the role of the present rebellious spirit of primordial chaos unleashed by the failure and weakness of the former king. After the mock battle, he is captured, taken "dead" into the capital, wrapped in a shroud as if a body prepared for burial, and later arises as the reunited god-king, body and soul reconciled (Zuesse 119). The actual bodily sacrifice of the dying king and the symbolic sacrifice of the new king, then, represent a sacrifice of the self oriented to the limiting demands of the physical world and a resurrection of orientation to transcendent order. ... This African sacral kingship ritual is clearly related to the Osiris-Horus-Seth myth of ancient Egypt. (emphasis mine)

In a footnote to this last statement, Walby says,


Many scholars have speculated on this relationship, but see, for example, Meyerowitz, Van Buick, Seligman, and Diop

Walby also says,


Elaborate self-sacrifice, death, and resurrection ceremonies, for example, are central to many initiation societies throughout Africa (Zahan 128), which, as Evan Zuesse notes, are intended to bring about a "displacement of the self" by breaking down the ego and body image "into a new transcendental universe in which the center is outside the self" (152). In the popularly studied Bambara kore initiation society, the postulant sacrifices his egocentric orientation to the world, purges himself of his limited terrestrial life through symbolic death, becomes "savory nourishment" for the mouth of God (Zahan 63), and is reborn a new man "spiritually enlightened and endowed with the 'Word,' that is, possessing an immortal soul that bears the form of the universe and God himself" (Zuesse 152).


The relevant references cited here are :


Diop, Cheikh Anta. The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality? Trans. Mercer Cook. New York: Lawrence Hill, 1974.

Meyerowitz, Eva L. The Divine Kingship in Ghana and Ancient Egypt. London: Faber and Faber, 1960.

Seligman, C. G. Egypt and Negro Africa: A Study in Divine Kingship. London: Oxford UP, 1934.

Van Blunck, V. "La place du Roi Divin dans les circles culturels d'Afrique Noire." The Sacral Kingship: Studies in the History of Religions. Supp. 4. Leiden: Brill. 1959. 98-134.

Zahan, Dominique. The Religion, Spirituality, and Thought of Traditional Africa. Trans. Kate Ezra Martin and Lawrence M. Martin. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1970.

Zuesse, Evan M. Ritual Cosmos: The Sanctification of Life in African Religions. Athens: Ohio UP, 1979.


I have not yet read or checked these references, but it is obvious that not all of them could be copycat cut-and-pastes of Frazer, and base themselves on actual African ethnography ; in any case, the scholarship on which this article was based was considered serious enough to feature in a journal within the last ten years, and should be taken as an indication that Frazer's descriptions of the sacrificial divine-king should still be taken as valid.

[Carla O'Harris]

Here is an abstract from a doctoral dissertation from the University of Helsinski in March of 2006 in Social and Cultural Anthropology. The dissertation is entitled "How Kings are Made, How Kingship Changes : A Study of Ritual and Ritual Change in Pre-Colonial Owamboland, Namibia" and is by Märta Salokoski :

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/val/sosio/vk/salokoski/abstract.html

The relevant sections of this abstract are :


This study discusses the legitimacy basis of political power and its changes in historical African societies. It starts from Luc de Heusch’s tenet that political power required a legitimacy basis of a spiritual kind, often formulated as sacred kingship. In ancient and pre-literate societies such kings were held to be responsible for the fertility of man, land and cattle. The king was a paradoxical figure, symbolising society, but standing above it, while simultaneously being its victim by being ritually killed at old age. This was also how Owambo sacred kings were conceived. (emphasis mine)


In the Owambo kingly installation a king-elect was made sacred, and part of it was that a link was ritually created to the early owners of the land. Their consent made it possible for the king to promote fertility and to appropriate power emblems needed for ruling.

And, relevant to the charge that these were just political assassinations (as some modern studies have tried to argue),


A change in succession practices from ritual regicide to political assassination took place concomitant with the introduction of firearms, and this broke the sacrificial aspect of sacred kingship paving the way for a more predatory form of kingship while the sacred status of the king was retained.

In other words, there was a transformation of the institution.


The entire dissertation is available online in PDF format at :

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/val/sosio/vk/salokoski/howkings.pdf

I will be reading this dissertation in depth later, taking notes, and making available relevant quotations with some analysis if it proves fruitful.

What this indicates is that in the field of anthropology, the notion of the sacrifice of sacred kings connected to fertility, in an African context, is still taken seriously. This is important, as it is one of the background supports for much of Frazer's arguments.

[Carla O'Harris]

From the above dissertation :


"I will now turn to some aspects of earlier debate on divine kingship that have informed my thinking. The anthropological discussion began with James Frazer in the late 1800s and his interest in the ancient myth about the king at the sacred grove at Nemi outside Rome. According to the
myth, the king stood under a tree, sword in hand, day and night waiting for his successor who was to come and kill him. Frazer’s analysis of this myth was the starting point for his magnum opus ‘The Golden Bough’ ( 1911–1915, 1922, 1959 ), for which he gathered literary evidence from the entire globe to shed light on the fertility rituals and the institution of divine or sacred kingship . In its wake came long debates over ritual regicide and divine kingship. Frazer explained the regicide aspect as related to the king’s role in promoting fertility.

