• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus and the mythical God-Men

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
This is the final section of a paper I wrote some time ago. The first two parts were on Josephus and Jesus and Paul on Jesus, which I've also posted. This part deals with the third Pillar of the Jesus-myth as described by Price.



The Final pillar in which Price describes is a similarity to Middle Easter religious based on dying-and-rising god myths. Out of the three pillars that Price constructs, this is the most difficult point to debate. The reason being that Jesus does in fact share some similarities to various dying-and-rising god-men.

However, the problem is not that there are similarities, but the importance some have bestowed upon those similarities. It is of no major surprise that we witness some similarities. We see many of those similarities attributed to other known historical characters. For instance, if we take a brief look at Augustus Caesar, we would see various similarities as well.

According to some ancient sources, such as Suetonius Augustus 2.94.1-7, that signs and omens occurred around the time of his birth, he was considered to be the son of the god Apollo, and that even as a youth, he showed miraculous power.

A better example is Apollonius of Tyana. Before he was born, a heavenly figure appeared to his mother, informing her that Apollonius would be divine. His birth was accompanied by supernatural signs. As a youth, he was already recognized as a spiritual authority. Then when he became an adult, he left home and engaged in an itinerant preaching ministry. During which, he gathered around him a group of disciples. The disciples in turn believed that Apollonius was the Son of God.

Eventually, his enemies trumped up charges against him. He was tried by the Romans for crimes against the state. After he died, some of his followers claimed he ascended to heaven and others claimed that he appeared to them. Later on, some of his followers wrote about him and these works were later circulated throughout the empire.

As we can see, there is a very distinct similarity between Jesus and this Apollonius. Yet, Apollonius is accepted to be a historical figure. What this shows is that it was not uncommon for ancient figures to have mythological ideas attached to them.

A second problem with the argument of Price's third pillar is that many over exaggerate the similarities between Jesus and other supposed rising-and-dying god-men. For instance, one of the claimed similarities between Jesus and these others is that they were born on December 25th. The problem with this claim should be quite obvious, as it was only much later tradition that placed Jesus birth date on the 25th of December.

Trying to debunk all of the various similarities becomes a monumental task then. Especially considering that many of the similarities are simply made up. A great example of this is Kersey Graves book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ. Even those who subscribe to the Jesus-Myth, such as Richard Carrier, consider the work to be unreliable.

Yet, we see Price still holding onto the idea. In fact, he claims that the church father's explanation for these similarities was because Satan had counterfeited the story of Jesus and planted it in advanced. Specially, Price is referring to Justin Martyr.

In Justin Martyr's work, Dialogue with Trypho, Justin states: “For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? “

As we see, Justin is not claiming that the story of Jesus was copied. Instead, he was stating that, in fact, the Greeks had copied from Hebrew scriptures. The claim was that the Hebrew belief predated the Greek myths, as well as that the devil inspired some of the Greek myths. Taken out of context, it definitely can be used to support Price's claim; however, if looked at as a whole, it is clear that Justin was not claiming that the story of Jesus was copied.

Even more interesting, Justin goes on to say in his next chapter that the mysteries of Mithras were distorted from the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that Justin's motive was to show how the Greeks had in fact copied from the Hebrews; not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Price's strongest argument for similarities between Jesus and other rising-and-dying god-men is the mythic hero archetype compiled and delineated by Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, Alan Dundes, and others from the hero myths. Below are the twenty-two recurrent features; the ones italicized are those that Price claims appear in the gospel story of Jesus:

1. mother is a royal virgin
2. father is a king
3. father related to mother
4. unusual conception
5. hero reputed to be son of god
6. attempt to kill hero
7. hero spirited away
8. reared by foster parents in a far country
9. no details of childhood
10. goes to future kingdom
11. is victor over king
12. marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. becomes king
14. for a time he reigns uneventfully
15. he prescribes laws
16. later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. driven from throne and city
18. meets with mysterious death
19. often at top of a hill
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him [i.e., does not found a dynasty]
21. his body is not buried
22. nonetheless has one or more holy sepulchers.

As we see, Price claims that Jesus scores a nineteen on this chart. Yet, a closer look would show that in some cases, Price is really stretching to make Jesus conform with ideas. We will start at the beginning and examine each point in which Price claims Jesus scored on.

Number 1, mother is a royal virgin. The first problem is that Mary was not of a royal line. The Gospel stories show her as a peasant, and really put upon her little importance for the most part. As for being a virgin, only Matthew and Luke claim that to be true. As we have already seen though, Paul claimed that Jesus was born of the flesh, of a woman. Paul makes no mention of the idea that Mary was a virgin, and in fact, implies the opposite. By saying that Jesus was born of the flesh, the implication is that Jesus was born naturally.

Number 2, father is a king. As with the above, we have no suggestion that Joseph is anything other than a peasant. In fact, we are told that Joseph is a tekton, which is generally translated to carpenter. Either way, we clearly see that Joseph was not a king.

Number 4, unusual conception. This is true to a point. Matthew and Luke do claim that Jesus had an unusual conception. However, again, Paul states otherwise. In the case of Matthew and Luke though, we see a unique characteristic for Jesus. The virginal or with-no-intercourse conception we see with Jesus to be different from any Jewish or Greek predestined child. For Jews, the norm was the birth of a child to either aged or infertile parents. For Greeks, it was the intercourse between a human and a divine being. As we see, Jesus' conception is unique.

At the same time though, having an unusual conception does not imply a mythological figure. As we saw above as well, Augustus Caesar, as well as Apollonius of Tyana both were claimed to have unusual conceptions. Yet, both are accepted to be historical figures.

Number 5, hero reputed to be son of god. Again, this one is true. Matthew and Luke make this claim most clearly. However, as with the point above, this does not imply a mythological figure. Again, both Augustus Caesar and Apollonius of Tyana were considered to be the son of god.

Number 6, attempt to kill hero. This one is a little more debatable. The attempt to kill Jesus is found only in Matthew's nativity story. There, we see that King Herod supposedly tried to have Jesus killed. Yet, interestingly, there is no mention of this event anywhere else. Even in the nativity story of Luke, we see no mention of King Herod trying to kill Jesus. In this regard, we can definitely see that a myth entered into the story of Jesus.

Number 7, hero spirited away. Much the same as the above, this is only recorded in Matthew. Luke records no such event as Jesus being taken to Egypt. For Luke, Jesus never leaves Galilee except to go to Jerusalem. Thus, we can again see that in fact, some myth did enter the story of Jesus.

Number 8, reared by foster parents in a far country. For this point, Price has to actually split the point in to two different parts. More so though, Jesus was never reared in a far away country. As with the two above point, Matthew is the only source for this story. However, Matthew does not imply that Jesus was in Egypt for long at all. Instead, the suggestion is that it was for only a relatively short time before Jesus and his family returned to relocate in Nazareth.

Number 9, no details of childhood. Here, we see a contradiction. Price is aware of the story of Jesus' birth, Herod's attempt to kill Jesus, Jesus being spirited away, and according to Price, Jesus being reared in Egypt. By what Price tells us, we have at least some details about Jesus' early childhood.

However, it is true that we have little information about the early life of Jesus in the Gospels (later, various other Gospels, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which claim to give recollections of the childhood of Jesus). This is what is expected though. Even with Augustus, we are given little details about his early life.

Number 10, goes to future kingdom. This is simply not true. The kingdom that Jesus was preaching was the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom was never seen during the time of Jesus. The reason being that the Kingdom of God was meant to replace the earthly Kingdom, which was at the time being ruled by the Romans. Since the Kingdom never came, it would have been impossible for Jesus to go to his Kingdom. More so though, the Gospel of John has Jesus stating that his kingdom was not of this world.

Number 13, becomes king. Again, this never happened. There is no suggestion that Jesus ever became king. We are told that the charge against Jesus, which was inscribed on a tablet, was “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” However, this does not imply that Jesus was considered the King of the Jews. The Jews simply were not aware that he was King. Instead, this suggests that the charge against Jesus was of a political nature.

Number 14, for a time he reigns uneventfully. As we saw above, Jesus was never truly considered to be the King of the Jews. Since he was not the King, there is no way he could have reigned uneventfully. This is one more example of Price stretching to make Jesus fit into these points.

Number 15, he prescribes laws. As far as we can tell, Jesus was a Jew. Thus, he followed the Jewish laws. There is no suggestion that Jesus ever meant to create new laws. Instead, in Matthew, we are told that Jesus did not even come to abolish the law. In fact, Jesus states that one should follow the laws even more strictly than the Pharisees. There is no reason then to believe that he prescribed any laws.

Number 16, later loses favor with gods or his subjects. This point is not clear cut. We are not told that Jesus ever loses favor with God. We are told that Jesus felt as if God had forsaken him, but we are never told that he loses favor with God. As for his subjects, it is not quite sure who Price is referring to. Jesus does not loose favor with his disciples. He does loose favor, according to the Gospels, to some Jews. But we can not assume that they were his subjects as Jesus was never a king or a leader.

Number 17, driven from throne and city. Again, this point is based on the idea that Jesus was a king. However, there is no suggestion that he was. Having not been a king, he could not be driven from his throne and city.

Number 18, meets with mysterious death. There was really nothing mysterious about the death of Jesus. We are told that he was crucified by the Romans. It was not an uncommon means of death during that time, especially for Jews who were religious leaders.

Number 19, often at the top of a hill. This one can be given to Price.

Number 20, his children, if any, do not succeed him [i.e., does not found a dynasty]. There is no doubt that this point is definitely stretching the lines. Especially considering that even if Jesus had children, they would not have founded a dynasty as Jesus was never king.

Number 21, his body is not buried. Again, this is stretching. The reason being that Jews did not bury their dead per se. We are told that Jesus was placed in a tomb, as was the Jewish custom. So in a sense, Jesus was buried.

Number 22, nonetheless has one or more holy sepulchers. First, we are not told about this in the Gospel stories. More so, since the idea is that Jesus ascended into heaven, it is doubtful that Christians were create sepulchers for Jesus. Either way though, the point really is moot as it deals with the followers of Jesus and what they decided to do, and not what Jesus himself did.

In summary, we see that of the nineteen points that Price claims, only a handful (between five and seven, depending on how liberal one wants to get) actually fit. In order to get his nineteen, Price has tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. Upon even a little investigation, it is clear that Price really has no case here.

More so though, there is no reason to see Jesus as a rising-and-dying god. Simply, the resurrection of Jesus had nothing to do with the idea of rising and dying. As we see with Paul, the resurrection of Jesus announced that the general resurrection had began. The resurrection was no special privilege reserved for Jesus. Because of that, Jesus does not fall into the category of being a rising-and-dying god.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
In the end, only one conclusion can we come to. Jesus did in fact exist. We saw that Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his works, that Paul was aware of a recent historical Jesus, and that Jesus did not share many similarities with rising-and-dying god-men. Yet, as the Christ-Myth theory is gaining popularity, one can not simply brush it off as Albert Schweitzer had done over a decade ago.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
In the end, only one conclusion can we come to. Jesus did in fact exist. We saw that Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his works, that Paul was aware of a recent historical Jesus, and that Jesus did not share many similarities with rising-and-dying god-men. Yet, as the Christ-Myth theory is gaining popularity, one can not simply brush it off as Albert Schweitzer had done over a decade ago.

Watch me.:D

The funny thing is Price doesn't add anything to what we already knew. It's kinda cute seeing someone do their first serious work on the topic. I remember way back when...
 
Top