The Christ Conspiracy: On the Jews ... (Chapter 20, pt 4)

[post in progress, will add references]

The other half of the chapter about Alexandria asks the question 'why was this mythical savior figure historicized as a Jewish man'. Therefore, part of the background information of the chapter directly relates to Judaism in antiquity. Misleading source usage is still very much with us throughout the chapter.

In the second century CE, after the destructions of both 70 and 135, increasing numbers of zealous Jews, Samaritans and other Israelites migrated to Alexandria and joined the mystery schools, jockeying for position not only with each other but also with the non-Judaizing Gnostics, becoming ever more influential on the Gnostic effort. At that time, the salvationist literature started to become Judaized and Hebraicized, with the infiltration of the Yahwists and Joshua cultists, including and especially the Zadokites or Sadducees. In fact, the Zadokite-Therapeut connection is apparently confirmed by the use of the specialized “pentecontad calendar” by both groups.

Geza Vermes, who is given as a source for the claim that Zadokite-Therapeuts and Sadducees both used a pentecontad calendar, confirms that the Dead Sea Scrolls community had a pentecontad calendar[2], but does not confirm anything about Sadducees or Therapeuts[2]. Indeed, Geza Vermes calls this a 'peculiarity' of that particular community[2]. Murdock is thus misleading us with regards to what her source says. More sources would be necessary.

The question is not whether or not Jesus and his religion were created but why: Why was the ubiquitous solar myth turned into a “Jewish” man? As reflected in the Bible, the Israelites, particularly the tribes of Judah and Levi, considered themselves the chosen people of God and the spiritual leaders of mankind (Deut. 7:6). They were a “priestly nation” who had determined that other nations should serve Israel or utterly perish (Is. 60:10-12). The Israelites claimed that they had the right to kill the males of the enemy nations “but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else . . . you shall take as booty for yourselves.” (Deut.
20:13-14) In fact, throughout the Old Testament the god of Israel repeatedly commanded “his people” to exterminate other cultures and to commit genocide. The Israelites also insisted that they had the right to lend money with interest to the “foreigners,” but were not to do so with their “brethren” (Deut. 23:19-20).

Of course, the foreigners - until Christianity and Islam were widely accepted - accepted lending with interest to anyone, including their own brethren [3][4]. Thus, Jewish lending practices were in fact not particularly more beneficial to the Jewish lender - the position Murdock here is trying to advocate in order to show that Jews were manipulative greedy bankers even in the early times of their interaction with other nations - but rather, the Jewish lending practices were beneficial for Jewish debtors to Jewish lenders (but since the criticism is pointed out in terms of lending and not in terms of borrowing, it's clearly about lending). This is part of a pattern with regard to how Murdock describes Judaism that I will write a post about at a later point.

Reading up a bit on laws regarding interest in antiquity, it seems the Jewish rules had some rather reasonable backgrounds - societies that did not have regular releases from debt tended to end up with most of their populations enslaved or highly indebted. This might be the background for the release of debts every seventh year - a rule that also is known to have been implemented elsewhere to prevent the situation described above[3][4]. It strikes me as weird that the Torah has two mechanisms for preventing that situation, but that might be attributed to the redactors not thinking that much about the effects of the law, but rather just compiling laws they for some reason liked into their system.

Murdock goes on to describe the Jewish expectation for the Messiah. She also describes the Jewish view of gentiles in a rather one-sided summary - taking the most negative expressions from the intertestamental literature and the DSS scrolls as representative of the Jewish doctrine on gentiles.

Given the description of the fervor with which the Jews expected the Messiah to arrive, she goes on to state:

This messianic frenzy increased throughout the Roman occupation and was high during and after the purported advent of Christ. It is impossible to believe that, in such a desperate and fanatical environment, if Christ had been real, had done the miracles ascribed to him and—most importantly—had satisfied all the scriptural requirements of the messiah, the Jews would not have jumped with joy at his supernatural advent but would actually reject and cause him to be killed. But the Jews did not accept him, as messiah after messiah rose up thereafter, as if Christ had never existed at all. . . . 

Indeed, but this is a strawman argument. Few atheist historians believe Jesus to have done any particularly miraculous deeds - they believe the mechanism behind how these claims developed to parallel the more general tendency in religious movements to ascribe miraculous deeds to their leaders. To most scholars in historical Jesus-research, the interesting question is not "did he do this or that miracle", it is "which of these pronouncements do go back to Jesus, which are later additions by the church, what can we learn about the early church as well as about the times just before the foundation of the church, by investigating these things".

Furthermore, orthodox Jews will of course tell you that even if the NT narratives were true, Jesus did not fulfill any messianic requirements, as nearly all those that he is claimed to have fulfilled are verses taken out of context. 

As Jacolliot remarks:

One fact has always astonished me. Through all the sacred books of primitive times of Egypt and the East, the old tradition of the Messiah had passed into the Hebrew
law. How is it . . . that the Jews refused to recognize this Redeemer whom they expected so impatiently—and whom, even today, they still expect?cmxviii

Again, the same fallacy as Murdock's - conveniently pretending euhemerism was never on the table. Jacolliot's argument here is a valid argument against the idea of a supernatural Jesus; it is not, however, a valid argument against the existence of a regular person who lead a religious movement and whose adherents later on deified him and ascribed miraculous powers to him.

The Jews were literally dying for a supernatural deliverer and—lo and behold— an astounding, divine incarnation came along, with all the scriptural requirements of the messiah and the requisite miracles to demonstrate that he had the full power of God behind him, yet the Jews (and all historians of the day) completely ignored
him—nay, they put him to death! In fact, the world that followed Christ’s alleged advent would have been impossible had he really existed at that time.

A simpler explanation, of course, appears when we compare and contrast Jesus to some of the other messianic claimants of the time - nearly all of them organized some military campaigns. A failure on a claimant's part to even attempt that might very well explain why the majority of Jews would not accept such a claimant, especially given the rather militaristic tone presented in the Old Testament regarding what the Messiah was supposed to accomplish.

Of course, in order to be saved by a deliverer, one has to have enemies, and the zealous Jews had created them everywhere by being extremely sectarian, arrogant and bigoted. The Jews as a whole were the only group exempt from a Roman law that compelled all subjects to conform to some degree to the state religion and political system, and their extreme sectarianism made them an annoyance to the empire. 

The question here should of course be on which part the intolerance was - were the Jews intolerant for refusing to participate, or was the Roman law intolerant by refusing to permit others from participation. Murdock prefers blaming the Jews, but an objective scholar should probably prefer blaming the Roman religion at this point! When Christians force non-Christians to participate in Christianity, Murdock is very negative. Why does she not reject the Roman practice as strenuously? Why is it wrong to oppose something that is wrong? Murdock complains about jizya on her blog and forum - yet the Jews were subject to the quite analogous fiscus judaicus, the only group subject to such a humiliation in the entire Roman empire. Murdock elsewhere admires the religious tolerance of the Roman empire, so one wonders if her admiration for religious tolerance does not extend to tolerating the Jews.

