ntroduction: The Battle of the Models
In recent discourse, specifically within the MythVision episode “Higher Consciousness & Jesus? Dr. Richard Carrier Responds,” Dr. Richard Carrier proposes a paradigm wherein the historical Jesus is a “celestial being” eventually “euhemerized” or pulled down to earth by later gospel writers. Carrier’s methodology—rooted in Bayesian probability and a deconstruction of traditional “Docetism”—seeks to replace the historical consensus with a model of visionary origins.
However, when interrogated through the foundational works of Gerald Massey (A Book of the Beginnings, The Natural Genesis, Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World), Walter Williams (The Historical Origin of Christianity), and Martin Bernal (Black Athena), Carrier’s paradigm is revealed as a halfway house between the “Aryan Model” of history and a truly evolutionary mythography. While Carrier recognizes the non-historical nature of the Gospels, he remains tethered to a Greco-Roman and Judeo-centric matrix, systematically marginalizing the 10,000-year-old Egyptian foundation of the Christ-mythos.
——————————————————————————–
Part 1: “Gnosticism” and the Revisionist Mirage
1.1 Carrier’s Claim
Carrier argues that “Gnosticism” is a modern, misleading academic label for a diverse set of sects that did not view themselves as a cohesive movement. He further contends that “Docetism” (the belief that Jesus only appeared to be human) is an academic invention used to mask what were originally explicitly mythicist Christian sects who believed in a purely celestial Christ.
1.2 The Massey-Williams Perspective
Massey and Williams view these “gnosticizing” traditions not as novel 2nd-century schisms, but as the surviving “debris of the astronomical mythology” and “necrological science” of Egypt.
• The Ka and the Double: Massey argues the Gnostic Christ is the Egyptian Horus continued under Gnostic names, such as the “Only-begotten from the Father”. The doctrine of the “double” or Ka (spiritual body) is the root of what Carrier calls “mythicist Christians”.
• Amenta as the Spirit World: The Gnostic “Higher Consciousness” is a literalized version of the Egyptian Amenta, the “earth of eternity” where the soul transforms into a spirit (Sahu).
• Esoteric Control: Williams emphasizes that the Egyptian priest society (specifically the Coptic-Egyptian priesthood) utilized “esoteric mysteries” to preserve spiritual truths, which were later “white-washed” and turned into a literal history for the “simple-minded” masses.
1.3 Comparative Analysis
Carrier’s dismissal of Gnosticism as a category ignores the structural continuity of the Revised Ancient Model. Where Carrier sees a purely intellectual/literary development within a Roman-Judean context, Massey demonstrates that the very language of the Gnostics (e.g., the Logia Kuriaka or “Sayings of the Lord”) was derived from the “Words of Mati” (the Egyptian scribe Taht-Aan/John) recorded in the Hall of Maat.
1.4 Evaluation
Carrier’s skepticism of the label “Gnosticism” is academically sound regarding 20th-century terminology, but his model is reductionist in its failure to account for the Egyptian necrological science as the primary engine for these mystical experiences.
Summary of Findings: Gnosticizing traditions are not 2nd-century novelties but the final “waning light of ancient Egyptian knowledge”. Carrier’s “celestial hero” is an unanchored abstraction compared to the precisely configurated Amsu-Horus.
——————————————————————————–
Part 2: Mystery Cults and the Ptolemaic Fabrication
2.1 Carrier’s Claim
Carrier reconstructs Christianity as a kind of “Jewish mystery cult,” structurally comparable to the cults of Osiris, Attis, and Mithras, where a central figure undergoes a self-sacrificial death in outer space.
2.2 The Massey-Williams Perspective
• Egyptian Priority: Massey proves that the “mystery of the mummy is the mystery of the Christ”. Osiris and Horus are the archetypal prototypes for the “Christ” pattern, including the “Last Supper” (provisioning the altar) and the “resurrection on the third day” (a lunar calculation).
• Political Engineering: Walter Williams argues that Christianity was not an organic Jewish sect but a politically engineered religion. He identifies the physical icon of the “historical” Jesus as a fabrication based on the image of Ptolemy I (Soter), forced upon the populace to bridge the gap between European and Egyptian spirituality.
• Linguistic Transmission: Bernal supports this by mapping how Greek religious terms like hieros (sacred) and hiereus (priest) are derived from Egyptian roots like ˆÅˆ (praise) and ˆÅt (office), indicating that the “mystery” framework was already Afroasiatic long before the 1st century.
2.3 Comparative Analysis
Carrier’s “Jewish mystery cult” model fails to explain why the “Jewish” Messiah bears 180 points of identical reproduction with the Egyptian Horus. While Carrier notes that Romans joined the “Osiris cult whose god was foreign and incestuous,” he misses the fact that the Roman Church is the Serapeum of Alexandria sloughing off its Egyptian skin.
2.4 Evaluation
Carrier underestimates Egyptian priority. By framing Christianity as a Jewish cult, he ignores the “Coptic Egyptian roots” that Williams asserts were erased to create a “racist world view of Christianity”.
Summary of Findings: Christianity is a literalized “mummy” of Egyptian religion. Carrier’s model captures the structure of the “Mystery” but misses the “Historical Origin” in the Ptolemaic-Roman fusion of Egypt’s high wisdom.
