Inscription at Luxor (Carrier vs Acharya S) updated with Acharya S's response

[Toto]

Richard Carrier has an article on Mark McFall's site that may be of interest to those interested in claims that Jesus' birth was based on the birth of Horus, as shown by inscriptions at Luxor:

Brunner's Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html)

. . . in her book, Acharya S claims:Inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the "Holy Ghost," impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child." (from Hidden Mysteries--The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (http://hiddenmysteries.com/item100/item153.html); similar claims are made by Ken Humphreys: cf. Holy Family (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/matthew.htm))
I know from previous research in my field that there is some truth here. For example, many Isis-with-baby-Horus statues were converted to use as Mary-with-baby-Jesus statues. But there is also some egregious error here. For example, the phrase "immaculate conception" refers to the birth of Mary, not Jesus, so Acharya is using the wrong terminology for what I think she means, which is the spiritual (asexual) conception of a Son of God. An "immaculate conception" could not have appeared in any Egyptian myth anyway, since that phrase refers to the fact that Mary was, unlike all other human beings, and hence by divine miracle, born without sin and kept clean of all sin, at least until she gave birth to Jesus, and this is a bizarre idea that entails a view of sin, history, and human nature utterly alien to Egyptian religion. The Luxor inscription also does not depict impregnation by a spirit, but involves very real sex (indeed, the narrative borders on soft-core porn), and the woman involved is the mythical Queen of Egypt in an archetypal sense, not Isis per se. Acharya also gets the story fairly garbled, as I shall make clear shortly.

[spin]

Richard Carrier has an article on Mark McFall's site that may be of interest to those interested in claims that Jesus' birth was based on the birth of Horus, as shown by inscriptions at Luxor...
This is mainly packaging.

There is already a kind of trinity based on the royal family, ie Osiris, Isis and Horus. Osiris doesn't get sited in the context of the birth of a royal baby, who is Horus, though obviously the mother is Isis. (When the old pharaoh dies, he becomes Osiris and a new Horus is "born" as pharaoh, receiving his Horus name.) The virginal birth was used in one story on a wall at Luxor to justify a questionable accession to the throne, ie you justify it because it is divine will. Then you start getting punters who turn the Egyptian reliefs over for other similarities with core xian tradition and you end up with an event repackaged for sale to new age types.

The version I know of has the potter god, Khnum, create the ba and the ka of the new Horus to be on his potter's wheel, and Khnum breathes life into them, the breath naturally being holy spirit. I don't remember enoughabout the particular series of reliefs because it's too long ago now. It's in the holiest section of the temple, beyond the courts and in a large room off to the left. Perhaps someone else has either seen it or got a guide that will provide more info.

The particular Luxor material is about one pharaoh and doesn't represent a tradition to my knowledge. The birth of a royal child is always celebrated. The accession to the throne is a "divine" ritual in which the new pharaoh becomes Horus and the old pharaoh with the help of Horus becomes Osiris and the divine trinity is maintained, for Isis is always Osiris's wife and Horus's mother.

I think the Isis and Horus statues which are popular in extremely late times is partially Greek influence. In fact, this baby Horus is usually called Harpocrates.


spin

[judge]

Richard Carrier has an article on Mark McFall's site that may be of interest to those interested in claims that Jesus' birth was based on the birth of Horus, as shown by inscriptions at Luxor:



Thanks, I wonder if anyone knows in how many ancient cultures the myth or story of a virgin birth occurs/

[Toto]

I decided to bump this up rather than start a new thread.

Acharya S (who is now using her real name, D. M. Murdoch) has responded to Carrier in this detailed excerpt (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html) from her forthcoming book, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.

I have just started going through it. Murdoch writes this to provide support for her thesis that Christianity borrowed from Egyptian religion. She charges that Carrier confused the Amenhotep and Hatshepsut birth cycles in the literature (which he says he skimmed, always dangerous) and introduced some unnecessary pornographic references. (Murdoch sticks to her Victorian scholars, who see the impregnation as happening when the ankh is held to the goddess' nose.)

There is some discussion of "immaculate conception," which Murdoch admits has a specific meaning in Christian cultures, referring to the conception of Mary without sin. But she justifies using the term for Horus, since the Egyptians did not think of ordinary sex as sinful, and all conceptions are therefore immaculate. She also identifies Isis with the pertetual virgin goddess, Neith.

The conclusion is perhaps the strongest argument:

The Luxor nativity scene represents the birth sequence of an obviously very important god-king, as it was portrayed in one of the most famous Egyptian sites that endured for some 2,000 years. Egypt, it should be kept in mind, was a mere stone's throw from the Israelite homeland, with a well-trodden "Horus road" linking the two nations and possessing numerous Egyptian artifacts, including a massive, long-lived fort and Horus temple at the site of Tharu, for instance. Moreover, at the time when Christianity was formulated, there were an estimated 1 million Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and other Israelitish people in Egypt, making up approximately one-half of the important and influential city of Alexandria. The question is, with all the evident influence from the Egyptian religion upon Christianity presented in Christ in Egypt, were the creators of the Christian myth aware of this highly significant birth scene from this singularly important temple site in Egypt? If not, these scenes were common enough right up to and into the common era - could the creators of Christianity really have been oblivious to them?

[Terrance33]

Interesting!

[GakuseiDon]

Acharya S (who is now using her real name, D. M. Murdoch) has responded to Carrier in this detailed excerpt (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html) from her forthcoming book, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.

I have just started going through it.
I was wondering if you ever came to some conclusion on this, Toto. Are her points convincing, IYO?

[Toto]

Like I said on another thread, you have to put yourself into a different frame of mind. You have to concentrate on the big picture, realize that the little details are just there for decoration, and the point is to understand some deep aspect of the human psyche. Then it all makes sense.

If you try to read this as some sort of proof that Christianity was a simple minded copy of Egyptian religion, it doesn't work, but if you see it in terms of broad cultural influences, it does make some sense. But notice how Acharya works with the "immaculate conception" "virgin birth" theme - it is just a theme, and none of the details are the same. So does that mean that the early Christians did not borrow their virgin birth story from the Egyptians because the details are so different, or did they fit details from their time and place into the Egyptian theme, or were they just picking something up from the desert air that represented some universal religious theme?

In any case, I am glad that Acharya S is delving deeper into her sources and making more nuanced, careful statements, and the discussion is going beyond just copycat Jesus! Nya Nya! No he wasn't! level.

[Dave31]

The new Nativity Scene at Luxor excerpt by Acharya http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

is well written and very thorough.

It appears Carrier made an error:

"Carrier states this is where the "very real sex" and "soft-core porn" come in. However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L). Indeed, the Luxor inscription is lacking two important passages found in the Hatshepsut text that could be considered "erotic" but hardly constitute "soft-core porn": "he gave his heart to her" ("er gab sein Herz zu ihr hin") (IV D a) and "she kissed him" ("[sie] küßte [ihn]") (IV D d).8 In the Luxor inscription, there is no kissing or giving of the heart."