Yet, the Jews were losing badly in their battle to maintain their separation, as they were being swallowed up by the Greek and Roman cultures, with their numerous cults and religions. In addition, many Jews disdained the oppressive Mosaic Law. These factors forced the priesthood to resort to its time-honored method of financing Zealots to re-establish its centralized religion.

Yet the Zealots are not associated with the Sadduccean priesthood by any scholars I know of, but rather with the Pharisaic party. Murdock does not provide any sources that link the Zealots to the Sadducees either, so I am left to wonder why she thinks the Zealots had anything to do with the priesthood.

Larson describes the climate in Palestine during this time:

Palestine was filled with robbers, and no man’s life was secure. Any wild-eyed seditionists could procure a following through extravagant promises. The activities of the Zealots were supplemented by those of the Sicarii, a secret society of assassins who mingled with the multitude in the crowded streets especially during feast and holy days, and struck down their victims with daggers. . . . Roman indignation was aroused since the Jews alone were rebellious.

The Jews alone were rebellious? Three servile wars, the Batavian revolt, Gauls revolting under Ambiorix, Boudica's revolt, the Great Illyrian Revolt, Artaxias II's revolt against Rome, as well as the Alexandrian revolt against Jews in 38CE. All those took place in the 1st centuries BCE and AD, and together add up to about seven rebellions in two hundred years. In the same time, twelve regular "external" wars were fought - a difference, but not one of an order of magnitude or anything like that.

Further, the aftermath of the Cantabrian wars consisted of 70 years of guerilla warfare. The Lusitanians also had a prolonged conflict. Venutius led a revolt in Britain, and the Brigantes seem to have had at least one of their own as well.

The Jews alone indeed. . .


[1] D.M Murdock, The Christ Conspiracy
[2] Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls [warning: this was typed out of memory and may be wrong in this version - will check which author when fixing the last bits of the post]
[3]http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Fenus.html,
[4]http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-history-of-interest/2010/12

The Christ Conspiracy: Therapeuts, Bad References, Bad Sources and Really Bad Reasoning (Chapter 20, pt 3)

[Post under construction]

Murdock goes on a bit about the history of the Therapeutans, mostly in the form of assertions regading their significance as a part of a network spanning from Europe to China. Since her identification of Christianity with this movement has been demonstrated to be a very weak link, weaknesses in her description of the movement need not be pointed out all that carefully. However, investigating them is informative regarding the scholarly practices that have gone into writing The Christ Conspiracy.

Murdock goes on telling us about the Therapeutans being part of a network of brotherhoods stretching from Europe to China, and makes a number of statements about them that I think would require some kind of backing up, here exemplified by three passages sources would be called for:

The Therapeuts were, in fact, a major part of the brotherhood network that stretched from Egypt to China and up into Europe.[1]

Nevertheless, the Therapeutan ideology left its mark on the New Testament. In addition to the white-robed monkishness already discussed, the statements about the mysteries and the “kingdom of heaven” are references to initiation into the Therapeutan mystery school and doctrine. The Therapeutan network also included the Palestinian Nazarenes, which is why they are mentioned and why Jesus was claimed to be one of them, although the meaning was obfuscated to “Jesus of Nazareth” so that, again, the pre-existence of the brotherhood would not be known.[1]

These Nazarenes were also Mandaeans and Gnostics; thus, they were Syrians and Samaritans, enemies of the Judeans. Furthermore, in addition to being a Nazarene, Paul calls himself a deacon, which was already a low-level office of the Therapeutan brotherhood. [1]

This is not a big argument here nor there, but the utterly ignorant argumentation present requires pointing out:

The evangelist Luke was also made to be a physician, or Therapeut. In the gospel story, Jesus is also depicted in the temple as making fools of the elders and doctors, i.e., Therapeuts. The early Christians called the Lord himself a “devoted physician,” or Therapeut.[1]

The Greek text describes the 'doctors' as nomodidaskaloi (teachers of law, c.f. antinomian, those who are against the law, and cf. didactics, methodology of teaching), not as medical doctors. Although doctor as a synonym of healer did exist when the KJV was translated, its primary meaning was a holder of the highest degree bestowed by universities. As Murdock likes etymology very much, she may be interested to know that doctor derives from the Latin verb for teaching - 'doceo', (whence we also get 'doctrine'). Thus, we can know for certain that the translators of the KJV did not mean 'doctors' in any medical sense, and even more so that the author of the Gospel did not intend for the word to signify any medical professionals whatever, as he used a word that clearly related to those learned in the law. This is embarrassingly bad scholarship from someone repeatedly labeling themselves a 'linguist'.

Christian father Epiphanius confirms the association between Christianity and the Therapeutan brotherhood when he says, “Jesus, in the Hebrew, signifies a healer or physician. However that may be, this is the name by which they were known before they were called Christians.”cmiv He is in fact referring to the “Jesseans” or “Essenes,” i.e., “Therapeuts.”[1]

Epiphanius knowledge of Hebrew seems spotty, as can be seen by his thinking that "li" means "it is", see this [2] . He probably was only trying to make a theological point, and did so using incorrect arguments. James R. Edwards [3, p. 27], however, only states that we do not know how well Epiphanius knew Hebrew, which to me sounds like an attempt at downplaying the likelihood that Epiphanius Hebrew was pretty bad.

Again, one needs to look at what point Epiphanius was making - and funny enough, Murdock does not tell us where in Epiphanius works this can be found, but where in Charles Waite's History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred it can be found, giving the diligent verifier yet another superfluous hurdle to jump. Further, Murdock's edition of Waite's History [...] apparently has this on page 510, whereas the edition I found has it on page 75. I find it unlikely that she has the right page even if the editions were to differ wildly.

What Epiphanius actually says, in translation, is:

4:9 And there is much to say about this. But in any case, since I have come to the topic of the reason why those who had come to faith in Christ were called Jessaeans before they were called Christians, we said that Jesse was the father of David. And they had been named Jessaeans, either because of this Jesse; or from the name or our Lord Jesus since, being his disciples, they were derived from Jesus; or because of the etymology of the Lord's name. For in Hebrew Jesus means 'healer' or 'physician,'²⁵ and 'saviour.'[4, 29.4]

For the record, I have not been able to find a single Hebrew dictionary that list 'physician' or 'healer' as meanings that occur with the root יָשַׁע, nor have I been able to find any such meanings associated with such a root throughout the Bible. Naturally, the Bible is not the be-all end-all as to the nature of the Hebrew language in antiquity, but it is a good start, and with a claim such as this I am pretty sure I do not need to luck any further.

Murdock goes on making claims left and right, and supports a few of them with her favourite source, viz. Higgins.

Higgins says:

The Essenians were called physicians of the soul or Therapeutae; being resident of both Judaea and Egypt, they probably spoke or had their sacred books in Chaldee. They were Pythagoreans, as is proved by all their forms, ceremonies, and doctrines, and they called themselves sons of Jesse . . . If the Pythagoreans or Coenobitae, as they were called by Jamblicus, were Buddhists, the Essenians were Buddhists. The Essenians . . . lived in Egypt on the lake of Parembole or Maria, in monasteries. These are the very places in which we formerly found the Gymnosophists or Samaneans or Buddhist priests to have lived, which Gymnosophists are placed also by Ptolemy in North-eastern India.cmv

[1]

We know precious little about the 'forms, ceremonies and doctrines' of the Essenes. We do not know whether they called themselves sons of Jesse, as far as I have been able to find in serious sources, nor do we know whether they had any direct connections to the Pythagoreans. All of this is Higgins speculating wildly.

Higgins continues:

If the opinion be well founded, that their Scriptures were the originals of the Gospel histories, then it will follow almost certainly, that they must have been the same as the Samaneans or Gymnosophists of Porphyry and Clemen Alexandrinus, and their books, which they were bound by such solemn oaths to keep secret, must have been the Vedas of India; or some Indian books containing the mythoses of Moses and Jesus Christ . . . cmvii

[1]

Why does this follow? Higgins was pretty terrible at reasoning, and often phrased unsubstantiated assertions as though "it will follow almost certainly". Why did those books have to have been the Vedas of India? 

Of the gospel account, Taylor states that “the travelling Egyptian Therapeuts brought the whole story from India to their monasteries in Egypt, where, some time after the commencement of the Roman monarchy, it was transmuted in Christianity.”cmviii These books were from either the northeast of India or the coast of Malabar, or both, and were evidently first taken to Antioch and then to Egypt, by Apollonius, Marcion and/or others.

Essentially, Murdock's assertions that these books originated in Malabar or the northeast of India are entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, just naked assertions. Taylor's book is not much better at providing evidence for his assertions either. To make things even better, Murdock's list of references gives this reference as:

cmviii. Taylor. [1]

With such a helpful reference, it is no wonder I have been unable to find whether Taylor by chance had any evidence this time, or whether something he said elsewhere nearby could be construed as supporting what Murdock asserts right after it.

[1] D.M. Murdock, The Christ Conspiracy
[2] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/epiphanius_weights_02_intro.htm

[3] James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, 2009

[4] Epiphanius of Salamis, the Panarion, available in translation at http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#29. Based on the translation of Frank Williams.

The Christ Conspiracy, Chapter 20: On Murdock, Eusebius and Philo

There is an argument present in Chapter 20 that is quite illuminating when it comes to Murdock's method of assessing and presenting evidence. The argument centers on Eusebius' Interpretatio Christiana of Philo's description of the Therapeuts in Egypt, and therefore I will investigate her argument, her presentation of it, as well as Eusebius' argument.

Interpretatio Christiana designates a passage in Eusebius where he interprets Philo as talking about Christians when in fact talking about a group of Therapeuts. Since Murdock posits that Christianity is really just a reshuffling of some previous religious organization, this fits well with her argument - we know the Therapeuts predated Christianity, so if we can demonstrate that the Therapeuts were Christians even before, say, 30CE, Murdock's contentions would suddenly gain some quite solid support. Murdock herself is not the originator of this argument:

Concerning Eusebius’s admissions, Taylor states:

. . . Eusebius has attested, that the Therapeutan monks were Christians, many ages before the period assigned to the birth of Christ; and that the Diegesis and Gnomologue, from which the Evangelists compiled their gospels, were writings which for ages constituted the sacred scriptures Egyptian visionaries. 

[1, p. 320]

It is a bit intriguing that Murdock does not say it in so many words herself, but lets Taylor speak for her. Not to get sidetracked, but the diegesis and gnomologue seem to be works Taylor dreamed up. I will admit to not having read Taylor's entire work, but might do so next year. He is only quoted by fairly unreputable sources, though, and no one who quotes him seems to quote any actually significant argument - exclusively the assertion that the Diegesis and Gnomologue are sources for the Gospels. The fact that no evidence nor arguments are presented leaves me inclined to think Taylor's argumentation probably does not have much value. 

There are some problems with this particular assertion, however. We shall first see what Murdock says, then we shall look a bit closer at Eusebius.

In addition to the Church organization well in place prior to the Christian era was the pre-existence of the entire gospel story, in bits and pieces around the “known world,” eventually put together by the Therapeuts at Alexandria. That the original gospels and epistles were in the possession of the Therapeuts is attested to by Church historian Eusebius. In his admission, Eusebius first relates what Philo said of the Therapeuts:

They possess also short works by early writers, the founders of their sect, who left many specimens of the allegorical method, which they take as their models, following the system on which their predecessors worked. 

As noted, the Therapeuts were also the Gnostics, as is evidenced by the acknowledgment that their “short works” were allegorical rather than literal. The change from Gnostic to Orthodox Christianity, in fact, constituted the switch from knowledge of the allegory to blind faith in the literal. Eusebius goes on to say:

It seems likely that Philo wrote this after listening to their exposition of the Holy Scriptures, and it is very probable that what he calls short works by their early writers were the gospels, the apostolic writings, and in all probability passages interpreting the old prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews and several others of Paul’s epistles.

Of the Therapeutan Church, Eusebius remarks, “These statements of Philo seem to me to refer plainly and unquestionably to members of our Church.” Eusebius’s assertions are more than just peculiar when one considers he was the church historian who was purporting to be recording a continuous apostolic lineage, such that, had it really existed, these important aspects of the history of the Christian religion surely would have been widely known by virtually everyone indoctrinated into it.

[1, p. 320]

Some other problems do jump out at me from this text - can we really assume allegorical reading immediately implies Gnosticism? It is quite clear Christianity from the onset has read several passages in the Old Testament in very allegorical ways, and we also know that rabbinic Judaism is no stranger to allegorical interpretations of its sacred texts. What exactly Murdock is trying to say by the last clause in the above quote is quite unclear to me. No matter how I attempt parsing it, it ends up just not being very meaningful a thing to say.

However, as we can see Eusebius indeed was expressing a belief that the Therapeuts were early Christians. This appears strange - we do know the Therapeuts predate Christianity. However, why is that a problem? Do we know that Eusebius too knew this? In the Eusebian work here quoted, we can actually find some indication that he was not aware of this, and in fact believed something quite contrary to it:

3. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeutæ and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshipped the Deity in purity and sincerity. 

4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.

[2, chapter 17]

Already this is enough to conclude that Eusebius laboured under the mistaken notion that the Therapeuts were a recent phenomenon in Egypt at the time of Philo - why else would he think Philo had come up with a term of his own with which to refer to them? However, we can find even more solid evidence that Eusebius believed the Therapeuts to be a group that only appeared some time after 30 CE:

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. 

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life. [2, chapter 16] Note - from the context in Church History, it is clear that Eusebius means the Mark supposed to have written the Gospel of Mark. My bolding and italics.

So, it is clear Eusebius thinks Philo is talking about a group that had only been around in Alexandria since Mark started preaching the Gospel which he had written there. So, here is the first problem with Murdock's interpretation: she assumes Eusebius' knowledge of the Therapeutans to be correct as well as to exceed ours - everything we know, he knew, but everything he knew, we do not necessarily know. So, when reading him, we can understand what he is saying by means of our own knowledge of the therapeuts. However, reading the text seems to suggest he did not know all that much about the Therapeutans, and that we must not read what he is saying as though he had access to what we know now, and indeed it seems his knowledge in this matter entirely was based on his reading of Philo's De Vita Contemplativa. Thus, when trying to understand what he is saying, we must look at what he could derive from De Vita Contemplativa, and what intention he may have had in doing so.

Eusebius lived roughly 250-300 years after Philo, so we can be pretty sure Eusebius did not contribute any first hand accounts about the Therapeutans beyond what Philo himself says. Eusebius' Church History is not primarily a work of history, although he obviously presents it as such - it is a work of apologetics and propaganda. Not so much hiding history as producing a grand historiography, wherein the church is a miraculous and beneficial presence in the world. For this purpose, it seems as though Eusebius is reading Philo in a somewhat convoluted manner in order to claim Philo approved of and was impressed by early Christians, giving Eusebius a respected Jewish author to lean upon for support of Christianity. Eusebius spends a lot of ink on establishing what a great and respected thinker Philo was:

2. Under this emperor, Philo became known; a man most celebrated not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of those who held high dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he labored in the Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is plain to all from the work which he has done. How familiar he was with philosophy and with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not necessary to say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in the study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, to which he particularly devoted his attention. [2, chapter 4]

Once Philo's reputation has been established, Eusebius clearly is trying to claim him, not necessarily as a believer, but at the very least as a Jewish admirer of Christianity:

And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients. 

[2, chapter 17]

When I reached this point of investigation, I figured it would be interesting to see if serious theologians had considered this particular passage, and I was not disappointed. I was especially fascinated to see Sabrina Inowlocki expand on the same idea in an article ten years ago, where she also developed even more clear and interesting arguments. Inowlocki also concludes that Eusebius quote-mines Philo, thus distorting what he is saying to make the depiction seem to fit Christians better:

The summary nature of Eusebius's remarks here allows him to omit that the separation between men and women is not a permanent one. Likewise, Eusebius identifies the Therapeutae's meetings, vigils, fasts, and atten­tion to the word of God with the Christian exercises at Easter. He insists that these correspondences are found within the Christian community only, stressing the great feast during which they do not sleep but rather lie on the ground, abstaining from meat and wine, singing together, and seasoning their bread with only hyssop and salt. He also finds in Philo's account a reference to the Christian hierarchy. Actually, a close reading of Philo's text easily proves Eusebius's arguments wrong. First, the great feast is not annual, like Easter, but takes place every fifty days; second, many "philosophical" groups in antiquity could have maintained such customs; and third, Philo nowhere deals with an ecclesiastical hierarchy rising "from the deaconate to the episco­pate" (διακονίας τε καί τας επί πασιν άνωτάτω της επισκοπής προεδρίας), as Eusebius claims. Eusebius was only (mis)interpreting Philo's use of the words διακόνους, πρόεδρος, and his mention of a hierarchy in the account of the communal singing. [3, p. 317-318]

Inowlocki's paper is a great treatment of the  Interpretatio Christiana, and provides a detailed argument: Eusebius' motive, his method, the flaws of his argument, and a quite sober assessment of the extent to which Eusebius' claim is accurate. In summary, Eusebius wanted Philo to say good things about Christianity, he found a place that he might have understood as an actual example of that (or he may have been outright deceptive about it), he shows why he thinks (or wants us to think) that Philo is talking about Christians, and he concludes that Philo had a positive opinion of Christians. Even though the main argument I presented here seemed fairly clear to me before reading it, Inowlocki's paper has helped me structure this argument in a way that I could not have done myself – all credits to Inowlocki for this, really. It is a great read, and shows just how a scholar should do research in patristic texts and other works of historical interest. She also presents other important points about the Interpretatio, as well as Eusebius' use of Philo, and Eusebius' consequences for the works of Philo in Christian history.

Murdock repeatedly accuses the church fathers of being liars and fabricators, but for some reason, here she accepts Eusebius' words at face value even when they seem rather suspicious. A more sober investigation into the Interpretatio Christiana - such as the one provided by Inowlocki - could have provided evidence, at the very least, of a church father using insufficient evidence to make remarkable claims, but instead, Murdock falls for an even bigger fabrication - Taylor's failure to comprehend what Eusebius said (or possibly, Taylor's misleading his readers by means of quote-mining), resulting in the faulty notion that Eusebius claims that Christianity predates 30CE  - which from Eusebius' own words clearly is an inaccurate interpretation. Yes, Eusebius was wrong - but we know that two wrongs do not cancel out. Murdock cannot have read the Eusebian text in detail, and her understanding of it can be rejected.

Thus, a significant part of chapter twenty is rendered irrelevant or wrong.

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

2. Eusebius, Church History, Book II Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.

3. Inowlocki, Sabrina, Eusebius of Caesarea's Interpretatio Christiana of Philo's De Vita Contemplativa, Harvard Theological Review Volume 97 / Issue 03 / July 2004

When pseudoscience hits academia

A friend pointed me to this horrifying blogpost about a college that has been hit by strong measures of pseudoscience in combination with racism and bullying. It is a horrendous read, and the college really lets its students down in every way imaginable by tolerating this kind of aberrant, crazy behavior.

Of course, pseudohistory is not the only issue at play there - it seems racism and workplace bullying are even bigger problems. The two latter are sufficiently bad by themselves, but the pseudoscience serves to make life even more difficult for the genuine scholar under such circumstances - it essentially becomes a means for bullying.

The Christ Conspiracy: Alexandria (Chapter 20, pt 1)

Chapter 20 goes on to describe the religious environment of Alexandria, and posits that this is where Christianity emerged. I find the geographical statement itself rather reasonable - Alexandria was an important hub, there were significant numbers of Jews, greeks as well as other gentiles, Philo had been active there which does show some existence of Mystery schools with a Jewish basis. So far so good, right? Well, even here, problems creep into Murdock's reasoning. She posits the existence of a church before Christianity of which Christianity is a further development.

Although such brotherhood and organization are pretended by Christians not to have existed, they are also revealed throughout the New Testament, in which the nascent Christian church is already presented as having, in the words of Taylor, “the full ripe arrogance of an already established hierarchy; bishops disputing for their prerogatives, and throne-enseated prelates demanding and receiving more than the honours of temporal sovereignty, from their cringing vassals, and denouncing worse than inflictions of temporal punishment against the heretics who should presume to resist their decrees, or dispute their authority.” Obviously, such an established institution could not have appeared overnight out of nowhere but was, in fact, pre-Christian.[1,p. 317]

The summary Taylor gives of the church as presented in the NT is rather more vivid than my recollection of these particular narratives. Taylor's description sounds more like it is taken from a high fantasy novel than from the NT. Thrones? "More than the honours of temporal sovereignty"? To me, it sounds like Taylor is trying to pull a fast one on us here, planting an unjustifiedly detailed idea of what is in the NT in our minds. It is surprisingly easy to fall for this kind of deception when reading something while expecting to find something in it.

Concerning this pre-existing organization, Massey says:

The existence of primitive and pre-historic Christians is acknowledged in the Gospel according to Mark when John says, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us.” . . . According to the account in Matthew, before ever a disciple had gone forth or could have begun to preach historic Christianity, there was a widespread secret organization ready to receive and bound to succour those who were sent out in every city of Israel. Who, then are these? They are called “The Worthy.” That is, as with the Essenes, those who have stood the tests, proved faithful, and been found worthy. According to the canonical account these were the prehistoric Christians, whether called Essenes or Nazarenes; the worthy, the faithful, or the Brethren of the Lord.

[1, p. 317] 

It is interesting how the NT suddenly is accepted as valid evidence. Looking at the NT account more generally, it seems rather that this story is presented to impress on the reader just how magic the name of Jesus is. What Massey means by "canonical account" is quite unclear. How did he know these 'Worthy' were an organization the disciples were sent out to? There are so many holes in this paragraph that a Swiss cheese pun would be all the rage about right now.

And Doherty states:

Within a handful of years of Jesus’ supposed death, we find Christian communities all over the eastern Mediterranean, their founders unknown. . . . Paul could not possibly account for all the Christian centres across the Empire; many were in existence before he got there. . . .[1, p. 317]

Previously, Murdock has said Christianity spread slowly [1, p. 7]. Hitchcock says forty communities existed by 100CE[2]. This gives over 30 years after Paul's death for the number to reach forty. This does not seem particularly unbelievable. Things that expand do often expand exponentially, and given that we know Christianity did grow to be one of the biggest religions of the earth, we can assume there have been times of rapid expansion. What with a significantly less tense relation between early Christians and Jews than what often has been posited - see, for instance, The Parting of the Ways by Daniel Boyarin - it is quite possible some of these communities never were independent communities, but rather partially Christian partially Jewish communities, i.e. communities where some Jews or 'Godfearing Gentiles' had joined Christianity.

A form of Christian faith later declared heretical, Gnosticism, clearly preceded the establishment of orthodox beliefs and churches in whole areas like northern Syria and Egypt. Indeed, the sheer variety of Christian expression and competitiveness in the first century, as revealed in documents both inside the New Testament and out, is inexplicable if it all proceeded from a single missionary movement beginning from a single source. . . . Paul meets rivals at every turn who are interfering with his work, whose views he is trying to combat. The “false apostles” he rails against in 2 Corinthians 10 and 11 are “proclaiming another Jesus” and they are certainly not from Peter’s group. Where do they all come from and where do they get their ideas? The answer seems inevitable: Christianity was born in a thousand places, in the broad fertile soil of Hellenistic Judaism. It sprang up in many independent communities and sects ... [1, p. 318]

Alternatively, these reflect mid-2nd century conflicts within the Church, where the authors try to bolster their own authority by retrojecting both their own and their opponents' views into the past, claiming for advocates the early heroes of Christianity.

The existence of “Christian” churches before “Jesus of Nazareth” is also attested to by the author of the Epistle to the Philippians attributed to early Church father “Polycarp” (69?-155?), in which he says of Christ, “For he glories in you in all the churches who then only knew God; for we did not then know him.”[1, p. 318]

Murdock does not refer to the particular chapter and verse in Polycarp's letter, which is her usual way of making the job of critics more difficult. For the quote mining Murdock does here, see this.

The relevant passage in Polycarp's works can be found here. We cannot rely on the capitalization, but this is no problem - it still reads as though the only reasonable referent of 'him' is 'God'.

... but I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended⁴⁰¹ in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him. I am deeply grieved, therefore, brethren, for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom may the Lord grant true repentance! And be ye then moderate in regard to this matter, and “do not count such as enemies,”[3]

Keep in mind that patristic Greek and Latin do not distinguish majuscule and minuscule letters. The original text of this would, had it been written in English, have looked like this:

BUTIHAVENEITHERSEENNORHEARDOFANYSUCHTHINGAMONG...

Capitalizing pronouns is thus done at the discretion of the translator or publisher of the Latin text, and capitalization cannot therefore be used as reliable indicators as to whom is referred to. It turns out that the Latin text is as follows, although modernized with regards to capitals and spaces:

11: 3 Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui estis in principio episulae eius. De vobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quae dominum solae tunc cognoverant; nos autem nondum cognoveramus. [4]

Let us look closer at how Murdock interprets this passage (an exercise that will show that she has not – again – cared about checking the Latin at all):

The existence of “Christian” churches before “Jesus of Nazareth” is also attested to by the author of the Epistle to the Philippians attributed to early Church father “Polycarp” (69?-155?), in which he says of Christ, “For he glories in you in all the churches who then only knew God; for we did not then know him.”[1, p. 318, ]

"Only knew God", to make it clear, is parsed as "who knew of no-one but God, and did not then know him (i.e. Christ)". In the Latin, however, "only" – solae – does not agree with God in grammatical gender and number. It is plural feminine! We find that there is a plural, feminine word in the text in the same very clause: ecclesia (in the case form ecclesiis, the ablative (identical, as it happens in this declension, to the dative)). So, how are we lead to parse the text as it actually is written?  Thus: "For he glories in you in all the churches who then were the only ones to know God; for we did not then know him". Reading the Latin there as saying anything else is bad translation, and is assuming that Latin works like English - a thing a linguist, as Murdock loves to title herself, would not do.

Thus, all the evidence Murdock presents in favour of this notion - Christianity before Christianity - falls flat on its face.

In addition, the term “Essene” was used not only for the Palestinian sect, but, as Josephus says, there was “another order of Essenes,” and Walker relates that at “the Ephesian temple of Artemis, the melissae were accompanied by eunuch priests known as essenes, meaning ‘drones.’” In reality, there were several groups of “Essenes.”[1, p. 318]

Most research regarding the Essenes seem to point at the "other order" being an organisational difference within the order of Essenes - a hierarchical difference more than a schism. Possibly comparable to monastic orders in catholicism. Also, we will come across an entirely different claim as to the meaning of 'essene' just a few paragraphs down.

I will get back to this later in this post.