——————————————————————————–
Part 3: The “Jewishness” of Jesus as a Fictive Mask
3.1 Carrier’s Claim
Carrier maintains that Jesus was a Jewish figure located within the specific messianic and scriptural trajectories of Second Temple Judaism, even if that figure was originally celestial.
3.2 The Massey-Williams Perspective
• The Mythic Type: Massey portrays “the Christ” as a mythic type—the Karast (mummified/anointed one)—developed millennia before Christianity.
• Fictive Attribution: Williams contends that the “historical” Jewish birth is a fictive attribution. He argues that the Jesus story is a “garbled and fragmentary copy of an Egyptian prototype”.
• Hellenistic Syncretism: Bernal shows that the Greek “miracle” and subsequent religious forms were built upon an Afroasiatic base that was systematically obscured by the “Aryan Model”.
3.3 Comparative Analysis: Testing the Working Hypothesis
Carrier’s contention that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalyptic figure is challenged by the fact that nearly every “Jewish” feature of Jesus has an Egyptian prototype:
• Moses: An Egyptian name (as in Ramose/Thutmose).
• Bethany: A Hebrew replica of Annu (Heliopolis), the “House of Bread” and the place of Osiris’ resurrection.
• The 12 Disciples: Originally the 12 reapers in the fields of Amenta or the 12 rowers of the solar bark, extant 20,000 years ago.
3.4 Evaluation
Jesus is “labeled Jewish” because the editors “re-rendered Hebraistically” the ancient Egyptian eschatology. Carrier’s reliance on Jewish apocalypticism treats the “shell” as the “source.”
Summary of Findings: The “Jewish Jesus” is a literary mask. Carrier’s paradigm is “obsolete” because it calculates probabilities for a figure whose entire biography was “manufactured from identifiable matter recorded in the ancient Book of Wisdom”.
——————————————————————————–
Part 4: Astro-Theology and Scriptural Hermeneutics
4.1 Carrier’s Claim
Carrier treats the early Christian interpretation of Hebrew scriptures (the pesher method) as the primary engine for generating Christological narratives.
4.2 The Massey-Williams Perspective
• Astro-Theological Hermeneutic: Massey demonstrates that the Gospels are “Equinoctial Christolatry”. The narratives are encoded with zodiacal correspondences: the birth in the manger (the Apt or “crib” in Cancer), the 12 followers (the zodiacal signs), and the “third-day” resurrection (the moon’s renewal).
• The Re-historicization of Myth: Williams argues that “biographical” details are re-historicized astro-theological themes transplanted from Egypt into a Jewish scriptural matrix.
• The Sothic Cycle: Massey uses the Sothic cycle (1,460 years) to prove that the “prophecies” were actually astronomical reckonings mistaken for human history.
4.3 Evaluation
Carrier’s Bayesian assessment of “likelihood” is flawed because it treats the Gospel data as “legendary accretions” rather than a holistic, scientific system of Egyptian time-keeping.
Summary of Findings: The “fulfilled” scriptures are inverted Egyptian myths. Carrier’s probabilistic assessments collapse when the “seed in the soil” is recognized as 100% astronomical.
——————————————————————————–
Part 5: Methodological and Historiographical Critique
5.1 Carrier’s Bayesian/Historical-Critical Method
Carrier applies Bayes’ Theorem to manage uncertainty, but he operates within a “reference class” that excludes the Afroasiatic foundation.
5.2 The Massey-Williams-Bernal Alternative
• Evolutionary Mythography: Massey seeks the “natural genesis” of signs in physical phenomena.
• Afrocentric Decolonial Critique: Williams exposes the “racist world view” of academia that erases Coptic Egyptian roots.
• The Revised Ancient Model: Bernal challenges the “Aryanist” framework that views Egyptian thought as “morbid and lifeless”.
5.3 Synthesis
Carrier’s framework systematically marginalizes the 10,000-year-old Egyptian record. He over-privileges the “Aryan Model” of historiography, which views Greek and Judean culture as isolated novelties.
5.4 Final Evaluation
A revised methodology must integrate:
1. Afroasiatic Linguistics: To identify the Egyptian roots of “Gnostic” and “Jewish” terms.
2. Astro-Theology: To explain the structural necessity of the 12, the 7, and the 3-day interval.
3. Decolonial Historiography: To expose the “Christian third-century falsifiers” who burned the original Gnostic records to support the “Word-made-flesh” fraud.
——————————————————————————–
Conclusion: The Obsolescence of the Obsolete Paradigm
Richard Carrier’s “Obsolete Paradigm” is itself a victim of the very “Egyptophobia” and academic bias it claims to transcend. By identifying the Karast-mummy as the original Christ and the Amenta as the original spirit world, Massey and Williams provide a comprehensive refutation of Carrier’s model.
Summary of Findings:
• Jesus is not a “Jewish cosmic hero” but an institutionalized Kamite myth.
• Gnosticism is not a modern invention but a Gnostic explanation of the Egyptian Mythos.
• Christianity is a “Resurrection pie” of Afroasiatic high wisdom “fused down and made featureless” by Rome.
Carrier’s Bayesian ceiling collapses under the weight of the “Nile Valley civilization” as the true matrix of culture. The real “paradigm shift” lies not in moving from a historical to a celestial Jesus, but in returning to the Ancient Model where the light of the world originated: in the Old Dark Land of Egypt.
Leave a Reply