I understand Carrier is currently researching for a book project but I am curious if Carrier has read this yet. Carrier never has actually read any of Acharya's work ... maybe he will read Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

[Flaming Moe]

I would love to hear Richard Carriers updated opinion. Amalgamation, on the level that Toto alludes to, seems quite natural when geography is considered.

Another benefit to the triangulation of beliefs would be in terms of social/political stabilty and trade; when cultures mixed like this it seems likely (I have no proof of course but necessity is the mother of invention!) that commonly shared points of faiths would have been encouraged.

[Malachi151]

What I find so absurd about all of these "Christianity borrowed from X" claims is that there is no consideration of the integration of religion after the fact.

For example, we do know that images of Madonna and Child were often based directly on images of Isis and Horus, however, all of these images come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, centuries, etc.

The obvious fact, and the much more reasonable view, of course, is not that these statues prove that the writers of the Gospels were influenced by tales of Isis and Horus, but rather that as Christianity was adopted into cultures where Isis and Horus were worshiped, Christianity was integrated into existing artistic, stylistic, and to some degree theological, traditions.

In other words, the connection between Christianity and Egyptian religion is after the fact, its not primary.

Jesus is not "based on" Horus. In places where Horus was worshiped, the worship of Jesus supplanted the worship of Horus and subsumed some aspects of that worship. The same exact thing can be seen over and over again in cultures throughout the world where Christianity spread, from Ireland to Russia to Africa to Asia to the Americas. In all cases "Jesus" takes on the trappings and characteristics of the local culture and takes on the persona of local heroes or deities. That's why we have black Jesus, Rasta Jesus, Aryan Jesus, Gun Toting NRA Jesus, etc.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

The new Nativity Scene at Luxor excerpt by Acharya http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

is well written and very thorough.

One of the "scholars" appealed to is in this "refutation" of Carrier is Normandi Ellis, a journalist who is not an Egyptologist (she holds a BA in journalism from the University of Kentucky and an MA from the University of Colorado at Boulder) and has apparently vis a vis matters ancient Egyptian never published anything in any scholarly journal or academic press (her works seesm to be issued solely through new age and vanity presses) or been recognized by actual Egyptologists as having any actual expertise in this area. Why should she be listed to?

Jeffrey

[Dave31]

Normandi Ellis is probably mentioned here because she had something useful to say. Have you ever written a book or anything else? Have you confined all of your ideas - everything you've ever heard or considered - to ONLY the most qualified individuals in history? "Qualification" is a subjective term as well. Those who only listen to the most pedigreed authorities must live in a bubble as well. In fact, it's an impossibility. In any event, the argument in this case seems like a fallacy to me.

I should add that Carrier is not an Egyptologist, has "apparently vis a vis matters ancient Egyptian never published anything in any scholarly journal or academic press...or been recognized by actual Egyptologists as having any actual expertise in this area."

Why, then, should Carrier be listened to? In fact, why should we listen to you are you an Egyptologist? The point here is that considering all the other highly credentialed Egyptlogists cited in Acharya's Luxor excerpt this is simply not a good argument.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

Normandi Ellis is probably mentioned here because she had something useful to say.

And what is the criteria you are using to determine whether or not something is useful? Besides that, since AS quoted Ellis in order to make her point, isn't the real issue whether or not what Ellis said is reliable and true.

Have you ever written a book or anything else?

Umm, yes I have.

Have you?

If you are going to use not writing a book as the criteria for whether we listen to anyone or not, I guess we have no cause to listen to you.

I should add that Carrier is not an Egyptologist, has "apparently vis a vis matters ancient Egyptian never published anything in any scholarly journal or academic press...or been recognized by actual Egyptologists as having any actual expertise in this area."

Why, then, should Carrier be listened to?

Because he didn't pose as an Egyptologist. Rather he forwarded materials from one.

In fact, why should we listen to you are you an Egyptologist?

One does not have to be an Egyptologist to raise the question of whether someone who has a BA and MA in journalism is an expert in Egyptology and has had anything accepted for publication in academic journals, does one?

You raise the question of whether Carrie is an Egyptologist. Why is it OK for you -- who, so far as one can tell, has no academic credentials whatsoever in any field, let alone in Egytptology - to raise the question but not for me?

The point here is that considering all the other highly credentialed Egyptlogists cited in Acharya's Luxor excerpt this is simply not a good argument.

I'm wondering why we should consider someone who is not an Egyptologist as someone worth listening to on matters of Egyptology. After all, you yourself say in your note about why we shouldn't regard Carrier as an authority on matters ancient Egypt, that we shouldn't. So by your own criteria, out goes Ellis.

Jeffrey

[Dave31]

Malachi151 "all of these images come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, centuries, etc....."

Ahh yes, specifically a time frame when the mass destruction of pagan religions were taking place:

"Gimme that ol' time religion" VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzbxJ0RNFY

After looking at the history and the origins of Christianity, I think Christianity would've "borrowed" those concepts earlier *IF* they could've gotten away with it. The fact will always remain that the concepts were popular and came long before Christianity was ever created.

You're admitting that major concepts, motifs and characteristics found within Christianity were indeed in existence practically everywhere before the common era - and that conclusion is in fact the general premise of Acharya's work.

In order for YOUR premise to work, the creators of Christianity would have had to live in a hermetically sealed bubble devoid of contact with the rest of the Mediterranean. In your scenario, Christianity would thus truly represent divine revelation.

You're suggesting that some miraculous minded Jews just happened to come up with all these concepts on their own, without any influence from all of the religions and cults of the Roman Empire surrounding them? That would be a miraculous genesis indeed!

Logic dictates that the creators of Christianity did not live in a hermetically sealed bubble but were quite familiar with the plethora of concepts that existed in the Roman Empire, particularly at Alexandria, which contained a massive library and which also was home to many thousands of Jews, Hebrews and Samaritans at the time. The evidence points to THESE Jews as being the major contributors to Christianity, and they were surely not oblivious to the very obvious religious concepts all around them, including and especially as concerns the highly popular Isis, Osiris and Horus.

In order to uphold this hermetically sealed bubble thesis, we would need not only to suspend logic but also to remove completely the milieu of the Mediterranean at that time, leaving the creation of Christianity within a miraculous vacuum.

One reason we find these concepts all over the place is because many of them are dependent on observations of natural phenomena, constituting the ancient sciences of archaeastronomy, astromythology and astrotheology.

[Dave31]

It has been well over a year (June 2008) since Toto first brought Acharya's response to Carrier's article about the Luxor issue here and NOT A SINGLE PEEP from Carrier. I would like to see him respond to this:

"...For the inscription of this "bed" scene, Carrier refers us to page 42, et seq., of Brunner, upon which we find two main paragraphs in German relating the words spoken by Amun and the queen as reflected in the hieroglyphs surrounding the image. Carrier states this is where the "very real sex" and "soft-core porn" come in. However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)..."

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

Doesn't Carrier hold a certain level of responsibility and accountability for his comments about Acharya's work in his Luxor article? If Carrier is in error shouldn't he either concede or demonstrate how he is not in error? Should he send an e-mail to Acharya apologizing for his errors regarding her work? Or is it just the standard here to trash Acharya S/ Murdock however one chooses without taking any responsibility or being held accountable for it? Lets not forget that Richard Carrier has never actually read any books by her.

