Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-25-2010, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

What get me is the emotions Jesus is supposed to be feeling here. In verse 33, we are told that Jesus is "deeply moved." By verse 35, he is weeping. But once again in verse 38 he is deeply moved. All of this before he ever reaches the tomb?

To explain details like that, I think we are best to look at the purpose of the whole passage and the perspective of those who were writing it. This would be the first miracle story where Jesus raises somebody else from the dead. None of the earlier gospels contained such a story, so it was theoretically new to Christian belief.

The supposed earlier gospels do contain at least one resurrection by Jesus but in gMark astonishingly Jesus asked the people why they CRIED.

Mark 5:35-43 -

Quote:

35 While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?

36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.

37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.

38 And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly.

39 And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

40 And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying.

41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.

Why did not the author of John also claim that Jesus said that Lazarus was sleeping? Once Jesus had the ability to raise the dead then Lazarus would just be sleeping.

It is very bizarre that Jesus himself was CRYING in the later gJohn story when in an earlier story he implied that CRYING was NOT necessary.

Dave31 · 05-26-2010, 10:26 AM

The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead contains several parallels to the ancient Egyptian resurrection of Osiris. Even the name "Lazarus" alone should be a big enough clue to suggest that the early Christians borrowed this myth from Egypt.

Quote:

"Greek name "Lazarus" or "Lazaros" equals "Eleazar" in Hebrew and, per Strong’s [Concordance] (G2976), means "whom God helps." It is a strange coincidence firstly that the person whom Jesus happens to be named "whom God helps," and secondly that "Eleazar" or, breaking down its original components in Hebrew, El-Azar—closely resembles a combination of the Semitic word for "El," with the Egyptian name for Osiris, "Ausar." Interestingly, there exists an ancient Phoenician inscription called "the Carpentras" that does indeed identify Osiris with the Semitic god "El" or "Elohim," calling him "Osiris-Eloh."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 234

And

- CIE, page 304

Quote:

"In PT 676:2008a-2009d/N 411, a “resurrection” text, we find again the deceased/Osiris being called forth by his two sisters:

"Collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages..."

"While Isis and Nephthys thus partake in a feast associated with the resurrection of Osiris, after Lazarus’s resurrection, Jesus goes to the house of Lazarus, Mary and Martha for a feast. (Jn 12:2)"

- CIE, 302

So far the parallels just in the Lazarus story include:

1. The name: "Lazarus" / El-Azar / Osiris
2. two sisters
3. four days
4. tears / weeping
5. calling forth
6. bandages/grave-cloths / Mummy
7. Resurrection of the dead
8. a feast celebrating the resurrection

There are even MORE parallels cited in Christ in Egypt but there are already enough clear parallels to say with confidence that the story of Lazarus is a borrowed myth from Egypt.

ApostateAbe · 05-26-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead contains several parallels to the ancient Egyptian resurrection of Osiris. Even the name "Lazarus" alone should be a big enough clue to suggest that the early Christians borrowed this myth from Egypt.

Quote:

"Greek name "Lazarus" or "Lazaros" equals "Eleazar" in Hebrew and, per Strong’s [Concordance] (G2976), means "whom God helps." It is a strange coincidence firstly that the person whom Jesus happens to be named "whom God helps," and secondly that "Eleazar" or, breaking down its original components in Hebrew, El-Azar—closely resembles a combination of the Semitic word for "El," with the Egyptian name for Osiris, "Ausar." Interestingly, there exists an ancient Phoenician inscription called "the Carpentras" that does indeed identify Osiris with the Semitic god "El" or "Elohim," calling him "Osiris-Eloh."

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 234

And

- CIE, page 304

Quote:

"In PT 676:2008a-2009d/N 411, a “resurrection” text, we find again the deceased/Osiris being called forth by his two sisters:

"Collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages..."

"While Isis and Nephthys thus partake in a feast associated with the resurrection of Osiris, after Lazarus’s resurrection, Jesus goes to the house of Lazarus, Mary and Martha for a feast. (Jn 12:2)"

- CIE, 302

So far the parallels just in the Lazarus story include:

1. The name: "Lazarus" / El-Azar / Osiris
2. two sisters
3. four days
4. tears / weeping
5. calling forth
6. bandages/grave-cloths / Mummy
7. Resurrection of the dead
8. a feast celebrating the resurrection

There are even MORE parallels cited in Christ in Egypt but there are already enough clear parallels to say with confidence that the story of Lazarus is a borrowed myth from Egypt.

Some of those parallels are clearly correct, and other I have doubts about. Here are the parallels that I do not dispute:

2. two sisters
4. tears / weeping
5. calling forth
6. bandages/grave-cloths / Mummy
7. Resurrection of the dead

Here are the parallels that I think need further evidence:

1. The name: "Lazarus" / El-Azar / Osiris
3. four days
8. a feast celebrating the resurrection

If we were to settle on the five undisputed items, then it seems that four out of five of them can be explained as elements that would be very much expected of any resurrection story, even with no mythical connection. That would leave item #2, two sisters, which can be explained as mere coincidence. Horus was reputed to have a brother, Set, who killed Horus, but there seems to be no corresponding brother in the story of Lazarus, nor was the death of Lazarus accounted to be a murder. He died from sickness.

So let's look at the three disputed parallels. First, the parallel that the name Lazarus corresponds to the name Osiris. The chain of reasoning goes like this:

"Lazarus" equals "Eleazar" in Hebrew.
"Eleazar" breaks down to "El-Azar."
"Azar" resembles the Egyptian name for Osiris, "Ausar."

The first step is a translation to Hebrew. This could be a legitimate step. Is the Hebrew language a significant part of the entire model? Did the myths once exist in the Hebrew language along the line? Possibly, though we are talking about beginning in Egyptian and ending in Greek, about characters who reputedly spoke Aramaic. Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament and the ancient Jews, so perhaps the model requires the myth to have existed among the Jews around 600 BCE.

The second step is an etymological breakdown, that I think requires evidence; does it really break down like that, or is it an entirely new proposition that otherwise lacks evidence?

The third step is a resemblance, which is another weak link, and it can be easily chalked up to mere coincidence.

Since any single name has dozens of hypothetical translations, component roots, and mere resemblances, then it is hardly evidence when a certain name can shown to have a tenuous connection to any other name. It sort of resembles what you see in numerology, conspiracy theories, or any other theories that require one otherwise-unrelated item to be connected to something else.

OK, let's look at item #3, the "four days." I can find "four days" in the gospel of John, but I am not sure where to look in the story of Osiris. You cited, "(PT 419:746b/T 225)," in an earlier post, and without the context I don't know what that is referring to. Maybe you can give more explicit details on where to find that source.

OK, now #8, "a feast celebrating the resurrection." I don't know if there is such a thing for the resurrection of Osiris, but for now I will take your word for it. I don't know about such a thing for the resurrection of Lazarus. I know that parallels have been drawn between Osiris and Jesus, and there is certainly a traditional feast for the resurrection of Jesus, but, if we are talking about parallels between Osiris and Lazarus, then there would need to be a connection to Lazarus, not Jesus. Can you please explain? Thanks.

Toto · 05-26-2010, 01:11 PM

Lazarus Osiris link

Quote:

Massey - 'Ancient Egypt' - "....it cannot be considered far-fetched if we look upon Lazarus as a form of the Osiris that was dead and buried and raised to life again. As to the name, the Egyptian name of the Greek Osiris is Hesar, or Asar. And when we take into consideration that some of the matter came from its Egyptian source through the Aramaic and Arabic languages (witness the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy) there is little difficulty, if any, in supposing that the Al (article the) has been adopted through the medium of the Arabic, or derived from the Hebrew prenominal stem, to emphasize a thing, as in the Osiris, which passed into the article Al for "the" in Arabic, and was prefixed to the name of Osiris as Al-Asar, which, with the Greek "s" for suffix becomes L-azarus. The connecting link whereby Al-Asar was turned into Lazarus, the Osiris, was in all likelihood made in the Aramaic language, which had its root-relations with the Egyptian. Hieroglyphic papyri are among its monumental remains, as well as the inscription of Carpentras.

Massey is one of Acharya S's favorite sources, but I am a bit dubious about the Arabic link.

There are some arguments against the idea by a Christian apologist arguing against Tom Harpur's Pagan Christ here

Quote:

Harpur is correct in stating that Asar is the Egyptian name for Osiris, but the rest of his argument quickly falls apart. The use of the definite article with the name of the god misses a number of points. Yes, “the Christ” is an appropriate way to describe Jesus, but not as an expression of reverence but rather because “Christ” is a title, meaning “Anointed One,” and not a name. Yes, “the Osiris” was also used but not for the god Osiris (his name, not his title), but for each dead person who hoped to experience the same resurrection as Osiris and was therefore called “the Osiris.” Harpur is incorrect in claiming that the Hebrew el means “lord,” as it actually means “God.” The amount of linguistic gymnastics required to explain a story written in Greek by combining Hebrew, Egyptian and Latin languages into one name, clearly demonstrate the forced nature of this argument.

