Celsus

Andrew is completely correct on this point, and Carrier either simply wrong, or his characterisation is reductionistic. Inanna is already in the netherworld when she is killed after enraging Ereshkigal, she is hung on a hook (note that tlh (Aramaic, I don't have the Sumerian word), "hanged", sometimes can be interpreted as crucifixion, but in the absence of any evidence that the Sumerians practiced such a thing, and a hook is mentioned, interpreting it as "crucifixion" is stretching it). After three days of being missing, Ninshubur then begins to carry out instructions to raise her back, first from Enlil (who refuses to help), then Nanna (ditto), and finally Enki. Here Carrier forgets to mention that Enki creates two little beings called When she is risen, the gods stopped her and demand she find a substitute, which is, as Andrew states, the luckless Dumuzi (who didn't show her enough respect when she went looking for a substitute). From the Sumerian tablets this portion is fragmentary, but it appears that Dumuzi attempts to escape, but the demons eventually catch him. Interestingly enough, Inanna's purpose for going into the netherworld was to gain power over it, but she fails. However, her power over mortals is demonstrated by her ability to consigne Dumuzi to the netherworld in her place.

The direct parallel between Inanna is Ishtar's descent to the netherworld, being the Akkadian version of the myth. Ishtar appears to enter the netherworld through an entrance in the earth, unlike Inanna's "abandonment" of heaven and earth (not skipping, as Carrier claims). In this case, Ereshkigal commands Namtar to release 60 diseases to kill Ishtar. Another possible parallel is the search for Damu in the netherworld by his mother, but this neo-Assyrian text is very fragmentary and cannot be chronologically arranged. Similarly, Inanna makes several other journeys in her quest for power, not limited to Enki's temple (an epic journey that Ninurta also undertakes), and one recorded in A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna. Naturally, I'm very hesitant to try to forcefit any similarities into an "exact parallel" like what Carrier has done. One look at all of these journey-myths is that there is an initial defeat, help is sought from the upper world or origin, and then final success is obtained. In this way, we can understand these as liturgical myths quite different from the Christian myth.

A greater concern is how someone establishing a parallel with Sumerian myths and Christian ones can establish a viable pathway for transmission. This, in my opinion, is impossible.

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Andrew wrote: "Inanna is not incarnated in Hell"

It is my understanding that each layer had its set of beings and to descend and interact with the beings at a different layer, the descending being had to incarnate to a form like the other beings.

Would this be correct Joel?

I mean even in AoI, we have Jesus transforming himself at each lower level to take the relevant form there. And besides AoI, we have Plutarch's Osiris and Romulus per Livy, Ovid and Plutarch about who, Carrier writes, "[Romulus] is a heavenly being who descends, incarnates on earth, establishes an empire, is killed by a conspiracy of leaders, resurrects, and ascends back to heaven."

Andrew, where does the text on Inanna say specifically that she had to travel around earth?

Joel, its unclear how "viable pathway for transmission" is relevant in judging the validity of the parallel. Please elaborate because I am not aware that the transmission pathway was part of the argument. The operative phrase was "proof of concept", not "origin of concept".

In my understanding, the parallel is suitable because it has a being die and resurrect without passing or stopping at the earth. That was the nexus: the location where the death and resurrection takes place does not have to be the earth. Thus Jesus did not have to die on earth.

As Carrier writes, "the 'true' Osiris incarnates and dies in the aer, not on earth, so he cuts a perfect parallel for D.'s thesis"

"Skipping" is based on the sequence of layers. Do you disagree with the order of the layers as provided by Carrier?

How exactly is "abandonment" more apt?

"Direct parallel" is based on the specific point one is trying to establish via the analogy. You do agree on that point, dont you?

If you do, then you concur that the parallel is exact for you because of what you are looking for when juxtaposing the two examples. You may find the parallels inexact because your goalpost is different from Carrier's.

Btw, you may want to read Doherty's response to Muller. He gives a good exposition of the aer and the understanding of the middle platonic thinkers and the ancients on the nature of the different beings - gods, men, demons etc.

