Evidence of an Ancient Global Civilization pt 2

On the very next page, we run into one paragraph that is so rife with errors and fabrications that it needs careful attention to figure out just how much flaws have been crammed in. The paragraph follows on Murdock's statement that contact between the Americas and the Old World had to have begun much earlier than conventionally accepted - this paragraph gives 'supporting evidence' for such a contention. The paragraph is as follows:

For example, in the Americas are found the Eden, flood and Jonah myths; the story of the sun standing still; the veneration of the serpent; the virgin birth; the crucifixon; the practice of circumcision; and ascetic monasteries and nunneries. As another example, natives of British Columbia called the sun/sky-god “Sin,” like the Old World god, and represented Sin’s mother as being married to a carpenter, who teaches his solar son his trade.* Furthermore, as Carpenter states: “The same legend of gods (or idols) being born in caves has, curiously enough, been reported from Mexico, Guatemala, the Antilles, and other places in Central America.”* Also, the natives of Florida at the time of the Christian invasion were allegedly discovered to chant “Hosanna.”* [1, p. 392 The text has been altered slightly - asterisks mark where references to sources were, the particular sources are not particular relevant for the first impression.]

I shall now investigate this paragraph almost sentence by sentence. We first notice the lack of sources for the statement that the entire series of Eden, flood, Jonah, the sun standing still, crucifixion, circumcision and monasteries are present in the Americas. I do not doubt the presence of circumcision there, but any single correspondence between two cultures does not make evidence of contact. If many of these happened to overlap, it would be more interesting, but we are given no such information to work with.

As another example, natives of British Columbia called the sun/sky-god “Sin,” like the Old World god, and represented Sin’s mother as being married to a carpenter, who teaches his solar son his trade. [1, p. 392]

Here, Murdock's obscurantism knows no bounds. The natives of British Columbia have more than two dozen languages today. Several languages of the area have probably also gone extinct. Obtaining dictionaries of these languages is difficult - might be reasonably doable if you live close to a university library in Vancouver (or maybe the other major cities of Canada). (For an overview of the languages, see this.) This makes verifying her claim way more difficult than it should be. This suggests to me that Murdock does not understand the idea of peer review or what it is for. If she has considered it at all, it seems she thinks it is a hurdle to be jumped - with , rather than a quality assurance device. The source she refers to - O'Hara's Sun Lore, does explicitly mention the name of the language - Haida. However, obtaining that source separately and then verifying the claim is more work than going directly for the source language. It turns out that in Haida, 'Sin' is rather a word meaning 'day' and the day sky, but also the name of the sun-god. However, this is distances away from any historically possibly relevant word - the Proto-Indo-Europeans called the sun by a word more along the lines of 'shuen' (pronouncing the s and h as separate sounds) and sohwl - shuen was basically the root for oblique forms, sohwl the nominative. Random similarities between languages do happen, though, so even then it is not  a significant piece of evidence.

(It came to my attention after posting this essay, that there was a Babylonian god by the name 'Sin'. He was a lunar god, however.)

In Haida Texts and Myths [2], a story that sounds like it might be the one O'Hara is referring to is given. It differs at key points from Murdock's report: Master Carpenter is the name of a particular supernatural being (who also goes to war against the south-east wind!), and this God nowhere teaches his 'solar son' any trade. Also, the boy is very clearly supposed to have become the sky in the narrative, which mainly seems to be a just-so story for the different colours and weathers the sky has, listing how the boy makes different clothing in different colours from a variety of pelts and furs.

Furthermore, as Carpenter states: “The same legend of gods (or idols) being born in caves has, curiously enough, been reported from Mexico, Guatemala, the Antilles, and other places in Central America.”  [1, p. 392]

Carpenter indeed states this, and provides for a source Carl Friedrich Phillip von  Martius'  Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika's zumal Brasiliens. I looked it up, and lo and behold,  Martius' statement is as follows, significantly different from Carpenter's deceptive restatement:

Wie in Mexico und Guatimala sind auch in Aiti Höhlen die mythischen Geburtstätten oder Ausgangsorte der Völker (so die Höhlen von Cazibaxagua und Amaiáuna (P. Martyr 103, 107); und Götzenbilder in die Wände der Grotte von Donden(????) eingegraben (Charlevoix Hist, de l'Isle Espagnole I. 78) bezeichneten sie als einen heiligen Ort.[3, p. 758]

My translation: As in Mexico and Guatemala, also in Aiti caves are the mythical birth-places or origins of the peoples (such as the Caves at Cazibaxagua and Amaiauna), and idols engraved in the walls of the Donden(?) grotto marks it as a holy place.

 These caves are birthplaces of the peoples, not of the gods. Carpenter misrepresents his source significantly:

This same legend of gods (or idols) being born in caves has, curiously enough, been reported from Mexico, Guatemala, the Antilles, and other places in Central America. See C. F. P. von Martius, Ethnographie Amerika, etc. (Leipzig, 1867), vol. i, p. 758 [4]

As a third really flawed claim in the same paragraph, we get this pearl:

Also, the natives of Florida at the time of the Christian invasion were allegedly discovered to chant “Hosanna.” [1, p. 392]

As for this claim, Murdock quotes Higgins, who quotes Kingsborough's Antiquities of Mexico. As luck would have it, the particular quote he refers to is available online (the five pages subsequent to it seem unavailable though):

It is a certain fact, that many Hebrew words are scattered through the American idioms. A respectable writer says, that the inhabitants of Florida made use, in their religious songs, of the exclamation Hosanna, and their priests were named Jouanas....  [5, p. 71]

"A respectable writer" is about as helpful as "I have it on good authority that ...", or "Ancient alien theorists contend that ...". We should here also be vary about claims made by Kingsborough: he was convinced that the natives of the Americas were the lost tribes of the Israelites. His interpretation of evidence is often fanciful and he seems not to have been skeptical about any evidence that would have favoured his theory. He is mainly respected today as a collector of facsimiles of native American works, not as an expert on native American history.

Note - the above are all errors found in one paragraph. I will not claim I have exhaustively mined that paragraph for errors, even - there may very well be more of them.

We go on to find more bullshit, again not made up by Murdock, but still clear fabrications that she either unsuspectingly (and if so, stupidly) or knowingly (and if so, deceptively) repeats.

Furthermore, the Adam tale is found in the Chimalpopoca manuscript of the Maya, which “states that the Creator produced his work in successive epochs, man being made from the dust of the earth on the seventh day.” So remarkable are the similarities between the Mexicans and the Semites that not a few scholars and researchers have wanted to call the Mesoamerican natives “Jews” and to find in them (and others) a “lost tribe” of Israel.[1, p. 393]

The first mistake is pretty significant here. Codex Chimalpopoca is an Aztec manuscript, not a Maya manuscript. From such a mistake onwards, is there any credibility whatsoever to what Murdock reports about this codex? This demonstrates what I have previously said that her attempts entirely rely on second-hand readings of sources. It further turns out this particular example is good evidence regarding the flaws of her method, as her source has misunderstood the codex or is just fabricating claims about it.

