There is a sub-category of Neopaganism today called Kemetism, or Egyptian Neopaganism. It is often heavily wrapped up in Black Supremacist or Afrocentrism movements. By analogy to Wicca, the most well-known variety of Neopaganism, which is based on a European pagan legacy (especially Celtic, Greek, Nordo-Germanic, and Roman), Kemetic religion is derived from Egyptian religion almost exclusively (for example, it rarely integrates Mauritanian, Ethiopian, Phoenician, or sub-Saharan religions). Much of Neopaganism is allegorically naturalist and only culturally religious, or vaguely spiritual and quasi-supernaturalist. But unlike this major trend in contemporary Neopaganism, Kemetists are not content to just reimagine an Egyptian pantheon, culture, and ritualism; they also have a chip on their shoulder about deconstructing all modern religion as “secretly” Egyptian. Thus Christianity and Islam are “really” just bastardized, stolen versions of Egyptian pagan mythology—and thus, really, African (in particular, of the most historically advanced ancient civilization in Africa; the African “master race” as it were). This is where the whole religion goes off the rails.

I don’t bother much with Neopaganism, because hardly anyone follows it and it isn’t pulling on the levers of power anywhere in the world, but also because it tends to be relatively harmless—unlike, for example, the world’s most powerful, influential, and dangerous variety of paganism today: Hindu Nationalism. Allegorical varieties of Neopaganism can even be plausible enough to integrate with secular humanism. A science-and-evidence-based allegorical Neopaganism is entirely conceivable. But when Neopagans start to distort history and spread ethnocentrist revisions of historical fact, particularly in areas I’m an expert in and thus can speak with some authority on, I get notably annoyed.

I addressed some examples of this recently on the Dagger Squad, where we critiqued just a sampling of claims from the most famous Kemetic apologist today, Brother Jabari. The whole process reminded me of some common, fundamental lessons in historical methodology I wish all these amateurs would learn and apply, so we could clean up and get rid of all the misinformation they spin on the internet, which often gets conflated with serious Jesus-myth scholarship and thus wrongly used to dismiss it. I’ve summarized some critical thinking tools on this point before (see A Vital Primer on Media Literacy, The Difference Between a Historian and an Apologist, and From Lead Codices to Mummy Gospels: Essential Links on Dubious Tales). I also teach an online course every month on both critical thinking and historical methods for everyone. Here I’ll focus on some basic principles of sound (vs. unsound) historical procedure for ascertaining the truth, particularly regarding antiquity. So my brief critique of Jabari will serve as a launching point for general principles.

Stop Trusting Historians Before 1950

Rule Number One: Never trust anything written before 1950. Indeed never, ever trust anything written in the 19th century. Almost everything from that period is deeply and persistently unreliable (the few exceptions, e.g. the best textual criticism and lexicography of those eras, don’t pertain to any point here; see my old article History before 1950, which I include in Hitler Homer Bible Christ). Unless you verify it independently—either in more modern, peer reviewed (not amateur) scholarship, or directly in the primary evidence.

Which leads to Rule Number Two: Always trace a claim to its earliest evidence. In other words, go to the primary source, which here means the earliest surviving instance or evidence of the claim at hand. Good scholars will bread-crumb you to that with source citations (either to that primary evidence, or to secondary scholarship that in turn cites those primary sources). Good scholars will also have checked the primary evidence to confirm any secondary source they cite has correctly represented it.

Jabari fails at this when he tells us he “found” proof in the Chronicon Paschale that ancient Egyptians worshiped a virgin born Horus who was adored in a manger. He “quotes” his imagined source as saying:

To this day, Egypt has consecrated the pregnancy of a virgin, and the nativity of her son, whom they annually present in a cradle, to the adoration of the people; and when king Ptolemy, three hundred and fifty years before our Christian era, demanded of the priests the significance of this religious ceremony, they told him it was a mystery.

