A Christian mocks pagans for the victory of Christianity over paganism. "If your gods are real, where were they?". Gets owned by a modern pagan asking whether Allah is stronger than Christ since the Muslims conquered large Christian territories and supplanted Christianity with Islam...
Kind of obvious retort, but it seems the Xian debate bro didn´t think of it. But then, I suppose somebody could ask the pagan if *both* Christ and Allah are stronger than Father Jupiter!
The recent brawl between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is intriguing.
It´s possible that it´s just a personality clash. I mean, rumor has it that Musk got his blue eye after a physical altercation with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in the White House?! So there´s certainly a lot of flammable material around. Trump is both loyalty-obsessed and extremely mercurial, while Musk can be short-tempered on X. He is self-avowedly "on the spectrum" and might suffer from hypomania or even drug addiction.
On the other hand...
I can´t help thinking of Trump as "Caesar" and Musk as "Crassus". You would think the richest man in the world and one of the president´s main donors would be able to call the shots if any conflict arises, just as the bourgeoisie (or plutocracy) usually dominates the state, even if the state apparatus is nominally independent. But here, the chief executive officer is able to dominate his main plutocratic ally as a gorilla!
One wonders if this means that the state has become stronger than the capitalist class, the interests of which it´s supposed to be defending. Bonapartism? Caesarism? I suppose this could be interesting if you are a Social Democrat or leftist. How strong and independent can the state apparatus become *exactly* under present conditions?
Maybe that´s worth pondering.
Last year, Breitbart News published an incredibly bad article written by a Christian apologist attacking Jesus Mythicism (but really all non-belief in Gospel Jesus). I was too tired to bother "deboonking" it at the time (although I linked to it from a blog post), but here comes my belated comment.
>>>The Christian season of Lent always triggers the anti-God squad, and 2024 is no different, with limelight-seeking atheists trotting out the tired “Jesus never existed” thesis in preparation for Holy Week.
>>>Writing in Aeon, professional provocateur Gavin Evans leads the band of God-slayers with his February 15 article, entitled “There Was No Jesus,” rehashing old arguments that Jesus was the invention of a group of unscrupulous hucksters who sought to create a religion around a myth of their own creation.
The position that Jesus was a myth was indeed a popular one among American atheists about 20 years ago, but judging from more recent atheist YouTube content-creators, it´s not any longer. It´s always been a minority position among scholars. The well-known atheist scholar Bart Ehrman is a *critic* of mythicism.
The most prominent scholarly mythicist, Richard Carrier, does *not* claim that Jesus was "the invention of a group of unscrupulous hucksters who sought to create a religion around a myth of their own creation". The apostles really did believe they had met a heavenly figure named Jesus. Later generations turned him into a historical figure, but even they weren´t necessarily "unscrupulous hucksters" but rather wrote teaching stories (compare the ever-changing myths about pagan gods and heroes). Only at an even later date did Christians start to interpret the Gospel stories as some kind of gospel truth...
Oh, and "God-slayer" sounds like "God-killer", which is an anti-Semitic slur.
>>>The gist of Evans’ plodding 4,100-word piece is that “a cult leader who drew crowds, inspired devoted followers and was executed on the order of a Roman governor” should have left a deeper trail in contemporary records.
I haven´t read Evans´ plodding 4,100-word piece, but as reported by Breitbart, his argument is correct. Jesus should at the very least have been mentioned *much* more prominently by Josephus. In reality, of course, Josephus doesn´t mention him at all! (But see further below.)
>>>Evans’ screed apes the argument of the likes of Richard Dawkins, who wrote that it is possible “to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all” as well as the musings of Christopher Hitchens, who asserted that Jesus’ existence is “highly questionable.”
Dawkins wasn´t a mythicist, and the quote (from "The God Delusion") is therefore taken out of context. His point is that mythicism, while stronger than many assume, is probably still wrong. I´m not familiar with the Hitchens quote and frankly don´t care. And why is Evans said to "ape" Dawkins? Is the Breitbart author anti-evolution?
