Eliseoferrer.com

Reseña de J. Liberati (Montevideo) al libro SDRS.

Eliseo Ferrer Antropología de lo Sagrado,Contextos Culturales,Cristianismo,Helenismo,Historia de las Religiones,Influencias Culurales,Judaísmo,Libros,Mito Cristiano,Mitos,Orígenes Cristianos,Religiones Comparadas,Rey Sagrado,Zoroastrismo

Eliseo Ferrer, Jorge Liberati, Revista Relaciones

Descargar Comentario de Jorge Liberati

Revista RELACIONES. Montevideo (Uruguay). Julio de 2023. Nº 470.

El escritor y crítico uruguayo comentó lo siguiente en su reseña del libro «Sacrificio y Drama del Rey Sagrado:

En torno a la formación del mito de Cristo: «De una primera lectura de la obra surge que toda la literatura generada por o asimilada a la tradición católica, desde sus inicios hacia finales del siglo II de nuestra era, especialmente su cristología, el destino escatológico del mito (muerte y resurrección) y el significado soteriológico de Cristo (como Salvador), resulta solo un breve capítulo en la gran historia cuyos orígenes inmediatos se remontan al lejano pasado».

«Este monumento, refinado instrumento de demostración teórica y fáctica al servicio de una tesis indiscutiblemente capital, reviste una gran belleza ensayística. Puede interpretarse como exploración extensiva en el territorio historiográfico más complicado, de tránsito escabroso y múltiples senderos. Territorio en general amojonado por la pasión religiosa, el fervor místico. la fantasía o aun la magia. Pero también como indagación intensiva, como arrojado y honesto buceo en un mar documental, a veces demasiado en calma y otras veces demasiado borrascoso, en el que abunda la tergiversación milenaria y testimonios que resultan casi siempre copias de copias a través de siglos».

Descargar Comentario de Jorge Liberati

No hay texto alternativo para esta imagen

_______________________________________________

Los libertarios españoles elogian el libro SDRS.

Eliseo Ferrer Cristianismo,Helenismo,Historia de las Religiones,Influencias Culurales,Judaísmo,Libros,Mito Cristiano

Descargar texto de la revista Libre Pensamiento

Estimados amigos: A través de la presente nota os informo de que, tras haber sido objeto de una docena de reseñas universitarias ampliamente satisfactorias, durante las semanas prenavideñas (2022) tuvimos un debate abierto en Academia.edu sobre mi libro «SACRIFICIO Y DRAMA DEL REY SAGRADO (Genealogía, antropología e historia del mito de Cristo)» que resultó sumamente interesante y alentador. Participaron más de cuatrocientas personas (en español e inglés) y la valoración del balance fue realmente positiva. Digamos que el mundo académico (o la representación que participó) se pronunció favorablemente de forma muy mayoritaria. Pues solo de forma residual aparecieron algunas críticas de escaso fundamento y nulo valor intelectual provenientes de sectores recalcitrantes y extremos: evangélicos fundamentalistas y católicos tridentinos.

Por lo demás, el año 2022 acabó con una gran noticia, ya que recibimos el número de verano de la prestigiosa revista libertaria LIBRE PENSAMIENTO, donde un escrito de su director, Jacinto Ceacero Cubillo, dedicaba tres extraordinarias páginas al libro de marras.

Adjunto PDF con estos comentarios de la revista LIBRE PENSAMIENTO.

Descargar texto de la revista Libre Pensamiento

_____________________________________________________

El Cristo Solar de la Resurrección, Más Allá del Mero Simbolismo Eclesiástico.

Eliseo Ferrer Antropología de lo Sagrado,Contextos Culturales,Cristianismo,Helenismo,Historia de las Religiones,Influencias Culurales,Mito Cristiano,Mitos,Orígenes Cristianos,Religiones Comparadas,Zoroastrismo

Descargar texto completo con citas y referencias

Mas allá del mero simbolismo, encontramos en Juliano una relación de identidad (de «mismidad») entre Helios-Sol y el «Hijo Unigénito» («el único») que permite el intercambio nominal o la sustitución de los términos sin variar sus significados. El jesuita Antonio Orbe lo entendió también con mucha claridad cuando manifestó que «los teólogos solares adaptaron la tradición pitagórica sustituyendo el Logos por el Sol, que dirigía, desde el centro de las esferas planetarias, el coro de las Musas y producía el acorde sinfónico que aseguraba la unidad del mundo. Tal adaptación, sensible entre los estoicos del siglo primero, alcanzó largo éxito y había de llegar hasta los platónicos del Renacimiento». Es decir, a partir del platonismo y del estoicismo, el Sol, más allá de ser un símbolo de la vida en la tierra, un evidente paradigma de inmortalidad y un agente de salvación de algunos cultos mistéricos, incluso un fetiche de adoración panteísta, se convirtió en el mecanismo clave de la teología racional (gnosticismo) sobre la que se construyó el mito de Cristo. Pues, asimilado al «fuego inteligente», el Sol acabó transformándose, en el mundo grecorromano, en un principio cósmico: «De hierofanía se convirtió en idea, siguiendo un proceso análogo al de otros dioses uránicos. […] Así, por ejemplo, la subordinación del sol a Dios recordaba el mito primitivo del demiurgo solarizado, sus relaciones con la fecundidad y el drama vegetal, etc. Pero, en general, [los nuevos rasgos] no fueron sino una pálida imagen de lo que en otro tiempo significaron las hierofanías solares; una pálida imagen que el racionalismo borró casi por completo». Ya hemos visto que, para Platón, el Sol fue la imagen del Bien, tal como se manifestaba en la esfera de las cosas visibles; para los órficos, fue la inteligencia del mundo, y, para los estoicos, la fuente del fuego inteligente que hacía posible la inteligibilidad del mundo. Pero en este contexto intelectualista, el proceso de racionalización y el sincretismo se fueron desarrollando conjuntamente hasta llegar, en los siglos cuarto y quinto, a visiones sincrético-racionalistas y elaboraciones, como la ofrecida por el emperador Juliano.

En consecuencia, solamente desde una concepción dogmática y muy estrecha de los orígenes del cristianismo puede decirse que el Sol fuese un mero símbolo de Cristo, eludiendo, como hicieron los padres de la Iglesia, los teólogos y en general toda la cristiandad, el trasfondo mítico que subyacía al judaísmo helenizado del siglo primero y el sustrato racional de la primera teología cristiana. Unos contextos culturales en los que el Sol fue mucho más que un símbolo ocasional del Logos: fue algo que pertenecía, como el Hijo manifestado, a la esencia misma del Logos, y que, en consecuencia, le otorgaba a Cristo el rango de entidad solar bajo relación de identidad y no de mero simbolismo. Y digo «entidad solar» y no «divinidad» o «dios solar», porque Jesucristo no fue, en realidad, una divinidad, sino el Hijo de Dios, el Logos, construido con los materiales de la filosofía alejandrina del platonismo medio y del eclecticismo filoniano: un héroe solar con rasgos similares a otros tantos héroes míticos presentes tanto en las Escrituras judías como en la literatura pagana. De esta forma, como Logos racional, Cristo fue el Sol (el Logos Solar), tal y como han interpretado durante veinte siglos todas las corrientes del gnosticismo cristiano. Como Salvador e Hijo de Dios, en el plano de la devoción popular, Cristo fue también un héroe solar, exactamente igual que lo fueron Josué y Sansón en el judaísmo, o Apolo, Dioniso, Marte, Mercurio, Esculapio, Heracles, Serapis, Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Némesis, Pan, Saturno, Adad e incluso Júpiter en el paganismo. Y como deidad que, además, respondía al arquetipo de la muerte y la resurrección, el Sol fue una pieza imprescindible (junto a la Luna) del lenguaje y del discurso mítico que daba razón y explicaba el significado soteriológico de su misterio redentor. No hemos de olvidar que, desde la más remota antigüedad, tal y como ejemplificaba la barca solar de Ra, el Sol había ejercido de psicopompo, transportando, tras el ocaso, por Poniente, y el descenso a los infiernos, las almas de los muertos que debían de ascender, a la mañana siguiente, hacia el reino de la luz celeste.