Despite the criticism of Frazer by the next generation of anthropologists for his evolutionary stance and for his unsystematic use of sources, his understanding of divine kingship is still valid. Many anthropologists have reconsidered his ideas on divine kingship and have concluded that they are worth taking seriously ( cf. Feeley-Harnik 1985 ). The discussion has been going on for nearly a century now and Frazer’s mantle has been picked up by structuralist-inclined symbolic anthropologists such as J. C. Muller , Alfred Adler and particularly Luc de Heusch ."
(pp. 35 - 36, emphasis mine)

Speaking of the Owambo people who she extensively studied in the course of preparing her dissertation, she says,


"...[T]he Owambo held their kings as sacred and the way the Owambo kingly institution was constituted comes quite close to the theoretical definition of divine kingship as presented by Frazer and Seligman .Seligman’s definition has usually been held to describe Frazer’s ideas of divine kingship
most accurately. In his view :

'[ Divine kings are ones ] upon whose correct behaviour depends the fertility of the soil, the abundance of the crops, as well as the vigorous reproduction of mankind ( 1934 : 48 ) [ … and ] being held responsible for the right ordering and especially the fertility of the earth and domestic
animals, ends their lives by being killed or killing themselves
with greater or lesser ceremony often at fixed periods ( as the oncoming of senescence ), or ceremonially expose themselves to the change of death or else feign to die.' ( Seligman 1934 :5–6 )" (p. 36)


"...Frazer’s interpretation serves to illustrate the core power relation of sacred kingship as it emerges in African heritage : the king needs the co-operation of spirits belonging to local belief in the territory he governs. These spirits
were often conveyed as female." (p. 37)

Solokosky discusses how Evans-Pritchard's 1948 essay "discredited" Frazer's notions of sacred kingship in the eyes of a generation of anthropologists, but this discrediting itself was challenged later :


"An article by Michael Young ( 1966 ) on the
Jukun of northern Nigeria became a significant ground-breaker in the re-evaluation of the Frazerian concept of divine kingship. This re-evaluation was further developed by Muller ( 1981 ), Adler ( 1982 ) and de Heusch ( 1982, 1985a 1997, 2000, 2002 ), all writing in French. What is common to
these studies is that they grapple with the inner meanings of rituals and with the symbolism of kingship. They analyse ritual regicide and killing related to succession as part of religious belief but simultaneously as an aspect of political power." (p. 39)

Speaking of Young's study of the Jukun people, she says,


"In Jukun society the king was a symbol of grain and was addressed by this symbol ; he “was the grain”. His main task was to adhere to taboos and to conduct sacrifices. When he drank beer or ate of the grain he conducted self-sacrifice , according to Young, for he ate and drank of “himself”. Indeed there “remains the very prevalent belief that African kings are mystically associated with the fertility of the land, the state of crops and the well-being of the people”."
(pp. 39 - 40, emphasis mine)


"The Kuba king...was killed when his strength failed
him, and after his death he was considered a spirit of nature ( de Heusch1985 : 98 )." (p. 45)

Discussing these aspects of divine kingship, connection to fertility, and ritual regicide, she says,


"All of these are different manifestations
of a pattern of symbolic thought common to a large part of Central and Southern Africa’s agro-pastoralist societies." (p. 45)

In other words, not only are Frazer's terms true for the specific group she is studying, but apply more broadly throughout Africa, a very significant point : it was a broad institution.

Furthermore,



"de Heusch ... shows in his comparative studies that ritual regicide was incorporated into a number of African traditions, but that substitutional sacrifice was equally common. Th e sacrifi ce of the king could take place by proxy, either right away at enthronement or at some point during his
reign so that the physical king live on." (p. 46),

thus validating Frazer's idea that substitutes could be provided for the sacrifice of the king, one of his key concepts.


"More importantly, however, de Heusch presents data according to which the sacredness of kings could be understood in terms of recognised access to important
spirits influencing fertility..." (p. 46, emphasis mine)

Solokosky draws on her own and other recent ethnographies, as well as accessing ethnographic resources in Finnish archives that have not been available until the present, and correlates this not only with the more common information available, but other unique ethnographic sources as well.

In other words, the data on which she bases her above conclusions are absolutely modern and contemporary,, and therefore we may say that inasmuch as he was speaking of African practices, Frazer's concepts about divine kingship still stand. As that was one of the critical lynchpins in his entire magnum opus, this should be considered a considerable bolstering of the validity of The Golden Bough.

[Carla O'Harris]

On Mannhardt, there is practically no attempt at refutation of his data at all. Some have disputed his theorizing about the data, but not the data itself. Others have criticized his linking of ancient Greek customs to the modern data he gathered, but the gathered data itself is virtually untouchable.

On Mannhardt, the only significant article I was able to find was the following, which may be worthy of a followup :

Tybjerg, Tove. Wilhelm Mannhardt - A Pioneer in the Study of Rituals in The Problem of Ritual, Tore Ahlb�ck (ed), s. 27-37, Stockholm 1993.

This article is also found in Alan Dundes (ed.), Folklore: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. Four volumes. London and New York: Routledge, 2005, Volume 2, subtitled, The Founders of Folklore.

[Carla O'Harris]

The Dying-Rising God material in Frazer is absolutely grounded in the sources of antiquity ; and we may say without hesitation that Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz-Adonis represent this pattern without question ; and it is almost as certain that Attis enters into this complex as well. The only reason this material has been seriously disputed at all is because of the competition it presents to Christian monopoly on the concept.

Thus, Frazer's Dying-Rising God Material of Antiquity stands ; his material on Sacred Kingship stands ; Mannhardt's collection of peasant customs which Frazer draws upon stands --- all of the important building blocks.