As a rather relevant point, the Codex[6] does not state that man was made from the dust of the earth on the seventh day - in fact, there's only five "suns" listed in it. The 'people' of each sun eventually go extinct - the first are eaten by jaguars, the second get blown away by the wind and turned into monkeys, the third had fire rain on them and turned into turkeys, the fourth were drowned by a flood and turned into fish . There is a narrative that looks a bit like the Noah story - Tata, and his wife Nene are told to hollow out a cypress and survive the flood in it. Once the flood is over, they offend the gods, who punish them by cutting their heads off, attaching the heads to their rumps and thereby making dogs out of them (!). The only notions this shares with the Biblical story is that of rain killing earth's inhabitants and only a few being rescued, Tata and Nene. The end of the story is likewise a motif entirely lacking in the Biblical narrative. That motif is rather significant as it turns the story into a just-so story for the existence of dogs, as well as reinforcing the notion that right conduct with regards to the gods is important.

Then mankind is created during the fifth sun. The creation of mankind is thus: six gods mourn over the earth not having any inhabitants. However, Quetzalcoatl went to the Lord of Death to obtain the bones  (of the previous inhabitants of the earth?) and does so after some trickery had ensued. The bones were ground up, all the gods mourned over the dust and one god bled his penis onto it. And the Gods conclude by saying that mankind has been born.

The first four suns all lasted for centuries - the first four were 676, 364, 312 and 676 years (with an additional flood of 52 years), and the fifth sun is the one under which the author thought he was living. The 52 year cycle was important to the Aztecs and many other Mesoamerican peoples, as 52 years is the time it takes for their 260-day and 365-day 'years' to complete a full round, i.e. 52*365 is the least common multiple of 260 and 365. Thus we see another pattern in this story related to Aztec culture: the belief that the end of the cycle had to be properly observed lest calamities and downright complete destruction would befall mankind. The observations were, of course, proper sacrifices.

However, as we have seen, according to the Samaritans there were no lost tribes, and, racially speaking that relationship is not indicated, at least not between the natives of the past few thousand years. [1, p. 393]

The way this argument is presented suggests it is used to establish that no American tribes are lost tribes of Israel. (The line of reasoning being that since no lost tribes ever existed, none of them can have reached America?) This seems to be a rather convoluted line of argument - better arguments for the non-existence of the lost tribes can be obtained from genuine archaeologists of the Middle East and even biblical scholars, and arguing against the claim that some Native American tribes are Lost Tribes is not really even required - no good evidence in favor of such a hypothesis has been presented by anyone, and the burden of proof is on those who hold such a theory. Murdock, of course, muddies the picture by believing in a lot of shoddy evidence that would support such a contention, yet does not believe in the contention itself and favours equally unlikely scenarios.

But, in more ancient times there was indeed in Mesoamerica a race very similar to that of the Semites, i.e., bearded white men, resembling Phoenicians. In fact, there are purportedly Phoenician artifacts found in the port of Rio de Janeiro and other Brazilian sites, suggesting that the Phoenicians, for one, did cross the Atlantic at least 1,000 years before the arrival of the Europeans. [1, p. 393]

No sources given - which artifacts does Murdock think are likely to be genuine out of place artifacts suggestive of transatlantic voyages? On which studies does she base her conclusion that these exist? Mere assertion does not cut it.

On to the next part.

[1] D.M. Murdock, The Christ Conspiracy, 1999. Adventures Unlimited.

[2] Swanton, John. Haida Texts and Myths, 1905.

[3] von Martius, Carl Friedrich Philipp.  Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika's zumal Brasiliens, volume I. 1867

http://ia600407.us.archive.org/31/items/martius_v1/martius_1867_beitrage_v1.pdf

[4] Carpenter, Edward. Pagan and Christian Creeds, 1920. Available at http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/

[5] Lord Kingsborough, Edward King. Antiquities of Mexico. Available at http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1831King.htm

[6] Codex Chimalpopoca in translation - http://books.google.com/books?id=xErlvmBuakoC&pg=PA142

The Christ Conspiracy, chapter 17: The Meaning of Revelation pt 2

The more general discussion Murdock presents regarding Revelation is very unclear. She identifies a lot of motifs in the book - there is no discussion of the use of these motifs. Murdock generally seems content to identify motifs and stop there - throughout the book, there is very little in ways of analysis of the actual use of motifs. Let us compare this with the following excerpt from E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism:

The case is not quite so clear when one considers the comparison of individual motifs. The notion that a religion is the sum of its parts is not a ridiculous one, and therefore the comparison of numerous parts is not so obviously inadequate as the comparison of reduced essences. Nevertheless, it is inadequate for the true comparison of religions, for two reasons. In the first place, it is usually the motifs of one of the religions which are compared with elements in the second religion in order to identify their origin. The two religions are not treated in the same way. The history of the comparison of Paul and Judaism shows this clearly. One starts with Pauline motifs and looks for their origins in Judaism, but the various elements of Judaism are not taken up for their own sake. It follows that there is no true comparison of the two religions. In the second place, motif research often overlooks the context and significance of a given motif in one (or sometimes both) of the religions. It is conceivable for precisely the same motif to appear in two different religions but to have a different significance. One may consider the analogy of two buildings. Bricks which are identical in shape, colour and weight could well be used to construct two different buildings which are totally unlike each other. One could knock down a building and build another, unlike the first, from the same bricks. In motif research, one must consider function and context before coming to an overall conclusion as to similarity or dissimilarity. [3, p. 13]

Sanders' piece of reasoning here is something Murdock would do well to consider. However, that would require her to acknowledge that the lack of any method (and consequently, lack of discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the method) to her research is a problem. That lack of method is painfully visible in this chapter, where assertions are made without hesitation, and few or no attempts to establish any facts are made, and any attempt whatsoever to create a coherent picture of the assertions is curiously absent. As an instance of such assertions we have the following:

In fact, Revelation records the mythos of the precession of the equinoxes, or the

“Great Year,” and was apparently originally written to usher in the Age of Aries,

which began around 4,400 years ago.[1, p. 267]

This is a fairly remarkable claim - one that really requires significantly more elaboration and, indeed, evidence. Nothing in the chapter connects the various motifs to particular things relevant to that particular time. An astronomical investigation regarding what particular things happened in the skies at about the time the Age of Aries was entered, in combination with star-related imagery from Revelation could demontstrate a connection. No such comparison is made, she just points to star-related imagery again and again, asserting that these somehow demonstrate her point. She never demonstrates that these things are connected in the way she asserts they are.