Si bien, la identificación de Cristo con el Sol no tuvo nada que ver, en origen, ni con el panteísmo popularizado y degenerado del mundo romano, ni tampoco con el mero «simbolismo glorioso» que le atribuyen hoy algunos teólogos contemporáneos. El Cristo-Sol de la filosofía, como toda la base gnóstica de la teología de la Iglesia, fue resultado del pensamiento y del eclecticismo alejandrino del siglo primero que, a través de Filón, contempló la fusión del platonismo interpretado por la tradición y del estoicismo de la época. Digamos que solo muy tardíamente, y tras la aparición en escena del emperador Constantino, pudo identificarse a Jesucristo con el Sol Invictus y con el dios Mitra; pero no hemos de olvidar que ello fue posible porque el mito de Cristo contenía en sí mismo, desde el judaísmo helenizado en el que había nacido, todos los ingredientes que hicieron posible la asimilación de la herencia romana posterior. Como Logos identificado con el Sol, Cristo podía recibir con todo derecho el apelativo «Invictus», que finalmente le transfirieron las autoridades del Imperio; y como Salvador y Psicopompo patrocinado desde el poder, podía perfectamente asimilarse y hasta apropiarse de las funciones del dios Mitra, sin que ello supusiese cambio o degradación alguna de su idiosincrasia originaria.

La identidad solar y las analogías de todo tipo con la astrología aparecieron en los primeros textos del cristianismo eclesiástico y se encuentran, por lo tanto, en las páginas del Nuevo Testamento. Estuvieron presentes desde mismo momento en que el evangelio de Juany el Apocalipsis identificaron al Mesías de Israel con la Palabra del Génesis y con el Logos-Hijo de Dios de la filosofía judeo-alejandrina. Por otra parte, cuando el evangelio de Marcos trataba de demostrar la resurrección mediante las condiciones y disposición de la sepultura y del descubrimiento de la tumba vacía, situaba estas imágenes en la mañana del domingo (el día del Sol) y justo a la hora del sol naciente. Si bien, hemos de reconocer que no sería hasta mucho tiempo después cuando, en el siglo cuarto, quedaría instituido el dies Solis, o domingo, como el día del Señor.

Descargar texto completo con citas y referencias

________________________

Astrología y Culto Solar en el Mundo Tardoantiguo Grecorromano.

Eliseo Ferrer Antropología de lo Sagrado,Cristianismo,Historia de las Religiones,Influencias Culurales,Mito Cristiano,Mitos,Religiones Comparadas,Zoroastrismo

Descargar texto completo con citas y referencias

Conviene recordar una vez más que no caben definiciones intemporales y ahistóricas en nuestra tarea; que el culto solar y la astrología, lo mismo que los mitos o las divinidades antiguas, nunca manifestaron una sustancia invariable ni presentaron los mismos contenidos en todo momento y circunstancia. Casi me cuesta trabajo reiterar que la heterogeneidad de relatos míticos referenciados en al aparente movimiento cósmico de la tierra, el sol, la luna o las estrellas, fueron resultado de la construcción cultural de diferentes pueblos a lo largo de miles de años de historia; cuyo comienzo, a nuestros efectos, hemos situado en el Neolítico, pero que en realidad se pierden en la oscura noche de los tiempos de la prehistoria. Ni siquiera las denominaciones «culto solar» y «astrología», en la línea que seguimos, han sido conceptos invariables a lo largo del tiempo. Por lo que entiendo que una posición esencialista y racionalista sobre estos asuntos no nos conducirá más que a la corta perspectiva de unas anteojeras que miran al pasado a través de las quimeras y los prejuicios del universo simbólico de nuestro propio mundo.

La otra observación preliminar va dirigida a disipar los excesos de ese racionalismo moderno que ha presentado el culto al sol a través de dos perspectivas aparentemente diferentes, pero en el fondo coincidentes. Una, la de aquéllos que encontraron y universalizaron la devoción solar en lo que, sin ningún fundamento, denominaron «los orígenes de la humanidad» o «el principio de los tiempos». Y la segunda, la de aquellos otros que llegaron a la misma conclusión, pero, lejos del origen, descubrieron una supuesta universalidad y totalización del culto astral-solar a lo largo del transcurso del tiempo. La primera posición, mantenida hoy en determinados círculos esotéricos y de gran aceptación en cierta subcultura de Internet, viene a ser algo así como una suerte de difusionismo primigenio de carácter inmanente: una «revelación» panteísta, anterior al principio de la historia, que vería al Sol como representación suprema, tendría su origen en el mito de la Atlántida y hallaría su realización fáctica en el antiguo Egipto. La otra posición, de mayor complejidad y de más entidad y nivel que la anterior, fue sin duda la mantenida por Max Müller y los discípulos de su escuela, quienes interpretaron todo el sistema de la mitología como un discurso narrativo derivado exclusivamente de la perspectiva del movimiento de los astros y del espectáculo del cielo. Y entre una y otra posición encontramos al singular autor francés Charles François Dupuis, quien, en su obra Compendio del origen de todos los cultos, escrita en plena Revolución francesa, consideraba al sol, a la luna, a las estrellas y a los planetas como los referentes indudables y únicos de todos los credos religiosos. Digamos que, influidos por el neoplatonismo renacentista florentino, por Macrobio y por la tradición hermética, los racionalistas de la modernidad del siglo dieciocho interpretaron la religión como un discurso descontextualizado y ahistórico referido a los fenómenos terrestres en relación a los celestes; considerando que los mitos antiguos no eran sino un lenguaje didáctico fundado exclusivamente en combinaciones astronómicas.

Como reconocía Eliade, se creía antaño, en los tiempos heroicos de la Historia de las Religiones, que la humanidad entera había conocido el culto al sol. Los primeros intentos de la mitología comparada encontraban prácticamente en todas partes vestigios de este culto. Sin embargo, ya en 1870, un etnólogo de la categoría de Adolf Bastian hizo notar que el culto solar solo aparecía, de hecho, muy aisladamente y en muy pocas regiones del mundo. Y, medio siglo más tarde, James G. Frazer, volviendo a ocuparse del problema, hizo notar la inconsistencia de los elementos solares en África, Australia, Melanesia, Polinesia y Micronesia. «Inconsistencia que aparecía también, con muy pocas excepciones, en América del Norte y del Sur. Solo en Egipto, en Asia y en la Europa arcaica eso que se ha dado en llamar “culto al sol” gozó de un favor que, en ocasiones, como en Egipto, pudo llegar a tener una verdadera preponderancia». A lo que cabe añadir que, al otro lado del Atlántico, el culto solar no se desarrolló más que en Perú y en México; es decir, en los dos únicos espacios americanos precolombinos con cierto nivel de civilización y de desarrollo cultural.

Efectivamente, hubo un culto solar propiamente dicho en Egipto, primero a través de Ra, y, a partir del Imperio Nuevo, tras «la osirización de éste y la solarización de Osiris-Horus», en la amalgama soteriológica representada por Ra-Osiris-Horus. Hubo culto solar en determinadas tribus indoeuropeas, en algunos pueblos asiáticos, en Mesopotamia y en Siria. Hubo una teología racionalista de carácter astral entre los filósofos e ilustrados griegos creadores del Logos solar. Se dio estricta adoración solar en el culto imperial romano del siglo tercero, importado desde Siria por Heliogábalo y reinstaurado, más tarde, con otras formas y presupuestos, por Aureliano. Y se produjo un sorprendente sincretismo solar en los dos últimos siglos del Imperio romano, bajo cuya teología se integraron los arcaicos mitos cosmológicos, readaptados a las religiones de misterio, y las nuevas concepciones astrológicas y solares llegadas desde Siria y Mesopotamia.

Descargar texto completo con citas y referencias

___________________________________________________

Índice, Preámbulo y Bibliografía de «Sacrificio y drama del rey Sagrado».

Eliseo Ferrer Antropología de lo Sagrado,Contextos Culturales,Cristianismo,Helenismo,Historia de las Religiones,Influencias Culurales,Judaísmo,Mito Cristiano,Mitos,Orígenes Cristianos,Religiones Comparadas,Rey Sagrado,Ritos,Zoroastrismo

Una lectura ALTERNATIVA del fenómeno cristiano desde UNA ANTROPOLOGIA MATERIALISTA, EL ESTUDIO DE LOS TEXTOS Y LOS METODOS HISTORICO-CRITICOS.

Descargar Indice, Preámbulo y Bibliografía

___________________________

UN CRISTIANISMO JUDEO-HELENÍSTICO SIN HISTORIA EVANGÉLICA NI PUNTO CERO.

El Mesías-Cristo de la Iglesia es un mito ancestral y arcaico reformulado por las sectas del mesianismo místico y apocalíptico judío, y transformado por el gnosticismo y por la Iglesia del siglo segundo.

________________________________________________________________

Sacrificio y drama del Rey Sagrado. Nota de Prensa.

UN CRISTIANISMO JUDEDO-HELENISTICO SIN HISTORIA EVANGELICA NI «PUNTO CERO».

El Mesías-Cristo de la Iglesia: Un mito ancestral y arcaico reformulado por las sectas del mesianismo místico y apocalíptico judío, y transformado por la Iglesia del siglo segundo.

Descargar Indice, Preámbulo y Bibliografía

________________________________________________________________

Acaba de aparecer recientemente el libro SACRIFICIO Y DRAMA DEL REY SAGRADO (Genealogía, antropología e historia del mito de Cristo), del autor Eliseo Ferrer. Una obra de un interés realmente especial por su originalidad y su carácter inédito, en la que se ofrece una visión alternativa y muy crítica de los orígenes del cristianismo: algo completamente diferente a lo que estamos acostumbrados a oír y completamente distinto también a lo que nos han contado y transmitido. La teoría del cristianismo que propone este libro en sus páginas es la de un sistema de ideas y creencias en continua evolución socio-cultural, donde aparece excluida la figura histórica de Jesús y en la que no caben las mitologías piadosas ni las crónicas fabulosas creadas por la Iglesia.

Es decir, Eliseo Ferrer propone en Sacrificio y drama del Rey Sagrado una visión alternativa y crítica de los fundamentos del cristianismo que nada tiene que ver en absoluto con la doctrina, los relatos y la «historia» teológica transmitida por la Iglesia Católica y heredada por la Iglesia ortodoxa y por las distintas iglesias luteranas. «Pues, situado dentro del contexto del mesianismo judío, el cristianismo de los “orígenes” fue —según Ferrer— un fenómeno enormemente complejo que nada tuvo que ver con las simplificaciones de los catecismos eclesiásticos, ni tampoco con las ficciones que más tarde construyeron los reformadores luteranos a través de su ucronía de pureza (Urgemeinde)».

Como afirma su autor, para entender el fenómeno en su verdadera dimensión hemos de saber, en primer lugar, qué fueron el protognosticismo y el gnosticismo cristiano, y entender también qué papel desempeñaron la literatura sapiencial judía, la literatura intertestamentaria y la literatura apocalíptica entre ciertas sectas mesiánicas judías del periodo final del Segundo Templo. «Y, además de todo ello, y muy importante, hay que valorar en su justo término los hechos acaecidos el año setenta de nuestra era con la destrucción del Templo de Jerusalén en la primera guerra judía contra Roma; además de conocer las técnicas exegéticas y la particular hermenéutica (midrash, derásh, pésher, etc.) que utilizaron en la interpretación de las Escrituras los diferentes judaísmos prerrabínicos, y a través de cuyos métodos fueron redactados los primeros textos de los evangelios».

La obra parte del significado de mitos análogos al del «Mesías-Cristo» a lo largo de la prehistoria y de la historia antigua, fundamentados en el desarrollo de la idea de la muerte y la resurrección del dios-hijo; y situados dentro del complejo mítico-ritual del «Sacrificio del Rey Sagrado» de los cultos de la vegetación, tal y como definiera su arquetipo James G. Frazer. A continuación, desarrolla el sentido y la significación histórica de los dioses de la muerte y la resurrección en las religiones de misterio, derivadas de aquellas nociones arcaicas. Y sustenta la parte final de la obra en el mito apocalíptico, de origen persa, de la llegada del Mesías-Juez de determinadas sectas del judaísmo prerrabínico, antes de ser transformado por Pablo de Tarso y finalmente asimilado por el gnosticismo cristiano y por la Iglesia del siglo segundo.

«La obra —según se afirma en su introducción— está realizada desde la perspectiva aconfesional, laica y no religiosa del autor, y desde una metodología holista y dialéctica, basada en criterios de materialidad gnoseológica». De tal manera que la perspectiva del cristianismo que propone Sacrificio y drama del Rey Sagrado aparece dividida en tres partes, que la obra presenta a través de tres «libros» sucesivos: una teoría antropológica basada en el mito del Sacrificio del Rey Sagrado, en primer lugar; a continuación, una teórica histórico-filosófica (mistérica) fundamentada en el platonismo heredado por la tradición helenística, por ciertos sectores del judaísmo y por la Iglesia romana; y, finalmente, una teoría histórico-crítica del Mesías-Cristo de Israel a través del estudio de la historia propiamente dicha y de los textos (hermenéutica) del judaísmo del Segundo Templo y de los distintos judeocristianismos de los siglos primero y segundo, anteriores a la constitución de la Iglesia.

«En el plano de las representaciones fundamentales —nos aclara Eliseo Ferrer—, junto al mito redentorista del arcaico Rey Sagrado (muerte-resurrección del hijo) complementa la figura definitiva del Mesías-Cristo (de acuerdo a la labor de fusión de Pablo de Tarso) el mito gnóstico de salvación (alegoría del descenso a la tierra del hijo de dios y regreso a los cielos), operativo desde los brahamanes prehinduistas hasta el mazdeísmo zoroastriano y el Cristo del gnosticismo cristiano. Un mismo hilo conductor este último que vincula diacrónicamente y en franca sucesión temporal las figuras salvadoras del mediador del Śvetāśvatara-Upanishad; el Saoshyant del mazdeísmo zoroastriano; el Maitreya budista; el Krishna y los avatāras del hinduismo; el Saoshyant de los textos pahlevis; el Mitra romanizado de los piratas cilicios; el Salvador de los Oráculos de Histaspes de la literatura apocalíptica en griego, y el Mesías-Cristo y Juez celestial de cierta literatura apocalíptica judía. Una figura ésta que las cartas de Pablo de Tarso fundieron con el destino del Rey Sagrado mistérico, dando lugar con ello al Cristo del gnosticismo cristiano y al Cristo del cristianismo romano de la Iglesia».

Vaya por delante, como asegura su autor en la introducción, que ésta no es una obra de consenso académico; y tampoco una obra guiada por la fe religiosa, ni por los presupuestos decimonónicos del ateísmo antirreligioso y anticristiano. Se trata de una obra eminentemente crítica, basada en una rigurosa metodología, que pone radicalmente en cuestión la artificial construcción de la Iglesia a finales del siglo segundo y los planteamientos legendarios y fabulosos sobre los que cimentó su doctrina.

________________________________

My Farewell to “Jesusology” and the Crazy Idea of “Historical Jesus”.

Eliseo Ferrer Antropología de lo Sagrado,Cristianismo,Mito Cristiano,Mitos,Orígenes Cristianos

Download PDF

Clarifications about my position in relation to a matter that worries so much in social networks in Spanish: Did Jesus of Nazareth exist?

I don’t think my position on the existence or non-existence of the Jesus of history is of much interest in and of itself to many people; it does, however, I think, in relation to my book «Sacrifice and drama of the Sacred King»; a work that is experiencing a strong commercial momentum in recent months (according to what they tell me from the publisher), and that due to its voluminous nature (800 pages) makes many people reach hasty (and even wrong) conclusions without having read its contents.

For this reason, I am going to try to make my position clear on the matter… And the first thing I want to say is that I have never affirmed, neither in this book, nor verbally nor in writing in comments or articles, that «Jesus of Nazareth never existed ». Evidently, I would have to be crazy or to be a donkey of capital category to make similar dogmatic affirmations of metaphysical character. What I have done in certain comments (and always outside of my book «Sacrifice and drama») has been to reject the inconsistent arguments used to demonstrate its historicity; that is, to oppose, in general terms, a «Jesusology» that is not very responsible with the truth criteria, isolated from the Christian faith (from theology), and often disguised in academic clothing.

So, consequently, I have never affirmed that «Jesus of Nazareth existed» and walked his dusty sandals through the history of Galilee and Judea. I have never said the one, nor have I ever said the other; neither in the book «Sacrifice and drama» nor in any of my articles and comments, nor in the social networks in which I usually participate. As is known, I have always considered it a matter of little cultural interest (if we place the figure of Jesus outside the Christian faith) and of lesser intellectual importance (compared to the great challenge presented by the origins of Christianity): a point only within of the twelve texts that I recently published (about the fraudulent and sterile research on Christian origins), and one of the million epistemological problems that a rigorous and serious research on these matters presents. In reality (and I repeat), in «Sacrifice and drama of the Sacred King» (in whose introduction I express my «essential atheism», or philosophical) I do not dedicate a single line to this matter of the historicity or not of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth , when, on the contrary, I dedicate 800 pages to the genealogy, anthropology, textuality and history of the myth of Christ.

What I have said and reiterated (even denounced) in articles, interviews and on this and other Internet networks (never in the aforementioned book), is that the «historical Jesus» or the «Jesus of history» who sold by certain disseminators and best-selling writers (considered in isolation and detached from the Christian religious tradition) is a real joke that reveals the intellectual and moral spirit of those who write this type of novels of fraudulent story. A joke (the one from the movie «the seditious Jesus» or the one about «the armed Galileo») that, however, many people accept, buy and consume with pleasure and delight. Therefore, even if it is only out of respect for all those people who, making use of their freedom, consume this type of editorial products with innocence and candor, I promise not to speak about these matters again for many years; because in the end It will not is a matter that interests me or distracts my attention. Those who write these books are free to do so (as long as there are trees left to make paper), and those who buy them, much freer still, because they also pay for them.

Let it be clear, and I summarize, that I have never said anywhere that «Jesus of Nazareth never existed»; Well, if I don’t find convincing evidence and arguments to affirm its existence, much less to deny it from repugnant metaphysical positions that have always been foreign to me. My criticisms, precisely because of this lack of evidence, have invariably been directed at a supposed «science» of «the historical Jesus» that is nothing more than a subcultural and ideologized construction of teachers and writers eternally handcuffed to the ideology and folklore of the Church, and what I call «Jesusology». For this reason, in this, as in many other matters (exoanthropology, for example), I declare myself an agnostic (with privative alpha: here is a useful phrase created by Thomas H. Huxley and inspired by Christian Gnosticism) because I am not even an enlightened seer that I can glimpse the past, I do not know, nor do I find evidence, nor am I convinced by the arguments of the priest-professors of that lay faith that is all the rage on the Internet and on social networks in Spanish.

But don’t tell me, as I have often been hearing out there that from the Synoptic Gospels and from an interpolated quotation from Flavius Josephus one can make «historical science» (there is so much fatuity that «history» does not seem enough to them and they add the word «science» to hide its inconsistency). Do not tell me either that «Jesus never existed» because this is an unfortunate and metaphysical statement that says everything about the lowest intellectual level of the one who utters it. Let believers speak freely, yes, and whatever they want about the «man Jesus» (of course!), Well, they are within their rights… And whoever decides to follow in the footsteps of my agnosticism, you know… In matters of «Jesusology», silence!

Download PDF

A Radical Critique of Ideas about the Formation and Origins of Christianity.

Eliseo Ferrer Antropología de lo Sagrado,Contextos Culturales,Cristianismo,Entrevistas,Helenismo,Historia de las Religiones,Influencias Culurales,Judaísmo,Mito Cristiano,Mitos,Orígenes Cristianos,Religiones Comparadas,Rey Sagrado,Zoroastrismo

Download interview in Pdf.

Dear friends: Regarding an interview that Sofía G. Orlowski did to me last February, this is the lapidary «legend» that they dedicated to me in a forum of militant atheists, and that made me somewhat amused.

I’ll give you a link (above) to this interview because, to be honest, it had forgotten about it a bit; but these unbelievers have come to remind me that it has, beyond the current events that motivated it (the release of my book SACRIFICE AND DRAMA OF THE SACRED KING), an unquestionable cultural and mythological value. And I don’t know if religious too.

A cordial greeting to all.

Download interview in Pdf.

About the Fraudulent and Sterile Research on Origins of Christianity.

Eliseo Ferrer Mito Cristiano,Antropología de lo Sagrado,Contextos Culturales,Cristianismo,Influencias Culurales,Orígenes Cristianos,Religiones Comparadas

Download updated article in PDF

Two years ago, I opened a forum for discussion and debate on Academia.edu about the influence that theology (and its dogmas and preconceived ideas) continues to exert on historical research on the origins of Christianity. In other words, I proposed to assess the enormous errors that a large part of the researchers in this specialty have maintained in the last decades of the last century and continue to maintain in the 21st century, due to their chaining to ideologies derived from ecclesiastical positions (Catholics or Lutherans). Of course, I was not referring only to the positions of Catholic or Protestant historians, mediated by their beliefs (which not all are, it must be recognized. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Jean Daniélou, Antonio Orbe, etc.), but to many historians also that they call themselves agnostics or atheists, but whose research continues to be dominated and tied (unbeknownst to them) to theology and ideologies derived from the positions of the Church.

By opening this discussion forum, I did not intend anything other than an approximation and a mere assessment of the state of the matter among experts and professors from all over the world: a mere approach to the positions of an issue that I consider very important and of great interest. The text that I proposed as the basis for the debate was: «Myth, ritual and meaning of the Sacrifice of the Sacred King. The archaic origins of the Christian myth”, which is among the articles I have published on Linkedin; and that it was not, at first, more than a remote reference to the true «heart of the matter», as an Argentine specialist rightly pointed out.

But the debate was radically transformed and we reached that “heart of the matter” when I published (in response to the objections expressed in the forum) the text that I publish under these lines: “Dodecalogue of errors and nonsense. Regarding the fraudulent and sterile investigations into the origins of Christianity».

As the basic text of the discussion was published in Spanish and English, I have to admit that the forum was a success that far exceeded my modest initial expectations. There were more than four hundred readers and more than fifty active participants. In such a way that, after this experience, I want to reopen this forum in Academia.edu on September 15, but not with the initial base text (which I must admit was a bit far from the problem raised), but with the text that I propose to Linkedin friends under these lines.

Dodecalogue of errors and nonsense.

REGARDING THE FRAUDULENT AND STERILE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY

I believe that the secular influence of the theology and dogmatics of the Church (inherited, to a large extent, by the Lutheran reformers), as well as the ideology generated over eighteen centuries on the substratum of the New Testament, have led and They continue to lead in the XXI century to great errors of study and interpretation of the origins of Christianity. I present a twelve-point list of the errors that I consider the most important, and that surprise me the most and call my attention.

1) Interpret the letters attributed to the figure of Paul of Tarsus from the theology and from texts edited and manipulated by the Church (with their corrections, interpolations and amendments) at the end of the second century; and not from a broader vision that starts at the base and the beginning. That is, framing this epistolary within a historical vision that must begin (diachronically speaking) with the Christianity of Marcion and with the Christianity of the Gnostic teachers (Valentin, Basilides, Carpocrates, Ptolemy, etc.), for whom Paul of Tarsus was neither more nor less than «the Apostle of the Resurrection». For the death and resurrection of the Messiah-Christ, in Paul, were nothing other than the allegorical account of the annihilation and death of the Spirit, executed by the archons of this world (lords of cosmic matter), and the awakening to the Wisdom and identity with Christ, to the faith in the resurrection of the Spirit of God (pagan mystery and protognosticism).

Everyone should know that, written in Greek, the letters predated the gospels (also written in Greek), and, as we know them today, they arrived late: several decades after being exhibited and interpreted by the heresiarch Marcion and by the Gnostic masters. Firstly, Jewish mysticism and protognosticism happened; then came the interpretations and dogmas of ecclesiastics… The Church was not born in the Gospel of Matthew (as pious legend tells), but after a ruthless struggle of certain «Judaizing» bishops with textual allegorism, with Christianity of Marcion and with the Christianity of the Gnostic masters. And whoever does not understand the foundations of Christianity as a constructivist process of texts and ideology based on the sapiential and apocalyptic tradition, and inspired by the Book of Daniel, (as something completely alien to the pious legends of «Acts of the Apostles») you will understand absolutely nothing about all these matters.

2) Considering the three Synoptic Gospels as biographies of Jesus Christ (or of Jesus, as they say in these times) is another of the enormous errors of the so-called contemporary research; something that many researchers claim without any foundation. In general terms, these points of view fit into the consideration of these three texts as a historical chronicle of Judea in the first century: a more or less successful account of the Herodian history of Judea and Galilee.

3) Another of the most important errors derives from the inability (and ignorance) to understand that the gospels (in a broad sense, which includes canonicals and gnostics) are midrashic literature (Midrash-Pésher): allegorical and symbolic texts inspired by scriptural motifs that imply, at least, two different levels of reading. A literature developed, originally, against the background of the archetypes of apocalyptic ideology (revelation, kingdom of God, heavenly judge, final judgment, resurrection of the dead, etc.) in transition, after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the year 70, to a pre-Pauline and Pauline-based protognosticism (revealer, descent of the Spirit-Son of God, salvation, return to heaven, etc.). A protognosticism that, imbued with Platonism, led from apocalyptic literature to Christian Gnosticism at the end of the first century and in the second and third centuries.

4) …Not understanding that the synoptic gospels (in an emic sense) were nothing more than the story of the myth of the descent to earth and the incarnation of the Spirit, in the broadest sense of protognosticism and Christian gnosticism. That is to say, the late Platonic account of the descent of the soul to the sensible world, which died or was annihilated, imprisoned and nailed to matter (wood), under the salvific expectation of the resurrection and the final ascent to heaven. In a mythical sense, we can speak of the descent of the Offspring of Good (Platonic) or of the Son of God-Wisdom, however we want to call it.

5) … Not understanding, as recognized by the great Raimundo Panikkar (whom I have always admired, despite the great differences (materialism vs. mysticism)… Not understanding, he said, that, in Christianity, «first was the Word (the Logos) and later came the flesh». This is something evident in the Pauline letters, in Christian Gnosticism and in the fourth gospel. And it also appears in a manifest way, although not in an evident way, in the three synoptic gospels. The main thing in these three (synoptic) texts is, above all, the descent of the Spirit (the Son of God), who descends, as a revealer (like the Zoroastrian saviors and the central figure of the Gnostic myth), to save sleeping men (dead) and prisoners of matter; in such a way that the resurrection (awakening) will be the reward of the “chosen” and those privileged by divine “grace.” In the Gospel of Mark, the Spirit descends into the Jordan in his first lines. And the gospels s of Mateo and Lucas present like base the myth of the incarnation of the Spirit, and not another thing.

6) …Not understanding or knowing absolutely nothing, beyond the dogmas of theology, of the myth of the incarnation of the Spirit-Wisdom-Son of God. That is, not knowing the platonic component of the phenomenon and not knowing what the myth of the incarnation of the Spirit is from an anthropological (and historical), materialistic, naturalistic or positivist point of view.

For this reason, I must make it clear that it was not Christ who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, as many pious catechists and uninformed teachers affirm. Nor did they carry on the aching backs of «a rebellious Galilean» (Jesus) the heavy burden of theology, as many third- and fourth-rate historians believe. In an emic sense, what the evangelical texts relate is the incarnation of the Spirit-Wisdom-Son of God in the double Jewish figure of Jesus-Joshua/Messiah-Christós; through whose mythical narration the Son of God became man. Although, in an etic sense, and as I have repeated on countless occasions, we must recognize the allegorical and symbolic character of the texts; who, beyond the literal reading (the Son of God becomes Man) and in a deeper reading, transport us to the Gnostic idea of the divine component (the spark of light) within human carnality. As Campbell rightly said, “God did not become a Man, nor did he divinize and adopt a human being; because that man, the world itself, knew itself to be divine; from whose anthropological experience derived a field of inexhaustible spiritual depth. Here is the secret and the basis of the myth of the incarnation of the divinity.

7) …Not understanding, or not wanting to understand, that the Redemptorist ideology of the forgiveness of sins due to the monstrosity of the spilled blood, the suffering and the humiliation of the Suffering Servant, or the Lamb of God, was something really late, from the end of from the second century and the third century (I stick to the work of Rudolf Bultmann, whom fashion and the ideologies of ecclesiastical and academic power have condemned to the rat room). The forgiveness of sins and redemption by blood was something much later than the mysteries and the protognosticism of Paul of Tarsus, and also later than the primitive Christian Gnosticism, where death and resurrection meant things very different from those interpreted by the bishops of the Church. It goes without saying that the notion of «Vicarious Satisfaction» was raised, for the first time, by Irenaeus of Lyons, at the end of the second century; and it was not developed until San Anselmo, in the eleventh century, the date on which, according to specialists in religious iconography, the first crucifixes appeared with the suffering Christ and his head tilted to one side.

8) Consequently, ignoring all the above aspects, some so-called historians insist, time and time again, on the gargantuan methodological error that supposes separating «the Christ of faith» and «the historical Jesus». An arbitrary and capricious separation that, clearly, entails a petition of principle (petitio principii); because we know for sure what «the Christ of Faith» is or was (the Spirit of God, the Son of the Most High, etc.), but no one knows, beyond the dogmas of the Church, what was «the historical Jesus» or the human component of the divinity. I understand that only from the influence of theology or from the ideology that the Church has distilled over eighteen centuries, can such methodological barbarity be proposed.

I have repeated it countless times… The first reference to the humanization of the myth is very late, around the year one hundred and forty, in the Acts of the Apostles, a work of ecclesiastical propaganda of very dubious historicity. And then Justin Martyr, right in the middle of the second century, who spoke in his Dialogue with Trypho of a «crucified teacher.» Subsequently, the conciliar theology conceived of Jesus Christ as «true god and man», but this is a matter that does not concern scientific research.

9) Another error is not seeing, or not wanting to see, that the four canonical gospels do not appear documented in the texts until the second half of the second century. Proof of this was that, despite the obscure references of Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century, was unaware of the Gospels as such.

The canonical gospels (edited and literarily finalized by the bishops in the second half of the second century) pose problems of the second century on the basis of apocalyptic texts from the end of the first century and very close to the Qumran tradition. Hence, in its pages are combined such heterogeneous and disparate issues as apocalyptic ideology and protagnosticism, (to a certain extent assimilable within a line of cultural evolution in time), and the rabbinic pharisaism of the beatitudes (completely unassimilable and refractory to previous streams).

10) Not understanding or not wanting to understand that «Jesus» and «Joshua» are the same name, expressed through two different signifiers. Christians in general, most theologians and many academic officials easily forget that the first thing that Joshua-Jesus (the son of Nun) did before entering the Promised Land was to cross the Jordan (as an initiatory rite or baptism), choose twelve disciples (one from each tribe of Israel) and pile up twelve stones as a sign of commemoration.

Latin and Western translators, in a very special way, have ruthlessly played with the original Greek terminology. And a good example is the manipulation of the name of the evangelical hero; although there are many more examples whose enumeration would go beyond the purpose of this text.

11) For the rest, the ignorance and denial by Christians, theologians and many academic officials of a protognostic Judeo-Christianity prior to Paul of Tarsus is inexcusable, and which, consequently, cannot be considered as Pauline. It is a Christianity in which there was no death or resurrection of Jesus Christ; only descent of the revealer or savior to earth and return to heaven after having fulfilled his salvific mission. Evident examples of this non-Pauline, early Jewish «Christianity», are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (I rely on the temporality criterion established by Koester, Crossan, Pagels, and others) and the Odes of Solomon (Jack T. Sanders).

It is clear that the Gospel of Thomas is not a hypothesis constructed from theology and philology, like «Source Q»: it is a real Gnostic gospel that narrates the sayings of a Christ-Revealer who does not die or rise again. The Odes of Solomon, a Jewish apocryphal of a Gnostic character, spoke (before Paul of Tarsus and Mark) of the incarnation of the Son of God, and there the Virgin also conceived by the work of the Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove. The cross was the sacred tree on which Christ-Savior extended his arms (just as the Sibylline Oracles presented Joshua, the son of Nun (the fish)), while the Messiah-Christ also walked on the waters: «His footprints stood firm on the water, without any problem, because they were as firm as the tree that is truly raised.» The Odes of Solomon spoke, in short, of a Jewish Christ-Messiah of a Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) character who overcame the death to which his persecutors led him, finally ascended to glory and also descended to hell.

