Glenn Miller
Christian ThinkTank
Edited by B.R. Burton
This is one of those
questions that amaze me that it is STILL raised. The
argument usually follows along these lines:
|
How can a historic personage
(such as Jesus) have a recorded life
(according to the New Testament in the
Bible) almost identical to various other
mythos out there including but not limited
to:
Mithras (Roman Mithraism), Horus (Egyptian
God of Light)?
Both of these religions came *before*
Christianity and are clearly labeled as
myths yet the 'stories' of their lives are,
in many ways, identical to the 'life' of
Jesus the Christ.
Just answer that directly.
- Skeptic |
Notice
the general allegation:
There are material,
significant, and pervasive similarities between
Messiah Jesus of the New Testament and other Dying
God-figures (and/or Savior-figures), and that these
similarities are best explained by the
hypothesis that the figure of Jesus is materially
derived from (or heavily influenced by) these other
Dying God/Savior-figures.
Sometimes the allegation is worded strongly - Jesus was
NOT a real person, but a legend; sometimes it is worded
less strongly - Jesus was real, but was fused with these
derivative mythic elements such that THEY became the
core teachings about Jesus.
Now, before we try to analyze this notion, we need to
gather some established criteria (from scholars) on
how to detect and establish that 'borrowing'
(especially "content/material" borrowing) has
occurred.
Fortunately, there are a number of established criteria
for this (so we don't have to 'make up' or 'create' our
own), drawing largely from the work of scholars working
in the area of Semitic influence on the Greek/Western
world (e.g., Walter Burkert, Charles Pengrase, M. L.
West), so let's start with some of their work:
"Since the discovery
of the Akkadian epics and of Gilgamesh in
particular, there has been no shortage of
associations between motifs in these and in the
Homeric epics, especially the Odyssey.
These motifs can be highlighted and used to
surprise, but hardly to prove anything:
Approximately the same motifs and themes will be
found everywhere. Instead of individual
motifs, therefore, we must focus on more
complex structures, where sheer coincidence is
less likely: a system of deities and
a basic cosmological idea, the narrative
structure of a whole scene, decrees
of the gods about mankind, or a very special
configuration of attack and defense. Once the
historical link, the fact of transmission, has
been established, then further connections,
including linguistic borrowings, become more
likely, even if these alone do not suffice to
carry the burden of proof." [His examples often
contain elements that are 'holdovers' - elements
that appear in the borrower that only made sense
in the original source...they are unexpected
and without purpose in the new usage,
since they have been removed from their original
context.]
Walter Burkert, The
Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence
on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age,
page 88.
"I can anticipate at
least two possible lines of criticism that may
be employed against my work. One would be that,
in stressing similarities and parallels, I have
ignored the great differences between
Greek and Near Eastern literatures...my answer
will be that of course Greek literature has its
own character, its own traditions and
conventions, and the contrast that might be
drawn between it and any of the oriental
literatures might far outnumber the common
features. If anyone wants to write another book
and point them out, I should have no
objection...But even if it were ten times the
size of mine (600+ pages!), it would not
diminish the significance of the likenesses,
because they are too numerous and too
striking to be put down to chance. You
cannot argue against the fact that it is raining
by pointing out that much of the sky is blue."
M.L. West, The East
Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek
Poetry and Myth, pg. viii
"Difficult and
hazardous are words which describe the study of
Mesopotamian influence in Greek myths, and an
appropriate method is essential. To establish
influence, or at least the likelihood of
influence, there are two main steps. First it
is necessary to establish the historical
possibility of influence, and then the
parallels between the myths of the areas must
fulfill a sufficiently rigorous set of relevant
criteria."
Charles Penglase,
Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and
Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod,
pg. 5
"The second step of
the method is to demonstrate the existence of
parallels of the correct nature between the
Mesopotamian and Greek literary material.
Parallels must have qualities which conform to a
suitable set of criteria in order to indicate
influence or its likelihood."
Charles Penglase,
Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and
Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod,
pg. 5
"It is all too
easy to run eagerly after superficial parallels
which cannot really be sustained under a closer
scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must
have similar ideas underlying them and,
second, any suggestion of influence requires
that the parallels be numerous, complex and
detailed, with a similar conceptual usage
and, ideally, that they should point to a
specific myth or group of related myths in
Mesopotamia. Finally, the parallels and
their similar underlying ideas must
involve central features in the material
to be compared. Only then, it would seem,
may any claim stronger than one of mere
coincidence be worthy of serious consideration"
Charles Penglase,
Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and
Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod,
pg.
7
What kinds of examples do
these authors offer us?
- West
gives the example of Semitic
idiom expressed in the Greek narrative text--totally
unexplainable apart from borrowing
- Burkert
gives the example of the single-mention Tethsys (as
wife of Oceanus, in Homer), as a translation of
Tiamat (as wife of Apsu, in Enuma Elish) - Tethsys
never occurs in all of mythology anywhere else; it
is best/only explained as a narrative 'holdover'
from borrowed narrative structure [OT:ORNEI:92ff]
- Penglase
gives the examples of condensed summaries of
large mythic complexes (implying reader
familiarity) and of combinations of
motif/underlying ideas applied in new contexts
flawlessly, in Hesiod and Homer [HI:GMM:237ff]
- Puhvel
gives the parallel scenes of Typhon in the sea (Nonnos)
and Ullikummi (Hittite myth), in which numerous
visual details and spatial arrangements are
described in similar terms, in similar narrative
context, and in similar sequence [WR:CM:29;
'numerous, complex, detailed']
Now, if we extract some
principles from these scholars, we would end up with:
- Similarity of
general motifs is not enough to "prove anything"; we
must have "complex structures" (e.g., 'system of
deities', 'narrative structure').
- Ideally, we would
need to establish the historical link first, before
looking for borrowings.
- Differences between
structures/stories/complexes do not disprove
influence, as long as the parallels are 'too
numerous' and 'too striking'.
- Parallels must be
'striking' (i.e., unexpected, 'odd', difficult to
account for).
- Some/many
parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e.,
identical on the surface), and 'prove nothing'.
- Parallels that can
be used to support the possibility of influence need
to be numerous.
- Parallels that can
be used to support the possibility of influence need
to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and
interrelationships).
- Parallels that can
be used to support the possibility of influence need
to be detailed.
- The details in
alleged parallels must have the same "conceptual
usage" reflected in them (e.g., they must be used
with the same meaning).
- The parallels must
have the same ' ideas underlying them'.
- The similar ideas in
alleged parallels must be 'central features' in the
material--and not just isolated or peripheral
elements.
- Details which are
completely unexpected (to the point of being
unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong
evidence for borrowing
- Details which are
almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have
function in the old context are strong evidence for
borrowing
Now, let me also point out here that the amount and
texture of the evidence has to be very strong,
for even in cases that do NOT look superficial, there
still may be considerable doubt about the actual fact of
direct influence or borrowing. Take this case from [HI:CMY6:13f]:
"For example, there are
obvious parallels between the Greek creation and
succession myths and myths of Near Eastern cultures.
The myth of the castration of Uranus by Cronus is
better understood if we compare it with the Hittite
myth of Kumarbi, in which Anu, the sky-god, is
castrated by Kumarbi, who rises against him. Kumarbi
swallows Anu's genitals, spits them out when he
cannot contain them, and is finally replaced by the
storm-god. The structure of this tale is paralleled
by the myth of Uranus, castrated by Cronus, who, in
his turn, cannot hold what he as swallowed (in this
case, his children) and is eventually replaced by
the sky-god Zeus. Some details in the two tales, of
course, are different, but the basic functions
(kingship, revolt, castration, swallowing,
regurgitation, replacement by a new king) are the
same and occur in the same sequence. Thus the basic
structure is the same and a better understanding of
the origin and purpose of the Greek myth, as
narrated by Hesiod, is achieved by comparison with
the older myth from Near Eastern culture. Whether
direct influence can be proved (and scholars do
not agree on this point), the structural
similarities do at least show how Greek myths are to
be studied in conjunction with those of other
cultures." [emphasis mine]
The
point I want to make here is that even with this
'numerous, complex, and detailed' structure, scholars
are STILL NOT sure that borrowing happened! So, our
evidence for borrowing will have to be at least stronger
than this example.