Celsus

Rereading my post, I realised I never completed a statement: It should read "Here Carrier forgets to mention that Enki creates two little beings called kur-gar-ra and gala-tur-ra, who use the magic water and plant (not food) given by Enki to resurrect Inanna.
It is unclear what this had to do with Sumerian myth. Remember, we are talking of a gap of at least 2000 years between the two myths. The Sumerian netherworld is quite distinct from the Egyptian one, and even more distinct from Plutarch's caricature, or the late Persian/early Christian version of Hell (not to be confused with Dante's of course). Naturally, since all relate to the afterlife, there is always the sense of permanence from which no one can return, but that is hardly a "parallel" because death is universal. If you are trying to draw similarities between the two, you'll have to demonstrate much further than just noting the permanence of death and the mythic figure who happens to beat it (in whatever form).
It's simple. I could give you parallels between any type of myth in the world, but that doesn't say anything about the influence of one upon the other. Towards the end of his career, Cyrus Gordon came up with equally dodgy linguistic affinities between American languages and Semitic (as well as with Chinese languages, etc.). (Don't tell Willowtree this.) Of course parallels can be found if you know what to look for, but what is needed to seal the influence is demonstration of pathways by which ideas could be transmitted. When we're talking a 2000 year gap (notice: the neo-Assyrian texts on Damu are quite distinct from the Dumuzi ones, even if they bear some superficial similarities), you're going to have to demonstrate how this idea survives relatively unaltered during this period. In my opinion, that is quite an extraordinary claim. That's why Carrier is simply wrong on this point, and in fact I expect that sort of argumentation from Acharya S, not him.
Remember that Osiris according to Plutarch is completely different from the Egyptian one. In the Egyptian cult, Osiris is representative of the dead pharoah, and Seth, his killer, is the new pharoah. Death is universal, so we'd expect myths about death and the afterlife to have similarities all over the world--like the permanence of death, and then of course a myth that overcomes death in whatever form would have great appeal. That does not mean that one borrowed from the other. At the same time, religious syncretism is commonly attested, but that does not mean that one form of the religious beliefs meant the same things to two different groups of believers (Gnostic vs. Orthodox interpretations are a good example of this).
I'd prefer to see what Carrier means by "direct" parallel. "Crucifixion", "food of life", "three days", "ascends back to heaven, again skipping earth" are all simply wrong. The death by impalement is one thing, the magical plant given by Enki is another, three days before action is taken is yet another, and the complete omission of Inanna's search for a replacement for her in the netherworld all tell me Carrier has either been hoodwinked, or is being disingenuous. Neither of these reflect well on him.

"Abandonment" is more apt because that is the term used for Inanna's descent: inanna an mu-un-šub ki mu-un-šub kur-ra ba-e-a-e translated as "Inanna has abandoned heaven, abandoned earth, and is descending to the netherworld" (C. Penglase, Greek Myths and Mesopotamia, p. 26, citing Epic of Gilgamesh XII.i.5). It is not skipping, it's leaving.
No, see above. I don't buy cheap parallelism.
I will when I have the time. Cheers.

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Celsus,
It may be of assistance if you could help us understand "the channel of transmission" from Sumerian Unapitshim to Hebrew Noah.

AFAIK, nobody is arguing that Paul borrowed from the Egyptian myths. That is a standard you have yourself introduced and have consequently faulted Doherty and Carrier for not adhering to it.

I see no reason why they should be obligated to have their parallels conform to your standard since it is sufficient for their purposes.

They are not arguing that Paul's cosmological understanding and soretiology directly derived from those precedents. That would be a daunting task and beyond the scope of the arguments presented.

But generally speaking, between the 2000 years or so gap of conquest, migrations and civilizations, I am sure a lot of cultural and philosphical cross-pollination took place between the various cultures and the Greco-Roman milieu from which Paul emerged must have been rich in its mixture of various philosophical and mythical constructs because of the expanse of Alexander's empire and its rich precedents.

Lets try a quick chronology.

Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization besides Egypt, Meso America, China and Indus Valley, was first occupied by the Ubaidians, then Sumerians came in and their language even replaced that of their forerunners, then Akkadians under Sargon took over (c. 2330 B.C.E) and his semitic empire spead over the Mediterranean including Egypt.
The Akkadian empire fell c. 2218 B.C.E and while the mesopotamian civilization underwent several upheavals, the Egyptians enjoyed relative peace.

C. 2000 BCE, the Babylonians from the south and Assyrians from the North came in, with the latter politically dominant and the former more culturally dominant. It is understood that the Assyrians even used the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian for their own official records.

Anyway, 1792-1750 B.C.E., Hammurabi unified the area around Babylon, then the Assyrian empire arose 1350 B.C.E., then it controlled the whole of Mesopotamia including Persia, Syria, Palestine and parts of Egypt by 730-650 B.C.E. It fell c. 612 B.C.E and the second Babylonian empire arose (the Chaldeans). The Persians took over c539 B.C.E. And c. 331 B.C.E. Alexander takes over from the Persians. Greek language and culture dominates the whole region like a bushfire and the Seleucids came from this era.

Alexander's empire, of course, covered Egypt. In 30 B.C.E. Cleopatra, who was the last of the Ptolemies died as the Romans took over from the Greeks.

And our friend Paul emerged from the Roman empire.

Viable channel of transmission? from the Egyptians to Paul? I think it is easily conceivable. Cultures do not operate in isolation and lots of cross-pollination takes place.

Besides, Paul appears to be well acquainted with Platonic worldview (if the Phillipians passage that has an unnamed god descending is anything to go by) and definitely enjoyed imbibing the succulent philosophy that flowed from the rich culture Plutarch (46-c.122) also emerged from.

But I think that is a separate point which we can argue at a separate thread for your own private amusement [By the way, I am a fan of your Archaeology Series]. The fact of the matter is, these exact parallels prove that, per the ancient worldview, death of the dying and resurrecting godmen did not have to entail a sojourn on earth.

I do not think that the ideas were unaltered, or that that their being unaltered is part of the argument being advanced by carrier and Doherty. But the parallels demonstrate that the ideas had precedents and were therefore not inconceivable or unlikely.

Of course ideas and motifs are altered as cultures come in contact. The result of their confluence never follow any fixed pattern and what is abandoned and retained as a result is entirely arbitrary because what "works" for one generation and culture differs from its counterparts.

This is true and is consistent with what Doherty is arguing.
Of course. I can't go to the bathroom without leaving the bedroom. I can't believe that that is the argument you were making. It is obviated by the context for Christs sake.

Is this really the point you were making? If it is, then you misunderstood Carrier and have made a trivial point.

Earth is between heaven and the netherworld. Inanna is in heaven. If she goes to the netherworld without a sojourn through earth, she has skipped earth and has gone to the netherworld directly. That is the point Carrier was making.

"Skipping" earth is a trivial point.
"Direct parallel" is a phrase undergirded by what one is specifically arguing. In Carrier's case, I believe it is justified.
I am not aware that Carrier is arguing the rest. I believe you are missing the thrust of his argument. Unless of course you are willing to show where Carrier is arguing that Inanna's manner of death (impalement or whatever) directly parallels Jesus crucifiction.

Celsus, I think this view is rather naive. First of all, any parallel has differences so it is quite unfruitful to spend time bringing the differences out - unless of course you beieve history repeats itself exactly, or that ideas that are borrowed, or that are obtained via syncretism, have to be absorbed in toto. I am sure you do not believe this. It does not have to be a "perfect 100% match", that would make it a replica, not a parallel.

And this approach would make argument by analogy, which is a logical approach to argumentation, unacceptable. Robert Price has dealt with this line of criticism in the past when addressing Holding.

It is the similarities that matter when one is showing parallels. Let me break this down: do you agree that there is any similarity between Inanna's death & resurrection vs the death and resurrection of Jesus as per Doherty's thesis?

I dont think what you buy is important, because, ultimately, that is a subjective affair. We are interested in seeing whether you are raising the bar within reasonable limits, or whether you are raising it beyond reasonable limits.

So far, you want exact photocopies of the concepts being compared accross cultures and religions, with every dot and hairline appearing the same. I find that position unreasonable and unjustified.

andrewcriddle

Upon Inanna ascending from the nether world
Ninshubur threw himself at her feet
Sat in the dust dressed in sackcloth
The demons say to the pure Inanna
O Inanna wait before thy citry let us carry him off
The pure Inanna answers the demons
(Inanna here has a speech in effect asking the demons not to harm Ninshubur because of what he has done for her)
[the demons reply]
Let us accompany her in Umma to the Sigkurshagga let us accompany her
In Umma from the Sigkurshagga
Shara threw himself at her feet
Sat in the dust dressed in sackcloth
The demons say to the pure Inanna
O Inanna wait before thy city let us carry him off
The pure Inanna answers the demons
(section unreadable)
[the demons reply]
Let us accompany her in Badtibira to the Emushkalamma let us accompany her
In Badtibira from the Emushkalamma
Latarak threw himself at her feet
Sat in the dust dressed in sackcloth
The demons say to the pure Inanna
O Inanna wait before thy city let us carry him off
The pure Inanna answers the demons
(tablet ends)

Other Sumerian evidence indicates that apparently Dumuzi is eventually seized by the demons as a substitute for Inanna.

Andrew Criddle

Celsus

This one is simple (and incidentally, Utnapishtim is Babylonian, Atrahasis is Sumerian). All of us are by now familiar with the thematic similarities, but the structural and linguistic similarities are very obvious as well. The key structural sequence of events in Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, and the Hebrew Bible is repeated (I don't think I should have to type this out, it is very well attested--creation, men turning causing trouble, gods deciding to destroy man, singling out a single worthy man to be saved, building a big boat, surviving the flood, sacrifice of thanksgiving), but beyond that, the linguistic similarities are unavoidable. Much of the language in the Hebrew version was considered arcane and difficult to ascertain until they were compared with the Akkadian versions. For example, Hebrew koper (pitch, bitumen) is from the Akkadian kupru (both words occur in the same location in the texts--see Blenkinsopp's discussion, The Pentateuch, 1992). "Gopher" wood, goper, is less certain, but has affinities to Akkadian kaparta or bakkoper (the pun with koper should be obvious). Linguistic leftovers can be understood as fossils left by the pathway of transmission--the task is much more difficult in the absence of such. Finally, to seal it, we know that this myth was widespread in the ANE, from at least the 22nd century BCE (Atrahasis) into Classical times (Ovid), and versions of this myth were discovered even as far afield as Hattusas (and Hittite myth is very different from Semitic myths). Greek contact with the myth is probable around the 8th century on, with the arrival of Greek mercenaries, continued trade through Phoenicia, and so on. So at a thematic, structural, and linguistic similarities, combined with a historically plausible pathway, this parallel is very well attested.
Where have I mentioned Paul? I'm suggesting that parallels found (created?) does not equate to influence. If there is no influence, then why are Doherty or Carrier even bringing this up? The Osiride parallels have already been dispensed with before, Plutarch's Hellenised version of the Osiris myth only says something about Hellenistic interpretations of such myths, not about the origins of the myths themselves.
It is not my standard, it is a standard set forth by M.S. Smith, Walter Burkert, G.S. Kirk, Jeffrey Tigay, J.Z. Smith, S.N. Kramer, etc. I don't think Doherty or Carrier have read enough on this subject to speak as confidently as they do.
If that's the case (which is hardly remarkable), why weaken it by claiming "direct parallels" when the experts have already weighed in to dismiss them? Why not focus on Platonism, which, as a philosophical doctrine is a much better source of influence? Of course, that again is hardly remarkable since the Christian writers already proclaim it quite proudly.
You haven't demonstrated anything but gross generalisations. Ptolemaic Egypt was considerably different from Saite or Achaemenid Egpyt, let alone anything earlier. Greek contact with Mesopotamia came mostly via Phoenicia, firstly, but by the 8th century onward, Greek mercenaries were in Egypt and elsewhere. That didn't make Herodotus' account of Egyptian history and culture any more accurate, nor does it demonstrate Paul's familiarity with the Hellenistic or Egyptian milieu.
Reading Plutarch as a source for Egyptian religion is like reading 19th-century Christian missionaries for an account of African religions. They may have got the names right, but their understanding of it was completely skewed by their own Christian/Hellenistic worldviews. What it does tell us is something about Hellenistic interpretations, not anything about Egyptian religion per se. There is also precious little evidence of borrowing from Egypt to Greek or vice versa. Osiris/Isis (or the Hellenistic invention Sarapis--Osiris-Apis) were attractive because they were exotic and different. At the same time, it was believed that Demeter and Isis were very similar by ancient Greeks (but no evidence that the same was thought by ancient Egyptians), which led to conflation (another aspect of syncretism rarely explored by parallelists who wish to demonstrate one-way borrowing from Hellenistic to Christian beliefs) over the centuries. This obscures our understanding of their origins even further.

Haven't we been through this before?
Thanks for the compliments, but Carrier is simply wrong about Inanna's descent "skipping" earth. Haven't I already made that clear that everything he said is a bowdlerisation, where the "parallels" are merely special pleading? Let me repeat myself, and I don't like doing this: Look closely at the translations above--I gave the Akkadian for a reason. The first thing to note is that an (an-gal) means the "great above" (heaven), and ki (ki-gal) the "great below" (earth--Samuel Kramer's translation). Inanna abandoned (mu-un-šub) both--thus the "upperworld" includes both heaven and earth. Do you disagree with this reading? Does Carrier? Has anyone informed him of this thread? The part Andrew has quoted is specific to Inanna's return, which is obviously to earth. However, it is very clear that she enters the netherworld via a ganzir, some sort of gate, after travelling across Uruk, Badtibira, Zabalam, Adab, Nippur, Kish, and Akkad (northwest up the Euphrates). Unfortunately Penglase is crap at references, so I have no idea what Ni 368 and CBS 9800 are.
If that's the case, let me tell you about the remarkable parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy (you have heard of these, right? They're ridiculous, correct? That's not how historians work, yes?). Carrier himself went on about a "direct parallel", when in fact every single one of his points were wrong, or phrased in such a way as to create a parallel where previously there was none. If he believes "hung on a hook" (Penglase)/"impaled on a stake (ANET, IIRC) are "crucifixions", then I don't know what to think of Carrier anymore. Someone should inform him of this thread. I believe he'll concede the point for not having examined the details at all closely.

For his benefit, let's look at his statements again, categorically:
Wrong, until he presents a different translation for inanna ... ki mu-un-šub. Secondly, she enters the netherworld via a ganzir, said to be located in the Zagros mountains (W.R. Sladek, Inanna's Descent to the Underworld, PhD Diss., Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1974). Ritually, the direction is toward the city of Kutu, which is mentioned interchangeably with the netherworld in the Akkadian version (demonstrating that this cultic journey was probably mimicked by its adherents--there is other information that attests to this but this goes beyond the scope of my critique), though Kutu is not mentioned in the Sumerian version.
Wrong, she is wearing the same clothing she was wearing when she entered, and is stripped by the gate-keeper Neti. "Hell" is an interesting choice of word, but is anachronistic and sloppy.
She is killed, yes, while already in the netherworld, by its queen, Ereshkigal. In the Sumerian version, this is either translated as "hung on a hook" or "impaled on a stake". The only way I can see Carrier interpreting this as crucified is based on the Aramaic tlh, which is either "hung" or possibly "crucified", but its the wrong language at the wrong time. The Akkadian version has Ishtar catching 60 diseases. If Andrew has the translation and original transliteration here, it would be gratefully received.
First of all, it is a magical plant of life (yes, Inanna eats the plant, but calling it "food" demonstrates the reductionism necessary to make it a parallel) created for the specific purpose of resurrecting Inanna. Secondly, the creation of two creatures by Enki, their flattering of Ereshkigal, etc. and other features of the story are completely glossed over.
After three days is correct just like Jesus was crucified after at least three days of ministry. After three days is when Ninshubur begins to act, having been given the instruction by Inanna that should something happen to her, he must find some way to rescue her. He still has to travel to find Enlil (at Nippur), Nanna, and finally Enki (at Eridu).
Wrong again, as Andrew and I have both mentioned, a fundamentally important aspect of this tale is that she scours the earth looking for a replacement for her in the netherworld, eventually settling on Dumuzi. This suggests to me that Carrier has not read the myth at all, and is relying on second-hand information of unknown provenance.

Back to Jacob:
No, the point is that if you go around looking for similarities, you'll find them, but that won't actually tell you anything about the religious practices on their own terms. Osiris parallels are dead. So are Adonis, Attis, Baal, Phoenician Herakles/Melqart, etc. Inanna is probably one of the worst cases out there (most parallelists focus on Dumuzi's journey to the underworld and his mother's (Geshtinanna) hunt for him (a parallel story that conflates elements of the Inanna myth). Are we to accept that death involving wood and suspension in the air are all it takes to address a parallel? Then in that case, we may as well throw in the rest of the tlh language and include hanging so we can find even more "parallels". The point is, similarities (with no linguistic or structural similarities, nor viable pathways), especially when forced (per Carrier's example: please reread my first post in this thread and explain how Carrier's description in any way holds up to scrutiny), are hardly convincing grounds on which to argue. We should have left this behind after T.H. Gaster.

Secondly, have you even read the myth of Inanna's descent, or scholarly work on it? I suspect Carrier has done so at best fleetingly, so I would be very wary of defending those assertions of his.
Non sequitur. There is a difference between dismissing parallels and arguing from analogy: the latter is merely a didactic/illustrative device, not an argument in itself. Secondly, Holding is actually correct on the critique of dying-and-rising gods, only because he plagiarised Mark Smith without daring to explore Smith's thesis on its own terms (since Smith, though a Catholic, is far too radical for an Evangelical position such as his).
Of course there are similarities. There are also similarities between Abe Lincoln and J.F.K. when you set out to find them. The question is, so what?
No, I am simply pointing out that there is a world of difference between the parallels found in (e.g.) the Noachian deluge and Gilgamesh, as opposed to Osiris/Inanna and Christian belief. One of the key aspects, totally ignored by ahistorical and anachronistic comparisons between such distinct cultures as Sumerian and Hellenistic beliefs, is the linguistic affinities. These, in my opinion, seal the case even in the absence of direct pathways (for instance, the Ugaritic corpus and the Bible). When similar stories with the same jargon are used in the same sequence, separated by millenia, there is little point in arguing against a parallel. It is quite a different matter to demonstrate similarities in theme, after creating reductionistic summaries (with the reductions always favouring the "parallels", per Carrier's "food of life"), and then call them "parallels". The problem, Jacob, is that you are so quick to seize similarities as evidence of something or other, when the proper first step is merely to try to understand these religions on their own terms.

I do recognise certain similarities (after all, just look at how much I like Smith, as opposed to Zevit), but I'm not prepared to concede them until you demonstrate that you are studying the religion on its own merits and not trying to demonstrate a tenuous influence on Christianity, especially involving unwarranted reductionism the likes of which Carrier has demonstrated in his set of assertions. In my opinion, the greedy reductionism and parallelomania of Freke and Gandy or Acharya S do much harm to the study of syncretism, and Price's or Doherty's sympathy for the former makes their own approaches suspect if they can't tell obviously rubbish scholarship apart from the good. That is why those who want to pursue this path have to be even more cautious than those without such a commitment. It's exactly the same principle I stated in my essay on Dever, when I argued that conservative Christian scholars should be the most skeptical of unprovenanced finds that support their positions (and vice versa for skeptical scholars and evidence that supports non-biblical practices).

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Andrew,
I asked you a direct question and the passage you cite, with demons and all, serve to support my contention that Inanna sought Dumuzi in the netherworld.

Further, your contention that she did not incarnate is contrary to the general associative framework we see the crossing godmen conform to when they cross the layers.
I gave the example of Jesus in AoI and Romulus above which neither you nor Celsus challenged. I used them to demonstrate that for a being to cross from one layer to the next, they ordinarily underwent incarnation and thereby took on a different form before interacting with the beings in the different layer.
For Inanna not to have incarnated would make her case unique.

Celsus,
Thanks for your post. Very clearly written. I like clarity.
Now, I should mention that I have alerted Carrier and Doherty to the developments here so we can expect a response from either of them due course.

I will respond later. Got to run now.

Celsus

Com'on how much more clear do you need it to be? The demons escort Inanna, while the people she meets are all humans. Those places she goes to are Sumerian cities! If Dumuzi is in the netherworld already, how can he possibly be a replacement for Inanna who wants to leave the netherworld, but needs an upperworld replacement?
The reason that I did not respond, is because mixing up Roman/Hebrew myth with Sumerian myths in order to invoke a general rule is a really basic error. I thought you'd see that for yourself.
No worries. I look forward to what they have to say, but naturally my critique is only substantive with respect to the Inanna myth. I defer to Mark Smith and others on Osiris.

Joel

gurugeorge

Hmmm. Yes, but, just as a general point, isn't that sort of sloppy scholarship the sort of scholarship that's likely to have gone into the forming of syncretic and eclectic beliefs at that time?

I mean, scholars have exacting standards nowadays, but the sorts of people who created Christianity didn't have the same standards, did they? IOW, they weren't necessarily interested in (e.g.) Egyptian religion per se - they were interested in how their own (sloppy) Hellenistic interpretation of (e.g.) Egyptian religion meshed with their own concerns.

Celsus

Well yes, but that's begging a few questions. What you wrote leads to conflation, as I said above. For example, the Egyptians, when writing in Greek, simply used the Greek functional equivalents to describe their own gods. That does not mean Helios = Ra even though the Egyptians called Ra, "Helios" when writing in Greek. Conflation, however, is the opposite of what Doherty is suggesting, if I understand correctly. It is often suggested that Manetho was writing his history in opposition to Herodotus' as a sort of rebuttal of Herodotus' misunderstandings about Egypt. For instance, his first rulers of Egypt (in order) are Hephaistos, Helios, Sosis/Agathodaimon, Osiris/Osiris-Isis, Typhon, Bidis, and Thoulis. His demigod rulers are Horos, Ares, Anubis, Herakles, Apollo, Ammon, Tithoes, Sosos, and Zeus. That doesn't mean that Egyptians and Greeks worshipped the same gods by any stretch (nor that Manetho believed that Greek gods shared power with Egyptian ones)! However, this sort of thing can be confusing to people (like me) when we first read the ancient sources. A Greek reading that with no knowledge of Egyptian religion could easily interpret Manetho as saying that Egyptian and Greek pantheons were commensurable, but we know for a fact that both religions had long independent evolutionary paths.

The same goes for Christianity, at least in Geza Vermes's version (which I believe he is broadly correct on this point). It began as distinctively Jewish, though when translated into the Hellenistic world, the Hellenistic interpretation probably caused some aspects of it to be understood differently (perhaps this was the dispute between James and Paul). That does not mean its origins, even of Pauline doctrines, were necessarily Platonic, Egyptian, or Hellenistic. Did some later Greek/Roman Christians treat it as a mystery cult? Who knows--perhaps this led to conflation. Since I have read nothing by Doherty or Carrier that deals with how they separate conflation from divergence, I won't comment more on that.

Joel