![\"isis](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/madonna_iside2.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The goddess Isis<\/strong> as a model for the Virgin Mary<\/strong>? That’s what mythicist religious comparativism claims when it deals with the figure of Mary. But several scholars<\/strong> have presented strong evidence against the alleged parallels<\/strong> between the Egyptian goddess Isis and Mary of Nazareth.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n For centuries, the mythicist movement<\/strong> has tried to deny the historicity of Jesus by proposing bizarre parallels with a wide range of ancient mythological deities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In recent decades, however, there has been a kind of surrender<\/strong> among proponents of religious comparativism targeting Jesus of Nazareth<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Their arguments have dried up, their theses remain unproven and unprovable<\/strong>, and scholars of Christian origins\u2014regardless of their personal faith, including atheists\u2014have published dozens of academic studies and popular books refuting them.<\/p>\n The eminent scholar Tryggve Mettinger<\/strong> (Lund University), at the conclusion of his comprehensive comparative study on pre-Christian deities and myths, decisively affirms the \u201cuniqueness<\/strong> of Jesus of Nazareth in the history of religions\u201d<\/i>1<\/a><\/sup>T.N.D. Mettinger<\/b>, The Riddle of Resurrection. Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East<\/i>, Almqvist & Wiksell International 2001, pp. 220, 221<\/span>.<\/p>\n The only remaining avenue for comparativists is to focus on parallels<\/strong> involving other Christian figures, especially Mary of Nazareth<\/mark><\/strong>, the mother of Jesus.<\/p>\n <\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/br> —————————<\/p>\n [back to index<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n So who exactly are the mythicists and the current proponents of religious comparativism between Mary of Nazareth<\/strong> and pagan mythological figures<\/strong>?<\/p>\n <\/a> [back to index<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n No discussion would be complete without mentioning the anti-Catholic Presbyterian theologian Alexander Hislop<\/b>, author of the 1857 bestseller The Two Babylons<\/i>. His core thesis was that the Catholic Church is the product of a millennia-long conspiracy<\/strong> and a continuation of the pagan religion of ancient Babylon<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Needless to say, Hislop\u2019s work is highly fanciful<\/strong> and devoid of any real historical or anthropological value.<\/p>\n Interestingly, after Hislop\u2019s research was discredited<\/strong> by the academic community, one of his most enthusiastic contemporary supporters, evangelical pastor Ralph Woodrow<\/b>, conducted his own research and concluded that Hislop\u2019s book was deeply flawed and scandalously wrong<\/strong>.<\/p>\n He withdrew his book Babylon Mystery Religion<\/i> (1966) from circulation and published The Babylon Connection?<\/i> in 1997 instead.<\/p>\n In the latter work, Woodrow\u2014still an evangelical\u2014dedicated an entire chapter to debunking Hislop\u2019s arguments about Mary of Nazareth<\/strong>2<\/a><\/sup>Woodrow R.<\/b>, The Babylon Connection?<\/i>, Woodrow Evangelistic Association 1997, pp. 33\u201338<\/span>, expressing regret that evangelicals have used such arguments to attack the Catholic Church\u2019s relationship with Mary and apologizing<\/strong> for having once promoted these views.<\/p>\n Though still evangelical, Woodrow no longer associates<\/strong> the Catholic Church with paganism.<\/p>\n <\/a> [back to index<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n In Italy<\/strong>, one of the few prominent figures of this niche mythicist current is anthropologist Marino Niola<\/strong>, who often appears in the media portraying Italy as essentially pagan and accusing Christianity of having \u201cmerely superimposed<\/strong> Christ, the Virgin, and the saints over the gods of Olympus\u201d<\/i>3<\/a><\/sup>Niola M.<\/b>, La Dea in esilio vestita da Madonna<\/i>, Repubblica 08\/2024<\/span>.<\/p>\n As Niola himself admits4<\/a><\/sup>Niola M.<\/b>, La Dea in esilio vestita da Madonna<\/i>, Repubblica 08\/2024<\/span>, these ideas are borrowed from Neoplatonic anthropologist James George Frazer<\/strong> and his work The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion<\/i> (1915). In it, Frazer applied Darwinism to cultural history, drawing extreme comparisons between wildly disparate elements\u2014medieval texts, Indian rituals, and Scottish customs\u2014often relying on second-hand sources.<\/p>\n Niola\u2019s reliance on Frazer is a massive own goal<\/strong>, or perhaps he simply doesn’t realise that Frazer is still regarded as something of a laughingstock<\/strong> within anthropology.<\/p>\n As Fabio Dei<\/b>, professor of Cultural Anthropology at the University of Pisa, aptly put it, the \u201cthought\u201d<\/i> of James George Frazer<\/strong> must be \u201cunderstood as \u2018mythical,\u2019 based more on analogical shortcuts<\/strong> than on clear and distinct concepts\u201d<\/i>5<\/a><\/sup>Dei F.<\/b>, Il mito in Frazer e nelle poetiche del modernismo<\/i>, in Leghissa G. & Manera E.<\/b>, Filosofie del mito del Novecento<\/i>, Carocci 2015, p. 79<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dei further notes that Frazer\u2019s writing is characterised by \u201ca language and theoretical framework that are still nineteenth-century<\/strong>, unable to engage with contemporary academic debates, much less anthropological ones\u201d<\/i>6<\/a><\/sup>Dei F.<\/b>, Il mito in Frazer e nelle poetiche del modernismo<\/i>, in Leghissa G. & Manera E.<\/b>, Filosofie del mito del Novecento<\/i>, Carocci 2015, p. 79<\/span>.