(Author’s note: This continues a series answering objections to the Christian worldview. A few weeks back I made a call for folks to send me their “best shot.” For the other posts in the series, simply follow the links and the pingbacks in the comments section.)
“The story of Jesus is merely a copy cat myth based on many ancient pagan religious cults, like the cult of Mithras, Horus, etc. It is doubtful that Jesus even existed!”
Ever hear that one? I have discussions with non-believers all the time who make that claim. A few in my Calling all skeptics thread claimed Jesus never existed. Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus probably never existed and that the stories about him were borrowed from pagan cults of dying/rising gods and adapted to the Jewish context?
I can’t tackle every insinuation of borrowing in this post, but I will tackle one. At any rate, the same principles apply when it comes to any allegation of borrowing.
One god mentioned specifically is Horus, the Egyptian ‘god of the sky.’ Some claim that Horus was born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, died, and was resurrected after three days. Many other possible parallels (and from other myths) are noted. At any rate, the point is that whoever “came up with” Jesus simply took aspects from Horus (and other myths) and wrote them into the Jesus story.
Know, first off, that you will struggle to find *one* New Testament scholar (whether Christian or not) or ancient historian who takes this position…I’m not talking about anyone who pontificates on Jesus, I’m not talking about your garden-variety-Internet-infidels (infidels.org) skeptic, and I’m not talking about the Zeitgeist the Movie guy…I’m talking a real scholar in that field. Richard Dawkins, for instance, is a biologist, not an ancient near east historian. Sam Harris is a philosopher, not a NT historian. Their position has been widely debunked in the field of NT-historical scholarship…Even the Jesus Seminar (which is comprised of the most left field/liberal/secular guys out there, only a few of which are actual scholars) doesn’t take that position.
Of course, as I pointed out in my last post, this doesn’t mean the “Jesus-never-existed” crowd is wrong (Sam Harris might have some accurate things to say, for instance), but it should be a MAJOR red flag.
The existence of Jesus is actually quite well attested outside the Bible.
To those who hold Jesus never existed: let’s say I take your argument at face value–that the early Christians thought of him as a mythic figure, and only made him a historic personage around the turn of the second century or later. My question is: what possible reason could they have had for doing so? What good did a historic Jesus do them that a mythic Jesus didn’t also offer? All the opponents of orthodox Christianity (gnosticism, for example) held he really existed, worked miracles, had disciples, and died on a Roman cross. What would be the use of the change?
Some ask, “if Jesus was such an important person, why didn’t more Roman historians make mention of him?” The thing is that all the relevant, non-Jewish historians did make mention of him! There are only four possible Roman historical sources for his existence: Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Velleius Paterculus. Dio wrote in the 3rd century, and the events happened outside of Velleius’s local, so we shouldn’t expect him to mention Jesus. The only two candidates left for relevant, Roman historical sources both make reference to Jesus.
What about Jewish sources? Again, the only two candidates available–Josephus and the Rabbinical writings–both mention Jesus.
Some, of course, throw out Josephus, but this is hasty. First, that position is often merely asserted, not argued, and given that the vast majority of scholarship accepts the notion that Josephus makes two separate references to Jesus, ya need to do more than assert. You actually need to wrestle with the historical data, not just give it a hand wave.
Steve Mason, a Josephus scholar, states:
“Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian’s writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus’ account of Pilate’s tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus’ voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo’s text. To be sure, many of the “pseudepigrapha” that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity.” (p.170-171)
“Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus’ miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus’ appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus’ messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about “the Messiah,” whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term “Messiah” for Josephus’ readers. In short, Agapius’ version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers.” (p.172)
“It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus’ statements about Jesus’ healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus’ reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus’ existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings.” (p.174f)
This is all in addition to the second century sources (Pliny, Thallus, Celsus, Galen, Lucian, and Mara Bar Sarapion–all non-Christian), and numerous Christian sources.
If you are going to throw all that out…geez, might as well doubt the existence of pretty much anyone in antiquity. Why set the bar so high? Indeed, a person of antiquity’s existence is often established on much, much less, even sometimes as small as a few paragraphs. Methinks youse guys protest too much.
**NOTE: for the section on the extra-biblical sources about Jesus, I liberally used Glenn Miller’s primer, found here. It’s excellent…go read the whole thing.
For another treatment of the ancient scene on Jesus, go see J.P Holding’s treatment.