There is actually no such passage in the Chronicon Paschale. And the Chronicon is not an ancient text. Or an Egyptian one. It is a Medieval, European, Christian document. Probably written by white dudes. This “quotation” comes from a book published in 1881 after the death of its author, the amateur quack Logan Mitchell, who had no recorded qualifications of any relevance. So, not even a historian. But also, this is 19th century garbage. Like almost all 19th century work in history is. This “quotation” kept getting repeated and attributed to various sources for decades; no one quoting it seems ever to bother doing what a responsible historian must do: find the original text and confirm the translation and its context. What does the Medieval Christian Chronicon actually say? And what were its sources? Should we even believe a word of it?

Christian apologist Roger Pearce did the responsible thing and checked. What the Chronicon actually says is this:

This sign Jeremiah gave to the priests of Egypt, predicting the future, that their idols would be destroyed by a boy savior born of a virgin, and laid in a manger. For which reason they honor a pregnant virgin goddess and worship an infant in a manger. When king Ptolemy asked why, they told him that they received this secret from the holy prophet handed down by their fathers. [Meaning] the same prophet Jeremiah, before the [first] destruction of the temple.

This story is claiming the existence of an obscure priesthood (of Jewish converts?) in Egypt worshiping a virgin born baby in a manger at the behest of “their” Jewish prophet Jeremiah, foretelling the Christian religion. This story is complete bullshit. Some Medieval Christian made this garbage up, to embarrass the Jews and glorify Christianity. This nonsense about worshiping virgin born babies in mangers might go as far back as the 5th century Christian mythmonger Epiphanius (from his spottily extant Lives of the Prophets). But not beyond. There is no ancient source for this Christian myth—at all, much less among any Egyptian sources, textual or epigraphic. This is simply not an Egyptian story at all. It is also not a story, take note, about Horus or any ancient Egyptian god. It is a Christian fiction, a bogus claim that there were some (possibly even Jews) in Egypt who at the behest of their prophet Jeremiah were honoring a future-coming Jesus Christ. No such thing is or ever was true. It’s bullshit. And anyone who did their homework should know this. After all, had any such story existed in the first three centuries, Christian apologists would have cited it a hundred times! But as we see, they’d never heard of any such thing. So we know no such tale then existed. It’s a Medieval fabrication.

Which leads us to Rule Number Three: Once you have found the earliest surviving source, you must date and contextualize and critically evaluate its evidence. Don’t just be a gullible dupe and believe anything anyone wrote down. Least of all the most unreliable of people in the history of history: Medieval Christian mythmongers. What does this passage in the Chronicon actually say? What sources did it use—does it even cite any? Is this even a trustworthy source? Particularly for foreign cult lore that just happens to conveniently glorify Christianity? Why does it appear nowhere in actual ancient Egyptian material? Why do no earlier sources ever mention any such tall tale? Why should we believe any of it?

Get Your Facts Straight

If you are intent on claiming you know the origin of something, check first. How do you know? For example, the idea that gods have sons, or even that living men were gods, was not unique to Egypt but a global religious idea that so far as we can tell predates all written history. Just because we have more ancient Egyptian texts than of other civilizations does not mean all other civilizations got their ideas from Egypt. Most ideas predate written records altogether; and Egypt will have borrowed from other cultures just as many ideas as other cultures borrowed from Egypt. So “antiquity” is not alone evidence of causal direction. You need something more than that.

Which is Rule Number Four: Always check your facts, and your logic, to make sure your claims actually follow from the evidence that actually exists. An even more important example of failing at this is Jabari’s repeated insistence that Horus is a virgin-born god. Nope. In the most common myths his mother Isis fucks her brother Osiris after endowing him with a magical prosthetic penis that inseminates her. Mary does not fuck Yahweh by riding his magical dildo. So in no way is the one borrowed from the other. To the contrary, Mary’s insemination by angelic magic is deliberately crafted to renounce such vulgar myths. The whole point of having her an untouched virgin who never fucked a thing is to “prove” she is the superior of all these tawdry pagan whores. Because sex is gross. Which is a Jewish idea. Not an Egyptian one. And its precedents don’t come from Egypt (see Virgin Birth: It’s Pagan, Guys. Get Over It.).

