Parallels with earlier figures
*
Religious Historian Petra Pakkanen has isolated four major trends in Hellenistic religion, in the centuries leading up to the beginning of Christianity, common among mystery religions (mysterious and allegorical cults): syncretism (the merging of ideas), monotheism (or progression towards the idea of one true god, via henotheism), individualism and cosmopolitanism.[270] These trends (particularly syncretism) are found among various mystery religions, such as the Eleusinian Mysteries (containing Hellenistic and Phoenician elements), Mithraism (containing Hellenistic and Persian elements), and the Mysteries of Isis and Osiris (containing Hellenistic and Egyptian elements).[271]
*
Richard Carrier then argues that Christianity conforms to all four trends, and that combining Hellenistic elements with Judaism would yield a religion much like Christianity,[272] and perhaps a saviour figure much like Philo’s Logos (explored in the next section). One example of Christianity’s syncretism, particularly in the context of incorporating previous traditions’ gods and key figures (in order to facilitate easier conversion, and to eliminate rivals) is the incorporation of John the Baptist (a saviour/prophet-type figure in his own right) into the Gospel story.[273] Syncretism is actually very common among religions, that tend to be influenced by previous religions, and Christianity is no exception.
*
Carrier then points to other elements in common between Christianity and various mystery religions, such as the saviour god and the dying-and-rising god (i.e. resurrecting), [274] referring to Romulus (whose death and resurrection was celebrated in annual passion plays), Zalmoxis (whose death and resurrection allowed eternal life for followers) and Osiris (whose death and resurrection allowed for salvation, via baptism) as the best examples.[275] Like Jesus, Osiris’ death is also associated with the full moon (John 19:14 compared with Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris 42), and tradition holds that he returned on ‘the third day’ (Luke 24:7 cf. Isis and Osiris 39,42).[276] Interestingly, the well-known (to the Jews) pagan god Baal also died (being devoured by Mot) and triumphantly returned.[277]
*
That such parallels are not necessarily overtly obvious or identical – a common charge by religious apologists – does not diminish the similarities or possible influences. If features between different religions were identical, it would no longer be emulation; it would simply be the same religion or story! Scholars would expect adaptations partly caused by differing cultural norms in the forming of the new religion. We wouldn’t expect them to be exactly the same, otherwise they would be the same religion. That such non-existent figures were often saviour gods, sons (or daughters) of a god, suffered for mankind, and inspired stories of themselves set on Earth (while originally being ‘celestial beings’, until the process of euhemerisation – later being ‘historicised’), may reasonably give cause to doubt the very existence of Jesus, whose most complete early sources portray him in a similar manner.
*
There are also parallels with other figures who may have been historical or ahistorical, many of which appear earlier than those from the Hellenistic period. Jesus was not the only ancient figure to arrive on Earth miraculously (Matthew 1:18); the Buddha was said to have appeared out of his virgin mother’s side,[278] and the mother of Perseus was impregnated by a god (Zeus), by way of a golden shower.[279] Kinky. While Jesus preached the so-called ‘golden rule’ (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31), so too did the Buddha[280] and Confucius.[281] While Jesus was supposedly interrogated by Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:2) over his supposedly arrogant claims, Dionysus (another dying-and-rising god) allegedly appeared before King Pentheus on charges of claiming divinity.[282] While Jesus first appears in the Gospels as a wise man (with no childhood or adolescence in Mark 1:1-9), Laozi also was said to have first appeared as a wise and mature man, ready to teach us unenlightened ones.[283] And like Jesus (Matthew 5:43-47), Laozi also encouraged the loving of enemies, only many centuries earlier.[284]
*
While Jesus was tempted by Satan (Luke chapter 4), the Buddha was tempted by Mara[285] and Zoroaster by Ahriman.[286] While Jesus could miraculously produce wine (John 2:1-11), so too could Dionysis.[287] While Jesus was said to have walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33), so too is walking on water associated with the Buddha.[288] Jesus’ death and empty tomb story (John 20:1-10) shares similarities with the mystery over the deceased Hercules’ bones,[289] and also of Romulus, whose disappearance was associated with an unusual darkness (cf. Mark 15:33), and would eventually result in triumph.[290] And while many religious traditions incorporate some element of astro-theology via sun-worship, Church father Tertullian responds to the allegation that the sun is the god of Christianity not with denial (Ad Nationes 1.13), but with a surprising and perhaps immature admission and defence: “What then? Do you do less than this?”[291] Robert Price noted similarities between the story of Jesus and the “Mythic Hero Archetype” delineated earlier by independent scholar FitzRoy Richard Somerset (the fourth Baron Raglan) and psychologist Otto Rank:[292]
*
In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero’s birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.[293]
*
The identification of such parallels is certainly not limited to the über-sceptical mythicists, with the more mainstream Biblical scholar Robert Funk recognising that Paul “identified Jesus as a savior figure of the Hellenistic type, a dying/rising god, such as Osiris in the Isis cult” and noticing that “It was not the life and teachings of Jesus but the death of Jesus and his appearance to Paul in a vision… that became the focal points of Paul’s gospel”.[294] Other scholars acknowledging the similarities of Christianity and mystery religions include second century Christian Church Father Clement of Alexandria and Professor of Bible and Christian Studies Marvin W Meyer.[295] Hoffman also indicated that the knowledge of such parallels is “not new to scholarship” and that there are many similar myths and stories of earlier figures, who often were “dying, rising, saving”.[296] In a recent article, Biblical scholar Philip Davies theorises that a recognition that Jesus’ historicity is not certain would “nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability”, finds attempts at discovering the ‘Historical Jesus’ to be “poor history”, and confirms the alleged mythic parallels:
Two articles in Is This Not the Carpenter? (by the two editors, in fact) amass a great deal of evidence that the profile of Jesus in the New Testament is composed of stock motifs drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. These parallels are valid: in trying to provide an account of who and what Jesus was such resources were inevitably drawn upon, consciously or unconsciously by the gospel writers.[297]
Philo’s pre-Christian and pre-Pauline ‘Celestial Jesus’
*
This is big.
