|
Three items appear below: 1
The Real Story of
Christmas
Laurie Eddie
Laurie Eddie
(Investigator 87, 2002 November) INTRODUCTION
The town of Bethlehem is referred to as the birthplace of Jesus and thus of Christianity. Yet neither Jesus nor Christianity originated in Bethlehem. The Christian
mythos says
that the Christian
Church was the end result of an unbroken, ongoing process, whereby:
This is not how
it
happened. We'll look
briefly at the factual origins of Christianity using the Christmas
story
as an example of the confusion and error that is found in the NT. We
will
examine:
THE NAME "JESUS" The Old Testament contains references to at least thirteen men with the name of 'Jesus.' In Hebrew the name appears in various forms, as, Joshua, Jeshua, Jeshuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, and Oshea. Amongst these
are four
different Joshuas
and nine different Jeshuas mentioned in the Old Testament. Jesus is
actually
the Greek form of these names, so that in the Greek translation of the
Hebrew Old Testament, the Book of Joshua is called the Book of Jesus.
In
all probability the person we know as 'Jesus' was most likely called, Yeshu'a
ha Notzri, or Jesus of Nazareth.
Below is the
outline of a
famous individual.
At the end of the outline you will be asked to identify him.
If you
said Jesus you
were wrong. The
actual deity described here is Mithra. Most of the claims made about
Mithra
were assimilated into the Christian Church and identified as attributes
of Jesus.
NATIVITY
STORIES
Most people
would be aware
of the Nativity
Stories contained in the New Testament, a brief outline is as follows:
-
2. Mary conceives while still a virgin; [Matthew 1:18] 3. Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem to…register at the city of David; [Luke 2:4] 4. Jesus born in a stable (manger, or cave); [Luke 2:7] 5. Angels announce the birth of the messiah to the shepherds. They go to worship Jesus; [Luke 2:8-18] 6. The Magi, (Astrologers, Wise Men), see a star in the west. They travel to Jerusalem and visit Herod seeking to determine, Where is the child that is born to be the king of the Jews? [Matthew 2:1-2] 7.Herod is advised that the new king will be born at Bethlehem in Judea; [Matthew 2:5] 8.The Magi continue to follow the star and find Jesus and his parents and give them rare and precious gifts, of the type given to princes; [Matthew 2:11] 9. Mary and Joseph are warned that Herod intends to kill all the young children, so they flee to Egypt; [Matthew 2:13] 10. The execution of the innocents, Herod's soldiers slaughter all children under the age of two years; [Matthew 2:16] We need to ask ourselves, how much of this general outline is factual? It appears that
the only
single fact contained
in this nativity outline is the fact that Jesus was born. Although some
scholars would dispute even this. However, we do not know:
Not only is it
the
situation that nine out
of the ten items referring to the biblical account of the nativity are
fictional, they are in fact the myths and legends of the Gentiles who
became
members of the Christian Church. The obvious question is, how is it
that
so many Gentile traditional stories about their deities came to be
attached
to the figure of Jesus a Jew?
According to the
Oxford
Dictionary a myth
is a traditional narrative usually involving supernatural or imaginary
persons and embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena;
while
a legend is a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as
historical
but unauthenticated. There were many such stories in the various
Gentile
traditions, and what appears to have happened is that because they were
well-known, part of their respective cultures, they were easily
assimilated
into the new faith.
It had long been
a
tradition of conquering
empires to simply add the deities of conquered races into their own
pantheon,
usually identifying particular deities with their own. Thus Dionysus,
an
Eastern fertility god became identified with Bacchus, and he was
worshipped
throughout the Roman Empire as the same deity, but under different
names.
Following this tradition Jesus was to become identified as one of the
many
saviour gods, and, as such, he was given the attributes of these
non-Jewish
deities. In this Jesus was converted from an ordinary human being, and,
as a Jew, a son of God, into Jesus Christ a new Gentile deity who was
identified
as the 'Son of God' a transcendental, pre-existent deity. To the Jewish
followers of Jesus this was nothing less than blasphemy, and what was
most
surprising was that this incredible conversion began with Paul, himself
a Jew.
Although largely fictional the Nativity stories do serve one useful purpose. They represent a model with which we can examine the rest of the gospels, for, just as the nativity stories comprise a few facts, mixed in with a great deal of fiction, we find this same pattern repeated in the 'gospels.' The term
'gospel' is very
much a misnomer,
for the word literally means the "good news" (evangelion) that
is,
that the kingdom of God is approaching, and indeed it was expected to
happen
within the then current generation. This promise is recorded in Mark
13:30-32,
Just as this was a false promise so too the gospels contain very few 'facts' along with a great deal of false promises, and a great deal of material from Gentile sources. As such they have little real relevance to the historical Jesus, since many of the gospel stories are really the feats of other deities, attributed to Jesus, and having been written by people who had little knowledge or understanding of the Jews and their existence in Judea, got the facts wrong. As a result many of the stories about Jesus are quite impossible; for instance the claim that Jesus attacked the moneylenders in the Temple is most unlikely. The reason that
such a
claim is unlikely
is that the temple in Jerusalem was one of the most securely guarded
premises
in Judea. The temple had its own police force, a band of armed guards
who
patrolled all the public parts of the temple looking for possible
troublemakers.
These guards were especially alert for any known troublemakers, or
groups
of individuals, since it was common for various sect leaders to attend
at the temple with groups of their followers, and it was assumed that
if
trouble was to erupt, it would most likely occur with such groups. At
any
sign of trouble the Temple Guard would quickly take control. If a major
revolt was to occur they could always get immediate assistance from the
Romans, although there is no record that they ever had to do so.
Situated adjacent to the Temple, and actually forming part of the temple wall, was the Fortress Antonio. This was a Roman fortress, a high stone tower that contained a permanent detachment of Roman troops. The main tower of this fortress overlooked the public courtyards of the temple and Roman sentries were on 24-hour guard watching over the temple terraces below for any signs of trouble. It would have had to be a very foolish individual who attempted to disrupt the daily operations of the temple, so it is unlikely that Jesus ever attacked the money lenders. This is not to say that all the gospel stories are false. There are some passages in the gospels that have a particularly parochial appearance and suggest that, if as we must assume, they were recorded by Gentiles, they were actually words spoken if not by Jesus, then at least by some other Palestinian Jew. Indeed many of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually the words of other Jewish rabbis, such as the great teacher Hillel, an Alexandrian Jew. One such parable
is found
in Matthew 19:24,
Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25, where Jesus is claimed to have said that, "…it
is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God."
