There are a number of people who have come to the conclusion that not only did Jesus not exist, the story we do have in the Gospels is based completely on pagan myths. There are a number of god-men that offered as options and one of them is Orpheus. It does not help that there seems to have been some sort of early Christian building that had a mosaic of Orpheus as a picture of Christ. Jas Elsner in the March/April 2009 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review does a good job of disproving the theory that Orpheus is used as a type of Christ or that the myth had anything to do with the Christian story. Elsner concludes:
For more than a century since the discovery of the Orpheus in the Jerusalem mosaic, he has been playing his music to a series of chimeras created by unproven and unprovable scholarly fantasies, and he has masqueraded for longer than he deserves under the name of Jesus. It is simpler and more economical to assume that the figure was made to be Orpheus when he was originally laid out on a floor of elegant late-antique Hellenism, whose imagery would not have been repugnant to the probably Christian but potentially Jewish patrons and users of the room over whose floor he presided.
Elsner also does a good job of dealing with some of the parallels in art between Gospel stories and pagan myths. There are paintings of the three magi from Matthew wearing clothes similar to Mithras because of the common Persian connection. That does not mean the story of the magi comes from Mithras (despite what Peter Gandy says) but that the artists drew on the Persian styles they knew from Mithraism. Elsner pokes a lot of holes in the theories of dependence by the Jesus Myth people. You can purchase the full article by Elsner here.
14 responses so far ↓
Benjamin Steele // March 28, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
You are correct that, for Christian apologetics, “It does not help that there seems to have been some sort of early Christian building that had a mosaic of Orpheus as a picture of Christ.” Nonetheless, it is a fact. And images like this are numerous.
Showing a pagan parallel doesn’t prove a Christian borrowing from Paganism, but the cumulative evidence is immense. Nothing is proved absolutely in that we can only speak of probabilities. Specific examples are only telling in relation to other examples. This is why scholars of comparative religion and comparative mythology tend to provide many examples to back up any hypothetical connection. To argue against the connection, you would need to argue in detail against the whole body of evidence.
Anyways, what all of this does show is that early Christians were knowledgeable of other religions and incoporated into Christianity motifs from those religions. Also, it causes one to suspect that the incorporating went further.
These Pagan images weren’t merely stylistic conventions. Within the Christianized Pagan images, there are obvious Pagan mythological motifs. Let me use some examples from another article I found at the Biblical Archaeology Review website.
http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/pagan-imagery.asp
The use of the image of Helios within both Judaism and Christianity is telling because it goes beyond imagery. Some of the respectable early Church fathers referred to Jesus as the “sun”. This was simply a common way in the Pagan world to refer to a savior god-man, but it also entails a complex solar theology that was pervasive throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
More relevant to this blog are the images of the Orpheus-Christ. Orpheus descends into the underworld and this same motif was used by Christians. Significantly, as far as I know, this motif isn’t supported by Christian scripture even though it was found within early Christian tradition. If it didn’t come from scripture, where did it come from? Maybe the same place the images came from. Also, the descent into the underworld was another common motif of solar mythologies in general.
The article also states outright that Christians borrowed the image of Mary nursing baby Jesus from the Egyptians. Isis was one of the most popular deities worshipped in the Roman Empire. Temples, shrines, statues, and icons of her were found all across Europe. As you know, many have theorized the Black Madonnas were originally Isis statues. Murdock spends about a hundred pages detailing the similarities between Isis and Mary. She does this by referring to Egyptian scholarship including that of Christian scholars, and she analyzes the relevant hieroglyphics of virgin birth nativities. Hieroglyphics are important to keep in mind because they’re not merely images and artistic styles but also a religious language based in religious concepts.
So, you seem to be admitting that early Christians borrowed imagery from the Pagans. Also, I think I noticed in another blog you admitted that Christians borrowed their holidays from Pagans. Are you trying to argue that all of this is mere superficial detail? If you took awasy all of the Pagan elements, what would be left?
All of the elements of Christianity can be found in prior Pagan religions: historical god-men, virgin births, slaughter of the babes, resurrection deities, salvific messages, and the list goes on and on. Some of these elements preceded Christianity by thousands of years.