[Celsus]

It has been well over a year (June 2008) since Toto first brought Acharya's response to Carrier's article about the Luxor issue here and NOT A SINGLE PEEP from Carrier.
Alternatively you could just move on. These things happen all the time in scholarship, people move on to other matters. Just because he doesn't dwell on someone else's pet subjects doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

[Dave31]

Celsus, you are either inadvertently proving my point, or you're completely unaware of how Richard Carrier has trashed the work of Acharya S even though he has never actually read a single book of hers. There is a DISTURBING DOUBLE-STANDARD at play here or misogyny.

So, what you're saying is that it's okay for scholars like Richard Carrier to trash authors works he's never read, calling them poor, sloppy scholarship, but when he himself makes monumental egregious errors we are just to "move on," you say? That is, once again, either a double-standard or misogyny. After all, because of Carrier's article Acharya S has been quite maliciously attacked by theists and atheists. Carrier owes her an apology and must held responsible and accountable.

Specifically because of Carrier's trashing of Acharya S, he leads others who look up to him to do the same - like that kid Rook Hawkins (Tom V.) is a prime example who claims Carrier is his "hero" and writes a blog trashing Acharya's work, only to find out later he too never read the book he was supposedly reviewing. This kid has no education beyond high school, but, apparently, it's okay to trash Acharya S because there's no responsibility or accountability for it.

Acharya S has been harassed quite viciously even for simple typos. Had she made the same egregious error Carrier did ESPECIALLY while trashing someone else's work there's no question about it, the people here would pile-on and never let her hear the end of it. Would they simply let it go and move on - absolutely not.

It's an embarrassment to all atheists and Freethinkers. How unfortunate you felt the need to prove my point.

[mountainman]

In order to uphold this hermetically sealed bubble thesis, we would need not only to suspend logic but also to remove completely the milieu of the Mediterranean at that time, leaving the creation of Christianity within a miraculous vacuum.

Momigliano describes christian history as transcendental. That is an appropriate concept for us to meditate upon. Grant states that "Constantine managed to convince himself that he'd had a religious experience". Lord Acton writes that ... "“Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. These are important ancient historical concepts to deal with.

[Celsus]

Celsus, you are either inadvertently proving my point, or you're completely unaware of how Richard Carrier has trashed the work of Acharya S even though he has never actually read a single book of hers. There is a DISTURBING DOUBLE-STANDARD at play here or misogyny.

So, what you're saying is that it's okay for scholars like Richard Carrier to trash authors works he's never read, calling them poor, sloppy scholarship, but when he himself makes monumental egregious errors we are just to "move on," you say? That is, once again, either a double-standard or misogyny. After all, because of Carrier's article Acharya S has been quite maliciously attacked by theists and atheists. Carrier owes her an apology and must held responsible and accountable.

Specifically because of Carrier's trashing of Acharya S, he leads others who look up to him to do the same - like that kid Rook Hawkins (Tom V.) is a prime example who claims Carrier is his "hero" and writes a blog trashing Acharya's work, only to find out later he too never read the book he was supposedly reviewing. This kid has no education beyond high school, but, apparently, it's okay to trash Acharya S because there's no responsibility or accountability for it.

Acharya S has been harassed quite viciously even for simple typos. Had she made the same egregious error Carrier did ESPECIALLY while trashing someone else's work there's no question about it, the people here would pile-on and never let her hear the end of it. Would they simply let it go and move on - absolutely not.

It's an embarrassment to all atheists and Freethinkers. How unfortunate you felt the need to prove my point.
Hehe. Sorry, I'm giggling guiltily to myself about how amusing I find your apoplexy (which apparently you've been bottling for some time). If Acharya has made her rebuttal and is convinced by it (and has convinced others of it), then it stands on its own weight. In academia, being right is its own reward. Insisting on personal retribution against Carrier just makes you look silly.

[Toto]

"Rook Hawkins" ' review is here (http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_with_acharya_s_a_brief_review). He states there that he has not read her latest work. Rook Hawkins is a pseudonym formerly used by Thomas Verenna (http://tomverenna.wordpress.com), whose current hero is R. Joseph Hoffmann.

As far as I can tell, his influence is limited at best.

[Dave31]

Celsus, you're saying it's perfectly fine for Carrier to trash an authors work he has never read, which would be considered intellectual dishonesty (never mind any potential smears, libel etc) and is looked down upon by those with integrity and character. You're here giving Carrier a free pass for it - proving my point once again, so, thanks for that.

Toto, why the need to promote Rook/Tom and his trash here in this thread? The ONLY book that Rook/Tom claims to have read is "Christ Conspiracy" and he apparently skimmed through that years ago. The blog "review" you just posted is based on her 2nd book, "Suns of God" which rook/tom admits he hasn't read. So repeating after Carrier, he trashes an author who's works he has not read writing a severely intellectually dishonest diatribe against her and then goes on to post it everywhere like some sort of smear campaign. He even banned several people in that thread trying to set the record straight - I guess he wasn't interested. A quote from rook's blog:

Freethinkaluva "If folks have a look at the thread there they would see how dishonest Rook is on the issue with Acharya's work. Rook omitted information provided to him in that thread & turned his "Problems with Acharya" into a straw man & an argument from ignorance. Mostly due to the fact that he hasn't read her work (which Rook admits in this thread) - especially "Suns of God" which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy."

Rook is dishonest here but seems to appeal to people who are too lazy to do their own research. And on top of that, It seems that Rook gets his false assumptions about Acharya from his hero Richard Carrier who also hasn't read Acharya's work. So Rook is RELYING on R. Carrier & doesn't go to the source - hows that for "sloppy scholarship"? Rook is an embarrassment to freethinkers & Jesus mythicists by dishonestly smearing Acharya like this.

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rooks blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Achayra from Rook is in order."

Thing is Acharya has never done anything to anyone let alone these 2 guys. They both we her an apology. It's an embarrassment to Freethinkers

[ApostateAbe]

Dave31, you don't seem to be doing Acharya S any favors. You are reacting to perceived slights against Acharya S with too many hyperbolic personal attacks of your own, when you are best to respond with much greater civility than your opponents. Turn the other cheek, as Jesus/Horus/Mithras/whoever said. I appreciate that Acharya S is going to the original ancient sources, like the Luxor inscriptions. If she wants to have the upper hand, then she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations. Better yet, she can publish a detailed study on how the Luxor inscriptions fit with her interpretations.

[Dave31]

LMAO! ApostateAbe only a few have trash Acharya S here more than you - you're not to be trusted at all when it comes to her work. You're always quick to jump in & pile-on however you can so, when you say "turn the other cheek" it's quite hypocritical.

"she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations...she can publish a detailed study..."

If you knew her work you'd already know that she has done that - Christ in Egypt for example. Have you read it? No, probably not.

So again, Carrier is given a free pass on trashing an authors work out of professional jealousy & misogyny, even though he made serious egregious errors, it never occurred to the skeptics here to hold him accountable or responsible for it. It's embarrassing for Carrier.

