本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Senior lecturer in Ancient History Chris Forbes of Macquarie University has severely criticised part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie. [25]. He notes that Ra, not Horus, is the Egyptian sun god, and that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that the pun between "son" and "sun" does not work in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and that the December 25th birth is not part of any of the myths - including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known. He also criticises the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticised as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages, but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalised it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on). Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true." [25]

以上拷贝粘贴，有时间可以翻译一下更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net