Frazer's sources, in other words, are impeccable, and therefore cannot be the basis for disputing his thesis. It is therefore only in the manner in which he treats his sources and the arguments he constructs therefrom where he can be disputed.

The question remains : is there a relationship between the Mannhardtian material, and :

a. The Dying-Rising God Material?
b. the Sacred Kingship Material?

I will argue that Frazer was successful in demonstrating a connection to both. What that means is that Golden Bough should be considered an absolutely valid source not only amongst pagans but amongst the general populace as well as academia.

It also means that the Mannhardtian material demonstrates important traces of pagan customs and beliefs.

These are important facts, and are the result of active investigation of Frazer's claims, as well as the claims against him, rather than simply taking Frazer at face value, or taking his supposed "discreditors" at face value.

[raven grimassi]

Interesting topic, thanks. I will have more to add later (time crunch at the moment) but just wanted to point out that the Divine King theme also appears outside of Europe in the mythos of Quetzalcoatl. He is a god-king, is crucified, and returns to life. The same theme appears in the Jesus mythos (King of the Jews, death & resurrection). Salvation is the key that ties all this to the theme of "what happens to the king happens to his followers." I think even the mythos of King Arthur touches upon this important connection. So, in essence, clearly Frazer was not pulling any of this out of a dark hole, as it all preceded him.

As you pointed out, the real debate is his interpretations. Like all of us he is right here, wrong there, and questionable in other places. But his material is important, and I do not believe that his insights should be ignored.

[Eran]

On Mannhardt, there is practically no attempt at refutation of his data at all. Some have disputed his theorizing about the data, but not the data itself. Others have criticized his linking of ancient Greek customs to the modern data he gathered, but the gathered data itself is virtually untouchable.
This seems to be true. Few dispute his data; some dislike his conclusions.

In general, I’ve also noted that European scholars seem to hold Frazer in greater respect than American scholars do. I'm not sure why this is so, and there are certainly exceptions. But it is an interesting tendency.

I've read four different versions of Golden Bough; the 2-volume first edition, his later abridgement, Theodor Gaster's abridgement with commentary (said commentary being mostly devoted to telling us that Frazer was wrong); and the centerpiece, Frazer's massive 13-volume third edition. But it's been a long time since I read them.

I was impressed by 1) the depth and breadth of data Frazer brought to bear, 2) the soundness of his basic argument, and 3) how much he was a man of his times, with attitudes and turns of phrase that could only have been possible for someone of his era. Anyone who reads him should really keep this third factor in mind.

I think one of the things which has convinced so many scholars to dislike Frazer has nothing to do with his reasoning, but rather with his conclusions. If he is right, then there is nothing whatever special about Christianity, or about biblical tradition in general. Virtually all of the scholars who criticized him were devout Christians who really objected to forthright consideration of this possibility. I do believe that played into their treatment of his work.

At the very least, his contributions to the field of anthropology, and of anthropological history, are truly immense. Chief among these was a legitimization of the idea of illuminating ancient societies through parallels with modern ones, and vice versa, a sound idea which is today going through one of its cyclical phases of being controversial. Frazer remains a giant in his field.

[Carla O'Harris]

Frazer built, in part, upon the work of William Robertson Smith, who was a Christian scholar trying to ground Biblical study in the real sociology of the time and place from which the Bible emerged.

I point this out because it is automatically assumed that Frazer's conclusions must be devastating to Christianity ; and to a certain style of Christianity, it most definitely is. To a Christianity which claims to be absolutely unique, and to have sprung like Athena straight from the mind of God, and to have manifested in history once and only once, these conclusions are devastating. That is why so many of the Church Fathers had to conclude that Satan had pre-created Pseudo-Christs in order to confuse people. But Robertson-Smith proves that a mature, robust Christianity can handle the truth, and there's no reason why one couldn't develop a Christian theology around Frazer --- the idea that Christ was literally cropping up spontaneously everywhere on the planet, and Jesus was Christ's latest manifestation and most modern refinement : the very flower of the entire series that brings that series into perfection, but unfortunately, the tactic of, hey, let's squash the competition was taken, resulting in an inquisitional literalist christianity.

I absolutely agree that one of the strong reasons for the objection to Frazer's work has been a Christian reaction to the conclusions (which for the most part are solidly grounded). Hutton colludes with this, and essentially, a dividing line has been drawn --- you can have your paganism, but on this side of christ (I'll use this word to mean anointed divine kings who die and are reborn), who the Church gets a monopoly on in the form of Jesus, and never the twain shall meet. Anything that looks christ-ian therefore must be Church Christianity, rather than the Church having to deal with the scandal of a thousand and one christs popping up everywhere amongst the folk. (Underexplored is the notion that if there was a plethora of native local christs in the Frazerian sense, that could explain some of the ease of conversion : to local folk it would just be a variation on a theme, no problem to integrate into the local pantheon of spirits. In fact, if we look at the Frazerian divine-king material that we saw confirmed above, the folk would expect the christ-figure to help mediate with the female spirits, who in Europe were often called fairies.)

But I will suggest that in addition to this factor, there is another reason, and a strong underlying one at that, why Frazer's theories have been rejected, and that has to do with the fact that Frazer dared to utilize mainly African material and apply it to European folks, and due to an unspoken, often unconscious, and unexamined agenda that is sometimes Eurocentric and sometimes just racist, Europe has been turned by most scholars into a massive case of "Special Pleading" that is somehow different than the whole rest of humanity, and is so special that it is absolutely inappropriate to apply any lessons learned from humans elsewhere to the untouchably special souls of western Europe. I find this entire tendency absurd. Europe is not a special case. It is unique as a case amongst cases.