There further is a bunch of rather weird claims that have little or nothing to do with astrotheology, yet contain shoddy sources and claims that would require quite a bit more in ways of support:

As noted concerning the same cherubim in Ezekiel, these four animals represent

the four cardinal points of the zodiac. The throne is the sun, and the multitudinous

“eyes front and behind” are the infinite stars. The three pairs of wings of each beast

represent the three signs of each of the four zodiacal quadrants. These “living

creatures” were also found in Egypt. As Walker says, “Spirits of the four points of the

year were sometimes called Sons of Horus.” [1, p. 268]

It is worth noting that Walker indeed says this, but does not provide any further references, thus - as so frustratingly often - making it difficult to verify. Further, she is willing to ascribe fairly modern ideas to the authors of Revelation, courtesy of John G. Jackson:

Jackson relates that the four beasts also represent Noah and his three sons, i.e., the various races. In this scenario, the lion is the lion of Judah, or Shem, “father” of the Semites; the bull symbolizes the Hamites of Egypt; the eagle is Japheth, progenitor of the Aryans; and the man is Noah, who is of the “Adamic” or “Atlantean” race.[1, p. 268]

The kind of obsession with an Atlantean race that she here infers that the author of Revelation shares with various modern theosophists and other people seems quite badly justified. Even though she does provide a source - Jackson - from what I know of this author I have a hard time imagining there to be anything of any value to it. Why would the four beasts represent these groups? What makes this statement in any way meaningful or verifiable? Do any early Christian writers understand it in such a manner?

One particular bit in Revelation that clearly has astrological origins (but the use of which, as a motif, is not necessarily entirely pro-astrology in Revelation*) is discussed, in its own subchapter:

The “woman clothed with the sun” is both the moon, which reflects or “wears” the sun, and the constellation of the Virgin, who has the moon under her feet and the stars above her head.  [...] At the Temple of Isis at Denderah was an image of a woman “seated at the center of a blazing sun crowned by twelve stars and with her feet resting on the moon. The woman was the symbol of Mother Nature; the sun represented creative strength; the twelve stars stood for the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and the Moon signified Matter and its domination by Spirit.” Walker relates the eastern custom regarding the woman:  According to Tantric tradition, the Goddess concealed herself behind the sun’s brightness; it was “the mayik vesture of Her who is clothed with the sun.” This image reappeared in the New Testament as “the woman clothed with the sun.” (Revelation 12:1).[1, p. 269-270]

The temple of Isis at Denderah makes a new appearance in Suns of God, but the same mistaken claim appears in this volume as well:

As to the antiquity of this motif, it should be noted that the temple at Denderah has been averred to be possibly 10,000 years old, based on the astrology it depicts.[1, p. 270]

No serious archaeologists claim that the Denderah temple is 10,000 years old. There is pretty clear evidence that it stems from the time of Cleopatra. I have previously discussed this particular topic.[4 also provides a more direct source regarding Denderah.]

The much ballyhooed number, 666, mentioned in Revelation as the “mark of the

Beast,” was in fact held sacred in the goddess-worshipping cultures as representative

of female genitalia.[1, p. 271]

Which cultures exactly? Murdock does not tell. Nor give any kind of source.

 When the Goddess was vilified by the patriarchy, she became the

“Beast” and her sacred number the “mark.” The number 666 was not held to be evil

or a bad omen in Judaism, as is evidenced by the biblical story of Solomon

possessing 666 talents of gold. In fact, it is a sacred number. [1, p. 271]

I have not, in years of studying Judaism, come across any statement to the effect that 666 is particularly sacred in Judaism.[3 provides one particular statement to the effect that it is not.] Certainly, there is a significant amount of numerology in kabbalah, and 666 appearing somewhere in there is entirely possible. If such a number can be found, showing that it indeed is an old tradition would be pretty important in order to make that particular claim - providing a medieval kabbalistic work does not suffice. The further analysis of the number is fraught with unbridled speculation taken as fact:

As Higgins says:

The Hexad or number six is considered by the Pythagoreans a perfect and sacred number; among many other reasons, because it divides the universe into equal parts. It is called Venus or the mother. It is also perfect, because it is the only number under X, ten, which is whole and equal in its parts. In Hebrew Vau is six. Is vau mother Eva or Eve?

In addition, Anderson points out that “666” also corresponds to the sun rising at 6:00 a.m., reaching its height six hours later, and setting at 6:00 p.m. [1, p. 271]

Of course, the earliest manuscript we have has the number 616 there. The early manuscript evidence is rather firmly divided on those two. Any theory that purports to explain it should also explain this discrepancy. Higgins' speculation is as usual fairly amusing. Six apparently divides the universe into equal parts. Tell me which number does not! Where is six called 'the mother' or Venus?

Higgins' understanding of the notion of perfect numbers is finally lacking - perfect numbers were among the first classifications of numbers in number theory after the rather fundamental classes of odds, evens, primes and composite numbers. A perfect number is a composite number whose positive divisors (excluding itself) add up to itself - 6 is perfect because it is divisible by 3,2 and 1, which added together equal 6. 10 is not, since 5, 2 and 1 add up to 8. The next perfect number is 28 - divisible by 1,2,4,7,14, which as we can easily see add up to 28. (1+2+4=7, 7+7 = 14, 14 + 14 = 28). I guess 'whole and equal in its parts' may signify something like that, but it's far from clear. Since Higgins clearly was no mathematician, it is possible he was just imperfectly parroting a definition he had heard and misunderstood. Alternatively, he was using some obsolete way of talking about arithmetics, but I can find no other source using similar wording to describe perfect numbers. Ultimately, of course, he is correct in saying that it is a perfect number - but even then that says nothing about 666 - which is not written as three sixes in neither Greek, Latin or Hebrew. (χξς in Greek, DCLXVI in Latin, ת״רסו or somesuch in Hebrew.) Parsing the number does seem easily to lead into pareidolia and too many assumptions. Numerology makes it way too easy to find false positives.

As for Eva/Eve, one would think the other letters in the name would also have contributed to the gematria - the sum of her Hebrew name's letters, after all, is 21 - thus connecting it to 666 also seems weak.

Its true meaning, of course, has been lost to the masses, as they have been told that astrology is “evil,” a deliberate device to prevent them from studying it, because, with such astrological knowledge, they would understand clues such as in Revelation (22:16), where the true nature of Jesus is clearly identified when he is called the “morning star,” i.e., the sun, which is the real “revelation.” [1, p. 272]

I suggest Murdock study the concept of metaphor, which she claims the Bible is full of. I would suggest reading the above as a metaphor - i.e. conveying something that is not its literal meaning. The entire book of Revelation is full of such metaphor, and I am surprised to see Murdock repeatedly call for a literal reading of it in the name of reading it metaphorically.

[1] D.M. Murdock, The Christ Conspiracy

[2] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism

[3] http://www.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm

[4] http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/07/decoding-the-ancient-egyptians-stone-sky-map.html

The Christ Conspiracy: Chapter 15, pt 1

Chapter 15, The Patriarchs and Saints are the Gods of Other Cultures, at its core presents a thesis that probably is shocking to true believers, but nothing new to those who are somewhat well-read on these topics. Nevertheless, to some extent it also exaggerates the thesis, making statements that do exceed what can be known as though these statements were fact. As usual, it also intersperses a fair share of speculation mixed with tendentiously presented facts.

