Naturally, as with all such critics, Harpur is challenged to provide actual answers to these points made. We very much doubt we will see any.

That the first myth I wish to dispose of even needs to be refuted will surprise the vast majority of readers but several anti-Christians seem to be labouring under the impression that Christianity actually caused or prolonged the Dark Ages. Most of us know that the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west had nothing to do with religion. Instead, it was the result of the hordes of barbarian invaders and the Empire's inability to cope with them after centuries of stagnation. The last of the invaders were the Vikings who subsided in the eleventh century although their descendants, the Normans, kept the tradition up for a while longer. Gradually the barbarians converted to Christianity but it was many generations before they lost much of their pagan culture and way of life. We should also note that the Dark Ages were not actually that gloomy at all and historians now prefer to use the less judgemental phrase of 'early Middle Ages'. The period was one of dynamic technical advance, with inventions like the horse collar and stirup; great art, like the Sutton Hoe treasure; and great literature too, such as Beowulf and the work of Bede himself.

There was a Renaissance of sorts around 800 AD under Charlemagne and by the eleventh century a recognisable Western European culture was firmly established. Christians had always looked back to the Roman Empire as a lost ideal while pagan authors like Cicero and Virgil were popular. Christianity had grown up in a pagan culture and was usually quite comfortable with its literary achievements. There was no attempt to suppress classical works by the church and the losses of the dark ages were caused simply by the fact that only a tiny number of people were now literate and hence valued the decaying manuscripts. It was the church that kept the candle of learning alive and the preservative all Latin literature that has come down to us is a direct result of the efforts of Christian scribes who laboured to copy out old manuscripts. True, they were more concerned to preserve what was important to them and that meant Christian writing - but to accuse them of not being interested in exactly what we are interested in is small minded and churlish when we owe them so much.

No better words might be used to describe Harpur!

The claim made apparently derives directly from Massey, who provided not a shred of documentation for this claim. If Harpur wishes to have any semblance of credibility, here or elsewhere, let him cite the exact work that this "Iusa" figure appears in.

It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeut' and the women that were with them Therapeutrides.

Note carefully how Harpur (or his source) has misused Eusebius. Eusebius is taking Philo's account of a Jewish group, described by Philo himself, and decides that Philo has in error incorrectly designated and inadequately described a Christian group. This is just as clear as Eusebius goes on:

He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their property. When they begin the philosophical mode of life, he says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode of life. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic, it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses," as the account says, "sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Notice that Eusebius does not say precisely that these were "Christians" as Harpur's alleged quote implies -- he assumes that they were, and assumes that they are NOT Essenes at all! It is in this light -- believing that Philo has made a mistaken identification -- that Eusebius goes on to write:

And after some other matters he says: "The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the written words as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in obscure figures. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as models, and imitate their principles." These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles.

We can already see that Harpur has conflated two entirely different parts of what Eusebius says; but worse than that, he adds definitiveness to Eusy's statement that simply does not exist in the original -- and neglects to mention the whole premise for Eusebius upon which his statement is made, namely, a mistaken identification by Philo. In fact, Eusebius closes with a specific denial that these Theraputae predated Christianity: "....that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the apostles, is clear to every one." Harpur's entire use of this quote is a tragic farce!

For I myself, when I discovered the wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself, and at popular opinion; and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what was related to it. But they who contradict themselves on the more important points appear not to have possessed the heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge which cannot be spoken against. Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing. For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the sowing of the implanted word that was in them. For the seed and imitation imparted according to capacity is one thing, and quite another is the thing itself, of which there is the participation and imitation according to the grace which is from Him.

From this context, it is clear that Justin is not, as Harpur says, making excuses as to why "Christianity in no way differentiated from Paganism." He is rather saying that it is indeed different in many ways, but that certain men in the past (note that he uses Plato as an example -- not exactly a typical Pagan!) had some of the same ideas, which by rights are the intellectual property of Christianity. Paganism is not even in view here, much less any idea about archaetypal symbolism!

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

What is at work here again is yet again not a matter of admitting similarities to Paganism -- much less any sort of derivation! -- but the issue of "newness" and defending Christianity from that charge (as noted above). Please note, as a reader of ours once said of this passage, that Justin Martyr is making these stretches to try to justify Christian belief by making it sound similar to what pagans (who ridicule it) believe in the first place. Strangely enough, it is the pagans themselves who don't appear to be recognising these similarities. This destroys any contention by Harpur of recognizable similarities and derivation. If the pagans didn't recognize it, and Justin had to perform these stretches of analogy to create parallels, how likely is it that they are genuine?