[raven grimassi]

Europe is not a special case. It is unique as a case amongst cases.

During my years of research what has become apparent to me is that there is a striking commonality between cultures, even those with no direct contact. I believe this speaks to the human condition. Humans think, reason, and conceive in a commonality. Therefore it seems logical to assume that there will be more things in common than there will be differences.

Essentially what we find is that "ritual" appears in every culture, as does dance, music, costume, and so forth. These may be different in the manner of expression, but the thing itself exists. So, it seems unreasonable to isolate Europe, or to see it as the source. I think the source is the human soul, and the expression is the cultural rendering.

[Carla O'Harris]

I agree with the humanistic spirit you are expressing here. Particularism has had a tendency to fragment and fog out a humanistic perspective. And one might ask -- what is the agenda behind pursuing separations rather than commonalities?

[MacMorrighan]

I'm calling for a productive discussion about what in Frazer's Golden Bough still stands. His distinctions between magic, religion, and science, some of his universalization of the killing of kings, and some of the accuracy of his ethnographic reports have been challenged, and yet, some act as if everything has been rebutted.

Personally, I wouldn't say "rebutted"-- I would vie for the stronger, and more pejorative, term, "debunked". In many reviews on-line at Amazon.Com, particaularly of Ronald Hutton's texts, they term this entire book, regardlessly, "Frazerian Fantasies"! Indeed, I wonder what has lead them to such extremist conclusions?


What do you find of value in Frazer and consider to still be true?

The Dying-and-Rising God motif, for one: Scholars, when Frazer is discuss, often throw up their straw-man arguments with impossibly narrow criterion where no evidence constitutes proof of any sort and is ceremoniously shot-down!

In essence, the ONLY so-called "Dying-and-Rising God" that may be defined as such (if most reactionary scholars could get their way) is the mythical Christ-figure; whereas any strikingly similar paleo-pagan Deities are thought to be "Pagan content poured into a Christian mold!" How asinine and offensive to these earlier cultures-- especially when many of these cultures posses Deities that are known to die, and then rise from that state oif dealth. However, because of academia's newly adopted impossible standards, these Gods don't count! It aso doesn't allow them to ask rather important questions that we might ask, such as: Well, is it possible there's a relationship between Osiris—a pre-Christian godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in heaven where He judges the dead, and Jesus—a godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in heaven where he also judges the dead?

Indeed, a lot of rather idiotic scholars that are uncritically accepted by Pagan Christian-Apologists all in the name of so-called "academic rigour" (I never thought I'd see the day)! What tripe! Here are some examples of what I mean:

Let's start with Osiris: One of the most extreme, and frequent, apologists-- J.Z. Smith, from his encyclopedia entry, "Dying and Rising Gods". While he admits that Osiris died, was resurrected [as Egyptologists are keen to emphisize; though "rejuvinated" is the pajoritive term that JZ Smith uses], and this story is remarkibly consistant for thousands of years, he draws a b.s.-line and says that, "In no sense can Osiris be said to have "risen" in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event. The repeated formula 'Rise up, you have not died,' whether applied to Osiris or a citizen of Egypt, signaled a new, permanent life in the realm of the dead." Smith #1 doesn't say what would count, however! Like all polemical writers, he doesn't seem to care.

Now, Adonis is where it gets FAR more clear: However, because the primary source material for Adonis having died and risen was penned by an early Christian Father by the name of Origen-- because of this, Smith #1 claims, emphatically, that it was either a case of the pagan adopting Christian beliefs, or of Chritian father Origen recording paleo-pagan events through a biblical filter. This thesis fails for two seemingly ignored reasons: The Pagans could not have-- and would not have-- adopted Christian theology in any sense, because, at the time, Christianity was essentially "outlawed" and drastically looked down upon! And, second of all (and arguably more important), Origen could not have been giving pagan events a Christian slant because he was highly educated in Greek paganism; er go, he wouldn't have been that stupid! Moreover, he was recorded by a Greek pagan that knew him as being so highly educated in paleo-paganism that he was (quite the reverse of Smith's thesis) able to understand Christianity at all! So, Smith's thesis is now entirely ntenible; Origens clearly knew what he was talking about, and was recording them accurately! Be that as it may, Pagans and scholars love his conclusions, but his arguments usually don't get much air-time, because when criticized, they clearly don't hold water! But, I digress...

The passage in question that relates Adonis' rise from death, as recorded by Plutarch, is: "As a memorial of his [Adonis'] suffering each year, they beat their breasts, mourn and...sacrifice to Adonis as if to a dead person, but then, on the next day, they proclaim that he lives and send him into the air" But, one scholar, Mark Smith-- hence forth "Smith #2"-- remains [I]somehow unconvinced. He writes, "the passage is hardly clear," besides, other "rituals accentuate Adonis's death, there is no hint of rebirth."

Ah, but Smnith #2's denial doesn't end there, and here's where it gets good! There is, reorded in cuneform, a passage relating that an unnamed God in Pyrgi did, in fact, die. The phrase recorded is, "bym qbr 'lm", which means, "the day of the burial of the God." However, despite the fact that everywhere else "'im" means "God", G. Snooper in The God In His Temple plugs his ears, and emphatically proclaims that it actually means, in this solitary instance, "a recently deceased person". Be that as it may, Smith #2 actually finds this reason "clear", and proclaims it to be, "...a very strong challenge to the theory of a dying and rising god." What the...???