So, to apply these to our case here, we would need to
show that:
- The
similarities between Jesus (as portrayed in the NT--not
by the later post-apostolic Church Fathers)
and the other relevant Savior-gods are very
numerous, very 'striking', non-superficial, complex,
within similar conceptual or narrative structures,
detailed, have the same underlying ideas, be
difficult to account for apart from
borrowing, and be 'core' or 'central' to the
story/image/motif enough to suspect borrowing;
- That
we can come up with a historically plausible
explanation of HOW the borrowing occurred;
What this means, of course, is that it is not simply
enough to point to some vague similarities and yell
"copy cat!" - one must, in light of the scholars'
criteria documented above, be prepared somehow to defend
his/her alleged parallels from the charge of being
'superficial' and to show that they are 'striking' (a
rather subjective term, of course). In the scholarly
world, noted above, the burden of argument was on the
'proponent' of borrowing. Each of the scholars above
realize that there is a certain amount of subjectivity
in how much one 'weights' the pieces, and our case is no
different. The reader has to decide whether the
parallels advanced by the "copycat-ist" are numerous,
detailed, striking, complex, central, etc., etc. Even in
such a monumental work as that by West, he can point
out: "I am well aware that some of the parallels are
more compelling that others. Readers must decide for
themselves what weight they attach to each." [HI:EFHWAE:viii])
Now, we need to be really clear about the time frame we
are talking about here. The issue that I am trying to
address deals only with the New Testament literature,
specifically the gospels and post-Revelation epistles. I
not at all interested in 'defending' the wide array of
post-apostolic 'interpretations' and
'syncretistic methods' of any later Christian folk -
including the Church Fathers. It is the Jesus of the
gospels and epistles, and the claims made and images
used of Him and His work on our behalf in them
that concerns me here. This means that Christian
material and events after around 65ad is of little
concern to me (except as it bears on questions of NT
authorship perhaps), and does not count as evidence
for New Testament authors' "borrowing" of mythic/pagan
elements in their creation of the foundational documents
of the church -because of the time frames involved. For
example, the fact that the New Testament nowhere
assigns a specific date (year, month, date, or day of
week) to the birthday of Jesus, means that any
allegations that the post-apolstolic church later
'borrowed' a birthday from a rival figure (e.g. Mithras,
Sol Invictus) is irrelevant to the original objection
above. [We will, of course, have to discuss the
sociological aspects of tht possibility below.]
So, let's examine each of these in turn:.
|
"The similarities between Jesus (as
portrayed in the NT) and the other relevant
Savior-gods are very numerous, very
'striking', non-superficial, complex, within
similar conceptual or narrative structures,
detailed, have the same underlying ideas,
and be 'core' or 'central' to the
story/image/motif enough to suspect
borrowing." |
This issue is somehow seen as the 'strength' of the
position(!), for the normal reader can sometimes be
amazed at alleged similarities (note the words "almost
identical" in the email question above).
However, there are several considerations that must be
examined BEFORE we get into the alleged similarities:
Consideration: There is a
surprising tendency of scholars of all persuasions to
adopt Christian terminology in describing non-Christian
religions, rituals, myths, etc. (e.g. "baptism", the
"Last Supper"). [Joseph Campbell is sometimes a good
example of this.] Sometimes this is done to establish
some conceptual link for the reader, but often it
borders on misleading the reader. Too often a writer
uses such terminology imprecisely in describing a
non-Christian element and then expresses shock in
finding such similarities between the religions.
Nash points this out:
"One
frequently encounters scholars who first use
Christian terminology to describe pagan
beliefs and practices, and then marvel at
the striking parallels they think they have
discovered. One can go a long way toward
"proving" early Christian dependence on the
mysteries by describing some mystery belief
or practice in Christian
terminology...Exaggerations and
oversimplifications abound in this kind of
literature. One encounters overblown claims
about alleged likenesses between baptism and
the Lord's Supper and similar "sacraments"
in certain mystery cults...The mere fact
that Christianity has a sacred meal and a
washing of the body is supposed to prove
that it borrowed these ceremonies from
similar meals and washings in the pagan
cults. By themselves, of course, such
outward similarities prove nothing.
After all, religious ceremonies can assume
only a limited number of forms, and they
will naturally relate to important or common
aspects of human life. The more important
question is the meaning of the pagan
practices."
Ronald H. Nash,
Was the New Testament
Influenced by Pagan Religions? |
Nash is demonstrating one of the criteria we noted
above--that the details must have the same underlying
idea, for it to count as a parallel. [He uses the
phrase "outward" similarities, in a similar usage to how
Penglase uses "superficial".] A ritual dip in water, for
example, is NOT a baptism if its purpose in the dogma of
a particular religion is different. According the
scholarly criteria, the lack of parallel in the
underlying idea or 'conceptual usage' destroys this
as piece of evidence for borrowing.
A good example of this might be the rite of the
Taurobolium
(from the cult of the Worship of the
Great Mother or Cybele/Attis). In it a priest stood in a
pit under a plank floor containing a bull and a lamb
(the two are always connected in the inscriptions). The
bull was slaughtered and the blood of the animal fell
upon the priest below. The priest comes up 'consecrated'
to the priesthood, and is hailed as 'reborn' (renatus).
In one late text (fourth century), he is said to have
been 'reborn eternally'.
Predictably, some writers have used the phrase "washed
in the blood of the Lamb" or "sprinkled with the blood
of Jesus" to describe this ceremony, and earlier
commentators have seen this as perhaps the basis for
Paul's teaching in Romans 6 (union with Christ), images
of 'spiritual childgrowth', the new birth, and even
resurrection. Although there are perhaps those who still
hold to this, this has largely been abandoned :
| "Still
others suggest that Paul's conception is
related to ideas of union with a dying and
rising god that was popular in Hellenistic
'mystery religions.' These 'mystery
religions,' a group of religions very
popular in the Hellenistic world, featured
secret initiations and promised their
adherents 'salvation,' often by
participation in a cultic act that was held
to bring the initiate into union with a god.
Under the impulse of the
history-of-religions movement early in this
century, many scholars attributed various
doctrines of Paul to dependence on these
religions. But direct dependence of Paul
on these religions is now widely discounted.
More popular is the view that Paul’s
Hellenistic churches interpreted their
experience of Christ in the light of these
religions and that Paul’s teaching
demonstrates point of contact with, and
corrections of, this existing tradition…The
mystical and repeated ‘dying and rising’ of
a mystery religion adherent with a nature
god like Osiris or Attis has little to do
with Paul’s focus on the Christian's
participation in the historical events of
Christ's life.” [NICNT,
'Romans', p362n54]
"Ancient Near
Eastern religions had long had traditions of
dying-and-rising gods, general vegetation
deities renewed annually in the spring. Some
ancient sources, especially early Christian
interpretations of these religions, suggest
that initiates into various mystery cults
“died and rose with” the deity. Scholars
early in the twentieth century naturally saw
in this tradition the background for Paul’s
language here. Although the evidence is
still disputed, it is not certain that
the mysteries saw a once-for-all
dying-and-rising in baptism, as in Paul,
until after Christianity became a widespread
religious force in the Roman Empire that
some other religious groups imitated. More
important, the early Christian view of
resurrection is certainly derived from the
Jewish doctrine rather than from the
seasonal revivification of Greek cults."
[BBC,
at Rom 6]
"On the basis
of this evidence it can be firmly
concluded that a direct influence from any
mystery cult or from the Isis cult in
particular, on Paul or on the theology of
Rom 6:3–4, is most unlikely" [WBC,
Romans, 6.3f]
“The older
history of religions school sought to
find the derivation of the notion ‘new
birth’ in the mystery religions of the
Hellenistic world, where initiates passed
from death into life by being brought into a
mysterious intimacy with the deity. But
in the light of the scarcity of early ‘new
birth’ terminology such as anagennao
in the mystery religions, recent
scholarship has sought an origin of the
concept elsewhere…A more likely origin
has been found in the OT and Judaism” [NT:DictLNT,
s.v. ‘new birth’]
“Some
scholars have seen the background for such
terminology (e.g. childhood and growth) in
the mystery religions, with their notion of
spiritual progression through various cultic
rituals. Though some aspects of these texts
can be understood in this context, the
notion of stages of faith was already
present in some of the most distinctive
teaching of Jesus, and ordinary family
relationships provide a more plausible
background here.” [NT:DictLN , s.v.
‘sonship, child, children”]
"Some
scholars have suggested that it was taken
over from Greek mystery religions, in which
initiation was conceived in terms of death
and resurrection. From considerations of the
late date of the records of these rites and
differences of interpretation, particularly
as to whether initiates in such cults
clearly identified with a deity in death and
resurrection or were offered immortality
through such ritual experience, the
suggestion is highly unlikely [NT:DictPL,s.v.,
"dying and rising"]
“Some have
suggested that Paul was influenced by the
Greek mystery religions in his concept of
dying and rising with Christ. But this
hypothesis is unnecessary and unlikely:
Baptism is a very Jewish phenomenon, and
there is little doubt that it came to
Christians directly or indirectly from John
the Baptist. For John baptism was very
much associated with the advent of the
eschatological day of the Lord, and this
eschatological dimension continues in
Christian baptism. But for Christians like
Paul the decisive eschatological events are
the death and resurrection of Jesus; it is
thus intelligible that baptism as the rite
of initiation into the saved eschatological
community should come to be associated with
Jesus’ saving death and resurrection. There
is therefore no need to invoke the mystery
religions to explain Paul’s baptismal
teaching. It is, however, possible that the
Jesus-traditions that speak of taking up the
cross and sharing in the sufferings of Jesus
were influential.” [PFJFC:155f] |
Now, the main reason this position has generally been
abandoned (as noted above) is that it is altogether
unnecessary, and less 'useful' as an explanatory
construct: the elements in the gospels and epistles
all make more sense as having developed out of
mainstream Judaism and have much more 'numerous,
complex, and striking parallels' to Old Testament/Tanaach
themes and passages. Apart from issues of
chronology and questions of motivation for
borrowing (separate problems from that of detecting
forceful parallels), the Jewish background furnishes
us with a system of underlying ideas needed to make
sense of the imagery.