(A Canadian reader bought a copy of Pagan Christ recently and noted that the error about Celsus had been corrected; he is now properly called a "pagan" philosopher.)

17. Tat. Thou hast driven me, O Father, into no small fury and distraction of mind, for I do not now see my self. 18. Hermes. I would, O Son, that thou also wert gone out of thyself, like them that dream in their sleep. 19. Tat. Then tell me this, who is the Author and Maker of Regeneration ? 20. Hermes. The child of God, one Man by the Will of God. 21. Tat. Now, O Father, thou hast put me to silence for ever and all my former thoughts have quite left and forsaken me, for I see the greatness, and shape of all things here below, and nothing but falsehood in them all. 22. And since this mortal Form is daily changed, and turned by this time into increase, and diminution, as being falsehood; what therefore is true, O Trismegistus? 23. Trismegistus. That, O Son, which is not troubled, nor bounded; not coloured, not figured, not changed; that which is naked, bright, comprehensible only of itself, unalterable, unbodily. 24. Tat. Now I am mad, indeed, Father; for when I thought me to have been made a wise man by thee, with these thoughts thou hast quite dulled all my senses. 25. Hermes. Yet is it so, as I say, O Son, He that Looketh Only upon that which is carried upward as Fire, that which is carried downward as Earth, that which is moist as Water, and that which bloweth or is subject to blast as Air; how can he sensibly understand that which is neither hard, nor moist, nor tangible, nor perspicuous, seeing it is only understood in power and operation; but I beseech and pray to the Mind which alone can understand the Generation, which is in God.

Furthermore, every source that offers a date for this and related texts puts its composition in the first centuries of the Christian era! See here, an academic site with an item by a credentialed scholar: In 1460 a bookfinder brought the Medicis a manuscript from a Macedonian monastery known as the Corpus Hermeticum, written, they believed, by Hermes Trismegistus. We now understand the book to date from the 3rd to 6th Century AD and to incorporate an amalgam of Christian, Neo-Platonic Greek and Jewish ideas, but at the time, Renaissance scholars associated the Greek God Hermes (Roman: Mercury) with the Egyptian God Thoth, bringer of hieroglyphs and human language to the most ancient people known.

This is also confirmed by the most learned of Greeks such as Solon, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, and as some say, even Lycurgus going to Egypt and conversing with the priests; of whom they say Euxodus was a hearer of Chonuphis of Memphis, Solon of Sonchis of Sais, and Pythagoras of Oenuphis of Heliopolis. Wherefore the last named, being, as is probable, more than ordinarily admired by the men, and they also be him imitated their symbolic and mysterious way of talking; obscuring his sentiments with dark riddles. For the greatest part of Pythagoric precepts fall nothing short of those sacred writings they call hieroglyphical..." (Plutarch, _Morals_, 10)

The problem with this is that Plutarch's Morals only comes in 5 volumes, so there is no "10" to refer to. It turns out the actual text is from Plutarch's Isis and Osiris and reads in full (see here):

Witness to this also are the wisest of the Greeks: Solon, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, who came to Egypt and consorted with the priests; and in this number some would include Lycurgus also. Eudoxus, they say, received instruction from Chonuphis of Memphis, Solon from Sonchis of Saïs, and Pythagoras from Oenuphis of Heliopolis. Pythagoras, it seems, was greatly admired, and he also greatly admired the Egyptian priests, and, copying their symbolism and occult teachings, incorporated his doctrines in enigmas. As a matter of fact most of the Pythagorean precepts do not at all fall short of the writings that are called hieroglyphs; such, for example, as these: "Do not eat upon a stool"; "Do not sit upon a peck measure"; "Do not lop off the shoots of a palm-tree"; "Do not poke a fire with a sword within the house."

In other words, it's far from clear that "ancient wisdom" was the subject of these sessions, when things like "do not eat upon a stool" seem to have been of more relevance. The content of this teaching isn't specific enough for Harpur to make any real use of; much less can it be said that "incarnation" was learned from here. (See above from Gasque as well.)