The most fascinatingly weird claim she makes is present in the segment on Noah. It is well known that the Noah myth derives from older myths, but Murdock is not content with that:

Xisuthros or Ziusudra was considered the "10th king," while Noah was the "10th patriarch." Noah's "history" can also be found in India, where there is a "tomb of Nuh" near the river Gagra in the distrct of Oude or Oudh, which evidently is related to Judea and Judah. The "ark-preserved" Indian Noah was also called "Menu." Noah is also called "Nnu"[SIC] and "Naue," as in "Joshua, son of Nun/Jesus son of Naue," meaning not only fish but also water, as in the waters of heaven. Furthermore, the word Noah, or Noé, is the same as the Greek νους, which means "mind," as in "noetics," as does the word Menu or Menes, as in "mental." In Hebrew, the word for "ark" is THB, as in Thebes, such that the Ark of Noah is equivalent to the Thebes of Menes, the legendary first king of the Egyptians, from whose "history" the biblical account also borrowed.[1, p. 238]

This is so full of mistakes, that I figure a list will help keep track of the debunking.

• Xisuthros/Ziusudra being the tenth king.
• Oude/Oudh having anything to do with Judea (see 'short words' further down).
• No source provided regarding the tomb of Nuh, no attempt to establish its age - is it potentially more recent than the arrival of Islam in India?
• Naue or Nun signifying "water" - which particular language? We cannot all be superlinguists who can identify languages on sight just based on one monosyllabic word! Since no language is mentioned, it is also quite difficult to verify the relevance of the claim.
• The far-fetched stretch of etymologies Noah → νους → mentes → Menes, Tevah → Thebes
• She clearly mentions the (significantly more recent form) "Noé" to make the apparent similarity to "Noetics" (also a much more recent word) greater. Noé is a much more recent rendering of נוח, the comparison should be nous or noos to Noach, not noetics to Noé.

As it happens, the Hebrew word for 'ark' is TBH, תבה, rather than THB. Of course, Thebes is not T+H+B either, it's Θῆβαι - the "TH" bit is a single sound that in some languages - particularly English - is written using a sequence of letters (here, the fact that letters and sounds are separate things is relevant). It being represented as a sequence TH does not signify it having any actual resemblance or relation to the actual sequence T+H. (In fact, though, Hebrew ת was probably sometimes pronounced a lot like English th is, which does not support my case particularly much.)  What we reach here, however, is a phenomenon Mark Newbrook calls 'very short words'[2]. The designation refers to the phenomenon where the shorter the words that we go looking for, the greater the chance that we find similar stems embedded in words in other languages. Thebes/Θῆβαι and Tevah share rather little - just one single syllable. Further, we have several forms for Thebes: Thebes, Θῆβαι, Ta-Opet (Classical Egyptian), Ta-Pe (Demotic), wꜣs.t (Classical Egyptian, not strictly related to the other words but signifying the same town). There is thus lots of space to come up with potential cognates for biblical names, and little material to falsify such claims with (consider Ta-Opet vs. Tabitha or Tappuah, Ta-Pe vs. Tappuah, Topheth or Tobiah, etc. What makes Tevah more favorable for linking to any of these than the above, equally spurious suggestions?).

What takes this a step beyond Newbrook's label for similar bogus cognates is that there is not even any similarity between the meanings of תבה and Ta-Opet. There is nothing that makes the connection apparent. Murdock could keep going through towns and kings of antiquity until she found anything to connect Noah to, there is nothing that per se forces Thebes to be the preferred alternative - and this opens up a huge space of unfalsifiable claims. Let us be generous and say there are only twenty relevant names in the Bible (considering how insignificant some of the characters she's pointing to are, the number could easily be argued to be significantly larger). Let's also be generous and say there are only two hundred kings in antiquity. This gives us a whopping four thousand potential pairings - analogously to the birthday paradox, it is more than likely that quite a few of them are similar.

A significant problem here is also the number of languages she has to use for this reasoning to make sense - does anyone really believe that there is a quadri- or pentalingual pun involved? For real?

Keep in mind, as well, the number of other flood-heroes: Utnapishtim, Δευκαλίων, Noah, ... would we not expect these names to have some kind of similar connections? We would also probably expect more clearly explicit such connections.

Obviously, then, Noah's famous "ark," which misguided souls have sought upon the earth, is a motif found in other myths. As Doane relates, "The image of Osiris of Egypt was by the priests shut up in a sacred ark on the 17th of Athyr (Nov. 13th), the very day and month on which Noah is said to have entered his ark." Noah is, in fact, another solar myth, and the ark represents the sun entering into the "moon-ark," the Egyptian "argha," which is the crescent or arc-shaped lunette or lower quarter of the moon. This "argha of Noah" is the same as Jason's "Argonaut" and "arghanatha" in Sanskrit. Noah's ark and its eight "sailors" are equivalent to the heavens, earth and the seven "planets," i.e., those represented by the days of the week. As to the "real" Noah's ark, it should be noted that it was a custom, in Scotland for one, to create stone "ships" on mounts in emulation of the mythos, such that any number of these "arks" may be found on Earth.[1, p. 238]

Indeed, the ark did not exist, yet Murdock manages to turn even such an almost trivially true claim into pseudoscience. There are two separate words natha in Sanskrit (assuming nāthá, नाथ, is the word Murdock intends, since she does not follow any scholarly transliteration we cannot know!), one signifying 'lord, master' and a whole complex of similar meanings, the other signifying a refuge or resort. The first one is in the masculine gender, the other neuter. The greek -naut is instead cognate with Greek ναῦς, Latin navis and Sanskrit नौ, नाव (nau, nava), all these signifying ships. Again, it would have been helpful had Murdock provided some kind of scholarly transliteration of arghanata. A list of the problems may help in keeping track of the problems:

• argha noah is irrelevant, as ark only appears in the tradition of biblical texts about 700 years after they were originally composed, when Jerome translated them into Latin, until then you had had tevah and  the greek kibotos in the main versions of the text. 
• argha noah is a theosophic 19th century invention with no evidence in support of it. It is basically just as made up as the religions it is made up to subvert.
• argha noah is clearly made up to correspond to the English phrase 'ark of Noah' (compare the phrase in some other languages - Noas ark, Nooan arkki, kovček Noya, something like kidobani nois (or maybe nois kidobani) in Georgian,  whereas the phrase in Biblical Hebrew would've been Tevat Noah, and in Biblical Greek kibotos tou Noe or something in the vicinity of that (I do not know Biblical Greek well enough to make any promises). Had these fanciful authors spoken Georgian, their "Egyptian" concept would go by a name like kidobanois or somesuch. (The nature, btw, of this 'egyptian' concept differs significantly from one author to another - one author says it is a yearly festival, another says it's a monthly lunar occurrence, and so on. See, for instance, Jordan Maxwell's The Naked Truth, where he attributes argha noah to something entirely different - this suggesting to me that there is no validity to the concept whatsoever.) 