Don Howell explains the general rationale for the
diminishing of this 'borrowing' position [BibSac,
V150, #599, Jul 93, p310]:
| "At the turn
of the 20th century a new approach to Paul
was forged by the religionsgeschichtliche
Schule, “the History of Religions
School.” Spawned in Germany, this
approach built on the Tübingen dichotomy
between Palestinian and Hellenistic
Christianity, and found the origins of
the more developed Pauline Christology in
the mystery religions and pagan cults of the
Greek world. The mystery religions of
Greece (Eleusian), Egypt (Isis and Osiris),
Syria (Adonis), Asia Minor (Cybele), and
Rome (Mithras) were researched and mined for
parallels with Pauline theology. A
dying-rising redeemer god, the exalted
kurios, sacramental redemption,
initiation into mystic participation in the
deity, gnosis, and pneumatic experience were
mystery-religion concepts claimed to have
conditioned Paul’s thinking.
"Two pioneers
in this field were Bousset and Reitzenstein.
Bousset argued that the Jesus of the
primitive Palestinian church was the
eschatological Son of Man, largely derived
from Daniel 7:13–14. But in the
Greek-speaking Christian communities like
Antioch, Jesus was transformed, under the
influence of the Hellenistic mystery cults,
into the acclaimed kurios. “Behind
the personal piety of Paul and his theology
there stands as a real power and a living
reality the cultic veneration of the
kurios in the community.” With
consummate skill Bousset explored the
Hermetic literature, Philo, Gnostic
documents, and the cults of Isis, Osiris,
and Orphis and discovered “parallels” with
Paul’s Christ-mysticism ("in Christ"),
doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Christ-Adam
theology, cross and sacrament, and the
dying-rising Redeemer. Reitzenstein, a
philologist and authority on Eastern
Gnosticism, researched the second-and
third-century Hermetic literature and
concluded that Gnostic terminology was the
source of Paul’s Christology. Neill, in an
extended survey of the History of Religions
approach, credits the Harvard scholar
Kirsopp Lake with popularizing in America
the arguments of German scholars such as
Bousset and Reitzenstein.
"The
influence of the various
religionsgeschichtliche models has
greatly diminished in recent decades with
the discovery of the Qumran scrolls and
wider research in the Jewish materials of
the intertestamental (Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha) and New Testament
(rabbinical traditions) periods. It is
no longer feasible to separate Hellenistic
and Jewish influences into two hermetically
sealed compartments. Paul’s Jewishness is in
the process of being rediscovered. But a
more fundamental issue is the entire logic
of the comparative religionist methodology
which presupposes the apostle to have been
an inclusivistic, impressionable absorber of
alien ideas rather than the proclaimer of a
pure gospel of faith and repentance. As
Hunter comments,
|
They did not stop to consider
that their knowledge of these
mysteries was really very scanty,
that all this amazing
transmogrification of the Gospel
must have taken place within
twenty years, that, if
Paul derived his message from
his environment, he did what no
other missionary has ever
done--borrowed his gospel from
the people among whom he worked. |
|
And, C.E. Arnold, in his article on Syncretism in
[NT:DictLNT]
summarized the current state of scholarship in this way:
| "To what
extent did the Hellenistic/Roman syncretism
influence the development of early
Christianity? H. Gunkel and other adherents
of the History-of-Religions School argued
that it was a major factor. Gunkel, in fact,
concluded that, “Christianity is a
syncretistic religion” (Gunkel, 95). He
argued that the NT was strongly influenced
by many foreign religions, but that these
beliefs entered Christianity in the first
instance through Judaism, which itself was
very strongly syncretistic. R. Bultmann
spoke of syncretism more often in connection
with Hellenistic Christianity, which he
sharply distinguished from Jewish
Christianity. He noted, “on the whole, one
could be tempted to term Hellenistic
Christianity a syncretistic structure” (Bultmann,
1.164). For Bultmann the Jewish apocalyptic
kerygma of Jesus was combined with the
gnostic myth of redemption as Christianity
spread to the Gentile world. Like Gunkel,
however, he saw Hellenistic Judaism as “in
the grip of syncretism” (Bultmann, 1.171)
and therefore as the purveyor of these
concepts to Christianity.
"The
subsequent course of scholarship has
effectively dismantled many of the
conclusions drawn by the
History-of-Religions School. Various
studies have demonstrated that there was not
one coherent gnostic redeemer myth nor was
there a common mystery-religion theology. We
have already touched on the fact that
Judaism was not the syncretistic religion
that some scholars once thought that it was.
Now most scholars are reluctant to assume
that Gnosticism even existed during the
genesis and early development of
Christianity.
"The
majority of scholars are reaffirming the
essential Jewishness of the early Christian
movement. The background of various
Christian rites, ideas and terms is being
illustrated out of the OT and Judaism, in
contrast to the previous generation that
pointed to gnostic texts and the mystery
religions. The background of the Christian
practice of baptism, for instance, is now
seldom traced to the mystery initiation
sacraments of Attis, Adonis or Osiris but to
the OT initiation rite of circumcision and
the Jewish water purification rituals.
"Gunkel,
Bultmann and others clearly undervalued the
formative influence of the OT and Judaism
for early Christianity. Neither were they
sufficiently open to the possibility that
the NT writers could use religious
language shared by adherents of other
religions without adopting the full
meaning of that language, as it was
understood in other religious contexts. In
other words, Christian writers could use the
term mystery (e.g., Rev 10:7; Ign.
Magn. 9.1; Diogn. 4.6) without implying
that Christianity is a mystery religion like
the cults of Cybele or Mithras. John
could use the image of light (1 Jn 1:5, 7;
2:8, 9, 10) without dependence on a gnostic
light-darkness dualism. Both of these
terms have long histories of usage in the OT
that provide us with the essential
conceptual framework for understanding
their NT usage. Yet at the same time they
are terms that would communicate in a
Gentile world, albeit now with a different
set of connotations.
"There is
also evidence that the apostles and
leaders in the early Christian movement
made explicit and earnest attempts to
resist the syncretistic impulses of the age.
For example, when Paul preached in Lystra
(Acts 14:8–20), he was faced with an
opportunity to make a syncretistic
innovation to the gospel. Luke records that
after Paul healed a crippled man the people
of the city mistook him for Hermes (the
messenger of Zeus) and Barnabas for Zeus.
Rather than allowing any form of
identification with their gods (even the
identification of “the living God” with
Zeus), Paul takes the bold step of telling
them to “turn from these worthless things”
to the one God, the Creator (Acts 14:15).
Earliest Christianity appears to have made
stringent effort to resist the larger
cultural trend toward the identification of
deities and directed people to the God of
Israel, who had now revealed himself in
the Lord Jesus Christ. |
To illustrate this from one of the alleged examples of
borrowing, "washed in the blood of the Lamb"
makes perfect sense being seen against the background
of OT usage:
| "Making
robes white with blood is clearly a ritual
rather than visual image: sacrificial blood
purified utensils for worship in the Old
Testament (see comment on Heb 9:21–22), and
white was the color of robes required for
worship in the New Testament period. [BBC,
in.loc.] |
Likewise, the same goes for "sprinkled with the blood
of Jesus", which could refer back to either of
two OT passages/themes [although the Numbers 19
passage does not have any blood actually in the
water of purification]:
| "Such an
understanding helps explain why obedience
precedes rather than follows the “sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ.” The latter
phrase gives concreteness and vividness to
Peter’s brief glance at Christian
conversion. “sprinkling with the blood,”
recalls the Jewish sacrificial system,
particularly as seen from a distance or in
retrospect by the early Christians. The
apparent origin of the (sprinkling)
terminology is the ceremony described in
Numbers 19 in which ashes from the
burning of a red heifer are mixed with water
and sprinkled for purification on those who
have defiled themselves by contact with a
corpse (the phrase “water of sprinkling,”
occurs repeatedly in Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21
LXX). In Barn. 8, this passage in its
entirety is applied to Christ’s redemptive
death, its imagery of sprinkling being
associated with Jesus’ blood rather than
with water and ashes (Barn. 5.1; 8.3;
in the NT cf. Heb 9:13–14).