About Heracles I heard the account given that he was of the number of the twelve gods; but of the other Heracles whom the Hellenes know I was not able to hear in any part of Egypt: and moreover to prove that the Egyptians did not take the name of Heracles from the Hellenes, but rather the Hellenes from the Egyptians,--that is to say those of the Hellenes who gave the name Heracles to the son of Amphitryon,--of that, I say, besides many other evidences there is chiefly this, namely that the parents of this Heracles, Amphitryon and Alcmene, were both of Egypt by descent,[46] and also that the Egyptians say that they do not know the names either of Poseidon or of the Dioscuroi, nor have these been accepted by them as gods among the other gods; whereas if they had received from the Hellenes the name of any divinity, they would naturally have preserved the memory of these most of all, assuming that in those times as now some of the Hellenes were wont to make voyages[46a] and were sea-faring folk, as I suppose and as my judgment compels me to think; so that the Egyptians would have learnt the names of these gods even more than that of Heracles. In fact however Heracles is a very ancient Egyptian god; and (as they say themselves) it is seventeen thousand years to the beginning of the reign of Amasis from the time when the twelve gods, of whom they count that Heracles is one, were begotten of the eight gods.

So where's this "Iu-em-hotep" guy? He is not mentioned here at all; this is about Hercules!

Whoever wished to avoid making a violent break with the past and his surroundings sought out some Oriental form of worship which did not demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity naturally came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, "Nov. Patr. Bibl.", 11, 523; Augustine, "Enarratio in Ps. x"; Leo I, Serm. xxvi). When such conditions prevailed it is easy to understand that many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion.

In other words, the CE makes clear that this was against the hard reality of the very sort of delusional ecumenicism today promulgated by the likes of Harpur!

Update: I have found more relevant data in, of all places, Olson and Miesel's book on The Da Vinci Code (The Da Vinci Hoax) [139] which notes that it is argued by some scholars that the gulf between the monotheism of Christianity and that of the sun cults was not as wide as we may think. The sun cult was monotheistic and was in harmony with a pagan movement of the day to worship the Summus Deus -- the God who is supreme. In this light the syncretism Harpur cites is a far more natural confusion of understanding as opposed to evidence of mixing of unlike religions. The further syncretism he notes -- showing Jesus put in place of Dionysus in a specific scene -- is explained contextually by the atmosphere of the day. Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, in an effort to prove that their faith was the superior one, embarked on an advertising campaign reminiscent of our soft drink wars. To use examples I have similar to this one used by Harpur: Mithra was depicted slaying the bull while riding its back; the church did a lookalike scene with Samson killing a lion. Mithra sent arrows into a rock to bring forth water; the church changed that into Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. (Hmm, did the Jews copy that one?) One can't really bellow about borrowing in this case, for this happened in an age when art usually was imitative -- and it was a sort of one-upsmanship designed as a competition, and the church was not the only one doing it. Furthermore, it didn't involve an exchange or theft of ideology.

Here again he introduces another high step in advance. For a great thing it is even not to receive, but this which he is about to mention is much more than that. What then is it that he says? "Not only have I not received," saith he," not only have I not used this right, but I have even made myself a slave, and in a slavery manifold and universal. For not in money alone, but, which was much more than money, in employments many and various have I made good this same rule: and I have made myself a slave when I was subject to none, having no necessity in any respect, (for this is the meaning of, "though I was free from all men;") and not to any single person have I been a slave, but to the whole world." brought Wherefore also he subjoined, "I myself under bondage to all." That is, "To preach the Gospel I was commanded, and to proclaim the things committed to my trust; but the contriving and devising numberless things beside, all that was of my own zeal. For I was only under obligation to invest the money, whereas I did every thing in order to get a return for it, attempting more than was commanded." Thus doing as he did all things of free choice and zeal and love to Christ, he had an insatiable desire for the salvation of mankind. Wherefore also he used to overpass by a very great deal the lines marked out, in every way springing higher than the very heaven.

Nothing like that quote here. Not surprisingly, online this is attributed to Chrysostom via Taylor's Diegesis (p. 309), a work by a writer so confused that he mixed up a hymn by Isaac Watts for one to Prometheus.

