I had an email conversation with the producer of the movie. Here it is:
------
Dear Zeitgeist people,
I commend you on producing quite a sensational flick! I don't
necessarily agree with all of your conclusions, but it definitely got
me thinking. I am writing because, as I understand it, you are still
tweaking the movie. I am an ancient historian (Ph.D. at UC San Diego)
and noticed that in the first part of your movie, during the historical
overview, there are several inaccuracies. If you're interested, I can
provide you with some information that will allow you to correct these
and make the movie more historically accurate.
-------
Hello David,
Thanks for your email.
Any points you would like to make regarding the historical accuracies are welcome.
I am well aware of the duplicity in some of the points as related to mythological interpretation.
thanks
Peter
-------
Hi Peter,
As I promised, here is some information that will help you to make
corrections.
11:50--The narrator states that "The Sun...was personified as a
representative of the unseen Creator or God." The early cultures
believed that the Sun WAS a god, and they did personify the Sun. But I
know of none that believed that there was an unseen God that the Sun
REPRESENTED, or that there was a God who owned the Sun. So it is not
clear how you then jump to conclusion that this is "God's Sun," and
there is no explanation of how you concluded that the Sun was somehow
"the Savior of Humankind." Do you mean because it helped the crops to
grow?
12:12--I'm afraid this section has quite a number of inaccuracies in
it. The narrator states that Horus was of 3000 BC. Horus was a god
worshipped in Egypt for a long time, not just in 3000. Moreover, there
are many version of Horus. I think you mean that an early story of the
battle between Horus and Set comes from around 3000. But that story is
about Horus the Elder, who was not the sun god, but the sky god. The
sun was considered one of his eyes and the moon the other. The Horus
who was represented as the winged sun disk was Horus of Behdet
(sometimes called simply Behdety). There are stories of his battles
with Set too, so I think this is the Horus you mean. You should take
out the date 3000, though, and I would recommend giving his full name
(Horus of Behdet) at least once.
I can find no evidence in any of the Egyptian records that Isis was a
virgin or that Horus was born without contribution from a father. Isis
was married to Osiris. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back
together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis
which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis
for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal
about that. Perhaps people think this because the penis was fake?? But
the fact that she had to use the penis to get pregnant suggests that it
had something to do with the pregnancy. So maybe you should leave the
virgin part out. (I know this will be hard, since you want to have as
many similarities as possible with Jesus, but you have to be fair
here.)
I do not think there is any evidence that there was a Star from the
East that guided the three visitors to the baby Horus. Where did you
get this from? If you cannot verify it from actual Egyptian records,
then you should leave it out. Please see the following website for a
discussion of the evidence for this:
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/car...iption.htm
There is no indication that Horus was "a prodigal child teacher" when
he was 12. And Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were
followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an
unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus
did not have 12 disciples. And he was not crucified.
I would recommend using only the birth date (all sun gods, of course,
are born at that time of year), the miracles, and the titles (though I
don't think "the Lamb of God" was used of him). I know this is not as
good, but you have to be historically accurate.
You may also use the death and resurrection parallel, except you should
make it clear that this was originally about Horus' father Osiris, but
later, when Horus and his father became equated, Horus became known as the resurrected Osiris. I know of no myth that says he was resurrected
3 days later.
14:00--Regarding Attis, the daughter of the god of the Sangarius river
conceived Attis not by sexual intercourse, but by taking the fruit of
an almond tree that had grown up from the sexual organ of Agdistis,
which the gods had cut off. But, as you can see, a penis was still
involved (as in the case of Isis). Perhaps it would be best to change
the wording on all of these from "born of a virgin" to "born without
sexual intercourse" or something like that.
Attis was not crucified. And there is no myth of which I am aware that
says he was buried for 3 days.
14:10--I don't know much about Krishna, but I would suggest you check
your facts to be sure of this. I heard that he was born to the princess
Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. I don't know of any "Star in the East"
myth associated with him and have never heard of a death and
resurrection story for him either.
14:20--Regarding Dionysus, he is the son of Zeus and Semele in some
myths and the son of Zeus and Persephone in others. I know of no virgin
birth story, though there are some versions that have him born from two
mothers and one father. I also know of no evidence that he was born on
Dec. 25. His festival was in March.