>>>Yet as biblical scholar Stephen K Ray pointed out to Breitbart News, the first century did not have the Internet and social media, much less newscasters and chroniclers. Moreover, Jesus was raised in a backwater village and performed his ministry away from the metropolis and as secretly as possible for only three short years.
How did Josephus collect so much information on 1st century Jewish history without the Internet? And Stephen K Ray (whoever he might be) must be a really bad Bible scholar, since the Gospels do *not* depict a secret ministry at all, but a highly public one during which Jesus was followed by huge crowds, hostile Pharisees and even some Roman soldiers.
The idea that the ministry took three *long* years (as opposed to just one short year) comes from the Gospel of John, in which Jesus cleanses the Temple at Jerusalem *in the beginning of his ministry*, a highly public act which must have gained him attention and notoriety. Exactly the kind of stuff which would have gotten the attention of Josephus´ sources. Something´s wrong when apologists try to falsify *their own holy scripture* to fit the apologetic narrative!
>>>His trial was rushed partly at night to push it through the Jewish Passover, and Jesus was one of thousands executed as a disrespected criminal who would have been buried in a common grave had it not been for one of his secret followers.
What does this even mean? Where does the Bible say that thousands of people were executed during the Jewish Passover?!
>>>Despite all this, there is more documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus and the historicity of the four Gospels than for any other ancient historical figure. No one in the first centuries ever doubted his existence, much less his ministry.
>>>We “know” Jesus really existed insofar as we can know any historical fact. That is to say, none of us was present on the earth two thousand years ago to empirically verify Jesus’ existence, so we must rely on the historical record.
>>>But the historical record is as conclusive as we could possibly hope for. As Theodore Dalrymple noted in the City Journal, “If I questioned whether George Washington died in 1799, I could spend a lifetime trying to prove it and find myself still, at the end of my efforts, having to make a leap, or perhaps several leaps, of faith in order to believe the rather banal fact that I had set out to prove.”
>>>In other words, what you believe depends on what you are willing to believe.
Well, the last sentence at least is true. The rest is hogwash. Dalrymple isn´t a historian but a notorious provocateur. There are currently 63 volumes of documents by or about George Washington from his (Washington´s) lifetime. No leap of faith required. And no, we don´t have "more documentary evidence" for Jesus than for any other ancient figure. Again: if Jesus did what´s recorded in the Gospel, he should be mentioned as prominently as John the Baptist (or even more so) in Josephus, but he isn´t. But sure, the argument that nobody doubted Jesus´ existence is a legit argument against mythicism.
>>>Plenty of scholars have undertaken to collect all ancient historical references to Jesus, which are surprisingly ample. They include the celebrated Roman historian Tacitus; Suetonius, chief secretary to the emperor Hadrian; Julius Africanus, who quoted the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness that followed the crucifixion of Christ; Pliny the Younger, who in his Letters recorded early Christian ritual practices; Lucian of Samosata, who stated that Jesus was crucified for introducing new beliefs.
>>>The Jewish historical record includes the most famous ancient Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who, in his Antiquities, refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” as well as to Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate.
This is a joke, right? The author evidently believes in the Testimonium Flavianum (which virtually all scholars today regard as a later forgery). Indeed, scholars now believe that the historical facts found in the Gospel of Luke and Acts are based on Josephus, making at least two of the Gospels (Luke and John) later than his works. Suetonius never mentions Jesus. Nobody takes Julius Africanus (a Christian apologist) seriously. That being said: yes, the fact that some ancient historians mention Jesus and treats him as a real person is a legitimate argument against mythicism.
Now, do Julius Caesar, Socrates or Aristotle. Or George Washington...
>>>The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jesus’ crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
WTF??!! Yeah, the Talmud mentions Jesus *but claim that he lived 100 BC and was executed by the Jews themselves*. This is used by mythicists as evidence that the Jesus mythos was very malleable!
>>>The texts of the New Testament itself, which include historical assertions about Jesus, were written not many years after his death, when many of his contemporaries were still alive. Yet there is no record of any contemporary figure refuting these claims or asserting that Jesus never lived.
Breitbart News tries to have it both ways. If the ministry of Jesus was almost secret, not many contemporaries would have known about it. But here, all of a sudden, Breitbart accepts the Gospel narrative that the contemporaries must have been legion (and very well-informed, to boot).