Update: Punkish found it, courtesy of Roger Pearse, who found the same quote abused by Wheless. It actually comes from a word called On the Priesthood, and here is the full context:

But, my admirable and excellent Sir, this is the very reason why I took the precaution of saying that it was a good thing to employ this kind of deceit, not only in war, and in dealing with enemies, but also in peace, and in dealing with our dearest friends. For as a proof that it is beneficial not only to the deceivers, but also to those who are deceived; if you go to any of the physicians and ask them how they relieve their patients from disease, they will tell you that they do not depend upon their professional skill alone, but sometimes conduct the sick to health by availing themselves of deceit, and blending the assistance which they derive from it with their art. For when the waywardness of the patient and the obstinacy of the complaint baffle the counsels of the physicians, it is then necessary to put on the mask of deceit in order that, as on the stage, they may be able to hide what really takes place. ... Do you see the advantage of deceit? And if any one were to reckon up all the tricks of physicians the list would run on to an indefinite length. And not only those who heal the body but those also who attend to the diseases of the soul may be found continually making use of this remedy. Thus the blessed Paul attracted those multitudes of Jews:15 with this purpose he circumcised Timothy,16 although he warned the Galatians in his letter17 that Christ would not profit those who were circumcised. For this cause he submitted to the law, although he reckoned the righteousness which came from the law but loss after receiving the faith in Christ.18 For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind. For I would not call Phinees a murderer, although he slew two human beings with one stroke:19 nor yet Elias after the slaughter of the 100 soldiers, and the captain,20 and the torrents of blood which he caused to be shed by the destruction of those who sacrificed to devils.21 For if we were to concede this, and to examine the bare deeds in themselves apart from the intention of the doers, one might if he pleased judge Abraham guilty of child-murder22 and accuse his grandson23 and descendant24 of wickedness and guile. For the one got possession of the birthright, and the other transferred the wealth of the Egyptians to the host of the Israelites. But this is not the case: away with the audacious thought! For we not only acquit them of blame, but also admire them because of these things, since even God commended them for the same. For that man would fairly deserve to be called a deceiver who made an unrighteous use of the practice, not one who did so with a salutary purpose. And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.

In other words, what we have here is a case of the honorable lie intended to prevent harm!

1. Harpur refers to the "utter destruction of 500,000 to 750,000 books and scrolls" by a "Christian mob." In fact the majority of damage to the library was done by Ptolemy VIII in 89-88 BC, when he burned most of the city, and Julius Caesar in 47 BC, when he partially destroyed the library; then some of the volumes were moved to Rome to replenish libraries there. The next destruction of the library occurred in 273 under Aurelian when he burned the city -- not targeting the library itself. Please note that Harpur incorrectly dates Aurelian to the fourth century -- he was a pagan emperor who lived i-n the third century -- and he attributes this destruction to "Emperor Aurelian and the Christians"! In fact Aurelian was a pagan who set up a religion dedicated to Sol the sun god (see here).
2. Harpur says that the Serapeum, "to which most of the books had been moved," was burned down on order of Theophilus, in 400. The name is right, but the date was 391, and the books had not been "moved" there -- the Serapeum was just a small temple library, only a shadow of the one destroyed earlier by pagans themselves.

On the same page are some other questionable claims. It is said that a "Christian mob destroyed the Gaulish city of Bibracte in 389," but I can find nothing that backs this up. A general interest article here says that "...Augustus removed the inhabitants to his new town Augustodfinum (Autun), to destroy the free native traditions." Harpur also says "Alesia was destroyed before that" but from the looks of this, Julius Caesar was the one who stomped on these two towns, not a "Christian mob" some 400 years later. I also find no verification that Arles was "sacked by Christians in 270" but have seen that it was sacked by Visigoths in 476. We'll keep looking.

And so it is that Harpur exemplies the worst sort of gullibility one will find these days, and it is regrettable that one so gullible has access to such a diverse public forum as a major newspaper.

And now an update. Someone made Harpur aware of Gasque's reply, and a reader directed us to Harpur's response, as well as his own comments on Harpur's response. It is no surprise to see Harpur retort come with the aura of a little girl screaming over a stolen lollipop, self-contradictory and with no hard evidence. Here is the reply, with the reader's comments and a few of our own as needed:

Harpur:

To date, there have been three categories of criticism of The Pagan Christ:

(i) the general professional academic, who despite the explanation at the beginning of the book that it was not written for scholars (hence the minimum of footnotes) insists that the lack of lengthy references, suitable for a Ph.D. thesis, undermines the book's integrity. This is nonsense;

Reader response:

(i) the lack of lengthy references undermines the book’s integrity, not because it wouldn’t be suitable for a Ph.D. thesis, but because Harpur is putting forth extraordinary claims; he needs to back up these claims with good references;

Another added, "Harpur used the work of "esteemed Egyptologist E. Wallis Budge" Budge died in 1934; I would think the archaeological study of Egypt has advanced over the past 70 years. Did Harpur consult an archaeologist who is still alive?"

Harpur:

(ii) the scholars with some credentials in Egyptology, who have not yet come across the same findings, who haven't read the same sources, but who resist any intrusion into their field. I have come to realize that if you put any ten Egyptologists into a room you'll get ten different opinions on the same data; and

Reader:

(ii) the Egyptologists and other scholars -- the point isn’t that scholars are unanimous on everything; the point is that no Egyptologist would agree with the majority of Harpur’s claims, as Gasque noted;

Another added the wry point, "Harpur claims 10 Egyptologists in a room would not agree on anything; does this mean he could not find even one who would agree with him?" It is not at all a matter of "not coming across the same findings" -- it is a matter of real scholars who know their field not reaching the naive and miseducated opinions of those who are not real scholars. The blatter about "intrusion" and "ten different opinions" is the retort of a spoiled child who cannot answer with actual, hard data.

Harpur:

(iii) the ultra-conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians, who are always deeply threatened by any ideas that do not support and agree with their traditional beliefs.

Reader:

(iii) Harpur appears deeply threatened by ideas that do not support and agree with his beliefs; these threatening “ideas” come from mainstream scholarship in Egyptology and New Testament studies. Quite correct; Harpur is oblivious to the fact that this strawman can be turned right back on to him! After muttering another paragraph about "bias" Harpur continues:

Gasque states that "virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources." Anyone reading the book will find numerous references to such original sources as The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Pyramid Texts, the Book of Thoth. The works of the esteemed Egyptologist E. Wallis Budge are also cited.

In 213 pages, Budge is "cited" exactly once -- in the first note for Chapter 5, and in support of nothing particulary germane to Harpur's "pagan christ" thesis. As noted above, his work is also greatly outdated. These and references to original documents, as Gasque correctly notes, account for virtually none of the citations. Harpur:

Gasque is critical of my statement that "Paul's Jesus lacks any human quality for the very reason that, in Paul's understanding, he was not a human person at all." But, of this claim there can be no doubt - numerous other writers and authorities over the centuries have noticed the same thing. Paul's Jesus is a non-historical, Gnostic or mystical reality, as brought out extremely well most recently by Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle.

Reader: Harpur’s statement that “Paul’s Jesus lacks any human quality for the very reason that, in Paul’s understanding, he was not a human person at all” is doubted by the vast majority of New Testament scholars. It is not surprising that virtually everyone who reads Paul’s letters comes away with the impression that Paul believed in a historical Jesus. Being told that Earl Doherty, B.A., disagrees is unenlightening. From Paul’s undisputed writings, we can learn that Jesus: was a human being, a Jew, a descendant of David; had disciples, including Peter and John; led an exemplary life; referred to God as “Abba;” taught about end-time events, divorce, and a preacher’s wages; instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper; was crucified by earthly rulers, died, and was resurrected. (See Romans 1:3; 6:4; 8:15; 15:3, 8; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2, 8; 7:10-11; 9:1, 14; 11:23-25; 15:4-8; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 10:1; 13:4; Galatians 1:18-19; 2:9; 3:1, 16; 4:4, 6; Philippians 2:6-8; 1 Thessalonians 2:15; 4:15.) A gnostic may read Paul’s letters and hope to interpret all of the statements about the life of Jesus symbolically. But one cannot easily pretend that the idea of a gnostic Jesus arises from a reading of the text itself. Of course we have had our own disposal of Doherty here. Harpur:

His statement that the name Jesus is a Greek derivation of a semitic name "Jeshu'a" borne by many in the first century is grossly misleading. The name Yeshua or Yehoshua is the title of the earliest Hebrew hero, Joshua, many centuries earlier; the Septuagint, (the Greek version of the Old Testament) has the word Jesus about 200 times and it was written c. 300-250 B.C.E.) Yahweh, which is also related to Yehoshua, according to Diodorus Siculus (a primary source) in the first century BCE comes from the Egyptian IAO. I have read Massey and Kuhn on this-which Gasque has not-and he is simply wrong. The origins of Jesus as a name go far back into earliest times and in fact lie behind the much later Jewish terms.

Reader: Can Harpur find any living scholars who agree with him concerning the etymology of “Jesus”? He will not; Massey and Kuhn were blowing bubbles. It is also a false lead to appeal to Diodorus; see here on a list populated with Greek scholars; Diodorus says that this name was given to Yahweh by Moses, and it is regarded as a corruption of Jah. Diodorus wrote between 90-21 BC and is manifestly too late to be taken as an authority on such a detailed linguistic argument. Harpur:

He says there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born. This is simply false. There are various versions of how Horus was conceived, it is true. But, all of them involve a miraculous birth. In one tradition, Isis was impregnated by "a flash of lightening or by the rays of the moon." In The Golden Bough, Frazer tells how Isis conceived "while she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the corpse of her dead husband." In the ancient Syrian and Egyptian rituals of the nativity, the celebrants retired into inner shrines from which at midnight they issued with a loud cry "the Virgin has brought forth!" The Egyptians even represented the newborn sun by the image of an infant, which on his birthday, the winter solstice, was brought out and exhibited to the worshippers. Isis retained her virginity perpetually and was given the epithets "Immaculate Virgin" and "uncontaminated goddess," as well as "Mother of God." By the way, I nowhere suggest that the N.T. Mary was a goddess like Isis, as Gasque says. But, there were so many images and statuettes of Isis holding the baby saviour, Horus, throughout the ancient Mediterranean world that when Christianity finally triumphed these same figures became those of the Madonna and child without any break in continuity. No archaeologist can now tell whether some of these artifacts represent the one or the other.

Harpur skis right over the fact that not ONE of these as described is a "virgin" birth -- he skips from "virgin" to "miraculous" hoping you will blink and not notice. Isis may have been returned to virginity by some means, but the impregnation was clearly not accomplished without violence to the original virginity! One would like better documentation for the claim ;f "ancient Syrian and Egyptian rituals". Harpur misreads Gasque, who does not say that Harpur makes Mary a goddess; Gasque merely points out the difference. One would like affirmation that "no archaeologist" has the expertise Harpur boldly claims they do not have and that such statues were indeed "numerous" (give Harpur's hyperbole on his use of Budge, that seems unlikely). Harpur:

Regarding the age of Osirian religion, which Gasque naively assumes began in 2350 BCE, primary sources (which he declares I never refer to) such as the historian Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus make clear that the oral tradition indicates he "walked the earth" as God's Incarnation thousands of years previously. Osiris was both God and man exactly the same as Jesus. So were a host of other ancient deities. What's more, the Incarnation was also believed in for millennia BCE in Vedic religion. Krishna and Buddha both reflect this widespread belief.

Harpur is clearly embarassing himself by appealing to Herodotus and Siculus, writing thousands of years after the fact. One wonders why he takes their word as reliable on events thousands of years in their past, while rejecting the Gospels as accurate records of what happened mere decades (even by his reckoning) in their own past.

The remainder about Osiris "walking the earth" is not a reply to Gasque (and requires better documentation), but is false: Jesus was not the same as Osiris in this respect, nor Krishna or Buddha, for Osiris was not a hypostasis of a deity. Osiris was himself incarnate. He goes on:

Gasque denies that Horus had twelve disciples. This he says is a "questionable claim." However, the twelve disciple gods is a prominent theme in the ancient Egyptian religion (as also in the cult of Mithras). Horus, the sun god, is surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac, his "helpers" and "disciples."

This is again the same equivocation game played with Mithra in the zodiac: The zodiac signs are magically mutated, by linguistic equivocation, into "disciples"! Let it be shown that those zodiac signs were in a teacher-student relationship with Osiris, and perhaps we can get some air! He continues:

Gasque says that "according to Harpur there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived ." It's not according to Harpur-despite all the conservative sophistry there's NO solid evidence for him of an extra-biblical kind contemporaneous with the time of Jesus' alleged advent on earth. The fact that Gasque's unaware of this reality or of the many books (which I cite) being written today on this theme, (eg. The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty, The Jesus Mysteries, Freke and Gandy, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, Leidner, etc.) argues against his own pompous stance of expertise unlimited. If he possesses such evidence, as he implies, he should produce it forthwith. The entire world waits with baited breath for his "incontrovertible evidence" of an historical Jesus' existence.

That is found here; the reader noted: In an email in October 2003, I asked Harpur if he could name any scholars who agreed with him that there was no historical Jesus. He only named Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, and Harold Leidner. These were the same people he listed in his May 16, 2004, article for the Toronto Star. And we find them listed again in Harpur’s reply to Gasque. This is an unimpressive list: Doherty has a B.A. in ancient history and classical languages; Freke has a B.A. in philosophy; Gandy has an M.A. in classical civilization (wow, a graduate degree!); and Leidner has an LL.B. in law. Certainly, it is possible that people with such credentials could make informed decisions about what to believe regarding history and religion. However, one should be alarmed that Harpur was unable to name any scholars that support his views.

Harpur closes with further whinges, dodging the most embarassing of his errors picked up from his source (i.e., KRST), appeals to himself as a scholar (ruined by his obvious uncritical use of sources), and then leaves. We close with these comments from our informant:

Harpur appears content to believe that the vast majority of Egyptologists and New Testament scholars are wrong about a plethora of facts and interpretations. Of course, Harpur may believe as he chooses. However, he should embrace the fact that he speaks for a minority of lay researchers, instead of pretending that he’s merely popularizing the discoveries of modern scholarship.

I have also found lately more of a reply on Harpur's own site.

The comment that an early source, Godfrey Higgins, could have "no value whatsoever because hieroglypics had not yet been deciphered" at the time he wrote, is stunningly pompous! According to that theory, Christian writers over the centuries who had no access to the hieroglypics either have all held opinions on Egyptian religion and culture which likewise would have no value.

And as a matter of fact, despite Harpur's childish "so there too," this is completely correct. Christian and other writers with no access to hieroglyphics should indeed have been taken with a grain of salt, barring access to other equitable tools -- which Higgins did not have, period. (I.e., a native informant among Egyptians.) Talk of "pompous" though comes ironically in light of Harpur's next comment:

And, the fact remains, that not one of the would-be detractors of The Pagan Christ has read the works of Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, or Alvin Boyd Kuhn. This is not the mark of a truly scholarly critique.

Isn't that nice. And we suppose that the US Geological Survey can be shut up simply by noting that they have "not read" the works of the Flat Earth Society. Harpur's childish screaming of "et tu" will not change the fact that none of these writers is recognized as credentialed in Egyptology, and have been preserved not by reputation in the field but by mystics and cultists and Theosophists who were also of no relevant credit.

By the way, Alvin Boyd Kuhn was not an "autodidact" as Gasque falsely has claimed, but a highly educated man with a PhD from Columbia University. His book, The Lost Light, by Academy Press, New Jersey, bears on its title page the following quote: "This book will be to religion what Darwin's work has been to science" with attribution to President National Library Board, USA.

In fact his Ph. D., as noted above, was of no relevance; he did nothing peer-reviewed in the subject area at hand, and if Harpur thinks posting publisher puffery is of any effect, then why can't we just quote some McDowell about the Bible being such a great book and then watch Harpur shrivel away? So who is this "President" and what credentials does he have? This is the type of information Harpur would prefer not to look into.

New article! A scholar named Gordon Heath has written a review of Harpur's book here (PDF format).

Recently Harpur has also given readers some "advice" for dealing with criticisms of his book. Not surprisingly, his three points are all intended to obfuscate the issues while avoiding the real problems of the inadequacy of his case. Let's look at these.

1. The first thing to do in examining critical comment is to determine the nature of the source itself—is it part of the ecclesiastical apparatus and thus possessed of an agenda of its own? If the reviewer is a priest, a church official, or a professor at seminary, for example, is he or she at all likely to be neutral over a book that challenges the very underpinnings of official Christianity?

Like most critics, Harpur is oblivious to the point that this same fan can be turned around so that what he blows at us, can be blown back at him. So how about we say, "The first thing to do in examining critical comment is to determine the nature of the source itself—is it part of the anti-ecclesiastical apparatus and thus possessed of an agenda of its own? If the reviewer is an apostate former professor at seminary, for example, is he or she at all likely to be neutral over a review that challenges the very underpinnings of their book?" I don't play these silly sort of games; they are for childish people who are unable to address arguments on merit and are looking for a cheap and easy way to prejudice the debate.

2. Then one should ask the key question: Does this critic give any sign or evidence whatever that he or she has read the key sources upon which the chief arguments of the book have been based? None of the critical reviews I have read so far pass this acid test of intellectual integrity. Higgins, Massey, and Kuhn remain hidden territory for them.

Of course, this is oblivious to the point that Higgins, Massey and Kuhn, being non-credentialed in their field and totally unrecognized by credentialed scholars in Egyptology, are the ones who need to prove themselves; it is just as well to suggest that Einstein ought to have read the works of a third-grader who thought quarks were made of whipped cream. The demand is one of a spoiled child who cannot accept that his heroes are unrespected by those in the know. Nevertheless, two points in reply. The first is that I, at least, have read much of Massey, and less of Kuhn, and less of Higgins, whose work is not widely available; and we have more depth critiques of them in the works. Second, if Harpur says we need to read these also to "get" his points, then it seems to me that Harpur himself must have represented their works inadequately, if he leaves them so vulnerable to criticism by scholars. That said, if Harpur is able to actually respond to any criticism by showing where a depth reading of these three is needed, that is one thing; as it is, this response, with no such specifics, is merely a distraction from the inadequacy of his sources.

3. You will notice the general professional academic, who despite the explanation at the beginning of the book that it was not written for scholars (hence the minimum of footnotes) illogically insists that the lack of lengthy references, suitable for a Ph.D. thesis, undermines the book's integrity. Critics will always try to repudiate sources even if the material presented is factual.

This whining retort is little more than a crybaby excuse for Harpur's gross inability to provide the needed substantiation for his views. The fact is that what Harpur presents as his thesis is rejected by the overwhelming body of scholarship, whether liberal or conservative; and such incredibly counter-consensus views require -- for a responsible writer, which Harpur is not -- a wealth of documenation in reply to the consensus. To not provide this, and to bypass peer review with a popular presentation, is a signal that Harpur can place no academic confidence in his positions; that he knows he can not and will not survive scholarly peer review, and that he dishonestly wished to inflict his views upon a gullible and less critical public at large. "I didn't write it for scholars" is not an adequate excuse for academic laziness.

4. Lastly, and most important of all, there is the crucial question to be asked: “Is this review/criticism/charge concerned about the main theses of The Pagan Christ—its leading arguments—or is it rather a matter essentially of a nit-picking, scatter-gun attack aimed at discrediting the book at any cost?

The rub of this complaint -- which is deliberately vague -- is that "leading arguments" in Pagan Christ are themselves little more than a series of disconnected, jumbled "nits" the size of scatter-gun ammo. Harpur clearly does not have the discipline to write an extended narrative coherently; while his writing talents work well for a newspaper column, in which sound bites can make for an adequate presentation, in a book purporting to overturn scholarly consensus, it is merely something that makes him look like he is swimming out of his depth. Comparing the book to Harpur's columns, it appears that much of the book is just his columns reproduced verbatim, and that is why TPC is indeed nothing but a set of pickable nits.

The question is: When will Harpur actually respond to any of these criticisms, as opposed to engaging in distractions? Not anytime soon. Lately here is some more "advice" he gives his readers:

A. Contrary to what most people believe, there is no general unity among Egyptologists on every issue. "Egyptology" simply means the study of Egypt, and what I have found is that every "Egyptologist" I have read or heard from has his or her own individual interpretation of the same data. In the Pagan Christ, I have worked extensively with several Egyptologists. It comes down to a question of whose interpretations stand up to scrutiny and common sense. The fact that certain "Egyptologists" may not agree with this work does not surprise me. To begin with, unless they have read the fundamental works I am using, they are not in a position to give a scholarly critique. What’s more, that's the whole point of the book! It's high time this material was widely known and studied. The Pagan Christ has a timely message for Christianity, other religions, and the world. All the nit-picking and distorting of its message can't change that.

First of all, Harpur's blatter about there being "no general unity among Egyptologists on every issue" obscures the fact that among professional Egyotpologists, there certainly IS unity on the point that theories like those of Kuhn and Massey are thoroughgoing nonsense. Harpur is trying to use disagreement on different issues as support for his own theories, and that is thoroughly dishonest. Second, while indeed the word "Egyptologist" has been steadfastly abused by numerous neophytes (witness Yosef ben-Jochanon) with no credentials or training, the simple fact is that only those who have become credentialed in their field of Egyptology have any right to speak authoritatively or to be listened to on these matters. If Harpur consulted with an "Egyptologist" who was just some comic book collector with a fascination for Isis, it is absurd to suggest that he has thereby