Egyptian mythology had only one virgin mother goddess: Neith; and the only virgin-born god is her son, Ra. And Neith is not impregnated by some subdeity casting a spell on her on behalf of a Higher God as Gabriel more or less does to Mary, but by her own direct will to create. Mary does not do that. Nor is she a god; her de facto deification would not occur until the Middle Ages, and though by then some role was to be played by co-opting Mother-with-Horus cult worship in Egypt, that was not the only mother-son cult coopted by Christians to lure and appease pagans away from their old cults into the new state-sanctioned one. Every local religion was used to lure local populations. And Jesus was already virgin-born to Mary in Christian mythology centuries before any of that occurred. Which leads to Rule Number Five: Pay attention to relative chronology. Don’t look at later Medieval developments in Christianity and then claim they signify how the whole religion and its core myths began. That’s bullshit history. Don’t do bullshit history.

The fact is, virginally conceived and virginally born gods were such a popular motif all over the Mediterranean when Christianity began that the idea cannot be credited to any single culture. It was by then simply a ubiquitous trope, that Christianity could adapt from everywhere. They would have had no idea where that trope began thousands of years prior; and neither, honestly, do we. They would see the Egyptian models of it as just part of a universal type found in all cultures. Hence as I wrote before:

[It’s true that the] notion that the virgin birth was not a lift from paganism is highly improbable. The idea is obviously a Jewish adaptation of a popular motif in surrounding cultures. There is no other credible explanation for why it ever became important to claim such a thing of Jesus. Just as “our God must be able to do things your God can” led to syncretistic innovation within Judaism (whereby, for example, the Jews suddenly “discovered” their God would resurrect them, at oddly the very same time they learned the Zoroastrian God would), so “our godman must be as awesome as your godmen” had the same effect. Thus, Jesus couldn’t be sexually conceived, because that was gross, and yet he had to be a pre-existent being inserted into a woman’s womb to reify prophecy. A conundrum. But as soon as Jews saw how the pagans solved this problem for their godmen, they would obviously have stolen the very same solution. This is how all ideas and technologies proliferate from one culture to another. “Well if pagan gods can directly create fetuses just with their divine pneuma, then so can ours, damnit!”

And in case it isn’t clear, ancient Egyptian statues showing a toddler on a goddess’s lap are of Horus and Isis, not Ra and Neith—and Horus was not the one born to a virgin; Ra was. It’s especially embarrassing to see someone claiming to be an expert in Egyptian religion not even getting right which Egyptian god was born of a virgin (or else not even correctly identify Egyptian statuary). But it’s a particular failure to not have researched the ubiquitous multicultural fact of virgin mothers that Christianity was lifting from, or the Jewish basis for the forms of it they preferred to emulate—which definitely did not feature the fucking of dildos, but very specifically the repudiation of such things. Their closest actual model was Zeus’s begetting of Perseus by slipping into Danaë’s womb in the guise of a magical fluid; just substitute “Holy Spirit” for “Golden Rain” and “Yahweh” for “Zeus” and you have the baby Jesus tale. The begetting of Horus was absolutely not a parallel they had any interest in replicating (see That Luxor Thing and That Luxor Thing Again).

December 25th Is Neither Egyptian Nor Pagan

I know it is popular to claim Christmas was assigned to December 25 because that was the birthday of every sun god…well, under the sun. But that’s simply false. Search all you might—follow the Five Rules I just enumerated—and you simply won’t find this. There is no ancient evidence that any god, sun-god or otherwise, was born on December 25th. Horus was not born on December 25th. Mithras was not born on December 25th. No god was born on December 25th. So please. Stop saying this.

This obsession with a modern urban legend about December 25th is all the more perplexing given that Christianity never originated with any such idea anyway. The usual bullshit line spun is that because Jesus “was born” on December 25th, and all sun-gods were born on December 25th, therefore “Christianity” was invented as a replicated sun-god cult. Astrotheology for the win! But this is all false. All of it. Not only were there no sun-gods born on December 25th when Christianity began, but the idea that Jesus was born on December 25th didn’t exist when Christianity began. The earliest recorded Christian belief regarding when he was born put his birthday in Spring, not Winter (arising sometime in the second century; the Gospels say nothing on the point). The idea of moving it to December 25 had its origin in fringe Christian numerological speculation in the third century, and didn’t prevail in Christian doctrine until the fourth century. It therefore had nothing to do with the origin of the religion.

When it finally did arise, the notion was based on the convenient “logic” that (a) Jesus must have been conceived on the same calendar date he died (because that just “feels right”) and surely Mary had an absolutely, perfectly, exactly nine-months-to-the-day pregnancy (because she and God are awesome, “so that must be the case, right?”) and if you count inclusively (as then they did) exactly nine-months-to-the-day from the believed calendar date of his death (based on Gospel fabrications having to do with making him conveniently die exactly on a Passover, which is actually historically impossible), guess what date you get on the then-Roman calendar? That’s right. December 25th. There are two reasons we can be certain this is the real reason Christians eventually adopted that date for the birth of Jesus: because this notion started arising before any pagan god was assigned that date of birth; and it is far too improbable that Christians would borrow that date from a pagan god and just by coincidence it’s exactly nine-months-to-the-day after their previously-imagined date of his mythical death-and-conception. Such coincidences sooner suggest intelligent design: that is far more likely the reason for choosing the date than an “accidental” consequence of it.

This is another “Please Check Your Facts” example. If you did actual, competent, responsible research you would find there is no evidence of gods being born on December 25th (Egyptian or otherwise) until Emperor Aurelian late in the third century chose to assign that calendar day to celebrate the birth of his preferred state god Sol Invictus (The Invincible Sun). But that isn’t Egyptian; and it doesn’t predate Christian speculations moving Jesus’s birthday to the same date. Aurelian’s god Sol was a syncretized Etruscan-Syrian cult; and the reason for placing his birth date at December 25 most likely had to do with two converging factors: (a) Aurelian needed a day not already devoted to a holiday on the official state calendar, and the actual Winter Solstice (birthday of the sun), December 21, was already taken (by the pagan “Christmas” feast week of Saturnalia), while December 25 was not; and (b) Aurelian’s new temple to Sol was completed just then and thus was most conveniently dedicated on December 25. Perhaps Aurelian’s move to do this later gave an added incentive to Christians to choose the faction pushing a December 25 date for their god over the previously more popular Spring date, to coopt and eclipse Sol cult as often they did others, but by then we are hell and gone from the origin of Christianity, and nowhere near any Egyptian myth.

Jabari not only fails to learn any of this—because he fact-checks nothing, and just gullibly believes whatever some long-dead white guys told him—but he garbles even the sources he claims to have. Contrary to what he elaborately claims, the late pagan author Macrobius does not date any holy day to December 25, least of all the Winter Solstice, which occurs not on the 25th but on December 21. The Saturnalia, which he wrote a lot about, is many days long and ends before the 25th (it was most typically celebrated from the 17th to the 23rd). When Christianity arose, and even later on when Christians started speculating on a December birthday, there was no holy day on December 25 in either the Roman or the Egyptian calendars (which didn’t align anyway, so “December 25” is a meaningless term in the Egyptian system; such a date simply didn’t even exist in any fixed sense, much less match up with the Julian calendar date of December 25).

In case you were wondering, reconstructed ancient Egyptian holy calendars do exist. What we find on them is that Ra, the actual Egyptian god of the son, was born in August; and Horus (and Osiris, the Egyptian god otherwise most equivalent to Jesus) were not born in any month: their births were in what are called intercalary days, extra days that complete a solar year, which in the Egyptian system were assigned to no month at all—and occur nowhere near December; they filled the calendar in Summer. Which gets us to Rule Number Six: If you want to know if something is true about a given culture at a given time, check the sources of that culture from that time.

Third Day Mythology

Contrary to what Jabari says, there is no evidence that the Christian “third day” resurrection motif was ever connected to the sun or any kind of astrotheology. In fact, there is no astrotheology whatever in early Christianity—the Bible is entirely devoid of it, and based instead on scriptural numerology. Astrotheological ideas might have been coopted into Christianity in the Middle Ages, but that can have no relevance to the origin of the religion or the contents of its New Testament; nor were they uniquely Egyptian (Persian and other systems were just as influential). Even Judaism from which Christianity arose, though it used a lunar calendar (as many agricultural societies then did), and eventually adopted the ancient scientific understanding of a planetary-layered-heaven, was not astrotheological in content. None of its doctrines were based on astrology, constellations, or anything astrophysical. If you want to see what actual evidence of astrotheology looks like, consult the research in ancient Mithraism (which derived from Greco-Persian astrotheology, not Egyptian) in David Ulansey’s The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (though with some corrective in Roger Beck’s The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire). There is nothing like this evidence for Judaism or early Christianity.

The notion of a resurrection “on the third day” appears to be based on Ancient Near Eastern concepts surrounding death that predate the written record. Our earliest example of the motif is not Egyptian, but Sumerian: it appears in the ancient tale of the death-and-resurrection of the goddess Inanna, which survives on clay tablets dating at least to the 18th century B.C., which contain a legend that could date as far back as the 40th century B.C. The motif appears all over the place after that, from Greece and Rome to Persia and Egypt. In Jewish lore it appears to have been connected to the time it was thought it took for a corpse to become unrecognizable (see my discussion and quotation of the relevant sources in my chapter on the body of Jesus in The Empty Tomb). But it also coincided with Jewish calendric beliefs regarding the time-span of the new or full moon, where we see the same assumptions governing the assignment of a three-day motif to the death and resurrection of Osiris in Egyptian myth (which assignment can’t be reliably dated much earlier than the Hellenistic era: see Dying-and-Rising Gods: It’s Pagan, Guys. Get Over It.). Both Osiris and Jesus die on the first day of a full moon and rise on its last “full” day. But this does not appear to be because the Christians borrowed the idea from Osiris cult, but simply because both Jesus and Osiris cult set their death-and-resurrection tales around a local lunar holiday (and not, I’d like to point out, a solar holiday—Jabari can’t even maintain a coherent metaphor). Because the Jews had already long before fixed the Passover to the rise of the full moon, and Jesus was conceived as the new Passover sacrifice.

Which gets us to Rule Number Seven: Correlation is not causation. Parallels do not automatically exist because you think they do; and when they do exist, they do not automatically confirm your particular causal hypothesis. If X resembles Y (e.g. Osiris and Jesus died and rose “on a third day”), it may be because X caused Y (Osiris cult inspired Jesus cult), or because Y caused X (Jesus cult inspired Osiris cult), or because a common factor Z separately caused both X and Y (lunar calendars cause third-day motifs, and Egypt and Judea both independently adopted lunar calendars), or because of mere random accident. Because there are billions and billions of facts, accidental “correlations” among them are actually statistically inevitable and guaranteed to be quite numerous. So similarities might belie no causal connection whatever. You need to do a lot more work than just find “similarities” to support any causal hypothesis, much less yours. (See Everything You Need to Know about Coincidences.)

Um…That Was a UFO, Not a Star

Jabari waxes on a lot about how “the star” in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew “must” be a reference to the Dog Star, Sirius (Canis Major), and somehow connected to Orion’s Belt and thus the Pyramids (or some such bizarre nonsense). The Great Pyramids might have some sort of intended stellar alignment (that’s disputed, but not my area). But I can confidently say nothing else he says about this is correct. For one thing, his account seems to garble a bunch of different astronomical facts. He seems to argue that Orion’s belt points “to” the rising of the sun; that’s incorrect. It points to the rising of Sirius, the Dog Star—the brightest star in the Earth sky, which is nowhere near where the sun ever is. You might know that “Dog Days” are when that Dog Star rises each day at the same time as the sun, which is Summer; that coincidence of rising times (not locations) was anciently used to mark the dawn of the Summer season (in more places than just Egypt; Egyptians weren’t the only ones looking at the sky in antiquity). But more off the rails is Jabari’s attempt to connect any of this to the mythology of Matthew (which I should remind you is only the mythology of Matthew—no “star” exists in Mark, Luke, or John; and the actual origin of the “star” motif may be a completely different, secret story that I discuss in OHJ, pp. 195-96, 320-21, 473).