Is the rejection of “Lazarus” as a reference to the raising of Osiris just the stubborn refusal of a traditional biblical interpreter? Possibly, if John 11 was the only place that the name “Lazarus” appeared. But another person named Lazarus also appears in Luke 16:19-31. This is the famous story of the rich man and poor Lazarus, who both died and experienced an after-life exactly the opposite of their earthly life. This is extremely significant for the current discussion in that the rich man asked that Lazarus be resurrected so that he could warn the rich man’s family of the danger of their extravagant and selfish lifestyle. The request to resurrect Lazarus was rejected because it was known even a resurrection would not turn their lives around. The fact that the name “Lazarus” was used in a story where a resurrection was explicitly denied, proves that the name was not created to illustrate the fabled resurrection of Osiris. The traditional explanation that Lazarus is a form of the Old Testament Eleazar, meaning ‘God has helped,’ makes much more sense.

I'm not sure that these arguments disprove an Egyptian connection, but it would show a more nuanced borrowing, not just a copycat translation.

spamandham · 05-26-2010, 05:52 PM

Other than the concept of resurrection, which seems to have been strongly embraced in Egyptian religion even if not invented there, a direct link between the Osiris story and the Lazaros story seems possible but not by any means definitive. Regardless, the story is obviously purely literary/mythical/mystical/legendary. No aspect of it is reasonably seen as historical.

ChristMyth · 05-28-2010, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Other than the concept of resurrection, which seems to have been strongly embraced in Egyptian religion even if not invented there, a direct link between the Osiris story and the Lazaros story seems possible but not by any means definitive. Regardless, the story is obviously purely literary/mythical/mystical/legendary. No aspect of it is reasonably seen as historical.

I would agree that the story is most likely literary/mythical/mystical/legendary. My question, however, is why is it included in the story at all? It may simply be that the author wished to show that Jesus showed actual emtions, but this is conveyed by the two verses both preceding and following this particular text where Jesus "was moved" which, imo, makes the weeping unnecessary.

Another question: Does anybody know if this story was part of what we consider to be the original text? I ask because it seems to me that if you remove the section where Jesus weeps (along with the "once again, Jesus was moved that follows), the story seems to go along just fine.

spamandham · 05-28-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Other than the concept of resurrection, which seems to have been strongly embraced in Egyptian religion even if not invented there, a direct link between the Osiris story and the Lazaros story seems possible but not by any means definitive. Regardless, the story is obviously purely literary/mythical/mystical/legendary. No aspect of it is reasonably seen as historical.

My question, however, is why is it included in the story at all?

I don't think we can really answer that. There are at least a few plausible reasons, but none of these are necessarily correct:

1. The story really *is* a rehashing of Horus raising Osiris designed to appeal to Egyptians.

2. The story is meant to forshadow Jesus' own resurrection to "prove" that he had the power to resurrect.

3. The author wanted to concoct some reason to have Jesus shed tears to bolster the argument that Jesus was fleshy and not an apparition. Jesus sheds tears, Jesus eats and drinks, Jesus has spit (used to cure blindness), Jesus suffers from temptation, etc.

Dave31 · 05-28-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "That would leave item #2, two sisters, which can be explained as mere coincidence."

If you knew the story you'd know how it's far more than just having two sisters. There are far too many similarities with the sisters to just claim "coincidence." There's just too much for me to type out from CIE. Some comparisons are juxtaposed in CIE from 305 to 307.

Quote:

ApostateAbe "OK, let's look at item #3, the "four days." I can find "four days" in the gospel of John, but I am not sure where to look in the story of Osiris. You cited, "(PT 419:746b/T 225)," in an earlier post, and without the context I don't know what that is referring to. Maybe you can give more explicit details on where to find that source. "

It's highly unlikely that the four days issue would be coincidence when it's used in exactly the same way. Again, there's too much info for me to type from CIE, you'll need to read the book and see the sources if you're really interested on this issue. But, yes, (PT 419:746b/T 225) has footnote 7, which is: Mercer, 143; Allen, J., AEPT, 86; Faulkner, AEPT, 138.

I don't think the name can be so easily dismissed either. Acharya is correct in the previous quote on this issue:

Quote:

"Greek name "Lazarus" or "Lazaros" equals "Eleazar" in Hebrew and, per Strong’s [Concordance] (G2976), means "whom God helps." It is a strange coincidence firstly that the person whom Jesus happens to be named "whom God helps," and secondly that "Eleazar" or, breaking down its original components in Hebrew, El-Azar—closely resembles a combination of the Semitic word for "El," with the Egyptian name for Osiris, "Ausar." Interestingly, there exists an ancient Phoenician inscription called "the Carpentras" that does indeed identify Osiris with the Semitic god "El" or "Elohim," calling him "Osiris-Eloh."

