Jeffrey Gibson

There have been claims made here recently in conjunction with “proving” that Christianity is a form of warmed up Egyptian religion that the alleged model of Mary, i.e., Isis, was regarded by Egyptians as Mary came to be in Christianity, namely both an “immaculate virgin” (one who has never been penetrated – one who remains a virgin intacta) but also a “perpetual virgin” and that Isis bore titles that are later found to be applied to Mary.

When I have asked for proof that Isis was regarded as a perpetual vigin intacta, appeal has been made to the “fact” that the standard epithet for Isis, hwnt, means virgin intacta and that Isis is never depicted in Ancient Egyptian literature as having sexual intercourse.

And the proof adduced to support Isis having been the bearer of Marian titles long before Mary is the “fact”, noted by Egyptologist William Williamson (The Great Law: A Study of Religious Origins [Longmans, 1889] 26) that in ancient texts and inscriptions, Isis (as well as Neith) "was known by the titles of Mother of God, Immaculate Virgin, Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, The Morning Star, The Intercessor."

But given that those who were making these claims seemed to have no competency in ancient Egyptian and were unable to read, let alone cite, the texts that Williamson bases his claim upon (making these folks not competent to judge the validity of his Williamson’s claim), I decided to test these claims out with those who do know Egyptian and are familiar with Egyptian literature – the Egyptologists on the Ancient Near East-2, The Classics, and EEF (Yale) Discussion Lists – to see what they had to say.

Here’s what I posted:

I reproduce below the answers I have received to these questions. If what is said within them is true (and it will be the responsibility of anyone here who thinks it is not to demonstrate that it is not), then the supporters of the "Christianity is derived from Egyptian religion" hypothesis have one less leg to stand on since their claims about Isis, let alone what Egyptians believed about her, are wholly unfounded.

I note before closing that as yet another "proof" of the validity of the Mary=Isis idea, appeal has also been made about the competence in ancient Egyptian and the mastery of the relevant scholarly literature on ancient Egyptian religion (not to mention Isis) that the author of the book from which the "facts" supporting the Mary=Isis have been taken. I'll leave it to forum members to decide what the above shows about the validity of that appeal and the claims made in support of it. But one does wonder, if the author of this book is, as claimed, really up on the latest scholarship on Isis and therefore a foremost expert on Isis and matters Egyptian, why the articles and the reference works and the linguistic data cited in the quotations above is nowhere noted in her book, let alone taken into account if only to show that it is wrong in what it argues.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Here's another response to my question that just came in from an Associate Professor and the Director of Graduate Studies in the
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University
Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

and yet another:

outhouse

Those with less then complete educations on the subject often try and substitute influence for a complete foundation based on either poor sources or ignorance or both.


There is no foundation here, allthough influence to later dogma is obvious.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure I understand you. The issue is not one of "substituting influence" for anything (even if it was clear what "substituting influence" for something else means or entails), but whether there is any or enough good evidence to claim the dependence on, and derivation of, one set of ideas from another (in this instance, of Mary on and from supposed Egyptian depictions of Isis) -- and, of course, also whether those who claim -- especially at second hand -- that there is such evidence and who appeal to it to make their case, have the competence to judge how good this evidence is and have not misunderstood and/or misrepresented it -- the supposed "evidence" for Isis being regarded and named by ancient Egyptians as a perpetual virgin intacta being a case in point.

I take it, "outhouse" (-- seriously? "outhouse":huh, that English is not your first language.

Jeffrey

Toto

In the past, when Acharya S or her defenders have been challenged on the issue of the virginity of Isis, she has produced quotes that refer to Isis as a virgin, but also made it clear that this was not virginity as we understand it.

Jeffrey Gibson

Even if this is the case (and I'm hard pressed to see that it is what Robert Tulip has written here with respect to the nature of Isis's status as a "virgin"), the issue is not how we understand it, but how those early Christians who asserted "virginity" of Mary understood it.

It's also whether AS can read Egyptian or is solely reliant on her claims about what the Egyptian texts she cites texts say and/or what particular Egyptian words within them denote and connote on English translations of them and on tendentious scholarship.

Jeffrey

thief of fire

Thank you for going to the trouble to investigate this for the forum.

Jeffrey Gibson

My pleasure. Thank you for thanking me.

Jeffrey

Toto

The issue goes back some time. Robert Tulip made some vague references to a previous explanation by Acharya S.

Just to play a sort of devil's advocate for a minute, I think Acharya S is looking at broad patterns of religious thinking which are indicative of underlying psychic structures. I think she is assuming that Christianity was constructed from mythic themes, more as a literary exercise than as an exercise in logic. And what do we actually know about the earliest Christians' understanding of the virginity of Mary?

She connects the cross of the crucifixion with the cross of the zodiac. If you can see that connection, then connecting a virginal young woman with an Egyptian goddess whose female worshipers were at times virgins is easy.

Acharya S has never claimed to be able to read Egyptian hieroglyphics or anything similar. She relies on scholarship that she claims has been unfairly dismissed by the academic establishment.

I don't think you will find very many posters here who follow her, and only a few who take her seriously enough to try to debunk her. But it's an interesting exercise.