The possibility that Paul’s Jesus is a ‘celestial Christ’, who appeared in visions, and may have existed in outer space rather than on Earth, was considered earlier, and is a popular argument from some mythicists (and even accepted by several Jesus historicists).[298] Interestingly, Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20BCE-50CE), a supposed contemporary of Jesus, whose writings predate those of Paul, and the Gospels, makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or his followers, but does refer to a celestial figure, a purely supernatural figure, called the Logos (cf. John1:1).[299] The big issue is that this purely supernatural figure, sounds very much like Jesus Christ. Richard Carrier brought it to my attention that this Logos figure is variously described by Philo as the ‘firstborn son of God’ (cf. Romans 8:29),[300] the celestial “image of God” (cf. 2Corinthians 4:4),[301] God’s agent of creation (cf. 1Corinthians 8:6)[302] and God’s high priest (cf. Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 4:14).[303]
*
Dr Carrier further highlights Philo’s insistence that believers should emulate this Logos figure (cf. Galatians 3:27, 1Corinthians 11:1).[304] Philo also describes the Logos as the expiator of sins and mediator for mankind (cf. Colossians 1:13-14).[305] If Philo’s Messiah-like Logos and Paul’s (and other epistle authors’) Christ are unrelated, it is a great coincidence. Given the timeframes, it seems obvious that Paul adapted Philo’s Logos figure into his own concept of Jesus Christ. An equally impressive ‘coincidence’ would be that in discussing this seemingly nameless figure, Philo refers to an Old Testament passage, which provides the one thing Droge said is necessary to start a religion: a name. You can probably see where this is going… In the Septuagint[306] (an old version of the Old Testament, possibly more reliable than the oft-used Masoretic version), this figure is given the name, “Jesus”, as explained by Carrier:
*
Nor was the idea of a pre-existent spiritual son of God a novel idea among the Jews anyway. Paul’s contemporary, Philo, interprets the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 6:11-12 in just such a way. In the Septuagint this says to place the crown of kingship upon “Jesus,” for “So says Jehovah the Ruler of All, ‘Behold the man named ‘Rises’, and he shall rise up from his place below and he shall build the House of the Lord’.” This pretty much is the Christian Gospel.
Whether this ‘a crown for Jesus’ passage in Zechariah is meant to foreshadow the future Jesus Christ or not (as Christians might like to think), what matters is how Philo interprets this passage, and how he goes on to influence Paul, and ultimately, the Gospel authors. This passage from Zechariah was commented on by Philo, who links it with his supernatural and divine Logos figure, in On the Confusion of Tongues 62-63:
*
“Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul. But if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of ‘Rises’ has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the Universe has caused him to rise up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitates the ways of his father…[308]
*
Carrier further notes that Zechariah’s ‘Jesus’ shall “rule” (Zechariah 6:13). That Philo discusses a pre-Christian (and Jewish), pre-Pauline celestial ‘Jesus’ who was not a literal and historical human being, and who shares many characteristics with Paul’s alleged ‘cosmic Christ’ and the Gospels’ ‘earthly Jesus’, is of great importance to the case made by Jesus mythicists and should surely be an area of further research. There are important implications on the origins of the Jesus story, but also of early Christianity and Christian Gnosticism, such as providing a possible explanation of how Platonic (Plato being a hugely influential ancient Greek philosopher) thought could have influenced Christianity far earlier than initially imagined.
*
Religious Studies scholars Joe Barnhart and Linda Kraeger also allude to Paul’s Platonic influence, via Philo, and perhaps other Jewish and Roman sources.[309] Philo’s Logos/Jesus also neatly fits into the evolution of the Jesus story proposed in the previous chapter, as it was influenced by the Old Testament (including the ‘Jesus to be crowned’) and likely influenced the ‘visionary Christ’ of the Pauline Epistles. In such a scenario, Philo promotes an other-worldly, and spiritual Logos, which would evolve into Paul’s other-worldly but fleshly Christ, culminating in the Gospels’ portrayal of an earthly and fleshly, ‘Historical Jesus’.
*
Now why are the incredibly significant facts that Jesus’ contemporary Philo fails to make any mention of Jesus Christ (or a ‘Historical Jesus’), but instead makes much mention of a Jesus-like heavenly-figure, also referred to as Jesus, not a part of mainstream knowledge? That this indicates entirely mythical origins for Jesus should at least be openly discussed, if not seen as all that likely. That Churches would suppress such information is understandable, though obviously not ideal. That academic institutions would do the same, I think, makes it very clear that there are real problems within academia, particularly with the scholarly study of religion.[310]
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Subteigh