[ApostateAbe]

LMAO! ApostateAbe only a few have trash Acharya S here more than you - you're not to be trusted at all when it comes to her work. You're always quick to jump in & pile-on however you can so, when you say "turn the other cheek" it's quite hypocritical.

"she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations...she can publish a detailed study..."

If you knew her work you'd already know that she has done that - Christ in Egypt for example. Have you read it? No, probably not.

So again, Carrier is given a free pass on trashing an authors work out of professional jealousy & misogyny, even though he made serious egregious errors, it never occurred to the skeptics here to hold him accountable or responsible for it. It's embarrassing for Carrier.
I haven't read Christ in Egypt. If you would like my address, you can send me a copy, and I'll be glad to read it. If you have the book with you, maybe you can you give me the details right here. Are there relevant experts who agree with her on the Luxor inscriptions? If so, who are they and what do they say? Or has she published a detailed study on how the Luxor inscriptions fit with her interpretations? If so, what are the details?

[badger3k]

I decided to bump this up rather than start a new thread.

Acharya S (who is now using her real name, D. M. Murdoch) has responded to Carrier in this detailed excerpt (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html) from her forthcoming book, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.

I have just started going through it. Murdoch writes this to provide support for her thesis that Christianity borrowed from Egyptian religion. She charges that Carrier confused the Amenhotep and Hatshepsut birth cycles in the literature (which he says he skimmed, always dangerous) and introduced some unnecessary pornographic references. (Murdoch sticks to her Victorian scholars, who see the impregnation as happening when the ankh is held to the goddess' nose.)

Why does she stick with the victorian scholars, who could be real repressed and prudish, though they had their moments? I may have to read it and see her justification. It just strikes me as odd, if the inscriptions point towards something else, or if it is a bit garbled, to pick out the one thing that supports your hypothesis.

There is some discussion of "immaculate conception," which Murdoch admits has a specific meaning in Christian cultures, referring to the conception of Mary without sin. But she justifies using the term for Horus, since the Egyptians did not think of ordinary sex as sinful, and all conceptions are therefore immaculate. She also identifies Isis with the pertetual virgin goddess, Neith.

The last could be true - there are so many Egyptian myths that the gods and goddesses were often absorbed into each other. But the whole "all conceptions are immaculate" bit sure sounds like a reach. I sincerely hope that isn't her argument for that.

The conclusion is perhaps the strongest argument:

The Luxor nativity scene represents the birth sequence of an obviously very important god-king, as it was portrayed in one of the most famous Egyptian sites that endured for some 2,000 years. Egypt, it should be kept in mind, was a mere stone's throw from the Israelite homeland, with a well-trodden "Horus road" linking the two nations and possessing numerous Egyptian artifacts, including a massive, long-lived fort and Horus temple at the site of Tharu, for instance. Moreover, at the time when Christianity was formulated, there were an estimated 1 million Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and other Israelitish people in Egypt, making up approximately one-half of the important and influential city of Alexandria. The question is, with all the evident influence from the Egyptian religion upon Christianity presented in Christ in Egypt, were the creators of the Christian myth aware of this highly significant birth scene from this singularly important temple site in Egypt? If not, these scenes were common enough right up to and into the common era - could the creators of Christianity really have been oblivious to them?

I haven't read her works, although I have her first book, but this strikes me as odd. The Egyptian influence was, as far as I can tell (and I may be wrong) far stronger during the early development of Judaism. Didn't the Greek influences overshadow the Egyptian at the time of Christianity's development? Unless she's arguing for the Egyptian birthplace of Christianity, which I recently heard about. Might be interesting to see what evidence she has for her case. I've heard mixed reviews on her scholarship, but recently have heard more favorable ones - any opinions? Is she above the Freke/Gandy kind of work?

[Toto]

This thread got resurrected from the dead. It's been a while since I wrote that.

Acharya (Diane Murdoch) is IMHO more of a journalist or advocate than a scholar. Robert Price seems to think favorably of her, but I suspect that is because he really wants the 19th century scholarship to get a second look.

Murdoch definitely gets better when she is challenged - she improves her arguments and her research. But she needs much more of that sort of give and take with other reseachers to sharpen her own arguments and persuade others, and this is hard to do outside of an academic position.

Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 and freethinkaluva (?) are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes.

[badger3k]

This thread got resurrected from the dead. It's been a while since I wrote that.

Acharya (Diane Murdoch) is IMHO more of a journalist or advocate than a scholar. Robert Price seems to think favorably of her, but I suspect that is because he really wants the 19th century scholarship to get a second look.

Murdoch definitely gets better when she is challenged - she improves her arguments and her research. But she needs much more of that sort of give and take with other reseachers to sharpen her own arguments and persuade others, and this is hard to do outside of an academic position.

Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 and freethinkaluva (?) are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes.

Wow - you aren't kidding - I missed the 2004 date! You often see "fanbois" for various people, and I agree with your assessment. I saw this and was interested since my mom loved Egyptology and I had gotten interested in it very young (although I scampered over to mesoamerica and the Sumerians). I did find Price's turn around on her interesting, but I think you're right on his views. I'd like to read their arguments and evidence, and see if anyone actually countered them, but just about everything is either in German or is a bit too pricey for me to get right now. Thanks for the reply.

[Dave31]

badger3k "Why does she stick with the victorian scholars"

She doesn't. This is a myth in and of itself that is spread around the net in an attempt to dismiss her works without any real investigation. It only works on those who haven't actually read her work.

Toto "Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes."

Maybe, yet someone needs to call a spade a spade at some point now & again. The fact remains that there are several here at FRDB who haven't really studied her work yet, they fall over themselves trying to trash her & her work however they can...it's like some sort of obsession - they get worked-up into a frenzy.

I have actually read her work and can tell when peeps are not being honest about it. So, I point that out & somehow that makes me a "fanboy," which really just proves my point. When one who actually studies her work & knows for a fact when detractors aren't telling the truth & point that out, they get abused as well. "fanboy" is still name-calling & it's meant to be yet another derogatory comment. The peeps who attack her work the loudest & most aggressive are often misinformed on her work and quite shallow. Calling someone a "fanboy" is just a deflection away from the issue at hand & demonstrates the weakness of the argument. Thus, Carrier's Luxor article - I didn't see a single person here check to see if he was accurate. In fact, he made monumental egregious errors - he was wrong on some quite crucial points. And still nobody here holds his feet to the fire for it. If Acharya made those same monumental egregious errors there would be a pile-on here raking her over the coals for it forever (just like they still do with that old review of Christ Conspiracy by Dr. Price from 2001 they dig up from the archives which Dr. Price no longer supports as he took it down YEARS AGO). People on the net still hold-up Carrier's article as something that debunks Acharya's work when:

1. Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya S

2. Carrier made egregious errors in his Luxor article

I'm sure Acharya has had Carrier's Luxor article thrown at her many many times since 2004, even though she has proved him wrong in her response:

The Nativity Scene at Luxor - Acharya's response (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html)

Yet, nobody holds Carrier's feet to the fire for it. There is a clear hypocritical double-standard here & probably some misogyny as well and somebody needs to point it out. If that makes me a "fanboy" then, I'm a "fanboy." It's still embarrassing to freethinkers though. And an embarrassment to fellow mythicists.

Here's the review by Dr. Price of Christ in Egypt by Murdock (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html).

"...We are in agreement on the thoroughly syncretic character of primitive Christianity, evolving from earlier mythemes and rituals, especially those of Egypt. It is almost as important in Christ in Egypt to argue for an astro-religious origin for the mythemes, and there, too, I agree with the learned author....

"...I find it undeniable that...many, many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations..."

"[Horus] is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern."

“The book is more extensive and encompassing than many dissertations I have read, containing over 900 sources and nearly 2,400 citations in several languages, including ancient Egyptian. The text abounds in long lost references many of them altogether new to English rendering, including de novo translations of difficult passages in handwritten German….”

“I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock: we assert that Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized and Judaized, likewise representing a synthesis of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek religion and mythology, among others [including Buddhism, via King Asokas missionaries] from around the known world (p. 278). Christianity is largely the product of Egyptian religion being Judaized and historicized (p. 482).”

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

[Jeffrey Gibson]

badger3k "Why does she stick with the victorian scholars"

She doesn't. This is a myth in and of itself that is spread around the net in an attempt to dismiss her works without any real investigation.

OK ... so who are the post Victorian scholars whose work you claim she uses?

And what exactly are the 12 languages you claimed she reads?

Jeffrey

[driver8]

Dave, I am just starting to read Mircea Eliade's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade) Patterns in Comparative Religion. I expect it to cover some common ground with Acharya, but I do not yet know how much. Have you read any of his works? He appears to be a much more authoritative source. I think he will address egyptology, but don't know to what extent.

[Toto]

I associate Eliade more with Shamanism and Yoga and religious myth, more than Egypt and the Abrahamic religions. He has also been criticized for overgeneralization ("parallelomania" of a sort).

Check p 124 of the book for his comments on sun worship, and compare to Acharya S.

[avi]

OK ... so who are the post Victorian scholars whose work you claim she uses?
Jeffrey, may I inquire, is there anything particular about Victorian era scholarship which renders it invalid, or perhaps suspicious, in pursuing an answer to the question of influence from ancient Egypt on the development of Christianity?

Egyptian mythology (http://books.google.com/books?id=EavXAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false)& Egyptian Christianity: with their influence on the opinions of modern Christendom (1863) (2nd edition 1896)

When Christians shall at length acknowledge that many of those doctrines, which together now make up orthodoxy, or the religion of the majority, as distinguished from the simple religion which Jesus taught and practised ; when they shall acknowledge that many of them are so many sad and lamentable errors ; then, and not till then, will they seek to know their origin, and enquire from which of the several branches of Paganism they sprung. They will then see that most of the so-called Christian doctrines, that have no place in the New Testament, reached Europe from Egypt, through Alexandria. (page vi from the author's preface)
http://books.google.com/books?id=0VvVBgQhcw0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here is Samuel Sharpe's quote given by Murdoch in her article: The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

"In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings."

Personally, I don't find objectionable Samuel Sharpe's opinions, simply because of the date wherein his ideas were published. Is there something about his work which you know about, and could explain to someone like me, (who knows so very little, and cannot distinguish genuine Egyption scholarship, for shoddy journalistic endeavors, as I have no doubt, you can)?

In particular, Jeffrey, as you are, in my opinion, very knowledgeable, both about Greek, and the New Testament, can you please confirm, or repudiate the notion of Samuel Sharpe, expressed above, one and a half centuries before the birth of this thread in 2004, that "...the chapters in Matthew's Gospel...are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, ..."?

Perhaps Sharpe is in error on this point, if so, that would seem a valid criticism, both of Sharpe, and Murdoch!!
In my humble opinion, Jeffrey, your assessment of Sharpe would be of extraordinary benefit in clarifying the extent to which Murdoch has erred, if she has.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

OK ... so who are the post Victorian scholars whose work you claim she uses?
Jeffrey, may I inquire, is there anything particular about Victorian era scholarship which renders it invalid, or perhaps suspicious, in pursuing an answer to the question of influence from ancient Egypt on the development of Christianity?

Umm, there's its Romantic assumption that Jesus was just a quietist preacher of morals and that therefore anything that shows him to have been something other than this must have been later additions to the "original" gospel story.

can you please confirm, or repudiate the notion of Samuel Sharpe, expressed above, one and a half centuries before the birth of this thread in 2004, that "...the chapters in Matthew's Gospel...are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, ..."?
The first question to be answered here befeore an assessment can be made is: What did Sharpe meant by the "earliest manuscripts". Does he say?

The second question to ask is: When he made his claim, was he aware of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus -- both of which have a complete text of Matthew? Was he aware of the papyri such as P1 which contain sections of the text of Matt 1-2 and thus testify to Matt 1-2 being an original part of the text of Matthew?

If he was, then he was not telling the truth. If he wasn't, then he might be somewhat excused for making the claim he does, depending on what he delineates as the "earliest manuscripts", but he is still factually in error.

(We may also ask if AS is aware of these MS and how they make Sharpe's claims dubious. If she isn't, why isn't she, especially in the light of claims made about her as one who is on top of things, as one who is conversant with matters text critical and all other aspects of modern NT research? If she is, then why does she use as a support of her claims the "data" from Sharpe she knows is contradicted by actual evidence and is therefore untrue?)

And is it really legitimate to conclude from "early" MS that are missing Matt. 1-2 (and again, which ones are they according to S?), that Matt 1-2 is a later addition to the original text of Matthew? Some of the MS witnesses (though all fifth century!) are also missing other sections of Matthew's Gospel (A starts with Mt. 25:7 (!) C is missing 5:15–7:5; 17:26–18:28; 22:21–23:17; 24:10–45; 25:30–26:22; 27:11–46; 28:15–20. Codex Bezae does not have (because of damage to the text) 6:20–9:2; 27:2–12. Should we conclude that because these witnesses lack these texts, that these texts are later additions?

In other words, S seem to think that the only explanation for the absence of a text in an "early" MS witness to Matthew (let alone a "early" MS witness that is patently fragmentary) is that it wasn't originally a part of the text. And this is extremely shoddy -- not to mention agenda driven -- scholarship.


Perhaps Sharpe is in error on this point, if so, that would seem a valid criticism, both of Sharpe, and Murdoch!!There doesn't seem to be any "perhaps" about it.

In my humble opinion, Jeffrey, your assessment of Sharpe would be of extraordinary benefit in clarifying the extent to which Murdoch has erred, if she has.I believe I commented in an another thread (or in an earlier message in this one) about how Sharpe has to cook his Christian and Egyptian evidence in order for him to make the claims he does about the parallels that "exist" between the Lukan "infancy narrative" and the Egyptian material he says is its source.

Jeffrey

[avi]

The first question to be answered here befeore an assessment can be made is: What did Sharpe meant by the "earliest manuscripts".
Alas, I do not have the answer. I am not sufficiently conversant with Sharpe's work to know the answer. Perhaps Dave knows. I do not.

Does he say?
Again, sorry, I don't know the answer to that question, either.
The second question to ask is: When he made his claim, was he aware of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus -- both of which have a complete text of Matthew?
Ooops. Again, I don't know the answer.

Was he aware of the papyri such as P1 which contain sections of the text of Matt 1-2 and thus testify to Matt 1-2 being an original part of the text of Matthew?
Hurrah, at last, a question which I can answer. discovered this papyrus at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, on the second day of excavation, in the Winter of 1896-1897. Their findings were published in the first volume of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri in 1898.
So, Sharpe had already been dead a quarter century before discovery of P1.

[1, 18] του δε ιυ̣̅ χυ̅ η γενε σις ουτως ην μ̣ν̣ηστ̣ε̣[υ]θεισης της μη τρος αυτου μ̣[αρι]α̣[ς] τω̣ [ιω]σηφ πριν η συν [ε]λ̣θε̣[ι]ν αυ[το]υ̣[ς] ε̣υ̣ρε̣[θη] ε̣ν γ̣αστρι εχου σα̣ ε̣[κ πν̅ς αγιου]

Again, I don't know if Sharpe knew about Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. We have them available to us, on the internet, so, presumably, does Ms. Murdoch.


tou de ihsou cristou h genesiV outwV hn mnhsteuqeishV thV mhtroV autou mariaV tw iwshf prin h sunelqein autouV eureqh en gastri ecousa ek pneumatoV agiou

του δε ιυ χυ η γενε ϲιϲ ὁυτωϲ ην μνηϲϲτευθιϲηϲ τηϲ μη τροϲ αυτου μαριαϲ
τω ϊωϲηφ πρὶν η ϲυνελθιν αυτουϲ ἑυρέθη εν γαϲτρι
εχουϲα εκ πνϲ α


Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

(We may also ask if AS is aware of these MS and how they make Sharpe's claims dubious. If she isn't, why isn't she, especially in the light of claims made about her as one who is on top of things, as one who is conversant with matters text critical and all other aspects of modern NT research? If she is, then why does she use as a support of her claims the "data" from Sharpe she knows is contradicted by actual evidence and is therefore untrue?)
This seems to me to be crucial to the discussion, and far more salient, in addressing the fundamental issue of the extent to which Egyptian mythology may or may not have contributed to the evolution of earliest Christianity, than several of the earlier posts in this thread.

Thank you Jeffrey, well done. To the extent that Sharpe's original thoughts depended on his apparently incorrect supposition that Matthew 1:18 was not extant in the earliest manuscripts, but represented, instead, a later addition, one must conclude that Sharpe's analysis is suspect, and therefore, the task for Ms. Murdoch, in my opinion, is to demonstrate how other Egyptologists interpret those images of the nativity scene at Luxor, the point, I suppose, that Jeffrey, Toto, Richard Carrier, Apostate Abe, and others, have been making for some years now....(I am a little slow...)
avi
:)

[Toto]

Acharya has posted a free 12 page e-book:

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf)

Her email announcing this states: "The Christ Myth Anthology" is a collection of previously published essays, such as can be found in "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt," along with much new research. As I have done with the revised "Origins" article, I have used different sources in order to demonstrate the same thesis, without the difficulties my other sources brought with them.

The basic thesis: The reason these various narratives are so similar, with a godman who is killed or "crucified" and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 companions or "disciples," is because these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the world because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the gospel fable is in large part merely a rehash of a mythological formula revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens

[ApostateAbe]

Acharya has posted a free 12 page e-book:

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf)

Her email announcing this states: "The Christ Myth Anthology" is a collection of previously published essays, such as can be found in "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt," along with much new research. As I have done with the revised "Origins" article, I have used different sources in order to demonstrate the same thesis, without the difficulties my other sources brought with them.

The basic thesis: The reason these various narratives are so similar, with a godman who is killed or "crucified" and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 companions or "disciples," is because these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the world because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the gospel fable is in large part merely a rehash of a mythological formula revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens
The e-book is typical of the Acharya S writings I have known, and it is great that she put that online to freely distribute. For a while now, I was concerned that she may have been running a scam where she sells a bunch of outrageous bullshit and then asks all her critics to read her printed books before they can be justified in challenging the arguments, which means they have to buy them. Now all her critics have to do to prove their points is to cite that e-book.

[Roger Pearse]

Well, it is good to have the sources. But I got no further than the first page of references, page 4, where the Diegesis of the renegade clergyman Robert Taylor (who was jailed for financial fraud) is quoted as an authority, followed by Joseph Wheless Forgery in Christianity also given as an authority, complete with Gibbon's mistranslation of the title of a chapter in Eusebius PE. All this material has long been comprehensively rebutted.

[JoeWallack]

Well, it is good to have the sources. But I got no further than the first page of references, page 4, where the Diegesis of the renegade clergyman Robert Taylor (who was jailed for financial fraud) is quoted as an authority, followed by Joseph Wheless Forgery in Christianity also given as an authority, complete with Gibbon's mistranslation of the title of a chapter in Eusebius PE. All this material has long been comprehensively rebutted.

JW:
Yea, I know what you mean Roger. I stopped reading Richard Bauckham's book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, after I read the title.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

[Clivedurdle]

I wonder if we are rehearsing a basic difference in how we look at subjects.

gnosticism


religious movement

any of various related philosophical and religious movements prominent in the Greco-Roman world in the early Christian era, particularly the 2nd century.

The designation gnosticism is a term of modern scholarship. It was first used by the English poet and philosopher of religion Henry More (1614–87), who applied it to the religious groups referred to in ancient sources as gnostikoi (Greek: those who have gnosis, or “knowledge”). The Greek adjective gnostikos (“leading to knowledge” or “pertaining to knowledge”) was first used by Plato to describe the cognitive or intellectual dimension of learning, as opposed to the practical. By the 2nd century ad, however, gnostikoi had been adopted by various Christian groups, some of which used it positively as a self-designation, though others criticized this practice as a presumptuous claim of exclusive access to truth.

Definition

Consensus on a definition of gnosticism has proved difficult. The groups conventionally classified as gnostic did not constitute a single movement with relatively homogeneous organization, teachings, and rituals. Even the self-designation gnostic is problematic, since it is attested for only some of the traditions conventionally treated as gnostic and its connotations are ambiguous.

Whereas some researchers argue that the term gnostic should be restricted to the sects or schools that called themselves by this name, others extend the category to include additional religious movements that allegedly shared various distinctive features.

Still others treat gnosticism as a world religion that existed from antiquity to early modern times—surviving, for example, in the mythology and ritual of the Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran (see below Influence).



http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236343/gnosticism

And the problem is that those who take more of a gestalt perspective do tend to be labelled as pseudo scientists, a bit strange in the arena of bch as everyone is primarily dealing with just so stories, but somehow some just so stories are thought to be more just so than others!

What I find so absurd about all of these "Christianity borrowed from X" claims is that there is no consideration of the integration of religion after the fact.

For example, we do know that images of Madonna and Child were often based directly on images of Isis and Horus, however, all of these images come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, centuries, etc.

The obvious fact, and the much more reasonable view, of course, is not that these statues prove that the writers of the Gospels were influenced by tales of Isis and Horus, but rather that as Christianity was adopted into cultures where Isis and Horus were worshiped, Christianity was integrated into existing artistic, stylistic, and to some degree theological, traditions.

In other words, the connection between Christianity and Egyptian religion is after the fact, its not primary.

Jesus is not "based on" Horus. In places where Horus was worshiped, the worship of Jesus supplanted the worship of Horus and subsumed some aspects of that worship. The same exact thing can be seen over and over again in cultures throughout the world where Christianity spread, from Ireland to Russia to Africa to Asia to the Americas. In all cases "Jesus" takes on the trappings and characteristics of the local culture and takes on the persona of local heroes or deities. That's why we have black Jesus, Rasta Jesus, Aryan Jesus, Gun Toting NRA Jesus, etc.

Malachi151 "all of these images come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, centuries, etc....."
Ahh yes, specifically a time frame when the mass destruction of pagan religions were taking place:

"Gimme that ol' time religion" VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzbxJ0RNFY

After looking at the history and the origins of Christianity, I think Christianity would've "borrowed" those concepts earlier *IF* they could've gotten away with it. The fact will always remain that the concepts were popular and came long before Christianity was ever created.

You're admitting that major concepts, motifs and characteristics found within Christianity were indeed in existence practically everywhere before the common era - and that conclusion is in fact the general premise of Acharya's work.

In order for YOUR premise to work, the creators of Christianity would have had to live in a hermetically sealed bubble devoid of contact with the rest of the Mediterranean. In your scenario, Christianity would thus truly represent divine revelation.

You're suggesting that some miraculous minded Jews just happened to come up with all these concepts on their own, without any influence from all of the religions and cults of the Roman Empire surrounding them? That would be a miraculous genesis indeed!

Logic dictates that the creators of Christianity did not live in a hermetically sealed bubble but were quite familiar with the plethora of concepts that existed in the Roman Empire, particularly at Alexandria, which contained a massive library and which also was home to many thousands of Jews, Hebrews and Samaritans at the time. The evidence points to THESE Jews as being the major contributors to Christianity, and they were surely not oblivious to the very obvious religious concepts all around them, including and especially as concerns the highly popular Isis, Osiris and Horus.

In order to uphold this hermetically sealed bubble thesis, we would need not only to suspend logic but also to remove completely the milieu of the Mediterranean at that time, leaving the creation of Christianity within a miraculous vacuum.

One reason we find these concepts all over the place is because many of them are dependent on observations of natural phenomena, constituting the ancient sciences of archaeastronomy, astromythology and astrotheology.

A major premise of the xian mythos is that it is the crossroads of the world - alpha and omega, the turning point, the saviour, the cross. Death where is thy sting. New heaven and earth. Behold I make all things new.

Bit embarrassing if it is actually syncretic and cobbled together from existing ideas.

[dog-on]

But doesn't Martyr admit exactly that?

[Clivedurdle]

But doesn't Martyr admit exactly that?

Early Jewish Platonism
Well before the beginning of the Christian Era, Jews with some Greek education had begun to make casual use of popular Greek philosophy in expounding their revealed religion: there are traces of this in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. In Paul’s speech to the Areopagus in Acts 17, commonplaces of Stoic philosophy were employed for apologetic purposes. But, as far as is known, the first Jew who was really well-read in Greek philosophy and used it extensively in the exposition and defense of his traditional religion was Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria [c. 15 bc–after ad 45]), an older contemporary of St. Paul. Philo expressed his philosophical religion in the form of lengthy allegorical commentaries on the Jewish Scriptures, especially on Genesis. In these he showed to his own satisfaction that the ancient revelation given to Moses accorded with the teaching of the best Greek philosophers, which, in his view, was later and derivative. The Greek philosophy that he preferred and found to be most in accordance with revelation was an early form of Middle Platonism. Philo was neither approved of nor read by later orthodox Jews, but his influence on Greek-speaking and Greek-educated Christians from the 2nd century ad was great; and in important ways he determined the tone of their religious speculation.

Ancient and medieval Christian Platonism
Like Philo, the Christian Platonists gave primacy to revelation and regarded Platonic philosophy as the best available instrument for understanding and defending the teachings of Scripture and church tradition. But, also like Philo, they did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and Christian, facilitated this confidence. The general attitude of Christian Platonists was one of relatively moderate and humane otherworldliness (the cruder sorts of Christian otherworldliness and hatred of the body seem to derive from non-Platonic and non-Greek sources). They stressed the transcendence of God though, by insisting that it is a transcendence that is also the deepest immanence, they acknowledged his intimate presence within the world as well. They took a dualistic view of soul and body (though accepting bodily resurrection) and emphasized the primacy of the spiritual, while insisting on the goodness of God’s material creation.

PATRISTIC PLATONISM
From the middle of the 2nd century ad Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans. The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism. Though Stoicism had exerted a considerable influence on Christian ethical thinking (which has persisted to modern times), Stoic corporealism—the belief that God and the soul are bodies of a subtle and peculiar kind—repelled most Christians, and Stoic pantheism was incompatible with Christianity. The Platonism that the first Christian thinkers knew was of course Middle Platonism, not yet Neoplatonism. Its relatively straightforward theism and high moral tone suited their purposes excellently; and the influence of this older form of Platonism persisted through the 4th century and beyond, even after the works of Plotinus and Porphyry began to be read by Christians.

The first Christian to use Greek philosophy in the service of the Christian faith was Justin Martyr (martyred c. 165), whose passionate rejection of Greek polytheism, combined with an open and positive acceptance of the essentials of Platonic religious philosophy and an unshakable confidence in its harmony with Christian teaching, was to remain characteristic of the Christian Platonist tradition. This was carried on in the Greek-speaking world by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), a persuasive Christian humanist, and by the greatest of the Alexandrian Christian teachers, Origen (c. 185–254). Although Origen was consciously more hostile to and critical of Platonic philosophy than either Justin or Clement, he was, nonetheless, more deeply affected by it. He produced a synthesis of Christianity and late Middle Platonism of remarkable originality and power, which is the first great Christian philosophical theology. In spite of subsequent condemnations of some of his alleged views, his influence on Christian thought was strong and lasting. The Greek philosophical theology that developed during the Trinitarian controversies over the relationships among the persons of the Godhead, which were settled at the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), owed a great deal to Origen on both sides, orthodox and heretical. Its most important representatives on the orthodox side were the three Christian Platonist theologians of Cappadocia, Basil of Caesarea (c. 329–379), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330–c. 389), and Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 394). Of these three, Gregory of Nyssa was the most powerful and original thinker (as well as the closest to Origen). He was the first great theologian of mystical experience, at once Platonic and profoundly Christian, and he exerted a strong influence on later Greek Christian thought.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/464215/Platonism/32573/Patristic-Platonism#ref=ref407183

and a few others!

[Dave31]

The newly updated "Origins (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf)" bit is actually a 30 page e-book not 12. And, it's actually an excerpt from a new upcoming book titled, "The Christ Myth Anthology," which is from what I understand, essentially a type of 2nd edition to her original "Christ Conspiracy" from 1999.

Acharya/Murdock, apparently, has some prominent scholars signing on. Dr. Christian Lindtner, a 30 year Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar, has peer reviewed the excerpt and written an introduction (originally in Danish but here's the English translation):

"In her most recent essay, "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus", the American scholar Acharya S /D.M.Murdock argues, forcefully and boldly, in favour of the thesis that Jesus was not at all a historical person, but rather - as so many other sons of God in those days of old - a personification of the Sun.

In support of this point of view - one that she is not the first to advocate, but for which she deserves credit in graciously attending the advocacy - she adduces Christian as well as non-Christian sources, primary as well as secondary. Unremittingly, she reminds her readers of the fact that nearly everything that is said or written about the Jesus called Christ, had already at an earlier date been reported about the Buddha - or the Buddhas (too many to count), about Krishna, about Horus, about Prometheus, and, indeed, about numerous other now less known mythical figures.

That this is actually the case, no scholar familiar with Hellenistic religion and syncretism will be able to deny. Should he venture to deny, as some still do, then his colleagues can only deplore his ignorance of the relevant sources. Should anyone, moreover, wish to claim that Jesus - as opposed to so many other sons of God - is a historical person, then that defender of the old faith has a very heavy burden of proof resting upon his shoulders.

Our theologians, as a rule, simply postulate that there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was or is a historical person. There may be doubt, they admit, about the nature of that person, about the credibility of the evangelists in certain details etc., but about his existence, no, no, there can be no doubt.

Such a stand is apologetic and anything but scientific. An appeal to mere faith is an appeal to sheer ignorance.

Under such circumstances, our professional historians of religion would be expected to raise a storm of protest. They do, as a rule, fail to protest, and their failure is nothing short of a disgrace. Educated historians ought to enlighten and warn the public that there is neither solid external or internal evidence in support of the claim that Jesus was in any way a historical person.

Did Jesus really exist? - the question is not a new one. The great German theologian, Adolf Harnack once (back in 1909, before he became von Harnack) called it "the embarrassing question", i.e. embarrassing for those who raised it (viz. Kalthoff, Jensen, Drews). We must now say that von Harnack got it wrong. The question is now embarrassing - and even more so now than then - for those who fail to account for the lack of external and internal evidence, and for the parallels that are now much more numerous and close than they were in 1909. (Adolf Harnack, "Hat Jesus gelebt?" in: Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Zweiter Band, Giessen 1911, pp. 167-175.). Above all, new Buddhist sources, in Sanskrit, have provided numerous literal parallels, i.e. direct loans.

The reason for clinging to the myth of Jesus as a historical person is, I assume, double: First of all, it is not easy to rid oneself of old and inveterate misconceptions. Such struggle not only requires freedom of mind but also personal courage - both are rare at a time where a higher Classical education and civilization with emphasis on human character have been banned from our universities and now are but remnants of brighter days.

Then there is the fear of loss of livelihood. If the story of Jesus is merely a solar myth - then our priesthood will have lost all its credibility. Who can make a living by talking about the Sun?

The edifice of Christianity - in any form it may be - rests on a ground of nonsense neatly summarized in the Apostles' Creed - that the mother of Jesus, who went to hell, was a virgin etc. etc.

If the thesis that Jesus is a mere solar myth is correct - and who is there to rebuke its validity on solid scholarly grounds? - then this must have serious consequences not just for conscientious Christian individuals, but also for a society that considers itself to be Christian in this or that respect.

The Danish church - not unlike other Lutheran or reformed churches - considers itself to be fairly "open and broad, " I am told. But is it "open and broad" enough to give room for the view that Jesus never existed, and for infidels taking that stand?

In Denmark (and elsewhere) we recognize and allow other religions, provided they do not violate certain rules or standards of decency and decorum - reflecting a Classical, and not at all a Christian tradition, I may add. The concept of decency or decorum may not be altogether clear to a modern mind, but no matter how we agree about definitions, it would be hard to leave out honesty and truthfulness from that definition. How can we have decency without honesty?

If, thus, honesty and truthfulness be recognized as natural and essential parts of decency and decorum, it follows, surely, that our professional professors of theology, along with our bishops and our priests find themselves facing a difficult dilemma: Either they must, openly and boldly, step forward to defend their honour and refute the thesis that Jesus be merely a solar myth, or they must, should they choose to remain silent, fear the disgraceful charge that their lack of honesty - not to speak of "Lutheran boldness" - makes them violate the standards of decorum and decency.

In other words: If our professional theologians do not respond and come up with strong arguments against the thesis of Jesus as a solar myth, then they will, day by day, transform the church and Christian society that for centuries have provided them with even more than their daily bread into institutions the nature of which is increasingly infested by dishonesty and lack of decency - until the day of the final and total collapse of the ancient myth."

Christian Lindtner, PhD
November 22nd, 2009

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2946

[Roger Pearse]

Acharya/Murdock, apparently, has some prominent scholars signing on. Dr. Christian Lindtner, a 30 year Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar, has peer reviewed the excerpt and written an introduction

This Lindtner is the editor of http://www.jesusisbuddha.com, apparently. (His political views are of no concern here, of course). I do wonder about his academic credentials. Most of the material online about him seems to be by himself. Looking for books by him in library catalogues doesn't turn up a lot.

Anyone know anything about him? Or who we might ask who knows about Buddhist studies?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Toto]

Lindtner came up in this archived thread (http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?t=123887).

Since then, his name has become more associated with Holocaust Denial, which might have been anticipated by this (note the accusations of "insane amateurism.")

The Secret about Christian Lindtner - a preliminary response . . . By Dr. Burkhard Scherer (http://www.hagglundsforlag.se/pagang/sanskrit/scherer.htm)

Here we discover a main Secret about Christian Lindtner: A deep unwillingness to ponder the Jewish (and Hellenistic) background of the Gospels. In order to avoid going the trodden path of Hebrew and Aramaic heritage, CL wanders on the devious route into Sanskrit.

Lindtner replies to that webpage here (http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/SCHERER1.html)

His political views might not be relevant, but his denial of reality is. His qualifications in Sanscrit might be sterling, but his attempts to find linguistic connections between Buddhist documents and the gospels have no academic support.

[Dave31]

Dr. Lindtner responds to that quote in # 5.
http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/SCHERER1.html

From what I understand he's not a "Holocaust Denier" per say - he is simply asking for the evidence to substantiate all the claims made. He appears quite grounded in reality, just asking critical questions.

"no academic support"

Shocker!!! What a surprise. Why should anyone trust academia on these issues when they fail miserably when it comes to Jesus? Academia is afraid to even consider that Jesus might be a myth. They might lose their funding and many life's works would be rendered obsolete. They seem to utterly fear the mythicist position even though it's the 900 pound gorilla in the room.

Dr. Lindtner seems to be getting support from Dr. Robert Price and others. Price has posted in Acharya's forum giving Dr. Lindtner a "Bravo!" At the bottom of page 1
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2946&start=0

[Dave31]

I notice there is a decent conversation about Buddhism presenting much of the same info found in Acharya's work even by some of the same sources i.e Thundy, Christian Lindtner etc from 2005 and there appears to be no hysteria.

Is Christianity western BUDDHISM??
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?t=123887

:huh: