Is Jesus a Myth?

Christianity is a religion which either triumphs or falls on its historical accuracy. It makes the radical claim that God, in the person of Jesus, entered history. For a Christian, the Gospels give us the best account of who the divine is, through the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus. Thus, a debate between believers and sceptics has ensued as to how much we can truly know about the historical figure of Christ. However, some have argued that in fact the whole of Christianity is a fraud, which finds its origins not in history but in pagan myths. By demonstrating the parallels the story of Jesus shares with other deities, people like Robert Price, Dorothy Murdock and even Christopher Hitchens have sought to show that the Gospels make no historical claims, and are just mythically inspired literature. Indeed, the film Zeitgeist proposed this as the truth. I will argue that any such arguments are replete with poor reasoning and they do not hold up to close scrutiny.

The claim is that biblical narratives of Christ's life and teachings are mythological in origin and bare no relation to historical accounts. This often known as the copycat theory. To support this claim, proponents often supply a list of parallels between pagan religions and Christianity. The movie Zeitgeist gives the following examples:

'Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled around with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.'

'Attis, of Phrygia, born of a virgin Nana on December the 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after three days, resurrected. Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected. Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin of December the 25th, was a travelling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the King of Kings, God's only Begotten Son... and upon his death, was resurrected. Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had twelve disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected.'

At first glance, this looks like a devastating attack on Christianity's claim to be rooted in history. After all, these other pagan religions seem to make the same claims about their Gods. However, to assess the argument put forward, we will have to engage with the primary sources, actual and original texts, where these myths came from. The biggest fallacy the copycat proponent makes is that of terminology. They specifically use Christian terminology, such as born of a virgin, crucified and resurrection, when describing pagan myths. However, such lexicon involves assertions without evidence and are ripped out of context, or are obtained from post-first century texts. A few examples will suffice.

Zeitgeist argues that Horus was born of a virgin. From the primary sources available, Horus was either: 1) the result of intercourse between Isis and Osiris in their mother's womb 2) concieved by Isis's sexual intercourse with Osiris's dead body 3) Isis is impregnated by Osiris after his death and after a loss of his genitalia 4) Isis is impregnated by a flash of lightening. This is nothing like the virgin birth of Jesus, where no physical agent or force impregnates Mary.

Likewise, Attis is conceived when Zeus spilled his sperm on a mountain side which grew into a pomegranate tree. When Nana, mother of Attis, was sitting under the tree, a fruit fell into her lap and this made her pregnant with Zeus' child. Devaki, the mother of Krishna, has seven children before Krishna. Semele, the mother of Dionysius, conceived him via sexual intercourse with Zeus. None of these supposed parallels are anything like the 'virginal' conception that scripture claims of Jesus.

Does the copycat theory do any better on the allegation that the crucifixion originates in pagan myths? Not at all. Krishna was killed from an arrow shot in the foot. Attis, due to jealousy, castrated himself, fled into the wilderness and died. Depending which source you read, Horus either: 1) did not die 2) was stung by a scorpion 3) had his death conflated with Osiris's. Mithra just doesn't die. None of these bare much resemblance to the death of Jesus, who died by crucifixion.

How about resurrection? Again, the term is falsely applied. Horus was revived by magical incantations by another God. Post-death, Attis turned into a pine tree. Most of the claims of resurrection were written many years after the first-century sources for Christianity, such as the Gospels and Paul's letters. A second century source informs us of the resurrection of Adonis. The appearence of Krishna's resurrection only emerge in the sixth century! Again, the prior resurrections are nothing like the distinctly Jewish nature of Jesus's return to life.

Another fallacy these arguments make is the nonbiblical fallacy. This is where a parallel is made about Jesus's life which is not even in the Gospel accounts. For example, it is often claimed that Jesus shares his birth date, the 25th December, with other deities. However, nowhere in the bible does it say he was born on this day. This results from the selective reading and lack of engagement proponents of the Jesus-myth have to do.

A further flaw in the copycat theory is that it it commits the difference fallacy. It makes an overemphasis on supposed similarities, whilst ignoring the large number of relevant differences. The variations between Christianity and pagan religions are enormous. For example, whereas all mystery religions believe in a birth-death-rebirth cycle, Christianity is linear, with history culminating in God's transformation of creation into His kingdom. Another point is that in pagan mystery sects, doctrine is unimportant, for they emphasise feeling and emotion over belief. By contrast, Christianity's heart and soul lies in the creeds and doctrinces. This is why the Romans so highly persecuted them, for they held there was only one God.

Finally, and most importantly, the pagan myths we have investigated have little to ground their stories in history. By contrast, the story of Jesus includes many historical dates, places, people and events. For example, Luke 3:1-2 reads:

'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judeag, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.'

These two verses offer a specific time and place in history which we can use to validate historical events. No such material is found in pagan stories. A few places and geographical locations may be mentioned, but most events have no date and nearly all the participants are gods. A comparison with the New Testament dates, locations, places and people will show the gulf there is between Christianity and pagan myths in regards to historical grounding.  This is because pagan myths are cosmic epics, which reference earth infrequently. Whilst I am not arguing the New Testament is reliable, the marked difference in historical emphasis is a clear indication it's origins are not found in pagan myths. Metzger states:

'Unlike the deities of the Mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the Divine being who the Christian worshipped as Lord was known as a real Person on earth only a short time before the earlies documents of the New Testament were written.'

Thus, it is the historicity of Jesus's life, teachings and deeds which make Christianity truly anti-pagan.

To conclude, the claim that the story of Jesus is a myth is a weak argument, relying on false application of terminology, highly selective reading and choosing to ignore the prominence of historicity in the Gospels as compared to pagan myths. The parallels are most of the time not even parallels. However, I think the final refutation of the theory should be left to Adolf von Harnack:

'We must reject the comparative mythology which finds causal connection between everything and everything else, which tears down solid barriers, bridges chasms as though it were child's play, and spins combinations from superficial similarities... By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or transform the Apostles into the twelve months; in connection with Christ's nativity one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove; and find any number of celebrated asses to follow the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem; and thus with the magic wand of 'comparative religion' triumphantly eliminate every spontaneous trait in any religion.'

Bibliography

Challenging the Zeitgeist Movie Mark Foreman

Does the Story of Jesus Mimic Pagan Mystery Stories Mary Jo Sharp

Concerning Isis and Osiris Plutarch

Book of the Dead Translation by Wallace

The Mythic Image Joseph Campbell

The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief Rodney Stark

The Mysteries of Mithras Roger Beck

Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity Bruce Metzger

Wissenschaft und Leben Adolf von Harnack