3 posts tagged “zeitgeist”
This is the second post in a series analyzing the claims made in the film/documentary/video Zeitgeist, which can be viewed in its entirity here
. Follow this link to see all of my posts about this movie. Zeitgeist is a film in three parts that presents conspiracy theories about the origins of Christianity, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank. I have decided to analyze the claims of the movie because some of them I know to be true, and some seem highly unlikely or based on inadequate information. I am an amateur doing amateur research. If you wish to criticize, do so, but be nice; don't hold me to the same academic standards you would a PhD writing his thesis.
Boiler plate out of the way? Check.
Claim 2: Horus' life mirrors the life described for Jesus. He was born on Dec. 25th, was born of a virgin (Isis-Mary), was accompanied by a star in the east. 3 kings adored him. became a teacher at 12, and was baptized by atep, had 12 disciples and fellow travelers, performed miracles, was known by similar names (the light, lamb of god), crucified, buried for 3 days, then resurrected.
So am I going to become an Egyptologist to analyze this claim? No, but there are some issues on the face of the claim that can be examined.
First, that Horus, like Jesus, is said to be born on December 25th. First of all, this claim sounds more ridiculous than it is. December 25th on which calendar? But in fact, the birth of dieties from a number of different religions is said to be in late December. This is not a mistake, since that is when winter solstice is, a time of great importance for ancient cultures, be they nomadic, agricultural, or hunter-gatherer. It marked the time that days stopped getting shorter and started getting longer. It's not surprising at all that many cultures celebrated this period.
But, most importantly, it is widely acknowledged even by those who have no doubt of the historicity of Jesus that his exact birthdate is unknown. It's not surprising, then, that the celebration of Jesus' birthday on December 25th was done because that is when pagan celebrations were already occurring, particularly the Roman festival of Sol Invictus, or Natalis Invicti, which was a celebration of the coming end of winter.
So, does the fact that at least according to some scholars Horus' birth was on December 25th prove a connection. Not really; again, it's fairly clear that the date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth was chosen because of Sol Invictus, which was celebrated when it was due to the winter solstice, which was a celestial event celebrated by cultures worldwide because of it's important significance in regards to the seasons. Is it possible that Sol Invictus was, in turn, influenced by Egyptian sun-worship? Possibly, yes, but again I don't find the fact significant.
The next claim is that Horus, like Jesus, was born of a virgin (Isis in the case of Horus). I wasn't able to find references stating that Isis was a "virgin," unless necrophilia doesn't count toward losing your virginity. She impregnated herself with the reconstructed body of her dead husband, Osiris, and thus begat Horus. This doesn't sound much like the Nativity story. And this is ignoring the fact taht Isis in some Egyptian traditions wasn't Horus's mother, but his sister, sometimes she is not Osiris's wife, but his sister, as well, or possibly the wife of Ra, who sometimes is considered synonymous with Horus. All this interchangability of roles can be attributed to the fact that the Egyptian religion lasted about 10,000 years, allowing for many variations of the pantheon to form and be espoused by many different sects and cults.
The next claim is that Horus, like Jesus, had a birth that was accompanied by a star in the east, three kings adored him, and he became a teacher at 12. Yeah. Where did you read that? The only descriptions I could find of Horus' birth story had no resemblance to the Nativity story and had no star in the east and no three kings. I could also find nothing about Horus becoming a teacher at the age of 12. That is to say, I could only find references to these similarities on sites that were making a case for Egyptian-Christian syncretism, and not simply as a reference to Horus and not with anything resembling references.
Next claim: Horus was baptized by Atep, as Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Again, I can find no good reference for this, or even who Atep supposedly was. Atep is not a name of any of the Egyptian gods or mythical beings that I could find references for.
And all the rest of it: Horus had 12 disciples and fellow travelers, performed miracles, was known by similar names (the light, lamb of god), crucified, buried for 3 days, then resurrected. Where are they finding this stuff? I can't find anything about Horus having 12 disciples, fellow travelers, or even people who carried his luggage.
He performed miracles, but that's sort of what gods do. It's sort of their raison detre.
He was known by similar names. I was unable to find any references to Horus as the Lamb of God, which would have been an odd thing to call an Egyptian diety, anyway, since theirs was a polytheistic religion. I wouldn't doubt that Horus was sometimes called "the light," since he was a sun god at all, and wouldn't find that fact to be significant.
Was Horus crucified? No, he was stung to death by a scorpion. He was resurrected, but there is no reference to it having happened three days after his death, and the method of his resurrection was a magic incantation spoken by Isis. It's also notable that resurrection wasn't an uncommon theme in Egyptian religion, since Osiris, Horus' father, was also resurrected after being reassembled by Isis to become the ruler of the underworld.
I'm sorry, but the more I read about the Egyptian religion(s), the less I can believe this argument that the myth of Jesus is based on the myth of Horus. The stories of their respective lives bare little resemblence, and the fact that some of the similarities cited seem to be simply made up doesn't bode well for the rest of the film. However, I have begun this journey, and I shall carry on.
This is the first post in a series analyzing the claims made in the film/documentary/video Zeitgeist, which can be viewed in its entirity here. Follow this link to see all of my posts about this movie. Zeitgeist is a film in three parts that presents conspiracy theories about the origins of Christianity, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank. I have decided to analyze the claims of the movie because some of them I know to be true, and some seem highly unlikely or based on inadequate information. An analysis of the movie should make for an interesting exercise in critical thinking. While I will be reviewing a large number of the claims made, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis or "debunking" of the film. And finally - this is a blog, not a scholarly text. I am an amateur doing amateur research. If you wish to criticize, do so, but be nice; don't hold me to the same academic standards you would a PhD writing his thesis.
Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
In this section, Zeitgeist examines the origins of Christianity. The overall argument of this part of the movie is that Christianity is ultimately based on astrology and has been molded into a tool for political control by individuals in power over the centuries.
The film starts with a basic description of astrology, the facts of which are well known and fit my basic understanding of the concept, so I won't bother with analyzing them. We all know that there are twelve astrological symbols, that each one corresponds to a constellation of the night sky, and so on.
One criticism I have seen in other blog comment threads about the movie is the fact that the film, early on, makes a connection between the term "God's Sun" and "God's Son." The criticism is that this correspondence in the words "sun" and "son" only works in English, and thus doesn't support the argument of the film. While this is a valid criticism, in that someone could take the film to mean that the similarity in "God's Sun" and "God's Son" is meaningful, the film never states this. It's arguable that the similarity is only pointed out for effect, not as support for the filmmaker's argument.
Claim 1: Horus was the Egyptian god representing the sun. Set was the god of darkness. Light versus dark or good versus evil is a duality that is common in many religions.
While it does appear to be true that Horus was a sun god of Egypt, it seems neither true that he was the only sun god in the Egyptian pantheon, nor was sun god his primary occupation. Horus was the god of the sky, kingship, and later in the Egyptian religion, the sun and the moon. Ra was also a sun god, and while in some traditions they were considered to be one in the same, they were sometimes depicted as father and son and sometimes as two completely separate entities. If one of the two had to be idenitified as the sun god of Egyptian mythology, it would probably be Ra, since the association was much more common.
Horus seems to have been a name given to a wide range of dieties, all fitting the same general concept of a god of royalty. He was the son of Osiris, one of the oldest gods of the Eyptian pantheon and in some traditions the creator, though most commonly the god of the underworld or afterlife. Horus being the son of the creator does seem to fit the film's claim that Horus is a model of Jesus, but Horus being the son of the god of the underworld does not, especially since Osiris is killed by his brother Set, an occurrence that has no corresponding action in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Set is a very bad god, as gods go. He was the god of chaos, hostility, evil, war, deserts, storms, and foreign lands. Oh, yeah, and people with red hair. And homosexuals. Despite him basically being "the devil" of the Egyptian gods, there were worshippers, since being in good with a god who had power over the desert and sandstorms could be pretty handy, and he was considered the patron god of desert caravans. It does appear that some traditions see Horus as being the god of the day while Set is the god of the night.
As far as light versus dark or good versus evil being a common theme in the world religions, numerous examples can be found. The concept of Yin and Yang in Asian philosophies is an obvious one. Others would include Zoroastrianism, another monotheistic religion. However, it may be just as valid to say that while the concept of evil or at least malevolence exists in polytheistic religions, the concept of a clear duality between good and evil is not a readily apparent. Even in the ancient Egyptian religion, Set was evil, but not without his uses or worshippers.
An analog of Set in most other polytheistic religions can be found, often with just as ambiguous a role. In the way that Set is the god of confusion and chaos, in Navajo mythology, Coyote could be seen has carrying on a similar part in the cosmic play, and yet Coyote is useful because through his foolish trouble-making he teaches valuable lessons in the traditional stories. The Norse god Loki, likewise, is not so much evil as mischievious and troublesome. The Hindu god Shiva is described as being a destroyer, the opposite of Vishnu, the protector, and yet Shiva is alternately described as a terrible and delightful, and has worshippers today, and within the Smartist denomination of Hinduism is considered one of five aspects of the same supreme being. [Note: And Christianity thought it was being daring in putting three gods in one? Amateurs.]
My conclusions for Claim 1 are as follows:
While it is true that Horus was a sun god of ancient Egyptian mythology and that Set was sometimes viewed as the god of night or darkness, to state that as an essential duality within the Egyptian religion is an incredible simplification of Egyptian mythology. While it is also true that the concept of dualities between light-and-dark and good-and-evil can be found in other religions, it is also not as clear or universal as the film implies.
And right about now I'm thinking that if I spend this much time on every claim in the movie, this is going to take years. But at least it will be interesting! For me, that is; I don't know about you, dear reader.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
The full movie is available at the site above. It's two hours long. Wait until you can watch the whole thing. Watch it, reserve judgment until you have watched the whole thing, then think about it for a while.
I've just finished it, and I don't know quite what to think. I'm going to research some of the claims it has made, and think about it some more.
After a search, I am unable to find any site that debunks this film, or even makes a detailed analysis of the claims. The closest I found were a number of blog posts with comment threads about it, with people either being highly critical and calling it BS or people praising it as a life-changing film.
At this point, I don't know what to believe, which is why I'm going to research some of it's claims. Some of the critics I've read say that many of the things in Part II have already been debunked in other places, but didn't bother to say where. If anyone can point me in the right direction for facts supporting or opposing this film's claims, I would appreciate it.
I will be posting more about this movie.