Murdock goes on and makes improbably claims about the meaning of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japhet:

The sons of Noah, of course, are also not historical, as Shem "was actually a title of Egyptian priests of Ra." The three sons of Noah, in fact, represents the three divisions of the heavens into 120° each. As characters in the celestial mythos, Noah corresponds to the sun and Shem to the moon, appropriate since the Semitic Jews were moon-worshippers.[1, p. 239]

Claiming that a given set of three persons corresponds to a division of something into three does require some kind of supporting evidence. What about these three make this correspondence obvious? Why does one of the three - a whopping 120 degrees of the heaven - also correspond to the moon? This claim again comes from Hazelrigg the astrologer, rather than from any actual scholarly sources.

Also, duly note that the word 'Semite' and related forms as a designation for the Semitic peoples is a term that only goes back to the 18th century. The Biblical Jews did not describe themselves as Semites, and such a connection between moon-worship, Shem-as-the-moon and Semites cannot have occurred to the authors of the biblical narratives.

Abraham also seems to have been related to the Persian evil god, Ahriman, whose name was originally Abriman. Furthermore, Graham states, "The Babylonians also had their Abraham, only they spelt it Abarama. He was a farmer and mythological contemporary with Abraham."[1, p. 240]

Please provide a source for Ahriman's name originally being Abriman? The accepted etymology among most scholars has it stemming from Angra Maynu. As for the quality of Graham's work, I will actually refer to a source I would usually avoid using, but whose summary of this book seems fairly legit, viz tektonics.org's review[3] .

Furthermore, Abram's "Ur of the Chaldees" apparently does not originally refer to the Ur in Mesopotamia and to the Middle Eastern Chaldean culture but to an earlier rendition in India, where Higgins, for one, found the proto-Hebraic Chaldee language. [1, p. 240]

Murdock's obsession with moving the Semitic family of languages to India grows absurd at times. Her reliance on Higgins' bumbling amateur linguistics is laughable. However, one step further, this is worse than pure conjecture. It is counterfactual conjecture at best. At the very least, a claim such as this requires significant amounts of supporting data. Murdock provides but one datapoint for that, and that datapoint - Higgins' finding the Chaldee language in India - is nothing but wrong. Finally, Chaldee is not proto-Hebraic. Chaldee is closer to proto-Semitic than Hebrew is (time-wise), but they are in different branches of Semitic.

In fact, the Greek name for the constellation of Bootes, or Adam, is Ιοσεφ or Joseph.[1, p. 250]

The source given for the claim that Bootes is Adam and is called Iosef in Greek is Karl Anderson (p. 126, Astrology in the Old Testament). Anderson fails to provide any source for this. Modern sources such as tufts.perseus.edu makes it possible to search a very huge corpus of ancient Greek texts for words such as Ιοσεφ. It turns out not a single instance of the word is in a context where the surface meaning of the text has anything to do with any asterism, nor is there any large number of instances of it in the first place. A similar claim is made in a quoted portion from Hazelrigg - another 19th century astrologer who, as I keep emphasizing, did not bother with providing sources.

This kind of fabricated linguistics being included in the work of a person that regularly labels herself a linguist is saddening. The chapter itself could have been good - had she decided to go no further than the idea that most Old Testament characters have no historical background. But as it stands, she included way too much in ways of 19th century theosophy,

[1] D.M. Murdock, The Christ Conspiracy, 1999
[2] Mark Newbrook, Strange Linguistics, 2012. There is an entire chapter devoted to the phenomenon. The opening pages of the chapter describe the relevant problems with this kind of approach to evidence.
[3] http://www.tektonics.org/gk/grahamlloyd01.html

Barbara Walker: Senate

Tracing down some claims Barbara Walker made that D.M. Murdock repeats uncritically, I stumbled across this while searching for one article:

Senate

From Latin se-natus, "self-born," in earliest times probably a group of matrones or tribal mothers thought to be reincarnated in their daughters by matrilineal succession. The later patriarchal gods also claimed to be "self-born," like Ra in Egypt. Providing any god with a mother implied that there was an older, greater female authority over him-- a self-defeating idea for patriarchal thinkers.[1, p. 902]

Senate is not related to natus, and does pretty certainly not mean "self-born". How do we know this?

• natus changes to gnatus with every other prefix we know it to occur with, c.f. cognatus and pregnas.
• senatus and natus are not of the same declension. Applying a prefix does not change the declension of nouns in Latin. Sometimes, different nouns have a few forms cooccuring, c.f. anus (anus, ring) and anus (old woman), or datus and datum, both of which have forms that coincide and forms that are distinct. Thus, senatus and natus being similar in the nominative does not prove that they originate with the same word, and their not being similar throughout the paradigm indicates they very probably are not.
• se- is not used very often for that kind of construction
• We know what it actually derives from - senectus, from senex. Senex signifies old, senectus is a collective noun for old persons. Thus, the senate is basically an assembly of elders. 
• We know the greeks translated it as gerousia, which also signifies an assembly of old people.

Alas - or maybe rather, fortunately - Latin reference grammars will not go about listing every thing that isn't permissible in Latin. Thus finding a concise source for any of the claims above is rather challenging, as these claims are negative rather than positive and reference grammars generally describe what is possible.

It should be pretty obvious Walker just tried her hand rather ineptly at etymology in order to prop up her hypothesis, which is that Indo-European culture had been, rather recently, predominantly a matriarchy. 

Bibliography:

[1] Barbara Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

Barbara Walker: A grab-bag of wrongs, again

Brother

English "Brother" stemmed from Sanskrit bhratr, "support." [1, article "brother"]

 Brother and bhratr both stem from Proto-Indo-European *bʰréh₂tēr, rather than one from the other. This also signifies that this word is at least as old as the earliest branch's splitting off among the Indo-European languages. भृति - bhRti indeed is Sanskrit and means support, but bhratr is a separate word, भ्रातृ. It would have helped me to verify that if she had used a reasonable transliteration scheme or at least stated somewhere what scheme she uses. 

Worth noticing is that Ancient Greek also had a cognate, φράτηρ, although its meaning had shifted to clansman. However, this should be seen in contrast to Walker's more specific claims. The same article starts out with the following:

The Greek word for brother was adelphos, "one from the same womb," derived from the matrilineal family when only female parenthood was recognized. 

[1, article "brother"]

If adelphos was old enough to go back to such times, we would expect it to appear in some other Indo-European branch as well, which it does not. Even the groups most closely related to Greek - Armenian, as far as we can tell - has its word for brother derive from *bʰréh₂tēr.

Walker, throughout her work, maintains a view of history wherein patriarchy entered the world with Brahmanism which through its offshoots Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam suppressed matriarchal traditions everywhere. I think it is safe to assume her assumption that brother stems from India is a consequence of her belief that Brahmanism is the source of patriarchy, whereas the Greeks in this case somehow retained the more original word. No, it is unlikely the word 'brother' and its cognates have spread from India in order to cover up a matrilineal view of brotherhood. She does not state this outright, but considering the great obsession the entire encyclopedia showcases with Brahmanism being an important culprit in suppression of the matriarchy even outside of India - and positing that any number of PIE words are really of sanskrit origin, I find this a reasonable attempt at parsing her intentions.