Outside the Bible sources shouldn’t have to be used anyway…the books and letters in the Bible are valuable historical documents.
Here, there’s no need to assume the books of the Bible are God’s word–simply take them as ancient documents of history, much like any other writing of the time…The books of the NT serve quite well as history. After all, in the four gospels, we have four separate testimonies from men who lived with and followed Jesus. Two of the writers were eyewitnesses, the other two heavily relied upon testimony from eyewitnesses. All were written within a generation after Christ’s death. You won’t find sources like that for any other ancient historical figure that we know existed.
You might not buy them as gospel truth, but if you reject them as historical sources, then to be consistent, you’d have to reject 99% of all ancient documents from that era about ANYONE.
Holding provides another two links, this time on the historical veracity of the New Testament documents: one on textual criticism and one on dates and authorship.
On the so-called “missing gospels.” (MP3 audio)
Some, in response, like to point out errors or contradictions in the Bible. “See? The Bible is bunk,” they reply.
The veracity of many of these “contradictions” is debatable, (Vestrup weighs in too), but let me assume these folks are right, just for the sake of conversation. What follows? From
1) The Bible is completely fraught with contradictions and errors, and therefore is unreliable
can we get to
2) We should doubt Jesus even existed.
No. You can’t get 2) from 1). It is a classic non sequitur.
(The following illustration I’m borrowing from Brett Kunkle) Imagine a book summarizing the life of Abe Lincoln. When we dive into the book, we find errors and contradictions. The book claims Lincoln was the fifth president and that he was president during World War I. Does it follow from this that Lincoln never existed? No. Apply the same principle to Jesus’ existence.
At any rate, if you think the Bible is such contradictory bunk, bring forth a contradiction and lets have a go at it.
Back to the subject: in my research, I could not see any of the parallels commonly noted. It seems to me like they have been pulled out of thin air.
This theory connecting Jesus to Horus was popularized by a few writers from the early 1900s and late 1800s (Gerald Massey is perhaps the most well-known), and a few modern writers have picked up their ideas, but aside from that, its pretty sparse from my understanding.
From what I read (4 internet sources, the Routledge Companion of Egyptian Mythology, and two other Egyptology books–all non-Christian sources, plus one atheistic site–infidels.org, and two specifically Christian sites), here’s what I found:
Horus did NOT have 12 disciples–in some accounts, he has 4 semi-divine devotees, in some he has 16 followers, in others the number is an unlimited number of blacksmiths that he went into battle with.
He was NOT resurrected: After being stung by a scorpion, his mother’s grief and some prayers/magic spells brought him back to life, but that’s about it. In other accounts, he merges with Re, the sun god, and is “reborn” each morning. This is light years away from a Christian concept of resurrection.
As far as Osiris, Horus’s father, is concerned, Seth killed him and tore his body into 14 pieces. Isis recovered 13 of those pieces (minus his penis), and put him back together. He then became ruler of the underworld. This is a sort of “mumified” god. Both Horus’ revivification and Osiris’ re-fashioned-body-mumification are a HUGE differences from a full, bodily, eternal, resurrection from a tomb, to the land of the living.
He was NOT crucified: Seth suffocated/drowned his father, Osiris, though, in a box. Horus was stung by a scorpion (in some accounts).
He was NOT born of a virgin: Isis isn’t even fully human! She conceived him with Osiris…in fact, some pictures show her, in falcon form, hovering over a dead Osiris and an erect phallus/penis-like object….most “miracle” births in pagan religions, in fact, are VERY sexually charged!!!
Horus was to avenge his father’s death…but this is a million miles away from what Christ was all about!
NONE of the secular sources I surveyed even MENTIONED the alleged parallels with Christ…and they were ALL reputable sources, a few of which included primary sources. If it was so obvious, these authorities would have caught it and at least mentioned it. Even the guys at infidels.org debunked this!
Like I asked above, how can someone make a parallel between Horus and Jesus?
Be careful, because some authors, in a rush to make a parallel, use Christian terms loosely when talking about these ancient myths. For example, some might say that Horus’ birth was a “virgin” birth, when it was anything but that. Others might say Osiris was “resurrected” when it was closer to a “revivification” than a Christian resurrection. Just because an author today uses the same *term* doesn’t mean that it carries the same meaning. S/he must extensively argue how the term has the same meaning; s/he must *show* it, not just merely apply the Christian term retroactively.