>>>The clearest evidence of Jesus’ historical existence is the witness of literally thousands of Christians in the first century AD, including the twelve apostles, who were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.
Again: where do all these thousands of eye-witnesses to Jesus (presumably in Nero´s Rome 30 years after the crucifixion) come from, all of a sudden? Church tradition doesn´t mention a massive exodus of eye-witnesses from Jerusalem to Rome at any point. Yes, there may have been thousands of martyred Christians during the Neronian persecution, but only a few of them would have been eye-witnesses to Jesus´ ministry. Doesn´t the author understand the difference?
>>>They could have escaped death by disowning Christ or stepping forward to say that it all had been a hoax. This did not happen. Some people will die for what they believe to be true; no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
And? "Some people will die for what they believe to be true" is correct and applies equally well to all persecuted groups, not just 1st century Christians. "No one will die for what they know to be a lie" is a more interesting proposition. Please apply it to Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet! Exactly...
>>>Yet, as Stephen Ray observed, there are many today who want to make a name for themselves by spouting off about something they cannot prove and with a hatred for something they intensely want to disprove.
Projection?
Original article here:
As Easter nears, some atheists insist: "There was no Jesus"
 |
| Credit: LancerEvolution |
Evidence for Roman exploration and conquest in the New World? Probably not, but the topic is fascinating.
The first link goes to a short piece by Richard Carrier, discussing whether art from Pompeii shows pineapples, an American fruit which (probably) shouldn´t have been known to the Romans. He reaches the conclusion that it´s another delicacy altogether.
I already blogged about the content in the second link (see third link!), but here we go again. The "Roman mosaic" with the South American parrot is with outmost probability a forgery. So nah, the first Italian to reach the Americas probably was a certain Columbus, after all...
 |
| - Nah, I´m the Beast, dude! |
Some short remarks on the Number of the Beast (a propos a posting on another blog).
Most scholars agree that the number (666) refers to the Roman emperor Nero. The details are unimportant, suffice to say that we are dealing with a numerical cipher. The strongest evidence in favor of this hypothesis is that the Beast in some ancient Bible manuscripts has the number 616. Using gematria (an ancient numerological code), both 666 and 616 can be translated to "Nero Caesar". Unless I´m mistaken, 666 gives the Greek name and titel written in Hebrew characters, while 616 gives the Latin name and title written in Hebrew characters. So Nero it probably is.
The Book of Revelation, in which the accursed number appears, is notoriously difficult to date. I think the current consensus is that it was composed during or shortly after the reign of emperor Domitian, which would date it to 30 years after Nero. However, there is no necessary contradiction: Domitian was sometimes known by his detractors as "Nero redivivus" (the resurrected Nero), so while 666/616 *means* Nero, it could be a reference to Domitian as a kind of second Nero. That both Nero and Domitian persecuted Christians also speaks in favor of this theory. Indeed, according to Church tradition, Revelation was written by the apostle John on the isle of Patmos, to which he had been banished by Domitian.
Interestingly, the meaning of 666/616 must have been lost at an early point in Christian history. The Church Fathers didn´t know that it was a code for Nero Caesar. The reason could be that Revelation was a controversial text, and that many Christians scarcely regarded it as canonical. Irenaeus proposed that the Number of the Beast could mean Euanthas, Lateinos or Teitan. He favored Teitan.
Curiously, the number also shows up in the Old Testament, where it says that king Solomon demanded 666 golden talents in tax! Venerable Bede (6th century) noticed this and proposed that the Beast will demand taxes which are not rightfully his. So on this interpretation, 666 was originally a "good" number, since Bede regarded Solomon as a legitimate ruler. The Beast is an usurper laying claim to gold which doesn´t rightfully belong to him.
Final point. Many historians today seem to doubt that Domitian persecuted Christians. A few revisionist historians have also questioned the Neronian persecution. But if this is so, then the meaning of 666 could suddenly be brought into question. For if the Christians weren´t actually persecuted by these two emperors, why use "Nero" as a beastly designation in Revelation? But I suppose we could save the day somehow. Perhaps Christians during the time of Domitian wrongly believed that Nero had persecuted their brethren 30 years earlier, including the executions of Peter and Paul? But that sounds strange. Or maybe Christians expected a severe persecution under Domitian and called him "Nero" since Domitian´s political enemies did the same. Nero, after all, was universally reviled by the Romans. That sounds somewhat more believable.