14:40--Regarding Mithra, I think you are confusing him with Mithras,
whose cult resembles Christianity in some ways. Mithra was a Persian
deity that has little resemblance to Jesus. Mithras was a Roman deity
that does. I don't know about any myths that have him buried for 3
days. And more importantly, Mithraism was contemporaneous with
Christianity.
16:30--In this section you conflate two traditions, the biblical story
with later Roman interpretation of that story. Your discussion here is
about the latter (and it is valid), but you make it seem as if it's how
the story was originally written. December 25th and the 3 "Kings" are
not in the Bible (the Magi are not kings).
16:48--Regarding the "M" for the constellation Virgo, you assume that
the symbol for it (the Greek letter Mu) influenced the names of virgin
goddesses, but the constellation has been associated with nearly every
prominent goddess, including Ishtar, Isis, Cybele, Mary, and Athena,
the names of which do not all start with M. You also assume that
Buddhists used the letter "M" for this constellation. Why would they
have used a Greek letter?
17:25--Here you seem to be suggesting that Bethelehem is a made-up
place, a reference to something "not on earth." But it was a town that
actually existed. We have archaeological remains. If you are suggesting
that the name of this place was chosen for the story because it
corresponded with the name of the constellation, then say so.
17:30-19:25--All the stuff about the sun dying for three days and the
spring equinox is good.
19:50--To say that the Bible has "more to do with astrology than
anything else" is too much of an exaggeration. That's one mighty large
book, and it talks about a great many things. Plus, many of the
astrological associations in Christianity are post-biblical.
20:00--All the stuff about the cross is fine.
21:05--Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but the
"crown of thorns" analogy is a stretch, because it occurs in a context
not related to Jesus' being in the sky.
22:15--You don't explain why you start counting the ages from 4300 BC.
This date will seem arbitrary if you do not explain why. You also
should explain why you start with Taurus.
26:30--The section on the wall at Luxor is a stretch. You are, of
course, entitled to your interpretation, but most Egyptologists (even
atheists) would not take it seriously, I'm afraid. There is no
depiction of any immaculate conception, and no way of telling what is
being said by any of the characters, if they are saying anything at
all.
27:15--I cannot verify all the items in this list, because I couldn't
read it. I have a feeling you didn't verify them all either. But the
image is effective.
27:33--The epic of Gilgamesh was not written in 2600 BC. Some old
episodes about Gilgamesh began to be recorded then, but the epic as we
have it today is from the 8th century BC. The part of it concerning the
flood probably predates the Bible, but it is impossible to determine
exactly how old it is.
28:15--The Sargon legend comes from several centuries after Sargon, so
you have the date wrong here too. With regard to both the epic of
Gilgamesh, the legend of Sargon, and the Bible, scholars say it is more
likely that there was a common tradition that all three drew from than
that the Bible copied directly from the other two works.
29:00--There is no etymological relationship between the three "M"
names. You are really stretching here. The similarities are
superficial.
29:14--This part is very weak because it seems to be ignoring the fact
that the laws of many nations are similar, not because they were
copying from each other, but because in order for a community to
function, there are going to be laws that have to be made. I mean, what
society can function without laws against murder and stealing? They ALL
have them! Communities thousands of miles apart and with no
communication between each other are still going to have laws against
stealing, murder, etc. It has nothing to do with copying. It's part of
civilization.
29:30--Again, you need to delete "virgin birth." And where do you get
"ark of the covenant" and "communion" and "passover" from? I am not
aware of these, and you did not explain them previously.
32:50--Since when does the quantity of sentences within a historian's
work establish whether a person is historical or not. If "Christus" is
mentioned, then the writers obviously believed there was a Christus.
These Roman writers were talking about him in the context of
Christianity, so there is no way to make Christus be anybody else
except the founder of the Christian sect.
33:07--To be fair, the subject of how much of Josephus' reference to
Jesus is original and how much is a forgery is still the subject of
controversy today, even among non-Christians. Most scholars think that
Josephus did refer to Jesus, but that the text was later embellished.
Why not leave open the possibility that there was a man Jesus, but that
the numerous legends about him are fabrications?