To establish that borrowing occurred, what you’d have to do is show that the *complex structures* of each “myth” parallel each other. A historical link would need to be established first (a plausible scenario about HOW such borrowing could have occured.). The alleged parallels must be striking and difficult to account for outside of the hypothesis of borrowing. The details must be used with the same meaning. Similar ideas in the parallels must be central to each story–not peripheral elements.
These are the secular standards used in any case of borrowing/copycatting. And even with all this, you will still find many scholars unsure of borrowing!
The MOST you can get with Osiris/Horus/Isis/Christ are very few completely superficial similarities, all of which can be explained by noting humanity’s natural religious urge, which Christians see as a gift from God. Noting that Osiris was a “god of gods,” that Christ was “Lord of Lords,” that Osiris/Horus died and came back to life as well as Christ, and that Horus’ conception was somewhat mysterious as was Christ’s–well, these are “parallels” in name only–they are waaaaay too general to show even a hint of borrowing.
So, should I be impressed with a list of so-called “parallels,” (with no explanation…just a list, mind you) complete with an assertion that Jesus never existed? Like I’ve said in other posts, anyone can waltz in with an air of confidence and run his/her mouth. Backing it up with actual reasoning is much more difficult.
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar).
The weakness to the original argument, is that unlike science in which your claims have to be demonstrable, Historic claims get significantly murkier in their required evidence the further back you go due to the lack of primary sources.
That said, with a lot of the major historic figures there is evidence other than stories or writings. For example, we have a fair idea of how Ceasar looked because there are surviving statues of him, whereas with Jesus, if a historic Jesus existed, we wouldn’t know how he looked due to the lack of any visual representations of him.
Now the thing with Josephus’ writings, if I remember the original posting correctly – his argument was that Josephus wasn’t a contemporary of Jesus, not that the passages were interpolations (Though I hold the view that they very probably are.)
With how many texts that describe Jesus after the fact, well that fits with cargo cults, including in how differently they describe John Frum. Now we don’t theorise a historic John Frum (John Frum America to see why) but there are a lot of people with stories of him existing.
Hence you need better evidence than Josephus, and the gospels if history was scientific. You need some contemporary sources – and there aren’t any.
But of course, history doesn’t operate on 100% reliable evidence. It has to rely on unreliable evidence and hope to get to some sort of truth because for long tracts of history, unreliable evidence is all we have got.
Hence while Jesus may be questionable due to arguments from silence, he is accepted as a historic character. That acceptance is being chipped away over time, but for now, he is considered about as solid as Socrates.
The copycat line fails on two levels. Its premise is false (“Christianity borrowed essential doctrines from mystery religions”) and even if the premise was true it wouldn’t disprove the resurrection.
This was thoroughly debunked in the 20th century but has been given new life by the Internet and people who accept its claims uncritically. Ever notice how they don’t know the basics about what the mystery religions really believed and don’t hold those writings to the same standard as the Bible?
I’m wondering what you think about the origins of slavery in ancient Christianity. You know of course that in our bible slavery is OK.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
Ephesians 6:5
“You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. . … Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them”
Titus 2
And you know that ancient pagans had slavery too, right? And pagans had slavery first – you know that?
So here’s my question: The Christian idea of slavery, where did that idea come from?
Does God really think it’s OK to own people?
Did the early Christians invent the idea of slavery all on their own?
Did the early Christians copy the idea of slavery from the culture around them?
Hi Bino – this might answer some of your questions about the Bible and slavery – http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/pg82404
I agree with you that Zeitgeist is crap. Bob Price and Richard Carrier, however, qualify as “real” Biblical historians, and as such I think the mythicist hypothesis deserves to be engaged on its merits rather than simply dismissed.
You also might want to avoid citing J.P. Holding if you’re demanding credentials; I think Holding is a prison librarian or something — he’s certainly not an academic or a scholar.
Chapter 4 of Lee Stobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus has a ton of stuff about the copycat myth as well.
Neil,
I failed to be clear. I apologize. I don’t have some questions about the bible and slavery, I have a question. One question. The Christian idea of slavery, where did that idea come from?
So as not to get ahead of ourselves I didn’t mention this before: After you answer that question, I’m going to ask you about the consistency of your analysis. I mean your analysis of the origin of early Christian ideas. Slavery. Miracles. Raised from the dead. Do you use the same criteria to analyze the origin of each of these ideas in Christianity?