Horseshoe

[...] 

Greeks assigned the yonic shape to the last letter of their sacred alphabet, Omega, literally, "Great Om," the Word of Creation beginning the next cycle of becoming. The implication of the horseshoe symbol was that, having entered the yonic Door at the end of life (Omega), man would be reborn as a new child (Alpha) through the same Door. [1, article "Horseshoe"]

Fascinatingly enough, this alphabet was not holy enough to prevent additional letters being added beyond omega, nor was it planned from the beginning to contain omega as its final letter: omega is not part of the original greek alphabet, but was added due to the appearance - through sound changes - of a distinction between long and short o. The etymology she gives - great om - also is false, as 'great O' is more honest. Again, Walker keeps trying to inflate the role of Hindu concepts in Indo-European culture.

Houri

 Persian-Arabian heavenly nymph, sexual angel, or temple prostitute; cognate with the Greek hora, Babylonian harine, Semitic harlot, or "whore." Houris were dancing "Ladies of the Hour" who kept time in heaven and tended the star-souls. [1, article "Houri"]

"Semitic" harlot? I guess there is a typo or something there, as harlot is not a semitic word. Besides, "whore" stems from Proto-Indo-European *karo, whereas English hour and Greek hora is from proto-indo-european *yer, *yor (year, season), the English being a loan from Greek (ὥρα). I've been trying to find harine in relevant dictionaries but been unable to do locate it, Google books gives short snippets from relevant literature indicating entire different meanings - indicating that probably, Walker has relied on unreliable sources again.

[1] Barbara Walker, Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

The Christ Conspiracy: Chapter 10, pt 5

A nice thing about using 19th century sources if your intent is to make it difficult for readers to trace your sources, is that they often lack the textual apparatus we take for granted these days that help looking things up. I am really thankful some of these texts now exist online in searchable electronic form.

Murdock goes on, making rather unsubstantiated claims about the content of the Bible:

 As noted, by the time of reformer king Josiah, the kings of Judah reportedly erred terribly when they established the worship of the heavens, even though their predecessors were applauded for doing the same:

And he deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places at the cities of Judah and round about Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, and the moon, and the constellations, and all the host of heavens. (2 Kings 23:5)

 [1, p. 137]

I do challenge Murdock to inform us where these predecessors were applauded for doing so. I seem to recall both the deuteronomist historiographer and Chronicles being pretty endless lists of kings doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD, with the occasional exceptions who still failed to entirely satisfy the demands. Among these evils are generally mentioned the sacrifices at the high places - a designation used for cultic places on hilltops. 

It is evident that there are a number of characters or factions in the OT depicting themselves as "the Lord," since in one book, the heavens are to be praised as creations of the Almighty himself, but, in another, to do so is considered idolatrous. 
[1, p. 137]

Here it is worth noting - as I have pointed out in previous posts, that she provides no explicit examples of exhortations to praise the heavens. Rather, the praise - in the biblical versions of these texts - is directed at God, and the heavens are rather provided as examples of his power. Certainly these texts may be adaptations of earlier texts with explicit sun worship. The fact that the sun worship has been removed from them does tell us something about the authors, though, and that is quite explicitly that they do not approve of sun worship.

Murdock goes on interpreting a number of texts from the Old Testament to demonstrate the presence of astrotheology. These examples include Ezekiel, Jacob's sons, Jacob's ladder, Moses and the tabernacle, Joshua, Esther, king Ahaz and Daniel. Her reasoning repeatedly is based on flawed logic, and at times even on pretty clear fabrications. I will point out a sample of flaws below:

BIBLICAL DIVINERS AND ASTROLOGERS 

In addition to these examples of astrology in the Bible can be found a number of references to esteemed biblical characters using the "arts of divination" to their and their Lord's benefit. Naturally, where characters are favored by biblical writers, these astrological and magical arts are perfectly good, but when used by those not favored they are "evil." Regardless of this prejudice, there is no doubt that "good" biblical characters practiced the magical arts. In fact, in the earliest parts of the Bible, divination is praised as a way to commune with God or divine the future (Genesis 30:27). Indeed, the word "divination" comes from the word "divine," which is a demonstration that divination was originally considered godly and not evil. [1, p. 139]

This etymology is irrelevant when trying to figure out what the stances of the Biblical authors were. 'Divination' has a clearly latinate origin, the Hebrew writers used words that had nothing with God to do - קסם ,מקסם, נחש (naħaš, miqsam, qasam/qesem) among others. Why an etymology originating half a Mediterranean away can be used as evidence regarding the value that something held in the eyes of biblical writers is never made clear. The main word used for it in the greek portions of the Bible as well as the Septuagint is, by the way, closely related to a greek word for 'mad'. (Also, naħaš can signify observing in general, see e.g. 1Ki 20:33, although the pi'el form, used in the account with Laban, seems more limited to supernatural practices.)

It is clear, of course, that the biblical writers seem to have approved of some particular types of soothsaying practices and disapproved of others. The reasons for this disapproval (and approval) probably is religious (and obviously irrational) in nature. Maybe they disapproved of the doctrines that informed some of the soothsayers' predictions or whatever, but that is the usual way of political religion and thus nothing particularly remarkable. We can see the same thing in modern religious movements, and need not presume any conspiracies to explain it. Indeed, Genesis 30:27 is among the older parts of the Bible per the documentary hypothesis, and the development where some manner of soothsaying practices originally were accepted but soon earned the ire of the writers of the Biblical books is entirely possible - downright very likely correct.

However, the argument from etymology she uses still fails so spectacularly that one is left to wonder what she was thinking.

Divination does not fall out of favor until later books, eventually being considered as "sin" in the first book of Samuel, in which the Israelite king Saul uses a diviner to "divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you." [1, p. 139]

It would be interesting to have a timeline specifying when Murdock thinks the different books of the Bible were written. The dating of this particular bit of Samuel and the various places in the priestly and deuteronomist parts of the Torah that specifically condemn various practices along these lines - Lev 19:26, Lev 19:31, Deut 18:10-11 - seems to be pretty close, but the Book of Samuel and Deuteronomy probably had a shared author. This only amounts to evidence that as Judaism developed, its view on such things grew increasingly negative.

MOSES AND THE TABERNACLE

 For centuries, the character Moses has been held in high esteem, his every word studied and each move charted. Yet, few have understood the true nature of his "covenant with the Lord," as reflected by the esoteric or mystical meaning of Moses's tabernacle, which, in fact, is the "tent of the sun." Respected Jewish historian Josephus, who was an initiate of several secret societies, elucidates upon Moses's tabernacle: 

And when [Moses] ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets;

[1, p. 140]

Compare exodus 25:32: And six branches shall come out of the sides of it; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side, and three branches of the candlestick out of the other side.