"More
significantly, Hebrews uses the same
language (where the LXX did not) in
connection with the institution of the
Mosaic covenant: Moses built an altar at the
foot of Sinai, and when he had sacrificed
cattle he threw half of the blood against
the altar; the other half he put in bowls,
and read aloud to the people out of the
scroll of the covenant the Lord's commands.
When they promised to obey all that the Lord
commanded, Moses took the bowls and threw
the remaining blood at the people, saying
(in the words of Heb 9:20), “This is the
blood of the covenant which God commanded
you” (cf. Exod 24:3–8; Heb 9:18–21). In
Hebrews, the blood of the covenant poured
out by Moses corresponds to the “blood of
sprinkling” shed by Jesus, the “mediator of
the new covenant” (Heb 12:24; cf. 10:29).
The participants in this new covenant are
invited to “draw near with a true heart in
the full confidence of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled to cleanse a guilty
conscience and having the body washed in
pure water” (10:22). Peter lacks the direct
reference to Christian baptism (although cf.
3:20), but the close connection between
obedience and sprinkling suggests that Exod
24:3–8 is as determinative for his imagery
as for that of Hebrews. Without speaking
explicitly of a “new covenant” or the “blood
of the covenant” (which may in his circles
have been reserved for the Eucharist, cf.
Mark 14:24; 1 Cor 11:25), Peter relies on
language that had perhaps become already
fixed among Christians as a way of alluding
to the same typology. To “obey” was to
accept the gospel and become part of a new
community under a new covenant; to be
sprinkled with Jesus’ blood was to be
cleansed from one's former way of living and
released from spiritual slavery by the power
of his death (cf. 1:18). Peter’s choice of
images confirms the impression that he
writes to communities of Gentiles as if they
were a strange new kind of Jew. |
The First Covenant was inaugurated with this
ceremony (cf. also Heb 9.18ff):
"Then He said
to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the
elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a
distance. “Moses alone, however, shall come
near to the Lord, but they shall not come
near, nor shall the people come up with
him.” Then Moses came and recounted to the
people all the words of the Lord and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with
one voice, and said, “All the words which
the Lord has spoken we will do!” And Moses
wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then
he arose early in the morning, and built an
altar at the foot of the mountain with
twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of
Israel. And he sent young men of the sons of
Israel, and they offered burnt offerings
and sacrificed young bulls as peace
offerings to the Lord. And Moses took
half of the blood and put it in basins,
and the other half of the blood he sprinkled
on the altar. Then he took the book of
the covenant and read it in the hearing of
the people; and they said, “All that the
Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be
obedient!” So Moses took the blood and
sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold
the blood of the covenant, which the
Lord has made with you in accordance with
all these words.”
Exodus 23:1-7 |
As the New Covenant--from the New Moses of Deut 18-- was
inaugurated with Christ's blood (but not
physically literal):
"And in the same way He took
the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This
cup which is poured out for you is the new
covenant in My blood."
Luke 22:20 |
(By the way, these biblical events are covenant
inauguration events--NOT acts of individual
dedication, consecration, or ordination. The underlying
ideas/structures of these events would be more
'parallel' to the sacrifices performed when
Cybele was first 'adopted' by the Romans in 204 bc,
than to the multiple, individual ordinations of priests
and high priests. Even the passage in 1 Peter 1.2 is
not individual in nature: "In the Old Testament and
Judaism, God's people were corporately “chosen,”
or “predestined,” because God “foreknew” them; Peter
applies the same language to believers in Jesus.
Obedience and the sprinkling of blood also established
the first covenant (Ex 24:7–8)." [BBC,
at 1 Pet 1.2]...the underlying ideas needed to
establish non-superficial parallels, in this case,
reveal major structural differences
between the events in the bible and the taurobolia
of Roman times)
Now, unless one is going to argue that the OT passage is
somehow dependent on some at-best-first-century-AD
taurobolic experience (perhaps on the basis of both
having the 'striking parallels' of sacrificial bulls and
sprinkling of blood...sarcastic smile), it should be
obvious why modern, mainstream scholarship has abandoned
such notions. Any alleged parallels between the Jesus
story and the Attis/Cybele/Taurobolic experiences are
dwarfed by a host of 'numerous, complex, and
detailed' parallels with OT/Judaism.
If one considers carefully the details of the history
of the ritual (see
mostlybull.html), the
taurobolic ceremony (of Cybele/Attis--NOT the one
by Mithra) in the Roman period was:
- A substitutionary
castration, in which the priest was
'vicariously' castrated in the castration of the
bull
- A regular sacrifice,
which could be performed for the benefit of the
Emperor and Empire
- A 'rebirth' to
virtue/purity and 'good luck' for twenty years (even
the 4th century phrase 'to eternity' doesn't mean
the same thing as in Christianity--see the
article)
- A
dedication/consecration of a priest to the
(existing) service/religion of the Goddess Cybele
- A (possible)
re-enactment of an old hunter-goddess myth (the
capture and killing of the bull by a goddess with a
hunting spear)
Apart from the general, "non-striking", and
ubiquitous motifs of sacrifice, consecration,
(possible) rebirth, blood sprinkling, and substitution,
there just aren't any 'numerous, complex, and detailed'
correspondences with the NT documents. Even the closest
candidate--sprinkling with blood--was too general a
practice in the ancient world to be 'striking' [e.g., in
several orgiastic cults the priests/priestesses would
whip or cut themselves with knives, and sprinkle their
blood on the idols of the god/goddess].
And the next closest candidate--'rebirth'--is
neither a technical term of the Mysteries, nor is it
close enough in meaning to NT usage to consider it
parallel:
| "Though
Philo borrows not a little from the
Mysteries, he does not use this verb
('rebirth'). On the other hand, Josephus
uses it in a general sense, with no evident
dependence on the Mysteries. Bell.,
4, 484... Thus at the time of the NT
(rebirth) was not common, but it was used
generally and not merely in the Mysteries,
like the Latin renasci. This
is confirmed by the use of the substantive
(in Philo)... Philo employs this for the
Stoic doctrine of the rejuvenation of the
world ... (Aet. Mund.). Elsewhere he
has the term paliggenesiva for the
same thing, e.g., Aet. Mund., 9...The mere
mention of ('rebirth') does not prove any
dependence on the Mysteries; this
applies equally to 1 Pt. 1:3, 23...There is
a profound gulf between the religion of the
Mysteries, in which man is deified by
magical rites, and this religion of
faith...As the OT and Jewish elements are
very much alive in this religion, so the
origin of the thought of regeneration is to
be sought in Judaism. It is true that the
Jews did not describe themselves or others
as regenerate. Yet they hoped for a new life
for the world and themselves, and they did
not speak of this merely as resurrection or
new creation, but also thought in terms of
paliggenesiva and palin genesthai
when speaking Greek. [TDNT,
s.v. "anagennao"]
"Anagennan
is found in the NT only here and in v 23,
and not at all in the LXX (except for one
doubtful variant in Sir, Prol. 28). It is
the equivalent of gennan anothen
in John 3:3, 7 and may have been derived
from a slightly different form of that very
saying of Jesus (cf., e.g., Justin Martyr,
Justin, Apol. 1.61.3. “For the Christ
also said, Unless you are born again, you
will never enter the kingdom of heaven”;
cf. also Matt 18:3--"He called a
little child and had him stand among them.
3 And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless
you change and become like little children,
you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.")...
Certainly the Gospel tradition, is a
nearer and more plausible source for Peter’s
terminology than, e.g., the pagan
mystery religions (as proposed by R.
Perdelwitz; in refutation, cf. F. Büchsel,
TDNT 1:673–75, and Selwyn, 305–11).
Anagennao is found in only one
(fourth century A.D.) text bearing on
mystery religions: Sallustius, De Deis
4 (ed. A. D. Nock [1926] 8, 24). [WBC,
1 Peter 1.3]
“In 376, a
follower declared himself ‘reborn for
eternity’ and two inscription from Turin are
consecrated viribus aeterni, that is
to say to the ‘force’ (vital, sexual) of the
‘eternal’, in commemoration of a
taurobolium. In fact, we know that this
bloody ‘baptism’ was held to regenerate for
twenty years the man or woman who descended
into the pit. The Latin aeternus
indeed implies durability rather than
transcendental eternity in the Christian
sense.” [HI:TCRE:52] |
Sorry for all the detail (but there's more, obviously,
in the history piece at mostlybull.html), and we will
get into the Attis/resurrection thing again later,
but I wanted to document the fact that,
and show why the "Mystery Religions" version of
the CopyCat thesis--relative to New Testament
formation (not the writings of the
post-apostolic church!)-- has been generally abandoned
in the scholarly arena of New Testament studies. Before
Qumran and before the rise in our
understanding of "less-official" Judaism as found in
the Pseudepigrapha, it was a little more believable, but
after the last fifty years, it is difficult to maintain
the position easily.
Another very common alleged similarity is
the virgin birth. Other
religious figures, especially warrior gods (and actually
some heroic human figures such as Alexander the Great)
over time became associated with some form of miraculous
birth, occasionally connected with virginity. It
is all too easy to simply accept this on face value
without investigating further. In Raymond Brown's
research on the Birth Narratives of Jesus [BM:522-523],
he evaluates these non-Christian "examples" of virgin
births and his conclusions bear repeating here:
"Among the
parallels offered for the virginal
conception of Jesus have been the
conceptions of figures in world
religions (the Buddha, Krishna, and
the son of Zoroaster), in Greco-Roman
mythology (Perseus, Romulus), in
Egyptian and Classical History (the
Pharaohs, Alexander, Augustus), and
among famous philosophers or
religious thinkers (Plato,
Apollonius of Tyana), to name only a
few.
"Are any
of these divinely engendered births
really parallel to the non-sexual
virginal conception of Jesus described
in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated
by a male deity or element, but the
child is begotten through the creative
power of the Holy Spirit? These
"parallels" consistently involve a type
of hieros gamos (note: "holy
seed" or "divine semen") where a divine
male, in human or other form,
impregnates a woman, either through
normal sexual intercourse or through
some substitute form of penetration.
In short, there is no clear example of
virginal conception in world or
pagan religions that plausibly could
have given first-century Jewish
Christians the idea of the virginal
conception of Jesus.
|
And the history-of-religions scholar David Adams Leeming
(writing in EOR, s.v. "Virgin Birth") begins his article
by pointing out that all 'virgin births' are NOT
necessarily such:
| "A virgin is
someone who has not experienced sexual
intercourse, and a virgin birth, or
parthenogenesis (Gr., parthenos,
"virgin"; genesis, "birth"), is one
in which a virgin gives birth. According
to this definition, the story of the birth
of Jesus is a virgin birth story whereas the
birth of the Buddha and of Orphic Dionysos
are not. Technically what is at issue is
the loss or the preservation of virginity
during the process of conception. The Virgin
Mary was simply "found with child of the
Holy Ghost" before she was married and
before she had "known" a man. So, too, did
the preexistent Buddha enter the womb of his
mother, but since she was already a married
woman, there is no reason to suppose she was
a virgin at the time. In the Ophic story of
Dionysos, Zeus came to Persephone in the
form of a serpent and impregnated her, so
that the maiden's virginity was technically
lost." |
What these scholars are talking about is the
textual data in the account. In other words,
does the relevant sacred text describe or imply in any
way, a means of impregnation or conception? Leemings
comment that Mary was "simply 'found with child'"
documents the textual data from that miraculous
conception story--the text simply omits
any comment, description, or implication about the
method/manner of her becoming pregnant--the sexual
element is simply missing altogether. If other accounts
suggest or give details of this process--even if
not the 'normal' type of intercourse (e.g. a snake, a
piece of fruit)--then, according to these scholars, it
is not a 'virgin conception' (by comparison). Ancient
gods and goddess were typically very sexually 'explicit'
and sexually 'active' (!), and this element is
completely absent from the biblical narratives
and material, especially the story of the virginal
conception of Jesus.
This issue of agency/means is a distinguishing
trait of the gospel accounts, compared with other
stories of divine-engendered births:
| "In our
discussion of the genre of the birth
Narratives we noted that 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." [NT:DictJG,
s.v. "Birth of Jesus"] |
In fact, it is quite different from the many stories of
miracle births in the ancient world:
| "Ancient
biographers sometimes praised the miraculous
births of their subjects (especially
prominent in the Old Testament), but there
are no close parallels to the virgin
birth. Greeks told stories of gods
impregnating women, but the text indicates
that Mary's conception was not sexual;nor
does the Old Testament (or Jewish tradition)
ascribe sexual characteristics to God.
Many miraculous birth stories in the ancient
world (including Jewish accounts, e.g., 1
Enoch 106) are heavily embroidered with
mythical imagery (e.g., babies filling
houses with light), in contrast with the
straightforward narrative style of this
passage (cf. similarly Ex 2:1–10). [BBC,
Matt 1.18] |
Let's take a quick look
at the gospel narratives, to see this clearly...Remember
the background and sequence of these events:
| "Marriages
were arranged for individuals by parents,
and contracts were negotiated. After
this was accomplished, the individuals
were considered married and were called
husband and wife. They did not,
however, begin to live together.
Instead, the woman continued to live with
her parents and the man with his for one
year. The waiting period was to
demonstrate the faithfulness of the pledge
of purity given concerning the bride. If
she was found to be with child in this
period, she obviously was not pure, but had
been involved in an unfaithful sexual
relationship. Therefore the marriage could
be annulled. If, however, the one-year
waiting period demonstrated the purity of
the bride, the husband would then go to the
house of the bride's parents and in a grand
processional march lead his bride back to
his home. There they would begin to live
together as husband and wife and consummate
their marriage physically. Matthew's
story should be read with this background in
mind.
"Mary and
Joseph were in the one-year waiting period
when Mary was found to be with child.
They had never had sexual intercourse and
Mary herself had been faithful (vv. 20, 23).
While little is said about Joseph, one can
imagine how his heart must have broken. He
genuinely loved Mary, and yet the word came
that she was pregnant. His love for her was
demonstrated by his actions. He chose not to
create a public scandal by exposing her
condition to the judges at the city gate.
Such an act could have resulted in Mary's
death by stoning (Deut. 22:23-24). Instead
he decided to divorce her quietly.
"Then in a
dream (cf. Matt. 2:13, 19, 22), an angel
told Joseph that Mary's condition was not
caused by a man, but through the Holy Spirit
(1:20; cf. v. 18). The Child Mary carried in
her womb was a unique Child, for He would be
a Son whom Joseph should name Jesus for He
would save His people from their sins. These
words must have brought to Joseph's mind the
promises of God to provide salvation through
the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37). The
unnamed angel also told Joseph that this was
in keeping with Gods eternal plan, for the
Prophet Isaiah had declared 700 years before
that the virgin will be with Child (Matt.
1:23; Isa. 7:14). While Old Testament
scholars dispute whether the Hebrew almah
should be rendered “young woman” or
“virgin,” God clearly intended it here to
mean virgin (as implied by the Gr. word
parthenos). Mary's miraculous conception
fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy, and her Son
would truly be Immanuel . . . God with us.
In light of this declaration Joseph was
not to be afraid to take Mary into his home
(Matt. 1:20). There would be
misunderstanding in the community and much
gossip at the well, but Joseph knew the
true story of Mary's pregnancy and Gods will
for his life.
"As soon as
Joseph awakened from this dream, he obeyed.
He violated all custom by immediately
taking Mary into his home rather than
waiting till the one-year time period of
betrothal had passed. Joseph was
probably thinking of what would be best for
Mary in her condition. He brought her home
and began to care and provide for her. But
there was no sexual relationship between
them until after the birth of this Child,
Jesus. [Bible Knowledge Commentary, at
Matt 1.18ff] |
The most detailed text we have about this event is in
Luke:
"And the
angel answered and said to her, “The Holy
Spirit will come upon (epileusetai)
you, and the power of the Most High will
overshadow (episkiasei) you"
Luke 1.35 |
The "Holy Spirit coming upon
you" is not to be conceived as some kind of spiritual
'intercourse'--this is a stock, generic phrase from OT
literature. It means empowerment, being set
apart for a special task, and the such like. Look at
some of the examples:
"The Lord therefore said to Moses, “Gather
for Me seventy men from the elders of
Israel, whom you know to be the elders of
the people and their officers and bring them
to the tent of meeting, and let them take
their stand there with you. “Then I
will come down and speak with you there, and
I will take of the Spirit who is upon
you, and will put Him upon them; and
they shall bear the burden of the people
with you, so that you shall not bear it all
alone."
Numbers 11:16
"And when the sons of Israel cried to the
Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the
sons of Israel to deliver them, Othniel the
son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. And
the Spirit of the Lord came upon him,
and he judged Israel."
Judges 3:9
"Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon
Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning
the Abiezrites to follow him."
Judges 6:34
"Then Samson went down to Timnah with his
father and mother, and came as far as the
vineyards of Timnah; and behold, a young
lion came roaring toward him. And the
Spirit of the Lord came upon him
mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a
kid though he had nothing in his hand"
Judges 14:5
"Then the Spirit of the Lord will come
upon you mightily, and you shall
prophesy with them and be changed into
another man."
1 Samuel 10:6
"Then the Spirit came upon Amasai,
who was the chief of the thirty, and he
said, “We are yours, O David, And with you,
O son of Jesse! Peace, peace to you, And
peace to him who helps you; Indeed, your God
helps you!” Then David received them and
made them captains of the band."
1 Chronicles 12:18
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my
chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put
my spirit upon him; he will bring forth
justice to the nations."
Isaiah 42:1
"And it will come about after this That I
will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And
your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your
old men will dream dreams, Your young men
will see visions. 29 “And even on the male
and female servants I will pour out My
Spirit in those days."
Joel 2:28ff
[and of
course, all the prophets spoke in the name
of the Lord, as the "Spirit came upon them"] |
On of the more interesting uses occurs is in Isaiah
32.15, which might be echoed in the Virgin conception
and in the cases of 'barren conceptions'--the image of
miraculous/spectacular fertility:
Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from
on high,
And the wilderness becomes a fertile field
And the fertile field is considered as a
forest.
Isaiah 32:15 |
This is part of the reason why the NT scholars I cite
here are so confident (even for 'cautious' scholars)
that pagan sexual elements are NOT in the New Testament
texts.
The angel had paid a visit to her home, and "gone
into/unto/to her" (same Greek phrase as Joseph
'going into Pilate' to ask for the body of Jesus in Mk
15.23; the angel 'going into/unto' Cornelius in Acts
10.3; and the accusation of Peter 'going into/unto'
Gentiles and eating with them in Acts 11.3). The angel
announced the good news of God's promise to Israel and
Mary asks 'how'? The verse in 1.35 actually doesn't
answer the question at all, but it does avoid saying
some things (even 'coyly'):
| "There is
not the slightest evidence that either of
the verbs involved has ever been used in
relation to sexual activity or even more
broadly in connection with the conception of
a child (cf. Fitzmyer, TS 34 [1973] 569;
not eperchesthai but epibainein
would be needed to express the notion of
coming upon [mounting] sexually [e.g.,
PhiloDeSom 1.200]). [WBC,
in.loc.] |
Instead, the verbs express more general notions of God's
providence and faithfulness to His promises:
| “[T]o
come upon,” is Septuagintal idiom but is
used in connection with the Spirit only at
Isa 32:15 where the MT has (“will
be poured out”). Acts 1:8 “when the
Holy Spirit comes upon you.” Since Luke
nowhere else refers to the coming of the
Spirit in these terms, he is probably
drawing attention to the Greek text of Isa
32:15 in both cases: this is the
eschatological coming of the Spirit that
will cause the wilderness to become a
fruitful field. ...“will overshadow,”
like “will come upon,” has probably
been influenced by the LXX text of Exod
40:35, perhaps via the transfiguration
account (Luke 9:34): Mary's experience is to
be compared to the dramatic way in which
Gods glory and the cloud marking his
presence came down upon the completed
tabernacle" [WBC,
in.loc.]
"The word for
"overshadow" (episkiazo) carries the sense
of the holy, powerful presence of God, as in
the description of the cloud that "covered"
(Heb. sakan; NIV, "settled upon") the
tabernacle when the tent was filled with the
glory of God (Exod 40:35; cf. Ps 91:4). The
word is used in all three accounts of the
Transfiguration to describe the
overshadowing of the cloud (Matt 17:5; Mark
9:7; Luke 9:34). [EBCNT, in. loc.] |
So, one needs to be VERY careful and detailed in
examining alleged parallels between figures widely
separated in space and time. [And remember, we are
focused only on the formation of the New Testament
documents (and the content-traditions behind them) - NOT
what the post-apostolic community will do with them!]
Consideration:
We need also remember that
our question deals only with the issue of the New
Testament content - not the Councils, not the hymns, not
the Fathers, not the sects, not the Apocrypha. We are
concerned with the Jesus of the gospels and of the
message of the post-ascension early Church. Items
and elements 'borrowed' from non-Christian religions
after the first century AD. simply cannot be used to
argue for borrowing in the years 33 - 70 A.D., when the
NT was composed.
"Pushback:
"Well wait a minute, bud...didn't the late church
start 'stealing ideas' from paganism--like Sol
Invictus' December 25th birthday for Jesus? And if
later Christians did that, why in the world
would we believe the first ones wouldn't steal
ideas, too?!"
This is a different type of argument, dealing with
motivation/psychology ('what might have happened')
instead of history ('what the evidence
indicates'), and so our approach may have to be a
bit different. But before we get into this, let's
examine the oft-stated belief about the stealing of
December 25th...
First, let's note that it
is not at all certain that this theft actually occurred
- the data is mixed:
| "In regard
to the day of Jesus’ birth, as early as
Hippolytus (A.D. 165–235) it was said to be
December 25, a date also set by John
Chrysostom (A.D. 345–407) whose
arguments prevailed in the Eastern Church.
There is nothing improbable about a
mid-winter birth. Luke 2:8 tells us that the
shepherds’ flocks were kept outside when
Jesus was born. This detail might favor a
date between March and November when such
animals would normally be outside. But the
Mishnah (m. sûeqal. 7.4) suggests that sheep
around Bethlehem might also be outside
during the winter months (Hoehner).
Therefore, though there is no certainty, it
appears that Jesus was born somewhere
between 4–6 B.C., perhaps in mid-winter.
Both the traditional Western date for
Christmas (Dec. 25) and the date observed by
the Armenian Church (Jan. 6) are equally
possible. The biblical and extra-biblical
historical evidence is simply not specific
enough to point decisively to either
traditional date. The celebration of the
nativity is attested in Rome as early as
A.D. 336 and this celebration also involved
recognizing January 6 as Epiphany, the day
the Magi visited Jesus." [NT:DictJG,
s.v. 'birth of jesus']
"The exact day
of Jesus birth' is unknown. The Gnostic
Basilidians in Egypt (late second
century) commemorated Jesus' baptism on
January 6, and by the early fourth
century many Christians in the East were
celebrating both his nativity and
baptism then....In 274 Emperor
Aurelian decreed December 25 as the
celebration of the 'Unconquerable Sun," the
first day in which there was a noticeable
increase in light after the winter solstice.
The earliest mention of a Feast of the
Nativity is found in a document composed in
336. Some feel Constantine (who died in 337)
may have selected this day for Christmas
because of a deep-seated respect for the
popular pagan solstice festival. Others
argue that the date was chosen as a
replacement for it, that it, to honor
the 'Sun of Righteousness.' Firmly
established in the West within a few
decades, another century passed before the
Eastern church adopted December 25...The
only holdout was the Armenian church, which
still observes the nativity on January 6." [TK:104f]
"Aurelian
celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti
("birthday of Sol Invictus") on December
25. Whether this festival was celebrated
earlier than the third century is unknown.
Nor is it certain that December 25 was the
birthday of Mithras as well as of Sol
Invictus. This has not prevented many
scholars from assuming that Mithraic
influence upon Christianity was involved in
the adoption of this date for
Christmas...Roger Beckwith concludes that 'a
date in the depths of winter
(January-February) is therefore one of the
two possibilities; and it may be that
Clement, and through him Hippolytus, were in
possession of a genuine historical tradition
to this effect, which in the course of time
had been mistakenly narrowed down to a
particular day.'...Clement of Alexandria
(circa 200) in his Stromateis (1.146) noted
that Gnostic Basilidians in Egypt celebrated
Jesus' baptism either on January 10 or
January 6. By the early fourth century
Christians in the East were celebrating
Jesus' birth on January 6..." [OT:PAB:520f]
Later church
tradition remembered it as a 'competitive
strategy': "The reason, then, why the
fathers of the church moved the January 6th
celebration to December 25th was this, they
say: it was the custom of the pagans to
celebrate on this same December 25th the
birthday of the Sun, and they lit lights
then to exalt the day, and invited and
admitted the Christians to these rites.
When, therefore, the teachers of the Church
saw that Christians inclined to this custom,
figuring out a strategy, they set the
celebration of the true Sunrise on this day,
and ordered Epiphany to be celebrated on
January 6th; and this usage they maintain to
the present day along with the lighting of
lights." (12th century bishop, cited in
[HI:CP68C:155]
"The
equinoxes and solstices must have been
especially sacred. This was verified for the
spring equinox of 172, the day when
the Mithraeum 'of the Seven Spheres', at
Ostia, was opened to a new community. The
vernal equinox marked the anniversary of the
sacrifice that had revived the world.
Perhaps at the winter solstice (25
December) they celebrated the birth of
Mithras emerging from the rock..." (HI:TCRE:234,
emphasis mine...and I might ask the question
here as to how many solar deities did NOT
celebrate the Winter Solstice as a
'rebirth'?! All the ones I know of did (e.g.
HI:SSK:157-65),
not sure that really counts as a 'historical
birthday' in the same sense as Jesus'; so,
Eliade: "The anniversary of the Deus Sol
Invictus was set at December 25th, the
'birthday' of all Oriental solar
deities" [WR:HRI2:411]...)
|
Secondly, what difference would it have made?
The Roman Empire, with the "conversion" of Constantine,
knew quite clearly the difference between the Jesus
of the Christians and the Sun God of the Roman elite or
the Mithras of the military. There would be no
confusion between the two. The fierce struggles "for the
minds of men" between Christian thought and pagan
thought of the past two centuries kept the distinctions
very, very clear..."Converting" a holiday from Sol/Mithras
to Christ would even "make sense", given the early
Kingdom-theology of the Church (see below
discussion)...Just as 'converting' temples would look to
them a bit later, and maybe even 'converting' statues
(and changing the names, obviously). And you can rest
assured that Mithraists no more celebrated the birthday
of Christ on that day, any more than the Christians did
Mithra's. For someone to assert that this could only
happen if the two 'gods' were already very similar,
simply does not understand the intense
Christian-versus-pagan polemic of those times, and the
highly developed positions within that polemic. The
major exchanges between the second and third century
Christian apologists and theologians, and the sharp and
powerful attacks of Celsus and Porphyry, were only the
tip of the iceberg. The Roman legislation battles and
the constant watchful eye (and interventions) of the
Roman government over this 'dangerous sect' insured that
the battle lines were always clear to the rulers,
elites, and urban middle-class. And, we don't even have
to get all the way to 'conversion'--it might have
been picked for 'protest' reasons: "The purpose was
that it should be celebrated in opposition to the
sun-cult" [NIDNTT]
- It's not
clear that it was deliberately
set to the same day as the birthday
of Sol Invictus (it may have be December
25 anyway)
- It's not
clear that it was established later
than the first known celebration of
Sol's birthday (Hippolytus is writing
before Aurelian's law)
- It could
have been deliberately set to the
same day, as a 'protest' or
'opposition' movement, or as a
'conversion' initiative--without true
'borrowing' of the holiday itself
(i.e., the content and conceptual
meaning of the holiday would
certainly be massively different, and
clear to the participants, even if
the 'trappings' were the same)
|
And,
therefore, it is not at all clear that the action was a
case of 'borrowing pagan ideas' and smuggling them into
Christianity.
But
back to the pushbak: There are two ways
to look at this issue:
First, the
pushback doesn't actually provide any evidence
that borrowing occurred during the construction of the
New Testament.
Let's agree that the later church--somewhere, sometime,
someway--did some 'illegal syncretism'. What would that
actually prove? Only that some Christians did
borrow, and by implication (loosely speaking, though)
that other Christians could have done the same
thing. And, in the mouth of the pushbacker, it could
have been the New Testament authors who could have
done this, in the 35-70 AD timeframe.
But no one is arguing (certainly not me) that
they couldn't have done it, but rather
that they didn't do it. The evidence
may support borrowing later; but in our
(earlier) case, it doesn't...That's my
argument--that "the evidence leads us to
believe borrowing did not occur", and NOT
that" our presumptions about the purity of the
apostolic church leads us to believe it"! Huge
difference...
I don't put syncretistic borrowing past anyone
(pagan or Christian), and we know that splinter
groups in the apostolic age did just that. The
apostles are constantly having to deal with
people who were trying to smuggle non-Jesus
elements into the early church: the Jesus-plus-Law group
(cf. Galatians), the Jesus-plus-magic group (cf. Acts
19.17ff), Jesus-plus-ApolloTyrimnaeus (cf. Rev 2.20,
Thyatira), Jesus-plus-Epicureanism (the adversaries in 2
Peter), Jesus-plus-PlatonicDualism (First John),
Jesus-plus-Phrygian-cults (Colossians),
Jesus-plus-astrology (Eph 1). Paul himself can be
seen in active, aggressive, and 'antagonistic' combat
against the various pagan systems of his day; NOT a
'borrowing kind of guy' [quotes below are from
NT:DictPL, s.v. "Religions, Greco-Roman"]:
-
The mystery cults:
"However, there are what appear to be a
number of words and phrases in Pauline
vocabulary which seem to have been
derived ultimately from the language
used to describe aspects of the mystery
cults. These terms, which include
“wisdom” (1 Cor 1:17–31), “knowledge” (1
Cor 8:1; 13:8), “spiritual person”
contrasted with “psychic person,” (1 Cor
2:14–16), “to be initiated” (Phil 4:12),
“mystery” and “perfect” or “mature” (1
Cor 2:5–6), “unutterable” (2 Cor 12:4),
do not appear to be drawn directly
from the mystery cults but had
much earlier passed into the common fund
of figurative religious language. In
particular instances it appears that
Paul actually adopted the language of
his opponents in his attempt to refute
them (e.g., 1 Cor 2:6–13)."
-
The imperial cult:
"The imperial cult was particularly
influential throughout Asia Minor,
including the eastern region where
Tarsus was located. Beginning with the
divine Augustus, Roman emperors were
frequently lauded with such titles as
kyrios (“Lord”) and soter (“savior”),
and these titles were also used of
Jesus by Paul and other early
Christians (Rom 1:4; 4:24; 16:2; Phil
2:11; 3:20). While these titles are
used of God frequently in the Greek OT,
they would have had clear associations
with the imperial cult to many ancient
Mediterraneans. While the title “Son
of God” was certainly derived from the
OT (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7), the phrase
divi filius (“son of god”) was
used of Augustus (referring to his
adopted father Julius Caesar) and was a
title taken over by other Roman emperors
to underline their filial relationship
to their divinized predecessors, so that
this designation would also have had
associations with the imperial cult for
many ancients." [Paul specifically
says that there are no 'Lords' but Jesus.]
-
Pagan sacrifices:
"Since observant Jews had scruples
against idolatrous practices and
followed dietary laws based on the
Torah, which prohibited the consumption
of meat from unclean animals or even
clean animals not killed in a ritually
appropriate manner, Jews and Jewish
Christians were naturally reluctant to
eat the meat of animals sacrificed to
pagan deities. While part of the victims
sacrificed in Greek temples was consumed
on the premises by priests and
worshipers, the rest was sold to the
public in the market place. The practice
of eating “meat sacrificed to idols”,
could refer to participation in a sacral
meal in a temple or during the
distribution of sacrificial meat in the
course of a public religious festival,
or to the practice of eating meat
purchased at the marketplace but which
had originally been part of a pagan
sacrifice. Paul thought that when
people sacrificed to idols they were
really sacrificing to demons (1 Cor
10:20), a view common in Judaism
(Deut 32:17; Ps 19:5; Jub. 1:11; 11:4–6;
1 Enoch 19:1), and even found among some
pagans such as the philosopher Celsus,
though for him daimones were
petty deities (Origen Contra Celsum
8.24)."
-
Pagan divination:
" In Philippi Paul exorcised a
“spirit of divination,” from a young
female slave used as a fortune teller by
her owners (Acts 16:16–18."
-
A local Zeus/Hermes cult:
"Following the narrative of the healing
of a cripple at Lystra by Barnabas and
Paul, the onlookers make the acclamation
“The gods have come down to us in human
form,” and they called Barnabas Zeus and
Paul Hermes (cf. Acts 28:6). The priest
of the local temple of Zeus then brought
oxen and garlands with the intention of
sacrificing to Barnabas-Zeus and
Paul-Hermes. From Homer on, Greek
tradition entertained the possibility
that gods could disguise themselves as
human beings (Iliad 24.345–47; Odyssey
1.105; 2.268; 17.485–87; Homeric Hymn to
Demeter 94–97, 275–81; Plato Soph. 216b;
Rep. 2.20 [381b–382c]; Silius Italicus
7.176; Ovid Metam. 8.626), though such
disguises were not usually maintained
very long and were generally followed by
a recognition scene. Zeus and Hermes
were occasionally paired since Zeus had
chosen Hermes as his herald and
spokesperson (Diodorus Siculus 5.75.2;
Apollodorus 3.10.2; Iamblichus De Myst.
1.1). Paul was identified by the
onlookers with Hermes precisely because
he was the chief speaker (Acts 14:12).
The closest mythological parallel
recounts how Zeus and Hermes, disguised
as mortals, were barred from a thousand
homes until welcomed by the aged farm
couple Baucis and Philemon (Ovid Metam.
8.611–724). In Greek tradition the
appearance of a deity is traditionally
the occasion when divine honors are
instituted, a fact which accounts for
the behavior of the priest of the temple
of Zeus in Acts 14:13." [Paul calls
their gods 'worthless things']
-
An unknown god at Athens:
" In the context of a visit to Athens
narrated in Acts 17:16–34 (a section in
which the author of Luke-Acts reveals a
familiarity with philosophical
traditions and language), Paul visits
the Areopagus and, in the manner of an
ancient philosopher, directs an
apologetic speech to the Epicurean and
Stoic philosophers present. In the
introduction to this speech (the
captatio benevolentiae), he
congratulates the Athenians for their
piety and then refers to an altar in the
vicinity with an inscription “to an
unknown god,” claiming that it is this
God whom he is now proclaiming to
them... Pausanias reports the existence
of altars to “unknown gods” (in the
plural) in Athens and Olympia (Pausanias
1.1.4; 5.14.8). Important cult centers
such as Athens, Olympia and Pergamon had
dozens of altars to traditional Greek
gods (Zeus, Athena, Hermes, etc.), to
less traditional deities (e.g., Helios,
“sun,” and Selene, “moon”), to
abstractions (e.g., Pistis, “fidelity,”
and Arete, “virtue”) and (in an attempt
to be complete, i.e., to have a
“precinct for altars of all gods without
exception”) to “unknown gods” and (safer
still) to “all the gods.” Though no
inscription has been found which exactly
reproduces the phraseology of Acts
17:23, it is quite possible that such
inscriptions actually existed." [Paul
specifically rejects the entire pantheon
of their gods, as those who 'live in
temples' and are 'served by human
hands']
-
Artemis of the Ephesians
(Acts 19:23–41). "In this episode
(perhaps alluded to in 1 Cor 15:32 and 2
Cor 1:8–11), Paul's success in
proclaiming the gospel in the Roman
Province of Asia is perceived as
threatening the livelihood of the
silver-workers guild, which made
miniature silver replicas of the temple
of Artemis to be sold as souvenirs or
amulets (Acts 19:24). The temple of
Artemis in Ephesus was one of the seven
wonders of the world (Strabo 14.1.20–23;
Pausanias 2.2.5; 4.31; Achilles Tatius
7–8; Xenophon Eph. Ephesian Tale 1.1–3),
and the city was given the title
“temple-keeper” (Acts 19:35), as a major
center of the imperial cult. The
acclamation “Great is Artemis of the
Ephesians” (Acts 19:28) reflects a
popular title of the goddess (Xenophon
Eph. Ephesian Tale 1.11)." [The local
populace knew that Paul taught 'that
man-made gods are no gods at all',
19.26]
|
The issue, then, is not could they, but
did they. And that is what we are trying to
analyze in this article. If our study of the alleged
parallels don't turn up some really 'numerous, complex,
detailed, striking" and "with underlying ideas"
parallels, then any cases of 'borrowing' at any other
time period remains irrelevant to our
discussion.
The church was never unclear in its exclusivistic
message - the pagan world knew exactly what its
"mission" was relative to 'other gods':
| "That
attack was sharp and consistent. It
followed from Jewish practice. Saint Paul
is at pains to emphasize and control his
usage, referring to 'the so-called
gods', 'gods that are not in their
nature (gods)'; Eusebius speaks of the 'mis-named
gods'; and a triumphant champion of the
church erected an inscription at Ephesus
that begins, 'Destroying the delusive image
of the demon Artemis...'" [CRE:18]
"If we stop
here a moment, however, to assess the
various familiar ways...in which
Christianity differed from the general
context of opinion around it, the one point
of difference that seems most salient was
the antagonism inherent in it--antagonism
of God toward all other supernatural
powers..." [CRE:19]
|
And, judging from (a) the reported
anti-syncretistic attitude of the apostolic group toward
pagan elements encountered in their missionary,
evangelistic, and teaching activity; (b) the current
state of scholarly research/consensus against the
paganism-as-source-of-NT-content position, and (c)
the research done for the previous version of
this article in 1997, I personally have my doubts that
we are likely to surface any/much data to support
borrowing in the period we are studying...but we'll
see...
Secondly,
although it is not really
necessary to discuss this (given the evidential nature
of our task here), I should point out that
the post-Constantine church had a
radically different set of pressures and issues on them,
than did the NT church, and that much of the later
'borrowings' would be unique (and generally
'reluctant'!) to that later period. So,
MacMullen, in his study of exactly this--the interaction
between Christianity and Paganism in the 4-8th
centuries--consistently points this out [quotes are from
HI:CP48C], explaining the historical process as it
unfolded:
1. The
conversion of Constantine 'encouraged' the
rest of the Roman Empire to convert too, and
this created a massive problem for the
church--an influx of people with social
needs previously met in pagan praxis,
without a corresponding Christian
equivalent:
|
"In the opening century or
two of their existence as a
religious community,
Christians lacked a
distinctive poetry, rhetoric,
drama, architecture, painting,
sculpture, music, or dance--all,
arts serving the older faith
richly. They lacked arts
of play and celebration that
other faiths enjoyed. They
had almost no special language
of gestures or symbols in
which to express their feelings
or their wishes to, or
regarding, the divine, such
as pagans had developed..."
[p.150]
"By the turn of the fourth
century, it [Christianity] could
claim a substantial minority of
the population in the eastern
provinces though only a small
minority in the west.Thereafter,
as it registers more clearly in
our surviving sources, an
estimate of its place becomes
less uncertain. It constituted
perhaps as much as a half of the
population by A.D 400. The
figure is not likely to be far
wrong; unlikely, then, that the
far lower estimate for the
church is wrong, either, at the
moment when Constantine was
converted; for rapid growth
in the intervening period is
quite evident. Constantine and
his successors held out many new
and effective inducements to
join. In the course of the
response, greater numbers but
also a greater diversity of
human types and temperaments
were swept into the church, and
along with them, a far greater
diversity of demands and
expectations. In
consequence, the deficiencies
noted just above began to be
supplied from paganism, partly
unopposed, partly against the
leadership’s wishes, but
necessarily, because of the
numbers of newer converts and
the impossibility of entirely
reeducating them.” (p.151)
“[T]he old means of
satisfying them (the needs
met by pagan social and artistic
life) were denied or
destroyed [by the Roman
emperors], and the equivalent
in Christianity did not exist.
Unlike the forms of expression
developed by communities of
Christians in the first century
or two of their history, those
developed by non-Christian
communities had had a very long
time indeed to incorporate the
arts and pleasures of life into
worship. ..The remarkable
diversity of cult-centered arts,
activities, and psychological
rewards…All these, church
leadership wished converts to
surrender….Many or most
converts simply could not make
so great a sacrifice. It could
not and did not happen.”
(p.152)
“In the nature of the case no
one today can make any good
guess at the depth or prevalence
of the converts’ inner feelings.
Only, no one can doubt that
loyalties and preferences, the
conscious and the unthinking,
still attached them to the old
ways. The bishops
certainly thought so and say so
often enough in both eastern and
western sermons.” (p153)
“Inflow of novelties into the
church was perpetual. And why
should this not be so since
the period post-Constantine
brought about the baptism of so
many persons raised in another
religious faith? Though
baptized, they were nevertheless
not easy to reach for more
perfect instruction: they
were poor and rural and hard to
get at, rarely to be seen in
church. Yet they counted in
the tens of millions. Small
wonder that the church which
included them, looked at
sociologically and
demographically rather than
theologically, underwent
significant change of character
in the process of taking them
in.” (p144) |
2. The Church
leadership had to quickly respond, without
prior practice or warning, and scrambled to
try to 'convert' the content of the
pagan practices, while maintaining the 'less
theological' elements such as art,
sculpture, festivals, and dance. (Generally
this involved offering a 'substitute'
festival or location, but in each case the
attempt was made to make it clear to the
pagan that the "theological content" had
radically changed):
|
“It was religion as a time of
communal rejoicing and social
intercourse acted out in the
company of the divine that
converts were used to and could
not do without…The same
need forced the invention of
many celebrations during the
year, since Christians’
attendance at events like the
Kalends proved too much for
the church leadership to control
except by competition…”
(p.155)
“The church calendar was thus
to some considerable degree
amplified (though the names
of the days of the week, to be
called by plain numbers, were
advertised in vain). In the same
way, the choice of where to
build shrines for Christian
worship was dictated by the
location of the antecedent pagan
ones. They must be challenged
and resanctified, if not rather
destroyed.” (p155f) [Notice
how the church leadership
attempted to remove the
pagan elements--even the
names of the days of the
week!--but their attempts
failed, due to the overwhelming
number of people now joining the
body of the church.]
“For, when peace came after so
many and such violent
persecutions, crowds of
pagans wishing to become
Christians were prevented from
doing this because of their
habit of celebrating the feast
days of their idols with
banquets and carousing; and,
since it was not easy for them
to abstain from these dangerous
but ancient pleasures, our
ancestors thought it would be
good to make a concession for
the time being to their weakness
and permit them, instead of
| | |