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
Bino, I don’t follow. If you read the link you’ll see that “slavery” can mean different things (e.g., bondservant vs. U.S. style slavery).
All the best in your search.
• Bino, I don’t follow.
Then it seems already we’ve identified one area where your theory of Christian – Hellenistic syncretism fails to explain the data. Good to know.
Let me ask you now about another matter, the theology of prophetic dreams. You recall Mt 2, and the angel from God speaking to Joseph in a dream. Divine prophetic dreams are a Christian theology. As someone interested in the Christian myth theory you no doubt know dozens of examples of divine prophetic dreams from Greco-roman-egyptian-etc. theology.
So, to summarize the facts: The heathens had the divine dream theology first, the Christians had it second.
Question: How does your theory explain this? Does this not suggest syncretism to you?
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
Bino, you must have me confused with someone who wishes to waste time with incoherent ramblings.
I see. You yourself haven’t thought it through. But you guess Jesus is not a copycat — after all JP Holding says so.
Good to know.
This is some powerful apology you got goin’ here Brother Neil. Why don’t you print up a copy and take it to church, show everybody how clever you are.
folks,
I just realized that I responded to some of your points in the “no evidence for God?” post. Rather than recapitulate here, I just refer you to the comment in that post.
Rich
Just responding to your question of “What do I mean by scientific” –
Requiring physical evidence to corroborate something as fact – testimony is not enough to firmly establish something. Darwin for example, couldn’t just say “We all evolved from a common ancestor” he had to come up with evidence.
Later scientists would corroborate his basic theory while revising a lot of the details, with fossils, genetics, studying animal husbandry, even racial differences in humans to some extent.
Some races are more prone to some conditions, such as sickle cell anemia in people whose ancestors lived in high malaria areas – the Malaria parasite has a problem dealing with sickle cells thus giving sufferers an advantage – but outside of malaria areas, sickle cell anemia’s upside suddenly doesn’t matter, it is just a painful and debilitating condition.
Evolution has shown a predictive element, as pests have become immune to poisons, bacteria become immune to anti-biotics, even that bacteria that evolved to eat nylon (A fairly recent invention) have arisen.
With history, you need the best available evidence, which includes evidence that isn’t all that reliable.
While one can, as history has gotten more reliably recorded, begin to see trends, the predictive power of history is somewhat more difficult to ascertain given the amount of history that is in fact unreliably recorded, and the impacts of cultural change.
Hence, with Jesus the idea of a historical Jesus is accepted, because what highly unreliable testimony we have says he existed and there isn’t actually anything contradicting that.
But if we were being scientific in that, we would need stronger evidence to say Jesus existed.
Pingback: In the Meantime « The Pugnacious Irishman
Josephus? bAAAAAH…
Highly unreliable? Are you a historian? Because virtually all historians who examined the evidence agree on the following:
- Jesus died on a cross.
- his disciples believe He rose from the dead.
- that the Apostle Paul converted from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity’s greatest advocated, including writing Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and more. These put essential Christian doctrines and beliefs within 20-30 years of the crucifixion.
- After the crucifixion, Jesus’ brother James went from being a skeptic to a believer, a leader in the early church and a martyr.
That, and more, provide plenty of evidence to me for our faith.
And you ignore the science that has been unreliably recorded. Evolution is an embarrassment in this respect.
Evolution isn’t so predictive. It is a tautology, where no matter what you see you claim it evolved that way. It had to, because evolution is true, right?
It reminds me of when evolutionists try to rationalize why homosexual behavior and abortion are natural and moral in an evolutionary worldview. They point to animals (circular reference) and rationalize how it helps perpetutate the species (question begging). But what is amusing is their certainty. It is as if the situation were reversed and humans never had abortions or exhibited homosexual behavior that the evolutionists would be asking, “Hey, where is it? We expected it to be here because of A, B and C.”