Whence Josephus got his idea that there were seventy parts is not clear to me - probably some later tradition - but it is not present in the Bible. This does not tell us much, except that Josephus idea was not the one intended by the authors, and that Murdock's attempt at figuring out what the biblical authors intended really is based on shoddy ideas of what the biblical authors even wrote. Yes, Josephus did subscribe to some kind of astrology-based interpretation of the biblical narratives. Does this mean that the authors of the pentateuch did so? If they did, can we really know what astrological doctrines they subscribed to? Can we know whether a certain passages refers to that set of beliefs or to some other part of their doctrinal system? One thing is clear though: we cannot take some arbitrary other tradition and claim that this tradition is what these authors had in mind, especially if this other tradition is mistaken as to what the biblical tradition contains in the first place.

JACOB AND HIS SONS AND LADDER 

[...] As to their zodiacal designations, Jacob's first-born, Reuben, is Aquarius, the "the beginning of my strength ... unstable as water." Simeon and Levi, "the brothers," are Gemini. Judah, the "lion's whelp," is Leo. Zebulun, who "... shall be for an haven of ships," may correspond to Libra, "the ship sign, or arc, or ark." Issachar is a "strong ass, crouching between the sheepfold's burdens," possibly corresponding to the bull of Taurus, the "workhorse." Of Jacob's son Dan, Anderson relates:

"Dan shall be the serpent by the way, an adder in the path that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backwards." This is ... the scorpion, or serpent, and alludes to that constellation which is placed next to the centaur or armed horseman, or Sagittarius, which falleth backwards into the winter solstice of [Capricorn].

Jacob's son Gad is a reversal of Dag, the fish god, possibly representing Pisces. It was said of Asher that he would have "rich food" or "fat bread;" thus, he would correspond to Virgo, the bread-giver or fall harvest. Naphtali is "a hind let loose," representing Capricorn, the goat. Joseph, who was fiercely attacked by archers, is Sagittarius. The son of Rachel, the "Ewe", Benjamin, the "ravenous wolf" who "divides the spoil," would be Aries, who "comes in like a lion" and divides spring and winter. According to Andersson, the "fruitful bough" of Joseph representing his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, could share the "portion divided between them" of the "double-sign" of Cancer. Joseph himself, of course, is "an interpreter of dreams and a noted magician" with a magical "silver cup," by which he divines. 

[1, p. 140]

So, hinds are goats, Dag is Gad, a ravenous wolf is a ram is a lion, and donkeys are bulls. I find it likely we are dealing with pareidolia again. However, in case there is astrology involved in this, it is very possible the redactor just failed to notice it and included the blessing anyway. Still, the above segment may really be the most convincing example of astrology in the Old Testament that has been shown this far, with the exception of certain details in Job.

Jacob's ladder with the 72 angels ascending and descending represents the 72 decans, or portions of the zodiac of five degrees each. [1, p. 142 ... my bolding, as I find this example a particularly important instance of her misleading the reader.]

Nowhere is the number of the angels mentioned in the original text:

Gen 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. 

Of course, the number in her claim may derive from some later text commenting on it - some midrash, perchance? If so, though, scholarly practice would be to indicate that source. Otherwise, what she has done there is close to pure fabrication.

The same ladder story is found in Indian and Mithraic mythology, as Doane relates:

Paintings representing a scene of this kind may be seen in works of art illustrative of Indian Mythology. Manrice [sic] speaks of one, in which he says:

"The souls of men are represented as ascending and descending (on a ladder), according to the received opinion of the sidereal Metempsychosis."

... And Count de Volney says:

"In the cave of Mithra was a ladder with seven steps, representing the seven spheres of the planets by means of which souls ascended and descended. This is precisely the ladder of Jacob's vision."

 [1, p. 142]

The typo - Manrice instead of Maurice - is Murdock's, though it is understandable given that Doane's book uses a font where the difference is difficult to spot. However, this does tell us Murdock has not investigated Maurice's book at all; considering it is a significant portion of this quote, that is weak.

What Doane is trying to show here is that the ladder-motif is used when discussing the idea of reincarnation. The seven steps in the Mithra example may very well represent the seven planets, and if there is a seventy-two angels motif elsewhere that might very well represent the zodiac in chunks of five degrees. However, the biblical version does not have the seven steps, nor does it have the seventy two angels.

Doane does, by omission, do some violence to his quote from Maurice as well. Maurice says the following:

The passages presented to the reader in the preceding section are not the only ones in which the gradual ascent of the soul through through[sic] the planets, or spheres of purification, is plainly imitated in the Geeta. They are, however, sufficient for our purpose; and in proof that the Indians actually had, in the remotest æras, in their system of theology, the sidereal ladder of seven gates, so universally made use of as a symbol throughout all the East, I have now to inform the reader of the following circumstance: -- there exists, at present, in the royal library at Paris, a book of paintings entirely allusive to the Indian mythology and the incarnation of Veeshnu, in one of which is exhibited this very symbol, upon which the souls of men are represented as ascending and descending, according to the received opinion of the sidereal Metempsychosis in Asia. [2, pp 258-259]

Maurice tells us that in one volume, there is a depiction of souls of men ascending and descending a ladder. Doane's quotation can give the impression that this is a common motif in Hindu depictions of reincarnation, something Maurice's writing does not establish very strongly.

If the ladder motif has a common origin, can we assume the particular details - number of angels, number of steps, if such details do exist and have any significance - were part of the original meme? Can we assume it was originally used to express reincarnation? As we have scant textual evidence from Mithraism, we do not know how - nor even if - the ladder motif was used in any narratives in the religion, and as we are not provided with any Hindu source for the ladder motif either, we cannot compare the narratives in which they are used, thus making it well-nigh impossible to determine whether there is any possibility that there even is a shared motif there.

Reincarnation does occur in some kabbalistically inclined varieties of Judaism, and there is a rich literature devoted to explaining how this or that group in the biblical narrative is the last generation before the flood being reborn to earn redemption or be punished or such. Reincarnation clearly has appeared in abrahamic religions. Doane, however, is trying to convince the reader that Biblical theology presupposes reincarnation. Does it? If it does, there is a decisive lack of concern for it in the biblical text. It is likely the concept entered into Judaism later, or simply that the Biblical authors did not particularly care for or about it.

 There is no internal textual reason why Jacob's ladder would have anything to do with reincarnation given either - there is nothing about the context that even hints at there being some hidden doctrine to it.

In addition, the name "Jacob" is a title for a priest of the Goddess Isis, which is fitting, since she is the Queen of Heaven who rules over the night sky, or Set the supplanter. [1, p. 142]

 The bit '"Jacob" is a title for a priest of the Goddess Isis" has for a reference Karl Anderson's Astrology of the Old Testament, page 66. As other references she has made to that work agree in page number with the edition I am using (and also that used by google books, which I sometimes use when searching these works), I am pretty certain the error here is not due to she and I using different editions, but due to this not being in Karl Anderson's book in the first place. 