To sum up: 666/616 with a strong degree of probability means Nero Caesar, although there are still some loose ends to tie up.
 |
| - Nah, I just look like Jesus, I´m actually an Epicurean! |
Atheist polemicist extraordinaire Richard Carrier argues against a peculiar chart (perhaps wrongly attributed to Hugh Ross) which "proves" that the Bible is scientific, more scientific in fact than the ancient Greeks and Romans. I´ve probably seen the chart, or a version thereof, but always associated it with the Jehovah´s Witnesses! That "blood is life" thing...
To repeat myself, Carrier disagrees and here we are!
 |
| AI´s fantasy picture of Silphium |
Yuge if true. Finally, some good news!
Miracle plant used in ancient Greece rediscovered after 2000 years
*Lite* oklart om detta keltiska samhälle verkligen var kvinnodominerat, men jag håller med om att det åtminstone något stärker de romerska källornas tillförlitlighet. Detta apropå den första länken. Den andra artikeln har jag redan länkat till en gång tidigare, but here we go again...
 |
| Fabius Cunctator |
John Michael Greer continues his Schopenhaueresque analysis of Wagner´s magna opera (pun intended). But he misses one point: Fabian socialism, ahem, worked for about 100 years...
 |
| No relation to United Slaves! |
LOL! Breitbart News goes mustang in this article, attacking Kamala Harris for celebrating Kwanzaa, but note the last sentence, in which they are forced to admit that even Donald Trump wished Black people a Happy Kwanzaa (although he never claimed to celebrate it himself).
Kwanzaa is a "fake holiday" according to Breitbart, invented by one Maulana Karenga who was a really bad boy. Maybe a proto-fascist? Or a left-wing extremist? One thing not mentioned in the screed is that some radical leftists actually believe that Karenga was an FBI stooge!
Oh, and why isn´t Christmas a fake holiday? It was invented by a proto-fascist Roman regime the main pastime of which was book burning, slavery and wars of conquest, but whatever...
Not sure if there is some truth in this, or if it´s another conspiracy theory. The author of the article is certainly an anti-Semite, but who knows? Most of "Biblical history" is fake anyway, so why not this as well?
Summary: the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem isn´t the last remaining portion of the Second Temple, but rather of the Roman Fort Antonia! So Jews are literally wailing at the wrong wall...
Crazy sectarian party-poopers of the Adventist persuasion dunk on Christmas, claiming it is - surprise - pagan. An extravagant summary of all real or perceived pagan influences on this supposed Christian holiday. Never thought of the similarity between Santa´s flying reindeer and Odin´s Wild Hunt before. But sure, the AI-generated Krampus figures look cool.
Should I or you tell them that Christianity was "pagan" from the start, and so was Judaism? There was no pure and pristine early Christianity that looked like Seventh Day Adventism or even more radical groups such as the JW´s or Christadelphians. As for the religion of ancient Israel, Solomon´s temple didn´t just look pagan, it was literally built by pagans! And don´t even get me started on the Ark of the Covenant...
This is the *nightmare* before Christmas.
 |
| - Yuletide, bro? What on earth is yuletide?! |
Some slightly unedited reflections on the pagan nature of Christmas…
On one level, the question is academic, since virtually all “really
existing” Christmas traditions in the modern Western world seem to be Christian
or secularized, and many regardless of nominal provenance were invented by
enterprising retailers or wholesalers. Some during my lifetime! That being
said, it´s hard not to believe that there is a connection between the Christian
idea that Jesus was born on December 25 (not found in the Bible) and earlier
pagan conceptions.