These pre-historic Christians were called by Philo not only Essenes but also Eclectics, Ascetics and Therapeuts, who were indeed members of a brotherhood that already had parishes, churches, bishops, priests and deacons long before the Christian era. Headquartered at Alexandria, this Therapeutan brotherhood also observed the same festivals as those of the “later” Christianity, and, like Christianity, pretended to have apostolic founders.[1, p. 319]

Of Christian festivals, quite a few are based on Jewish festivals, so no surprise there. 

Also like the historic Christians, these pre-historic “Christians” used scriptures they claimed were divinely inspired and had colonies at the same places claimed by the historic Christians, i.e., Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse and Thessalonica, as found in the Pauline epistles—all before the alleged advent of Jesus Christ. [1, p. 319]

This description is per Taylor's rendering of Eusebius' rendering of Philo. Taylor gives only "Philo apud Eusebium" - so no reference to which particular work. Which is shoddy sourcing, and bad practice in scholarly sources.

Like “Essene,” the Greek word “Therapeut” means “healer” or “physician,” as in “physician of the soul.” The Therapeuts were, in fact, salvation cultists, but their savior was the “light of the world that every eye can see,” because, also like the Essenes and so many others, they were “sun-worshippers.”[1, p. 319]

We do not actually know the etymology of Essene. Only one suggested etymology has had a comparable phrase found in the Qumran scrolls, viz. 'Osey Hatorah, "doers of the torah". This does not automatically confirm the etymology, but it does weaken the case for the others. The further assertion that the Essenes were sun-worshippers would require back-up. (I am remiss here for not looking up the source for the above claim today, will fix that within the next few days.)

It is possible Josephus picked the word 'essaioi' because of the connotations it had in Greek, and the reasonable phonological similarity - osei <> essaioi are not impossible different. Positing an actual cognateness between the organizations seems fairly unjustified - unless significant convincing evidence is provided.

Doane says of this widespread and well-established brotherhood:

For many centuries before the time of Christ Jesus there lived a sect of religious monks known as Essenes, or Therapeuts; these entirely disappeared from history shortly after the time assigned for the crucifixion of Jesus. There were thousands of them, and their monasteries were to be counted by the score. Many have asked the question, “What became of them?” . . .

In short, they became the Christians, as it was they who created Christianity.[1, p. 319]

Funnily, the exact same claim is previously denied in the same book:

It was not the Essenes who constituted the "Jewish" brotherhood from which Christianity issued but the Syro-Samaritan Gnostic "sons of Zadok", the authors of various Dead Sea Scrolls who were determined to restore their priesthood to its proper place as spiritual leaders of Israel and of all mankind, [1, p. 315]

The disappearance of the Essenes might just as easily be attributed to social changes brought on by the Jewish War - or in fact, attributing it to such changes seems more reasonable than attributing it to them being swallowed up by Christianity or turning into the early Christian community.

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

[2] Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 28
[3] Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians XI, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.xi.html

[4] Palmer, David Robert. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians The  Greek & Latin  Text of the Epistle, verse by verse, with  an  English translation in between, verse by verse.

http://bibletranslation.ws/down/Polycarp_Epistle_To_The_Philippians.pdf

Bad Etymologies Online

Bad etymologies are plenty common throughout internet. Alas, they are often used to support all kinds of bullshit - religious ideas, nationalist ideas, conspiracy theories, downright magical ideas as well as things related to Atlantis and Mu. (Sometimes, alas, they are also used by rationalists and skeptics who fail to understand linguistics, a topic about which I will probably write a post at some point.)

Let us look at one instance that showcases the kind of bullshit that Sanskrit-cranks keep producing. Alas, the subcontinent is a place where pseudoscience and magic thinking prospers.

Searching for some etymologies that have appeared elsewhere in my research, I also happened to find this pearl of undiluted bullshit.

Wikipedia has offered a rather contrived origin for Reykjavik. It goes like this: "The first permanent settlement in Iceland by Norsemen is believed to have been established in Reykjavík by Ingólfur Arnarson around AD 870; this is described in Landnámabók, or the Book of Settlement. Ingólfur Arnarson is said to have decided the location of his settlement using a traditional Viking method; by casting his high seat pillars (Öndvegissúlur) into the ocean when he saw the coastline, then settled where the pillars came to shore. Steam from hot springs in the region is said to have inspired Reykjavík's name, which loosely translates to Smoke Cove (the city is often referred to as the Bay of Smokes or Bay of Smoke)." There's no mention of the language in which smoke cove is reykjavik. Since the mind tends to associate hot springs with the place, somehow the explanation seems credible. But is it? [Name Theories, Anantha]

Although the story presented in the ancient account may be exaggerated, that has no relevance to the etymology. The story does indeed appear in the Landnámabók. The author of the post, Anantha, seems to be rather incapable of any research of his or her own. Even a little bit of imagination would suggest that maybe looking at the history of Icelandic would be relevant? And, as it turns out, Icelandic is (as far as grammar and lexicon goes) a very conservative descendant of Old Norse.

Which other language could it even be? The only other group we know to possibly have settled Iceland - and in small numbers at that - are some monastic Celts. Reic-, as it happens, does mean something in Old Irish (which basically is the relevant version of Celtic for this purpose): reic - sale, sell, also of bards reciting poems in exchange for reward, reich - reach, fall to, and as noun 'class, kinds', réic - roar, howl, and if we're going to be way too permissive, we could also grant reite[1] - reconciliation - as a bad and unjustified Irish alternative. Neither of those really seem to fit a place that has no large wild animals, in medieval times never was a place of great commerce, nor is known for any great acts of reconciliation, positing such an etymology is unnecessary and would be an unlikely claim at that. The -vík bit could be explained by an Irish etymology though (ùic), but that etymology would go back to Old Norse anyway, as that word is a loan from the Norse vikings.

If we do go and look at modern Icelandic - which was strictly speaking not spoken at the time that Reykjavik was named and settled - as well as Old Norse (which is the ancestor of, and very similar to modern Icelandic and therefore the most natural hypothesis), it turns out reykja, in both, signify 'to (emit) smoke'. It has reflexes in the other Scandinavian languages as well, Swe. röka, ryka dialectal röyke, röyk, ryk, Danish ryge, røge, Norwegian røyka, røykja, røykje, røyke, Faroese rúka, with -ey- in many of the other inflected forms, such as reyk - 1st and 3rd person singular past tense, reykst - 2nd person singular past tense.

Finding reliable sources on this might take some time in case you don't have suitable books available. As it happens I make sure to have grammars of all Scandinavian languages accessible. 

Wiktionary, however, also gives most of those forms (dialectal and norwegian variations may be omitted there, though - Nynorsk especially being a language that permits a lot of variation in its morphology) and even a very non-thorough perusal of wiktionary - checking translations for 'smoke' would give you links to several of these languages.