(I could go on and on and vidicate the existance of various Dying-and-Rising Gods! And, anyone interested in the topic is recommended a groundbreaking book by Prof. Mettinger that does just that: The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying-and-Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East.)

Now, as far as the so-called "Vegitation God" motif, I am not as informed about this facet as I would like to be. So perhaps it merely needs to be re-defined to some extent.


In the latter, he has been criticized and rejected by modern Particularism, which throws the baby of cross-cultural comparison out with the bathwater, and accuses all such comparison of comparing apples and oranges. It is likely that a nuanced critique of Frazer will validate this charge in several cases, but it is also likely that such a sweeping generic critique will not abolish Frazer's claims but only qualify them with rich nuance (and that nuance may shed light on other things as well).

What the...??? In the face of, and despite, clear evidence of cultural transferance [eg, near east and Greek]? Are they on crack?!?! *EG*


It is absolutely and undoubtedly true that in at least two cases, there are undoubted parallel figures to Tammuz (Osiris, etc.) amongst early modern European peasants, one Baltic, the other Slavic, and Frazer highlights exceptional material amongst Western European material as prototypic, amply demonstrating how these asserted-prototypic examples indeed parallel the Tammuz,etc.-material in the form of distinct traces. (This assumes the reasonable idea that development always leaves traces.)

Which Baltic and Savic examples are this? I'm slowly researching various Dying-and-Rising Gods for a future project. However, about Tamuz, many Pagan Christian Apologists are skeptikal that he can be demonstrated as an actual D/R-God. Archer, in her 2004 article in PagGaia, "The Dilemma of the Dying God" says:

"The oldest 'dying god' story comes from Sumer in texts dated to 1750 BCE. Its hero is Dumuzi, a human shepherd who is loved by Inanna, the fierce goddess of sex and war.[4] Suggestive wedding songs link their love-making to the earth's fertility, and hint that their magical union was imitated in an annual 'sacred marriage' involving the king of a Sumerian city and 'Inanna' (probably a priestess).[5]

"Yet, despite the great sex (Inanna begs him to 'plow my vulva'[6]), the story ends tragically. Inanna descends into the underworld, escaping only on the condition that she send down a substitute. When she returns to find Dumuzi lording it over her subjects on her throne, she fixes him with the 'eye of death,' decreeing his doom. He flees but cannot avoid his fate; only his sister's pleas sway the goddess, who finally agrees that Dumizi and his sister may alternate in the underworld, each spending six months a year there.[7]

"Diane Wolkstein feels that the siblings' alternation mimics the alternate growing cycles of the barley and the grape, plants linked to Dumuzi and his sister.[8] Since the annual mourning rites for Dumuzi took place in the summer, some feel that Dumuzi's death symbolizes the death of nature in the searing Mesopotamian heat.[9] Yet, the stories themselves make no mention of seasons or of natural decay, nor do they speak of the renewal of nature upon either deities return.

"Rather, the myth stresses 'the unalterable power of the realm of the dead ... No one ascends from the land of the dead unless someone takes his or her place.'[10] The liturgies never celebrate Dumuzi's resurrection, but only lamment his death. In a later epic of Gilgamesh, the only thing the hero has to say about Dumuzi is that he died like all Inanna's other lovers, a warning to those who would tangle with a goddess.[11] Dumuzi's doomed love and fatal comeuppance seems to have held more interest in the Mesopotamian world than his possible vegitative return. This is not the "dying and rising god" story we're looking for."

NOTES:

[4] Tikva Freymer-Kensky, In The Wake of the Goddess: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, Fawcett-Columbine, New York, NY, 1992, pp. 236-7.
[5] Ibid, p. 59.
[6] Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, translators, "The Courtship of Dumuzi and Inanna," in Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer, Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1983, pp. 29-49.
[7] Ibid, "The Descent of Inanna".
[8] Ibid, "Interpretations of Inanna's Stories and Hymns," pp. 166.
[9] Ibid, "Sumerian History, Culture and Literature," pp. 124.
[10] J. Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods," Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 4, Macmillian, New York, NY, 1987, pp. 521-527.
[11] Epic of Gilgamesh (6.46-50) in "Dying and Rising Gods," p. 525.

HOWEVER, on my Blog, I rebut with the following evidence:

"Hmmm...perhaps it would "surprise us," also, to learn that one of the Sumerologists whom she cites, Dr. Noah Kramer, also identifies Dumuzi/Tammuz as a Dying-and-Rising God! Strangely enough, Archer never actually states what the "'dying and rising god' story we're looking for" is!

"Even Jean Botterro [tr., Teresa Fagan, Religion In Ancient Mesopotamia , Chcago University Press, 2001] comments-- referencing an early book both he and Kramer co-authored together-- that 'Dumuzi, for example, the name of the fourth month, [recalls] the myth of the god of that same name who was sent by Inanna/Ishtar to the Netherworld, from which he climbed back six months later-- an ancient image of vegitation, which disappears during the hot season only to reappear in the cold season.'

"it is also worth noting that Dummuzi/Tammuz may contain an echo hailing as far back as the Neolithic period of the Near East, according to David Lewis-Williams (the world's formost expert on Stone Age cave art) in his brilliant monograph, Inside the Neolithic Mind.