In Matthew the “star” (astera, meaning any light or flame in the sky) is not what we mean in modern English by “a star,” but what we would today call a UFO: an unidentified flying object, that moves and hovers miraculously as suits its divine helmsman (in legend, an angel). This was never even proposed to be an astronomical phenomenon (and all modern attempts to turn it into one are bogus: see astronomer Aaron Adair’s The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View). Moreover, Jabari commits the common mistake of interpreting the Greek phrase “we saw his star in the East” as meaning a star in the East; in fact from context Matthew must mean the observers were in the East when they first spied this UFO—in the West (some translations will say “at its rising,” which is plausible, but context makes that reading unlikely as well). The UFO then flies ahead of them (Westward), vanishes for a spell to evade Herod’s spying eyes, and reappears at just the right time to fly forth and hover over a single town—indeed, over a single barn. There is no comparable story in ancient Egyptian lore. And there is nothing astronomical even imagined to be going on here.

Healing: Myth & Folklore

Jabari tries to argue that Mark’s involvement of “spit” in some of the healing miracles of Jesus proves Mark was stealing ideas from Egypt (Mark 7:33 & Mark 8:23; one of which tales is elaborated in John 9:6). The reason? Egyptian folklore included legends of divine spittle curing wounds. The problem? Jesus never cures any wounds in Mark. At all. Much less with spit. Scholars and layfolk alike often overlook this. But the Gospel Jesus mostly only cures ailments that are commonly psychosomatic and incapable of being proved real (because that’s all that Christian missionaries could “actually” heal in their tent shows as well). The only wound care Jesus is credited with appears in Luke, who was so disturbed by both his sources depicting Peter mutilating a slave and Jesus doing nothing about it that he decided to invent the tale that Jesus fixed it; which fabrication to the story John rejected. And Luke did not imagine Jesus using spit for this.

This leads to Rule Number Eight: Always check if what you think is particular and thus indicative of something, was actually commonplace and thus not indicative of anything. As in this case: using spit to heal wounds was a ubiquitous folk belief, not at all peculiar to Egypt, and almost certainly dates beyond even the existence of Egyptian culture; indeed, evidence of craft medical lore predates even human beings: the earliest indications of culture and craft lore arise in the pre-human species Homo habilis (far, far south of Egypt). Since it is a scientific fact that human saliva assists wound care, it seems quite unlikely that fact hadn’t been discovered long before sentient beings even walked the sands of Egypt. Consequently it will have spread everywhere before Egyptian civilization even had a chance to influence anything.

But actually, the fact in Christian myth that Jabari wants to explain is Jesus’s peculiar use of spit to cure deafness and blindness, which has no medical basis. That idea did exist in Egyptian lore, but so it did in many cultures. But we can adduce a more likely basis for its invention in Mark’s effort to revamp and rewrite the miracles of Moses: Christians adopted the belief that Jesus Christ was in fact Moses’s rock, also known as Miriam’s Well, which brought to the Israelites the water of life (OHJ, pp. 415-18). That the water of life (water literally from that rock, now in the new form of Jesus) would cause the deaf to hear and the blind to see (both metaphors for understanding the gospel) is a rather too obvious literary device. As is the parallel Mark intentionally draws by linking Moses’s tree of healing and Jesus’s healing of the blind man (who at first “sees trees” rather than people; another obvious giveaway). But even as a replication of common medicinal folklore there is nothing peculiarly Egyptian about any of this.

In the same vein, contrary to Jabari’s attempt to argue an Egyptian basis for it, the title “King of Kings” was a global Western phenomena, not unique to Egypt; any connection to Egypt it might ever have had (and there is, I’ll remind you, no evidence of any) would have been long lost hundreds of years before Christianity arose, and thus couldn’t have been salient to its inventors. What we find instead is the far more likely source of that appellation is the Jewish, not Egyptian, background of Christian mythology: the Jews’ Persian overlords famously held the title King of Kings, as attested in the books of Ezra, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and the New Testament constructs its mythology for Jesus out of exactly such scriptures. This is the most likely reason it was adapted to Jesus. Though note this title is not assigned to Jesus in any of his actual “myths”; it’s not in the Gospels, nor in Paul. It first appears in the late first century book of Revelation, a political prophetic text written long after Christianity began—and without any discernible Egyptian influence.

Another example in this category is the trope of the dying-and-rising god, which was all over the West by the time Christianity arose. It was never, so far as we can tell, peculiar to Egypt. As I already noted, the idea could be Sumerian in origin and as old as 4000 B.C. In fact for all we know, it could date back tens of thousands of years, and predate even Egypt as a civilization, its origin wholly unknown. In any event, the trope was everywhere, and in no way peculiarly Egyptian, by the time the first Christians adapted that trope to Judaism. Jabari even makes the peculiar mistake of trying to argue the resurrection of Jesus derives from the tale of Horus being killed by a scorpion as a child and then resurrected (even though Jesus does not die as a child, much less by scorpions) rather than the far more apposite parallel of Osiris being murdered by the Egyptian analog to Satan and resurrected. But far more apposite is the death and resurrection of the Sumerian goddess Inanna, who is actually effectively crucified to gain victory over the death (see OHJ, Chapter 3.1), or the Roman god Romulus, whose story bears a great many parallels to the Jesus myth (see the peer reviewed work of Richard Miller, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity). Finally, I won’t even bother debunking Jabari’s attempt to link erections to resurrection beliefs—which really have no connection to penises outside satire.

And Please No More Crank Etymology

And Rule Number Nine: Don’t just believe any etymology someone spurts at you; check real linguistic scholarship first. Crank etymology often operates on the totally bonkers principle that if two words in radically different languages even remotely sound alike, the one must have derived from the other. This is as dumb as thinking all the bald men you ever met must come from the same village in Finland. So no, contra Jabari, the English word “thought” does not derive from the Egyptian god Thoth. Thoth is the Greek bastardization of the actual name Djehuti, which derives from an Afro-Asiatic language; which had no significant influence on the Indo-European. Our word “thought” derives through Germanic thanht, most likely long predating any Greek influence, as multilinguistic cladistics indicate it derived from the Proto-Indo-European word tong thousands of years before Greeks even encountered Egypt, much less Germans. There is simply no connection to Egyptian language, gods, or myth.

Likewise, contrary to Jabari’s fabricated etymology, the name of Mary is actually the English bastardization of the Greek transliteration “Miriam” of the Hebrew name Maryam, the mythically famous name of the sister of Moses (when Christianity arose, one in every four Jewish women had that name). It has no known connection to any Egyptian words or persons. And the city of Paris wasn’t named after any African deities either (nor even the mythical Greek hero of exactly that name, which you might think is a far more likely source for the city’s appellation). It derives, rather, from the name of the Celtic tribe who originally lived there when it was conquered and colonized by the Romans: the Parisii. In fact the city’s actual full name is Lutetia Parisiorum, the word lutetia deriving from the Celtic word luto for marsh or meadow; in other words, “Meadow of the Parisi Tribe.”

Conclusion

Don’t break the Nine Rules:

  • Rule Number One: Never trust anything written before 1950.
  • Rule Number Two: Always trace a claim to its earliest evidence.
  • Rule Number Three: Once you have found the earliest surviving source, you must date and contextualize and critically evaluate its evidence.
  • Rule Number Four: Always check your facts, and your logic, to make sure your claims actually follow from the evidence that actually exists.
  • Rule Number Five: Pay attention to relative chronology.
  • Rule Number Six: If you want to know if something is true about a given culture at a given time, check the sources of that culture from that time.
  • Rule Number Seven: Correlation is not causation.
  • Rule Number Eight: Always check if what you think is particular and thus indicative of something, was actually commonplace and thus not indicative of anything.
  • Rule Number Nine: Don’t just believe any etymology someone spurts at you; check real linguistic scholarship first.

Sound history requires not employing crank methodologies, which often entail abandoning one or more or even all these rules, and acting like a gullible Medieval arm-chair academic instead of a competent, serious, responsible scholar. Yet not much training is needed to simply abide by these rules; so lack of qualifications is not an excuse. Even lay and amateur authors can do this, and should. Especially in the era of fake news.

§

To comment use Add Comment field at bottom or click a Reply box next to a comment. See Comments & Moderation Policy.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading