Grog

I think this is R.G. Price's work.

To be honest, and not being beholden to the theory, I see no reason to discount Egyptian influence on Christianity out of hand. Even when we can point to specific instances of ancient Christian criticism of such beliefs. The fact is that Egypt did historically have great influence over this region, politically and culturally. That some "memes" could have crept into a syncretistic religion like Christianity should not be surprising.

I think sometimes there is a knee-jerk rejection of what is considered to be sort of wingnut theories. Especially since the "Out of Egypt" theory is so out of favor in academic circles. For me, I don't see anything terribly surprising or important about the observation that motiffs like the Legion swine could be borrowed from Osiris tales. It's more like, so what? That the Jesus story could have taken on nuances of the Sun/Zodiac stories? Sure, why not?

Even if we do accept that, we don't have to out of hand reject R.G. Price's allegory hypothesis. There's no controlling the way memes can blend or bend.

None of that really matters though to the excavation of Christian origins. However Christianity started, it wasn't with a Book of the Dead open to page 136 and some scribe saying "Now how do we incorporate this into a Jesus-tale?"

Egyptian influence? Mildly interesting. What I want to know is at what geographic location did Jesus wipe his face on Veronica's Veil? Anybody?

Iskander

stephan huller

But that's not the same thing as (a) saying that Mark 5 was developed from the myth of Osiris and (b) introducing that stupid claim into a discussion about Daniel Wallace's discovery of a first century fragment. It's like someone is telling you about something they did yesterday and you interject with 'that's very interesting, but what about me?' It happens all the time here and shows that many people simply use this forum in order to propagate theories that most of the rest of the people aren't interested in.

GakuseiDon

Dr Robert M Price, in his review of one of Acharya S's books, writes:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...rist_egypt.htm

Hercules’ twelve labors surely mark his progress, as the sun, through the houses of the Zodiac; why do Jesus circumambient twelve disciples not mean the same thing? And so on...

The tale of Joseph and his brethren is already transparently a retelling of Osiris and Set. The New Testament Lazarus story is another (Mary and Martha playing Isis and Nephthys). And so is the story of Jesus (Mary Magdalene and the others as Isis and Nephthys). Jesus (in the “Johannine Thunderbolt” passage, Matthew 11:27//Luke 10:21) sounds like he’s quoting Akhenaten’s Hymn to the Sun. Jesus sacramentally offers bread as his body, wine as his blood, just as Osiris offered his blood in the form of beer, his flesh as bread. Judas is Set, who betrays him...

Acharya S. ventures that “the creators of the Christ myth did not simply take an already formed story, scratch out the name Osiris or Horus, and replace it with Jesus” (p. 25). But I am pretty much ready to go the whole way and suggest that Jesus is simply Osiris going under a new name, Jesus,” Savior,” hitherto an epithet, but made into a name on Jewish soil. Are there allied mythemes (details, really) that look borrowed from the cults of Attis, Dionysus, etc.? Sure; remember we are talking about a heavily syncretistic context. Hadian remarked on how Jewish and Christian leaders in Egypt mixed their worship with that of Sarapis (=Osiris)...

I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock: “we assert that Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized and Judaized, likewise representing a synthesis of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek religion and mythology, among others [including Buddhism, via King Asoka’s missionaries] from around the ‘known world’” (p. 278). “Christianity is largely the product of Egyptian religion being Judaized and historicized’ (p. 482).

Dave31

Thus the problem, people (and many scholars) have their noses so far up the arse of Jesus and the New Testament that they are incapable of investigating where quite a bit of it originates. Rather than a mature, non-biased investigation based on evidence that actually exists we get loads of knee-jerk reactions and assorted personal attacks instead. And that is why you fail. Roger Pearse has been proven wrong here on many occasions as well on these issues but, it's to difficult for him to swallow too. No need to be a Parallelophobe as there's actually quite a bit of evidence to substantiate it. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about that so, you attack those who do.

The concepts in Mark 5 regarding the pigs/swine, demons and the boat are about as similar as it could get to the much older Egyptian parallel. If that's not a case of "borrowing" than it sure is quite a coincidence. It may be wise to check before just dismissing such parallels due to knee-jerk reaction. Christ in Egypt is a 600 page book full of primary sources and highly respected Egyptologists backing it up.

stephan huller

But science is about the finding progressively better answers to best explain a given phenomenon. I don't know where the idea that Mark was using pagan Egyptian religion here fits on that sliding scale. A step up from the mountainman theory? It is certainly not the best explanation of the material.

stephan huller

I don't know what Osiris helps explain. Why would the same person develop a text which superficially presents Jesus as aiming his message at Jews and make heavy use of Jewish scriptures but at the same time structure the narratives around pagan myths? Who was the intended audience for such an enterprise? Jews? Obviously not. Why then is there is so much of an appeal to Jewish themes and scriptural references? These were layered subsequent to the pagan monstrosity? But why? Why did the outward affiliation of the religion suddenly 'switch tracks' and emphasize a common heritage with Judaism if Mark and the other gospel writers 'really' wanted to introduce Osiris et al to the Jews? And for what purpose?

The theory only works if you ignore the cultural sensitivities present in antiquity which means that it is a theory which only works in America or other modern cultures which are ignorant of the sophisticated cultural environment of antiquity, which also helps explain why no ancient writer puts forward this theory.

In a past life I bought into Helm's idea that 'Lazarus' had some connection to Osiris. I see that as etymologically impossible now (especially as it goes back to Genesis 14:14). One could make a much more convincing argument that Lazarus has something to do with the Greek name Alexander. But even that goes nowhere.

Sheshbazzar

That's kind of like asking why 'Moses' the monotheist borrowed his textual material from the ancient polytheist's creation and flood myths.

stephan huller

but that's much easier to explain. Ezra was likely writing at the beginning of the Persian period. Jewish identity per se was likely non existent as we now know it

Duvduv

Shucks, and all this time I thought Jewish identity only started from Hamurrabi's code. I am so relieved to know there was no Jewish identity in the Persian period and and that Judaism materialized from an alien transporter or through a stargate.

It's so amazing how people are so sure of themselves based on pure speculation. Maybe they have taken time machines back and found out things that the rest of us never heard about.