No one can prove that there wasn’t a historical Jesus and no one can prove there was. Even if you could prove a historical Jesus, it doesn’t disprove that the stories of him were partly lifted from Pagan mythology. Removing the Paganism won’t prove the Good News of Christ’s coming to earth. Paganism and Christianity have become so entangled that I would argue they’re practically fused together. Considering what may be original to Christianity is important. But, ultimately, that may be more of question for faith than for scholarship.
Despite your criticisms of Harpur’s scholarship, why not embrace his vision? Wouldn’t a Christ figure that revealed himself to all cultures all over the world be more inspiring than a historical figure that no one of significance took notice of while he was alive? Anyways, plenty of reputable scholarship can be found elsewhere (such as in the Biblical Archaeology Review article).
The other article you linked, I couldn’t read because I don’t have the money to spend. If you could tell me the basic argument, I could respond.
Stephen Bedard // March 28, 2009 at 9:40 pm |
The reason I can not embrace Harpur’s vision is that it is based on falsehood. It is not that I just don’t want to believe it. When I looked up the original myths, I could not find the parallels. Horus was not born of a virgin, was not crucified and was not raised on the third day.
Regarding Jesus’ existence, I can not prove it. However, neither can you prove the existence of Alexander the Great, Augustus or Rabbi Hillel. Even though no one questions their existence, the same problems are there for arguing for their existence.
I do not deny that early Christians, especially in the area of art, used pagan models to express their truths. Nor do I deny that I as a 21st century preacher try and make connections with the word around me. However, it is one thing to acknowledge that early Christian artists used pagan models, it is another thing to argue that the writers of the New Testament put their story together strictly from pagan myths.
Benjamin Steele // March 28, 2009 at 11:19 pm |
There is an important difference between proving the historicity of Jesus versus some of those others you mentioned. No one cares if Alexander was real. No one is basing their beliefs on Augustus. No one thinks that Rabbi Hillel died for their sins.
As for your last comment, I don’t claim that Christians used only Pagan sources. They definitely used Jewish sources as well. In fact, I’m pretty sure none of the mythicist theorists deny Jewish elements.
Benjamin Steele // March 29, 2009 at 4:43 am |
“The reason I can not embrace Harpur’s vision is that it is based on falsehood. It is not that I just don’t want to believe it.”
I was contemplating what this statement means to you. Your faith is based on objective facts? So, if different facts became compelling enough, you’d change your religious beliefs? You would embrace a mythological/mystical Christ if the parallel Pagan evidence became so overwhelming that you were unable to deny it?
I’ve heard other apologists claim their faith is based on rationality, but I always have doubts when I hear it.
I personally would accept Jesus as a historical figure if there was enough evidence. I even think it’s probable that some original person existed that was the seed around which the mythology aggregated. But it doesn’t matter to me because I don’t believe my salvation is dependent on proving (or else accepting without proof) ancient historical facts.
I do, however, sense deep truth within Christian mythology. Even though I look for my scholarship elsewhere, I’m vaguely similar to Harpur. I see spiritual truths as archetypal… such as was proposed by Jung and which is part of the Neo-Platonic tradition.
Neo-Platonism has been a favored philosophy within the Judeo-Christian-Gnostic tradition ever since Philo Platonically interpreted the Jewish scriptures. His allegorical interpretations were accepted by many of the early Church fathers such as Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine.
Benjamin Steele // March 29, 2009 at 5:10 am |
I was just now noticing that you mentioned being a preacher. Do you mean in a formal capacity as in preaching to a congregation? How did you get involved with preaching?
My grandfather was a minister for most of his life. I didn’t get to know him well, but he definitely influenced my dad. My dad observed how his father was different when at home than he was when acting as minister. This led him to have doubts and he was an agnostic for a couple decades of his adult life.
It was actually New Thought Christianity that made religion seem palatable to him again. But, as he aged, he felt drawn back towards a more conservative Christianity which he is heavily involved with now.
My dad had a midlife crisis when I was a kid. He even considered becoming a minister himself.
I inherited my spiritual questioning nature from him, and also I inherited a love of learning and some critical thinking skills. All in all, a good combination.
Benjamin Steele // March 29, 2009 at 5:36 am |
I suppose there was two reasons I brought all that up about my family. I suspect that you’re a person my dad would like.
The other thing is that the reason I believe as I do is because my parents raised me in Unity (not Unitarianism) which is a very liberal New Thought Christian church. The historical Jesus is a non-issue for me is because it simply isn’t taught as significant in Unity. I don’t attend Unity these days, but I guess early religius experience has a way of sticking with a person.
Were you raised a Baptist? How does Baptist theology inform your studies of Christian issues such as mythicism?
I saw the quote you have on your ‘About’ page:
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15)
I’m thinking that it’s safe for me to assume that mythicism doesn’t give you hope. :) But does arguing against mythicism give you hope? Why do you feel so inspired to write about it?
Why do you feel such a strong need to argue against what gives Christians like Harpur hope? Harpur had lost faith in the historical Jesus. Isn’t his accepting a mythical/mystical Christ better than losing faith in Christianity altogether? Or is his position such a threat to ‘True’ Christianity that it must be utterly denied as anathema?
Stephen Bedard // March 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
I hope you see the problem with your logic in determining the historicity. Even though we have as good as and in some cases better historical evidence for Jesus than we have for Alexander the Great, Augustus, and Hillel, you reject the evidence for Jesus because Christians believe Jesus died for their sins. It does not make any sense from a historical perspective to treat evidence differently because of the role attributed to a particular person. Both Alexander the Great and Augustus were saviour figures, why not reject them as historical? All three have mythic or at least legendary additions to their histories, why not reject them? As far as I can tell, the authors that reject the existence of Jesus do so out of the love for a good conspiracy theory rather than quality historical research.
As for my background, I am the pastor of two Baptist churches. I have not always been Baptist. I was raised Anglican, became an atheist, Anglican again, Pentecostal and am now Baptist, although I see myself as a Christian rather than a specific denomination. It is interesting to note that the first religious book I ever read was Tom Harpur’s Always on Sunday.
I do not try to talk Tom or anyone else out of their beliefs. They are sharing their beliefs with the public and I believe that I should share the other side of story so that people can make informed choices. I have some very real concerns about the Jesus myth hypothesis, but much of it is from a historical perspective than a religious one. I was deeply disturbed by how much they misrepresent the pagan myths as much as I disagree with their interpretation of the Bible. Here is some homework for you: try to find the myth that described Mithras as a dying and rising god.
Benjamin Steele // March 31, 2009 at 2:41 am |
You seem to misunderstand me. I’m not anti-Jesus, and I’m certainly far from being an atheist. Jesus may or may not have existed, but we can only speak of probabilities. Besides, evidence for or against his historicity has nothing directly to do with mythicism.
Nonetheless, it’s true that the evidence is limited. Of the sources that claim to be direct remembrances of him, the only versions that survived are from the second century. They don’t even describe his appearance and the earliest images presented him as a Pagan godman.
The only clear references to Jesus are from Christian texts, but Alexandar the Great is referenced in various texts including the Bible which is from a religion that didn’t revere him. Augustus’ life was well documented and many images of him were made shortly after his death. As for Hillel, I’m not familiar with him and apparently there have been a number of historical figures by that name.
But all of that is besides the point. Just like Jesus, I don’t really care if those people historically existed. My faith isn’t dependent upon nor justified by history. I don’t discount Jesus because he was a savior figure. It’s because he was a savior figure like so many others that I accept him.
BTW I was just listening to Richard Carrier speak about the mythicist position. He originally was a major critic of mythicism and he still is very critical of Freke and Gandy, and probably Harpur as well. He has become one of the major proponents of mythicism and supports the scholarship of Doherty and Price.
I just wanted to point out that even mythicists agree that the likes of Harpur, Freke and Gandy aren’t the best representatives of mythicism despite their names being more familiar to the average person.
I haven’t read Carrier, but I suppose I will eventually. Have you?
One other point I’d like to make is that I’m not a materialist either. I don’t disbelieve in miracles and in the supernatural. I don’t deny Jesus being a godman who walked the earth.
Still, it’s an extraordinary claim requiring significant evidence. I’ve never met Jesus while he was alive and so I can’t confirm it for myself, I’ve never even met a godman and so I don’t even know if such a thing is even possible… especially as it is entirely outside of the realm of scientific evidence.