12) Finally, I extend the ignorance expressed in the previous point to the very generalized ignorance of what is known as «Intertestamental Jewish Apocrypha», who, together with the work of Philo of Alexandria and certain texts from Qumran, constitute the basis of the theologies-mythologies of Christian Gnosticism and Catholic Christianity of the Church. These are textual constructions based on Midrash-Pésher methodologies that invariably rescue figures and scriptural themes to graft them onto the problem (apocalyptic, sapiential or protognostic) and offer answers to the questions and concerns of their historical moment. Thus we find the «Odes of Solomon»; the «Wisdom of Solomon«; the «Psalms of Solomon«; the «Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (II Baruch)«; «IV Esdras«; the «Book of the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch)«; the «Sibylline Oracles«; the «Assumption of Moses«; the «Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs»; the «Apocalypse of Moses«; the «Life of Adam and Eve«; «Joseph and Aseneth«; «Manasseh’s Prayer«; «2 Enoch«; «3 Enoch«; «Ascension of Isaiah«; «Adam’s Testament«; «Job’s Testament«; «Testament of Moses«; «Testament of Abraham«; «Testaments of Isaac and Jacob«; «Testament of Solomon«; «Apocalypse of Adam«; «Apocalypse of Abraham«; «Apocalypse of Elijah«; «Apocalypse of Zephaniah«; «11QMelchizedek»; etc.,etc., etc.

I conclude by emphatically affirming that he will not know the true origins of Christianity who does not know in depth all these Jewish apocryphal texts.

Download updated article in PDF

The Eastern Star, Paradigm of Persian Influences in Christian Construct.

Eliseo Ferrer Zoroastrismo,Contextos Culturales,Cristianismo,Influencias Culurales,Mito Cristiano,Orígenes Cristianos,Religiones Comparadas

Download PDF text with quotes and references.

Its since I can remember I have been listening to the most extravagant arguments about everything that refers to the literature of Christian origins, I am going to start by commenting on what was not (under any circumstances) the Star of the East, the Star of Bethlehem or the Star of the Magi, whatever we call this singular phenomenon recounted in the literature of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] That is to say, I am going to rule out what the symbolism of this Christmas light does not refer to, and which is mistakenly and ignorantly associated with the stars, to finally go on to explain the true meaning of the cultural and historical symbolism of its light. Well, as we will see, the Star of the East is just the opposite of what is generally attributed to it; and what it expresses is nothing other than the denial of harmony and the determining power of the stars and planets, dominated by archons and demons.

I have heard it said out there, as most readers will have heard, that the Star of Bethlehem could have been a Nova or a Supernova; that it could have been a comet and not a star (Halley’s Comet?), or that it could even have been some asteroid fallen from the sky. I even know those who, within that group of charlatans who associate the word «science» with any occurrence related to intuition or knowledge, discard the previous hypotheses and come to tell us about the planet Uranus: about the special configuration that it adopted with Saturn in the ninth year of the previous era and of which it is assumed that reliable records could remain. That is to say, we find ourselves with a pedestrian, ridiculous and untamed rationalism that, completely ignorant of the paths through which myths and mythology travel, seeks the «like» of YouTube with anachronistic and erroneous interpretations always derived from a strict reading. verbatim from ancient texts.

Finally, we find the most illustrious figures of that guild of rationalist charlatans who, invariably, put glasses, a tie and socks on the man in the caves. All of them constitute the vanguard of the secular scholasticism of the (not so) mysterious origins of Christianity and, curiously, they know everything about Jesus of Nazareth and nothing about Christ or Sophia; nor about the fleshly Verbum; nor about the mediating Logos; nor about the Logoi spermatikoi. All of them doctorally dominate the Jewish history of the Second Temple, which they call «science», and they do it with the same perspicacity and skill with which magicians handle the hat, the rabbit and the cane. And all of them too, completely ignorant of what in reality were the phenomena of Sophia-Wisdom, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man and Christianity, end up turning the offspring of Mary and Joseph into a large family and putting glasses, white socks and sandals on Jesus of Nazareth.

The truth, and without going into burlesque satire, is that many of these fraudulent «investigators» and charlatans discovered some years ago that, since their natural environment was «historical science» and not faith or theology , the explanation of the textual literalness of the Star of Bethlehem in the Gospel of Matthew should rest on a principle of rationality and never on the dark and pathetic fables of mythological allegorism. Because something important, from a scientific point of view, had to have happened at the time of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Something known at the time, of which could have been recorded in forgotten written records, and which Johannes Kepler himself rediscovered and communicated to the world in the early days of scientific development, well into the 17th century. I refer to the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in the year seven before our era, according to which Jupiter would have moved through the constellation of Pisces to approach the planet Saturn. An apparently unimportant, unremarkable astronomical phenomenon… but determining and great (crucial, from my point of view, but in another order of things different from the stellar) when it comes to interpreting and understanding the Judeo-Christian culture that has moved the mental map and the concerns, the philias and the phobias, of the entire West for twenty centuries. So important, from my point of view, that it invalidates any reductionism of the type that we are referring to in these pages: the reduction, in short, as these ignorant rationalists do, of the triple planetary conjunction of the year seven before our era to the Star from the East, to the Star of Bethlehem or the Star of the Magi, as we want to call it. Let’s say, to understand each other clearly, that these methodological and mental indigents have heard chimes, but they don’t know where they come from nor do they know if the bells announce fire, celebration or decease.

It happens that, from my point of view[2] (and from the point of view of Carl G. Jung),[3] far from being a fragmentary, isolated or collateral phenomenon within the wide repertoire of issues and mysteries of primitive Christianity, the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn from the year seven before our era constitute the hidden base, the ideological foundation, the leitmotiv and the ultima ratio of all subsequent New Testament construction. Well, according to Jung, there was a tradition and belief in some sectors of Judaism that the arrival of the Messiah would take place at that time when the planets of Jupiter and Saturn entered into confluence.[4] However, and since I do not want to deviate from my guiding thread, I am going to refer all those readers interested in this exciting subject to reading the chapter «Astrology and cosmology in early Christianity. Around the stars, the celestial calendar, the time of the messiah and the world sponsored by the bishops of the Church»,[5] from my book «Sacrifice and drama of the Sacred King»; in particular to the epigraph entitled «The time of the Messiah. The fish, Daniel’s prophecy and the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn».[6] In these pages I relate, through an almost perfect fit, the theories of Carl G. Jung and a certain Christian Gnosticism on the role of the triple astral conjunction of the year seven before our era in the birth of Judeo-Christianity , the forecasts related to the time of the arrival of the Messiah established in the Book of Daniel[7] and the works of Pope John I and Dionysius Exiguus, at the beginning of the sixth century, to determine the new criteria of temporality established in the anno domini.[8] All of them, as can be observed, constitute matters completely removed from the literalness of the Gospels, alien to the narrative discourse of Jesus of Nazareth and completely foreign to the textuality of the shepherds, the portal, the Star of Bethlehem and the visit of the magicians. But these are very important issues that are all embedded and cast in concrete and steel within the depths of the foundation that generated the motives, the stimuli, and the midrash-pesher of the gospel narrative.

I have to add, so that my sanity is not doubted through the rupture that I suggest in this brief and scandalous summary, that the curious circumstance occurs, moreover, that the Jewish cabalists, for whom the figure of Jesus Christ lacked all Interest and meaning, due to being ignored, continued to announce the arrival of Israel’s Messiah throughout the Middle Ages, just coinciding with a new conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn. The most evident and well-known case was that of the Portuguese Jew Isaac Abravanel, who, disregarding the Christianity of the Church, continued to explain in the fifteenth century that the Messiah would come when the planets Jupiter and Saturn were present in conjunction in the sign Pisces. «Abravanel -according to Jung- expected the coming of the messiah under the sign of Pisces; that is, in the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in that sign. And he was not the first to express such a hope. We find concordant data already four centuries earlier through Rabbi Abraham ben Jiyyá (died in 1136) and Samuel ben Gabirol (1020-1070)».[9] For Jung, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn meant the union of extreme opposites: «In the year seven before our era -he concluded- this famous conjunction happened no less than three times in the sign Pisces. The closest approach occurred on May 29 of that year, with a distance of only 0.21 degrees; that is, less than half the width of the full moon.[10]

In other words, from what we are seeing, and if it did not constitute an authentic mockery of Satan and a complete hermeneutic sarcasm, we would have to agree with those stupid charlatans who, dressed or not in scientific clothing, come to tell us that Jesus he was born (or should have been born) in the seventh year before our era, when the king who devoured creatures and murdered his own family was still alive; and that he was also born (or should have been born) in spring (in May, «according to Jung»), since the shepherds slept in the open in their in cattle corrals, caressed by the cool night breeze and under the twinkling lights of the stars.

But behold, that night when the Virgin Mary was in labor, a much larger and more luminous star came from the East, absorbed within its light every possible celestial luminary and settled on the roofs of Bethlehem: the city that the prophet Micah had chosen for the birth of the Messiah of Israel: «Because you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the families of Judah, from you will come the one who will be the ruler of Israel, whose origin is ancient, from the days of eternity».[11]

Download PDF text with quotes and references.

Fragment of the book: «Sacrifice and drama of the Sacred King». THE EASTERN STAR AND THE SACRED MOUNTAIN OF PERSIAN TRADITION.

It should not surprise us that the birth of the promised messiah was announced in the literature of the Gospel of Matthew through the magi-astrologers[12] and the Eastern Star that marked the path to Bethlehem: a Star completely unrelated to the astral conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn and also completely unrelated to any astral consideration of a physical, material or mathematical nature. It was, in reality, an astral symbolism with which, contrary to the rationalist interpretation, the negation of the archontic power of the stars and planets was expressed, while announcing a superior power descended from heaven (the carnalization of the Word or Logos of God). That is to say, it was an astral symbolism (only in the form of a star) with which it was intended to legitimize and offer a letter of nature to the descent and arrival into the world of the true Savior; which indicated, at first glance, that the majority of the recipients of the message, probably overwhelmed by the power of the celestial signs, had to accept the message, had to be familiar with this language and had to correctly interpret the expressive force of its symbology.

In all the cultures of the time, and particularly in the Iranian tradition, the manifestation of the nativity of the cosmocrator-redeemer appeared dominated by the images of the star, the light and the grotto. According to Persian traditions, the xvarna shining above the sacred mountain was the heralding sign of the coming of Saoshyant, the miraculously born redeemer of the seed of Zaroaster and a virgin.[13] «The Persians considered the epiphanies of light, and, first of all, the appearance of a supernatural star, as the announcing sign par excellence of the birth of the cosmocrator and the savior. And since the birth of the future redeeming king of the world had to take place in a grotto —Eliade declared—, the star or column of light had to shine above the grotto. So it was very likely that Christians took the imagery of the nativity of the cosmocrator-redeemer from the persians and applied it to the birth of Christ.[14] In this sense «Monneret de Villard and Widengren also spoke out, for whom this reason was undoubtedly of Iranian origin. The Protoevangelium spoke of a blinding light that flooded the Bethlehem grotto; and when it began to withdraw, the Child appeared. Which came to indicate that the light was consubstantial to Jesus, or it was one of his epiphanies.[15] However, according to Eliade, it was the anonymous author of the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (Patr. Gr. LVII. 637-638) who introduced new elements of this Persian symbolism into the Christian legend. «According to him, the twelve Magi lived in the surroundings of the Mount of Victories. They knew the secret revelation of Set concerning the coming of the Messiah and every year they climbed the mountain, where there was a grotto between springs and trees. There, they worshiped God in a low voice for three days, waiting for the appearance of the star. And this one finally appeared in the form of a child, who told them to go to Judea. Guided by the star, the Magi traveled for two years. And, on their way back, they recounted the prodigy they had witnessed».[16]

And similar approaches were maintained by Anders Hultgård, for whom it was necessary to rule out that the star of the East had been the result of an astronomical phenomenon that occurred at the beginning of our era, as is commonly believed. For this author, an interpretation based on the Persian traditions about the magicians would be more consistent and would fit better with the evangelical account. «The Greek text of Matthew did not speak of astrologers in general, but of magicians (Gr. magoí) from the East, that is to say, Mazdean priests of the time. These characters -Hultgård pointed out- had observed the rise of a star that predicted the birth of the King of the Jews. And this was the result of the adaptation of an Iranian legend related to the birth of the savior king who represented the god Mithras. Such a legend was preserved through a slightly reworked form in some early Christian texts, notably the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum and the Chronicle of Pseudo Dionysus».[17] For Hultgård, as for Eliade and Widengren, both texts clearly related the magicians to Persian mythology, and described the annual meeting of the Mazdaean priests at the top of a mountain where there was a cave, trees and a spring: the sacred mountain… There, they waited for the appearance of a star and the descent of the figure of the celestial savior, who had to descend through the column of light formed by the star itself.

We need not remember that wisdom and holiness were represented in the Persian tradition, as in the ancient Indian tradition, by the blinding luminosity arising from the sacred fire.[18] Therefore, there is no doubt that, in terms of narrative discourse, the luminous element of the Star of Matthew could fit, beyond the scriptural references, within the Indo- Iranian cultural tradition. The star of Bethlehem informed the Chaldean wise men of the prodigious birth of a savior king, who, from distant lands, undertook a long pilgrimage to glorify the newborn child. The transformation of these Chaldean magicians into kings of the East would be part, according to some interpretations, of the popular fables developed later under the influence of Greco-Egyptian fantasy.

Coincidentally, the feast of the Magi, which is celebrated throughout Christendom on January 6, and which in the East was the date of the birth of Christ, was also the date on which the festival of the birth of the new aeon was celebrated in Alexandria. (a syncretic personification of Osiris and the Sun) in the temple of Core, «the Maiden»; that there he was identified with Isis, of whom the appearance of the star Sirius (Sothis) had been the most awaited sign for millennia. «The rising of the star heralded the rising of the waters of the Nile —say Campbell—, through which the world-renewing grace of the dead and risen lord Osiris was to be poured out upon the earth».[19]

Moreover, since ancient times, Israel’s messianic hope had been linked to the appearance of a star. Even from the most distant antiquity, not only in Judaism and in the Indo-Iranian tradition, but also throughout the Mediterranean East, the birth of the cosmocrator king, goddess or savior, had been identified with the appearance of a star in the sky. What was not without being present in the Jewish Scriptures, as proved by Balaam’s prophecy when he stated: «I will see it, but not now; I will look at it, but not closely: A star will rise from Jacob, a scepter will rise from Israel. He will crush the temples of Moab and the skulls of all the sons of Seth».[20] According to Justin Martyr, another prophet, Isaiah, announced the same thing in other terms: «A star was to rise from Jacob and a flower was to grow on Jesse’s rod. And this luminous star that rose, this flower that grew on Jesse’s rod, was Christ the Savior».[21] Another reference by Justin also provides us with new evidence: «And that He would rise like a star through the lineage of Abraham, Moses manifested it when he said: «A star will rise from Jacob and a leader from Israel». And another Scripture said: «Look at a man. His name is East.» Rising, then, in the sky a star as soon as Christ was born, as it is written in the memories of his Apostles, recognizing him by it the wise men of Arabia, they came and worshiped him».[22]

Nor should we underestimate the fact that two quotes referring to the «morning star» appeared in the Apocalypse, loaded with meaning and substance. The first of them[23] was preceded by a text from the Psalms: «I will give him power over the nations and he will rule them with an iron scepter».[24] The second, much more eloquent and expressive, identified the revealer of Wisdom with the morning star: «I am the root and lineage of David, the bright morning star».[25] That is, he identified Jesus Christ with the rising sun or with the morning star; that is, the planet Venus or the star of the goddess Ishtar. So it seems possible, even, that (beyond the solar cult) the narration of the Apocalypse picked up a distinctive sign of the narration of the ancestral and archetypal myth that, coming from the Mesopotamian world, we refer to as «Sacrifice and drama of the Sacred King»: the one that would belong to the mythology of the goddess Inanna-Ishtar and her son-lover Dumuzi- Tammuz, dozens of centuries before the legends of the childhood of Matthew and Lucas. Well, it is not unreasonable to think, according to the text of the Apocalypse, that the star that appeared over Bethlehem in the narrative of the Gospel of Matthew could have been a cultural projection of the luminous planet that three thousand years before was presented as the star of Ishtar, Inanna, sacred shepherdess and guardian of the cowshed, who gave birth to a son who was called «shepherd», «lord of the sheepfold», «lord of the net» and «lord of life».[26] Jesus was also a shepherd, Poimên, like Dumuzi, Tammuz, Attis and Osiris (Poimên leukôn astrôn),[27] and at the same time a lamb: representations that perfectly fit the end of the era of Aries and his symbolic death, which also coincided with the zodiac sign of the Easter celebration.

However, the matter related to the association of the birth of Christ with the Persian symbolism of the Star (which takes precedence, from my point of view, against other cultural influences) is explained in philosophical depth in a passage by the Gnostic Christian Theodotus;[28] a passage collected by Clement of Alexandria and where the star was presented as an allegory of the presence of the revealer of Wisdom in the world. The text first described the nature of destiny, which resulted from the movement of the celestial bodies in the purest deterministic style: «Thus, through the action of the fixed stars and the planets, the invisible powers, guided by those stars, govern the generations and preside over them».[29] But «from this dispute and struggle of the powers, the Lord frees us and procures peace, far from the combat of the powers and the angels».[30] «That is why the Lord descended – clarified the Gnostic Theodotus – to bring peace to those who have come from heaven and to those who have come from earth. […] That is why a strange and new star rose on high, annihilating the old disposition of the stars, shining with a new light not of this world, which traced new paths of salvation, like the Lord himself, Guide of men, who descended to earth to change from fate to his Providence those who believe in Christ».[31]

Of course, the counterpoint, at the other extreme of the opposites, to this interpretation of the Star of Bethlehem (as a rupture of the necessity and harmony of the cosmic materiality of the archons) is found, in the gospels, in the solar eclipse and the consequent darkening of the earth,[32] impossible at Easter time and which announced the death of Christ. A manifestation of heaven that we know today goes beyond the merely mournful dimension of a literal reading of the texts, to transport us to a theological and symbolic depth that only finds accommodation in the context of the cosmic Christ and in his liberating action (in the luminous and gnostic way ) on the fatality of the determinism of planets and stars. «In Pliny [for example] we find a similar episode, which he claimed to have been observed in Rome in his days. We find ourselves before the transposition of a supposed miracle, originally conceived to glorify the new pagan Golden Age that constituted the reign of the deified Augustus; a personality to which the miraculous abolition of astral fate was also attributed».[33] All of which was made clear, in the New Testament, in the liberating announcement of the arrival from heaven of the Son of Man and the birth of a new aeon: «But immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun would darken, and the moon would not give its glow. The stars would fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens would be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man would appear, and at that time all the tribes of the earth would mourn, and they would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory».[34] Let’s say that the liberation and rupture of the archontic (material) order of the stars and planets presupposed, within the literature of Gnosticism and certain Jewish mystical and apocalyptic sects, a whole challenge to the mathematical order of the movement of celestial bodies, that could only come associated with the figure of the Savior and the revealer of the Wisdom of God.

The theme of Fatum defeated by divinity, in the last instance, by a divine intervention that had to suppress the power and force of the movement of the planets, masters until then of the destiny of men, already appeared in the Book of Enoch, it was insinuated in other texts of apocalyptic literature, it was the reason for the soteriology of Gnosticism and also a very important part of certain ideologies of the pagan world. The destruction of the power of the planets and the liberation from the shackles of destiny through a Savior (Jew or pagan) constituted the basis of the apocalyptic myth that signaled the establishment of a new cycle of relations between earth and heaven, liberated the the just and the pious from the tyranny of the archons. «Pre-Christian Gnosticism would adopt this same theme, mentioned with the same significance in the Holy Book of Eugnosto. Christianized Gnosticism, in turn, would inherit it, but only after transforming or repeating it, in order to relate it to the strange event [the descent of the Son] which it claimed to have taken place at the beginning of our era».[35]

The star of Bethlehem that announced the birth of Jesus; the darkening of the sun that, in full Easter, announced the death of Christ; the birth of a virgin mother of the Savior;[36] the adoration of the magi; the birth in the manger; the death of the innocents; the flight into Egypt, etc., etc., were just some of the many fabulous elements that, in their cultural context, expressed a symbolic «truth» that the Gospels and part of Gnostic literature shared with the set of archetypal features of myth. of Persian origin of the descended savior.[37] And, within which, the Star, as a symbol of his birth and as a sign that challenged the cosmic fatality of archons and demons, appeared as an irreplaceable element in the myth of the birth of the Child God of many ancient cultures.

_________________________________________________

[1] Mateo. 2. 2-11.

[2] Cf. Eliseo Ferrer. Sacrificio y drama del Rey Sagrado. Genealogía, antropología e historia del mito de Cristo. Madrid, 2021.

[3] Carl G. Jung. Aion. Contribución al simbolismo del sí mismo. Barcelona, 2011.

[4] Op. Cit. 170-202.

[5] E. Ferrer. Op. Cit. 597-626.

[6] Op. Cit. 614-618.

[7] Daniel. 9.24-27.

[8] E. Ferrer. Op. Cit. 615, 616.

[9] C. Jung. Op. Cit. 139.

[10] Op. Cit. 143.

[11] Miqueas. 5.2.

[12] Mt. 2. 1,2.

[13] Mircea Eliade. Mefistófeles y el andrógino. Barcelona, 2001. p. 54. Within the Iranian tradition, Eliade also pointed out the symbolism of the periodic ascent to the «mount of Victories», the «center of the world» where the eschatological light was first seen.

[14] Op. Cit. 51. Eliade cites G. Widengren. Fenomenología de la religión. Madrid, 1976. p. 313.

[15] Op. Cit. 51, 52.

[16] Op. Cit. 52.

[17] Anders Hultgård. «La religión irania en la antigüedad. Su impacto en las religiones de su entorno: judaísmo, cristianismo, gnosis». In

Biblia y helenismo. El pensamiento griego y la formación del cristianismo. (A. Piñero Ed.). Córdoba, 2006. p. 583.

[18] Just as the Upanishads identified the ātman with the inner light of the individual, the Great Bundahishn identified the soul with the xvarna, the «light of glory.»

[19] Joseph Campbell. Las máscaras de Dios. Vol. III. «Mitología Occidental». Madrid, 1999. pp. 368,369.

[20] Números. 24.17.

[21] Justino. Primera Apología. 32.12,13. Op. Cit. 217. It should be noted that Números 24.17 and Isaías 11.1 are merged into a single quotation attributed to Isaías.

[22] Justino Mártir. Diálogo con Trifón. 106.4. In Daniel Ruiz Bueno. Padres apologistas griegos. Madrid, 1954. p. 489.

[23] Ap. 2.28.

[24] Sal. 2.8-9.

[25] Ap. 22.16.

[26] Anne Baring and Jules Cashford. El mito de la diosa. Madrid, 2005. p. 211.

[27] «Shepherd of the white stars ».

[28] Clemente. Extractos de Teódoto. IV. 69-75.

[29] Op. Cit. IV. 70.1.

[30] Op. Cit. IV.72.1.

[31] Op. Cit. IV.74.1,2.

[32] Mc. 15.33. Mt. 27.45. Lc. 23.44,45.

[33] Jean Doresse. «Gnosticismo». En Historia Religionum. Madrid, 1973. Vol. I. p. 531.

[34] Mc. 13.24-26. Mt. 24.29,30.

[35] J. Doresse Op. Cit. 531.

[36] Mt. 1.22,23. Lc. 1.27. The primitive images of the Virgin Mary represented her with two ears of wheat in her hand, just as Persephone and the zodiacal Virgin are represented. (H.P. Blavatsky. Op. Cit. Vol. IV. 163.)

[37] J. Campbell. Op. Cit. 366-371.

________________________________________________________