KRST - Jesus a Solar Myth

[Robert Tulip]

Hmmm. Deep breath.

It is best not to cast pearls before swine, so I will ignore the rest of Huller's irrelevant ignorant diatribe.

Here is my response to Murdock's comments on the KRST theory, from http://www.booktalk.org/post96665.html#p96665

The extraordinary thing here is that Murdock personally had to work with nineteenth century sources in order to prove this Egyptian source for the word Christ as the anointed one. This says much about the politics of Christianity and Egyptology, and how heavily basic research has been suppressed and forgotten. The research summarized in Murdock's post above is faultless. The only problem with it is a political one - that it proves an Egyptian source for the myth of Christ, and people find this emotionally repugnant.

The argument that academic research follows a path of linear progress is sometimes used to suggest that work from before the Second World War should be ignored. This line completely fails to see the power of the Christian backlash against the scholars such as Massey who conducted a rigorous study of the theological implications of the discovery of the hieroglyphics. The backlash starts from an emotional commitment to the core Christian belief that the Gospels are historical. It then latches on to any small error by writers who criticize the dogma and amplifies that as some supposed proof that Jesus was real in order to discredit and intimidate the entire area of study. There is also a dominant racist white myth that Greece is the 'cradle of civilization'. This Western myth finds the discovery that Greek thought stood on the shoulders of much older human cultures from Egypt and Babylon to be politically unacceptable. So, even in the scientific study of how Christ is a myth, leading authors such as Earl Doherty stick to a Greco-Judaean framework that basically ignores Egypt.

Many readers here will not know how intensely Murdock is reviled by Christian apologists for her work on Egypt. This revulsion is emotional, cultural, dogmatic and ignorant. The proof given above that the idea of Christ as the anointed one exhibits strong continuity with Egyptian belief regarding Osiris seems innocuous at first glance, but it is an important component of contemporary efforts to re-base understanding of religion on science rather than authoritarian tradition. Dogmatists are incapable of examining their own presuppositions, and assume that wide agreement to a proposition, such as that Jesus Christ was a man, is evidence for its truth.

The evolution of human psychology is a fascinating and complex topic. Belief in Jesus Christ is central to dominant popular theories of human identity. Showing that the evolution of this belief is actually completely different from common assumptions assists to put the evolution of psychology into a scientific framework. In showing that Jesus Christ is no more or less real than Osiris and Horus, Murdock proves how easily people can be gulled into false belief.

Embodying the myths of Horus and Osiris in the story of Christ, despite the ongoing supernatural content, actually served to support the emerging materialist assumptions of the ancient West. Popular culture in the mixing societies of the Roman Empire responded to a new myth that brought the old myths together on earth. Christianity cleverly aligned itself with the emerging materialist view that historical evidence was central to truth, putting spiritual beliefs into a historical story. There was no evidence available for Jesus, but when evidence was manufactured in the novels of Mark and others, using Egyptian myth as a template, it caught on like wildfire.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Robert,

I'd like to respond to this first ...

The evolution of human psychology is a fascinating and complex topic.

The study of this complex topic involves at the very least a study of the history of antiquity AND a study of history between then and now. The many headed beast of the Christian church organisation has dominated most discussions in this and other subjects between the 4th and 18th centuries.

Belief in Jesus Christ is central to dominant popular theories of human identity. Showing that the evolution of this belief is actually completely different from common assumptions assists to put the evolution of psychology into a scientific framework. In showing that Jesus Christ is no more or less real than Osiris and Horus, Murdock proves how easily people can be gulled into false belief.

Embodying the myths of Horus and Osiris in the story of Christ, despite the ongoing supernatural content, actually served to support the emerging materialist assumptions of the ancient West. Popular culture in the mixing societies of the Roman Empire responded to a new myth that brought the old myths together on earth. Christianity cleverly aligned itself with the emerging materialist view that historical evidence was central to truth, putting spiritual beliefs into a historical story.

Huller's reference has this to say ....

• The sun god of Emesa was to be finally integrated into the iconography of the Imperial Cult, as the later development of the cult of Sol Invictus under Aurelian (270-275 CE) .... continued by Probus (276-282 CE)

I think I can understand the centrality alluded to by the Horus and Osiris story of Christ, and I understand that central to the evidential support for the KRST connection are the claims made in authors of some time ago. I think that some calls have been made here, for the re-examination of this central evidence (KRST to Christ) - these are reasonable. I am certainly interested in gauging the arguments on both sides.

Is it possible to dig out these central arguments and evidence and place them under the spotlight?

I am entirely open to examining the ideas presented. I can understand that it is important to understand the mythologies of the 1st century BCE, and those of the first centuries of the common era. I certainly do not see the NT as any reliable evidence for either the Jesus Story or its chronology set in the 1st century. Whoever wrote this wrote in an epoch which already had its mixed bag of mythologies, and these authors were syncretic.

There was no evidence available for Jesus, but when evidence was manufactured in the novels of Mark and others, using Egyptian myth as a template, it caught on like wildfire.

What evidence do we have for the Egyptian KRST myth? We have had several threads about Osiris (thanks Mac) and these have actually outlined some good evidence for this cult in antiquity. I have not read all posts already here carefully.

If this has been itemised and discussed can it be summarised?

Thanks,




LC

[MrMacSon]

What evidence do we have for the Egyptian KRST myth?

ote that Piers Tulip has stated KRST is an arbitrary term (slogan) -

• So for me this word [KRST] is just a slogan, in fact in the book I say only this:
  

  • "The word Christ mean anoint, as used throughout the Old Testament. I like to assume about the name of Christ also an origin from the Egyptian KRST (karast) as explained by Gerald Massey in Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. Massey explains the match between the name of Christ and the term karast, the process of preparation, purification, anointing, and embalming of the dead Egyptians to prepare the body for burial and subsequent resurrection ..."

We have had several threads about Osiris (thanks Mac) and these have actually outlined some good evidence for this cult in antiquity.

It wasn't just Osiris that features - the Osiris-derivative Serapis also features - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1202

With his (ie. Osiris's) wife Isis, and their son Horus (in the form of Harpocrates), Serapis won an important place in the Greek world. In his Description of Greece, Pausanias notes two Serapeia on the slopes of Acrocorinth, above the rebuilt Roman city of Corinth and one at Copae in Boeotia.

Serapis was among the international deities whose cult was received and disseminated throughout the Roman Empire, with Anubis sometimes identified with Cerberus. At Rome, Serapis was worshiped in the Iseum Campense, the sanctuary of Isis built during the Second Triumvirate in the Campus Martius. The Roman cults of Isis and Serapis gained in popularity late in the 1st century when Vespasian experienced events he attributed to their miraculous agency while he was in Alexandria, where he stayed before returning to Rome as emperor in 70. From the Flavian Dynasty on, Serapis was one of the deities who might appear on imperial coinage with the reigning emperor.

The main cult at Alexandria survived until the late 4th century, when a Christian mob destroyed the Serapeum of Alexandria in 385, and the cult was part of the general proscription of religions other than approved forms of Christianity under the Theodosian decree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis#History

[neilgodfrey]

The extraordinary thing here is that Murdock personally had to work with nineteenth century sources in order to prove this Egyptian source for the word Christ as the anointed one.

I have failed to see where in Christ in Egypt Murdock proves that the word for Christ derived from an Egyptian source. I pointed out earlier that the quote from Massey offered no such proof -- merely assertion.

Murdock seems to acknowledge that Massey does not prove the point, too, when on page 316 of Christ in Egypt she says it is only Massey's "thesis" that krst was the origin of Christ.

Then on page 317 she writes a paragraph explaining what sorts of things were involved in the mummification process and identifies (rightly) some overlaps between these and the gospel description of Jesus' burial -- i.e. in both there is a requirement for anointing of the body with various spices and oils. The mummification also involves much more, of course, such as the application of natron to dry out the skin, and wrapping in linen. But the "anointing" aspect is singled out for comparison. Murdock concludes from this:

Hence, it could be said that a human [krst], i.e. a mummy would be "anointed," as related in the article "Egyptian Mummification":

Mummification may have included anointing the body with fragrant gum-resins (frankincense and myrrh) and various oils and fats (cedar oil, ox fat and ointment as a religious ceremony between the end of embalming and the beginning of wrapping. This process is mentioned in several late Egyptian papyrii.

Then on page 318 she goes one step further and what was only a "could be" above becomes a definite "was":

In any event, in the case of the mummy previously noted, the [krst] was also "the anointed," leading to the suggestion that the Greek and Latin terms Christos and Christus indeed may be related to the Egyptian KRST-- and that the concept for the anointed and resurrected god called "Christ," so to speak, could be discovered in Egypt.

Then on page 319 we see the certainty growing:

As we have seen, in the Pyramid Texts . . . the Osiris is anointed with oil, essentially making him a "messiah" or "christ," as those two words both mean "anointed one." We have also seen that in BD 145 it is Horus who is anointed, thus rendering him likewise a Christ.

Murdock then goes on to describe a deceased one who is Horus being "Christed".

Murdock then quotes The University Magazine pointing out the etymological link between the Egyptian word for 'anoint' (mas or mesu) and the Hebrew word for the same (messiah).

Murdock's above argument leads to the firm conclusion:

Thus, as anointed ones, it could truly be said that both Osiris and Horus were Christs and Messiahs . . . (p. 319)

In other words Murdock has cited no evidence at all that the Egyptian word KRST was the origin of Christ. She has begun with the word Christ and found an etymological link between its Hebrew counterpart and but one aspect of the Egyptian mummification process (mas/messiah) and noted the possibility (only the possibility) that the Egyptians "could" have called the mummified gods Osiris and Horus "Anointed Ones". No evidence is cited to confirm that this possibility actually happened.

Nor is there any scholarly discussion that I have seen pointing out the dangers of drawing conclusions like this from such etymological links.

The entire argument is built on wishful thinking, on possibilities and could-be's.

P.S. I am not anti-Egyptian. I have sometimes entertained the idea that Christianity even originated in Egypt, in particular at Alexandria. I would love to find evidence that pinned down Christianity's origins in Egypt -- as much as I'd love to discover any evidence that actually pinned it down anywhere. Egypt seems like a great place for it to have originated. The Greeks have had way too much attention and it's time to give the older Egyptians their long overdue place in the sun again.

PPS. I hope Robert and DM do not hate me even more for writing the above.

[Robert Tulip]

I would like to subject the question of whether KRST evolved into Christ to a Bayesian probability analysis. The idea that beliefs with so many components in common had no organic causal evolutionary pathway connecting them looks implausible on face value.

Examining Massey's original arguments on the Egyptian terms karast and krst at http://www.theosophical.ca/books/Ancien ... Massey.pdf leads me to see the evolution of the Christ Myth out of Egypt as vastly more probable than any alternative accounts that minimise Egyptian influence, especially since these other lines have been poisoned by the pervasive traditional magical politics of the church.

The scale, duration, location, similarities and potency of the Egyptian mythos suggests it was the main seed bed for Christianity, with Judaism a far smaller and more superficial influence. The longstanding Egyptian use of KRST to mean anointed is too similar in sound and use to the Biblical use of Christ to mean anointed to be written of as a mere coincidence.

[arnoldo]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICMN5AA#reader_B00ICMN5AA

KRST - Jesus a Solar Myth: A new exegesis explores mythical and allegorical contents of the Gospels [Kindle Edition]
Pier Tulip (Author), Robert Tulip (Translator)

The book description states;

A mythographic research in antithesis to the canonical line of historical research on the origin of Christianity.
The treatment turns immediately to search for mythical elements arising from antecedents religions that may have inspired some passes and descriptions of the Gospels.
In the central chapter, however, the comparative method is soon abandoned to introduce a new exegetical analysis suggested by an original idea of decoding the Egyptian solar myth.

The mythical hypothesis, however, does not preclude the search for a possible figure of the historical Jesus.

Several matches found between Mithraism-Freemasonry and Christianity and an explicit indication of Raimondo de Sangro in a coded letter foresee a precise profile of the founder of a Hermetic-initiatic sect.

my bolding. . . where does a possible figure of a historical Jesus fit into the Solar Myth hypothesis?

[Leucius Charinus]

I don't have much luck googling "karast" but found this:

http://www.masseiana.org/aebk12.htm

• 
  
  Caption: The annunciation, conception, birth, and adoration of the Child [85]
  
  
  [85] [The scenes were copied by Sharpe from the temple at Luxor. The illustration is taken from Sharpe, History of Egypt, vol. 1, p. 68, fig. 61. 'On the walls of the palace at Luxor we have a sculpture representing the miraculous birth of this son (see Fig. 61). In the first place, Queen Mautmes is receiving a message from heaven through the god Thoth, that she is to give birth to a child. Then the god Kneph, takes her by the hand, and with the goddess Athor puts into her, through her mouth, life for the child that is to be born. She is then placed upon a stool, after the custom of the Egyptian mothers, as mentioned in the book of Exodus. While seated there, two nurses chafe her hands to support her against the pains of child-birth; and the new-born child is held up beside her by a third nurse. In another place the priests and nobles are saluting their future king. In this way the sculpture declares that the young king had no earthly father; and it explains what was meant by the royal title of Son of Amun-Ra, and also how the Greeks came to be afterwards told that the Egyptian queens were Jupiter's concubines.'
  Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, p. 19. 'In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings.' See also NG 2:398 and ML 5.
  This is discussed in depth in Murdock's book, Christ in Egypt, pp. 167 onwards. The nativity scene of Amenhotep III is also reproduced in Brunner's Die Geburt des Gottkönigs: Studien zur Überlieferung eines altägyptischen Mythos, 1986.
  Brunner's theory of this scene is discussed by Murdock here: http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html.]

LC

[neilgodfrey]

I would like to subject the question of whether KRST evolved into Christ to a Bayesian probability analysis. The idea that beliefs with so many components in common had no organic causal evolutionary pathway connecting them looks implausible on face value.

Factored into a Bayesian analysis would be what we know of etymological arguments. That aspect was quite overlooked by Murdock.

And speaking of "organic evolutionary pathway" (I don't know how you managed to limit it to "causal" as if no other relationship could possibly exist) we should factor in what we know about mythical relationships as per the anthropological work of Levi-Strauss.

Then we would have to factor in what we know of Hellenistic Judaism of the Second Temple period given the place of the Hebrew and Greek terms in question.

We would also need to factor in as background knowledge the various types of anointed ones in the Second Temple literature that appears to have relationships with the NT literature.

In fact you could add the krst-christ "could-be" to the list Carrier uses -- and add any other factors you think relevant.

Then you have to add the probability AGAINST the krst-christ "could-be" thesis -- that's just as important as the positive arguments in Bayes.

That's the beauty of Bayes -- it helps prod one to consider ALL of the background knowledge and lessen the risk of confirmation bias. It helps keep one on the path of all 4 points of the hypothetico-deductive method.

[arnoldo]

I don't have much luck googling "karast" but found this:

http://www.masseiana.org/aebk12.htm

• 
  
  Caption: The annunciation, conception, birth, and adoration of the Child [85]
  
  
  LC

Thanks for the link which led me to the following photograph of Gerald Massey.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey

[Leucius Charinus]

^ You are welcome arnaldo. I have not taken the time to look at much of Egyptian history. As far as relying on Massey goes, I do need some data for KRST. Massey may be right or wrong but no one will know until whatever it was that Massey was using for data is re-examined. I don't even know where to start. So far Mac has summarised all that I know on this.



LC