Whoever spoke these words was obviously a Jewish teacher of the law, for it involves some quite complex issues that tend to be overlooked by most Christians and would have made no sense to a Gentile. If these were in fact the real words of Jesus, they give us a good indication of what he was really like, a straightforward, no-nonsense teacher, who stood up for what he believed. Unlike many Jews who sought to gain the favour of the rich and powerful, whoever spoke these words, was not afraid to speak plainly about the fate of those who did not prepare for the coming kingdom. The message was
directed
specifically to
the wealthy Jewish aristocrats and what it says is that simply because
you are a member of a privileged group you will not automatically
receive
special favours to get into the coming kingdom, much less will you
receive
automatic privileges in the coming kingdom. It was commonly assumed by
the Jews, that because they were the "chosen-race" that when the
kingdom
of God arrived on earth, all Jews would automatically qualify to be in
the kingdom. But Jesus is saying this is a wrong assumption.
To properly understand what he is saying we need to look at the terminology he uses. Most Christians assume that the term literally meant "the eye of a needle" and that Jesus is saying that it will be impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. However, just as Cleopatra's Needle is not an ordinary sewing needle, neither does the "needle's eye" refer to the eye of an ordinary needle. What it refers to is in fact a small gate. Most ancient
cities had
thick defensive walls.
Entry was gained through various sized gates. In most of the large
gates
there was a small opening, designed to allow easy passage to single
individuals,
when the main gate was closed to animal and vehicular traffic. Such
gates
can be seen at the entrance to most present day prisons. These gates
were
commonly called the "needle's eye". Now while a camel could conceivably
get through these small gates, it was a very difficult task. To do so,
one had to completely unload the camel, and even then the animal had to
kneel down and struggle through on its knees. While camels could kneel
quite easily it was extremely difficult to get them to walk forward in
a kneeling position. So what this parable meant was, "Not every Jew is
going to walk straight into the kingdom of God. Just as it is very
difficult
to get a camel to kneel down and walk through a small gate, it is going
to be just as difficult for some people to get into the kingdom. Some
will
first have to get rid of their load, (their physical possessions, their
wealth, their positions of power and influence), and then they will
have
to adopt a position they are not used to, to get down on their hands
and
knees and struggle through into the kingdom."
This parable has become more confusing with the passage of time, for most Christians now associate the kingdom of God, with heaven. But the kingdom of God did not refer specifically to a heavenly "kingdom" but rather to a physical kingdom, a theocracy that God was to establish upon the earth. So where does that leave us? It appears most likely that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth, around the years 8-4 BCE, to a mother whose name is unknown; that he grew up in Nazareth, and then, at about the age of thirty, he left home to become a nomadic preacher. We do not know for certain if he claimed to be the messiah, but it appears that many of his followers, the Nazarenes, believed he was. His principal message was that the Kingdom of God was at hand, a claim that was considered seditious by the Roman authorities–and Jesus was arrested, brought before Pilate, convicted and executed by the Romans. There was no
Joseph of
Arimathea, he was
a fictional character, manufactured for the purpose of providing a
tomb;
indeed there was no tomb either. The body of Jesus was thrown into an
unmarked
grave. There was no resurrection and, but for an unusual series of
events
that occurred after his death, Jesus would have been quickly forgotten
and Christianity would never have emerged.
It is important to understand that Jesus was not the founder of Christianity, it was Paul. Before proceeding it is important to briefly note the role of the messiah. There is considerable difference between the Jewish messiah and the Christian Messiah. As mentioned earlier, the Nazarenes appear to have believed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah – 'the anointed one.' To the Jews the messiah was a man who had been chosen by God to lead them to ultimate victory against their earthly enemies. With God and legions of angels behind them they would subdue all the nations of the Earth. Then would be established the Kingdom of God, a theocracy with God at the head, and the Jews as his administrators, who would rule the world until the end of time! The Jews eagerly awaited this new kingdom when they could finally put behind them a long history of subjugation by powerful empires that had defeated and humiliated them and abused their religion. In earthly
politics the
Jews were regarded
as being of little importance but in the coming Kingdom of God they
would
be the rulers. Even the lowliest Jew dreamt of the great changes. No
longer
would they be the subjects of an oppressive empire but the rulers and
the
Romans conquered subjects.
One can therefore appreciate how important Jesus was to the Nazarenes for, as the Jewish messiah, he was the vanguard of a completely new world order. So it must have been a devastating blow to his followers when Jesus was crucified, for it not only meant the end of all their individual hopes but also the end of the great Jewish dream. As they sought to rationalize the situation things started to change. Soon a process of cognitive dissonance commenced. Cognitive dissonance is basically a form of rationalization. When someone invests a great deal of personal effort into a particular cause in the expectation that it will come to fruition, but the belief crashes, it is difficult for them to accept the reality. There is confusion in their mind, a refusal to accept the reality. So what they do is look for an alternative explanation. This is what
appears to
have happened with
the Nazarenes. A number of his followers claimed to have seen Jesus
alive
and the Nazarenes used these sightings as the basis of an alternative
explanation,
one that would overcome their dissonance at the fact of the
crucifixion.
Individuals claiming to have seen someone who was dead was not entirely
uncommon in the past. Many witnesses claimed to have seen various Roman
emperors alive after their death and as we know this is not all that
uncommon–given
the many who have claimed to have seen Elvis alive.
Such 'evidence' encouraged the Nazarenes to rationalize the disaster of the crucifixion. They examined the Jewish scriptures and other sources for evidence to support an alternative scenario, one that included the execution of the messiah and his resurrection. It was not hard to find supporting texts in the voluminous content of the Hebrew Bible and in traditional teachings of the Jews. Soon these scriptures were being quoted as proof that God had a hidden plan. An important
part of the
overall rationale
was the resurrection. Despite the very clear bias in the NT against the
Pharisees, it appears very likely that Jesus and the Nazarenes followed
the teachings of the Pharisees. One of their beliefs, (not shared by
other
Jewish groups like the Sadducees), was that in the 'end-time' the
graves
of all dead Jews would open up and the dead would rise in their former
physical bodies to join the living to share the Kingdom of God.
Using this scenario they surmised, what if Jesus had been the forerunner of this resurrection process, the first to be reborn? Then Jesus was not only 'alive' but, even better, all that he had promised would still come to pass and his close followers would still gain their positions of power in the coming Kingdom. On this basis the Nazarenes (not Christians) continued to preach the message of Jesus in the expectation that the Kingdom of God was at hand! Had extraneous events not intruded this group might have been able to survive. However, two major events brought about their demise. These were: [1] The arrival
of the
'converted' Paul;
and
Paul was a
strange
character. There appears
to be numerous inconsistencies concerning his relationships with the
Nazarenes
and other aspects of his life. For instance: -
Religiously
Paul appears
to have been a confused
individual. He appears to have dabbled in the esotoric teachings of
Gnosticims.
