--About Egypt and Christianity: Jesus-Horus--

Some may think to accuse Ms. Murdock of committing the fallacious appeal to authority because she
peppers her text with information ascribed to various scholars and includes their professional titles or
academic posts. But she is not thereby trying to lend a weight to her thesis which it would not
possess on its own. Rather, she is trying to help us place the specialists whose work she is
discussing. I am no Egyptologist, so it helps me to know who I am "listening to" here and that it is
never just some convenient crank.
This is no doubt the best book by this controversial author. Any and every fault, real or perceived,
that one might have detected in "The Christ Conspiracy" was already absent from "Suns of God," and
it is hard even to remember them while one is reading "Christ in Egypt." Just so no one will suspect
Acharya paid me to puff this thing, I suppose I ought to supply a couple of minor criticisms. My main
one is that, as in the case of the great Robert Eisenman, she seems to me to over-document her
case, almost to the point that I fear I will lose track of the argument. But, like all good teachers, she
periodically pauses to draw the threads together. And of course the danger is implied in the scope of
the subject. She quotes a previous scholar concerning this occupational hazard: "Unhappily these
demonstrations cannot be made without a wearisome mass of detail" (Gerald Massey, "Ancient
Egypt: Light of the World," p. 218, cited p. 313).
The book is more extensive and encompassing than many dissertations I have read, containing over
900 sources and nearly 2,400 citations in several languages, including ancient Egyptian. The text
abounds in long lost references, many of them altogether new to English rendering, including de novo
translations of difficult passages in handwritten German. This is the kind of thing that gives me, as a
researcher, a migraine as soon as I see them coming in the distance!
Besides random judgment calls re this or that proposed parallel or conclusion, my only continuing
disagreement with the Acharya is on her model whereby a committee of creators sat down to
formulate the Christian religion. Such a scenario is by no means impossible, but it seems
unnecessary to me. I prefer the old Romantic idea of Hlderlin and the early form-critics of an
anonymous and nebulous "creative community." It is hard to track down rumors, myths, or ascendant
religious symbols to specific names. But this difference hardly matters. We are in agreement on the
thoroughly syncretic character of primitive Christianity, evolving from earlier mythemes and rituals,
especially those of Egypt. It is almost as important in "Christ in Egypt" to argue for an astro-religious
origin for the mythemes, and there, too, I agree with the learned author. Let me outline the main
argument that persuades me, some of it learned here, some already assimilated and facilitating my
acceptance of much that Acharya offers.
First, I find it undeniable that, as Ignaz Goldziher ("Mythology among the Hebrews") argued,
following the lead of "solar mythologist" Max Mller (yes, the great historian of comparative religion
and world scripture), many, many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old
Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations. This theory is now ignored in favor of
others more easily made into theology and sermons, but it has never been refuted, and I find the
evidence overwhelming. And once you recognize these patterns in the Old Testament, you start
noticing them, albeit to a lesser degree (?), in the New. 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.
Second, for Egyptian influence to have become integral to Israelite religion even from pre-biblical
times is only natural given the fact that from 3000 BCE Egypt ruled Canaan. We are not talking about
some far-fetched borrowing from an alien cultural sphere. 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. Mourning women seek for his body. The anointing in Bethany ("Leave her alone!
She has saved the ointment for my burial!") is a misplaced continuation of the women bringing the
spices to the tomb, where they would raise Jesus with the stuff, as Isis used sacred ointment to raise
Osiris. Thus Jesus "Christ" makes more sense as Jesus "the Resurrected One" than as "Jesus the
Davidic Scion." In the ritual reenactments, three days separate the death and the resurrection. Jesus
appears on earth briefly, then retires to the afterworld to become the judge of the living and the dead--
just as Osiris does.
Osiris is doubly resurrected as his son Horus, too, and he, too, is eventually raised from the dead by
Isis. He is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern. As
such, he seems to represent the common Platonic astronomical symbol of the sun's path crossing the
earth's ecliptic. Likewise, the Acts of John remembers that the real cross of Jesus is not some piece
of wood, as fools think, but rather the celestial "Cross of Light." 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).
Third, Eusebius and others already pegged the Theraputae (Essene-like Jewish monks in Egypt) as
early Christians, even Philo the Jewish Middle Platonist of Alexandria) as a Christian! Philo and
various Egyptian Gnostic sects experimented with the philosophical demythologizing of myths such
as the primordial Son of Man and the Logos. Philo equated the Son of Man, Firstborn of Creation,
Word, heavenly High Priest, etc., and considered the Israelite patriarchs, allegorically, as virgin-born
incarnations of the Logos. All, I repeat, all, New Testament Christological titles are found verbatim in
Philo. Coincidence? Gnostic texts are filled with classical Egyptian eschatology. Christian magic
spells identified Jesus with Horus. It seems hard to deny that even Christians as "late" as the New
Testament writers were directly dependent upon Jewish thinkers in Egypt, just like the Gnostic
Christian writers after them. And if the common Christian believer saw no difference between Jesus
and Horus in Egypt (or between Jesus and Attis in the Naasene Hymn), why on earth should we think
they were innovators?
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".
"Christianity is largely the product of Egyptian religion being Judaized and historicized".

I've never studied Egyptian religion too deeply, but the way she presents it makes me very curious to
learn more. In particular, she has helped me to better understand the importance of the Coptic
Christians and the Alexandrian Jews, and this has given me more of the context behind the
development of Gnosticism.
If you're not familiar with the authors work, she mostly writes about comparative mythology in terms of
Christianity. In particular, she emphasizes astrotheology (related to cultural astronomy,
ethnoastronomy, and archeoastronomy) 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. Also, she runs a discussion board which is a wealth of
information. Specific to this book, excerpts can be found on the Stellar House Publishing website.
You might be familiar with astrotheology from the first part of the movie Zeitgeist, but that movie is
only a very basic presentation. So, don't dismiss Murdock's work based on criticisms that you've read
about Zeitgeist. Christ In Egypt is partly a response to those criticisms and it's a very thorough
response. If you're genuinely interested in this topic, I'd recommend reading the book (which is
something many of her critics don't do) and making up your own mind.
As for the issue of Murdock's scholarship, here is an excerpt from the preface of Christ In Egypt:
"I have been compelled to do extensive and exhaustive research in the pertinent ancient languages,
such as Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Coptic, while I have also utilized authorities in modern
languages such as German and French. . . . In my analysis of the ancient Egyptian texts, I consulted
and cross-referenced as many translations as I could find, and I attempted to defer to the most
modern renditions as often as possible.
