"The Jesus Mysteries"

OK, so I now have Guthrie's book which I talked about here: http://theophilusblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/jesus-mysteries.html, and lo and behold, WKC Guthrie does refer to Otto Kern's concern that the amulet on the cover of their best-selling book, "The Jesus Mysteries", is a forgery("Orpheus and Greek Religion", WKC Guthrie, Methuen, 1954, pg. 278). Compare this with the statement in bold below.

"Our reply to the first charge is to ask for references to support the assertion that the object has ‘long been suspected of being a fake.’ We know of no such suspicions, nor did we come across any in our research. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, has the object ever been proved to be a fake. And it is hard to see how anything might be proved one way or the other now, for sadly it appears that the amulet no longer exists.

Our reaction to the second charge of calculated dishonesty is one of indignation. This is not only the lowest form of ad hominem attack, it is also libellous. Neither of our sources mentions any doubts about the authenticity of the amulet, nor do they refer to any other scholar who had expressed such a view. Both Eisler and Guthrie clearly accept the object as genuine as they advance theories about its meaning and significance. This would be absurd if either had any doubts about its authenticity. The fact that neither professor expresses such doubts, or refers to doubts that may have been expressed by any other scholars, undermines the charge that the object ‘has long been suspected of being a fake.’ If Kern had pronounced the object a fake then why do neither Eisler and Guthrie refer to this? We can only conclude that they were either unfamiliar with his work, or that they found his evidence unconvincing and not worth repeating.

We are now making enquiries as to the best way to seek redress for our complaints and to have the Wikipedia article changed. At the very least we suggest that it should have a header warning readers that ‘The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."

Once again, here's a link to this essay in full:https://www.timothyfreke.com/OrphicRing-Stone.html

The current Wikipedia article on "The Jesus Mysteries", here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Mysteries

And a review written by the fellow who wrote the Wikipedia article to which Freke and Gandy are referring, here:http://www.tektonics.org/books/jesmystrvw.html

I have a few comments:

Number one, Timothy Freke says in the above quotation that Guthrie does not refer to anyone who had concerns about the amulet, yet Guthrie quite clearly does.

Number two, Freke refers to "Venerable Bede" as a fundamentalist Christian at his blog here , when Bede is an evolutionist who doesn't believe in Biblical inerrancy. Yeah, he's a real "because the Bible tells me so" type Christian.

Number three, while it is true that the earliest Christian artwork depicting a crucified Christ dates from the sixth century, there are four written depictions of a crucified Christ that even by Freke and Gandy's own admission are centuries earlier than the amulet which is dated to the fourth century, (that is, if it is not a fake). I'm hoping that Freke and Gandy have heard of them...they're called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. ;)

I have "The Jesus Mysteries" coming on an interlibrary loan. Looking forward to reading this. I am going to correct what I said earlier by saying I'll try my best to read this with an open mind.