blog comment re: gospel reliability

On another blog a commenter raised doubts about Mark's gospel (in red):

"Mark is in other words, not a biography; its outline of Jesus' career is fictional and the sequence has thematic and theological significance only. As Norman Perrin bluntly puts it, "The outline of the Gospel of Mark has no historical value. " Anyone can demonstrate this with a careful reading of Mark, watching the transitional tags between episodes. The following selection of them are translations from the New English Bible: ·"When after some days" (2:1); ·"Once more" (2:13); ·"When" (2:15); ·"Once, when" (2:18); ·"One Sabbath" (2:23); ·"One [On] another occasion" (3:1); ·"On another occasion" (4:1); ·"When he was alone" (4:10); ·"That [unspecified] day" (4:35); ·"He left that place" (6:1); ·"On one of his teaching journeys" (6:6); ·"On another occasion" (7:14); ·"There was another occasion about this time" (8:1); ·"Jesus and his disciples set out" (8:27); ·"On leaving those parts" (10:1); ·"As he was starting out on a journey" (10:17).”

I responded:

The phrases provided are simply the peculiar style that Mark used. How does a particular writing style discount historicity? This is an objection on what amounts to procedural grounds rather than on an examination of the actual contents and details of Mark’s gospel. It’s sort of akin to declaring a mistrial based on a legal technicality rather than coming to a verdict based on the evidence. It is simply a false move going from the particular style of writing (or particular arrangement of material) to a conclusion of fiction.

There are in fact good reasons for accepting the historical reliability of Mark’s gospel (and the rest of the NT).

Even if one takes the view that Mark was written 70 to 80 CE, the gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses. And these eyewitnesses don’t disappear behind a long process of anonymous transmission of the Jesus tradition but were people who could be consulted.

The NT documents explicitly claim to be the product of eyewitnesses. American historian Louis Gottschalk says that a document should be assumed trustworthy unless, under burden of proof it can be shown to be unreliable. (see Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, Alfred Knopf, 1969, p.89).

Without this assumption, we’d be in a constant state of skepticism and end up knowing nothing of history. And the eyewitnesses were willing to tell the truth about Jesus. They had little to gain and everything to lose.

Some clues that we’re dealing with historical information include:

1)the form of Jesus’ sayings. Many are poetic or in easily memorizable form, a common technique of rabbis.

2) the presence of aramaisms (i.e. phrases transliterated rather than translated into Greek from Aramaic which was the language that Jesus mainly spoke). Some e.g.s include talitha koum (5:41), ephphatha (7:34), rabbi (9:5), rabboni (10:5), abba (14:36), eloi,eloi,lama sabachtani (15:34). Some Hebrew and Aramaic words or phrases became so embedded in the gospel material that they passed into the ordinary vocabulary of worship of Gentile xianity (e.g. hallelujah, amen, hosanna, maranatha). But even in cases where the Aramaic word was translated into Greek, when the Greek is translated back into Aramaic, there is often parallelism, assonance, and alliteration; literary features that get obscured or eliminated when in Greek. The widespread presence of Aramaisms point to a first century Palestinian environment and the likelihood that the Jesus traditions originated early. But it’s not the sort of material one would expect if the Jesus tradition were the product of creative, legend-making imaginations of non-Palestinian and non-Aramaic speaking xians living later in the century.

3) The lack of relevant material. There were a number of controversial issues in the early church that could easily have been remedied by any gospel writer if he were just making things up. For e.g. the disputes over circumcision, charismatic gifts, and food laws found in Paul’s letters. The failure to create sayings of Jesus to meet these pressing needs shows the restraint in presenting the gospel materials. There are no sayings of Jesus on these issues because the historical Jesus never addressed them. But if the gospels were fiction, why not make up sayings of Jesus and resolve the problem? This points to the desire to present factual information.

4)The presence of counterproductive or embarrassing features. IF a document contains these features, it has a high likelihood of being historical. For e.g., the disciples are portrayed in unflattering ways (in unbelief, cowardice, difficulty understand Jesus’s teachings, the Zebedee boys requesting pride of place at Jesus side), Jesus’s own family questions his sanity (3:21), he could not perform miracles in his own town (6:5), his healings were not always instantaneous (8:22-25), he associated with people of ill repute (2:14-16), he was executed like a common criminal. It’s hard to imagine why early xians would make this up.

5) Inclusion of personal names. A hallmark of legendariness is the avoidance of identifying particular named persons (think of today’s urban legends – “yeah, my friend knows a guy who said that his cousin saw an alien”). The naming of actual people, (ones who could be questioned regarding the veracity of a given report) tends to signal eyewitness accounts.

Now, the reason that Mark is difficult to outline in a linear fashion is because the gospel is rooted in an oral/aural performance environment. NT scholar Christopher Bryan points out that Mark shows all the earmarks of being written for oral recitation and transmission. When examining Mark’s structural arrangements one finds broad thematic effects that would emerge naturally in the course of a performance of the whole, but that can hardly emerge otherwise. Given the length of Mark, this could easily be done at a church service (in fact, even today, actors perform enactments of Mark by memory –

see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcuP_jiapVk&feature=player_embedded#at=11) –

remembering of course that first century xians didn’t have to worry about missing the opening kickoff to an NFL game!

blog comment re: mithra vs christ

On another blog, Mr. U, a conspiracy theorist, makes some claims about the origin of Christ(in red):

Paul assembled his story from Egyptian legends and knowledge of his own religion. As a Roman citizen he was expected to also appear devoted to Mithras. Paul attributed to his storybook creation “Jesus” many of the characteristics of Mithras and Horus.****

Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee. And no Jew/Pharisee living between the Maccabean revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70CE would have employed a pagan god for much of anything.

Plus, he may have been a Roman citizen, but he was brought up in Jerusalem and trained as a Pharisee under Gamaliel. He shows some knowledge of Greek philosophy and literature, but shows no trace of religious syncretism in any of his letters.

It’s important to focus on relevant similarities, not incidental ones. Incidental and vague similarities can be seen between almost anyone. One can use incidental similarities to “prove” that JFK was actually based on Lincoln. The critical, central Christian message about Jesus was focused on his Lordship over all creation, his voluntary sacrificial death, and his physical resurrection. Incidental elements include such things as the number of disciples, how long he stayed dead after the crucifixion, his date of birth.

So most of the comparisons you cite are merely incidental.

Just to take a few:

Mithras: Was God’s messenger of truth, traveled far and wide with 12 disciples, teacher and illuminator of men, buried in a tomb from which he arose again, priests in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense on December 25th.

Any god or religious figure had disciples. And 12 disciples, just like Horus? And besides, there’s little or no evidence indicating that mithra was a travelling teacher. And besides what did he teach? Was it anything similar to what Jesus taught? If not this alleged parallel is bunk.

Mithras was born in a cave on December 25th of a virgin mother, came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin.

This is irrelevant to Jesus since the NT does not associate this date ( or any date for that matter) with Jesus’ birth. The comparison needs to be made with the original NT documents, not some tradition that arose centuries later

And Mithras wasn’t born of a virgin; he was born out of solid rock.

Here’s a quote from Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975:

[Mithra] "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." (p.173)

Also Mithra was born as a fully formed adult not as a baby (no comparison to Jesus here). According to Mithra expert David Ulansey (The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1989. P. 36.) the rock birth was probably a copy from the story of Perseus. So here, somebody copied somebody, but it wasn’t xianity copying Mithra.

And didn’t you say earlier that Horus was born on Dec. 25? So now Mithras was born on Dec. 25 as well? Were they twins separated at birth, or is this some sort of pagan-god tag team wresting match? Who else do you have up your sleeve? Krishna? Tammuz? Adonis? Osiris? Baal? Attis? Dionysus? If one fails just replace him with another?

Mithras was known as Savior, Son of God, Redeemer and Lamb of God.

This is supposed to prove what exactly, other than that different religions often use similar terminology. The important thing is what is meant by the terms. But there is also the tendency by some people to use xian terminology to describe pagan rituals. The terms are used imprecisely, and then somehow a parallel is drawn between xianity and the pagan religion. In either case, parallels are illegitimate.

His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull. Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolum)―early Baptism “washed in the blood of the Lamb”―late Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian]. Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His adherents―an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine. Inscribed on the wall of a Mithraic temple in Rome: “And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood.” The great Mithraic festivals celebrated his birth (at the winter solstice) and his death and resurrection (at the spring solstice).

According to M.J. Vermaseren, (Mithras the Secret God. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963., p.103) the part about the sacramental meal comes from a medieval text, far too late to be of any relevance here.

And regarding the tauroboleum, a mithraic priest would stand in a pit under a plank holding a bull. The animal was killed and the blood fell on the priest below (I’m still trying to find anything fitting that description in the New Testament). The earliest evidence for this ritual is around 150 years after the writing of the New Testament. So again, no relevance to the original documents that contain the core essential xian doctrines and beliefs.

Generally, this search for parallels is prone to subjectivism. You tend to find whatever similarities you’re looking for. This can be done for just about any person or subject matter. Why not, rather, look at the historical evidence for the NT and make an evaluation on the merits of the historical case, rather than looking for spurious parallels. If people want to disbelieve xianity, hey, be my guest. There’s nothing I can do about another’s decision. But at least disbelieve it for better reasons than this Christ-myth conspiracy theory.

blog comment re: horus vs christ

A commenter, Mr. U, on another blog had this to say about Christ (in red)

“Jesus” was the product of Paul’s imagination, a literary device representing his alter ego. “Jesus” means Paul. No one can enter the kingdom of Heaven except through Paul according to his sales pitch. Paul’s letters were not actually written by Paul himself, with the exception of one brief introduction. Unknown scribes wrote the gospels falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As a result of Paul’s effort, one day the throne that David usurped will be returned to its rightful heir, a successor of Saul of the House of Benjamin who was anointed king.

In his characterization of Jesus, Paul employed the Egyptian legend of Horus from 3000 BC

Horus: was God’s sun, born on December 25th of a virgin Isis-Meri that was impregnated by a spirit, his coming announced by an angel, star in the east, adored by three kings, baptized, teacher at age 12, began his ministry at age 30, healed the sick, walked on water, had 12 disciples, was known as the truth, the light, good shepherd, anointed son, the lamb, etc., was betrayed, was crucified and came back to life after 3 days.

I replied:

It seems like you've put the cart before the Horus.

First,

I disagree that Paul employed Horus to invent Jesus. Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee. And no Jew/Pharisee living between the Maccabean revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70CE would have employed a pagan god for much of anything. The Jewish antipathy towards paganism was fierce. In addition, even though a good case can be made for all Pauline letters being authentic, all scholars (liberal or conservative) accept that at least seven letters are authentic. What reasons do you have for thinking they are not authentic?

Second, your facts about Horus are incorrect.

It’s important to focus on relevant similarities, not incidental ones. Incidental and vague similarities can be seen between almost anyone. One can use incidental similarities to “prove” that JFK was actually based on Lincoln. The critical, central Christian message about Jesus was focused on his Lordship over all creation, his voluntary sacrificial death, and his physical resurrection. Incidental elements include such things as the number of disciples, how long he stayed dead after the crucifixion, his date of birth.

So most of the comparisons you cite are merely incidental.

Just to take a few:

Horus was born on Dec. 25: Irrelevant to Jesus since the NT does not associate this date ( or any date for that matter) with Jesus’ birth. The comparison needs to be made with the original NT documents, not some tradition that arose centuries later.

Horus was born of a virgin: According to Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (vol.2) (Hendrickson, 2001):

"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it (hence the many tombs of Osiris that exist in Egypt). The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osiris after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child.” (p. 1702)

So, Isis had sex with Osiris’ substitute dismembered member as well as engaged in necrophilia. Not exactly a virgin conception.

Also, the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP, 1993; s.v. “Birth of Jesus”) states:

“… any comparison of Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2 to pagan divine birth stories leads to the conclusion that the Gospel stories cannot be explained simply on the basis of such comparisons. This is particularly the case in regard to the matter of the virginal conception, for what we find in Matthew and Luke is not the story of some sort of sacred marriage (hieros gamos) or a divine being descending to earth and, in the guise of a man, mating with a human woman, but rather the story of a miraculous conception without aid of any man, divine or other wise. The Gospel story is rather about how Mary conceived without any form of intercourse through the agency of the Holy Spirit. As such this story is without precedent either in Jewish or pagan literature, even including the OT."

Horus had 12 disciples: A fact so incidental to be of no consequence. Any deity would have disciples. Whether Horus had 12 or not is irrelevant. But according to leading Egyptologist Wallis Budge, references can be found of Horus having 4 or 16 or an indeterminate number of disciples, depending on the source (from The Gods of the Egyptians, vol. 1, Dover press, 1969).

Horus was God’s sun: Whatever that means since the NT does not associate the sun with Jesus, so that’s irrelevant. And it can’t mean the Sun-God, since that was Ra (or Re). Alternatively, some people claim that Horus was called “son of the father”. But the real question here is, What does that phrase mean? If in Horus’s case it doesn’t mean the same as in Jesus’s case, then this is simply irrelevant. There needs to be a striking and critical parallel in the concept underlying the phrase, not simply the use of the phrase. This applies also to the claim that Horus was called the truth, the light, good shepherd, anointed son, the lamb, etc. And the equating of "son" with the ancient Egyptian word for son is just out to lunch. English didn’t even exist 2000 years ago. There are anachronisms and then there are ANACHRONISMS.

Finally
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion (Macmillan, 1987; s.v. “Horus”), Horus is the product of combined characteristics of multiple agents that are all called by the same name. Horus applies to several different deities in the multi-threaded Egyptian religion.
According to the Routledge Dictionary of Egytpian Gods and Goddesses (Routledge, 1986) Horus literally has some ten to twenty different names or versions or forms. These include: "Horus-the-Child" (Egyptian), Harpokrates, Harsomtus, Horus (as king), Harsiese, Horus-Yun-Mutef, Harendote Harakhti, Horus of Behdet, Harmachis, and several local versions (Nekhen, Mesen, Khenty-irty, Baki, Buhen, Miam). All of these have slightly different characteristics and legends—especially with the wide variation between Horus the King and Horus the Sun-God.

Also, the book Who’s Who in Non-Classical Mythology (Routledge, 1993) states: "There are several manifestations of Horus, which tend to overlap, and the problem of disentangling them is not always easy, as Horus may well have been the name of a whole series of pre-dynastic rulers or priests. Another difficulty arises from the habit of the Egyptians of combining two or three gods into dyadic or triune deities, which was frequently done with Amon, Horus, Osiris, Ptah, and Re." (s.v. “Horus")

So it looks like Horus is actually the one who is derived from other gods or personages! LOL.