"Moreover, Samuel Noah Kramer [the world's leading Assyriologist!] in his phenominal book From The Tabelts of Sumer [1950s] strictly defines this tale as 'The First Tale of Resurrection'. Not only that, but Dummuzi/Tammuz is far more than the sheapherd that Ms. Archer would like Him to be, but a God in His own right. She incorrectly states that He is siezed as the token replacement for Inanna after the Goddess finds Him sitting on Her throne and lording it over Her subjects. Rather, according to Kramer, She seeks out various Gods only to have Her offer of replacement rejected; She would have chosen each her first victim-God that She met, had He not supplicated Himself before Her. However, after a few attempts She seeks out another God at His own city, Kabel(sp?)-- Dummuzi/Tammus is the Tutelary-God of that city! When Inanna arrives she ironically finds it unseemly that He does not supplicate Himself before the Goddess; but why should He? It was rather unthinkible for a God to subjugate Himself or Herself on His or Her own throne and city! Insulted, Inanna casts upon Him 'the eye of death'-- and you know the rest of the story. His sister/Goddess shares His fate, alternating six months of the year."

(Oh, and we should also remember well that Adonis was, originally, Damuzi/Tammuz from the Near East! Scholars often forget this in their pedantic zeal to dismiss any notion for the existance of any Gods that Die and are to whatever extent resurrected.)

[MacMorrighan]

Hey, thanks Carla! I've absolutely GOT to get ahold of a physical copy of that article, now! ;) Hmmm...I wonder what she might say of British scholars and their zeal to dismiss any notion of Dying-and-Rising Gods as a Frazerian Fantasy (period), and being nothing more than a case of (as Archer puts it) "pouring pagan content into a Christian mould"? (I wonder what British academe might say about her article, or how they might try and shoot it down? 'ause, ya' knopw they'll try if they ever get wind of it!) I, however, must find out more re: the tribal beliefs and creation myth she mentioned in the first paragraph you quoted!!! Hmmm...now, where to look?

[David19]

is it possible there's a relationship between Osiris—a pre-Christian godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in heaven where He judges the dead, and Jesus—a godman who died, got resurrected and now lives in heaven where he also judges the dead?

Just wanted to say Osiris didn't go to 'heaven', he went to Duet(sp?), the Kemetic afterlife, where he rules over the dead, and a Kemetic recently told me, when bringing up connections between Osiris and Jesus - Osiris, through magic, was brought back to life in Duet, while Jesus was said to have been resurrected on this plane/realm, which are 2 very different things.

Also, Osiris is a god (as in full god), Jesus is more a demi-god - 1 mortal parent, one god parent.

[MacMorrighan]

Speaking of Young's study of the Jukun people, she says,




"In Jukun society the king was a symbol of grain and was addressed by this symbol ; he “was the grain”. His main task was to adhere to taboos and to conduct sacrifices. When he drank beer or ate of the grain he conducted self-sacrifice , according to Young, for he ate and drank of “himself”. Indeed there “remains the very prevalent belief that African kings are mystically associated with the fertility of the land, the state of crops and the well-being of the people”."

(pp. 39 - 40, emphasis mine)

Hmmm...I wonder how-- of even if-- this might be applicable or relate to the Osirian Corn Mummies in some way? Scholars are quick to affirm that they represent no notion of possioble resurrection (of course, Pagans have read this and run with it, such as Archer).

[plumedsnake]

Firstly, I never had an idea that people out there actually criticised Frazer's work. I am now itching to read the criticisms. Can you recommend any of them?




I point this out because it is automatically assumed that Frazer's conclusions must be devastating to Christianity ; and to a certain style of Christianity, it most definitely is. To a Christianity which claims to be absolutely unique, and to have sprung like Athena straight from the mind of God, and to have manifested in history once and only once, these conclusions are devastating. That is why so many of the Church Fathers had to conclude that Satan had pre-created Pseudo-Christs in order to confuse people. But Robertson-Smith proves that a mature, robust Christianity can handle the truth, and there's no reason why one couldn't develop a Christian theology around Frazer --- the idea that Christ was literally cropping up spontaneously everywhere on the planet, and Jesus was Christ's latest manifestation and most modern refinement : the very flower of the entire series that brings that series into perfection, but unfortunately, the tactic of, hey, let's squash the competition was taken, resulting in an inquisitional literalist christianity.

Hence, if I am asked if I am a christian or if I am saved I answer yes and then proceed with the discussion with a my version versus your version slant, rather than an outsider pagan that needs converting. Sometimes I even answer, 'I'm more of a christian than you, mate'. It's a slant that most fundies cannot handle at all, it messes them up totally. But the best thing about it is that It is True.



But I will suggest that in addition to this factor, there is another reason, and a strong underlying one at that, why Frazer's theories have been rejected, and that has to do with the fact that Frazer dared to utilize mainly African material and apply it to European folks, and due to an unspoken, often unconscious, and unexamined agenda that is sometimes Eurocentric and sometimes just racist, Europe has been turned by most scholars into a massive case of "Special Pleading" that is somehow different than the whole rest of humanity, and is so special that it is absolutely inappropriate to apply any lessons learned from humans elsewhere to the untouchably special souls of western Europe. I find this entire tendency absurd. Europe is not a special case. It is unique as a case amongst cases.

This is really interesting. Especially with me being african and all. I would love for a study to be done on this 'unconscious, and unexamined agenda' in european scholarship and an investigation into the extent that it has influenced all aspects of Scholarship.

[plumedsnake]

Is it really true that academics can talk such rubbish and still keep their chairs in whatever universities they belong to.

I wonder what the politics of the academic world is like? Can just anyone challenge the status quo with a strong enough argument, or do you have to have a certain level of power and authority before you can?

All this makes me totally lose faith in human scholarship.

[MacMorrighan]

Just wanted to say Osiris didn't go to 'heaven', he went to Duet(sp?), the Kemetic afterlife, where he rules over the dead, and a Kemetic recently told me, when bringing up connections between Osiris and Jesus - Osiris, through magic, was brought back to life in Duet, while Jesus was said to have been resurrected on this plane/realm, which are 2 very different things.

Also, Osiris is a god (as in full god), Jesus is more a demi-god - 1 mortal parent, one god parent.

Yes, what you say of Osiris is true, however, I used the term "heaven" to denote (or connote, rather) that it was in many ways an Egyptioan parallel, or that is, the Egyptian concept of an Afterworld. Not everyone know what "Duet" is.

However, I must disagree with what your Kemetic friend told you. According to Plutarch, it was very much on the [hysical that Osiris was resurrected, regardless of by what means. ;)

And, re: the Chist, many Christians do not make the distinction between God and demi-God and, likewise, nor to scholars-- they couch hgim as God Himself oin EWarth, as do many Christian sects.

Take Care,
Wade

[David19]

Yes, what you say of Osiris is true, however, I used the term "heaven" to denote (or connote, rather) that it was in many ways an Egyptioan parallel, or that is, the Egyptian concept of an Afterworld. Not everyone know what "Duet" is.

Thanks for clearing that up, i just thought you meant heaven in the Christian sense of the word :).


However, I must disagree with what your Kemetic friend told you. According to Plutarch, it was very much on the [hysical that Osiris was resurrected, regardless of by what means. ;)

Thanks, i'll try and read the account by Plutarch, and i'll also ask her, and post her reply ;).


And, re: the Chist, many Christians do not make the distinction between God and demi-God and, likewise, nor to scholars-- they couch hgim as God Himself oin EWarth, as do many Christian sects.

True, although i do know some Christians who see Jesus and God as seperate, i think Jesus is Yahweh's son, who acts sort of like a conduct between humans and Yahweh (being 1/2 mortal, 1/2 divine).

Although i see where your coming from, although to me, Jesus is a demi-god, just like Herculies(sp?), Aradia, etc.

But, thanks for clarifying :).

[Carla O'Harris]

This is really interesting. Especially with me being african and all. I would love for a study to be done on this 'unconscious, and unexamined agenda' in european scholarship and an investigation into the extent that it has influenced all aspects of Scholarship.

To a large extent, that study has already been done. Enter Martin Bernal, Black Athena, an absolutely brilliant study of the sociology of knowledge, and how racism and Eurocentrism have distorted scholarship for centuries, and how other scholars, not openly racist themselves, have built upon this earlier scholarship, assuming it is valid. One need only apply Bernal's fascinating illustrations and conclusions towards the Frazerian African material to illuminate how this may have happened with Frazer's work as well.

[MacMorrighan]

Although i see where your coming from, although to me, Jesus is a demi-god, just like Herculies(sp?), Aradia, etc.

Yeah, I see Yeshua/Jesus (for whom there is no evidence for his existance...and I'd like to read more of the scholarly opinions on that, myself) the same way; however, scholars have tended to uncritically accept the "official" Catholith "denotation"-- that he is God, Himself, or God on Earth!

How they say Frazer's Dying-and-Rising Gpod thesis can be rejected [qv Hutton, as I seem to recall] simply because it is seen as reactionary towards Christianity is beyond me, despite evidence to the contrary! According to what I've heard of Mettinger's monograph [the riddle of resurrection] scholars have further narrowed this schema with nearly impossible standards that would seem to allow for only the Christ having been an "actual" Dying-and-Rising God! Hmmm...I wonder if one could prove that there was a collusion behind this carrowing at all, whether as a reaction to Frazer's alleged "reaction", or otherwise?

[MacMorrighan]

Honestly, I have seen another type of "racism"-- if I may use that pejorative-- within the institution of academia: It is in British "academe's" rather staunch, and unequivocal rejection of academia from other countries, save their own! After years of having read Ronald Hutton's material, even reviews, I have come to the heart-breaking conclusion that he, along with "most British scholars" look down their noses as American Academics, as though they're more "rigorous" than we! What the...??? Then there is his rather egregious blanket statement re: scholars from Hungary [Eva Pocs] and Italy [Carlo Ginzburg] whom he dismisses because they "generalize too much from a local tradition"; as if British scholars do not "generalize too much"! He seems to disregard the current, and astounding, research being performd in Europe in favour of, uncritically, the British school of that and what it demnands, rather than asks for... And, you can imagine how shocked I was when I, unless I am gravely mis-reading it, found that when reviewing the book, "A Coven of Scholars", actually seemed to be applauding the use of agism as a reason to dismiss Margaret Murray and all of her writings on Witchcraft (Norman Cohn did this, too)!

I would seriously like to know why British academe feels it has to behave in this rather "racist" manner...

[MacMorrighan]

To a large extent, that study has already been done. Enter Martin Bernal, Black Athena, an absolutely brilliant study of the sociology of knowledge, and how racism and Eurocentrism have distorted scholarship for centuries, and how other scholars, not openly racist themselves, have built upon this earlier scholarship, assuming it is valid. One need only apply Bernal's fascinating illustrations and conclusions towards the Frazerian African material to illuminate how this may have happened with Frazer's work as well.

Another similar avenue that I'd like to investigate is British academe's rather "superior" attitudes towards scholars from other countries, such as America and Europea!