- Who Was Jesus?, page 234 (via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

ApostateAbe "OK, now #8, "a feast celebrating the resurrection." I don't know if there is such a thing for the resurrection of Osiris, but for now I will take your word for it. I don't know about such a thing for the resurrection of Lazarus. I know that parallels have been drawn between Osiris and Jesus, and there is certainly a traditional feast for the resurrection of Jesus, but, if we are talking about parallels between Osiris and Lazarus, then there would need to be a connection to Lazarus, not Jesus. Can you please explain? Thanks."

Keep in mind that it was Horus who resurrected Osiris. In the mythicist position, the contention is that the mythical figure of Jesus is based on many different characters, including not only Osiris but also Horus. In this case, the various mythical motifs are combined to create the composite figure of Christ, who takes the role not only of Osiris but also of Horus. In the Egyptian mythology, Osiris and Horus are frequently combined or interchanged. This interchangeability is discussed in detail in CIE, including that Osiris IS the resurrected Horus, who, as the king, becomes Osiris when he dies. This theme was very important to the Egyptians. If someone wanted to create an ubergodman who usurped all the rest, they would naturally give all the important roles to that figure, including and especially this interchangeable character of Osiris-Horus.

Again, so far the parallels in the Lazarus story to an ancient Egyptian motif include:

1. The name: "Lazarus" / El-Azar / Osiris
2. two sisters
3. four days
4. tears / weeping
5. calling forth
6. bandages/grave-cloths / Mummy
7. Resurrection of the dead
8. a feast celebrating the resurrection

Dave31 · 05-28-2010, 02:29 PM

Toto, Acharya didn't cite Massey there. She cited "Phoenician Inscriptions by Dunbar Isidore Heath, page 92"

Quote:

"...the village in Judea where the Lazarus miracle supposedly took place, Bethany, today is called in Arabic "El Azarieh."

- CIE, page 304

Here's a Wiki article on that location:

Quote:

"Bethany has traditionally been identified with the present-day West Bank city of al-Eizariya (Arabic, meaning "Place of Lazarus"), site of the reputed Tomb of Lazarus..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethany...cal_village%29

Quote:

Toto "I'm not sure that these arguments disprove an Egyptian connection, but it would show a more nuanced borrowing, not just a copycat translation."

Who said anything about "copycat translation"? This is an old Egyptian motif that has gone threw Judaism and the Greeks then into Christianity. Acharya doesn't claim "copycat" her point is that the Christian Gospel authors BORROWED THE CONCEPTS and re-worked them. What about the copycat theory?

Your Christian apologist source is a Baptist Church pastor and leans heavily towards deflecting everything away to shore up his faith at all costs. It's quite biased and sounds to me like typical Christian apologetics. He doesn't sound like he'd concede or acknowledge anything if he can get away with his deflections and hand waving dismissals.

His argument against Lazarus being Osiris due to the "rich man" Lazarus at Luke 16:19-31 crashes hard when you learn that is also another Egyptian motif. One which the Christian apologist may have never heard of before.

Quote:

"This comparison refers to the story of the poor man Lazarus in the gospel of Luke (16:20-25), a pericope apparently also taken from Egyptian legend. Concerning this Lukan pericope, Egyptologist Dr. Maspero states:

"We remember in the Gospel according to St. Luke the rich man, clothed in purple and fine linen, who feasted sumptuously every day, while at his gate lay Lazarus full of sores and desiring in vain to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. "And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom, and the rich man also died and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom." In the second romance of SatniKhamois, we read an Egyptian version of this parable of the Evangelist, but there it is dramatised and amalgamated with another popular conception, that of the descent of a living man into hell. As can be seen, the Egyptian influence in the gospels appears to be solid, although Maspero —a sincere Christian —wishes to place the "borrowing" at the foot of the Pagans, falling in with his religious devotion but not the scientific evidence."

- Christ in Egypt, page 304/5 (Maspero, PSAE, xv)

Quote:

"...What is interesting, however, is that Basilides evidently discussed the “parable of Lazarus and the rich man,” which is of apparent Egyptian origin, based on the myth of Osiris. If Basilides did indeed discuss this myth, and we have no reason to believe he did not, it may have been his text used by Luke (Lk 16:19-31), rather than the other way around."

- CIE, page 482

ApostateAbe · 05-28-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "That would leave item #2, two sisters, which can be explained as mere coincidence."

If you knew the story you'd know how it's far more than just having two sisters. There are far too many similarities with the sisters to just claim "coincidence." There's just too much for me to type out from CIE. Some comparisons are juxtaposed in CIE from 305 to 307.

OK. Without that extra information, then the short list seems sort of weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

It's highly unlikely that the four days issue would be coincidence when it's used in exactly the same way. Again, there's too much info for me to type from CIE, you'll need to read the book and see the sources if you're really interested on this issue. But, yes, (PT 419:746b/T 225) has footnote 7, which is: Mercer, 143; Allen, J., AEPT, 86; Faulkner, AEPT, 138.

Thanks. With nothing but last names, I still don't know what those sources are, but they seem to be secondary sources, not primary (original) sources of ancient Egyptian, and that is probably all I really need to know. Sometimes, when Acharya S makes an unusual claim, she has nothing but secondary sources that are traceable only to a mysterious void. At least, that is her reputation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

I don't think the name can be so easily dismissed either. Acharya is correct in the previous quote on this issue:

"Greek name "Lazarus" or "Lazaros" equals "Eleazar" in Hebrew and, per Strong’s [Concordance] (G2976), means "whom God helps." It is a strange coincidence firstly that the person whom Jesus happens to be named "whom God helps," and secondly that "Eleazar" or, breaking down its original components in Hebrew, El-Azar—closely resembles a combination of the Semitic word for "El," with the Egyptian name for Osiris, "Ausar." Interestingly, there exists an ancient Phoenician inscription called "the Carpentras" that does indeed identify Osiris with the Semitic god "El" or "Elohim," calling him "Osiris-Eloh."

- Who Was Jesus?, page 234 (via: amazon.co.uk)

Thanks. I'll just repeat what I said before.

"Lazarus" equals "Eleazar" in Hebrew.

"Eleazar" breaks down to "El-Azar."

"Azar" resembles the Egyptian name for Osiris, "Ausar."

The first step is a translation to Hebrew. This could be a legitimate step. Is the Hebrew language a significant part of the entire model? Did the myths once exist in the Hebrew language along the line? Possibly, though we are talking about beginning in Egyptian and ending in Greek, about characters who reputedly spoke Aramaic. Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament and the ancient Jews, so perhaps the model requires the myth to have existed among the Jews around 600 BCE.

The second step is an etymological breakdown, that I think requires evidence; does it really break down like that, or is it an entirely new proposition that otherwise lacks evidence?

The third step is a resemblance, which is another weak link, and it can be easily chalked up to mere coincidence.

Since any single name has dozens of hypothetical translations, component roots, and mere resemblances, then it is hardly evidence when a certain name can shown to have a tenuous connection to any other name. It sort of resembles what you see in numerology, conspiracy theories, or any other theories that require one otherwise-unrelated item to be connected to something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "OK, now #8, "a feast celebrating the resurrection." I don't know if there is such a thing for the resurrection of Osiris, but for now I will take your word for it. I don't know about such a thing for the resurrection of Lazarus. I know that parallels have been drawn between Osiris and Jesus, and there is certainly a traditional feast for the resurrection of Jesus, but, if we are talking about parallels between Osiris and Lazarus, then there would need to be a connection to Lazarus, not Jesus. Can you please explain? Thanks."

Keep in mind that it was Horus who resurrected Osiris. In the mythicist position, the contention is that the mythical figure of Jesus is based on many different characters, including not only Osiris but also Horus. In this case, the various mythical motifs are combined to create the composite figure of Christ, who takes the role not only of Osiris but also of Horus. In the Egyptian mythology, Osiris and Horus are frequently combined or interchanged. This interchangeability is discussed in detail in CIE, including that Osiris IS the resurrected Horus, who, as the king, becomes Osiris when he dies. This theme was very important to the Egyptians. If someone wanted to create an ubergodman who usurped all the rest, they would naturally give all the important roles to that figure, including and especially this interchangeable character of Osiris-Horus.

OK... maybe I wasn't clear enough. Is there "a feast celebrating the resurrection" of Lazarus, or is there not?

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

05-26-2010, 05:52 PM	#25
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Other than the concept of resurrection, which seems to have been strongly embraced in Egyptian religion even if not invented there, a direct link between the Osiris story and the Lazaros story seems possible but not by any means definitive. Regardless, the story is obviously purely literary/mythical/mystical/legendary. No aspect of it is reasonably seen as historical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.