Anantha should also have checked what bay or cove perchance is in modern Icelandic, Old Norse, etc. It turns out vik and vík basically appear in all the Scandinavian languages, and Icelandic is one among them. As it turns out, even in modern Icelandic, Reykjavík is a meaningful compound. Anantha positing multiple etymologies in a language foreign to the country just shows what a retarded methodology Anantha uses - you can always create something that looks like a meaningful phrase if you get to distort a word willy-nilly. Alas, people do take bullshit like this seriously and do not understand to be sceptical about claims like this.

No, Sanskrit has not influenced names on Iceland and to understand the name of every single place in Iceland, Old Norse and even largely Modern Icelandic suffice. Not only do they suffice, they are almost the only tool needed - possibly with a tiny few Gaelic words as a complement.

The dumb shit here is that Anantha is basically teaching people to be credulous, and accept anything as true if it is phrased as though it has supporting evidence - even when the supporting evidence is tenuous and based on complete and utter ignorance. What makes it even worse is the sheer amount of evidence in favour of the mainstream explanation - it is clear Anantha hasn't even tried looking up the evidence. Heck, he or she is so uninterested in evidence, that in fear of finding any meaningful evidence he or she does not go looking for any - and therefore cannot even by accident stumble in the general direction of the real explanation.

Not only Anantha is guilty of this, though, but so is D.M. Murdock, so is Barbara Walker, so are a bunch of ignorant but excessively prideful nationalist, so are ancient aliens "theorists", religious blowhards, Sanskrit-primacists and other Sanskrit-is-magic believers and anyone else who uses fake etymologies to prop up their arguments.

[1] Old Irish, Irish and Gaelic words from http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb30.html#MB.R

[2] and from http://edil.qub.ac.uk/dictionary/index2.php?letter=R&column=30

[3] Given that words related to smoke are fairly common, you are likely to find the given words for the different languages in any medium-sized or larger dictionaries of the scandinavian languages. Dialectal forms such as "röyk" are first-hand knowledge, but descriptions of the sound changes that Ostrobothnian Swedish has gone through can be found in the literature. Alas, I currently do not recall which books get into that, but as it is my native dialect, that kind of informs my knowledge quite a bit.

The Christ Conspiracy, Chapter 23: Pygmies Everywhere (pt 6)

The chapter goes on to posit that pygmies, in fact, are the root of all culture:

There is yet another mystery to be addressed, as, it will be recalled, in the caves of India have been found figures of Buddhas not only black in color but in feature, demonstrating that the black race had at some early point reached an advanced state of civilization. As Higgins said over a century and a half ago, [...]:

It was the opinion of Sir William Jones that a great nation of Blacks formerly possessed the dominion of Asia, and held the seat of empire at Sidon. These must have been the people called by Mr. Maurice Cushites or Cuthites, described in Genesis; and the opinion that they were Blacks is corroborated by the translators of the Pentateuch, called the Seventy, constantly rendering the word Cush by Ethiopia. . . . The religion of Buddha, of India, is well known to have been very ancient. In the most ancient temples scattered throughout Asia, where his worship is yet continued, he is found black as jet, with the flat face, thick lips, and curly hair of the Negro.

[1, p. 387] 

No source is given for the claim about Buddha figures with black features and colors - thus making it essentially unfalsifiable, beyond the general and unspecific statement of Higgins. Also, how the presence of such figurines "demonstrate" that "the black race" had reached an advanced state of civilization at some early point eludes me. It would be interesting to know which particular temples throughout Asia Mr Higgins was referring to, since he did not provide such a list himself. In the absence of verifiable claims - particular temples, particular caves, particular figures of Buddha, etc - this claim is nothing but unfounded assertion.

And Jackson relates:

A splendid era of Blacks seems to have preceded all the later races. There must once have been a tremendous Negro expansion, since the original masters of the lands between Iberia and the Cape of Good Hope and East India were primitive and probably dwarfed Black men.

[1, p. 387] 

We do know homo sapiens expanded out of Africa, where the climate does favour black skin. We also have dark-skinned groups in Asia and Australia. This does suggest that mankind originally had a rather dark skin, and that lighter skin colour indeed is a more recent development. What Jackson means by 'splendid' in this context is somewhat unclear, and why these 'original masters of the lands ...' should have been dwarfed is not stated. Any evidence forthcoming?

We have long had proof that a primitive Negroid race of Pygmies once lived around the Mediterranean. Blacks were the first to plow the mud of the Nile; they were the dark-skinned, curly-haired Kushites. [1, p. 388; Jackson, quoted by Murdock]

If, by 'Kushites' Jackson means 'ethiopians', it would be interesting to know what proof he has for the contention that the Ethiopians were also Pygmies. A pygmy tribe does seem to live in Ethiopia, but it is hard to find information on it. However, it is not my responsibility to do Jackson's, Higgins's, Churchward's and Murdock's research for them.

Blacks were masters of Sumeria and Babylon before it became the country of the four tongues.[Jackson, quoted by Murdock]

Indeed, into any fair analysis must be factored an overlooked people who, if the theory of evolution is correct, must constitute one of the oldest races on the planet: the Pygmies. In reality, the Pygmies provide a key piece of the puzzle, as many of their ancient traditions are basically the same as those of the cultures that succeeded them.[1, p. 388]

It is quite unclear what exactly Murdock tries to say here. I have, alas, come across many examples of people not quite understanding evolution, and this might colour my guesses as to what she means by this statement - I might be too willing to ascribe odd mistaken understandings of evolution to her, based on her statements regarding it being somewhat unclear (on the other hand, other comments of hers throughout her works do seem to indicate she is not a fan of current understanding of evolution). On the other hand, no matter how hard I try I do not find any sensible way of parsing what she is saying . When scientists say the Pygmies are an old race (nowadays not so much using the word 'race', obviously), they mean the most recent common ancestor of both the pygmies and the remainder of mankind lived long ago. We know there is one group whose divergence goes back even further, the San people.

It turns out Murdock does not quite understand the consequences of what it means that the Pygmies are an 'old race', as later on she states:

In the Pygmies can be found not only very ancient origins of human culture and
religion but evidently a “missing link” between the black and white races as well.[1, p. 389]

If the pygmies are among the earliest groups to diverge, it would be mighty strange if they also were an intermediate group between blacks and whites - as thus they would have to have given rise to a group within another branch of mankind after having diverged from that very branch thousands of years earlier (which means they basically would have had to diverge later than the black races, but earlier than the white ones, which contradicts the previous claim, which we by genetic research also know to be true). It appears to me that Murdock does not understand what age signifies when describing populations. (At least if she uses the term "missing link" in anything like the usual meaning; if she does not, she must purposefully be misleading us.)

When scientists say the pygmies are an "old race", they don't mean to say they are an ancestral race (so not like your grandfather is an earlier human than you are), they mean their divergence occurred previously to later divergences in the family tree of human races. Naturally, the pygmies may have retained archaic traits - but so could the other branch as well! Both sides have probably had mutations occur that have introduced new traits (further diminished stature for pygmies and pygmoids, white skin for some of us, epicanthic folds for others, lactose tolerance for some, ...) Shared innovations are often seen as indications that some number of populations have diverged from shared ancestors, shared retentions not so much.