34:12--Here you assume that Gnostic Christians came first. But there
were "historical" gospels written before the Gnostic ones. Gnosticism
is not the original form of Christianity. It is just one of its many
branches.
35:12--You just got through demonstrating that Christianity was based
on phenomena of the natural world and then here say that Christianity
"serves to detach the species from the natural world." It seems
contradictory. Do you mean later Christianity?
I also think it is important for you to distinguish between "religion"
and "theism." The former has caused a lot more problems than the
latter, which is merely a belief.
33:55--Here we hear someone say, "We want to be factual" and
"acedemically correct." I urge you to live up to this and make the film
even stronger by eliminating the errors and adjusting the wording.
--------
Hello David, thanks for that. My responses below.
>11:50--The narrator states that "The Sun...was personified as a
representative of the unseen Creator or God." The early cultures
believed that the Sun WAS a god, and they did personify the Sun. But I
know of none that believed that there was an unseen God that the Sun
REPRESENTED, or that there was a God who owned the Sun. So it is not
clear how you then jump to conclusion that this is "God's Sun," and
there is no explanation of how you concluded that the Sun was somehow
"the Savior of Humankind." Do you mean because it helped the crops to
grow? <
*The point is gestural. What we know is that the sun was
a pivotal point of interest and of worship. I am setting up the
association with
the christian/jesus parallel. Yes, the sun is the Savior of Humankind-
>because that is what it is. Also, Nearly all mythical Sun gods are
born in an
Immaculate fashion...from Virgo/ the virgin moon/ the dawn-
astrotherologically.
Mythologically speaking, The sun is traditionally born of the virgin
and
thus is the son of the virgin...and some deity
, in the case of Christ - GOD.
It has always been amazing to me to see obvious turns of phrase
attributed to Jesus, as the "light of the world" and such.(which are
also used for Horus and others) which are obvious allusions to the
sun.
The "God's Sun" is a gestural comment, denoting the tradition of the
"birth" myth form the virgin mother. I didn't say "the
ancients called it "god's sun'"*
>12:12--I'm afraid this section has quite a number of inaccuracies in
it. The narrator states that Horus was of 3000 BC. Horus was a god
worshipped in Egypt for a long time, not just in 3000. Moreover, there
are many version of Horus. I think you mean that an early story of the
battle between Horus and Set comes from around 3000....<
*Yes, of course, Horus was known / adorned for at least 3000 years. I
put 3000 bc as a general marker of time. I think you might be reading
too far into that as far as what I am pointing out. I was saying "
Horus, who's myth thrived around 3000 BC" I didn't want to get too
technical in the film. As far as set/Seth- yes I am using "that side"
of the mythological storie. Thanks for the other interesting points
though...*
>I can find no evidence in any of the Egyptian records that Isis was a
virgin or that Horus was born without contribution from a father. Isis
was married to Osiris. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back
together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis
which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis
for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal
about that. <
* great point. However you are only seeing one version of the story. In
two other versions, Isis hovers over the Osirus in the form of a hawk
and is impregnated... in another she is impregnated by a flash of
lightening. ( see: The Golden Bough-Frazer)*
*As far as your other comments about Horus/Stars/Resurrection and other
claims you so are unfounded,
I suggest you read: Gerald Massey: Ancient Egypt:Light of the world. He
spent 20 years
studying these ideas.
These characteristics have been suppressed for many many years... for
obvious reasons.*
>Attis was not crucified. And there is no myth of which I am aware that
says he was buried for 3 days./ Attis...sexual intercourse<
*Attis was conceived by Immaculate conception which is mythologically
synonymous with virgin birth.
Attis castrated himself and laid against a tree in cruciform.
Now- The question comes down to what is more important...The tradition
or the Myth in certain circumstances.
The Passion of Attis played out every year in Roman in the 1st century
pinned an effigy of Attis to a tree in cruciform in
at the vernal Equinox. It was in practice. They then placed him in a
cave for 3 days and then brought him out as resurrected.
What is comes down to is that this the same for Jesus.... Jesus was
paganized just like ATTIS. The traditions were the same.
For example, no where in the bible does it say Jesus was born on Dec
25th, yet that is the way it is celebrated.*
>14:10--I don't know much about Krishna, but I would suggest...<
*Krishna is the Indian Christ. Chrishna as it used to be spelled.
Just like Mary who(whether they like to cover it up) had other
children,
such as James, Jesus's brother- so it was with Krishna. Devaki had 7
children(so did Mary by the way in certain scriptures) There are
mythologists going back 900 years who speak of His Immaculate/virgin
conception. No where in the Hindu Vegas of the like does it say how
Krishna was born... and since Devaki was with a non mortal husband, the
Immaculate conception card is obvious and with much precedent.*
>14:20--Regarding Dionysus, he is the son of Zeus...<
*Dionysis was born with no intercourse. Zeus impregnated Semele with a
thunderstorm. His festival was in March at the vernal equinox or.....
easter.*
>14:40--Regarding Mithra...<
*interesting point... I see those names being used interchangeably. I
am
referring to the one concurrent with the Zoroaster myth... which is
known as both Mithra and Mithras...oddly.*
>December 25th and the 3 "Kings" are
not in the Bible (the Magi are not kings)<
*It is concurrent with the Pagan myth... you are right dec 25th isn't
in
the bible. The astrotheological allegory is very obvious however, as
the
traditions are pre-extant. Back to my other point regarding myth vs
tradition... The bleed together.*
>16:48--Regarding the "M" for the constellation Virgo....<
*The Buddhist usage is possible. Devaki was also known as "Maritala"
according to apolgist Weigall.
Hermes of Mandane... Moses of Mariam...
This isn't a strong point of the work, but I feel the astro.
connections
are enough to merit pointing out.*
>17:25--Here you seem to be suggesting that Bethelehem is a made-up
place...<
*No- I was just pointing out the astro parallels. I am well aware it
was
a place.
And when the Bible was historized, the Romans took there liberties to
orient things as such.
Perhaps I should have been more clear.... though most would figure out
it was a place if they research.
I can't spell everything out...the movie would be 10 hours long.*
>19:50--To say that the Bible has "more to do with astrology than
anything else" is too much of an exaggeration.<
*Sure- but I am trying to make a point. I didn't get into a fraction of
the obvious allegorical elements in that book.
As far as the Astrological elements being post biblical- that depends
how you look at it. ALL the aspects far predate the biblical period...
whether they were applied later or a part of the original myth- we dont
know... but the evidence says they were apart of the original myth and
the "Historizing" came after*
>21:05--Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but the
"crown of thorns" analogy is a stretch<
*I dont know of any "torture known for those times that would deal a
"crown of thorns".... it would be rather ineffective to cause pain.
It is obviously figurative and thus mythological. It is related to
Jesus
being in the sky, as Jesus IS the sun- the sun with it's sun rays. It's
interpretive- sure... I didn't just make it up.*
*
>22:15--You don't explain why you start counting the ages from 4300
BC.<
*There are a few way to calculate the precession. My source puts Taurus
there. I start at Taurus because I was about to go into bible
allegories
in the film*
26:30--The section on the wall at Luxor is a stretch.
*See Massey. I think it is obvious enough.*
>27:15--I cannot verify all the items in this list, because I couldn't
read it. I have a feeling you didn't verify them all either. But the
image is effective.<
*read here- I have studied Massey enough to trust his work.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/GMappendix.htm*
>27:33--The epic of Gilgamesh was not written in 2600 BC. Some old
episodes about Gilgamesh began to be recorded then<
*This is debatable- either way it was pre-christain. My source says
2600
BC was the first known version.*
>28:15--The Sargon legend comes from several centuries after Sargon, so
you have the date wrong here too.<
*I will check that out... *
>29:00--There is no etymological relationship between the three "M"
names. You are really stretching here. The similarities are
superficial.<
*I never said there was*
>29:14--This part is very weak because it seems to be ignoring the fact
that the laws of many nations are similar<
*Not at all... these are traditional laws- yes- but the Egyptian
influnce is pronounced on the judeochristian theology.
It is in high odds they were lifted from Spell 125 or Hammurabi's Code
of Babylon.*
>29:30--Again, you need to delete "virgin birth." And where do you get
"ark of the covenant" and "communion" and "passover" from? I am not
aware of these, and you did not explain them previously.<
*Virgin birth is preextant with Horus.
The ark of the covenant is well known about the Egyption culture.
(see this- i just found -
http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/religi...gion6.html )
Communion was in fact a practice.
and Passover is simply the vernal Equinox... as the sun
"passes-over"/resurrected to bring longer days.
All Celebrated/Traditionalized.*
>32:50--Since when does the quantity of sentences within a historian's
work establish whether a person is historical or not. If "Christus" is
mentioned, then the writers obviously believed there was a Christus.
These Roman writers were talking about him in the context of
Christianity, so there is no way to make Christus be anybody else
except the founder of the Christian sect.<
*That's nonsense. if that was the only thing they could pen about the
figure who changed the world, I stand baffled.
The name Christus denotes NOTHING. It is a title. There could have
1000000 Christus-es for all we know. Read John Allegro and the Dead Sea
scrolls.*
>Why not leave open the possibility that there was a man Jesus, but
that
the numerous legends about him are fabrications?<
*Sure- but that person WOULD NOT be the Christ of the gospels on any
level.*
>34:12--Here you assume that Gnostic Christians came first. But there
were "historical" gospels written before the Gnostic ones. Gnosticism
is not the original form of Christianity. It is just one of its many
branches.<
*hmmm.... what is your source for that?*
>35:12--You just got through demonstrating that Christianity was based
on phenomena of the natural world and then here say that Christianity
"serves to detach the species from the natural world." It seems
contradictory. Do you mean later Christianity?<
*I mean theism in the sense of looking to a
judgment/determining/planning force "in the sky"
This is a sad state of being.*
>I also think it is important for you to distinguish between "religion"
and "theism." The former has caused a lot more problems than the
latter, which is merely a belief.<
*Oh i agree - that is why I say "theistic belief systems..." in the
film*
33:55--Here we hear someone say, "We want to be factual" and
"academically correct." I urge you to live up to this and make the film
even stronger by eliminating the errors and adjusting the wording.
*I feel I have and any corrections I find, will be posted diligently*
Thanks
Peter
--------
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response. On most of the issues, it is only
clarification that is lacking, and you did well at clarifying for me
(though I wish you did for your audience too). On the rest, it is
simply a matter of interpretation, and I respect your right to make
those interpretations, even if I don't agree with them all. I only want
to comment on two points:
1. Gerald Massey. I'm sure his book is great. But gosh, man, you need
to have some corroboration from other Egyptologists. Don't build your
whole thesis on one guy. His book was written a long time ago, and
there have been all kinds of archaeological findings since. I don't
know of anyone who backs him up. And you can't blame that on Christian
censorship. I am well read in scholarly literature, and believe me,
these guys say what they want.
2. I simply must respond to your comments about the Roman historians
who mentioned Christus. You said: "If that was the only thing they
could pen about the figure who changed the world, I stand baffled."
Well, come on now--THEY didn't believe in Jesus as the Anointed. They
were only talking about some guy that the Christians followed. What did
they care? There was no reason for them to go on and on about him,
because they hated the Christians and they couldn't care less about
Christ. You said, "The name Christus denotes NOTHING. It is a title.
There could have 1000000 Christus-es for all we know." You might be
able to say that, if one of the historians did not connect Christus to
the Christians, but he does.
Talking about the fire of Rome, Tacitus says, "Consequently, to get rid
of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite
tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by
the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the
extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus
checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first
source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become
popular."
Here he clearly says that the Christians took their name from a guy
named Christus who was executed in the time of Tiberius Caesar under
Pontius Pilate. How much more proof do you need that the guy existed?
You are absolutely right that this is not necessarily the Christ of the
gospels. But he did most likely exist.
Finally, you asked me to give you a source that showed that the Gnostic
gospels did not precede the historical gospels.
The earliest known historical gospel is Mark, which scholars date to c.
60-80 AD. You can look this up anywhere. It's common knowledge.
The earliest known Gnostic Gospel is the Gospel of Thomas, which is
usually dated to the end of the first century, or the early second
century. You can look this up anywhere too. I know of no other Gnostic
Christian text earlier than this one.
Best,
David