Laura quote:
"I don't know why it doesn't occur to biblical scholars such as Mack, to consider the hyperdimensional hypothesis and compare Jesus to the Siberian Shaman who has access to the "kingdom."'
Shamanism has always interested me, so I have also been reading various posts on shamanism here on the Forum and in Laura’s book The History of the World, Chapter 7: "Ancient Enigmas", subtitle 'The Role of the Shaman'.
Prof Pieter Craffert in his 2008 book The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective deeply studied Jesus as a specific social type, as a Galilean shaman, in the context of the historical Jesus research that has been going on for 150 years. So Craffert looks in depth at shamans as a social type, at their functions in their societies, and tests the application to Jesus as a shaman in his own culture in the Mediterranean world of his time.
I could not find reference to this book on the Forum, and so I give some quotes from it here, and have bolded some information that I found interesting and relevant. The book has a scholarly approach to studying and understanding shamanism and testing the application to Jesus.
Craffert writes: “Some years ago I came across a book on shamanism and was struck by the similarities between the events and phenomena ascribed to the lives of shamanic figures and what is encountered in the canonical Gospels about Jesus of Nazareth. My first attempt at exploring the shamanic complex for understanding Jesus as historical figure was done within the framework of traditional historical Jesus research (see Craffert 1999a). The dominant theories about the sources as well as the distinction between the Jesus of history (the historical figure) and the Christ presentations of the Gospels were maintained, as it were. The shamanic model merely offered a different label (next to magician, Cynic healer, prophet, and the like) for describing Jesus’s social type with the suggestion that it could account for more of the elements and features ascribed to Jesus than the other models. Over time, that has changed.”
According to Craffert the aim of his study “is to offer an alternative to both the existing historical pictures of Jesus and the historiographical paradigm by means of which such constructions are made. The aim is to offer a picture of the historical Jesus that from the start takes seriously that he was a social personage fully embedded in the cultural system and worldview of his time. What he said and did were said and done by a social personage embedded in the cultural processes and dynamics of the kind of figure that he was. Within the framework of what is called an anthropological-historical perspective, I will present a social-scientific picture of the historical Jesus as a Galilean shamanic figure. …” (page xiii)
“One of the implications of this redescription of historical Jesus research is that the traditional views on the Gospels as being constituted in a linear and layered way are abandoned in favor of viewing the documents as residues of both his life as a social personage and the cultural processes and dynamics associated with such a life. If Jesus of Nazareth was a shamanic figure, the stories, reports, and accounts about his life from the very beginning probably included the features and characteristics of such a figure. Therefore, they are to be treated as the residue, as cultural artifacts, about the life of a historical and social personage as well as the cultural processes accompanied by such a public life.
What makes a study such as this particularly difficult is that it is simultaneously an explanation of “how to” and a “do-it-yourself” manual. It is necessary to explain the how, why, and what of the paradigm while at the same time offering an exercise in doing it. It is like mapping and describing a road while still constructing it – the method has to be explained along the way while trying to cover the terrain. Therefore, as opposed to the well-known metaphors of the Schweitzerstrasse and the Wredebahn used to depict current historical Jesus research, the metaphor of cultural bundubashing will be used. This metaphor, taken from off-road driving, describes the adventure of going places where no roads have been built. Through an exploration of the cultural landscape of the first-century Mediterranean world in general and the reality system of shamanic figures in particular, cultural bundubashing will work toward the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth could plausibly be seen as a Galilean shamanic figure.” (page xvi-xvii)
Craffert summarises his chapter on The Shamanic Complex: A Social-Type Model, as follows:
Page 139 and further: “Being able to identify a historical figure with a specific social type in such an analysis is highly significant. It can help to distinguish that figure from other social types in that setting; it can provide insight into the underlying cultural dynamics of the figure’s life and of the origin of the stories about the figure; and it an provide a handle to understand the features ascribed to the figure.
In this type of analysis, Jesus’s social type not only needs cross-cultural verification and credibility in the first-century setting, but it should also be able to account both for all the strands of gospel evidence (e.g., prophecy, healings, and teachings) and the overall pictures of the Gospels (at least the majority of canonical Gospels). A social type is not simply added as a label, and neither does it come up after being immersed in the sources for some time. It has to be demonstrated that such a social type fits the first-century Galilean world of Jesus and makes sense as a background to the various strands of gospel traditions. A decision about Jesus’s social type should therefore be the result of an analytical interpretive process in which various fibers interconnect: a picture of the first-century world and worldview, together with an interpretation of the gospel evidence within that context, play an integrated role.
The hypothesis of this study is that the model of the shamanic figure can indeed account for the variety of features and functions ascribed to Jesus and can even offer explanatory power to understand the cultural dynamics of such a figure behind the gospel reports. In fact, while all studies contain some picture of Jesus’s social type, the critical issues are not only to include the totality of Jesus’s activities in such a description but also to ground a description of Jesus’s social type in a proper analysis of that social type, of the historical setting, and of the historical personage. In other words, the social type should not only label the features and functions but also give explanatory power to understand the dynamic processes associated with such a social type within the particular historical and cultural setting. It will be argued that as a cross-cultural social type, the shaman has a universal distribution in human cultures and consists of a family of traditions about religious specialists who, in a natural and regular way, combine the features and functions often attributed to Jesus and can account for the whole spectrum of cultural processes constituting Jesus as historical figure.
Making Sense of Shamanic Studies
The study of shamanism has proved “remarkably resilient” in a number of academic disciplines (including among scholars of religion, anthropology, archaeology, and psychology) and remains a favorite topic of many scholars (see, e.g. Atkinsons 1992). Defining a shaman and describing shamanism, however, remain challenging tasks if only for the reason that these terms belong to an “analyst’s category” (Riches 1994, 382) that does not always easily fit onto the real world.
A very basic feature of shamanism to be taken into account is that it is not a religion but a complex of notions and practices within religions; it is the complex of beliefs, rites, and traditions clustered around the shaman and his or her activities (see Hultkrantz 1972, 35; Siikala 1987, 208). Therefore, one cannot belong to shamanism, but one can participate in or benefit from this pattern of religious beliefs and activities, and in special circumstances one can become a shaman. This feature constitutes the very basic challenge in shamanic studies: how to identify and describe this complex, which exists only within a specific religious system or within various specific religious systems. What constitutes this identifiable complex?
Within scholarly circles, there is no agreement on how the terms shaman and shamanism should be used: whether they should be restricted to the culture-specific and geographically limited area of Siberia where the study of shamanism originated, or whether they should be applied to various ecstatic types of religious practitioners all over the world.
Therefore, both the complex cultural phenomenon itself and the history of scholarly interpretation contribute to the difficulty of finding a proper definition. Three specific challenges have to be overcome when trying to make sense of the vast literature on the shaman and shamanism. First, shaman is a term with a history. Second, shamanism is studied by different academic disciplines and each offers its own set of concepts. Third, most studies of shamanism address “local shamanism rather than shamanism writ large” (Atkinson 1992, 321). …
In the Introduction of Chapter 9, “Healing, Exorcism, and the Control of Spirits”, Craffert writes:
“The central functions of shamanic figures are, on the one hand, healings, exorcisms, and control of spirits; and, on the other hand, the mediation of divine knowledge – that is, teaching, prophesy, and all sorts of divination. If Jesus was a shamanic figure, it would not be surprising that together with the accounts about his teachings and prophecy, the reports about healings, exorcisms, and control of spirits constitute the bulk of the material ascribed to Jesus’s activities as a historical figure. In this chapter, the focus will be on an understanding of the healings, exorcisms, and control of spirits as potential shamanic activities.
Since the control of spirits will be considered in the second part of this chapter, attention will first be paid to the healing and exorcism accounts. If Jesus was a shamanic figure, as proposed by the hypothesis of this study, then healing, exorcism, and the control of spirits must have been part of his life story in a normal and natural way. But these reports constitute one of the most difficult challenges in historical Jesus research. In fact, there is a double challenge here. On the one hand, understanding the Gospel accounts as shamanic healings and, on the other hand, allowing for the dominance of the modern biomedical paradigm in all matters of illness and healing, it is no simple task to get a grip on what is implicated in such shamanic healings.
Thus, testing the hypotheses that Jesus was a Galilean shamanic figure depends on an understanding of the healing and exorcism stories as typical shamanic activities. It depends on a confirmation that the available reports are typical of shamanic figures. But that implies a clear notion of what shamanic healings and exorcisms are like. Put the other way round, knowing whether Jesus’s healings and exorcisms can be taken as evidence for the shamanic hypothesis implies that they were shamanic healings and exorcisms. But knowing whether they indeed were shamanic healings and exorcisms implies more than simply applying the shamanic model to the available data. In a cable-like interpretive process, this contains a dual task, or as explained earlier, it brings to the surface the dilemma of abduction as an interpretive strategy: it is necessary to understand the healings and exorcisms as shamanic activities in order to work toward the hypothesis, but it should be known what shamanic healings and exorcisms are like in order to do that.
This is where the other challenge starts, because the reigning model for dealing with matters of health care – the biomedical paradigm – assumes that illness and healing are homoversals, that is, universal and similar for all human beings. It does not have a category for shamanic healings as distinct from biomedical healings, and, therefore, in one way or another, the reports are read by means of biomedical assumptions. As has been argued earlier, the aim of cultural bundubashing is not merely to establish whether there are multiple, independent attestations of a particular account and whether Jesus performed the healings and exorcisms as, when and where the documents state. Nor does cultural bundubashing imply that the shamanic model can simply be applied in order to grasp the nature of these activities. The historicity of this part of the data (as of other parts) is of something in itself, but can only be determined in terms of a specific context or hypothesis. To claim historicity includes that plausible cultural events and phenomena also fit a particular social personage; in this case, that they in a natural way belonged to the life of a Galilean shamanic figure. The challenge is to grasp the nature and reality of shamanic healings and exorcisms in a way that is not dominated by the biomedical paradigm.
The first step, however, will be to give an overview of the data, and that implies an engagement with existing research.
Healings and Exorcisms Attributed to Jesus of Nazareth
Despite the scarcity of evidence, there is little dispute about the kind of illnesses connected to Jesus’s healing activities. First are the so-called leprosy stories. For the other two, it is not necessary to go beyond the categories employed by Davies: “healings of somatic disorders” and “exorcisms of supposedly possessing demons” (1995, 69). In addition to the summary remarks about Jesus’s activities that state that he went about all the cities and villages healing every disease and infirmity, or that all the sick and possessed came to Jesus, this constitutes the bulk of the evidence. …” (Page 245-247)
Prof Craffert's book was published in 2008 by Wipf & Stock, and is available at Amazon.