In recent years it seems there has been a revival of interest in the study of comparative mythology and religious archetypes. This revival can largely be credited to the internet and the explosion of social media technology, and in particular, to certain “viral videos” which have promoted the so-called “copy cat thesis.” This thesis alleges that within the most popular and influential religions of today can be found numerous “pagan parallels,” or archetypes in common with much older religions and mythologies from the Iron & Bronze Ages. Such archetypes include gods and heroes who underwent one or more of the following:
*Born to a virgin mother
*“Crucified” and/or suspended in a tree
*Killed, buried in a tomb, and physically resurrected 3 days later
*Darkened the sun by his death
*Institution of sacred meals using bread & wine to symbolize the character’s broken flesh and shed blood
*Institution of baptism for reasons concerning the afterlife
*Turned water into wine
*Represented as a sheep/lamb
*Kept company with 12 followers
*Was a travelling teacher who gave religion to mankind
*Healed the blind, lame, and sick
*Was God manifested in the flesh
*Became the King of Kings & Lord of Lords
*Ascended to heaven on a cloud
*Became judge of the dead
*Forgives sins and offers eternal life after death
*Promised to one day return to this world to pass final judgment and usher in a new creation.
Critics often claim that no such parallels actually exist, and that any supposed primary source evidence cited in support of them is either fudged and/or post-dates the Common Era. Likewise, critics claim that the scholarship cited in support of the alleged parallels predates World War II, thus rendering all of the supporting evidence shoddy at best. Much to the disappointment of persons like myself, retorts to these criticisms have been very underwhelming. Primary source evidence and modern scholarship which support the existence of such parallels between ancient and modern religions do exist. Yet nearly all responses to the critics fail to properly present it, if they even present it at all. This book seeks to do exactly that. Its purpose is to act as an organized source guide to aid the reader when challenged for clear evidence in support of such archetypes as those listed above. It is narrated in satirical manner, but is still all business when it comes to presenting the sources. The book contains 848 pages excluding the bibliography and table of contents, 2254 footnotes, 763 works cited, 379 illustrations, etc. Currently available at Scribd (see link above.) This blog is for posting further information related to this subject, such as addressing reader inquiries/criticisms, additional discoveries and questions I encounter in my own personal research, annotations/corrections/retractions, etc.