There is clear evidence of this in his writings, where he constantly
uses
Gnostic terminology e.g.:
Paul's movements after he was 'converted' are unclear. During his time as a teacher of the new gospel he had little contact with the Nazarene leaders. The generally accepted story is that after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem. However, according to Galatians 1:16-18, he admits that after he was converted, he went, "…at once to Arabia, and afterwards returned to Damascus. Three years later I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas." (cf. Acts 9:26). It was to be another 14 years before he again returned to Jerusalem. What appears to
have
occurred is that Paul
started preaching a separate gospel – (he refers to this new gospel as
the one that had been revealed to him alone) – that was very different
to the one preached by the Nazarenes. While they taught that Jesus was
the messiah, the saviour of the Jewish nation, and as such a human
being,
chosen by God, Paul started to teach that Jesus was a pre-existing,
transcendental
saviour of all humankind. Such an idea was not only incomprehensible to
the Jewish Nazarenes but also quite blasphemous for it clearly
contravened
the basic concept of Judaism that there is but one god, Jahweh.
The following table shows the differences between the Nazarenes' idea of the messiah and that which Paul was preaching.
Because they
viewed
Jesus as the Jewish
messiah who brought the message of the coming kingdom, which was for
the
Jews alone, the Nazarenes wanted to restrict their teachings to the
Jews.
Paul, on the other hand, took his message to the Gentiles, proclaiming
the coming of a universal saviour who would save individuals from
damnation
regardless of their race.
When Paul took
this
message to the Gentiles
he found a receptive audience. Most were conquered races oppressed by
Rome.
Even worse, throughout the empire economies were unstable since all
workers,
even the skilled artisans, were forced to compete against the huge
alternative
workforce of slaves owned by the wealthy. In such a world where the
other
saviour gods were only interested in those wealthy enough to afford
elaborate
rituals and large monetary donations, the alternative offered by Paul
was
attractive. Not only was Jesus a saviour god but, like themselves, he
had
known poverty and hardship and identified with their needs.
In offering the Gentiles a new saviour deity Paul was teaching a doctrine that was not only alien but would have been abhorrent to the Nazarenes. The Jews believed, as the "chosen race", all Jews were sons and daughters of God. Paul converted Jesus from a 'son of God' into the "Son of God" that is, a pre-existent deity, the equal of God. While such a concept was relatively common in the ancient non-Jewish world it was alien and unacceptable to the Jews. Paul appears to
have gone
to great lengths
to hide what he was actually teaching especially in the early days.
Paul
relied upon the support of Jewish communities throughout the empire;
the
Gentile converts were able to meet in the Jewish synagogues where they
worshipped alongside the Jews. Later as the truth of what he was doing
started to emerge, the Nazarene leaders called Paul back to Jerusalem
where
he appears to have lied to them.
By the time they realized the truth that Paul was preaching a gospel that was very different from the one they preached, it was too late. The numbers of Gentiles who had been attracted to the Paulian faith were so large that they were now in a situation where they were able to break free of their Jewish origins and become established in their own right. In preaching his new gospel and transferring the religious base from the Jews to the Gentiles, Paul effectively weakened the Nazarene power base. The Nazarenes were simply another Jewish sect, one of many. Paul constantly attacked their Jewish articles of faith as too restrictive. Paul viewed the Nazarenes as anachronistic; their 'old' message, he claimed, had been superseded by his 'new gospel'. While the Nazarenes continued to preach the imminent return of Jesus who, on behalf of the Jews, would usher in the Kingdom of God, Paul presented Jesus as the Gnostic's universal saviour concerned with the redemption of the individual from a world inherently corrupt and evil. To get his
message over to
the Gentiles who
were part of the Roman Empire, Paul appears to have adopted an
increasingly
anti-Jewish approach that helped to turn the Gentile converts against
all
Jews. Jesus was increasingly presented as a saviour figure concerned
with
saving humankind. His identity was changed, the messiah of the Jews
became
the Messiah of the Christians, and he grew increasingly distant from
the
original Jewish concept of the messiah.
We do not know whether or not there was a major confrontation between the Nazarenes and Paul over the false doctrines he was teaching. By 60 A.D. when Paul was under arrest it was already too late. The Gentile church was effectively independent. The Nazarenes had lost control of the situation – cut adrift, a small Jewish sect. Then came the final straw, the Jewish War, which virtually wiped them out. The Jewish authorities had tried to control the rebels within their midst for they knew that if any radical group was to threaten Rome it could result in full-scale war. They were aware that they, not the Romans, would be the losers. Their worst fears were realized in 66 A.D. when a group of Zealot rebels attacked a Roman convoy and the Jews found themselves at war with Rome. Jerusalem was
placed under
siege and held
out defiantly until 70 A.D. when the Romans finally breached the city
walls
and swept into the city. They slaughtered every male in sight taking
the
women and the young into captivity to later be sold into slavery. Their
commander ordered them to level the city. Not a single building nor a
living
Jew were left in the remains of Jerusalem.
The destruction
of
Jerusalem was almost the
final blow for the Nazarenes; it seems likely their principal leaders
were
killed during the siege. There is some suggestion that a small number
survived
and escaped, but since the Romans banned all Jews from returning to
Judea,
they could not return. The Nazarene movement was effectively eliminated
and we hear nothing further concerning the original leaders. There is
mention
of a small group called the Ebionites who lived in the eastern desert
wasteland
and preached a message similar to that of the followers of Jesus.
Whether
or not they were the last of the Nazarenes we do not know but they too
quickly faded into obscurity.
With the loss of
the
original core of followers
this left only one group that claimed to be followers of Jesus – the
Gentiles
who had been converted by Paul. They had grown into a significant
religious
group and were now spread throughout the central portion of the Roman
Empire.
Derided by the inhabitants of Antioch who had insultingly referred to
them
as "Chrestos" (Christians), a term meaning 'followers of the Christ',
they
had adopted this name. Like many later Christian groups, such as the
Methodists,
(who were flippantly given that name by the Anglicans because they were
so "methodical"), they accepted the name with pride and the name
spread.
It was within this environment of Gentile belief in a Gentile world
that
the 'gospels' took form.
Victors write
the history
books, we never
hear the side of the conquered. So it was with Christianity. It was the
Gentile Christians who survived to write the New Testament. Seeking to
avoid any direct confrontation with the Roman Empire they twisted many
aspects of the life of Jesus to present him in a favourable light. To
conceal
the fact that Jesus had been guilty of sedition against Rome, they
claimed
he had been crucified for blasphemy, a crime against Judaism, yet the
punishment
for blasphemy was either banning or stoning. Crucifixion was only used
against enemies of Rome, terrorists, rebels, robbers who attacked Roman
convoys, or those who preached sedition against Rome.
They went to
great lengths
to hide the fact
that Jesus was anti Roman by claiming that he had publicly advocated
accepting
the rule of Rome. They claimed that Jesus had stated, "… render
unto
Caesar what is Caesar's." [Matthew 22: 21; Luke 20:25]. The fact
is,
if Jesus had actually made such a statement all of his followers would
have immediately abandoned him, for it was inconceivable that the
Jewish
messiah could ever preach reconciliation with Rome.