In such cases, I trust my own experience. I sense something is true about the Jesus story but it doesn’t require historical facticity.
Stephen Bedard // March 31, 2009 at 4:19 am |
I never accused of being an atheist or anti-Jesus. Richard carrier, however, is an advocate of atheism. It is interesting to note that the new (evangelistic) atheism has really jumped onto the Jesus myth theory.
This is why I bring up Alexander, Augustus and Hillel: there are many similar challenges to the story of Jesus. Alexander lived in the 4th century BC but the earliest account of his life that we have is from the 1st century AD. Plus there are many legendary aspects to his story including being the son of a god. Augustus also had many legendary accounts including miraculous accounts surrounding his childhood and a divine lineage. Hillel is considered to be one of the great fathers of rabbinic Judaism. But we have no true accounts of his life, just a few vague and contradictory statements in the Talmud. Yet for all these problems, I know of no one that doubts that they actually existed. Why have a different historical standard for Jesus?
I am not sure where you get the 2nd century accounts of Jesus. Paul does refer to the historical Jesus, despite popular opinion, and his letters are just a few decades from the life of Jesus. Even critical scholarship places Mark just before 70 AD, Matthew and Luke in the 70’s or 80’s and John in the 90’s. Compared to other ancient historical figures, we are very close to the actual events.
Here is a challenge for you. I am going to boil the Christian message down to this: God sent his pre-existant Son who had been involved in the creation of the physical universe to be incarnated by being born to a virgin and this Son died to provide atonement for humanity and was raised to life again. Please give me the name of one Greco-Roman or Egyptian god/hero who prefigures this story. I look forward to your answer.
Benjamin Steele // March 31, 2009 at 6:38 am |
Despite the traditional datings, there are arguments for later datings. And, yes, I realize the consensus of Christian scholars disagree. Anyways, the basic point is that as far as I know the earliest versions (and hence earliest physical evidence) of the gospels is from the second century.
As for your challenge, I offer one in return. Murdock wrote an almost 600 page book detailing the similarities b/t the Jesus and Horus stories. Read that book. She does argue for all of those details in reference to Horus.
Find out for yourself, but I won’t try to explain a massive book to you. I’m still in the process of reading it, and so I don’t even know what her full argument is.
Stephen Bedard // March 31, 2009 at 6:55 am |
Regarding the dating of the New Testament, that is not how scholars date a text. We do not date Homer or Plato or Philo based on the earliest surviving copy. This is another example of holding the New Testament to a different standard to other ancient texts. That is not good scholarship.
I will read Murdock but I have done better, I have read the Horus myths both in their Egyptian and Greek versions. Here is the problem, Horus was not pre-existant, was not the creator god, was not born of a virgin and did not die an atoning death. Please read the myths yourself instead of relying on secondary sources. They are all available online.
Benjamin Steele // March 31, 2009 at 7:14 am |
I’d be fine with the traditional dating. I just wanted to point out that none of the texts survive from that time, but I know that there is more to dating that just going by the earliest version.
I don’t have an opinion on this matter, and I prefer to speak in probabilities. The texts quite likely they were from the first century, but it is “possible” that they weren’t as in there arguments for later dating. And no I won’t explain the arguments to you because I don’t even remember what they wree. :)
I’m a person who only resorts to concluions s a last resort. I prefer to keep possibilities open unless something abolutely demnds a conclusion. Even when I do come to a conclusion, it is always tentative… which goes for the mythicist theory as well.
When I argue against someone’s conclusions, I’m usually at least partially arguing for an attitude of open-minded consideration of possibilities. So, Im not offering mythicism as a competing conclusion per se, but as a possibility that intrigues my curiosity.
As for primary sources, I have been slowly reading more primary sources. Lately, I’ve been focusing on the primary sources of early and Christian texts. But you are correct that I should get around to the Horus myths. I’ll put it on my list of a thousand other things I plan on reading. lol
Stephen Bedard // March 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
If you are looking for the primary sources, Budge has a fairly inexpensive compilation. The Greek version is found in Plutarch’s Moralia. You have to be careful with Plutarch because he post-dates the New Testament and even if you found a parallel, it is impossible to determine the direction of influence.
Benjamin Steele // March 31, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
Thanks for the Budge recommendation.