Recently a friend asked me if I had heard about a translation of one of the languages on the Rosetta Stone that told a story that paralleled that of Christianity there by proving the Jesus never lived and Christianity was basically a hoax.
I had not heard this story and probably wouldn't have thought much more about it except for the fact the the friend is someone whose opinions I take seriously.
So I decided to inform myself and came up with the following information. It is nothing I wrote or revised just copied to pass along the 'rest 'of the story.
I of course passed it along to my friend.
The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light by Tom Harpur. Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2004. pp. 244. $34.95
The title hints at the enormous task that Mr. Harpur has undertaken, which is nothing less than the radical transformation of Christianity as we know it.
His thesis is that there is nothing original in Christianity, since it was copied or plagiarized from the ancient Egyptian religion. He adduces an impressive list of parallels between the life and teachings of Jesus and the primordial mystery religion, that, if true would silence most skeptics.
For Harpur, the gospels were originally intended to be mythological, expressing deep spiritual truths flowing from the ancient religion. A combination of the machinations of fanatical ecclesiastics and colossal blunders resulted in the gospels being interpreted in historical fashion, thereby robbing Christianity of much of its spiritual power. In a fraud unparalleled in history, the evidence of this deceit was destroyed or covered up in the early centuries of the Christian era, and the pagan roots of Christianity repudiated. The historical Jesus never existed; he is a mythological expression of the god in every person. The events related in the gospel stories describe archetypal interior experiences common to all humanity, and the Jesus story is a spiritual allegory of the soul.
These are serious charges with enormous consequences, requiring a meticulous assemblage of evidence. This is where the problems with the book begin. There is virtually no dialogue with current mainstream scholarship. Much of the book draws on outdated or fringe work. It is questionable whether Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, should be considered a suitable source for a work of this nature (page 165). The bibliography is weighted very strongly in favor of esoteric and theosophical works, and relies very heavily on the works of Gerald Massey (1828-1908) and Alvin Kuhn (1881-1963), two orientalists who wrote extensively on esoteric religion.
Their works, however, are idiosyncratic, and not accepted within the field of Egyptology. One can see why: both of them work from the narrowest range of sources, making tortured and questionable word etymologies and esoteric interpretations of hieroglyphics and Egyptian art. We are asked to accept their interpretations at face value with little or no supporting evidence or proof.
Little supporting evidence
Harpur repeats these interpretations with little further supporting evidence. It would be expected that one could confront and cross-examine the statements offered as evidence; in fact, it is very difficult and in some cases nearly impossible. For example, on page 77, he states that Massey has found 180 correlations between the lives of Horus and Jesus, proving the identity between the two. Neither the name of the work nor the page numbers are given to us.
In numerous instances, bold and sweeping statements are made with little or no supporting references, and there is often the same problem with extended quotations. The startling statement by Meister Eckhart on page 41 begs for a reference, but in vain.
Over the last 50 years, a tremendous amount of research has been generated on both the historical Jesus, Second Temple Judaism, and the social and economic conditions of the first-century Roman empire. Mainstream scholarship has situated Jesus securely in the context of Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman society, and the structure of empire. Additionally, it has revealed the social and economic impact of the early Christian proclamation and the religious currents that nourished the life and message of Jesus. With the exception of references to the work of the Jesus Seminar, most of this research is absent from this work. Ironically, even the work of the Jesus Seminar is dismissed by Harpur, because they still mistakenly believe that Jesus was an historical person. A failure to anchor the argument in sound historical research leads to assertions such as on page 5 that there was a 'Jesus' in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE--astounding when one considers the fact that the earliest pre-historic sites in Egypt date to about the 6th millennium BCE with the familiar Egyptian civilization beginning about 3500 BCE.
Several striking quotations from the Church Fathers admit that Christianity is not new. The statement by St. Augustine on page 27 is a fine example: the true religion has always existed among the ancients, and began to be called Christianity with the coining of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This line of argument was quite common during the patristic era, for one of the most uncomfortable accusations against Christianity was that it was new. The peoples of the ancient world, unlike modern people, revered old and venerable traditions rather than innovations, especially in the area of religion. Apologists had to prove that Christianity was not new, but had an ancient and respectable pedigree. These quotations do not imply that Jesus did not exist or that Christianity was a myth.
Start with the bibliography, and it reads like a Rogue's Gallery of Scholastic Incompetence: Freke and Gandy, Acharya S, Tim Leedom, T. W. Doane, Earl Doherty, Helen Ellerbe, Kersey Graves, John Shelby Spong, Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, Alvin Boyd Kuhn. These last three (in reverse order) are Harpur's most favored sources; throughout Harpur expresses bewilderment that these three "scholars" (the word he applies liberally to just about anyone, regardless of credentials), especially Kuhn, have been so vastly ignored. The very idea that they have been ignored because of their incompetence and inability somehow never manages to cross Harpur's uncritical mind.
Some critical work backing this up was done for us by W. Ward Gasque, a Canadian Biblical scholar, who reports that he emailed 20 Egyptologists to get their view of these last three writers. Of the 10 who responded to Gasque, only one had ever heard of any of them. I think it worth reporting much of what Gasque reports, in full:
Harpur refers to Kuhn, Massey and Higgins as 'Egyptologists'; but he does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources.
He is especially dependent on Kuhn, whom he describes as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the 20th century" -- [one who] "towers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religions." Further, "Kuhn has more to offer the Church than all the scholars of the Jesus Seminar together. More than John Spong, C. S. Lewis, Joseph Campbell or Matthew Fox." Harpur declares himself "stunned at the silence with which [Kuhn's] writings have been greeted by scholars."
As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who earned a PhD from Columbia University by writing a dissertation on Theosophy; his only other link with an institution of higher learning was a short stint as secretary to the president of a small college. Though he was a prodigious author, most of his works were self-published.
I emailed 20 leading international Egyptologists, regarding the contributions made to the field by Kuhn, Higgins and Massey. I also asked their opinion of the following claims by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):
* That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian Iusa, which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves."
* That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ . . . He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."
* That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with 12 followers.'"
* That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and . . . this word, when the vowels are filled in . . . is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."
* That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least 4,000 years BCE."
Only one of the 10 experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey! Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995); nor are any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942).
Since he died in 1834, Kitchen noted, "nothing by Higgins could be of any value whatsoever, because decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was still being finalized, very few texts were translated, and certainly not the vast mass of first-hand religious data."
Another scholar responded: "Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets." He dismissed Kuhn's work as "fringe nonsense."
These scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for 'Jesus' and 'Christ.'
Peter F. Dorman of the University of Chicago commented: "It is often tempting to suggest simplistic etymologies between Egyptian and Greek (or other languages), but similar sequences of consonants and/or vowels are insufficient to demonstrate any convincing connection."
Ron Leprohan, of the University of Toronto, pointed out that while sa means 'son' in ancient Egyptian and iu means 'to come,' Kuhn and Harpur have the syntax all wrong. In any event, the name Iusa simply does not exist in Egyptian. The name 'Jesus' is Greek, derived from a universally recognized Semitic name (Jeshu'a) borne by many people in the first century.
While all the scholars agreed that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. The image of Mary and Jesus is not one of the earliest Christian images -- and, at any rate, there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born. Further, the New Testament Mary was certainly not a goddess, like Isis.
There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was 'a fisher of men' -- or that his followers, the king's officials, were ever 12 in number.
KRST is the word for 'burial' ('coffin' is written 'KRSW'); but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title 'Christos,' or Hebrew 'Mashiah.'
There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BCE, so Harpur's reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. Elsewhere, Harpur refers to "Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE"; and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that "the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age." In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.)
Kuhn's redefinition of 'incarnation' and his attempt to root this in Egyptian religion is regarded as bogus by the Egyptologists I consulted. According to one: "Only the pharaoh was believed to have a divine aspect, the divine power of kingship, incarnated in the human being currently serving as the king. No other Egyptians ever believed they possessed even 'a little bit of the divine'."
Virtually none of the alleged evidence in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources. The notes -- which refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey or various long-out-of-date works -- abound with errors and omissions. Many quotations are taken out of context and clearly misinterpreted.
The book is chock full of questionable claims, such as: that "Christianity began as a cult with almost wholly Pagan origins and motivations in the first century"; that nearly all of the most creative leaders of the earliest church were pronounced heretics and reviled by "those who had swept in and grabbed control of [church] policies"; that "apart from the four Gospels . . . and the Epistles, there is no hard, historical evidence for Jesus' existence coming out of the first century at all."
Harpur claims that "the greatest cover-up of all time" was perpetrated at the beginning of the fourth century; and that thousands of Christian scholars have a vested interest in maintaining the myth that there was an actual Jesus who lived in history.
Presumably, the Jewish, Unitarian, secular and very liberal Christians who happen to be recognized scholars have no axes to grind regarding whether or not Jesus actually lived, or whether most of the ideas found in the Bible stem from Egyptian or other Near Eastern religions. It would be unlikely that you could find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not live and walk the dusty roads of Palestine.
Harpur's book is based on the work of self-appointed 'scholars' who seek to excavate literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the way a crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words -- rather than by primary scholarship.
While this was an extensive quote to use, it corresponds with what will be shown further: Harpur, though once a minor Biblical scholar himself, has clearly hoist his integrity upon the petard of gullibility. Even the few real scholars he uses (Crossan, Borg, Funk, Pagels, etc) are used sparingly, would powerfully disagree with his sources like Massey and Kuhn, and themselves are considered to variable extents "fringe" by the mainstream. There is not a hint of any knowledge of specific evangelical scholarly responses (just vague references to angry "conservative" respondents). In this book and in his columns, Harpur merely uncritically follows preferred sources and pretends that contrary material either does not exist, or is just sponsored by fundamentalists. Not surprisingly, Harpur reacts like a spoiled child when called on his errors; you can see this below with Gasque. Willful and gullible misinformers should never be permitted any leave to get away with anything, and that includes Harpur. We will also be responding to his common retort that his critics simply need to read the works of his sources and appreciate their genius, by indeed looking at these sources and exposing their nuttiness. Here is what we have:
· Alvin Boyd Kuhn -- includes a look at one of his works on a marginally related topic, The Esoteric Structure of the Alphabet. The insanity of this work alone should put intelligent readers off Kuhn for a lifetime.
· Gerald Massey -- three items here, two from work done prior to out work on Harpur.
· Godfrey Higgins -- his work is hard to come by, but we managed it.