Finally the Gentile Christians placed the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews, thus freeing the Romans of all responsibility. In Mark 13:30-32, we can read the words "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all. Heaven and earth will pass away: my words will never pass away. But about that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son, only the Father. So it was, in the early days of the new faith it was expected that Jesus would return very soon, 'within the lifetime of the disciples' so there was never ever considered any need for an historical record of the life of Jesus; such a record would have been superfluous. As time passed and all of the disciples died, the next generation wanted to know about the early history of the faith. There were already many oral traditions about the life of Jesus, most grossly exaggerated and mixed up with legend and myth. It appears there were also some documents recording sayings attributed to Jesus, (many were actually from other rabbis such as Hillel), and finally an attempt was made to collect these into books. The result were the gospels, meaning 'the good news' – (in fact the name is a misnomer, for it referred to the good news that the kingdom of God was coming, and since it did not, and has not come, the name is misleading). Unknown authors,
who knew
very little about
Jesus or Palestine, wrote the gospels. They were forced to rely upon
the
following: -
Even after these
stories
were written down
supplementary material continued to be added. These came from two
sources:
-
We can see
evidence of the
emerging Gentile
Christian throughout the gospels. The Gospel of Mark commences with the
words, Here begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
The
statements that [1] Jesus is the Christ and [2] Jesus was the 'Son of
God',
are clearly not Jewish in origin, so whoever wrote this gospel was
definitely
not a Nazarene; it could only have been written by a follower of Paul!
Furthermore, since the Gospel of Mark is accepted as the earliest
gospel
we can see that the non-Jewish ideas, those of the Gentile Christians,
concerning the nature of Jesus were already far advanced. The miracles
of the gospels were readily accepted because these converts were
already
accustomed to accept such ideas as:
Following this course Jesus simply became another solar deity. Jesus was given all the titles of other solar deities, The Light; The Light of the World. Because he was a solar deity he had to be born in a cave, (underground) as this was the place where the sun travels to at night. Then, after defeating the powers of the underworld (death) the sun is reborn each day. This was the basis of the resurrection story. It was from the identification of Jesus as a solar deity that so much of the nativity story emerged. So, for instance, Luke 2:7 repeats the traditional pagan myth that the sun was born each day 'in a cave'. Our modern
Christmas
celebrations are based
upon beliefs that predate Christianity. The Nativity Story, like the
rest
of the stories in the gospels, was taken from much older pantheistic
sources.
Many were simply adopted from the former religions of the Gentile
converts.
What are the origins of some of these aspects of the nativity story?
Finally, what
was the name
of Jesus' mother?
We know that, according to the New Testament she was named Mary.
However,
there is a problem with this, for we read in John 19:26, … near the
cross where Jesus hung stood his mother, with her sister Mary wife of
Clopas.
In
other words Jesus' mother and her sister were both named Mary! We need
to ask the question, would anyone have had two daughters, both named
Mary?
While it is possible to conceive such an event, it is extremely
unlikely.
It is more probable that Jesus' mother was not named Mary. It seems likely that her actual name has been forgotten. As the mother of the future messiah she was probably not considered of great importance, for the woman who bore the future messiah did not really contribute to the process. Yahweh, not the mother, determined the character of the messiah. It was Yahweh who selected a male and made him special by instilling in him the divine wisdom that would make him the messiah. Later, when the Gentile Christians defined Jesus in the role of a solar deity it was natural that following the ancient traditions of former solar deities the name of his mother should be the same as the name given to all the virgin mothers who bore solar-deities. In the various
solar
religions the name of
the virgin mother was, in its various forms, Maya*, Myrrha, Myrrh,
Maia,
Maira. In the Hebrew this name was translated as Miriam which, along
with
all the other variations are translated into English as, Mary.
Myrrha, or Myrrh, was the virgin mother of Adonis. Maia was the virgin mother of Hermes. Maira was the star of Isis, the dog-star, Sirius.
NOTES:
Mithra was said to have been born on the 25th December. This is hardly remarkable for Mithra, like many of the ancient deliverers of salvation, was a solar deity. In ancient time religion was essentially dualistic. This is a simple division of the cosmos into light and darkness; the good deities were represented by the powers of light, and the greatest light was naturally the sun. [1] The 25th December, was originally the Roman Saturnalia, a time of rejoicing and exchanging of gifts. It was also the birth date of Mithra, the Son of Righteousness. In the 4th century this date was adopted by the majority of Christians but the Armenians refused to accept this day. [2] Pagan creeds popular
at the time of Jesus,
and for several centuries preceding his birth, were Adonis, Apollo,
Astarte,
Attis, Baal, Dionysus, Hercules, Horus, Isis, Mithra and Osiris. Of
nearly
all the deities above it was said and believed that:
(1) They were born on
or very near our
Christmas Day. (2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother. (3) And in a Cave
or Underground Chamber. (4) They led a life of toil for Mankind. (5)
And
were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Saviour,
Deliverer.
(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness. (7) And
descended
into Hell or the Underworld. (8) They rose again from the dead and
became
the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world. (9) They founded
communions
of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.
(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals. Carpenter, p.
21.
[3] Mithra was born in a cave
on the 25th December.
He was born of a Virgin. He travelled far and wide as a teacher and
illuminator
of men. He had twelve companions or disciples (the twelve months). He
was
buried in a tomb, from which however he rose again; and his
resurrection
was celebrated yearly with great rejoicings. He was called Saviour and
Mediator, and sometimes figured as a Lamb; and sacramental feasts in
remembrance
of him were held by his followers. Carpenter, p. 21
[4] Dionysus, like other Sun or Nature deities, was born of a Virgin (Semele or Demeter) untainted by any earthly husband; and born on the 25th December. He was nurtured in a Cave, and even at that early age was identified with the Ram or Lamb,* into whose form he was for the time being changed. At times also he was worshiped in the form of a Bull. He travelled far and wide; and brought the great gift of wine to mankind.** He was called Liberator and Saviour. His grave was shown at Delphi in the inmost shrine of the temple of Apollo. Secret offerings were brought thither, while the women who were celebrating the feast woke up the new-born god. Carpenter, p. 52 (* cf. the shepherds who came to worship the baby Jesus. ** Cf. Wedding at Cana. It was the women who found Jesus risen from his tomb) [5] In the Parthian epoch, for example there existed a great syncretic myth of the Cosmocrator, Redemptor, of which Mithra, born of a rock or out of a cave, was the protagonist. His birth, which would later be celebrated on 25 December, was accompanied by special signs and by luminous epiphanies and taken as symbolic of a kind of royal initiation. The Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 580. Date of birth: Sometime before 4 BCE since according to Matthew Herod the Great was still alive. (Matthew 2:1) The three wise men, this story originally referred to the birth of the Emperor Nero. Born in 37 AD when he became emperor in 54 AD he was surrounded by those who sought to gain his favour by proclaiming his exceptional nature. One of the manufactured stories was that he was divine, and that even at his birth his special nature had been acknowledged in the stars, (a common claim in those times), and that certain magi in the East who had seen a unusual heavenly signs had travelled to Antium to visit the infant prodigy. The very same expediency which had demanded that Jesus should have been generated by God also turned his mother into a goddess. Hyperdulia, or the worship of the Virgin Mary - also called Marianity or Mariology - owes its origin to the fact that the most popular Roman goddess which Christianity had to combat was Isis, the former Egyptian deity whose son had also been generated by a god. Isis worship could be countered only by the new faith absorbing the pagan goddess, and so Isis became Mary the Mother of God, even assuming the pagan deity's titles of 'Redemptress' and 'Star of the Sea'. In fact, the very first statues of Mary in Rome were merely those of Isis with–literally a new coat of paint; even her elaborate temples were taken over to house the chief goddess of the new paganism. For the first three centuries the Church had ignored Mary, but after the Roman Empire had fallen to Christianity and Constantine's Council of Nicea had conducted its ballot of the Bishops - which decided that Jesus was divine, the Son of God and God himself - it became obvious that special status was required for his mother.