<\/p>\n In his \u201ccrystal-clear nineteenth-century rationalism\u201d<\/i>, Frazer sought to \u201cdemonstrate the illusory nature of revealed religions and undermine the authenticity of Christianity<\/strong>, treating it as one of many late cults stemming from the archaic mythic-ritual complex\u201d<\/i>7<\/a><\/sup>Dei F.<\/b>, Il mito in Frazer e nelle poetiche del modernismo<\/i>, in Leghissa G. & Manera E.<\/b>, Filosofie del mito del Novecento<\/i>, Carocci 2015, p. 78<\/span>. Yet even his contemporaries saw in Frazer\u2019s grand-scale evolutionary and comparative framework \u201cthe embarrassing legacy of a prehistoric phase in the discipline\u201d<\/i>8<\/a><\/sup>Dei F.<\/b>, Il mito in Frazer e nelle poetiche del modernismo<\/i>, in Leghissa G. & Manera E.<\/b>, Filosofie del mito del Novecento<\/i>, Carocci 2015, p. 75<\/span>.<\/p>\n Indeed, from the very beginning, Frazer\u2019s work was criticised as \u201cembarrassing\u201d in academic circles. Anthropologist Godfrey Lienhardt<\/strong> confirmed that even during Frazer\u2019s lifetime, his colleagues \u201clargely distanced themselves<\/strong> from his theories and opinions\u201d<\/i>, and that his influence \u201coccurred more in the literary world than in the academic one\u201d<\/i>9<\/a><\/sup>G. Lienhardt<\/b>, Frazer’s anthropology: science and sensibility<\/i>, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 1993, pp. 1\u201312<\/span>.<\/p>\n For readers interested in detailed critiques of Frazer\u2019s The Golden Bough<\/strong><\/i>\u2014the Bible of every contemporary mythicist\u2014we recommend, among many, the studies of historian Timothy Larsen<\/strong>10<\/a><\/sup>Larsen T.<\/b>, “James George Frazer”, The Slain God: Anthropologists and the Christian Faith<\/i>, Oxford University Press 2014<\/span> and David Chidester<\/strong>11<\/a><\/sup>Chidester D.<\/b>, Empire of Religion: Imperialism & Comparative Religion<\/i>, University of Chicago Press 2014<\/span>, who expose Frazer\u2019s deception<\/strong> in applying Christian ideas, theology, and terminology from Western Europe to non-Christian cultures, with the aim of distorting<\/strong> those cultures to make them appear more Christian\u2014thus enabling forced comparisons between pagan and Christian religious figures.<\/p>\n —————————<\/p>\n [back to index<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n The most common religious comparison involving Mary of Nazareth<\/strong> is with the Egyptian goddess Isis<\/mark><\/strong>.<\/p>\n This notion is especially prevalent within Protestant circles<\/strong>, where it is believed that Isis served as the model<\/strong> for the Christian image of the Virgin Mary. According to those who accuse Catholics of syncretism, when pagan converts flooded the Church during the 4th century, they brought with them<\/strong> their cultural and religious practices.<\/p>\n This theory is so sweeping<\/strong> that it certainly includes some elements of truth (inculturation<\/i> is a phenomenon that the Catholic Church finds not at all embarrassing<\/strong> and has openly discussed<\/a><\/em><\/strong> for a long time), but as it is commonly framed, it could be applied to virtually any aspect of Christian worship.<\/p>\n We should instead examine the matter in detail and analyze each individual element<\/strong> allegedly borrowed from paganism.<\/p>\n This dossier explores in depth the alleged assimilation<\/strong> of the cult of Isis into that of Mary of Nazareth.<\/p>\n It must be noted from the outset that those who argue for such assimilation, apart from a few shared epithets (“Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven”), never provide<\/strong> any compelling parallels between the Christian veneration of Mary of Nazareth and the cult of Isis. Moreover, Isis and Mary were worshipped in entirely different ways<\/strong>: the former as a full-fledged goddess, the latter as significant primarily through her connection to her Son.<\/p>\n <\/a> [back to index<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n Several scholars have focused on a visual similarity<\/strong> between Isis and Mary\u2014an argument that does hold some weight and has led some to theorize a deliberate adoption<\/strong> of pagan worship practices by Christians.<\/p>\n The key connection identified lies in iconographic representations of Mary and Isis<\/strong> nursing their sons<\/strong> (Jesus and Horus). These are specifically known as: Virgo lactans<\/i> (or “Nursing Madonna “<\/i> or “Madonna Lactans”<\/i>) and Isis lactans<\/i> (“Isis nursing”).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The archaeologist and priest Vincent Tran Tam Tinh<\/strong> was one of the foremost experts on Isis iconography and concluded as early as the 1970s that the only links<\/strong> between Mary of Nazareth and Isis are limited to these two types of images12<\/a><\/sup>Tran Tam Tinh V.<\/b>, Isis lactans. Corpus des monuments gr\u00e9co-romains d\u2019Isis allaitant Harpocrate<\/i>, Brill 1973<\/span>.<\/p>\n Tran Tam Tinh\u2019s work has been recently revisited by archaeologist Sabrina Higgins<\/strong> in her comparative study of the Virgin Mary and the goddess Isis:
\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\nTHE VIRGIN MARY AND THE GODDESS ISIS: THE DOSSIER<\/a><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n\nTable of Contents<\/strong><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n1. RELIGIOUS COMPARATIVISM: WHO ARE THE MYTHICISTS?<\/a><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n1.1 Alexander Hislop<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n
\n <\/p>\n1.2 James George Frazer<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n2. MARY OF NAZARETH AND THE EGYPTIAN GODDESS ISIS<\/a><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n2.1 Iconographic Parallels between Isis and the Virgin Mary<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n