Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-06-2004, 02:12 PM

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

Quote:

. . . 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; similar claims are made by Ken Humphreys: cf. Holy Family)

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 · 10-06-2004, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 10-06-2004, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

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

Toto · 06-20-2008, 07:59 PM

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 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:

Quote:

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 · 06-27-2008, 11:53 AM

Interesting!

GakuseiDon · 06-27-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Acharya S (who is now using her real name, D. M. Murdoch) has responded to Carrier in this detailed excerpt 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 · 06-27-2008, 04:31 PM

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 · 08-04-2008, 09:35 AM

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:

Quote:

"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 · 08-05-2008, 05:21 AM

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 · 08-05-2008, 06:19 AM

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-27-2008, 11:53 AM	#5
Terrance33 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 6	Interesting!

06-27-2008, 04:31 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	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.

08-05-2008, 05:21 AM	#9
Flaming Moe Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ireland Posts: 39	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.

08-05-2008, 06:19 AM	#10
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.