GakuseiDon

Except it is clear that this is what Acharya is claiming. She even explains how it came about: "an incredibly nimble brotherhood network that stretched from Europe to China". At the start of the section where she introduces those gods, she writes:

"From all the evidence, it appears that there was no single historical person upon whom the Christian religion was founded, and that "Jesus Christ" is a compilation of legends, heroes, gods and godmen. There is not adequate room here to go into detail about each god or godman that possibly contributed to the formation of the Jewish Jesus character; suffice it to say that there is plenty of documentation to show that this issue is not a question of "faith" or "belief." 29

The truth is that during the era this character supposedly lived there was an extensive library at Alexandria and an incredibly nimble brotherhood network that stretched from Europe to China, and this information network had access to numerous manuscripts and oral traditions that told a similar narrative with many like motifs as portrayed in the New Testament..."

Other comments from earlier in her ebook... This one refers to "around the globe":

"Delving deeply into this large body of work, one uncovers evidence that the Jesus character is based upon much older myths and heroes from around the globe."

Here she claims that Christians were attempting to amalgamate and fuse every myth and legend that they could get their hands on:

"The confusion exists because the Christian plagiarists over the centuries were attempting to amalgamate and fuse practically every myth, fairytale, legend, doctrine or bit of wisdom they could "borrow" from the innumerable different mystery religions and philosophies that existed at the time. In doing so, they forged, interpolated, mutilated, changed, and rewrote these texts for centuries."

If she really only means that the religions share common motifs based on astronomical observations, then she is expressing it very badly.

Toto

Er, did you read that book? Did Acharya S? Perry was an opponent of Kersey Graves, and is arguing against Graves' thesis at that point.

This is all looking like it needs a bit more work.

Clivedurdle

A few points.

There were very good communications from at least as early as 500 BCE between Europe, Africa and Asia, so mix and match myths between Japan and Britain is plausible.

We do not know much yet about communication around the pacific rim, but the Polynesians are evidence of high level sea faring skills.

The classic example is Captain Cook finding Murano glass in a North American fish knife. That was probably traded across Russia and Alaska.

In the same way, ideas would spread.

It might be that constellations are a useful navigation aid, so people pointing out "tricks" like the plough pointing at the north star - would be common.

The religious beliefs behind the constellations would be like mnemonics.

ApostateAbe

I figure Acharya S just needs to cite primary sources, not books that are second-hand, third-hand, or God-knows-what-hand.

Clivedurdle

On sources, my comments above about the fish knife are from regular lunch time talks given by a curator at the British Museum in the Enlightenment exhibition.

What exactly would a primary reference be in that example?

ApostateAbe

A primary reference would be an article in an archaeology or anthropological journal that describes the fish knife, authored by someone who directly studied the knife.

Clivedurdle

And on travel I am referring to "pathfinders" and "ideas" by Felipe Fernández-Armesto

Clivedurdle

But that is my point - is my reporting of a talk by a curator where she showed me the knife with the murano glass in the bone handle and said it was collected by Cook somehow invalid? There might not be a journal article - it is part of the collection of the British Museum. They have myriads of objects.

ApostateAbe

Your citation of the curator is worth something--it is still a primary source--but it is not worth as much as an article describing the knife published in a reputable journal. The point is that I don't want to take your word for it, nor the curator's word for it. I'll take a reputable professional publication's word for it, and I would like to be able to look it up and confirm it easily.

Clivedurdle

But the publication isn't primary, the knife is!