We have already seen that they were pre-Christian monotheists who revered the cross. Belgian anthropologist Jean-Pierre Hallet, who has lived much of his life among the Pygmies, elaborates:

My Pygmy friends have an Adam story of their own . . . It is the story of a god, a garden paradise, a sacred tree, a noble Pygmy man, who was molded from the dust of the earth, and a wicked Pygmy woman who led him into sin . . . The legend tells of the ban placed by God upon a single fruit, the woman’s urging, the man’s reluctance, the original sin, the discovery by God, and the awful punishment he laid upon the ancient Pygmy sinners; the loss of immortality and paradise, the pangs of childbirth, and the curse of hard work. 

Jackson reveals another surprise concerning the Pygmies that we may have expected: 

The Pygmies believed in a Father-God who was murdered, and a Virgin Mother, who gave birth to a Savior-God Son, who in turn avenged the death of his father. These later on became the Osiris, Isis and Horus of Egypt. The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven. Certainly this looks like Christianity before Christ.

[1, p. 388] 

Jackson is a fairly unreliable source even on the best of days. He did not conduct original research, so this is stuff he has synthesized from earlier sources - largely Higgins and Churchward being the sources he relies on. Murdock would do better to actually look up those sources and their reliability before stating something as remarkable as this claim. (Obviously, she has read those sources too as she herself relies on them - but she cannot have treated them with any criticism whatsoever.)

And the mystery continues, as the Pygmies claimed to have spread throughout the world thousands of years ago: Hallet’s Pygmy friends told him that in the distant past they developed a highly technical and advanced type of material culture and that they built boats and traveled widely around the world, but that this technical excellence brought them nothing but bad luck, so, preferring happiness to misery, they finally gave up this high material civilization. There may be a lot of truth in these traditions, for Pygmy fossils have been found in all parts of the world.

[1, p. 388]  

There are good reasons why pygmy fossils could be found worldwide, if accurate: certain circumstances tend to lead to advantages for relatively smaller individuals, leading to what is known as "island dwarfism". The opposite, in rare cases, also occurs, and is then known as "island giantism". However, "island" is a bit of a misnomer here, as any isolated group with limited resources may go down that road. Indeed, Pygmy fossils have been found in various places, but Murdock could provide some references! Does she think they all stem from pygmies in the Congo? If so we now know, by genetics, that this is not the case. If not, which ones does she think are related to the Congo pygmies? Why would she maintain such a claim in stark contrast to existing evidence? As it stands, in order to falsify Murdock's claim, the critic would have to check whether each and every pygmy fossil from around the world has a similar genome as the Congo pygmies have. This is well-nigh unfalsifiable, and thus bad science.

As stated above, genetics show that not all pygmies come from the same 'stock': it has been shown that Asian and African pygmies are not related, despite certain shared traits. This indicates that they are examples of convergent evolution. We also know the African pygmies have an internal divergence about 20 kyears ago, forming the Eastern and Western pygmy groups.

Finally, if the pygmies had a global culture, they either practiced very strict endogamy or we would find traces of pygmy genomes all over the world; attempts to map the genes of the world have not found any widespread pygmy substrate. Is this really what we would expect from a technologically advanced culture? Any other expectation would basically amount to claiming that they are not quite human.

Thus, Pygmy remains and culture are found around the globe, including from Egypt to India. In fact, according to Higgins, “The numerous circles which are found in India are said by the inhabitants to have been erected by a race of people called Chaeones or Chaons, who are said to have been pigmies.”

[1, p. 389] 

What Higgins - who is given as the source here - says, directly quoted from his work, is:

The numerous circles which are found in India are said by the inhabitants to have been erected by a race of people called Chaeones or Chaons, who are said to have been pigmies. Why they are supposed to be pigmies I cannot imagine; but the word Chaeon is only the aspirated Æon or the Greek Αηων, and has the meaning of cycle as well as emanation from the sun, and is thus a cyclop, one of the Piclo or of the Cyclops.[2, p. 135]

Higgins gives no source for such a claim, and even he himself admits doubt as to their being pygmies. His etymological reasoning at the end is such unsound linguistics that Murdock should have realized that the entire utterance is iffy. Tracing this statement down to any earlier source has been challenging, and not turned up any results no matter how many stones I have turned. At times, I am left to wonder if Higgins relied on some informant who took pleasure in feeding him fabrications.

The Pygmies, in reality, were revered in ancient cultures, especially by the Egyptians, as A. Churchward relates:

So closely were the facts of nature observed and registered by the Egyptians that the earliest divine men in their Mythology are portrayed as Pygmies, and the earliest form of the Human Mother was depicted with the characteristics of the Pygmy woman.

[1, p. 389] 

Higgins believed mankind has 'advanced' from an inferior, primitive pygmy stage; he essentially is here presenting the idea that the Egyptians had understood evolution, and that in doing so they had also understood that the pygmys were a primitive, ancient and inferior group. Churchward went on to develop this, and added a really curious racist twist (in order that what Churchward perceived as wisdom from India wouldn't originate with darker races, but rather with white inhabitants of a prehistoric lost civilization).

Churchward further says:

Ptah is represented in the form of a Pygmy, and his Ari are seven little Pygmies, the Egyptians having taken the type from the primordial, or first human evolved from the Anthropoid Ape in Africa.

Although they may be the oldest race, the Pygmies are in fact true human beings and evidently reached an advanced state long before the “giants” existed in large numbers. 

[1, p. 389]

Indeed, the pygmies being true human beings is quite well agreed on by every serious anthropologist. However, Murdock, by using sources that don't quite agree with this to us obvious truth, is put in a position where she has to explicitly state this obvious truth not to be associated with the racist stupidity of her sources. Churchward thought the pygmies closer to the (non-human) apes than to the rest of mankind.

Murdock further posits that the proto-Berbers were pygmies, and that remnants of ancient Egyptians are pygmy-sized - claims she provides no worthwhile sources for.

In the Pygmies can be found not only very ancient origins of human culture and religion but evidently a “missing link” between the black and white races as well. [...]

It is obvious that no resolution can be made as to the origins of human culture in India or Egypt, or even Europe, as waves of immigrants and invaders moved between these areas over a period of millennia. In reality, the Pygmies, for one, represent an even older culture that contains the mythos and ritual. Indeed, in our quest as to the ultimate source of Christianity, we are led to conclude that claims made by the Pygmies and others as to a previous global civilization are true. [1, p. 389]

The fallacies it takes Murdock to reach this conclusion - the shoddy evidence, the weak reasoning, the impressively nutty sources - is impressive.

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

[2] Higgins, Anacalypsis, vol II.