JOSHUA/JESUS, SON OF NUN 

Joshua or Jesus, son of Nun (the "fish"), was the second great prophet after Moses, leading the Israelites to the promised land in Jericho, first encamping at Gilgal, or Galilee. Like Jacob, Joshua also sets up twelve stones representing the tribes and the signs of the zodiac. [1, p. 142] 

Nowhere in the Biblical account does Jacob set up twelve stones [edit: I noticed there's been a typo here, as I previously apparently have written that Joshua did not set up twelve stones; Jacob nowhere is said to set up twelve stones, and I was surprised when rereading this that I had not caught the error previosuly], although he repeatedly does set up stones, making the astute reader wonder whether Murdock knows the biblical narratives at all or whether she is making stuff up. (Yes, Joshua does indeed set up twelve stones. If those stones existed, this narrative may very well have the function of co-opting them into the biblical religion. This seems to be the simplest explanation as far as I can tell? Jacob, however, does no such thing.)

Of course, Jacob is probably a mythical figure with no real historical existence - he is a mythical tribal ancestor. The stone pillars, later ascribed to Jacob, may very well have existed, and ascribing them to the tribal ancestor would be a way for the biblical author to establish legitimate Israelite/Judean claim to the land where the stone pillars stood.

It is said that in Joshua's day, the sun stood still, an event about which has been put forth much tortured speculation as to how and when it could have occurred. In reality, it occurred quite frequently and still does, at the solstices, as the meaning of the word "solstice" is "sun stands still," the time when "the sun changes little in declination from one day to the next and appears to remain in one place north or south of the celestial equator." [1, p. 142]

The story given in Joshua, is of course, impossible. But the literal details prevent reading it as though it were about the solstice - Jos 10:13-14 "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel." Hasted not to go down about a whole day, the moon stayed, and no day like that before it or after it. The author is describing something that does not happen yearly - and the moon does not stand still during the solstices either! 

Of course this did not happen, but trying to read it as symbolic of the solstices is weird: the remarkableness ascribed to it as well as the uniqueness makes it unlikely the author was describing something that happens twice a year. (But rather an imagined situation that just never happened in real life, but would have been impressive and downright dreadful if it had occurred.)

The sun also stood still at the death of Krishna, centuries earlier: "1575 years before Christ, after the death of Cristna (Boodh the son of Deirca), the sun stood still to hear the pious ejaculations of Arjoon." This solstice motif likewise appears in the mythologies of China and Mexico. [1, p. 142]

The claim that the solstice motif appears in Mexican and Chinese mythology - Murdock refers to Doane, who refers to Higgins. The Krishna claim also refers to Higgins. Higgins refers to Kingsborough for the Mexico claim, but only by his name, and not by page number or chapter or anything. Kingsborough is rather unreliable, as is Higgins. Still, as we can find - a long chain of difficult to look up references-upon-references.

As to Joshua and various other aspects of the Old Testament, Higgins sums it up: 

The pretended genealogy of the tenth chapter of Genesis [from Noah on down] is attended with much difficulty. It reads like a genealogy: it is notoriously a chart of geography. . . . I have no doubt that the allotment of lands by Joshua was astronomical. It was exactly on the same principle as the nomes of Egypt, which every one knows were named astronomically, or rather, perhaps, I should say, astrologically. The double meaning is clear . . . Most of the names . . . are found in the mystic work of Ezekiel. . . . [Genesis tenth] chapter divides the world into 72 nations. Much ingenuity must have been used to make them agree with the exact number of dodecans into which the great circle was divided.

 [1, p. 143]

How difficult is it really to list 72 tribes and relate them to each other in arbitrary ways (and ignore all other tribes). Much ingenuity is not required. Just a list of 72 tribes! Reading the text in Higgins - without ellipses - does not make it any clearer what significance he thinks Ezekiel has in the context. Also, the clear double meanings are asserted, but not shown. This is a typical instance of Higgins' frustratingly plodding style.

DANIEL 

In the famous scene where Daniel interprets the dreams of Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, it is implied that while the others who attempted to do likewise were astrologers, soothsayers and the like, Daniel himself was not. On the contrary Daniel too was an astrologer, and we also discover he is not a historical character, as Walker relates:

Writers of the Old Testament disliked the Danites, whom they called serpents (Genesis 49:17). Nevertheless, they adopted Dan-El or Daniel, a Phoenician god of divination, and transformed him into a Hebrew prophet, His magic powers were like those of the Danites emanating from the Goddess Dana and her sacred serpents.He served as court astrologer and dream-interpreter for both the Persian king Cyrus, and the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:21, 2:1) indicating that "Daniel" was not a personal name but a title, like the Celtic one: "a person of the Goddess Dana." 

[1, p. 143]

I fully agree that Daniel was not historical (but how can a non-historical person have been an astrologer, when the myth about him clearly implies he was not?). Murdock's argument for his ahistoricity is deeply flawed, however.  "We also discover he is not a historical character, as Walker relates:" implies Murdock believes the following text is sufficient evidence of his ahistoricity:

Dana

Eponymous Great Mother of the Danes and many other peoples, such as the Danaans, the Danaids, the biblical Danites, and the Irish Tuatha Dé Danann, "people of the Goddess Dana."¹ The Russians called her Dennitsa, "Greatest of all Goddesses." [...] Writers of the Old Testament disliked the Danites, whom they called serpents (Genesis 49:17). Nevertheless, they adopted Dan-El or Daniel, a Phoenician god of divination, and transformed him into a Hebrew prophet. His magic powers like those of the Danites emanated from the Goddess Dana and her sacred serpents. He served as court astrologer and dream-interpreter for both the Persian king Cyrus, and the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:21, 2:1), indicating that "Daniel" was not a personal name but a title, like the Celtic one: "a person of the Goddess Dana." [3, p 206-207]

We may observe that the reasoning in it is deeply flawed.
Apparently, Barbara Walker believes that since people often functions as the plural of person in English, any word that can be translated people also can be translated person. (Or, at least, that this line of reasoning applies when desired to apply.) Tuatha dé Danann, in fact, is morphologically plural. It is clearly a mythical(?) ethnicity, and (probably) not a title applied to some persons. Another reasonable translation of the phrase would be 'tribes/peoples of Dana' - this translation not being susceptible to Walker's distortion.

The argument basically contains several unsupported facts about connections between Dana and the tribe of Dan and a non-existent Phoenician God (as in Dan-El is an ancient Phoenician protagonist of a story, not a God. The story probably did contribute to the Daniel narrative. Walker should have actually studied these things instead of pulling them out of thin air, though.)

It is difficult to discern what Murdock's main point here is supposed to be. A point I am fully in agreement with is that the book of Daniel did not predict anything - but in fact was written after the facts, and interpretations that make later events seem to be in fulfillment of it generally are based on misreading and pareidolia. It is also clear that Daniel was in part a polemical work where many of the points probably had a function in a theological struggle within 2nd temple Judaism, probably soon after Maccabeean times.

[1] D.M. Murdock, The Christ Conspiracy
[2] Doane, T.W., Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions
[3] Barbara Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets