Freethought Nation

It is obvious that I was referring to the crucifixion being orchestrated by God to fulfill Old Testament prophetic typology, and NOT the Romans trying to do so. I even went on in my post to explicitly state as much, so there is no excuse for misconstruing what I was asking you here.

That is the jist of what I was asking and pointing out- is the belief that God, technically speaking, deliberately created parallels between Jesus & earlier stories any more or less logically justified than the belief that men, technically speaking, created parallels between Jesus and earlier stories.

What "most people" today think of when they hear the word "crucified" is irrelevant to what people at the time of the New Testament would have thought when they heard it.

As D already pointed out to you, Josephus called the hanging of the Chief Baker on a tree in the Joseph story a "crucifixion", and yes, it was the same Greek word he used elsewhere for Roman crucifixion, so clearly the word was NOT exclusive to Roman crucifixion as far as people like Josephus were concerned.

Josephus was not "expanding" the definition of the word.

However, this seems moot, as it is just a matter of semantics. If you wish for me to not refer to the hanging of Osiris on a tree as a "crucifixion" that is absolutely fine. I've never referred to the hanging of the serpent on the staff as a crucifixion either, and neither did Jesus. And yet we both have seen a parallel there to Christ's own crucifixion. So fine, I'll humor you. The word "crucifixion" will here-after be dropped when referring to something other than the Roman crucifixion.

And so again, I ask you, do you think Paul and Jesus were bringing apparent significance where none really existed?

But that aside, yes, there are variants in which he was hung on the outside of the tree. I know of at least two. One at Denderah, written in hieroglyphs, as recorded by Auguste Mariette, and another depicted iconographically at Philae, though I haven't seen the depiction myself, only read it described by scholars.

Well, I just did that above.

If it's a semantical issue, I can humor you on that. After all, Jesus & Paul never referred to their parallels as "crucifixions", nevertheless, they still likened them to Christ's crucifixion. And so from here on out I shall do the same, and follow their example, instead of following Josephus's example.

Also, when Christianity spread to Ethipoia in the 4th century CE, a country which since ancient times has had a heavy influence from Egypt and also worshipped Osiris(as Herodotus relates), the earliest Christian crosses we have from that area look just like the Egyptian Djed. So obviously when the Ethiopians at large were introduced to the story of Christ's crucifixion, to them, it bore a resemblence to the Djed of Osiris. I don't think they considered themselves to be misleading when they emulated iconography of something in which they saw such a succinct parallel.

What Egyptologists (and other scholars) say about Egypt's role in Christian origins

In this contentious field, there are those who - apparently absent of serious study of the subject - continue to insist unscientifically that Egypt, the massive culture that essentially dominated the Mediterranean for centuries, had little to no influence on Christianity.

As we know from the enormous amount of evidence I collected in my book Christ in Egypt, there are many parallels between the Egyptian religion and Christianity - some of them quite stunning. Those who have read my work also know that many Egyptologists themselves have noted these correspondences, and some of them were so certain of a relationship that they tried to prove the Egyptians had anticipated Christianity.

To argue against this idea - especially if one is supposedly a mythicist who contends that Jesus Christ is a mythical figure - represents ignorance of the subject matter, including the numerous opinions of these Egyptologists about supposed "Christian" ideas appearing in the Egyptian religion and mythology.

Here I will present a sampling of commentary by a number of well-known and respected Egyptologists (and others) dating back a couple of hundred years to the present.

Let me begin:


Dr. Erik Hornung, a professor of Egyptology at the University of Basel from 1967 to 1998, has been called "the world's leading authority" on the ancient Egyptian religious texts.

At this point, need I really say more? Nevertheless, I will...

Another Egyptologist Dr. Siegfried Morenz, a director of the Institute of Egyptology at the University of Leipzig, is likewise to the point (Egyptian Religion, 251):


Furthermore, in his book The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West (73), Dr. Hornung summarizes:


I cited this book in CIE over 40 times - there's much more there about the relationship between Christianity and the Egyptian religion. Notice the subtitle: "Its Impact on the West" - the entire book is designed to demonstrate how Egypt influenced "the West," i.e., Christendom.

As part of this impact on the West, which includes Rome, Hornung (SLE, 70) discusses the Egyptian religion's inroads into the highest strata of Roman society during the time of the Christian effort:


There is much more about the Egyptian influence throughout the Roman Empire during the period in question, a substantial amount of which I provide in Christ in Egypt.

In Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt (115-6), respected German Egyptologist Dr. Jan Assman - a professor of Egyptology at the University of Heidelberg from 1976 to 2003, currently at the University of Konstanz - remarks:


Note the phrase "Christian myth" here. Dr. Assman appears to know what he is looking at. But, how dare he engage in such comparative-religion speculation! Let us excoriate him and sully Assman's good name! How sloppy! What method is he using?! [/sarc]

Regarding the title of his article "The Baptism of the Pharaoh," Sir Dr. Alan H. Gardiner, one of the "premier" British Egyptologists of his day, remarks:


Let us castigate this esteemed Egyptologist for making such a comparative-religion analogy! Quel parallelomaniaque! (Note the apologetic tone, however, that even this highly regarded Egyptologist must make to NT scholars and theologians, so as not to offend the sensibilities of the faithful.)

To insist that such a correlation in important doctrine between these highly intertwined religious cults is either non-existent or unimportant ranks as unscientific.

In his book Akhenaten and the Religion of Light (13-14), in discussing earlier renowned Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted and amateur Egyptologist Sir Arthur Weigall, Hornung remarks:


(Note that Hornung's comment about Mann "succumbing" to Christian parallels concerns only the biographical material about Akhenaten, not the whole field of Christian origins vis-a-vis Egyptian religion, as his numerous other comments concerning associations demonstrate).

On p. 15, Hornung discusses Sigmund Freud:


As we can see, there is abundant precedent from numerous quarters suggesting Egyptian influence on Christianity (and its precursor Judaism). What's this? Egyptologist Dr. Assman evidently concurs!


We see what happens to those who do acknowledge a more significant influence - the ranks close and the insults are hurled.

As concerns an earlier generation, Sir Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge was a well-respected Egyptologist who ran the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum. Some of his work is naturally outdated, as much has happened since his time. This outdated material largely revolves around dictionaries and discoveries that have occurred in the past century. Budge's work was voluminous, and his tackling of the Egyptian religion remains quite valuable. He is one of the scholars who was so astonished by the Egypto-Christian parallels that he thought the Christian religion was the fulfillment of the Egyptian promise.

Here is just one quote out of many that Budge made concerning the blatantly obvious correspondences between the Egyptian religion and Christianity (Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life, 48:


Here's another quote by Egyptologist Budge (Egyptian Tales and Romances, 12):


And again, we hear from Budge (The Gods of Egypt, I, xv-xvi):


Budge's Egyptoparallelomania continues ("The Cult of Isis and the Worship of the Virgin Mary compared,” Legends of Our Lady Mary, 1):


Here is yet another Egyptologist who points out Egyptian priority of "Judeo-Christian" concepts: Dr. Ogden Goelet, a professor of Egyptian language and culture at New York and Columbia Universities. In his well-known edition of (The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 18), Goelet states:


To assert that Judaism and Christianity "embraced" the notion indicates Goelet believes the idea was passed along from the Egyptian religion to Judaism and Christianity.

In this same regard, Dr. James S. Curl, a professor emeritus at the Queen's University of Belfast, remarks (The Egyptian Revival, 66):


(Curl is not an Egyptologist, but since he has a PhD he must be right, according to the "logic" of credentialists.)

In this same regard, another professional scholar, Dr. Richard A. Gabriel, concludes (Jesus the Egyptian, 2):


(Gabriel is a historian, so also by credentialist "logic," we must believe him uncritically.)

Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mosjov summarizes the Christian effort nicely, bringing it all back to Alexandria, which is, I contend, the crucible of Christianity (Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God, xii):


As we can see, there is quite a bit of opinion by Egyptologists that Christianity was significantly influenced by the Egyptian religion.

To insist there is no such influence and to single me out with bilious anti-Egypt attacks - as if I just made it all up - represents not scholarship but petulance.

As another example, on p. 75, Hornung writes:


On p. 60, Hornung states:


On p. 76, Hornung comments:


So, why are the Coptic Christian legends of Jesus in Egypt "natural enough?" Could it be because there is so much correspondence between Christianity and the Egyptian religion?

Notice how Hornung considers Smith's research to be "careful" - will we hear shrieks and rants about how sloppy the scholarship of these various scholars is, or is that irrational and false smear strictly reserved for me, because I dare follow up on these scholars' leads and dig even deeper?

(Funny how people who make egregious errors turn around and attack the individuals who discover their errors, calling them "sloppy!" Note also how meticulously I cite my research, with numerous sources, including primary sources as well as a variety of translations - apparently that's considered "sloppy," but making erroneous contentions about subjects one could find even on Wikipedia, that's not "sloppy!" You know the old adage about the three fingers pointing back at you when you are pointing at someone else?

Here's another opinion: "D.M. Murdock is a genius. Her scholarship on this subject is impeccable and has conducted the most thorough research I've ever read." --David Kim. Note the phrase "I've ever read" - he's actually read my work before pretending to be an expert on it.)

Tying this all into my next project - an almost-finished lengthy review/summary of Buddhist scholar Dr. Michael Lockwood's anthology Buddhism's Relation to Christianity - in SLE (3), Hornung states:


Neith-Isis's perpetual virginity and the Sais inscription

And here we go again with all the fracas over the pre-Christian virgin birth - seems to be a difficult concept to comprehend. I would highly recommend the fantastic scholarly study by Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso entitled, Virgin Mothers of Antiquity, in which she discusses the virgin-mother status of the goddess Neith, whose temple of Sais has been discussed many times here and elsewhere. In any case, Budge is an Egyptologist who likewise perceived the Neith-Isis temple inscription at Sais to reflect the perpetual virginity of that goddess. Highlighting a Budge quote provided above:


(This subject is Comparative Religion 101, folks)

Here's a great quote from Jan Assman, concerning the story by Diodorus and Plutarch of Isis inseminating herself with Osiris's replaced phallus. In Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt (25), Assman says:


And then there's this old standby, from Egyptologist Dr. Reginald E. Witt, a professor at the University of London (Isis in the Ancient World, 273):


Again, I provide much more information on the VIRGIN-MOTHERHOOD OF ISIS, for those who care to follow up on this subject. This beaten horse is already long dead, however.

Elsewhere, Dr. Witt dares to make many other comparisons - horrors! - as I relate in Christ in Egypt (166-7):



[To be continued - as anyone who has read CIE knows, there is much more of the same... I can go on all day like this - it's like eating peanuts!]

Interesting. Do you have a good source for further research on this? I did a little Googling, but didn't find a good source online. I'd talked to people about Osiris and the Djed pillar before, but never heard anyone mention him having been outside the pillar, so this is new to me.

Paul likened the crucifixion of Christ to the custom in the Mosaic law of post-humously hanging the corpse of a stoned criminal upon a tree until sunset. "For cursed is that which hangeth upon a tree".

Tat,

As I've already said, University-level scholars will be accepted as sources, as some of the people on the list were. So it's just a question of which of the claims those scholars confirm.

Yesterday's News


I'm back discussing things on the FreeThoughtNation forum (re-joining on page 11 - Here's a link). I'm asking if the people on the forum can meet the Copycat Challenge as it relates to Horus. So far, two of them (FreeThinkaLuva and Tat Tvam Asi) say they can easily meet it, and another one (Voice Of Reason) is calling them "ignorant" and saying they haven't carefully examined my challenge, and is declaring that they will fail if they try. Of course, he seems to think the problem is with my challenge, and not with the evidence.

When I asked FreeThinkaLuva why university-level scholars reject the mythicist case, his response is that they:

1) Aren't required to study it (though that's hardly a good reason, since even those so-called scholars that do study it weren't required to, either, and it didn't stop them)

2) Have pressure from up-top not to step on Christianity's toes (which doesn't make sense, given university-level scholars like Bart Ehrman who are frequently writing books against Christianity. Guess he didn't get the memo?)

3) Work for universities that are frequently founded by religous institutions (which doesn't explain why the exact same "discrimination" exists in universities without a religious past, even in countries where Christianity isn't a major force).

I'm still trying to get them to present the evidence for at least half of the Horus claims, but they're being quite resistant to doing so. If they ever do, I've promised them to post it at my website, and I will. The only thing they've given so far is a reference to Macrobius talking about Horus being born in a cave (though they can't find the Macrobius quote itself, just a reference to it from Arthur Thomson in the 19th century). The problem here is that Macrobius is writing in the 5th century AD, thus this doesn't confirm the claim to be pre-Christian.

By the way, this is my favorite quote from FreeThinkaLuva so far: "Speaking of judgments and interpretations KD8, as I made categorically clear from the onset, you're in no position to be a judge or interpret anything whatsoever as you have zero relevant credentials and haven't even read or studied the material from mythicists to know the case for mythicism that's been made. Same with non-Christians, non-mythicists and even skeptics and atheists; just because someone claims to be those things does NOT mean they have any idea what they're talking about." (emphasis mine)

So basically absolutely no one is allowed to judge or interpret anything related to mythicism unless they already believe in mythicism!

"Scholars in general can also be notoriously cautious, particularly when it comes to stepping on the toes of mainstream institutions, especially those of a religious bent—and there have been many such establishments, including major universities like Yale and Harvard, both of which started as Christian divinity schools.1 Numerous other institutions in the Christian world were either founded specifically as Christian universities and colleges or had seminaries attached to them. As stated on the Princeton Theological Seminary website, regarding early American education:

Within the last quarter of the eighteenth century, all learning…could be adequately taught and studied in the schools and colleges, nearly all of which were church initiated.2

1. See the Yale Divinity School website: "Training for the Christian Ministry was a main purpose in the founding of Yale College in 1701." ("History of Yale Divinity School.") See also the Harvard Divinity School website: “The origins of Harvard Divinity School and the study of theology at Harvard can be traced back to the very beginning of Harvard College.” ("Harvard Divinity School–History and Mission.") http://www.hds.harvard.edu/history.html

2 "About Princeton Theological Seminary–History of the Seminary."
http://www.ptsem.edu/About/mission.php

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 505

"Controversy preceded the founding of the College, with various groups competing to determine its location and religious affiliation ... Anglicans prevailed"

"In July 1754...the first classes in a new schoolhouse adjoining Trinity Church"

http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/history.html

"The only thing they've given so far is a reference to Macrobius talking about Horus being born in a cave (though they can't find the Macrobius quote itself, just a reference to it from Arthur Thomson in the 19th century). The problem here is that Macrobius is writing in the 5th century AD, thus this doesn't confirm the claim to be pre-Christian."

"By the way, this is my favorite quote from FreeThinkaLuva so far: "Speaking of judgments and interpretations KD8, as I made categorically clear from the onset, you're in no position to be a judge or interpret anything whatsoever as you have zero relevant credentials and haven't even read or studied the material from mythicists to know the case for mythicism that's been made. Same with non-Christians, non-mythicists and even skeptics and atheists; just because someone claims to be those things does NOT mean they have any idea what they're talking about." (emphasis mine)

So basically absolutely no one is allowed to judge or interpret anything related to mythicism unless they already believe in mythicism!"

I'm still trying to get them to present the evidence for at least half of the Horus claims, but they're being quite resistant to doing so.

At this point I've gone through almost half of David's list from the CC and I can see that far more than half of the paralles are justified by university level publications, scholars, and primary sources cited in CiE.

Why don't you use the information to win the challenge yourself, by meeting your own challenge with the information already cited in CiE? Save yourself a few bucks...