December 25 was the original date of the winter solstice in the Julian
calendar, adopted in Rome on January 1, 45 BC by order of Julius Caesar
himself. In other words, before Christianity even existed. Later, the winter solstice
became associated with the imperial solar deity Sol Invictus, probably first
worshipped by Emperor Aurelian during the 3rd century AD. Constantine
the Great originally promoted both Christianity and the cult of Sol Invictus,
presumably for reasons of politic, but dropped the solar cult after the Council
of Nicaea. The supposedly super-Christian emperor Theodosius the Great used
pagan imagery (Hercules) to justify his rule, and modeled himself on Trajan showing
that Christian-pagan “syncretism” was a thing. It´s interesting to note that
Macrobius claimed that Sol Invictus was depicted as a small child at the winter
solstice (compare baby Jesus). While Macrobius is a late source (5th
century AD), Plutarch (1st century AD and hence not influenced by
Christianity) said that Harpocrates was born on the winter solstice. This is
the Hellenistic form of the Egyptian god Horus, son of Isis and Osiris. Note
the iconographic similarity between Mary holding baby Jesus and Isis holding
Horus.
Oh, and then there´s the similarities between the Saturnalia and later
Christmas traditions, including the Feast of Fools and the Lord of Misrule. Indeed,
Christmas was long associated with folkish revelry rather than Christian
solemnity (except, I suppose, in church). It´s not a co-incidence that that the
17th century Puritans in both England and New England tried to ban
many customs associated with Christmas!
So why is it far fetched to think that the Christian Church consciously “captured”
December 25 as the birthday of Jesus in order to compete with the pagans? The
alternative “calculation hypothesis” says that the Christians arrived at the
date of December 25 by simply calculating nine months from March 25 (the Roman
date of the spring equinox) since Jesus was believed to have been conceived by
the Holy Ghost on that day. An alternative calculation from April 6 gave January
6 as the date of Christ´s birth instead, long celebrated in the eastern half of
the Roman Empire (today, January 6 is the Christian holiday of Epiphany). However,
it turns out that this seemingly random date is *also* associated with paganism,
making it highly unlikely that the Christians chose it by chance.
Let´s begin with Epiphanius, the somewhat notorious 4th
century AD Christian bishop and heresy-hunter extraordinaire. In his “Panarion”,
Epiphanius claims that Jesus was born on January 6 and that the pagans therefore
celebrate their mystery rites on that date to deceive the faithful. Christian
apologists rather naively assume that Epiphanius is of course telling the truth,
and that the pagans were indeed mimicking the Christian traditions. But we will
see later that this is highly unlikely. First, a short summary of what the
Cypriot bishop writes. At January 6, the pagans in Alexandria celebrate the virgin
birth of Aion from Kore (which, of course, means “The Virgin” or “The Maiden”).
On the same date, the pagans in Petra celebrate of the virgin birth of one Dusares
from Kore. Also, there is a similar celebration in Elusa (presumably the town
in Palestine), but it´s not described by the bishop.
According to pre-Christian Greek sources, Persephone is the mother of
Dionysus Zagreus, who is dismembered by the Titans and then brought to life. Persephone
and Kore is the same goddess, but in this particular myth, Dionysus isn´t born
of a virgin. Rather, Persephone is impregnated by Zeus. The Greeks and Romans
often identified Dionysus with Osiris, another god who was dismembered and
brought back to life. Aion – the miraculous son of Kore in Epiphanius´ account –
was a syncretic deity identified with Dionysus and Osiris! Dusares was
sometimes also associated with Dionysus. Thus, everything points to Dionysus. Could
January 6 somehow have been associated with the god of wine? Indeed, this seems
to be the case.
Pliny the Elder (1st century AD) and Pausanias (2nd
century AD) – both men highly unlikely to have been influenced by Christianity – mention a Dionysiac festival on January 6, known as Theodosia, during
which the water at a holy spring at the island of Andros was turned into wine.
The ability of Dionysus to turn water into wine is of course well attested from
other sources, too. Seneca (1st century AD) associates Dionysus with
a wedding feast. Finally, Dionysus was worshipped in Scythopolis in Palestine,
indeed, the local pagans claimed this was the god´s birthplace. And in the
Gospel of John, Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding at Cana, which is close
to Scythopolis…
It seems difficult to deny that the author of the gospel modelled this
somewhat peculiar miracle of Jesus on Dionysiac traditions. Epiphanius gives
the whole game away when he states that Jesus performed the miracle of turning
water into wine on the same date as his birth – that is, January 6 *which is
also the birthday of Dionysus according to the same author*. Epiphanius also writes
that on January 6, the water in many streams and rivers turn into wine as evidence
of Christ´s miracle at Cana. He mentions the Nile, Cibyre in Caria and Gerasa
in Arabia. *But this is exactly what Pliny and Pausanias claims happened on
January 6 on Andros at the Dionysiac festival of Theodosia*.
It´s therefore obvious what´s going on here. Both December 25 and January
6 were days honoring pagan gods, and both were claimed by the Christian Church after
Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman Empire. At some point, December
25 was fixed as the birthday of Jesus, while January 6 became Epiphany, still
in a sense associated with the Christ´s birth. In the Western Church, Epiphany celebrates the Magi and their adoration of the infant Jesus, while in the
Eastern Church, it celebrates the baptism of Jesus (a symbolic “birth”).
So it seems Christmas is “pagan”, after all. At least after a fashion!
 |
| Credit: Carole Raddato |
We´ll soon resume our regular programming, but I can´t help quoting this! I mean, wtf?!
>>>Importantly, Greeks and Romans often erroneously identified the Jewish god with Dionysus. (Indeed, the Hebrew Bible did portray Yahweh was, among other things, a wine god, and Yahweh required daily wine offerings to him. E.g., Exodus 29:40; Isaiah 5:1-7; Psalm 80:14-15.)
>>>The Roman historian Tacitus said that some people erroneously thought that the Jews worship Father Liber (Dionysus/Bacchus) since their priests intoned to the flute and cymbals and wore ivy garlands, and because a golden grapevine decorated the entrance to the Jerusalem temple (Histories, 5.5). (Such priestly practices were not normal in Judaism but perhaps did occur during the above-mentioned aberrations; the grapevine decoration did appear on the temple that Herod built. Josephus, Antiquities, 15.11.395).
>>>In Plutarch’s Table Talk, the dining partners thought that the Jews worshipped Dionysus. As evidence, they pointed to the Jewish wine harvest festival, a festival procession in which people enter the temple each carrying a thyrsus, noisemaking and music making by worshippers, the High Priest wearing a fawnskin (like followers of Dionysus), and a “carved thyrsus” on the pediment of the temple (Moralia, 671C-672C).
>>>In 139 BCE, since, as noted, Romans erroneously thought that the Jews living in Rome worshipped the god Sabazius, who was equated with Dionysus, the Jews were expelled from Rome, since the authorities considered the cult of Sabazius (and Bacchic mysteries generally) pernicious and corrupting. Given that many gentiles were so inclined to equate the Jewish god with Dionysus, it would make sense for John to engage that audience in Dionysian terms while turning the argument to Jesus’s advantage.
Yes, Christmas is pagan. Deal with it. Just wait until I tell you where Epiphany comes from...
Actual title of a YouTube video spotted just now: "Should Christians Watch Cage Fights? And Other Controversial Questions".
Some of the responses quoted below!
>>>At the Second Lateran Council in 1139, under the leadership of Pope Innocent II, the Roman Catholic Church set policy that anyone who dies while participating in combat or life threatening sports would be denied a church burial. This policy was again reiterated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Pope Benedict XIV continued to emphasize the policy in 1752 and added excommunication to those who participate in similar sports. The policy arose from Christian’s participating in jousting, fighting, and dueling. While rarely enforced today, the policy still stands in the church.
>>>Any sport that does not offend the Trinity is permissable imo. If you think boxing/MMA fights dishonor God than same could be said with football for the latter is a violent sport.
>>>Ramsey Dewey is a former cage fighter who currently teaches MMA in China, and a very devout Mormon, who makes videos on both topics. He actually has his own video about Christians and cagefighting, from the perspective of someone who has done both.
Whoa, det här var lite oväntat. Baserad mama, eller vad?!
Inga tider eller tillstånd varar för evigt
“The Self-Immolation of Kalanos and other Luminous Encounters among
Greeks and Indian Buddhists in the Hellenistic World” is a rather short article
by Georgios T Halkias published in 2015 in the scholarly “Journal of the Oxford
Centre for Buddhist Studies”. Or perhaps not so short, since Halkias has
appended a large number of voluminous footnotes! The author further states that
his study is “revisionist”, but not being an expert on Kalanos and other luminous
beings, I can´t really tell what the “revisionism” entails. Perhaps the
identity of the famed gymnosophists, and perhaps…something else. Stay tuned!
During the campaigns of Alexander the Great (here referred to as Alexandros of Macedonia), the Greeks encountered “gymnosophists” or naked wise men, obviously a reference to some kind of Indian ascetics. But what kind? There are many different kinds of ascetics in South Asia, and I suppose the usual guesses are Hindus (or rather what we would call Hindus) or Jains.
Halkias
proposes Buddhists instead. Kalanos accompanied the Greek army of Alexander and
then committed suicide by self-immolation on a pyre. Apparently, Jains oppose
self-immolation, instead preferring suicide by voluntary starvation. They
aren´t even allowed to handle fire, since it can kill flying insects. Nor is
there any archeological or documentary evidence of a Jain presence in Taxila,
where the Greeks encountered the gymnosophists, during the relevant time frame.
But what about the nudity? Halkias believes that nudity was prevalent in many different
Indian contexts, not just among Jains, citing as an example near-nude Indian diplomatic
envoys to the Persian king.
The author further argues that there is evidence that members of some early Buddhist sects only wore rags or were “open air dwellers” rather than building shelters for themselves. That the gymnosophists allowed women to practice or debate with them also points to Buddhism. So does the fact that Kalanos willingly accompanied the Macedonian army when it departed for another part of the conquered Persian Empire. Missionary work directed at non-Indians was standard Buddhist practice. But apparently the “smoking gun” (pun almost intended) is Kalanos´ self-immolation. This may come as a shock to those who think that Buddhism is a strictly non-violent religion which opposes suicide, but there you go.
I´ve
previously reviewed a scholarly article on ritual suicide among Pure Land Buddhists
in China and Japan. If Halkias is correct, acceptance of suicide runs deep within
Buddhism, including its earliest forms. It was acceptable for ascetics (not laity)
to commit suicide if sickness or old age seriously impaired their meditative practice.
Indeed, this seems to have been precisely what Kalanos was doing. Buddhist
monks, but not Brahmins, were cremated at death. Brahmin holy men who committed
suicide usually drowned themselves in sacred rivers. Therefore, suicide by fire
would have been a Buddhist practice.
Halkias references a presumably apocryphal tradition according to which
the Buddhist emperor Ashoka killed himself by self-immolation. From a much
later period, there is a description of Indian ascetics by the Gnostic Bardesanes
which must refer to Buddhist monks, and which also states that they practice
self-immolation. More disturbingly, perhaps, Bardesanes states that the
ascetics take their own lives *not* when they are sickly or elderly, but when
their spiritual practice is most successful! Halkias recounts legends about
Buddha´s former lives or about bodhisattvas, which include self-immolation. The
point of self-immolation is, Halkias believes, to imitate the Buddha´s funeral
pyre and produce holy relics. He even believes that the Buddha himself self-immolated,
but I don´t see how the quoted material bears this out.
Here is another bizarre quote: “A Buddhist narrative from the Mahavastu tells
that at the moment of Shakyamuni´s conception in his mother’s womb five hundred
pratyekabuddhas assembled at the Deer Park in Sarnath (where Shakyamuni would later
deliver his first sermon) and liberated themselves from their bodies in a spectacular
manner. Rising high up in the air to a height of seven palm trees they immolated
themselves, bursting into flames. This pyrotechnic phantasmagoria anticipates
the Buddha’s enlightening teachings at the Deer Park and suggests some ancient
form of sacrifice/offering that marks the birth of a great leader.”
The author ends his study by arguing that the ancient Greeks didn´t
disapprove of the antics of the self-immolating gymnosophists. Quite the contrary,
the suicide by fire motif also existed in Greek mythology and tradition…
I admit that I don´t quite like the implications of this revisionist piece
of scholarship.
