Marmalade

Meri, Mary and the Mother of the Saviour by Stephen J. Bedard

And my response:

Those are good criticisms. D.M. Murdock responds to them, but you’d have to be the judge of how well she does.

The main point probably is that, by the Christian era, Isis was one of the most (if not the most) well known Egyptian deity, and one of the most widely worshipped in the Roman Empire. So, it’s possible that the term Meri was beginning to be identified with her. However, Isis (and Isis syncretizations) were referred with meri and similar terms all the way through the centuries prior to Rome being Christianized.

Even though the Egyptian term Meri could refer to even inanimate objects, I don’t know if there is any evidence that Jews and Romans would’ve been familiar with that meaning. It probably would’ve been most known as an epithet or, as Murdock argues, maybe even as a name. Very few non-Egyptians could tell an ipethet or a name apart when it was stated both as Isis-Meri and Meri-Isis. Murdock sees evidence that Meri was beginning to be used by itself.

As for the second problem, Mary isn’t used exclusively for either Egyptians or for Jews. Mary was a common name for Pagan goddesses. So, it isn’t surprising that it was a popular name for people as well. As for the 6 Marys of the NT, Murdock mentions this and hypothesizes a possible connection to 6 Hathors (as Hathor was the goddess of love that became identified with Isis).

All of this is is just one tiny aspect of the mythicist theory. It doesn’t stand or fall on one single detail. Meri is just a possible connection that many reputable scholars have written about. There are many other possible connections that mythicists point out. As the possible connections increase so does the probability of those connections.

Stephen J. Bedard had another blog I commented on: Christ as Orpheus.

http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/christ-as-orpheus/

And he linked to an article in the Biblical Archaeology Review, but it cost money and so I didn’t read it. The article he mentioned supposedly disproved that Christians borrowed from Pagans. However, I can’t argue against that article as I don’t know what it says. Interestingly, I did find another article at the Biblical Archaeology Review which supports borrowing.

Borrowing from the Neighbors: Pagan Imagery in Christian Art
by Sarah K. Yeomans

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/pagan-imagery.asp

You are correct that, for Christian apologetics, “It does not help that there seems to have been some sort of early Christian building that had a mosaic of Orpheus as a picture of Christ.” Nonetheless, it is a fact. And images like this are numerous.

Showing a pagan parallel doesn’t prove a Christian borrowing from Paganism, but the cumulative evidence is immense. Nothing is proved absolutely in that we can only speak of probabilities. Specific examples are only telling in relation to other examples. This is why scholars of comparative religion and comparative mythology tend to provide many examples to back up any hypothetical connection. To argue against the connection, you would need to argue in detail against the whole body of evidence.

Anyways, what all of this does show is that early Christians were knowledgeable of other religions and incoporated into Christianity motifs from those religions. Also, it causes one to suspect that the incorporating went further.

These Pagan images weren’t merely stylistic conventions. Within the Christianized Pagan images, there are obvious Pagan mythological motifs. Let me use some examples from another article I found at the Biblical Archaeology Review website.

The use of the image of Helios within both Judaism and Christianity is telling because it goes beyond imagery. Some of the respectable early Church fathers referred to Jesus as the “sun”. This was simply a common way in the Pagan world to refer to a savior god-man, but it also entails a complex solar theology that was pervasive throughout the Graeco-Roman world.

More relevant to this blog are the images of the Orpheus-Christ. Orpheus descends into the underworld and this same motif was used by Christians. Significantly, as far as I know, this motif isn’t supported by Christian scripture even though it was found within early Christian tradition. If it didn’t come from scripture, where did it come from? Maybe the same place the images came from. Also, the descent into the underworld was another common motif of solar mythologies in general.

The article also states outright that Christians borrowed the image of Mary nursing baby Jesus from the Egyptians. Isis was one of the most popular deities worshipped in the Roman Empire. Temples, shrines, statues, and icons of her were found all across Europe. As you know, many have theorized the Black Madonnas were originally Isis statues. Murdock spends about a hundred pages detailing the similarities between Isis and Mary. She does this by referring to Egyptian scholarship including that of Christian scholars, and she analyzes the relevant hieroglyphics of virgin birth nativities. Hieroglyphics are important to keep in mind because they’re not merely images and artistic styles but also a religious language based in religious concepts.

So, you seem to be admitting that early Christians borrowed imagery from the Pagans. Also, I think I noticed in another blog you admitted that Christians borrowed their holidays from Pagans. Are you trying to argue that all of this is mere superficial detail? If you took awasy all of the Pagan elements, what would be left?

All of the elements of Christianity can be found in prior Pagan religions: historical god-men, virgin births, slaughter of the babes, resurrection deities, salvific messages, and the list goes on and on. Some of these elements preceded Christianity by thousands of years.

No one can prove that there wasn’t a historical Jesus and no one can prove there was. Even if you could prove a historical Jesus, it doesn’t disprove that the stories of him were partly lifted from Pagan mythology. Removing the Paganism won’t prove the Good News of Christ’s coming to earth. Paganism and Christianity have become so entangled that I would argue they’re practically fused together. Considering what may be original to Christianity is important. But, ultimately, that may be more of question for faith than for scholarship.

Despite your criticisms of Harpur’s scholarship, why not embrace his vision? Wouldn’t a Christ figure that revealed himself to all cultures all over the world be more inspiring than a historical figure that no one of significance took notice of while he was alive? Anyways, plenty of reputable scholarship can be found elsewhere (such as in the Biblical Archaeology Review article).

The other article you linked, I couldn’t read because I don’t have the money to spend. If you could tell me the basic argument, I could respond.

Besides the obvious crosses and crucifixes in many religions across the world that predated Christianity, there are also other non-Christian symbols found within Christianity. As I’ve been focusing on Egypt lately, I’ll give two examples from that culture. But realize there are many other such symbolic similarities that can also be shown. I also chose the following quote because the author demonstrates that early Christians (including Augustine) were aware of these symbols and their meaning.

The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur

pp 88-89: The Egyptian Christ, manifested in the sign of Pisces, was fore-ordained to be Ichthys (Greek word for “fish”), the fisherman and to be accompanied by fishermen followers. Doctrinally, he was the “fisher of men”. Horus, the best-known Egyptian Christ figure was associated from time immemorial with the fish, and Massey’s Natural Genesis features a reproduction of an Egyptian engraving showing Horus holding a fish above his head. Several of the early Christian Fathers refer to Christ also as Ichthys, or “that great fish,” and the mitre worn by succeeding popes “in the the shoes of the fishermen” is shaped exactly like a fish’s mouth. It’s well known that the Greek word ichthys forms an acrostic meaning “Jesus Christ the Son of God (Our) Savior.” Having been in Rome numerous times during my dozen years covering religion around the world for the Toronto Star, I have seen first-hand how frequently the outline of a fish occurs in catacombs as a Christian symbol. It also doubled as a sign of the Eucharist. Prosper Africanus, an early Christian theologian, calls Christ “that great fish who fed from himself the disciples on the shore and offered himself as a fish to the world.” Commenting on this same passage from the end of John’s Gospel, St. Augustine says that the broiled fish in the story “is Christ.” The art found in ancient Egyptian tombs commonly shows fish, fishermen, nets, and fishtraps of varying kinds. All have the same spiritual meaning.

Much more important, however, is the fact that the Egyptian texts bear witness to an “only begotten god” (meaning begotten of one parent only), whose symbol was the beetle because in ancient science this creature was thought to be “self-produced, being unconceived by a female.” Massey says, “The only begotten god is a well-known type [symbol], then, of divinity worshipped in Egypt. In each cult, the Messiah-son and manifestor was the only-begotten god. This, according to the Egyptian text, is the Christ, the Word, the manifestor in John’s Gospel.” In fact, in one early version of the Greek text of the New Testament’s Gospel of John, the phrase “the only begotten son of God” actually reads “the only begotten god”! Its very unorthodoxy makes it likely that it is the preferred, original reading.

The truth thus came forcefully home to me that this Egyptian Christ is indeed the express image of the Christ of John’s Gospel, who begins in the first chapter without father or mother and is the Word of the beginning, the opener and the architect, the light of the world, the self-originated and only-begotten God. I found that the very phraseology of Jonh often echoed the Egyptian texts, which tell of he who was “the Beginning of the becoming, from the first, who made all things but was not made.” Some of the Fathers of the Church knew that the beetle was a symbol of Christ. Augustine, indeed, writes, “My own good beetle, not so much because he is only begotten (God), not because he, the author of himself, has taken on the form of mortals, but because he has rolled himself in our filth and chooses to be born from this filth itself” - like the dung beetle.

When the god Osiris came to the earth as a savior, he came as his own son, the child Horus. He was born “like or as a Word.” The Egyptian text says that he came to earth as a substitute. Indeed, an ancient Egyptian festival celebrating the birth of Horus was called “The Day of the Child in His Cradle.”

When Horus comes to earth in the Egyptian story, he is supported or given bread by Seb, who is god of the earth, “the father on earth.” He is thus the divine father on earth of the messiah-son, who manifests in time. Just as Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, provides shelter and food for his son, so Seb (Jo-seph) cares for Horus. The consort of Seb is the mother of heaven, named Nu; Meri (Mary) is another name for the mother of the messiah. Massey concludes, “Thus Seb and Meri for earth and heaven would afford the two mythic originals for Joseph and Mary as parents of the divine child.” There are seven different Marys in the four Gospels. They correspond with uncanny fidelity to seven Marys, or Hathors in the Egyptian stories.

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
By D.M. Murdock (AKA Acharya S)


I've only so far read parts of Christ in Egypt. It's large and I'll mostly use it as a reference. This book follows the same theme as her earlier books, but it's different in that the author is focusing on just one mythological parallel to Christianity. Egyptian religion is very fascinating and Murdock provides tons of information. I've never studied Egyptian religion too deeply, but this makes me even more curious.
If you're not familiar with the authors work, she mostly writes about comparative mythology in terms of Christianity. In particular, she emphasizes astrotheology which is a field that is growing in popularity within a certain sector of scholars. If you'd like to learn more before deciding whether you want to buy this book, I'd recommend checking out her website or blog (Truth Be Known). She has some good introductory articles that explain what astrotheology is.

You might be familiar with astrotheology from the first part of the movie Zeitgeist. If you'd like to explore similar authors, then check out Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, Tom Harpur and Freke and Gandy. All of those authors have written about the Egyptian religion. There are many others as well. One nice thing about Murdock's books is that the bibliographies give you many directions in which to study further.

Anyways, I highly recommend this book. But it probably wouldn't be a good introduction for most people. She is meticulous in her scholarship which means that you have to be seriously interested in the subject to want to read a book like this. The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light by Tom Harpur would be a better first book to read. He covers similar territory, but in a more concise way.

I personally like the author's large books filled with tons of information. And, with a subject that attracts many critics, the more details and examples provided the better the argument is supported.

Even though there are many books out there that discuss Christianity and Egyptian religion, Murdock's Christ in Egypt is unique. She realized how much info was out there, and no one had yet collected it all in one place before. Her enormous goal was to find every scholarly reference to the Egyptian correlations to Christianity. In doing this, she researched materials that had never been published before and materials that had never appeared in English before. At this time, there is no better resource available.

If you want to see more info about this subject, the author has a forum about it at her discussion board: Truth Be Known Nation: Christ in Egypt. And here is the Table of Contents from the Stellar House Publishing website.

I was just thinking I should do a post about the context of Augustine’s life. It was an interesting moment in history.

Constantine died less than two decades before Augustine was born. The first Council of Nicea had profound impact, but the Empire was still largely Pagan. Constantine himself mixed Christianity and Paganism. Constantine probably didn’t even really distinguish between the different varieties of sun worship. He probably understood Jesus in the terms of his own understanding of Pagan sun gods who also were saviors. In fact, Constantine carried on the Roman tradition of Sol Invictus. He wasn’t even baptized until on his death bed. Certainly, he was far from being an exemplary Christian Emperor. He was ruthless and it’s likely he chose Christianity in order to try to prop up the Empire that was already starting to show hints of weakening. The major contribution he made was that in legalizing Christianity he encouraged a legalistic approach to defining Christianity. Orthodoxy is rooted in this legalistic tradition.

Eusebius became the Emperors official propagandist and is now known as the first major Church historicist. However, modern academics have shown that he was very loose with the truth. It was a common practice amongst the Church Fathers to lie and deceive partly because people in general at the time were less idealistic about objective truth. Also, the common style of debate was aggressively polemical. I’ve read that the first few centuries of Christianity created more scriptural forgeries and alterations than almost any other period of Western history. The early Christians were quite industrious in manufacturing their religion.

It should be noted that by the fourth century, Christianity had changed quite a bit. The earliest Christian commentators were considered heretical by the end of the second century, and the Christian commentators of the third century were also starting to seem suspect by the fourth century heresiologists. Christianity was evolving very quickly. By the time Christianity was legalized, Christians were beginning to forget their own origins. The sects that were based on the earliest commentaries were now heretical. Heresiology was the foundation of orthodoxy. As an example, Basilides wrote the earliest commentaries of any Christian. He was alive in the first century and would’ve known the very first Christians. Guess who destroyed his work? Later Christians. If there ever was a single original Christianity, the fighting between Christians very well may have entirely annihalated it by the third century. And by the fourth and fifth centuries, the Church Fathers were creating creeds that probably had only a vague connection to the beliefs of first century Christians.

Anyways, the Nicene Creed set forth the doctrine of the Trinity… which by the way has no scriptural foundation as the Trinity was Pagan in origin. Augustine’s understanding of the Trinity came from Neo-Platonism. But not all Christians believed in a Trinity. Arianism was the major opposing opinion and is named after one of the dissenting voices at the Council of Nicea. Some of the Emperors of the fourth century were Arian Christians. Arianism had become quite popular and was probably the single biggest issue of the fourth century and would survive for several more centuries.

In the middle of the fourth century, Julian the Apostate temporarily revived Paganism as the official state religion when Augustine was a child. Besides the still strong traditions of Paganism, there were many traditions of Christianity. Possibly the largest (psuedo-) Christian tradition in the world at that time was Manichaeism. I say ‘pseudo’ because Mani included many influences, but still it was Christian. The Manichaean Christ was worshipped as a solar deity and this was a major component of Augustine’s early education in Christianity.

Astrology and astro-theology in general was a major force in the ancient world. Many early Christians referred to Jesus as Sol, and it was a practice within the early Catholic church to pray towards the rising sun. The early Christian allegorists were aware of the astrotheological symbolism within Christianity. Augustine certainly would’ve been aware of this as well. It was through the allegorical interpretations of Ambrose that Judeo-Christian scripture began to seem respectable to Augustine. Ambrose had connected Jesus to the sun, but Augustine denied this connection. So, sun worship was still a major issue within the Church even as Catholicism was coming into power.

The distinction between Christianity and Paganism wasn’t absolutely clear at that time because Christianity and the Roman Empire grew up together. The two were inseparable. Augustine admitted that Christianity began before Jesus in earlier religions. This was a Neo-Platonic view of Christianity that Augustine was less accepting of later in life. Even Eusebius the greatest Christian propagandist who ever lived admitted to the similarities between Christianity and Paganism. These similarities were so obvious that it was pointless in trying to deny them. Unlike modern Christians, many of the early Church Fathers had educations in Paganism. Anyways, in the ancient world it gave a religion respectability to show that it has its roots in older traditions. There was no more embarassment in admitting Christianity had Pagan roots than in admitting it had Jewish roots. However, in the fourth century, it was starting to become more important to explain it away. Christianity needed to justify its growing dominance, and so it became necessary to increasingly distinguish itself from Paganism. It would take until the sixth century for Catholicism to destroy all of the institutions of Classical Paganism.

Along with this, it became necessary for Catholic orthodoxy to distinguish itself from the diverse traditions of Christianity. Catholicism was only barely becoming the dominant form of Christianity in the fourth century. Basically, all of the heresies named in the second and third centuries were still around. The Marcionites and the Valentinians were the most influnential sects of early Christianity and they were still living traditions. Gnosticism was everywhere and it was rather difficult to distinguish it from orthodoxy as there was much cross-pollination. Augustine himself was a good example of cross-polination as he first seriously studied Christianity as a Manichaean Gnostic. That might be why he was critical of the Old Testament before meeting Ambrose. The New Testament was originally canonized by the Gnostic Marcion in order to create a Christian canon separate from and opposed to the Jewish scripture.

Along with the early heresies, new ones were also popping up. Two traditions that Augustine fought to make heretical were Donatism and Pelagianism. The Donatists were a schism from Augustine’s homeland of North Africa. The Donatists believed that once someone had denied Catholicism they shouldn’t be allowed back into the Church. This relates to Pelagianism as well. Pelagius was the same age as Augustine and he also preached the necessity of believers being held responsible for their actions. Augustine opposed these two groups because he held the fatalistic belief that everyone was born a sinner. As such, believers and clergy shouldn’t be expected to be morally better than anyone else. Augustine’s created the Christian foundations for the theory of just war in his criticisms of the Donatists. His oratorical and legal arguments led to the declaration of heresy against the Donatists and their harsh persecution which he only partly protested against. These heresies, however, would continue to attract adherents for centuries to come.

In 379, Theodosius I became Roman Emperor. He united the Eastern and Western Empire and was the last Emperor to rule both. Also, he made the Nicene Creed the official state religion. Augustine was still a Manichaean at this time and this must’ve influenced his later decision in 386 to convert to Catholicism. In 381, Theodosius I began to inhibit Paganism. In 388, he began the persecution and destruction of Paganism. This was the Catholicism that Augustine converted to and which he helped to support.

After Theodosius reign, the beginning of the fifth century was more of the same. The last remnants of Egyptian religion was destroyed. Also, Hypatia (the last great Pagan teacher, philosopher, and mathematician) was killed by a Christian mob. I don’t know what Augustine’s opinion was about this destruction of Pagan culture all around him, but he certainly took notice of the sacking of Rome. Rome was attacked by the Visigoths who were Arian Christians. Augustine wrote The City of God in response to the fall of Rome because Pagans were blaming Christians for this event. At the end of his life, the Arian Vandals were ravaging Roman Africa. Augustine was on his deathbed in Hippo when it was overrun by Vandals.