The wheels of Hyperdulia
began turning with
the astonishing proposal of Chrysostom, the 4th century Patriarch of
Constantinople,
that Mary had experienced 'perpetual virginity'. Put bluntly, he argued
that Mary's hymen had remained intact not only through the process of
conception,
but was still so after the birth of Jesus.
A few comments on Laurie Eddie's THE REAL STORY OF CHRISTMAS Bob Potter (Investigator 88, 2003 January) Laurie Eddie (Investigator
87) magnificently
covered much ground exploring the origins of the Christ myth and the
early
development of Christianity. Covering so much in a mere 22 pages left
many
specifics requiring expansion.
I say this
because I would
not wish my addenda
to be perceived as an attempt to undermine Eddie's important
contribution.
Basic critiques of Christian mythology were frequent a century ago. In
today's world, however, the claims of Christian apologists are largely
ignored – and rarely challenged. I hope The Real Story of Christmas
will be read by those beginning to challenge the superstitions imparted
to them during childhood.
How should one answer the simple question, "Was Jesus an historical person?" As Laurie points out, in its Hebrew forms (Joshua probably being the most common) Jesus was a common name. In every Palestinian town there would have been scores bearing that name – as today, hundreds answer to Fred or Tom. In this sense, there were hundreds of historical Jesuses in the period 8 - 4 BC. However, in a
deeper
sense, the question
really
means "Was that person who wandered about Palestine curing the blind,
raising,
the dead, talking to and casting out demons, walking on water,
withering
fig trees and resurrecting himself from the grave etc., an historical
person?"
The answer to this question must be "No". In two thousand
years,
human knowledge and understanding have progressed. Today, the majority
of educated people reject such tales as superstition.
In a desperate attempt to rescue the groundings of their doctrines, many so-called "progressive" Christians try to argue that although the narratives of the gospels may be fiction, nevertheless the teachings of Jesus are unique and divinely inspired and perhaps the myths were created to help people understand the "teachings". The only evidence we have regarding both the life and teachings of the mythical Jesus is to be found in the gospels. John has nothing
to say
regarding Christ's
nativity. The earliest Gospel is that attributed to Mark. I do not
share
Eddie's view that Mark is a 'Pauline' gospel (very dangerous to assess
it on the basis of its opening words, obviously added at a later date);
the authors of Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark in front of them as
they wrote. Matthew gives his text a different gloss, seemingly
influenced
by the Pauline School. I'll return to this point later. Luke, likewise,
transcribes from other texts–and says so in his opening verses.
Interestingly,
the earliest pieces of the New Testament ascribed to Paul
pre-date
the gospels. When Paul, or whoever, claimed "All Scripture is inspired
of God…" he was not referring to the books we today describe as "the
Greek
Scriptures" they had yet to be written.
Laurie Eddie correctly reports that the stories about Jesus in the four gospels can be matched with similar, but older, tales associated with cult figures from other religions. Indeed there is absolutely no teaching in Christianity that cannot be found in a more ancient belief system. Laurie does well to highlight many of the similarities with Mithraic teachings – could I add to what he has said by pointing out that worshippers of Mithras celebrated a "eucharist", or "totem feast", by drinking the blood of the sacrificed bull. It is equally
pertinent
that the Babylonian
Child-God was born in nearby Nasrah, the Babylonian Nazareth! –
perhaps a, minor point, but I think Laurie wrongly has his Jesus
originating
from a real Nazareth. There is no evidence there was such a town, in
Palestine,
in the period to which we refer. Modern Nazareth is in a different
locality
and was built at a later date.
The Watchtower
has
Jesus growing up
in En Nasira "a likely site of ancient Nazareth". Presumably
the
later 'Nazarene cult', of which we know very little, gave rise
to
the city of Nazareth – not the contra sequence assumed by Laurie?!
[Note
that John 7:41,42, 52 has Jesus, by his silence, happy to see himself
portrayed
as "of Galilee" rather than "from Bethlehem"!
That the
supposed
teachings of Jesus originate
from earlier non-Christian Jewish writings is demonstrated by looking
at
the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, an
early
Jewish document. The first six chapters, comprising half the text, are
purely ethical, making no reference to Jesus or Christ, or the Son or
of
baptism or any other 'sacrament'. The later chapters have been modified
and elaborated by early followers of a cult figure named Jesus who
lacks
any divine characteristics. The "Lord's Prayer" appears in the sixth
chapter – context suggests it is a pre-Christian prayer.
I hope readers
will seek
out the Didache
for themselves – a few "tasters" from the early chapters:
If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect; if any one compel thee to go one mile, go with him twain, if any one take thy cloak, give him thy tunic also… Ch 2 "Thou shalt not lust after the things of thy neighbour, nor forswear thyself, nor bear false witness, nor revile, nor be revengeful, nor be double-minded or double-tongued; for a snare of death is the double tongue. Ch 3 "…become
not a
murmurer; since it leadeth
to blasphemy; nor self-willed, nor evil-minded; for of all of these
things
blasphemies are begotten. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the
earth. Become long suffering and merciful and guileless and gentle and
good, and tremble continually at the words which thou hast heard…"
To conclude vis-a-vis
the "Historical
Jesus": in so far as he might have lived a life and "carried out good
works",
we have no credible information regarding him. In so far as he may have
been "a great teacher" we have no evidence of any original thought
expressed
by him. His "sayings" as reported in the Gospels can be found in
earlier
documents. The occasional "added" testimony, mainly his prophecies
regarding
the immediate future, failed to materialize as Laurie Eddie has
appropriately
reminded us.
What about Paul?
Can we
meaningfully speak
of "the historical Paul" – the true "founder" of Christianity, as
Laurie
Eddie (and many others) have suggested? I am inclined to think not!
Laurie
seems to believe in an "historical Paul" – he argues the demise of the
earlier 'group' (he calls the Nazarenes) came about by "the arrival of
Paul" whose preaching "transferred the religious base from the Jews to
the Gentiles". There is good reason to believe that rather than a
"Paul"
there was a broad group of individuals whose, often conflicting, ideas
and writings have been confounded. This group was collectively
instrumental
in changing the direction of the new religion.
Spend some time looking at the Epistle to the Romans, one of the most frequently quoted texts ascribed to Paul. Ideally readers interested in exploring this question will read the epistle for themselves and consider whether they agree with J C O'Neill who argues it to be the work of a number of authors at different times and aimed at different audiences. O'Neill's Paul's
Letter to the Romans
is readily available in Penguin (1975). It argues the "true" Paul
insists
Mosaic Law exists only so that mankind might know it has sinned –
salvation
is possible "only through faith". Hence all of the Second chapter of
the
Epistle is "non-Pauline" claims O'Neill, for the argument here is that
salvation lies in "good conduct". For someone raised in the pharisaic
manner,
observance of the Law (which would demand action) would have been
central
to his being. The Law, however, cannot overcome sin, cannot give life;
it is weak, because no one keeps it. If there is only one
author
of this text ', it must be one who has accepted the new 'Torah'
preached
by Christ without feeling disloyalty to the old 'Torah'. O'Neill finds
this impossible to believe.
"Romans" tackles
other
great philosophical
problems, still argued about to this day. There is the
freewill/determinism
debate. The writer argues there is an "inner man" trapped in the body,
controlled by either the Spirit or human nature – this conflict
provides
the window for the insertion of "the esoteric teachings of Gnosticism"
to which Eddie refers. Which of the conflicting powers possesses the
individual?
"God...makes stubborn whom he wishes" and the "saved' individual acts
"according
to the amount of faith that God has given him". As man's salvation
depends
upon his faith alone, it follows his deeds are not even a factor in
God's
decision. We are reminded God told Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I
wish, I will take pity on whom I wish", "so then", Paul adds, "it does
not depend on what man wants or does, but only on God's mercy." The
irrelevance
of man's deeds was highlighted by God's decision to love Jacob and hate
Esau "before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad".
O'Neill handles
the
dualism in Paul by deleting
it…the freewill/determinism problem is solved by removing the sections
arguing the latter alternative from his 'reconstruction' of the
epistle.
The "patchwork character of Romans" had been earlier argued by
Archibald
Robertson in his search for the origins of the Christian Scriptures. He
argued the Epistle to the Romans has no less than four
inconsistent(?)
conclusions – xi 33-36; xv 33; xvi 20, xvi 25-27. For centuries,
Christians
have apparently Studied the Pauline epistles (indeed the early church
depended
wore on these documents than on any other) without being conscious of
irreconcilable
contradictions.
Laurie Eddie
says "we do
not know whether
or not there was a major (doctrinal) confrontation between Nazarenes
and
Paul". History would suggest there were numerous battles between
contending
factions and finally, as Eddie tells us, "victors write history books …
it was the Gentile Christians who survived to write the New Testament".
I would argue we are in a position to view that process, "the
construction
of the New Testament", in action…
The authors of the Pauline epistles lived in a period when there was no 'established' church. By the time of the gospel of Matthew, the foundations of such a church were being laid – indeed the compilation of Matthew was probably to assist that process. Of 661 verses in Mark, 600 verses (often verbatim) are carried over in substance. An associated question relevant to understanding the origins of the church might well be "where did Matthew get his additional material?" [Generally, Matthew improved on Mark's Greek. He eliminated all Mark's Aramaic words–this may have been no more than the elimination of magical formulae in the Marcian text. Many of Christ's 'miracles' are there described as the work of a magician mouthing the right incantation usually in Aramaic.] There is massive
evidence
that one of the
sources of new material was from the Pauline School. Both writers were
part of the rabbinic tradition. Matthew oozes rabbinic doctrine. Not
only
are his parables rabbinic but his choice of this means of instruction –
so
that people will not understand as opposed to the disciples, the
chosen
elect, who do understand [in striking contrast to Mark where the
disciples,
like the audience, are unable to understand what is said to them
(compare
Matt 13: 14-16 and Mk 4:12)] – is again part of rabbinic belief that
the
identity and wisdom of the Messiah must "be kept hidden until the
appointed
time". In Matthew we return to the earlier doctrines
argued out
in the "Romans" epistle: "…whoever disobeys even the least important of
the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be the least in
the Kingdom of Heaven." Almost everything Matthew has to say is about
Law…albeit,
obedience to the 'new' Law is the foundation of 'righteousness' and
'perfection'.
This is the core of discipleship.
Laurie Eddie is certainly right to perceive a 'distinction' between Pauline doctrines and the 'home-group' he labels Nazarenes. While the gospel of Mark was constructed for a Roman congregation, largely ignorant of Palestine (hence all the geographical errors) and its traditions, Matthew represents the grounding of the new faith inside the existing Hebrew culture–with the potential of expansion into the non-Hebrew world beyond. Part of Matthew's task was to create the credibility of the new 'priesthood', which accounts for the changing of Mark's hostility towards the disciples (ignorant men incapable of understanding anything) into Matthew's disciples, the select elite, who do understand if at the same time 'lack faith'.
The
freewill/determinism
conflict remains
in Matthew, although it is not stated so explicitly. Paul's determinism
flowers in the background. The secrets when revealed will expose the
powers
and the processes that have operated since creation. This is the
underlying
teaching of the parables, the secret growth of the Kingdom, its value
and
imminence, the impending Judgement. A key conclusion that needs be
understood
from Laurie Eddie's overview is that all these developments were
happening
long after the demise of the mythical Jesus!
Anonymous (Investigator 88, 2003
January)
INTRODUCTION Laurie Eddie
(Investigator
87) gave a good
explanation of the "needle's eye". It referred to a small gate built
next
to, or into, a city's main gate. He also showed that the veneration of
Jesus' mother, Mary, began about the 4th century onwards. In
the Bible Mary, as the Britannica puts it, "completely recedes behind
the
figure of Jesus, who stands in the centre of all four Gospels."
The rest of Mr
Eddie's
conclusions are questionable.
SIMILARITY NOT ENOUGH "The origin of Mithraism goes back to the Mitra of the Aryans, though it underwent many transformations." (New Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology 1968 p. 314) Eddie (#87 p.
23) lists
similarities between
Mithra and Jesus and concludes the Gospels were rehashed from previous
myths.
In the 19th
century liberal theologians
tried to demonstrate that the Bible story of Jonah was adapted from
Assyrian
and Greek mythology. The Greeks told of the maiden Andromeda being
rescued
from a sea monster by Perseus. A Trojan princess named Hesione was
rescued
by Hercules from another sea monster. (Cheyne & Black 1914) These
things
were debated in journals and researchers who tried to demonstrate Greek
or Assyrian origins failed. It's possible to make lists of scores
(perhaps
hundreds) of theological and historical ideas, detrimental to the
authority
of the Bible and debated in 19th-century journals, in which
the critics lost.
Many religious,
ethical
and technological
ideas floated around in pre-history and their origin cannot be
determined.
The Bible claims that early humans sacrificed animals and grain as part
of worship. (Genesis 4:3-4) They started agriculture and shepherding
(Genesis
4:2), building cities (4:17), polygamy (4:19), tent-making (4:20),
cattle
herding (4:20), playing music (4:21), using bronze and iron (4:22),
killing
each other (4:24), monotheism (5:24), water-proofing with pitch (6:14),
planting vineyards (9:20), brick-baking (11:3), using bitumen (11:3).
Precise dates
cannot be
set on the first
appearance of the above ideas and behaviors. If, as an example, we
observe
that ancient Greeks did some of the above and the Ethiopians did too,
this
would be insufficient reason to conclude one copied the other. It's
insufficient
because some of the ideas:
To prove copying or rehashing occurred requires documents or inscriptions stating that such-and-such was adapted from so-and-so. The same logic applies to seeming overlap in ideas between the Bible and rival ancient thought.
In Investigator
73
De Kretser listed
forty alleged similarities between Horus (an Egyptian god) and Jesus.
In
Investigator
74 I listed similarities between Horus and Adolf Hitler. My
list
is not as impressive as the Horus/Jesus one – but I'm not a specialist
on Hitler or Horus. The trick in such lists is the generality of the
similarities.
Thousands of stories mention a mountain but differ in everything else
they
say about it, in which case the similarity of including a mountain is
irrelevant
as evidence of copying. The world also has thousands of resurrection
stories – if we include films, novels and claims of religious cults.
Without law
suits for plagiarism it's difficult to prove if any are derived from
others.
The resurrection stories of Horus and Jesus had in common the idea of a
return from the dead but little else.
Consider the millions of crime stories and reports in books, movies, magazines and newspapers. Did any author copy from another? Even if we demonstrate identical sentences by two authors it may be either chance or perhaps both authors copied from earlier authors! Most of Eddie's alleged similarities between Mithra and Jesus are irrelevant to his thesis that copying occurred as they were common elsewhere. Examples are being an "enemy of the powers of darkness", buried in a rock tomb, spreading the word, offering salvation, labels such as "saviour", "Lord" and "the Light", and calling followers "brothers" and "sisters". The major
similarities –
virgin mother, water
turned to wine, and resurrected the third day – are explainable by
principles
discussed below.
VIRGIN BIRTH, DYING GOD "The idea of a god dying for his people and coming back to life again is by no means unique to Christianity; it is one of the oldest religious ideas of all, and was at the very centre of the earliest solar religions and crop fertility religions." (Barratt 1996) According to the
Bible
God said to the
"serpent" that tempted Eve:
"Seed" means
"offspring" or
"descendant" and
can, even in the singular, mean many. A "bruise" to the heal is a wound
from which the recipient will recover. A "bruise in the head" is either
fatal or decisive.
The prophecy,
therefore,
refers to a descendant
of Eve who would be temporarily defeated by the "serpent" – the
supernatural
source of evil – but would recover and defeat the "serpent".
The "seed" of
the serpent
are not descendants
by literal birth but converts who copy the "serpent" in becoming rebels
against God.
Genesis 3:15 is
thus a
prophecy of someone
who ultimately defeats the supernatural source of evil. No ordinary
human
could do this because humans cannot even fully defeat evil in
themselves:
Surely there
is not a
righteous man on
earth who does good and never sins. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalm 106:6)
If the prophecy of
Genesis
3:15 is as old as
humankind variants of it would have entered folklore. Subsequent
thinkers,
then, could have inferred that the human who conquers the "serpent"
needs
a dual origin – human and divine – hence a virgin birth. The notion of
virgin birth could then have entered various religions as they became
established.
Historically we
cannot
pinpoint the origin
of ideas of a "god dying" or of virgin birth. Hence we cannot rule out
that they began with the first humans. The Gospel about Jesus,
therefore,
need not be a rehash of anything but could be what it claims to be –
the
good news of salvation.
My placing the origin of some ideas in pre-history has echoes in other areas. Mazar (1990) writes:
The
patriarchal
narratives known to us
from the Book of Genesis must have been very old traditions which were
orally passed on from generation to generation until they were written…
Some similarities between the Bible and other belief are explainable by the Biblical theme of God cooperating with humans. Before humans
chose
independence the intent
was cooperation between God and humans. We see this in God "planted a
garden"
where humans could have a safe start before going out to "subdue the
earth."
(Genesis 1:28; 2:8) There is cooperation in naming the animals
and
in God identifying one tree from which humans must not eat.
This initial
situation
changed when humans
went their own way. Most subsequent humans concurred and have tried
everything
they could to improve their lives without God – in religion, ethics,
law,
ideology and technology. Humanity, therefore, is in an experiment to
determine
how they will do without God enforcing what is best for them.
(Investigator
65-69)
Humans are failures in their rejection of God. This is shown by the hurt they inflict on each other and in the temporary nature of their cities, empires, ideologies and religions. The Bible portrays God as working behind the scenes to rescue humans from the final results of their rebellion. After the
original
cooperation was put on
hold, a tenuous, behind-the-scenes cooperation commenced. It's via
prayer
and answered prayer, spokesmen (such as prophets and apostles), written
communication, and by giving humans the sorts of proof they think
impressive.
For example,
humans
invented the idea of
paying for sin by sacrifice of animals. God did better – prepared a
"sacrifice"
that
made all other sacrifices obsolete. (Isaiah 53:7-12) Humans considered
success in war impressive. God did better and destroyed great armies
and
cities almost instantaneously. Humans invented deities of wood and
stone
and imagined a virgin birth for some of them. God did better –
According
to the Bible He predicted the demise of all those ancient deities and
prepared
a real virgin birth.
Ancient people thought astrology impressive, connected births of some kings to stars, and told of visitors bringing gifts. Eddie mentions such a legend in connection with Emperor Nero (37-68 AD) of Rome. (p. 44) The Star of Bethlehem, in contrast, has scientific support. (Investigator 81) We see cooperation reflected in the 20th and 21st centuries. Today humans are impressed by science. Yet, in scores of conflicts between science and the Bible the latter triumphed and textbooks had to be revised or discarded. I personally used the Bible to produce a small revision in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This theme of
cooperation
of God with humans – a cooperation constrained by human rejection of
God – may explain some
resemblances of Biblical reports with other stories. It's God outdoing
in reality what humans proposed in their myths.
To accept this
explanation
requires accepting
the Bible. For non-believers it's therefore circular reasoning.
However,
in recent decades science has demonstrated that hundreds of Bible
statements
are correct. Often the latest science was needed because earlier
scientists
were wrong. From such results it's rational to infer that the entire
original
Scriptures are error-free and only seem wrong because science has not
caught
up. From this stance the circularity is removed.
GENERATION–Mark 13:30-32
Mr Eddie claims
the
prophecy was false. Yet
he also claims that the Gospels were finalised long after Jesus
lived. If so, why would the writers not delete false prophecy? It's
more
likely Mr Eddie has misunderstood the prophecy.
I explained the prophecy in Investigator 60. Jesus addressed four disciples and hence the pronoun "you" (plural) describes events the four and their generation would see. In describing his return "on the clouds of heaven" Jesus changes to "they" implying it's a distant event which his generation would not see. Everything that Jesus predicted for his "generation" did occur including the start of the "great tribulation" upon the Jews in 66-70 AD. It's probable,
furthermore, that science
may soon demonstrate that the first three Gospels were finalised
before
70 AD. A century ago scholars argued that the Gospel of John was
written
near 200 AD. Then the John Rylands Papyrus 457 which has portions from
John's Gospel was discovered in Egypt in 1934 and dated to the 120s AD.
This rendered lots of previous scholarship on John invalid.
The Magdalen Fragments of Matthew were published in 1953. In the 1990s Peter Thiede, an expert in ancient papyrus manuscripts, examined the handwriting style and placed their origin to before 70 AD. (Time, April 8, 1995) The debate is, however, still on. Dr John Wenham
in Redating
Matthew, Mark
and Luke (1991) argued that these three Gospels were written in the
40s AD! For example:
Both the Old and
New
Testament is being proved
point by point. In Investigator 25 I showed "Archaeology
Supports
the New Testament". And Silberman (1996) says: "In the past few
decades,
the archaeology of the New Testament world has achieved some striking
successes…"
Recently came a
possible
archaeological confirmation
of the family of Jesus. A 1st-century burial urn inscribed
"James,
son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" was found. (Van Biema, 2002) Again,
however,
the debate is still going.
NEW TESTAMENT Because a Roman
fortress
stood next to the
Jewish Temple Mr Eddie says, "it is unlikely that Jesus ever attacked
the
money lenders."
Modern countries have laws to control demonstrations. However, to argue from such laws that the demise of Communism in Eastern Europe by "people power" didn't happen would be silly. Whether laws are enforced depends on numerous circumstances. The New Testament records there was conflict over whether circumcision and other Jewish customs should be enforced on Christians – but not the sharp division that Eddie ascribes to Paul and the Nazarenes. Indeed Paul was considered a "ringleader of the Nazarenes". (Acts 24:5) Some critics
have used the
non-mention of
Nazareth after the Gospels and its non-mention in other 1st-century
writings as proof there was no 1st-century Nazareth.
Archaeologists,
in the 1950s, excavated the site where Nazareth should be. The remains
of a village were found that was inhabited 900 to 600 BC and again
after
200 BC. It shows that arguments based on gaps in knowledge – what Mr
Eddie
often relies on – are weak.
GNOSTICS The Apostle Paul, says Mr Eddie, copied from the Jewish teacher Hillel and from Gnosticism. General ethical principles such as "love your neighbour" came from the Old Testament and were used by Jews and Christians alike. Quoting Gnostic sources – if Eddie is correct that Paul did this – is not necessarily a problem. To mention common ground is often done when preaching or debating. It's what I do when I quote science journals to prove statements in the Bible, i.e. I use what skeptics and I have in common – respect for science. Gnosticism,
however,
became prominent in
the 2nd-century – long after Paul. So, when Eddie alleges
Paul
quoted from Gnostics, we really need the names of the documents
involved
and the dates they were written.
MARY Eddie identifies the name of the "virgin Mary" with mothers of Buddha (Maya), Adonis (Myrrha), Hermes (Maia) and the star of Isis (Maira). Consider these
names –
Mandra, Mandy, Marella,
Marge, Margrit, Marika, Marion, Marlene, Maureen, Maxine, Meg, Megan,
Meleena,
Melinda, Mellissa, Melony, Merrill, Miriam, Molly, Muriel, Myra. The
fact
each starts with "M" and some having an "r" – and even if some of the
women
are virgins – is not proof the parents copied from each other.
Eddie needs to
show that
Maya, Myrrha, Maia
and Maira translate to Mary. He needs to refer to ancient Indian
documents
mentioning Buddha's mother and to ancient translations of these into
New
Testament Greek. (Buddha's virgin conception may, however, not even be
official Buddhist teaching!)
Even equating
the name
Miriam (sister of
Moses) with the name Mary (Eddie p.39) is doubtful. Unger's Bible
Dictionary
says both names mean "obstinacy, rebellion". But Young's Analytical
Concordance disagrees and says Miriam means "fat, thick, strong"
and
Mary means "bitter".
For the New
Testament
writers to rehash myths
of Mithra and Horus would have been contrary to principles such as:
Of the Biblical God, in contrast, we're told:
Monotheism now has 2½
billion adherents
and hence such predictions are plausible. If the New Testament writers
believed such predictions too would they have contaminated them with
idolatry?
CONCLUSIONS Mr Eddie used speculation where historical and archaeological information is incomplete. His effort to
show that
the nativity accounts
are "the myths and legends of the Gentiles who became Christians"
failed.
REFERENCES: Anonymous. The Bible: Original Truth, Not Recycled Myth, Investigator 74, September 2000, pp. 46-49. Barratt, D V 1996 Sects, 'Cults' & Alternative Religions A World Survey and Resource Book, Blanford, UK. Cavendish, R 1982 Mythology An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Orbis, London. Cheyne, T T & Black, J S 1914 Encyclopedia Biblica New Edition in one Volume, Adam Charles Black, Britain. De Kretser, B. Bible Stories are Recycled Myth, Investigator 73, July 2000, pp. 22-24. Eddie, L. 2002 The Real Story of Christmas, Investigator 87, November 2002, pp. 21-45. Guirand, F. New Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology (Translated by Aldington R and Ames, D),1989. Crescent Books, New York. Mazar, A 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Doubleday, USA, p. 225. Silberman, N A The World of Paul, Archaeology, November/December 1996, p. 31. Unger, M F 1957 Unger's Bible Dictionary, Third edition, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago. Van Biema, D The Brother of Jesus? Time, November 4, 2002, pp. 66-69. Wenham, J 1991 Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke. 1991. Hodder & Stoughton. Young, R 1939 Analytical
Concordance, Lutterworth
Press.
https://ed5015.tripod.com/ |