Pingback: The Devil is in the Details: Nightline Faceoff on Satan « The Pugnacious Irishman
Hi Rich
I really enjoyed your post, I’ve never understood why its important to some Atheists to try to disproved Jesus’ existence. I agree that there is enough historical documents to prove that Jesus was a real person. I’ve also heard of the whole borrowing from Egyptian mythology thing, but I’ve never research it. I think you did a very good job of of showing the difference between Jesus & Horus. You must have done hours of research.. Good job
P.S I hope this doesn’t offend any one I didn’t know that Egyptian mythology was so funny the part about Horus being reanimated with only 13 parts *giggles*
Pingback: Skeptics Answered: More on the Bible « The Pugnacious Irishman
I’ll have a go at it. Why are there two seperate creation accounts? Why does the word God come from Elohim which means Gods? Why did God command bloody sacrifice in many places, and then say He never commanded it? Why did Jesus tell his follower in one gospel to take shoes and a staff, but in another gospel tell them not too? Why was he crucified at the 3rd hour in one gospel and the 6th hour in another? See, I believe in God, and I made myself fall in love with Jesus and grasp what He had done for me. Yet, we have so-called christians practicing holidays or traditions of men in his name, and we have the playing church on sun-day and neglecting the sabbath. We have Paul who states we are under law, ooops we are not under law. Then James says yup do the law because sin is the transgression of the law you vain man. What gives? Come on now, let us reason together. Men corrupted the book. I am not saying the Messiah is not real, but I am saying that someone went to pain-staking lengths to make us doubt it. Perhaps all the pagan myths were satan’s counterfit to doof us with the real Messiah. I don’t know, but the fact remains there are at least 120 contradiction in the bible. Namely with the fact that sometimes Israel is led by one God named Yahuwah, another God named AL or EL, and sometimes by Gods plural. With all that captivity and paganism going on I think they mixed up the gods when they wrote the scriptures.
Trina,
I can answer a few of your questions now, and then I’ll point you to a fabulous site that discusses the original topic of this post as well as many other topics, such as alleged contradictions in the Bible.
From what I understand of Hebrew (which is limited, mind you), Elohim is a what is called a “superlative plural.” Its meaning has more to do with showing greater importance or power than being plural in number.
If you’re worried about taking shoes off, I think you’re splitting hairs. The gospels were four different accounts, two of which were research projects (see the beginning of the gospel of Luke, for example). There may have been some small discrepancies, but as far as the main meaning of the gospels, they are certainly in sync.
Some Christian holidays (such as Christmas and Easter) have been overrun by many pagan or secular ideas (bunnies & chicks have nothing to do with the resurrection, but are symbols of fertility, the 25th of December pointed to right after or the day of the winter solstice in Christ’s time, which was when the sun started to be “resurrected.” Many Christian historians don’t believe Christ was actually born then).
Paul is actually quite clear in what he means. We are not under the law, but under grace. But that doesn’t mean that the law is opposed to the purposes of God. He compares the law to a “paidagogon” in Greek, which is a disciplinarian. The purpose of a “paidagogon” in Hellenistic culture was that of bringing up a child and keeping him/her in line until they were “of age.” Coming of age would be like finally knowing what grace is. You no longer need the disciplinarian, but you don’t forget what he/she taught you, as those lessons are useful for living in general. Paul says the same thing about the Law – it’s not opposed to God’s purposes, but we aren’t under the rod of the disciplinarian, either. It’s something we live out because we know it’s right (or at least we’re supposed to).
James, I believe, is saying much the same thing, but uses different phrasing. Yes, the law (and works) are important in that doing good things to others is part of really understanding what grace is. Grace is not a free pass for excusing all behavior. James is stating that a person that says, “Hey, I believe that Christ died for me and will forgive my sins. I think I’ll go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people. But it’s okay, because I’m eternally saved,” hasn’t actually been saved because his/her heart isn’t with God – it’s still with sin. There’s no relationship there, and relationship is inseparable to Grace (at least that’s what I get from it).
As for other names of God, He actually has a few hundred (I believe) throughout the entire Bible. But the biblical idea of a name is more like a reputation than a specific stamp on a birth certificate. They are different views into who He is. Look throughout the Old and New Testaments, and you’ll find “He/She/They named him/her “xyz” because “abc.” The Hebrew names were often close in meaning or phonetic sound to a place, circumstance, hope for the child’s future, etc. “Jacob,” meaning “deceiver” was given a new name, “Israel,” after struggling with God all night. “Israel” means “struggles with God.” And so has the history of his descendants been – a long struggle. The names that God has are insights into characteristics about God. Since God is infinite, the fact that there are many names attributed to Him makes sense. They show some of the many facets of His character.
Anyway, if you want to read more, go here. Hope this has helped!