Murdock cites more than nine hundred scholarly sources and primary texts which includes thousands
of footnotes, around 60 illustrations, and a 36 page long bibliography. She references the
contemporary mythicist scholars Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, and G.A. Wells; she goes into great
detail about the criticisms of Gerald Massey; and she has a large section where she discusses her
disagreement with Richard Carrier. Both Price and Doherty praise her work and reference it, and
Price wrote a foreword to one of her earlier books (Who Was Jesus?). Also, here are some of the
modern Egyptologists she references: Rudolf Anthes, Jan Assman, Hellmut Brunner, Claas J.
Bleeker, Bob Brier, Henri Frankfort, Alan H. Gardiner, John Gwyn Griffiths, Erik Hornung, Barry
Kemp, Barbara Lesko, Bojana Mojsov, Siegfried Morenz, William Murnane, Margaret A. Murray,
Donald B. Redford, Herman te Velde, Claude Traunecker, Reginald E. Witt, and Louis V. Zabkar.
One nice thing about Murdock's books is that the bibliographies give you many directions in which to
study further.
As a side note, many would like to separate Murdock's work from authors who act as popularizers,
but I noticed that she includes Freke and Gandy in her bibliography. I'm glad she did because I
personally get tired of the haughty attitude many people get about scholarship. Popularizers like
Freke and Gandy (along with Tom Harpur) play an important role as their books make for excellent
introductions, but keep in mind that Murdock is a very large step beyond introductory material. If you
feel a need to be dismissive towards the lesser scholarship of popularizers, please realize that
Murdock's Christ In Egypt is as scholarly as it gets.
As such, even though I highly recommend this book, it might not be a good introduction for most
people partly because of its massive size. 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. I personally appreciate
the excess of data. And, with a subject that attracts many critics, the more details and examples
provided the better the argument is supported.
Murdock's Christ in Egypt seems to be quite unique... despite there being many books that discuss
Christianity and Egyptology. She realized how much info was out there, but the problem was that it
was scattered across many sources. Her enormous goal was to collect as many scholarly references
as she could find. In doing this, she researched materials that had never been published before and
materials that had never appeared in English before. She amazingly managed to stuff a lot into a
single book (although I suspect she could've expanded it into multiple volumes). As far as I know,
there presently is no better resource available.
Biographical info (from her website):
"Acharya S, whose real name is D.M. Murdock, was classically educated at some of the finest
schools, receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall
College, the 17th oldest college in the United States. . . . Acharya is also a member of one of the
world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. . . . Acharya S has served as a trench master on archaeological
excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island
of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe, and she speaks, reads and/or writes
English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese and a smattering of other languages to
varying degrees."

D. M. Murdock is one of the most interesting maverick scholars writing today. She is challenging the
status quo and exposing conspiracies among religious scholars that severely limit free and open
inquiry. Make no mistake about it, she is extremely well-informed on all the pertinent issues regarding
early Christianity. Evangelicals who try to dismiss her as ill-informed or biased are barking up the
wrong tree (nothing new there!).
My complaint about Christ in Egypt is that it is overly long. It over-kills its main point. Moreover, it's
main point is an inference that is never really spelled out and examined. The inference is this: there
are a multitude of thematic parallels between the Horus and Christ myths; therefore the Christ myth is
derivative and thus non-historical. This is a problematic thesis on a couple of levels. First, and
foremost, as Murdock herself admits, the Horus myth is nowhere spelled out in a single narrative text,
as the gospel of Jesus is. The Horus myth has to be cobbled together from a variety of sources, many
of which are pictorial rather than verbal and require interpretation. The type of comparison engaged in
is thus between gospel apples and Egyptian oranges.
That doesn't mean it has no value or that Murdock hasn't made some kind of a case for a profound
Egyptian influence upon the shaping of Christianity. She has. But the twofold inference that: a)
Christianity is derivative and therefore unoriginal, and b) Jesus is a fictional rather than historical
figure, has not been sufficiently demonstrated by this work, in my view. Is she arguing direct or
indirect influence? If direct, she would have to show the mechanisms of that influence--the extant
texts or traditions from which the gospel writers would have drawn in shaping their narratives. The
distance between ancient Egypt and first century Israel was vast, counted in thousands of years. As
with all ideas, Egyptian myth themes morphed in many ways along the centuries as they migrated
into the Hellenistic world of Jesus' day. So much so, that one has to ask, when does an idea or
tradition become something other, something faintly reminiscent but with its own creative twist? How
do we define an original? Murdock is certainly correct in one sense that in religion there is nothing
new under the sun. Christianity may in fact be a revival of a very ancient tradition that predates
second temple Judaism and has its ultimate roots in ancient Egypt. But, again, historically speaking
that is a long road to hoe. See Margaret Barker's work to get a sense for how one might begin to
trace the continuities between nascent Christianity and ancient but repressed Hebrew traditions.
Second, mythologizing and historicizing are two sides of a coin. They are reciprocal. Mythologizing
does not, by itself, disprove a historical reality at its base. The relationship between a historical figure
of Jesus and the theological or mythologized narrative of him is a complex one that can't be
determined solely on the basis of textual or thematic parallels with other myths. The gospels draw, no
doubt, upon many extant myths and figures, including the Odyssey, as Dennis MacDonald has
shown. Conversely, a historical figure or set of events could hardly be expected to be conveyed by
ancient, theologically driven witnesses in stark realistic terms such as would be preferred in a modern
court. We expect ancient events to be expressed through theological and mythological filters of those
who witnessed them. The presence of mythic themes and motifs does not, by itself, disprove a
historical reality.
All that said, this book and the thesis it develops give one pause to consider the extent to which
ancient myths and religious themes permeated the first century Jewish landscape. My own sense of it
is that the themes involved are probably archetypal and have a way of spontaneously reemerging in
various places when the conditions are right. Somehow these themes are projections of some deep
part of the human psyche and reveal some mystery to us about who we are, where we've come from,
and where we're going. To get a good sense of that, I would recommend, in addition to Murdock's
suggestive works, reading Symbols of Transformation by C. G. Jung.

This book succeeds on so many levels. It is very thorough and includes massive references. These
provide so many other avenues of exploration and verification. D.M. Murdock has given us a great
gift. She has brought together seemingly unrelated fields of information and has provided a system of
understanding that allows us to understand how the Christian religion came together. Christianity is
not understood as a revolution, but as an evolution. She demonstrates how understanding the
Christian religion as syncretic evolution fits far better with the historical record.
I can now understand how gnostic Christianity would emerge with its seemingly unconnected beliefs
when compared to the Bible. The story of how a messianic theology coming out of Alexandria evolved
into the Christian religion is simply great detecting. It reads like a mystery novel unfolding its complex
plot. She takes puzzling statements by the Christian Church fathers and shows how the early Church
was clearly taking not only the rituals of sun worship, but its theology as well.
"St. Cyprian spoke of Christ as the true sun (sol verus)." Cyprian also writes, "O, how wonderfully
acted Providence than on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born." "St. Ambrose
says precisely, 'He is our new sun (Hic sol novus noster).' Similar figures are employed by Gregory of
Nazianzus, Zeon of Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc." Christ in Egypt page 112-113
Clement of Alexandria calls Christ the "Sun of the Resurrection"
D.M. Murdock obviously put a lot of work and research into this book. It is well worth reading and
reveals insights into what is the true origin of Christianity. This information should have been available
to the general public long ago. It is understandable why this hasn't been presented before because
for many centuries any criticism of the "truth" of Christianity would be met by death, loss of the ability
to make an income, and other social pressures. I have also learned to appreciate the finer points of
the Egyptian religion. It is no longer this dark and scary entry into the land of mummies and monsters
born of curses and superstition. It is a very sophisticated philosophy of light and darkness, good and
evil, and the purification of the soul.
I highly recommend this book and encourage you to read it slowly and thoughtfully, taking time to
place yourself back in time with D.M. Murdock when humanity saw things much differently.


--Horus focus or Horus bogus? Can parallels in religions and myths imply direct influences?--
In her book on Akhenaten (1940), Savitri Devi had issued a warning, when comparing myths, about
assuming influences after detecting parallels: "Without systematically denying the possibility of such
early influences, it seems to us that one should not overestimate them. Parallels are easy, and any
two solar symbols, if not too far-fetched, are bound to have something in common."
"Christ in Egypt" came out close on the heels of Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ: Recovering the
Lost Light" (2004), a huge popular success in Canada. Harpur is a Canadian priest turned theologian,
questioning the existence of Jesus (the Christ Myth, of Arthur Drews), now considered the most
famous religion writer in Canada.
Harpur was reviving the themes of three forgotten writers -- Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey and
Alvin Boyd Kuhn -- who saw Christian beliefs influenced by Egyptian myths.
The controversy also revived a general interest in the lost civilization of Ancient Egypt, which was for
nearly 3,000 years a major center of cultural and political power around the ancient Near East and the
Mediterranean. Until Egypt was conquered by Alexander in 332 BC (who called himself the "son of
Zeus-Amun") and colonized by Octavian in 30 BC, when Egypt became a Roman province.
Murdock was faithfully following this long tradition originated by two pioneers:
- Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), who ultimately privileged India as the origin;
- and Robert Taylor (1784-1844), who theorized that the Therapeuts -- a Jewish sect first mentioned
by the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD) -- had been the original propagandists of
Christian beliefs in the form of secret brotherhoods.
This thesis was then picked up by Kersey Graves (1813-1883), Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891), the
priestess of Theosophy, and her disciples Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and G.R.S. Mead (1863-
1933).
Down the line, in the 20th century, the tradition was reinforced by Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963), a
fervent Theosophist, and finally Tom Harpur (b. 1929).
This old Taylor/Massey/Kuhn Egyptian thesis, championed by Murdock -- that Alexandria with its
Therapeuts was the incubator and birth place of the Christian gospels -- remains a viable contention
that no biblical research can ignore.
The old pioneers all used a list of parallels between the Egyptian God Horus and Jesus, claiming that
some essential components of the Jesus Christ story derived from ancient Egyptian religion.
Predictably, this thesis has met with virulent criticisms from theologians. In his 2-star review of
Harpur's book, W. Ward Gasque claimed polling 20 "leading" Western Egyptologists (although
disclosing only 2 names) and finding no support for Massey's ideas -- these parallels being dismissed
by all as pseudo-scientific, even as "fringe nonsense."
Murdock followed suit, producing her own huge compilation in two years. She reviewed the literature,
using the same themes and the same parallels, ferreting out relevant quotes from known
Egyptologists, past and modern, to support the same overall thesis. She ended up building one final
grand story -- clear in its main lines, but still very blurry in its practical details.
The crucial problem faced by the huge claim in "Christ in Egypt" is: What value can be ascribed to
some 10 to 15 parallels between the god Horus and Jesus?
First, are those parallels accurate, or just weak resemblances?
Second, "proof" remaining unattainable in history, even strong similarities are not enough evidence of
real influences. Can it be shown that those perceived parallels have resulted from a direct, intentional
influence?
And how and where? A "demonstrable borrowing" requires a historical "bridge" for effective
communication and transfer of ideas between two different cultures.
The book is devoted to unraveling the "obvious connections" assumed between both myths.
Murdock has bravely retrieved Massey's ideas (with the lateral support of Wallis Budge). It is a
healthy reprise of old-fashioned ideas, but one that has drawn the expected volley of skepticism from
the cautious specialists of the the establishment.
The meaningful parallels between the Horus/Isis/Osiris myth and the Jesus story are those revived
from Massey's list:
- Confusion between father god Osiris and son god Horus;
- son of god;
- birth date on winter solstice ("Dec. 25th");
- royal descent;
- virgin birth from mother Isis/Mery (Mary?);
- announcement by an Eastern star and homages from 3 "magi" (?);
- teaching in the Temple at 12;
- baptism (?) at 30;
- baptizer beheaded;
- 12 disciples (?);
- "signs and wonders": miracles, healing the sick, exorcisms, raising Osiris from the dead; walking on
water;
- crucifixion (???);
- fighting the evil one (Seth, the bad guy who kills Osiris and dismembers him, throwing the 14 parts
all over Egypt);
- resurrection on the 3d day (thanks to Isis's success in recovering 13 of the parts of Osiris's body;
but, lo, the penis is missing, and refashioned with a piece of wood);
- ascension into heaven;
- mystical addresses: "The Way," "The Truth," "The Anointed, etc...
This is by far Murdock's most heavily researched book. Some (like Robert Price) find its erudition too
heavy. Obviously, Acharya is advancing in this minefield of Egyptology prudently, protecting every
assertion under a shield of quotations from "highly credentialed authorities", or "luminaries", as she
likes to term them.
Her exact referencing of each quotation makes her ready to stand up to the usual expected salvo of
criticisms.
And her popular success is certain to make her the target of invidious scholars who have never
thought of exploiting that field. She is always ready to accuse her male critics of "knee-jerk reactions",
"jealousy," and "misogyny".
Even when Murdock gives the impression of stretching a point, or indulging in speculation to make a
parallel work (with key words like "obviously", "evidently", etc...), it is not a reason to dismiss her out
of hand. She devotes many pages to each parallel, armed with a mountain of quotations from learned
scholars, modern and less modern, to establish a strong presumption in her favor based on their
consensus, especially on the big items:
- For instance, about the crucifixion: Horus, a divine falcon, is spreading his wings, or opening his
arms against the Heavens -- in "cruciform" fashion, yes, but still a far cry from the Roman crucifixion
as a cruel punishment for criminals. Horus, truth be known, was never crucified.
- Or about the virgin nativity: In a lengthy discussion of the famous ancient engravings in the court of
Amenhotep III at the Luxor temple, which depict the birth of the god Ra-Horus, who would become
identified with the reigning pharaoh, Amenhotep III (ruled ca 1388-1351 BC), or his son Akhenaten
(born ca. 1365 BC), Murdock follows those 19th-century Egyptologists who wanted to see in those
panels the very model of the virgin nativity of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, even better, a model of
"immaculate conception" (?) to the loud screams of protest from historian Richard Carrier.
- She also spends a lot of ink on the resurrection (or was it resuscitation?) of Osiris, which is crucial
for her claim. Bruce Metzger had pointed out that the texts concerning the actual death and
resurrection of Osiris are "meager and reticent, no more than mere allusions." The reassembly of
Osiris's 13 body parts (the phallus is missing) by Isis takes place in the Underworld, where Osiris
becomes "Lord and Ruler of the Dead" and does not seem a smooth comparable to Jesus's
unexplained whole-body resurrection. Similar skeptical view in Tryggve Mettinger's Riddle of
Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East (2001).
Similarly, pro and con arguments have raged concerning the birth date of 25th of December, the 3
wise men (magi in Egypt?), the baptism at 30, the 12 apostles, the miracles and exorcisms, the
resurrection on the 3d day, etc...Too often, these comparisons seem forced and far-fetched, more
wishful thinking than fact.
The debates about assumed borrowings or derivation have been intense, and never conclusive.
Murdock had to face a maelstrom of controversies where she has been holding her own by answering
critics with copious dissertations.
One fact seems established: Once the Gospels were out, the iconic image of Isis nursing baby Horus
in her arms was borrowed for the Christian images of Mary breast-feeding the baby. And that is the
very illustration Murdock has chosen to put on the cover of "Christ in Egypt".
This book is impressive, and Murdock's craft seems to be improving one notch or two with every new
book. She started heavily influenced by the sweeping generalizations of Barbara Walker's intuitive
approach to mythology and religion.
She also picked up ideas from James Frazer, Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, popular authors who
easily nourish New Age mysticism and magical speculations, in which Murdock has retained an
intense interest. Her debunking of Christianity has gone hand in hand with promoting New Age
speculations.
She has also been following the trail in the field of comparative mythology and religion blazed by
some notable female writers.
For instance Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), of noble Russian descent, who founded the
Theosophical Society of New York in 1875 as a center for spiritualism. She wrote "The Esoteric
Character Of The Gospels" (1888), where she claimed that "every religious dogma the world over,
may be traced to, and located in, the Zodiacal signs and the Sun," and lauded" the immortal Divine
Spirit in man, whether it be called Horus, Krishna, Buddha, or Christ."
Spirited Blavatsky is a pure apostle of "astrotheology," and Murdock her frank disciple.
Also extraordinary is Savitri Devi (1905-1982), an English-Greek woman born in France, who lived in
India, became a Hindu, married a Brahmin and adopted a Sanskrit name, setting a precedent for
Acharya. She wrote profusely about Egyptology, Hinduism, and against Judeo-Christianity. She also
became, bizarrely, a fervent theoretician of Nazism ("Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman",
1976), idolizing in Hitler an embodiment of Kalki, the heroic avatar of Vishnu, savior of a decadent
world through its destruction.
Savitri Devi published "Son of the Sun: Akhnaton, King of Egypt" in Calcutta (1940). Akhenaten (b ~
1365, ruled ~ 1351-1334 BC) was the son of the great Amenhotep III, whose reign (1388-1351 BC) is
seen as the peak of the Pharaohs' splendor and power. The birth in the form of the god Ra-Horus,
who would become the ruling pharaoh Amenhotep III (or perhaps his son Akhenaten), is the subject
of those famous Luxor temple panels lengthily discussed by Acharya in her book.
Akhenaten is a fascinating figure, even more so in our modern age thanks to his supremely beautiful
queen, Nefertiti, and his son, Tutankhamun (reigning ca 1333-1323 BC), discovered in his fabulous
tomb and golden mask in 1922.
Akhenaten was a radical reformer, who promoted a new, nearly monotheistic, religion, the worship of
Aten, that he dared place above the old solar god Amun-Ra and his traditional, and crowded,
pantheon of diverse Egyptian gods. Aten was defined as a new universal form of the sun-god, also
revered as a creator, "the Principle of Radiant Energy, source of all life", whose personification was
the pharaoh himself, Akhenaten, and officially called the "Son of Aten". The whole Egyptian religious
structure was remodeled to glorify this new cult of Aten.
Horus, Isis and Osiris, the key players in Murdock's story, were left on the wayside for a while, to
return once Akhenaten had died, ca 1334 BC, and his new cult of Aten, distant and impersonal, had
been repudiated by the established priesthood of the kingdom eager to restore Amun-Ra to his
former pre-eminence.
Freud was so impressed by Akhenaten that he wrote "Moses And Monotheism" (1937), making
Moses a follower of Akhenaten.
Murdock, to her credit, buttresses her argument by quoting a contingent of established Egyptologists
such as Breasted, Hornung, Assman, thus giving her work an allure of better scholarship. The entry in
this arcane field of a newcomer suspected of New-Ageism is not easy.
Egyptology still remains unsettled, with no consensus established on many key points, no
comprehensive encyclopedia or authoritative textbook of the Egyptian religion, and key texts still open
to many interpretations.
The actual knowledge of the Egyptian religion has been established by a sheer accumulation of bits
and fragments of texts and artifacts fastidiously gathered from a multitude of inscriptions, sculptures,
sarcophagi, temples, monuments, and papyri, both in hieroglyphs or hieratic script.
Gods were incredibly numerous, starting as local deities, then merging with one another, gaining a
national presence, worshipped in larger territories, with varying and confusing names, and variable
appearances, across a history of 4,000 years. To keep track of such a complex universe is an
impossible challenge, and no encyclopedia can ever encompass it.
In short, the "Egyptian religion" covers an immensity of gods and places, necessitating a herculean
job of decipherment of papyri, tablets and stone inscriptions spread all over the territory.
Which aspect did directly influence the formation of Christianity?
How can direct influence, if any, be demonstrated? Where? By whom? And how? What was the
physical bridge that allowed the transmission of beliefs?
No wonder that any generalization has to be documented with an abundance of citations, pictures
and careful evaluation of different translations. No wonder that outsiders like Higgins, Taylor, and self-
made Egyptologists like Massey did come up with some highly controversial interpretations.
The 19th century was the age of the pioneers of modern Egyptology. It started in 1824 with the
deciphering of the hieroglyphs of the famous Rosetta Stone by Champollion, followed by new
archeological excavations, and an explosion of scholarly studies.
It also led to a public fascination, an Egyptomania that intensified interest in the study of religions and
mythology, their history and reciprocal influences.
The Egyptian belief in the afterlife of souls blended well with the spiritualism of Swedenborg
spreading in Europe and the US, claiming communication with spirits. This movement attracted
romantic imaginations among the cultivated classes, especially women, who were able to play major
public roles.
This passionate belief in psychological and spiritual influences - "spiritualism" -- was presented as a
pseudo-religion opposed to Christianity, and became an international rage in the second half of the
19th century. It was linked to a recrudescence of interest in the occult, ghosts, magic, and astrology.
It gave rise to Blavatsky's Theosophy, claiming a link between astrology and primitive religions, and in
the 20th century, to the New Age version of spiritualism.
Some "astrotheology" had in fact emerged among the Ancient Greeks, after they had lost their
primitive trust in the Olympian gods (Gilbert Murray, "Five Stages of Greek Religion", 1912)
Murdock follows as guide Gerald Massey, a self-taught 19th-century pioneer of Egyptology, who
remains a controversial reference. He was a gifted English linguist, who started with writing poetry.
Massey was obsessed with theology, astrology, and spiritualism. He believed in cultural evolution,
trying to combine Darwin's natural evolution and fashionable spiritualism into "spiritual evolution".
Christianity as a "phase" of such development was a natural.
Around age 40, he got interested in Egyptian mythology and its similarities with the Gospels. He
educated himself in things Egyptian at the British Museum, but never became a professional
Egyptologist.
Massey established in "The Natural Genesis" (2 vol., 1883) a long list of significant parallels between
the Egyptian cults of Horus and Osiris and early Christianity, supporting his intuitions of a Gnostic
Jesus being informed by the Egyptian religion. Massey's enthusiasm led him to see in Ancient Egypt
the source of modern civilization and religions.
In his final work, "Ancient Egypt - The Light of the World" (1907), the last book, #12, deals with the
final culmination of his immense Egyptian studies, "The Jesus Legend Traced in Egypt for 10,000
Years".
However, Massey's work is labeled "pseudo-scientific" and no longer respected among modern
Egyptologists. He has suffered the ignominy of being ignored in the reference books of Egyptology.
Murdock also uses quotes from a supporter of some of Massey's ideas, Wallis Budge (1857-1934).
Budge was a true pioneer of scholarly Egyptology, who also started with a passion for languages, and
became the Keeper of the Dep't of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum.
Budge's unorthodox theory held that the Egyptian religion originated in central Africa. Like other bright
minds of the 19th century, he was fascinated by spiritualism and the occult. Budge fuelled that
popular interest with his important translation of "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" (1895), which was
also used by the movement as material against Christianity.
Budge leveraged his prestige in Egyptian studies to express his views in the field of comparative
religion. In the spirit of Massey, Budge, too, saw a strong influence of the cult of Osiris on Christian
beliefs.
Budge was a rare generalist in a field of extreme area specialists, who didn't or couldn't keep up with
recent research. He was a dedicated popularizer, quickly producing an amazing number of books,
mostly large syntheses and generalizations which made him famous.
He mixed factual knowledge with his personal opinions, often jumping to premature conclusions,
without doing much fact-checking with other key experts, and without divulging his primary sources,
rendering verification impossible.
Experts considered that his impatient style led him to presenting a huge number of errors. The British
Museum currently considers his books, many more than 120 years old, outdated, excluding them
from its recommended reading list, as only experts can separate the few remaining solid kernels from
the "nonsense" of Budge's fanciful opinions.
Remarkably, these books are prized by amateur Egyptomaniacs and New Agers engaged in
occultism and religious magic. No longer under copyright, they are now very cheap (Dover editions).
Otherwise, there are few affordable introductions to Egyptology, where sound knowledge requires
years of specialized study, and up-to-date scholarly publications are of limited circulation and
expensive.
A vigorous debate has ensued online between the Massey/Murdock fans and skeptics -- both atheists
and Christian apologists amusingly united for once in this common cause -- arguing the validity of the
fine points.
As these controversial claims have already been presented in the Internet movie Zeitgeist (2007),
partisans on both sides have arisen, with more passionate conviction than expertise.
In the case of the Gospel writers, how could the enigmatic information in the remote images on some
dark walls of a remote Luxor temple (or other temples with similar nativity scenes), get transferred to
some learned Jews of Alexandria, and directly influence their writing of the story of Jesus, nearly
1,500 years later?
Serious objections have been raised from all sides -- Murdock crossing swords with Richard Carrier,
a historian specializing in the ancient Greco-Roman period.
Many professional Egyptologists have stated that the similarities are superficial and are not evidence
of direct lineage or borrowings. Some detractors have resolutely claimed that: "not only can [the
borrowing] not be substantiated on the extant evidence, but it is also intrinsically most improbable."
(Bruce Metzger, Samuel Brandon, for instance.).
For big differences remain between the parallels, beyond the similarities. For instance, the Egyptian
nativity was a cyclically recurring event, at the birth of each new pharaoh, with the conception being
played out at the level of the gods and the infant produced being Horus, who was to take the form of
the current pharaoh.
Thus the reigning pharaoh was always projected as a "son of god," legitimizing his rule on earth. The
divinity of the Egyptian pharaoh was essential to the continuity of the cycle of natural forces controlled
by the gods, guaranteeing the smooth cycle of Nile floods and the stability and prosperity of the
nation. It was never questioned.
Whereas the birth of Jesus was meant as a unique, historical event precursor of the end of times, and
it has been questioned ever since. And only Luke mentions the annunciation to Mary, while Matthew
brings in the Eastern star and Magi.
A huge amount of literature has been published on the interpretation of the Luxor scene, as well as
on more nativity scenes in other temples, where the gods and the living pharaohs are intimately
fused.
The inscriptions never give a complete tale, a lot is left unsaid, and the variations are multiple, the
gods' names often changing, as well as their physical representations, so that the final story written in
English is manufactured from an amalgam of many fragments of different inscriptions and pictorial
scenes.
It is disturbing that such over-detailed parallels are drawn from a few stone inscriptions, and the few
texts reconstructed by modern interpretations. They seem too precise to be true. And the reading of
the famous Luxor panels plays too big a part. They do not seem to relate a Christian story. We have
to discount exaggeration.
The parallels are based on readings of the panels and hieroglyphs that depend very much on the
ability of the scholars to reconstruct the story sketched on walls. Those interpretations are
rationalizing products of modern readers, which then seem to be retrojected back at the origins of
Christianity.
I, for one, could not be convinced that those unknown Luxor panels, created 1,500 years before,
located on a dark wall 500 miles from Alexandria, played any part in the formation of Christianity. It
sounds more like wishful thinking of modern interpreters. No way could these obscure and hidden
panels have influenced any scholars in Alexandria or Palestine. It is pretty safe to assume that Philo
never made the trip, never saw the panels. He never learnt hieroglyphs, a cryptic language reserved
by the priests to speaking about gods and pharaohs.
In addition, and this is a crushing counter-argument, there's a vast current of valid historical biblical
research by the most learned experts, that has strikingly shown that the basic Christian texts, Paul's
letters and the Gospels, use continual borrowings and adaptations of various Jewish texts (Psalms,
Isaiah, Daniel, Enoch, etc..). "Midrash" has become the key word to analyze the NT.
Still, the parallels between the Horus cult and the Jesus myth are too striking to be ignored, in spite of
the huge distance in time and space.
The very existence of similarities illustrates the fact that many themes were common currency in the
mental landscape of the ancient Mediterranean world where a certain uniformity of civilization
prevailed. The ancient Greco-Roman cultures gave rise to similarities in myths and religious beliefs,
in which the essential ideas of men who were also gods or gods who appeared as men or loved
consorting with human females, seemed commonplace, even if we, in the modern West, have long
since lost this spontaneous belief.
Many of those myths emerged within countries with similar social and physical conditions. The stories
of gods were often connected to those of the temporal rulers. Those gods encountered similar events
and accidents -- births, deaths, rivalries, the "journeys of a hero" -- that we now see as analogous
elements in their myths, but often without finding any detectable evidence of direct influences.
This influence of the common beliefs in the characters of gods in antiquity cannot be denied. And
Egypt's antiquity must have made it the source of legends and my themes that spread all over the
Near East and the Mediterranean basin. Egypt promoted belief in immortality and after life. It was
perceived as the source of most mystical beliefs and magic. How those beliefs spread is now
practically untraceable.
At the bottom of the controversy is a huge difficulty of interpretation in Egyptology. Hieroglyphs were
"holy characters", reserved by the priests to communications with gods, and to relate aspects of the
pharaohs' lives. They were studied and taught in temples. Outsiders and the general population were
incapable of reading them.
Even the discovery of the Rosetta Stone didn't make the decryption of inscriptions immediate. And
translating the old inscriptions is still a huge challenge, requiring a lifetime of experience to achieve
expertise.
How could Murdock, publishing her new book on Egypt in two years, claim to become an authority in
such a complex field? Materially, she could only produce a book as a vast compilation of texts and
authors.
Known hieroglyphs can be grouped in unusual fashion, producing various ideas that can be
contradictory.
The clear concepts of ancient Greek or modern English are not easily correlated to the variety of
Egyptian ideas that modern Egyptologists work so hard to extract and interpret from fragments of
inscriptions, papyri and engravings, in hieroglyphs and hieratic, mostly about gods and kings.
The correspondence of the Egyptian data with the English concepts (virginity? resurrection?) in each
case seems elastic, approximate, often vague, if not forced.
The ancient Egyptians didn't think exactly along the chains and neat distinctions of our modern
concepts, derived from the clarity of ancient Greek and Latin. The meanings of our abstract ideas,
such as "god", "living", "dead", "heaven", "underworld", "soul", "body," "afterlife", depend on the
network of connotations attached to them. Ancient Egyptians didn't have the same set of connotations
for the ideas we translate into our own words. "God" and "pharaoh" fused smoothly into each other,
as an "eternal soul" was linked to an "eternal body".
Perhaps ancient Egyptians would not have understood what is meant by our concept of "immaculate
conception", as it is hard enough for our modern brains. Identifying those unknown networks of
ancient connotations has been the big conundrums facing Egyptologists in their effort to decipher
what Egyptian inscriptions meant to ancient Egyptian minds.
Many translations by experts of a given text fragment are possible, and different meanings can be
attached to the same hieroglyphs or engravings, making a selection by outsiders nerve-racking.
Some texts are even considered untranslatable. Serious misunderstandings, incomprehensions,
gross errors, and fanciful guesswork remain possible.
Bruce Metzger has emphasized that there's always the lure of more precision in the modern retelling
in our languages (Greek, English) than the vague and less defined Egyptian data provide.
The interpretation of the Egyptian physical evidence, assembled from so many fragmented hieroglyph
and hieratic texts, and the reconstruction of a system of thoughts that is so far removed from ours, is
still more of an art than a strict science, where experience and skill are paramount.
Significantly, the historian Richard Carrier doubts the existence of a direct transmission of ideas from
an Egyptian myth that is not explicitly found anywhere in full form. He points out that the Gospel
writers were all superbly educated in ancient Greek and in Greek culture, and must have been much
more familiar with Greek models of nativity than distant and obscure Egyptian ones, that they would
never have had a chance to see in those remote temples, nor understood if they had ever seen them,
even if these writers were located in Alexandria.
If the Gospel writers had been based in Antioch, also a very plausible location, instead of Alexandria,
the connection to antique Egyptian carvings and hieroglyphs would seem totally unlikely.
Carrier much prefers to privilege the direct influence of the many nativity scenes of Hellenistic kings
known to all well-schooled Greeks, such as the famous birth of Alexander the Great, in which his
mother Olympias dreamt that she was struck by a thunderbolt of Zeus on her wedding night. And
Carrier cites numerous examples of resurrection within the Greek mythological universe (Attis,
Aninna) that made more immediate sense to the Gospel writers than the far remote, mysterious and
unclear "resurrection" of Osiris by Isis in the Underworld.
But Earl Doherty, the famous author of "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical
Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus", is very partial to mythical origins of the
Jesus story. He retorts that even the traditional Greek themes of nativity, resurrection, and
immortality, may well have been influenced in the far past by Egyptian religion, because of the
antiquity and power of the Egyptian culture around the Mediterranean. So that all those stories and
themes must have all been circulating "in the air" (?) of the ancient world, and may well have
originated in Egypt or be borrowed from Egyptian myths.
In any event, any solid case of a direct borrowing of my themes seems impossible to establish, as
Murdock strikingly demonstrates, since she is desperately seeking to do exactly so in her book.
But does it really matter? asks Earl Doherty. Perhaps the borrowings didn't come directly from the
Luxor engravings, but were passed on by longer chains of transmission, with the same result. The
Jesus myth does owe something to the Horus, Isis and Osiris myth, even if a direct transmission
cannot be incontrovertibly traced.
Murdock's strenuous efforts to establish irrefutable connections between the Osiris/Isis/Horus
reconstituted tales and the Jesus Gospels, and her insistence on the close correlations of all the
minute items in her list (magi?), have been systematically challenged and have not met with
acceptance among historians and professional Egyptologists. She now is put in the same category as
Massey, and her new defense of the old ideas is most likely not the final word on this puzzle.
But there's no study of mythology or religion that does not involve some stretching and speculating in
places, and Egyptology offers ample opportunity for guessing. That is where the fun is, along with the
exotic and magnificent Egyptian illustrations, and the heated arguments that ineluctably follow.
Who was then writing in Alexandria, Matthew (preferably assumed to be located in Antioch) or Luke,
or both? What about Mark then? Was he in Rome?
It is only a crying shame, which can never be forgiven as long as the West endures, that the great
library of Alexandria was ruthlessly destroyed by Christian fanatics and its invaluable books burnt and
lost for ever. They may have held the solution to the enigma.
Justinian, the most fanatical of Christian Emperors (483-565), was bent on abolishing paganism, and
issued edicts expressly terminating the last remnants of worship of Amun, Isis, Osiris, and all
Egyptian gods. So the Luxor panels, if they had any real influence on the Gospel writers, exerted an
unexpected curse 2,000 years after their creation. Jesus vanquished Horus in the end, with no
resurrection this time.
It is invigorating to take the investigation of Christian origins for a bit of fresh air along the Nile,
outside the stale atmosphere of continual academic debates and away from those eternal librarian
discussions of the same stock-in-trade Bible quotes, and be exposed to the fireworks following this
excursion in ancient Egypt.
By creating such commotion with her big tome, Murdock is sharing in Tom Harpur's popularity.
Halfway between compilation and popularization, her book is boosting her overall credibility and
public recognition.
And nobody can ignore the warm review Robert M. Price has produced here. His pertinent criticisms
are those of a mentor happy to applaud the progress of a favorite protge.
However, in spite of Price's avuncular endorsement, the issue is far from settled -- as strongly argued
by historian Richard Carrier -- and many doubts and serious questions remain.

Agrippa says:
Yes, but what about the direct connection the ancient Christian Egyptian Copts made between John
The Baptist and the God Anubis (pgs. 241,242) or Jesus and Horus (pg. 297), which would strongly
suggest together with the rest of the work of this tome an Egyptian origin of Christianity? Just a
thought.
Also, why would it be so difficult for the ancient Alexandrian Jewish scholars to know about the divine
origin of such prominent Pharaohs like king Amenhotep (pg.167, 170 depicted on the walls of The
Great Temple of Luxor) or queen Hatshepsut (pg.172)?
:
I agree it's a long review. But it's a very complex story, and many top experts have been involved in
studying all the aspects and providing the results of their experience.
Luxor can be studied only for comparison with the Nativity story in Matthew or Luke, who are the only
ones who could have ever been influenced by the dark panels at Luxor. Those were created 1,500
years earlier, located on a dark wall in a distant temple 500 miles away from Alexandria. A temple
that the writers of the Gospels might have never visited, and if they had traipsed all the way there,
they would have been incapable of understanding the hieroglyphs describing the scene, and making
any sense of the inscriptions. About which even today's experts and professional Egyptologists are
not sure.
It's fun for us, with electric flashlights, cameras, and the work of thousands of Egyptologists over 200
years, to sit and compare the tales. But it is a big jump of imagination to think that this happened
around 100 A.D. when Matthew and Luke were writing their anonymous Gospels. My conviction is
that they would have not understood anything of the mysterious engravings.
Also this would never explain the Gospel of Mark, which is believed to antedate all the others, and
was in no way comparable to anything at Luxor. And most agree that it is Mark who launched the
story of Jesus on earth, with no visible similarity with Horus. The other Gospel writers only added
expansions, corrections and embellishments.
Before getting into all this, may I suggest that you read the articles of Richard Carrier, a historian who
has devoted a lot of time studying the question? I'm not saying that they are the final words, but they
will give you the discussion ground and the key points of the Luxor controversy. These Carrier articles
show the link to Murdock's articles that are responses or discussions with Carrier.
Luxor Inscription: Brunner's Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html
That Luxor Thing
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/294
That Luxor Thing Again
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/580/comment-page-1#comment-6061
Additionally, but very indirectly related, you could have a glance at articles on the problems of the
Nativity, to realize that the global picture is pretty complex, and it's too easy to simplify and make
leaps of intuitive connections 2,000 years later.
The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html
The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (2003)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html
And then, try to reread my review, slowly, and you will appreciate much more the angles of the
problem of derivation from Horus to Jesus. And that the question of direct influence is not as simple
as it seems.

Agrippa says:
Though I don't pretend to be an expert in Egyptology, in light of the Roseta Stone how do explain
what you said here? "they would have been incapable of understanding the hieroglyphs" This is news
to me. Please provide evidence. Additionally, let's not forget that Alexandria having the largest library
in the Roman Empire would be in a very good position to provide a source of knowledge of Egyptian
religion and pharaonic history and myth.
About Carrier, though I like the fact that he is a NT PhD scholar that advocates a mythical Jesus, I
see his soft porn interpretation of the nativity scene as erroneous like Murdock rightfully demonstrates
in the book.
Finally, what about my original question on the association that the Ancient Copts made of Anubis,
John The Baptist, Horus & Jesus?
:
Because reading hieroglyphs is not straightforward. You should study a few (Wikipedia gives many
examples), and realize that each one is a nexus of meanings giving way to all kinds of interpretations.
There's no one-to-one equivalence between a series of hieroglyphs and a sentence in Greek or
English. They are all interpreted by experts who devote their whole life to the exercise, using intuition
and experience, and checking with all the other experts in the field. Many inscriptions remain
indecipherable.
The idea that Matthew, a Greek-educated writer, would have traveled 500 miles, and tried to inspect
the panels at Luxor (why would he have chosen that one, among the hundreds of temples?), been
able to decipher the inscriptions, without flashlights and cameras, and brought back the transcription
to Alexandria, seems to me a fairy-tale. Most likely the priests would have never let him in, and no
outsiders would have been allowed to inspect and make copies.
When Tischendorf discovered pages of the oldest Bible manuscript in the monastery of Mt Sinai, the
Sinaiticus codex, the monks would not let him have access to the book for decades. When the
Vatican got the other one, the Vaticanus codex, they refused to show it to scholars and outsiders for
hundreds of years, until it was finally copied and published around 1900.
The Rosetta Stone was barely the beginning of an immense quest.
In any event Luxor is only used as a possible parallel to Matthew and Luke's Nativity. The story of
Jesus had already been developed amply by Paul and Mark. The connection to Horus as a god is a
general theme that could be found in most gods of antiquity.
I loved the request "Please provide some evidence". Are you an undergrad?
There is no general encyclopedia of Egyptian religion anywhere, which covers 4,000 years of history
and hundreds of Egyptian gods in multiple forms and multiple names. I doubt that there was one in
that Library of Alexandria, that simply needed to be opened to read the chapter on Horus.
Egyptian texts were fragmented, multiple, and nobody collated them in one source. They were mostly
inscriptions on physical objects, and nobody knows what was available on papyrus in Alexandria. All
this is conjecture, open to all newcomers with their imagination and taste.
Murdock saw how easy it is for a newcomer to plunge in, and to compile a book in two years,
whereas it takes any authentic Egyptologist a lifetime to establish some kind of knowledge and
reputation in a narrow area of the Egyptian past.
Same for Christianity. There was no NT for hundreds of years until the bishops voted at Nicaea.
Simply be aware that there are dozens of experts who don't buy Murdock's simplistic theme, who
have different ideas, which can be found only in reading their articles and books.
As soon as you try to juggle the interpretations of let's say, half a dozen of them, you will realize that
this is a pretty complex story that can't be simplified the way you like it.
I suspect you are the lazy kind, and have not bothered doing any serious reading on the subject.
I suspect that you have never read my review.
Not that it matters much, because I am not invested in this question. I have remained open to listen to
anybody more experienced and knowledgeable than me, and Carrier is only one of them, but the one
who jousted with Murdock about Luxor. What's fun is that he can't stand her, and she can't stand him.
Great fun for any observer.
Listen, your ideas seem to be pretty well set, and there's little point in trying to understand what other
people are saying.
If even Carrier is not good enough for you to read, then make your life simple and stick to Murdock's
story. It is a good start, and has the merit to get you interested.
Perhaps later in life, will you find the interest in digging deeper. For the time being, Murdock is just
fine. A good introduction for people who know nothing. Murdock is an ideal treat for this kind of
reader. Easy to swallow, and very tasty.

Agrippa says:
First of all, I will address this point "They are all interpreted by experts who devote their whole life to
the exercise" this is the place where you lost me, and have demonstrated that your reasoning is
flawed. Today's experts cannot possibly compare to the ancient Egyptian scholars originators of the
hieroglyphs that produced the Roseta Stone or their Ptolemaic period immediate descendants. We
are dealing with native speakers and writers here. As an example, I'm tri-lingual, and no non-native
expert can exceed my first 2 native oral language skills.
Matthew is just a name, and nobody knows who the author of the gospel was. Though, I will give you
credit to your writing skill, this point with Matthew's gospel author animosity is basic knowledge.
"I loved the request "Please provide some evidence". Are you an undergrad?" How is this request
construed as an undergrad query? Sounds like since you could only come up with a poor answer, you
felt the need to place a distraction fallacy here.
"Carrier is not good enough for you to read" This resonates as somebody that gives more importance
to authority than evidence.
"For the time being, Murdock is just fine. A good introduction for people who know nothing." These
remarks are very patronizing, and you obviously think very little of the author or many of her readers
including me. You may imagine how I feel about your apparent self-righteous attitude. A pity, your
writing expertise and eloquence fooled me and probably other people into believing that you had a
rational reasoning, but you don't have any.
:
proverb (18:17)
"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
:
I simply reviewed the book. I am in no way an expert in Egyptology. I have read what real experts
have presented.
If you have direct questions, Murdock has a couple of blogs and Forums, where you can ask her
directly. She thinks she has the final word. I, like many, strongly doubt it.
In addition, she and Carrier engaged in a lengthy polemic over many articles, with responses, and
further articles. If you want to know more about their interpretation of the Luxor panels, I suggested
for you to read this series of articles. Carrier lists at the beginnings of his articles all the links to
Murdock's articles. The whole thing is pretty time-consuming.
I, for one, could not be convinced that these panels, discovered by Western writers in the 19th
century, did play any direct part in the writing of the Gospels. I assume that it was physically
impossible. I gave the example of the two oldest Christian manuscripts, the Sinaiticus Codex and the
Vaticanus Codex. Temple priests and librarians are not eager to help scholars.
Yes, Murdock's book does suggest an Egyptian "origin" of Christian tales.
The best well-known Jewish "scholar" living in Alexandria at the time was Philo. He was much more
than a "scholar" like Carrier or Murdock, simple readers and writers of books. Philo was a bona fide
philosopher who did not connect to the pharaohs or the panels of Luxor. He connected with Plato and
Greek thinkers.
Philo was the one to first mention the Therapeuts. This was picked up by Godfrey Higgins
(Anacalypsis) and Robert Taylor (Diegesis, and the Devil's Pulpit), and later amplified by Kersey
Graves (ch. 31), Helena Blavatsky, G.R.S. Mead (Fragments of a Faith Forgotten), and Gerald
Massey.
All this was again picked up by aging Theosophist Alvin Boyd Kuhn and new Egyptology fancier Tom
Harpur. Then Murdock reread all this, and produced her own book in two years. This is not the final
word for anything. It is a compilation of previous writings. Then Carrier and Murdock engaged in a
lengthy polemic on the meaning of the Luxor panels.
So if you want to know all sides to the question, and not just one, you have to dig into that material. It
is time consuming. Just quoting a few pages from Christ in Egypt is the beginning.
That is why Murdock's book is excellent as an introduction to the subject for people who don't know
anything about it. This sparks curiosity, and the desire to read more.
Recently Murdock got into another dispute with another writer, Bart Ehrman, a specialist of textual
criticism, and a "highly credentialed authority" as Murdock likes to call them.
This dispute is amusing, and worth reading about, as a distraction from the serious stuff. It concerns a
bronze statue of a "Priapus Gallinaceus" supposedly hidden in the Vatican and a symbol of poor
Peter. Google lists most of the stuff written about this, under the same search keyword, or "Cocky
Peter". This cock has replaced the Luxor panels in the disputes of the writers involved.
On another hand, if you dig into George Albert Wells, Gerd Ldemann, Hyam Maccoby, Geza
Vermes, you discover a complete non-Egyptian line of interpretation that emphasizes all the
connections of most lines in the writings of Paul and the Gospels with the Greek version of the
Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh). For them Christianity is just an offshoot of Judaism, which battled against
the obligations imposed by the Jewish laws.
The list of articles I indicated is a good start to dig deeper in the Luxor interpretation. My feeling is that
it does not solve anything. The list of 15 parallels between the fabricated English version of the stone
documents at Luxor and the tale of, say, Matthew, is a selection based on intuition and interpretation.
Most parallels are disputed by all the writers who believe more in the validity of the anchoring in the
Jewish religion.
So that is all I know. Murdock's book has not been peer-reviewed by anybody. It is a vastly popular
treatment, as Tom Harpur's book was, but it is far from being the last word.
You seem to want to know ready-to-eat conclusions. I'm afraid there are few. Jesus was based in
Palestine and Jerusalem by all Christian documents, not in Egypt and Alexandria. All the rest is
interpretation, where intuition and imagination play a huge part, like fantasizing about the Therapeuts.
All these strands create a mystery, that allows for a lot of speculation.
The key is to read about all the existing lines of interpretation, not just one like Christ in Egypt.
That's just the start of any serious inquiry.
I forgot to mention: You'll find a more concise expose of Dorothy Murdock's basic themes in
"The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ" at:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_9.htm#menu
Both the title and all the contents are borrowed from a list of past writers of the 19th and 20th
centuries.
That was a essay that Murdock compiled around 1995 and has been amplifying in all her succeeding
books, which simply expand it with more quotes and filler.
"Christ in Egypt" is an expansion to match and surpass Tom Harpur's recent "The Pagan Christ"
which also deals with the same subject and the same arguments.