Oh, and according to Amazon.Com, there's another book you might enjoy called Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics. Hmmm...what sort of criticism has he undergone? And, for what reasons?

[Carla O'Harris]

That followup book is important for anyone wishing to see the tactics used to tear down an important work of scholarship considered heretical. Bernal is brilliant, and he takes all critique that is valid, and dismisses that which is not with reasoned argument. It is an important study in the sociology of knowledge, and a definite complement to the original volumes.

[David19]

Yeah, I see Yeshua/Jesus (for whom there is no evidence for his existance...and I'd like to read more of the scholarly opinions on that, myself)

For the most part, i think most scholars (not just Christian ones either) have come to the conclusion that Jesus did exist - whether he was divine, is for personal beleifs and theologians to decide.

However there's a lot of BS books about Jesus too, notably the post-Da Vinci Code books, such as 'The Templar Revelation', the 'Real Da Vinci Code', etc that say he and Mary Magdiline had a kid, etc or worshipped 'The Goddess', etc that are just basically BS.

For me, i do believe he existed, he's just not my god, the same as Odin isn't, or Kali, etc.

[Carla O'Harris]

Let's just say that Jesus' existence is disputed, and hotly at that, meaning there is meaningful debate about the topic, and it is controversial.

I wouldn't dismiss The Templar Revelation so quickly, David. It's a topic for another thread (if you'd like to start it), but it does solve some of the difficulties.

The difficulties, noticed by -- I believe, late 18th and early 19th century Biblical scholars --, is that the Gospel Miracle Stories do in fact replicate so much of the Pagan Miracle Stories. One has to separate out the "Historical Jesus" from the "Mythic Jesus". (The Jesus Seminar was partially about this. John Dominic Crossan's excellent books describe a rigorous attempt to draw out the "Historical Jesus".)

There are a couple solutions to this difficulty. The original solution, I believe, taken by the scholars was that there was in fact a Historical Jesus but his story was subsequently covered over with pagan legend.

The "Mythic Jesus" school does not feel there is enough proof to even establish a "Historical Jesus" to be at the core of the mythic legends, and therefore conclude that Jesus was always a mythic figure, akin to a kind of "mascot" of emerging-Christian communities, into whose mouth various kinds of older scriptures, wisdom sayings, and tales could be placed.

The Templar Revelation provides a unique answer to the difficulty. They propose that there was a Historical Jesus, whose intent was not only to fulfill the Judaic requirements for Messiah, but also to reach out to the more pagan Galileans and Samaritans, who were living under the spell of the Dying-Rising Gods. In other words, their thesis allows for a real human being who tried to engage in an incredible synthesis of ideas. This is not unreasonable, actually. Magdalene could very well have been a temple priestess of some kind. More importantly, Jesus repeatedly speaks of coming to bring in the "lost sheep" of Israel, and it is quite arguable that this refers to the split between the North and the South, the North having become much more pagan. What better way to reach the Northern Israelites than to enact one of their most sacred myths, while at the same time fulfilling the Southern requirements for Messiah?

I'm not saying that it's "true", but it does represent a worthwhile and interesting synthesis that is unique approach to the difficulties involved.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of Frazer.

[Eran]

MacMorrighan, your dissatisfaction with current scholarship is well justified. It is from such biased writers that modern people - even most modern Pagans - take their understanding of the history of the religion of Witchcraft. More's the pity.

(As a side note, off topic really, but since related things have come up - the recently-discovered Gospel of Judas is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the history of Christianity.)

David19, it's interesting that you mention "post- Da Vinci Code books". Da Vinci Code itself is highly derivative, being based to some extent on the excellent scholarship of Baigent and Leigh in "Holy Blood Holy Grail". And of course the Jesus-story itself was prefigured quite closely in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls. If Jesus was an historical figure, the tales of him were greatly augmented by pre-existing Pagan (and even Jewish) myth and legend.

The reason so much scholarship tries to diminish Frazer is that otherwise, he would be credible.

[David19]

(As a side note, off topic really, but since related things have come up - the recently-discovered Gospel of Judas is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the history of Christianity.)

David19, it's interesting that you mention "post- Da Vinci Code books". Da Vinci Code itself is highly derivative, being based to some extent on the excellent scholarship of Baigent and Leigh in "Holy Blood Holy Grail". And of course the Jesus-story itself was prefigured quite closely in the pre-Christian Dead Sea Scrolls. If Jesus was an historical figure, the tales of him were greatly augmented by pre-existing Pagan (and even Jewish) myth and legend.

The reason so much scholarship tries to diminish Frazer is that otherwise, he would be credible.

True, there are some good books i've seen, but there's also a lot of basically, BS books, especially ones that say 'the real DaVinci code' or 'the secrets of the DaVinci code', etc.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail, i think does seem cool, but i don't think Dan Brown really stumbled onto anything.

I think that Jesus was most likely also mixed with other 'pagan' gods such as Mithras, Dionysus, etc, but i do think he probably was a powerful mystic (that's just my own personal belief, so feel free to disbelieve or believe it), it probably happened when Paul got his hands on Christianity, as i think the Jews who actually knew Jesus (or Yeshua/Joshua, his real name) were wiped out by the Pauline Christians 'cause, basically, they had actual knowledge of him, and knew what he taught (plus Christianity was a mystery religion in the Roman empire, so we'll probably never know what they truly believed, just like we won't know what the initiates of Eleusis(sp?), or Mithrasism, etc believed.

Anyway, sorry to get so off topic :).