Is The Bible Like the Telephone Game?

Contributing writer James Bishop: Visit his website for more.

Skeptics of the bible will often claim that, “At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.”

The same critic goes on to say that the gospels, our primary sources for the historical Jesus, are analogues to playing the game of telephone (GOT). In other words, the skeptic argues that by the time the gospels were penned the historical information about Jesus was garbled in the process. Essentially, the GOT has someone put a message in at the beginning after which it is secretly passed around to several different individuals. When the message comes out of the other side it is totally distorted and sounds nothing like the original message. Is this a fair analysis of the gospel accounts of Jesus and how they have been handed down to us? I’d argue that it isn’t.

Firstly, we need to understand the actual intention of the authors of the gospels and those who play the GOT. When playing the GOT it is expected, as probably part of the fun, that the end message will be different to the original message. That is why it is a “game.” However, the gospel authors were not intending to play games. They were probably, more often than not, highly educated scribes who made it their mission to pass on what they thought the original documents said. They would have meticulously copied down word for word from the text that they would have received because their goal was to be accurate. That is not to deny that they made mistakes here and there, they did, but they attempted to be accurate.

Secondly, the lines of transmission between the GOT and the gospel authors is quite different. The GOT maintains just a single line of transmission whereas the gospel transmission process had multiple lines of transmission. In other words, the original gospel copy would have been copied by several different scribes, then those several scribes would give their copies to the next scribes who would then copy their manuscripts, and so forth. At the end of the line we would have thousands of manuscript copies that could be compared to each other. This would give modern scholars greater confidence concerning what the originals autographs would have read like.

Thirdly, the GOT requires oral transmission whereas the authors of the gospels, and the subsequent scribes, benefited from textual transmission. The key difference is that one, via a textual transmission process, could recheck the physical text, or have others analyze it, before passing it on especially if the goal was maintain accuracy. However, the GOT is limited in accuracy in the sense that only the wording of the last person in the line can be checked. The gospel scribes would have had access to earlier texts with some probably going back close to the time of the autographs.

These several considerations would suggest that when it comes the transmission of our gospel manuscripts through time, it is hardly analogous to the GOT.

Did Jesus of Nazareth Really Exist?

Contributing Writer: Alin Patularu

The Bible is the source for literally billions of people’s faith all around the world. But it is also the most scrutinized and criticized book of all time. As with every other book, the bible has a central focus and thesis: the redemption of sinners to a holy God through the work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament records a lot of extraordinary things that Jesus is said to have done. But is there any other evidence in history to suggest that these claims are not just fanciful stories exaggerated by some over-zealous, uneducated, brain washed fisherman from Galilee? Yes there is, and lots of it!

Roman Sources

Let’s start with the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was writing of a fire in Rome and how the Emperor Nero placed the blame for this fire on Christians.  This ancient writing is one of the earliest secular histories that record Christ and the spread of the church. It has been dated at 116 AD, about 84 years after the resurrection of Jesus, He writes,

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (Annals, book 15, Chapter 44)

In Tacitus’ letter we learn that Christ suffered the extreme penalty (death by crucifixion) under the authority of Pontius Pilate and then shortly after the church was born. Tacitus calls it a “mischievous superstition”, we call it the resurrection. The message of the resurrection of Jesus started in Judea and was spread through the whole Roman Empire. The amazing fact is, Jesus’ body was not found. All the authorities had to do was present the body and this “mischievous superstition” would have been destroyed. But they could not, instead the message of Jesus was spread throughout the whole Empire and could not be stopped. This is the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of secular history.

Furthermore, Suetonius records the same truth that Tacitus does, albeit more briefly. He writes in his history of the Caesars,

“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.” (The Lives of the 12 Caesars, Nero 16)

These persecutions under Nero were occurring in the mid 60’s AD, merely 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus. These two historical sources, when compared with the Bible further demonstrate the truth and historicity of the Bible. The Bible is not a made up story of fiction. It is actually eye witness accounts of what happened to a real historical human being, Jesus of Nazareth, and the amazing result of His life after His resurrection. He did die by crucifixion and shortly after men were preaching that He rose again. As a result of this the message of Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire. It was not stopped despite persecution, and the body of Jesus was never found. These are the historical facts.

Still further evidence is found in a letter written by Pliny the younger to the Emperor asking what he was to do with the Christians. He writes in his letter concerning the worship of the Church,

“They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” (Pliny, Book 6)

The fact that a whole letter was written about the early church tells us a lot about the impact and significance of Jesus. How is it that one man, born in a remote part of the world (Judea), who died as a criminal, all of a sudden is being worshipped by a group of people that has grown so large and influential that the Emperor of Rome is being consulted as to what to do with them? In his letter it becomes clear that some Christians left the faith at the threat of persecution (just like the Bible says), but he also writes of two women who were interrogated,

“I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.” (Pliny Book 10)

These women would not deny their Lord even though they were tortured. The depraved and excessive superstition of these women was probably the glorious truth of the resurrection of Jesus and new life in Him. What we have here is an amazing testimony to the faithfulness of God, and further evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. These women would have been alive during a time when there were still people who had either seen the resurrected Jesus, or known someone who had seen the resurrected Jesus.

Jewish Sources

Josephus is a Jewish historian who also wrote of the ministry of Jesus. Now it is true that many scholars debate the authenticity of the passage dealing with Jesus, but if we take even the most conservative reading of this passage, that even liberal scholars can agree on, it still becomes clear that Jesus of Nazareth was an amazing man who lived in the first century,

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared”(Josephus)

Even in this conservative rendering of the text, we learn that Jesus was a wise man, did amazing things, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and shortly after had a group of followers called Christians who continued to the present day of his writing (and even today).

These are just a few pieces of secular evidence that agree with the testimony of the New Testament. The New Testament is a reliable historical source that tells us of the man, Jesus of Nazareth, His life, works, death, resurrection and early church movement, that has not lost momentum to this very day.

 

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Sources:

Tacitus

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html

Seutonius

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html

Pliny the younger

http://www.ancient-literature.com/rome_pliny_epistulae_X96.html
http://www.vroma.org/~hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html

Josephus

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

 

Was Jesus Actually Crucified?

Contributing writer James Bishop: Visit his website for more.

Scholarly consensus on Jesus’ crucifixion:

Perhaps one of the best attested facts about Jesus is that he was crucified, a fact that many independent sources attest to. According to scholar James Dunn the crucifixion is of the “two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent” and that it “rank[s] so high on the ‘almost impossible to doubt or deny’ scale of historical facts” (1). Likewise, skeptical critic Bart Ehrman tells us that: “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life” (2).

Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson (whose work we use as our course material for New Testament Studies) tells us that: “The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion” (3). Atheist historian Gerd Ludemann affirms that “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (4). Another atheist historian John Dominic Crossan says he takes it “absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate” (5). Jewish scholar Paula Frederickson says that “the crucifixion is the single strongest fact we have about Jesus” (6). Lastly, even the radical and anti-supernatural Jesus Seminar claims that the (crucifixion is) “one indisputable fact” (7). Finally, New Testament scholar Marcus Borg articulates for us:

“[S]ome judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world” (8).

Independent & Multiple Attestation:

According to philosopher and exegete William Lane Craig to have just two independent sources confirming an event of history is no small thing: “Historians consider themselves to have hit historical pay dirt when they have two independent accounts of the same event” (9).

Yet for Jesus’ crucifixion we have attested to in all four canonical gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke (and Acts) & John, by the Apostle Paul, Hebrews & 1 Peter 2:24. Likewise early Christianity had the crucifixion at the heart of apostolic preaching from the day of Pentecost onwards (Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39; 13:29), and Stephen alludes to the crucifixion indirectly (Acts 7:52).

Three early church fathers independently attest to the crucifixion. Ignatius (Trallians 9; Smyrneans 1; Barnabas 5), 1 Clement (1 Clement, 7, 12, 21, 49) and Justin Martyr (First Apology 32, 35, 50; Dialogue with Trypho 47, 108.) clearly believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross, and these writers did not receive their material from the New Testament (11). These early church fathers also probably had close ties to the disciples of Jesus making their testimony all the more valuable.

Hypothetical sources behind our gospels also attest to the crucifixion, such as the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative and Q source. New Testament scholar Eric Rowe (PhD, Notre Dame) informs us that: “Q and pre-Mark both surely do attest to the crucifixion of Jesus” (12). Rowe tells us that “Mark is passing on pre-existing tradition and that the crucifixion is not the author’s own addition to the story.” One of Jesus’ statements thought to come from Q source is his instruction to: “Take up your cross and follow me,” thus vividly indicating his crucifixion. However, according to Rowe, to show that Matthew and Luke attest to Jesus’ crucifixion independent of Mark is difficult. According to the four source hypothesis Matthew and Luke derived their crucifixion narrative from Mark and/or Q.

Beyond our early Christian writings perhaps our two most important extra-biblical references come from the historians Josephus Flavius and Cornelius Tacitus. Flavius (writing around 94 AD) refers to the crucifixion directly: “And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross” (13). Although it is true that of Flavius’ two passages that refer to Jesus, the one above was subject to Christian interpolation. However, unanimous opinion within critical scholarship holds that the interpolation was done over a historical core where Flavius did, by his own hand, refer to Jesus’ crucifixion and trial. On the pre-interpolation passage scholar James Dunn writes that “few have doubted that it came from Josephus’ pen” (14).

Cornelius Tacitus, writing around 116 AD, tells us that Jesus “suffered the extreme penalty” of crucifixion under “Pontius Pilate” (15). According to Eddy and Boyd that Tacitus provides attestation to Jesus’ crucifixion is now “firmly established” (16). Alongside Flavius, it is widely held that Tacitus provides independent attestation to Jesus’ crucifixion (17/18/19). Mara Serapion is another ancient writer of interest. In his letter he refers to the crucifixion of the “wise king.” It is held by many scholars, and debated by others, that the reference to the wise king is a reference to Jesus. Unfortunately, Serapion does not provide a direct reference to Jesus which could have made it all the more powerful. Scholar Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament Studies, sees little doubt that the reference to the execution of the “king of the Jews” is about the death of Jesus (20), while Bruce Chilton views Serapion’s reference to the “king of Jews” as related to the inscription on the cross of Jesus’ crucifixion, as recorded in the Gospel of Mark (15:26) (21). Scholars have dated this letter somewhere between 73 AD and 200 AD, and since scholarly consensus puts Mark’s gospel (our earliest gospel) at 70 AD, Serapion could well be a very early and valuable attestation to Jesus’ crucifixion. However, equally he could be a very late source just shy of 170 years onwards of Jesus’ crucifixion. We simply cannot be sure either way.

Some later ancient writers, writing around the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD, make references to the crucifixion. For example, we have Lucian’s satirical piece called the The Passing of Peregrinus that mocks Christian faith, and even calls Jesus a “crucified sophist.” The Babylonian Talmud tells us that Jesus “was hanged on the eve of the Passover” (Sanhedrin 43a). However, it is true that these later sources are probably based of hearsay information and do not provide independent attestation, however, what is most significant about these is that they readily assume (and even mock) the historical event of the crucifixion. Nowhere is Jesus’ crucifixion ever disputed even by hostile sources, and all the historical evidence is in its favour.

Before we tally our independent source I wish to end this section on an apt quote from a recent thesis I had consulted authored by Benjamin Shaw: “There are also over ten non-Christian sources that mention the death of Jesus. The Roman historian Tacitus (ca. AD 55-120) wrote around AD 115 that “Christus…suffered the extreme penalty…at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate…” The Roman and Jewish historian Josephus (ca. AD 38- 97) wrote around AD 90 that “Pontius Pilate caused him [Jesus] to be crucified.” In AD 52 Thallus wrote, possibly before Tacitus and even the Gospels, a history of the Eastern Mediterranean. However, since then only fragments or citations in other writings have been discovered. Yet, in one such citation from AD 221, Thallus implies that the death of Jesus was linked to a worldwide darkness, an earthquake, and an eclipse. The Jewish Talmud (Mishnah), describes Jesus’ death, “…he [Jesus] was hanged on the eve of Passover” (22).

In concluding we have a plethora on independent attestation to the crucifixion. We have the: Pre-Mark Passion Narrative, Q, John, Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter 2:24, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Martyr, Josephus Flavius, & Cornelius Tacitus. This amounts to 11 independent sources. On top of this we have other later sources such as: Lucian, Serapion (depends on dating), Thallus and the Talmud which all likewise affirm a constant tradition of Jesus’ crucifixion (23). This surely puts to bed any doubt that Jesus was crucified for any sincere investigative individual.

Early attestation:

Jesus’ crucifixion as an event is not only multiply & independently attested, but it is likewise early. For example, let’s first review Paul’s creedal formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 that is widely dated to within five years of Jesus’ death. Atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann dates this creed no later than three years after Jesus’ crucifixion: “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years…the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 C.E.” (24).

Paul does not directly state that Jesus was crucified in this creed, but he does widely teach and write on it in several places throughout all his letters. This negates any challenge that the crucifixion (as well as the resurrection proclamation, Jesus’ supernatural appearances to many) is a later legendary embellishment. Paul widely teaches on the crucifixion well less than 30 years after Jesus’ death, and no later than 55 AD in 1 Corinthians and earlier in Galatians. He also reports that he preached the same message to the Corinthians when he was with them in 50-51 AD. This amounts to less than two decades after Jesus’ death.

As demonstrated above (see: Independent & Multiple Attestation) our early pre-New Testament hypothetical sources attest to the crucifixion. Our Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is dated very early, according to Rudolf Pesch: “[Mark’s text] implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating.” For “if it had been written after Caiaphas’ term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events” (25).

Hypothetical Q also attests to the crucifixion, as James Dunn say that “Q does show awareness of Jesus’ death” (26). Q source is dated early, according to Hartin: “Although an exact date is difficult to determine, a date around 50 AD would seem to be the most acceptable period for the written Q source to emerge and that would make it one of the first Christian writings to appear” (27).

Overall we have very early attestation to the crucifixion. We have a creed that Paul received dated to within five years of Jesus’ death, and that attests to his death – coupled with Paul’s other early preaching and writing on Jesus’ crucifixion we have early attestation. The crucifixion is attested in the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative that is date to within seven years of the crucifixion. Likewise hypothetical Q is dated to within 20 years of Jesus’ death. This is a wide range of early & independent attestation that points powerfully to a crucifixion.

Criterion of Embarrassment:

Jesus’ crucifixion on the cross passes what scholars have called the Criterion of Embarrassment. This says that early Christian writers would not have invented such an embarrassing event such as the crucifixion of their leader if it did not occur (28). Crucifixion within 1st century Judaism was a social disgrace, according to scholar Martin Hengel: “The social stigma and disgrace associated with crucifixion in the Roman world can hardly be overstated” (29).

This need not only be affirmed by experts in the field, rather we can also consult the Old Testament view on the subject of crucifixion: “If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance” (Deu. 21:22-23, emphasis mine).

Now, this was the view that Jesus’ earliest followers had of crucifixion, that if one was crucified he was cursed by the God of Israel. With this in mind then imagine the confusion faced by Jesus’ followers & disciples when Jesus, their leader who performed all sorts of supernatural deeds and was their long awaited Messiah, was condemned to the cross like a common criminal who was cursed by God. The disciples’ confusion at Jesus’ words is attested in several places: John 13:21-29; 13: 7, 19 and Luke 24:44-45, for example.

Further, this was a major reason why our earliest Christian writer, the former Jewish Pharisee Paul, persecuted and executed Christians before his radical conversion to Christ’s cause (see his own admission: Gal 4:29, his killing of Stephen: Acts 7.57 to 8:1, his destruction of the early church: Acts 8:3). In fact, Paul well affirms the difficulty that Jesus’ crucifixion caused for him. In two of Paul’s undisputed letters we read that: “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Cor.1:21-22, emphasis mine)

Paul goes on to write that: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE.” (Gal 3:13, emphasis mine)

In other words, Paul affirms that preaching a crucified Jesus was a difficulty, it was a stumbling block. Paul himself tells his readers that Jesus, their Lord and Saviour, had become a curse! How could this be if Jesus was not crucified on a cross? Exegete William Craig sums this up rather nicely:

“Jewish Messianic expectations included no idea of a Davidic Messiah who, instead of throwing off Israel’s enemies and establishing David’s throne in Jerusalem, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. Jesus’ crucifixion was something the early church struggled to overcome, not something it invented. Jesus’ crucifixion is one datum upon which all historical scholars, even the most radical, agree” (30).

Criterion of Coherence:

This criterion looks at the larger pattern of Jesus’ historical circumstances (36/37). In short, that Jesus was crucified coheres to the fact that he upset the Jewish authorities and claimed to be the divine Son of Man. The Son of Man was his favourite self-title throughout his ministry (Mark 2:10,28; 10:45; Matthew. 13:37). Scholar Dan Wallace articulates:

“The title “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to describe himself; it refers to a human being, much the same as the phrase “son of Mike” would refer to a child of Mike. However, we aren’t dealing with a matter of either human or transcendent as the title implies. For in Daniel 7, the Son of Man rides the clouds. In the Hebrew Scriptures riding the clouds is something only God does—or something foreign gods are described as doing (Ex. 14:20; 34:5; Num. 10:34; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). In other words, this human figure is unique in his possession of characteristics that reflect the transcendent divine. Jesus as the Anointed One, the Christ, represents both God and man” (38).

Alongside this powerful self-designation other events like the disciples being accused of violating the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28; Matthew 12:1-21; Luke 6:1-5), Jesus being accused of violating the Sabbath due to healing (Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-11; Matthew 12:9-14), Jesus aggravating the Pharisees when he claimed to forgive sins that was only reserved for God to do (Matthew 9:1-8), and Jesus being accused of using demonic power (Matthew 12:22-37). Jesus certainly annoyed many when he claimed to build the temple up in three days after tearing it down (Matthew 27:40; John 2:19). This was levelled against Jesus during his trial (Mark 14:58; 15:29).

With these facts in mind it is very likely that Jesus was to meet his end, as our evidence suggests he did via his shameful crucifixion like a common criminal. All the events leading up to this climax make sense in the context of a crucifixion.

Archaeological backing for the death of Jesus:

Historians know about crucifixion mostly from written sources like the gospels and our work from the historian Josephus (and other historians), according to archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis: “From ancient literary sources we know that tens of thousands of people were crucified in the Roman Empire” (31).

However, we do have archaeological confirmation that has increased our confidence of the veracity of our New Testament’s claim of Jesus’ crucifixion. Despite much textual attestation confirming the mode of crucifixion in Jesus’ day (or the 1st century), we have only one archaeological discovery that dates to the 1st century, a discovery made in in a burial cave at Giv’at ha-Mivtar, northeast of Jerusalem (32). Although Josephus reports thousands of crucifixion done by the Romans, and our gospels reporting of Jesus’ and the two criminals crucifixions, there is a reasonable explanation as to why only one such archeological discovery was ever found. This is because a victim’s body was left to decay on a cross and therefore would not be preserved, yet the only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.

An ossuary bearing the name Johohanan, the son of Hagakol was found (33). The ossuary housed a heel bone with a nail driven through its side thus indicating that the man had been crucified. Olive wood fragments were also discovered that indicated the victim was crucified on a cross made from an olive tree. The victim’s legs were likewise found to be broken (thus giving us confidence in John’s (19:32) detail) and this was done to have quicken his death. As a result of this recent discovery we can be confident that “In the history of crucifixion, the death of Jesus of Nazareth stands out as the best-known example by far” (34).

An analysis of the torturing of a victim before his crucifixion, as gospel traditions evidence for Jesus, is beyond our scope here – let’s just say that the metal pieces on the flagrum (the lethal whip used before a crucifixion) did a fine job of tearing the flesh of victims (35). Not only is the fact of Roman crucifixion well attested during Jesus’ times, even the practice of Jesus’ crucifixion alongside two thieves “has now been archaeologically confirmed” (36).

Conclusions:

This article has shown why Jesus’ death by crucifixion is considered one of three historical bedrock facts for historians across a wide spectrum of theological positions (39). After sifting through 3400 articles by academic scholars Gary Habermas found that the crucifixion was universally accepted, and thus accepted as a minimal fact (40).

We have seen that the crucifixion passes several criterion of authenticity, namely the criterion of embarrassment, coherence, and multiple & independent attestation. Jesus’ crucifixion is independently attested to in at least 11 sources: Pre-Mark Passion Narrative, Q, John, Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter 2:24, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Martyr, Josephus Flavius, & Cornelius Tacitus. Of these 11 sources three of them are very early & independently attested as in a creedal formula (1 Cor. 15:1-11), hypothetical Q, and Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. The idea that Jesus was crucified was clearly a very early view. Further, later (Lucian, Thallus, Serapion) as well as hostile sources (Talmud, Lucian) always assumed that the crucifixion actually happened – nothing to the contrary exists and all the evidence stands in its favour. Lastly, we looked at archaeological data and found that the references within our New Testament to crucifixion has been consolidated into concrete history, thanks to a 1st century discovery.

“Of all the data to be examined, the fact that Jesus died due to crucifixion is one of the least disputed by scholars (41).”

References:

  1. Dunn, J. 2003.Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. p. 339.
  2. Ehrman, B. Why Was Jesus Killed?Available.
  3. Johnson, T. 1996. The Real Jesus. p. 125.
  4. Ludemann, G. 2004. The Resurrection of Christ.p. 50.
  5. Crossan quoted by Stewart, R. & Habermas, G. in Memories of Jesus. p. 282.
  6. Paula Frederickson, remark during discussion at the meeting of “The Historical Jesus” section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, November 22, 1999.
  7. Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape.
  8. Borg, M. 1999. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. Chapter 5: Why was Jesus killed?
  9. Craig, W. 2009. Independent Sources for Jesus’ Burial and Empty Tomb. Available.
  10. Shaw, B. 2010. Jesus’ Resurrection: A Historical Investigation. p. 15 Available.
  11. Personal correspondence with Eric Rowe (Facebook, 23/November/2015)
  12. Flavius, J. 94 AD. Antiquities of the Jews (18.3.).
  13. Dunn, J. 2003. Jesus Remembered. p. 141
  14. Tacitus, C. 116 AD. Annals (15.44).
  1. Eddy, P., & Boyd, G. 2007. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. p. 127.
  2. Powell, A. 1998. Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee. p. 33.
  3. Evans, C. 2001. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. p. 42.
  4. Van Voorst, R. 2000. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. p. 39–42.
  5. Van Voorst, R. 2000. ibid. p. 53-55.
  6. Chilton, B. & Evans, C. 1998. Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Researchedited by Bruce Chilton. p. 455-457.
  7. Shaw, B. 2010. Ibid. p. 15.
  8. Habermas, G. & Licona, M. 2004. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. p. 50.
  9. Ludemann, G. 1994. The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology. p. 38.
  10. Pesch, R. quoted by Horton, M. in: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? (Part 1).
  11. Dunn, J. 2003. Ibid. p. 151.
  12. Hartin, P. James and the “Q” Sayings of Jesus. p. 226/7.
  13. Meier, J. quoted in The Historical Jesus in Recent Researchby James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight. 2006. p. 126–128
  14. Hengel, M. 1977. Crucifixion.
  15. Craig, W. 2013. Stephen Law on the Non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Available.
  16. Tzaferis, V. 1985. Crucifixion—The Archaeological EvidenceAvailable.
  17. Tzaferis, V. 1970. Jewish Tombs at and near Giv’at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration Journal Vol.20 pp. 18-32.
  18. Maier, P. 1997. In the Fullness of Time. p. 165.
  19. Biblical Archaeology Society. 20011.A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods. Available.
  20. Zugibe, F. 2005. The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry. p. 19.
  21. Dunn, J. & McKnight, S. 2005 The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. p. 134.
  22. Craig, W. & Copan, P. 2009. Contending with Christianity’s Critics.p. 174
  23. Wallace, D. 2010.Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ.
  24. Licona, M. 2010. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. p.463-46.
  25. Habermas, G. 2012. The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity. Available.
  26. Shaw, B. 2010. Jesus’ Resurrection: A Historical Investigation. p. 14. Available.

Alternative Resurrection Theories

Contributing writer: Alin Patularu

It’s not every day that people who have been dead for 3 days rise up to life. The resurrection of Jesus is an extraordinary miracle that has no real natural explanation. Because of this many theories have been proposed to explain away the supernatural essence of the resurrection of Christ. In this article we’ll put these theories to the test and learn that, the only reasonable explanation of the evidence we have is, that Jesus Christ actually, physically rose from the dead.

The Swoon Theory

What is the Swoon Theory?

The swoon theory proposes that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but merely swooned, or passed out. Jesus appeared dead and was buried in a tomb, but in reality he was still alive. So the man the disciples saw was not actually the resurrected Jesus, but the resuscitated Jesus.

Why the Swoon Theory Falls Short

This theory is by far the most improbable of them all. It totally neglects all the facts surrounding the crucifixion of Christ and the competency of Roman executioners. The circumstances leading up to and including the execution of Jesus leave little room for doubt, Jesus was undeniably dead when He was taken off the Cross.

To start, Jesus was scourged before having to carry His Cross outside the city to be crucified. Roman scourging was a barbaric act wherein a criminal was beaten “half to death” with a short whip made with multiple leather thongs knotted with bones that would latch onto the flesh of the victim and cause maximum punishment. It was not uncommon for victims of scourging to die before they ever got to the cross.

Once Jesus was flogged, He was given a cross and marched up hill to the place of His death. He was nailed to the cross, bleeding profusely and barely clinging on to life, He only lasted 6 hours on the cross. This is important to note, because typically victims could hang on the cross for many days before dying. The blood loss from the scourging must have been particularly bad, considering Jesus only lasted 6 hours on the cross.

And if that was not enough, Jesus heart was pierced through with a spear to insure that He was really dead. (John 19:34) Roman executioners were no rookies to death. They were professional killers, to propose Jesus did not die is to ignore the professional proficiency of His killers. They killed people for a living, they knew when someone was dead!

It would take more faith to believe that Jesus of Nazareth “passed out” on the cross, lost the amount of blood He did, had his side pierced, was buried for 3 days later, “woke up”, rolled away a heavy stone and fought off the guards outside His tomb! The Swoon Theory is astronomically improbable given the evidence we have.

The Hallucination Theory

What is the hallucination theory?

The hallucination theory is self-explanatory, it proposed that all the post crucifixion appearances of Jesus were simply hallucinations. In this way the resurrection of Jesus was just a deception in the minds of the disciples.

Why the hallucination theory falls short

This theory may be more plausible if Jesus only appeared to a small number of people at one time under very specific circumstances. But the biblical record tells us that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people, many different times, at many different times and in many different places. He was touched by the disciples, He walked with the disciples, He even ate real food with the disciples.

It wasn’t as if the resurrection appearances of Jesus were immediately received as truth by even the disciples. Many of them were skeptical and wanted more proof. Thomas said he would not believe it unless he put his hand in the spear wounded side of Christ. (John 20:25) These were skeptical men who, even if they seen a hallucination, wouldn’t believe it until they could physically verify it.

That’s exactly what we see Christ doing in His resurrection appearances, proving without a doubt, that it is actually physically HIM. Wilbur Smith reminds us that Jesus’ appearances satisfy the proof most people demand, “The very kind of evidence which modern science, and even psychologists, are so insistent upon for determining the reality presented to us in the Gospels regarding the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, namely, the things that are seen with the human eye, touched with the human hand, and heard by the human ear,”(1) are exactly the ways in which Jesus’ disciples experienced him post-resurrection.

The hallucination theory contradicts everything we know about hallucinations. Psychiatrists assert that:

  • Only certain kinds of people have hallucinations. These are usually high-strung, highly imaginative, and very nervous people. In fact, usually only paranoid or schizophrenic individuals have hallucinations. But Christ appeared to many different types of people. His appearances were not restricted to people of any particular psychological make up.
  • Hallucinations are linked in an individual’s subconscious–to his particular past experiences and this was certainly not a part of any past experience.
  • Hallucinations are usually restricted to when and where they occur. They usually occur in a nostalgic atmosphere or in a place of familiar surroundings which places the person to a reminiscing mood.
  • They occur in people when there is a spirit of anticipation or hopeful expectation. The historical record shows no such anticipation existed. They were prone to disbelieve even after they were told of the resurrection.

For further study see, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 257f, and The Resurrection Factor, p. 82f.

Even if they did all hallucinate, all that one would need to do to stop the Christian movement is present the body of Jesus. The Church had no lack of enemies, but yet this obvious refutation of the resurrection claim was never undertaken. Why? Because even the enemies of Christ knew, His body was gone.

For these reasons, the hallucination theory falls short and must be rejected.

The Spiritual resurrection theory

What is the Spiritual resurrection theory?

The spiritual resurrection theory asserts that the resurrection of Christ was not physical, but spiritual. Jesus’ body remained in the grave, but His Spirit was resurrected. The bible only offers us a story of a physical resurrection as an illustration so we can understand the spiritual nature of it all.

Why the Spiritual resurrection theory falls short

This theory is easily refuted by the reality that the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. The theory is literally refuted by that one fact.

But there is more. The women who were going to anoint His body with spices were shocked when they went into the tomb and found it empty. She ran to Peter and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:2) If the resurrection was only spiritual, then the body would have still been in the tomb and Mary Magdalene would not have been so urgent to find where they laid Him.

Spirits do not eat. (Luke 24:30) Spirits do not have flesh and bone. (John 20:27) The Spiritual resurrection theory falls short and must be rejected.

The Theft Theory

What is the Theft Theory?

The theft theory simply says that someone, whether the disciples, the Romans, the Jews etc, stole the body of Jesus and then the disciples claimed that He rose from the dead because the body was gone.

Why the Theft Theory Falls Short

One needs to ask who would steal the body?

The Romans wouldn’t steal the body. They had a vested interest to insure the body of Jesus remained in the tomb. The last thing Pontius Pilate needed was any more problems in Jerusalem. Besides, unsealing a tomb would have meant certain death for the guards.

The disciples could not have stolen the body of Jesus for many reasons. For one, they were all scattered after the resurrection and some were even in hiding. Two, there is no way they could have overcome the guards and rolled the stone away without being found out. The guards themselves testified to the Chief Priests that Jesus had been risen from the dead and there was nothing they could do about it. The Chief Priests bribed them and told them to spread the lie that the disciples stole the body and not to worry about the governor, they would satisfy him and keep them out of trouble. (Matthew 28:11-15)

Not only that, but Jesus is said to have appeared to over 500 people. If the body was stolen by a small group, then only they would be spreading the resurrection myth. Instead we see hundreds of people testifying that they themselves saw Jesus alive.

It is also hard to believe, that the disciples would steal the body and then fabricate a story wherein they are viewed as cowards who went into hiding after the crucifixion of their master. Who then doubted multiple times the resurrection they claim to be proclaiming and make themselves look like faithless buffoons. And then these same con men would go so far as to give their own lives to keep the lie alive. People die for what they sincerely believe all the time, but no one gives up their lives for something they KNOW is a lie. Keeping this conspiracy alive had literally no benefits. No money, no power, no influence only hardships, persecution and isolation.

For these reasons the theft theory falls short and should be rejected as not adequate to explain the empty tomb.

The Unknown Tomb Theory

What is the Unknown Tomb Theory?

This theory says that the disciples didn’t actually know where the tomb of Jesus was. The theory asserts that those who were crucified were thrown into a pit and not given the dignity of a formal burial.

Why the Unknown Tomb Theory Falls Short

This theory totally ignores the historical record of Jesus’ burial. Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, gave his tomb to Jesus and had Him buried there. The tomb was not in a secret location, everyone knew where it was. The women watched Jesus body go into the tomb and the Romans set guards and a seal on the tomb.

To assert that the tomb was unknown is to ignore all the evidence we have and thus must be rejected as an inadequate explanation of the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Conclusion: He’s Alive!

The only adequate explanation of all the evidence we have is that, Jesus is actually alive and the testimony of the Apostles is true.

The ball is in your court now, what will you do with the reality that Jesus is alive? We encourage you to repent (turn from your sin) and place your faith in the living God. He is alive and because He is alive you can trust every word that He has said!

 

Sources:

Smith, Wilbur M. Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Copyright 1965.

Can We Trust the New Testament?

Contributing writer James Bishop: Visit his website for more.

There are undeniably historical events, people, places etc. recorded in our New Testament (NT). But why have I come to this conclusion? I conclude this because our NT passes the standard test expected of other ancient documents that have been deemed to be generally reliable. In other words, I hold to the general reliability of our NT historical sources. Let’s briefly touch on four aspects.

1) Manuscript Attestation– The manuscript attestation for our NT is abundant (the NT boasts the most manuscript copies; more than any other ancient work from antiquity), and this is a good thing. In New Testament class this semester many of my fellow students were only becoming familiar with what manuscript attestation is. I was quite fortunate since I’ve looked into these issues for some time now. So my lecturer gave me a chance to explain to the class what was meant by there being some 400 000 variances in our 26 000 manuscript copies of the NT, what a variant actually is, and how the line of scribal transmission worked. In short, what this means is that we can reconstruct the original documents of the NT with great confidence. This doesn’t suggest that what is actually recorded within the NT is historical (that must be decided on other grounds), but this remains a first step in the process for determining historical reliability.

2) Archaeology– Historians always look for archaeological confirmation of locations and structures described in ancient documents. Why? Simply because it demonstrates that the author is intending to write accounts that are actually grounded within history. We have numerous finds confirming many NT details. Distinguished Professor of New Testament Craig Evans explains that “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the book of Acts—these are the basic narrative books of the New Testament. They talk about real people, real events, real places, and the archaeologist can show that” (1).So when our NT authors mention a time, city, or village those places actually exist. When they mention people we happen to have found archaeological confirmation affirming the existence of the mentioned people. Thus, in many places where we are able to test our NT authors, at least via the science of archaeology, we find that they intended to record history. Scholar Paul Johnson explains that “Historians note that mounting evidence from archaeology confirms rather than contradicts the accounts of Jesus” (5).

3) Extra-Biblical Confirmation– We won’t go into detail here as I have done so elsewhere. But the point here being is that external sources to our NT documents affirm what the NT authors recorded. We have many of these sources. Josephus & Tacitus are our most significant one with both corroborating events and people mentioned in the NT. The same applies to several other sources from Suetonius, Mara Serapion, Pliny the Younger, and our early church fathers. There are also other later, less significant sources that assist historians trying to piece together earliest Christianity. However, when we combine these sources they make for an undeniably powerful argument that our NT is recording real history. Exegete Gary Habermas explains that “When the combined evidence from ancient sources is summarized, quite an impressive amount of information is gathered concerning Jesus and ancient Christianity. Few ancient historical figures can boast the same amount of material” (2).

4) Early Attestation– Another important factor is the earliness of the historical evidence that we have for Jesus. Firstly, our NT itself is early if we are to compare it to other works of antiquity. For example, our earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written 30 years after Jesus’ death (he died in 30 AD). 1 Thessalonians, a Pauline epistle, was penned around 52 AD which makes it our earliest NT document. We also have traditions and hypothetical sources that lie behind our NT documents which take us even earlier than most of the NT. For example, we have creeds, hymns, and several hypothetical sources (Q, L, M, pre-Markan Passion Narrative & John’s Signs Gospel). All of this provides a rich reservoir of early & independent attestation for the historian to use to make sense of the historical Jesus. In this way we are lucky to have so much data from the earliest times after Jesus died. These creeds and hypothetical sources “preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about AD 30-50” (3).

Conclusion.

I think that these four areas have given me good grounds to conclude that our NT is trustworthy for understanding and learning about the Jesus of history. Does this mean that there is no debate or discussion regarding these factors? Certainly not. But the fact of the matter is that no expert in the field believes that our NT cannot be trusted as generally reliable sources, although how much so would differ according to the historian in question. Don’t only take my word for it, but consider what the agnostic historian Bart Ehrman (no friend of Christianity, trust me!) has to say:

“If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple” (4).

References.

  1. Evans, C.Interview: Is the Bible Reliable?Available.
  2. Habermas, G. 1996.The Historical Jesus:  Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. p. 219.
  3. Habermas, G. 1996. Ibid. p. 143.
  4. Ehrman, B. 2008.The New Testament.p. 229.
  5. Johnson, P. 1986.A Historian Looks at Jesus(Speech).

 

Did the Resurrection Really Happen?

Contributing writer James Bishop: Visit his website for more.

Historical Evidence & the Minimal Facts Approach.

When historians wish to learn about Jesus they zoom in on the New Testament. This, explains Bart Ehrman, “is not for religious or theological reasons… It is for historical reasons, pure and simple” (Ehrman, 2000: 229). When we look at this evidence we don’t assume it being God inspired; we simply approach them as historical documents.

Academic consensus affirms four facts concerning Jesus that we need to review. Exegete Gary Habermas has engaged more than 3000 academic articles, and has thus found several facts that “are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar… even the rather skeptical ones” (Habermas & Licona, 2004: 44). These are known as the Minimal Facts (MA):

  • Jesus’ crucifixion.
  • Jesus’ burial.
  • Jesus’ empty tomb.
  • Jesus’ post mortem appearances.

Fact (1), explains Professor James Dunn, “command[s] almost universal assent” (Dunn, 2003: 339) while according to Professor Ludemann the “crucifixion is indisputable” (Ludemann, 2004: 50). It is attested to in no less than 11 independent sources. The more sources we have concerning a historical event the more probable it is that it occurred; historians are quite happy to have two independent sources for such events (Craig, 2009).

Fact (2) concerns Jesus’ burial which is attested to in very early sources (a creed in 1 Cor. 15 and the Pre-Markan narrative). Beyond that it is independently attested to in M & L, Acts and John. John Robinson explains that the burial is one of “the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus” (Robinson, 1973: 131).

Fact (3) concerns the empty tomb. Unlike these other facts which command universal consensus (1, 2 & 4), the empty tomb is affirmed by 75% of historians. However, the burial is independently attested to in a pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor. 15:1-11), the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative, and in the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and John. Habermas explains that “least three, if not four, of these Gospel sources” attest to the empty tomb hence why it is “taken so seriously by contemporary critical scholars” (Habermas, 2005). Concerning

Fact (4) consensus holds that James, Paul and the disciples had resurrection experiences of Jesus. Historian James Crossley says that these resurrection appearances are “the hardest, best evidence we have” (Crossley, 2015). Nine independent sources attest to Jesus’ resurrection appearance to Paul, James, and his disciples.

The Resurrection Hypothesis.

So what best explains the Minimal Facts (3) and (4)? Traditionally, critics have proposed hypotheses but of which fall short. The Swoon hypothesis says that Jesus never actually died but was later revived. This, however, fails to explain fact (4) as a severely injured Jesus would never convince the earliest disciples of his bodily resurrection. The hallucination hypothesis, namely that the disciples hallucinated the risen Jesus, fails to explain fact (3), the empty tomb. Alternatively, the resurrection hypothesis adequately explains both facts (3) and (4), and therefore is richer in explanatory scope.

Lastly, we should consider probability. Now, considering the minimal facts, it is highly unlikely that we would have facts (3) and (4) should Jesus never have risen from the dead. In other words, given facts (3) and (4) it is more probable that Jesus was resurrected than him not being resurrected which certainly gives credibility to the resurrection hypothesis.

References.

Craig, W. 2009. Independent Sources for Jesus’ Burial and Empty Tomb.

Dunn, J. 2003. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing.

Ehrman, Bart. 2000. The New Testament. Oxford University Press.

Habermas, G. & Licona, M. 2004. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications

Habermas, G. 2005. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels.

Ludemann, G. 2004. The Resurrection of Christ. New York: Prometheus Book.

Robinson, J. 1973. The Human Face of God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

 

Was Jesus Plagiarized?

Contributing writer James Bishop: Visit his website for more.

Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy.

Today just about every scholar in the relevant historical specializations unanimously rejects the notion that Jesus is a copy of pagan gods. It seems that the available evidence has persuaded them against these alleged parallels. For instance, T.N.D Mettinger of Lund University opines: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct…”

Warner Wallace, a former homicide detective, who himself looked into the allegations found that “The more you examine the nature of the gods who were worshiped before Jesus, the more you will notice their dissimilarities and the dishonesty of trying to compare them to the historical Jesus.”

Professor Ronald Nash, a prominent philosopher and theologian notes in his writing ‘Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?’: “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” Nash then goes on to say, “Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.”

Another leading New Testament scholar Professor Craig Keener writes that: “When you make the comparisons, you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities.”

JZ Smith, a historian of religion and Hellenistic religions claims that: “The idea of dying and rising gods is largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”

Michael Bird, who is on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, as well is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, clearly shows his annoyance when he writes: “Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of “Jesus mythicists”, as they are known. That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously.”

Professor James Dunn in his article on “Myth” in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, writes: “Myth is a term of at least doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels.”

Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him. This is very  unlike the many pagan gods.

The most credible New Testament, Biblical, historical, and early Christianity scholars today, from all backgrounds of belief, agree wholeheartedly that Jesus existed. Of course the debate arises in what we can know about Jesus but of which is irrelevant to this discussion. This very much separates Jesus from many of the dying and rising gods that often have no place in history as historical figures. As the once skeptical professor Bultmann penned: “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

As Paul Maier, a former Professor of Ancient History, likewise remarks: “The total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

Professor Craig Evans, widely known for his writings on the historical Jesus, says that: “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Even leading anti-Christian skeptic, professor Bart Ehrman compares mythicism to young earth creationism: “These views are so extreme [that Jesus did not exist] and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

Grant says, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’

So, if anything, the claim that Jesus never existed as a historical figure is viewed as an absurdity and is not even on the table of historical scholarship. Burridge and Could suggest an absence of such thinking in professional scholarship: “I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that (that Jesus did not exist) anymore.”

We actually know very little about these pagan secretive religions.

As of history it seems that these pagan religions were really only known by those in the relevant communities, and most of whom had no intention of sharing it with outsiders. Of course this would leave modern historians in a tricky situation, as we can know only little snippets of who these groups really were, and what their practices were like. As Bart Ehrman explains: “We know very little about mystery religions – the whole point of mystery religions is that they’re secret! So I think it’s crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this.”

C.S Lewis, a former atheist who looked into the issue himself, write that “The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when.”

As I quoted in the same manner in point 1, J.Z. Smith, a historian of religion and Hellenistic religious scholar writes: “The idea of dying and rising gods is largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”

If we have late and ambiguous texts, a lack of these texts, and many of these texts postdating Christianity, then where, may I ask, are these mythicists getting these alleged parallels from? As J.Z. Smith notes above, it comes from highly speculative “imaginative reconstructions” solely in the minds of the mythicists who have anti-religious/Christian agenda.

Most of what we know of secretive pagan religions comes after Christianity, not before it.

If it is true that most of what we know of these secretive religions postdates Christianity, then why, may I ask, are mythicists propounding the view that these texts predate Christianity? Why do they claim that the early Christian community copied elements of these secretive religions when they could not have?

Professor Mettinger of Lund University, and the majority of other scholars in the relevant fields, hold that there were no dying and rising gods before Christ, or before the advent of Christianity in the early 1st century: “The consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” Mettinger goes on to say that: “The references to a resurrection of Adonis have been dated mainly to the Christian Era.”

Scholar Edwin Yamauchi writes that: “the supposed resurrection of Attis doesn’t appear until after AD 150.” And in the case of Mithra, professor Ronald Nash himself opines that: “Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.”

The Jews were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture.

Many times in the Old Testament the Jews would reject their one true God, and engage in idolatry. We know of this because it is reported in our biblical texts but no evidence suggests that this happened in 1st century Palestine when Jesus was living. In fact, the New Testament overwhelmingly confirms that the Pharisees were very strict in application of the law (Paul, as a former Pharisee & prior to his conversion, went to the extent of authorizing the killings of early Christians for their blasphemous claim of a risen Jesus. Knowing this it hugely strains my belief that they would encourage paganism influences). Philosopher William Lane Craig writes that “For Jesus and his disciples they were first century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”

Professor Ben Witherington notes that: “This notion was not a regular part of the pagan lexicon of the afterlife at all, as even a cursory study of the relevant passages in the Greek and Latin classics shows. Indeed, as Acts 17 suggests, pagans were more likely than not to ridicule such an idea. I can understand the apologetic theory if, and only if, the Gospels were directed largely to Pharisaic Jews or their sympathizers. I know of no scholar, however, who has argued such a case.” William Craig goes on to say:

“The spuriousness of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive framework for understanding the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.” And that: “…anyone pressing this objection has a burden of proof to bear. He needs to show that the narratives are parallel and, moreover, that they are causally connected.”

Craig concludes: “It boggles the imagination to think that the original disciples would have suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead just because they had heard of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods.”

Professor Sanders likewise seems to suggest that Jesus is best made sense of within the world of the 1st century Judaism “…the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”

Professor Martin Hengel notes: “Hellenistic mystery religions … could gain virtually no influence [in Jewish Palestine].”

The New Testament canon is history unlike much of the pagan secretive mysteries.

The gospels and the other literature of the New Testament are our most reliable sources of information we have on Jesus. The gospels, for example,  are classified as Greco-Roman biography. Graham Stanton of Cambridge University writes: “I do not think it is now possible to deny that the Gospels are a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of ‘lives,’ that is, biographies.”

Also, the distinguished New Testament scholar Charles Talbert in his book ‘What are the Gospels’ speaks highly of another influential book that influenced scholars of the true genre of the gospels; he claims that “This volume ought to end any legitimate denials of the canonical Gospels’ biographical character.” Likewise David Aune, a prominent specialist in ancient literature, opines:

“Thus while the [Gospel writers] clearly had an important theological agenda, the very fact that they chose to adapt Greco-Roman biographical conventions to tell the story of Jesus indicated that they were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really happened.”

What further corroborates the fact that the gospels texts are biographical literature is archaeology. As Urban von Wahlde, a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, concluded that archaeology “demonstrates the full extent of the accuracy and the detail of the Evangelist’s knowledge…. The topographical references …. are entirely historical …. some [parts of the gospel] are quite accurate, detailed and historical”

Professor Ehrman also comments that “If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple.”

What this shows is that the gospels are routed in history and that they are inspired by an actual person of history: Jesus of Nazareth.

Unlike the pagan secretive religions, Jesus is an ancient figure we can actually know about, what he thought of himself, and what he did as a historical figure of history:

Whether one holds that Jesus was really the Son of Man, thus God himself, or just a religious genius of the 1st century, we can both glean facts about his life, and ministry – according to the scholars. Professor Craig Evans informs us of scholarly consensus:

“…and so the consensus is, look, Jesus existed, he was Jewish, he wasn’t out to break the law. He was out to fulfil it. Jesus understood himself as the Lord’s anointed, that is as the Messiah.”

Professor Sanders states that: “Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”

Sanders goes on to say explain that miracle healings and exorcisms are part of what we can know about Jesus: “I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus’ fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.”

Stanton, a former prominent and widely respected New Testament scholar, once opined that “Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered.” Tomson, a lecturer in New Testament Studies claims that: “Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly ‘Son of Man’ and ‘the beloved son’ of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings.”

Professor Robert Grant explains that “Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.” Grant goes on to say that that: “Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race.”

The late scholar Maurice Casey wrote that: “He believed that his death would fulfil the will of God for the redemption of his people Israel.”

Again Professor Sanders believes that we can know that Jesus’ post-mortem appearances really convinced his earliest followers of his resurrection: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”

What this illustrates is that we can actually know quite a lot about the Jesus of history, according to the experts. In other words the majority consensus of historians is that Jesus actually existed, that we can actually know what he set out to accomplish, and what he seemed to have thought of himself. This is unlike the sketchy traditions we find in the secretive religions. Sometimes scholars are highly uncertain about the existence of some of these historical figures behind a few of the pagan religions.

The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth.

In many aspects of Jesus’ life he was unique. This was evidently so compelling to those in his day that they followed him and often to their deaths and in their sufferings. Today scholars continue to be surprised by Jesus, as historian Edwin Judge notes:

“An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.”

C.S Lewis, best known for his essays on Christianity and for the fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia,  regarding the Gospels comments: “All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job. And I am prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I’ve read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff.”

Yet at the very center of our gospels we have the activities, the life, the ministry and the person of Jesus. Much of what is recorded in the gospels is concretely based in the historical record.

Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history.

Edwin Yamauchi, a well known Professor history, notes that “All of these myths are repetitive, symbolic representations of the death and rebirth of vegetation. These are not historical figures …”

Similarly, Professor and biblical exegete William Lane Craig  writes that: “In fact, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all!”

It would thus prove difficult to draw parallels to Jesus from these pagan myths that had little to do with history in the first place.

Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.

One of the events many Christians around the world celebrate on December 25th is that of Jesus’ birth. Of course no-where in the Biblical record does it anywhere allude to this specific date of Jesus’ birth; we simply do not know when Jesus was born. The 25th of December date is also allegedly a breeding pool for the mythicists alleged parallels. Thus in the context of the uniqueness of Mary’s virginal conception the prominent Biblical scholar Raymond Brown concludes: “No search for parallels has given us a truly satisfactory explanation of how early Christians happened upon the idea of a virginal conception…”

And for those who claim that Mithras, a pagan god, was born of a virgin in the exact same manner as Jesus was Professor Manfred Clauss of ancient history explains that “The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras’ life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god’s birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god.” Unless rocks count as virgins we do not not have a parallel here.

And following his own critical examination of this allegation, Louis Sweet writes: “After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and the analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and never without physical generation, except in a few isolated instances of magical births on the part of women who had not the slightest claim to be called virgins. In all recorded instances which I have been able to examine, if the mother was a virgin before conception took place she could not make that claim afterward.”

In his book ‘The Virgin Birth’ Thomas Boslooper notes that: “The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus’ ‘virgin birth’ is not ‘pagan’.” Again, William Craig informs his readers that “The Gospel stories of Jesus’ virginal conception are, in fact, without parallel in the ancient Near East.”

If anything Jesus’ radical virginal birth is explicitly unique.

Jesus’ death had a radical impact on his disciples; a feat that no pagan god can boast.

In an article for the New York Times Peter Steinfels, an American journalist and educator best known for his writings on religious topics, questions what could have drastically changed the lives of so many after Jesus’ death: “Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened … But exactly what?”

Even the skeptical New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, notes that “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.”

E.P Sanders writes: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”

Rudolph Bultmann, hailed to be one of the most influential scholars of the New Testament writes: “All that historical criticism can establish is that the first disciples came to believe the resurrection.”

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, goes on to say that: “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”

Dale Allision another prominent New Testament scholar, and ancient historian notes that, “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.”

What makes this case even more compelling is that these very same followers, and the skeptics Paul and James, underwent persecution for this proclamation. Several even went to their deaths as a result. I struggle to believe that a mythological being could have so drastically changed the lives of so many men.

Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is unique.

As an event of history, especially within the context of the 1st century Judaism, the resurrection of Jesus was a unique once off event. Knowing this the alleged parallels that the mythicists seem to draw between Jesus and the pagan gods are spurious. Professor Bart Ehrman believes that “there’s nothing about them [Hercules and Osiris] dying and rising again.” and “It is true that Osiris “comes back” to earth …. But this is not a resurrection of his body. His body is still dead. He himself is down in Hades, and can come back up to make an appearance on earth on occasion.”

Likewise Professor Mettinger concludes that: “there were no ideas of resurrection connected with Dumuzi/Tammuz” and “The category of dying and rising deities as propagated by Frazer can no longer be upheld.”

According to Professor Edwin Yamauchi: “there’s no resurrection of Marduk or Dionysus …… there was no real resurrection of Tammuz.”

In agreement Jonathan Smith writes that: “There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.”

Professor Mettinger again says that “While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.”

Professor Ronald Nash illustrates his view on the alleged Mithras Jesus parallel: “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.”

Theologian Norman Geisler demonstrates the overt differences between Jesus and other pagan gods, as in the case of Osiris: “The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld…This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account.”

This tells us that scholars see these alleged parallels as not actually parallels at all.

The notion that Jesus is a copy parallel of Mithras is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Mithras, they claim in the following comparisons that Mithras was:

  1. Mithras sacrificed himself.
  2. He was resurrected.
  3. He had disciples.
  4. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
  5. He was called the Messiah.
  6. He was born from a virgin.

Firstly, this is questionable since very little is known about Mithraism because no texts have been found or none exist. What we know comes from archaeology in the form of hundreds of discovered mithraea artefacts, as well as in the writings of Christians and other pagans in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Secondly, scholars have found no clear evidence of Mithraism until the mid to late 1st century, after Christianity was established. Therefore the early Christians could not copy anything, as there was nothing to copy in the first place.

Thirdly, the comparisons are spurious on all levels. As for starters Mithras did not sacrifice himself at all, and no-one actually knows if or how he died. Scholars seem to think that Mithras was killed by a bull. This killing of by the bull seems to be the source of the Mithraic ritual, known as taurobolium, of killing a bull and allowing the blood to drench the worshiper. Now, there may be parallels between this ritual and Jewish animal sacrifice, or the Christian Eucharist, but the earliest reference to the ritual is the middle of the 2nd century – these comparisons, even if accurate, are spurious, and post-date Christianity. As Ronald Nash notes: “Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence from the fourth century A.D. that, far from influencing Christianity, those who used the taurobolium were influenced by Christianity”

As, in the first place, we have no record of Mithras actually dying, there is no record of him being resurrected either, especially not in the way like Jesus seemingly was. And the claim that Mithras had disciples is incorrect, there is no evidence that he existed as a historical figure, and there is no evidence that he had any disciples. He was seen as a god, and not as a human.

Fourthly, Mithras was not born of a virgin, unless we count rocks as virgins. As Clauss, a professor of ancient history at the Free University of Berlin, in his book ‘The Roman Cult of Mithras‘ explains: “The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras’ life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god’s birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god.”

Fifthly, I would encourage anyone to forward primary evidence that Mithras was referred to as the “Messiah”, because there is no evidence of this. As Professor Gary Lease has noted: “After almost 100 years of unremitting labor, the conclusion appears inescapable that neither Mithraism nor Christianity proved to be an obvious and direct influence upon the other”

Professor Edwin Yamauchi concludes: “We don’t know anything about the death of Mithras…We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection.

That Jesus is a copy of Horus is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Horus, they claim in the following comparisons that Horus was:

  1. Born on December 25
  2. Mary, Jesus’ mother, is a copy of the Horus account.
  3. Born of a virgin.
  4. Three kings came to adore the new-born “saviour”.
  5. Was a saviour.
  6. He became a child teacher at the age of 12.
  7. Like Jesus, Horus was “baptized”.
  8. He had a “ministry”.
  9. Had twelve “disciples”
  10. Was crucified, was buried for three days, and was resurrected after three days.

Horus was born during month of Khoiak, this would be either October or November, and certainly not December 25 as the mythicist claims. We should also note that we don’t actually know when Jesus was born, and it most likely was not on the 25th of December. This alleged parallel should be rejected.

Secondly, Horus was born to Isis, and there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary” at any time or place, or by anyone. Even worse for those using this as an alleged parallel is that “Mary” is an Anglicized form of her real name which is actually Miryam or Miriam, therefore, “Mary” was not even used in the original biblical manuscripts! Someone is clearly making up nonsense.

Thirdly, Isis was not a virgin. Isis was actually the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris. In fact, we read: that “[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus].”(Encyclopaedia Mythica)

Fourthly, there is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. This becomes even more questionable when we find that our gospel accounts don’t even state the actual number of magi that came to see Jesus at his birth. Fifthly, Horus was not even a saviour by any means; he did not even die for anyone like Jesus did.

Sixth, I would challenge anyone to produce a single piece of primary evidence that tells us of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12. There is none that scholars have ever found.

Seventh, Horus was also not “baptized”, at least not like Jesus was at the hands of John the Baptist in the Jordan river. The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water. That clearly sounds like a baptism doesn’t it?

We have no account of Horus ever having a “ministry”, especially not one like Jesus’.

Horus also did not have 12 disciples. According to data, Horus had four demigods that followed him, and there are some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.

Subsequently, there are different accounts of how Horus actually died, but none of them ever involves a crucifixion.

Lastly, we have no accounts of Horus even being buried for three days. We have no accounts of Horus being resurrected, and especially not in the bodily form as Jesus was. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and then becoming the lord of the underworld.

All these alleged parallels are spurious at best.

That Jesus was a copy of Dionysus is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Dionysus, they claim in the following comparisons that Dionysus was:

  1. Born of a virgin.
  2. Born on the 25th of December.
  3. Turned water into wine.

Again, as noted, point 2 can be dismissed because we don’t know when Jesus was born.

Secondly, there are two common stories of Dionysus’ birth. One story involves the god Zeus, who is his father, either impregnating the mortal woman Semele, or impregnating Persephone (the Greek Queen of the underworld). This has nothing to do with a virgin birth. In the other narrative there is also no virgin birth. However, the second narrative seems to be a copy of the Genesis biblical because it appearsto describe what the book of Genesis said thousands of years before. In this narrative of Dionysus’ birth it describes fallen angels, and then impregnating human women. Either way, there’s nothing here to be a parallel of Jesus.

We are all likely familiar with the miracle story of Jesus turning water into wine but was this a copy from the pagan god Dionysus, as some have alleged? No. Firstly, Dionysus gave King Midas the power to turn whatever he touched into gold. Also, he gave the daughters of King Anius the power to turn whatever they touched into wine, corn, or oil. But this should hardly be surprising as Dionysus was the god of wine. However, there do seem to be stories where Dionysus supernaturally fills empty vessels with wine, but the actual act of turning water into wine does not occur. There’s no parallel here either.

That Jesus is a copy of Krishna is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Krishna, they claim in the following comparisons that Krishna was:

  1. Born of a virgin.
  2. That there was an infant massacre.
  3. That there was a star in the East that guided the wise men to his birth.
  4. Was crucified.
  5. Was resurrected.
  6. Krishna’s father was a carpenter, like Jesus’ father.

Firstly, never is a virgin birth attributed to Krishna. In fact, his parents had seven previous children. Some mythicists claim that Krishna was born to the virgin Maia, however what we find is that this is incorrect as according to our Hindu texts Krishna is the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva.

In the Gospels we read that King Herod felt threatened by Jesus’ birth, and that resorted to killing the infants in Bethlehem. Yet, is this a copy from a narrative concerning Krishna?

Not, it isn’t. Instead what we find is that Devaki’s six previous children were murdered by her cousin, King Kamsa, due to a prophecy foretelling his death at the hands of one of her children. This narrative tells us Kamsa only targeted Devaki’s sons, and never issued a command to kill male infants, unlike the gospel accounts. We read in ‘Bhagavata, Bk 4, XXII:7‘ “Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born.”

Thirdly, what about the star and the wise men? This is a questionable parallel since Krishna was born in a prison and not within a stable. Further, his parents bore him in secret.

Some have even alleged that Krishna was crucified like Jesus was, but crucifixion is never once mentioned in any Hindu text even though we are told how Krishna dies. We read that he was mediating in the woods when he was accidentally shot in the foot by a hunter’s arrow. Maybe because the arrow that pierced his foot was wood, much like was Jesus’ cross, I suppose means Krishna was crucified?

What about a resurrection? Firstly, we have zero evidence that Krishna descended into the grave for three days and appeared to many witnesses like Jesus did, as the mythicist claims. Instead, the actual account says that Krishna immediately returns to life and speaks only to the hunter where he forgives him of his actions.

Nevertheless, there are obvious differences between the resurrections of Jesus and Krishna’s appearance to the hunter who killed him. These are:

  • Jesus’ resurrection defeated the power of sin and death. Krishna’s resurrection had no real effect on mankind.
  • Jesus appeared to approximately 500 eye witnesses in the New Testament. Krishna appeared only to the hunter.
  • Jesus rose from the dead three days later. Krishna immediately returned to life.
  • Jesus did not ascend into Heaven until after the Great Commission. Krishna immediately “ascended” into the afterlife.
  • Jesus was aware of what was to take place. Krishna had no foreknowledge concerning his death.
  • Jesus ascended into a physical realm (Heaven). Krishna transcended into a mental state (or inconceivable region). The concepts between Heaven (Christianity) and Nirvana (Hinduism) differ greatly.

Lastly, what about Krishna’s father? Was his father, Vasudeva, a carpenter like Jesus’ Earthly father was? It is true that Krishna’s father was also said to be a carpenter, yet this is not suggested anywhere within our actual Hindu texts. What we are told is that Vasudeva was a nobleman in the courts of Mathura as he was married to Princess Devaki. However, when Krishna fled the wrath of Kamsa with his foster parents, we are told his foster-father Nanda was a cow herder: “Thou art the most beloved of Nanda, the Cow-herd” (Bhagavata, Bk 8, I, pg 743).

No parallels.

That Jesus was a copy of Attis is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Attis, they claim in the following comparisons that Attis was:

  1. Born of a virgin.
  2. Born on the 25th of December.
  3. Crucified.
  4. Was resurrected.

Before anything is to be considered the accounts we have of Attis are wide ranging and thus are not very reliable.

First off we can see that Attis was not born of a virgin. In fact, according to this legend, Agdistis arises from the Earth as a descendant of Zeus. Agdistis gives birth to the Sangarius river which brings forth the nymph, Nana, who either holds an almond to her breast and becomes impregnated by the almond or sits beneath a tree where an almond falls into her lap and impregnates her. Nana later abandons the child who is then raised by a goat. We are left to assume Attis was conceived from an almond seed which fell from a tree as a result of Zeus’ spilled semen. Not a virgin birth.

Again, as mentioned before, the 25th of December has no significance at all, we don’t know when Jesus was born, therefore, any alleged parallel cannot, logically, be a pagan parallel.

Thirdly, what about a crucifixion? Again, this is clearly questionable. We see that Attis castrates himself beneath a pine tree and thus dies from bleeding to death. Attis castrates himself after he is made to go insane before his wedding by Agdistis. Subsequently, his blood flows onto the ground from his severed penis and brings forth a patch of violets. How is a crucifixion remotely hinted at here?

Fourthly, was Attis resurrected like Jesus was? There are different accounts of this. In one narrative we find that Agdistis is overcome with remorse for what she had done (causing Attis to castrate himself and die because of it), and thus requests for Zeus to preserve the corpse of Attis so that it never decomposes. That is not a resurrection.

In the other account Agdistis and The Great Mother carry the pine tree back to a cave where they both mourn the death of Attis. Any resurrection story doesn’t surface until much later when Attis is transformed into a pine tree. Being transformed into a tree is vastly different from Jesus rising in bodily form from the dead.

That Jesus was a copy of the Buddha is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Buddha, they claim in the following comparisons that Buddha was:

  1. Born of a virgin.
  2. There wise men at Buddha’s birth.
  3. Presented with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
  4. Born on the 25th of December.
  5. Descended from a royal lineage, like did Jesus.
  6. Crucified.

First off, Gautama was not born of a virgin, he was born to Suddhodana and his wife, Maya, of 20 years. Another reason for rejecting that Maya was a virgin is because she was the king’s favourite wife. The ‘Acts of the Buddha‘ shows us that Maya and her husband Suddhodana having sexual relations (for example, “the two tasted of love’s delight…”).

Secondly, there seems to be no mention of wise men at all in the Buddhist texts. There also seems to be no record of these specific gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. What is, however, mentioned in a writing that post-dates Christianity we are told the gods (not wisemen) gave Gautama sandalwood, rain, water lilies, and lotus flowers for gifts – these are Buddhist symbols, and have nothing to do with Christianity. This is also not surprising as royal births are often celebrated with festivals and gifts in Buddhist culture.

Again, we are not told the birth date of Jesus, so this cannot be a parallel.

Unlike Jesus, Gautama was an immediate royal descendant born into privilege. Jesus was a distant descendant of King David born into poverty. They are basically opposites.

There seems to be no mention of a crucifixion in any Buddhist source. In fact, we are told that Gautama dies of natural causes at the age of 80. His followers accompany him to a river and provide him with a couch: “Be so good as to spread me a couch… I am weary and wish to lie down…’ Then the [Buddha] fell into a deep meditation, and having passed through the four jhanas, entered Nirvana.”

That Jesus was a copy parallel of Zoroaster is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Zoroaster, they claim in the following comparisons that Zoroaster was:

  1. Born of a virgin.
  2. Tempted in the wilderness.
  3. Began his ministry at age 30, like Jesus.
  4. Sacrificed for mankind’s sins.

There is no mention of a virgin birth in any Zoroastrian text nor do the events of Zoroaster’s birth seem to have any relation to Jesus. In fact, there are two different accounts of his birth. In one narrative Zoroaster’s parents, Dukdaub and Pourushasp, were a normal married couple who conceived a son through natural means. Zoroaster is described as laughing when he is born as well as having a visible, glowing aura about him:

“[Zoroaster] had come into the posterity…who are Pourushasp, his father, and Dukdaub who is his mother. And also while he is being born and for the duration of life, he produced a radiance, glow, and brilliance from the place of his own abode…” (Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2)

In the other narrative, which is a later text, an embellishment is added by the Zoroastrian followers. In this narrative we are told that Ahura Mazda (the main deity of Zoroastrianism) implants the soul of Zoroaster into the sacred Haoma plant and through the plant’s milk Zoroaster is born. Nothing here is like a virgin birth.

But was Zoroaster also tempted by an evil spirit to renounce his faith with the promise of receiving power over the nations, like Jesus was? This story is evident in the Vendidad, a Zoroastrian text which lists the laws regarding demons. However, this was written well after the life of Jesus somewhere between 250 – 650 AD. Because of this late date the early Christian scribes could not have copied anything in this text. What we do read sounds strikingly familiar to Jesus’ 40 days in the desert; according to ‘Vendidad Fargad 19:6‘: “Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: ‘Do not destroy my creatures, O holy Zarathushtra… Renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as…the ruler of the nations.’”

Like Jesus, Zoroaster was believed to have begun his teachings at the age of 30. Though Zoroaster technically came out of seclusion at the age of 30 to begin his teachings, he was shunned and ignored for 12 years until his religion was accepted by King Vishtaspa. However, the story surrounding Jesus differs greatly. Jesus attracted followers instantly, and Zoroaster was believed to be killed around the age of 77 while Jesus was killed at the age of 33. Any parallels become questionable on the basis that Zoroaster is not mentioned in texts until to around 225 AD; that is almost 200 years after Christianity had already been in circulation.

Lastly, was Zoroaster’s death spiritually significant? It is believed Zoroaster was killed at the age of 77 after being slaughtered on one of his temple altars by Turanian invaders, however this aspect of his life is debated by scholars. Either way, his death was never believed to atone for sin or to hold any other spiritual purposes.

Jesus’ crucifixion in comparison to other alleged deities is unique.

Kersey Graves in his book ‘The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors’, names the following as crucified deities, and therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus is a pagan copy. Well, let’s analyze these “crucifixions” to see if they actually, firstly, are crucifixions. If, in fact, they are crucifixions then we should compare them to Jesus’ crucifixion, and see if they are the same:

  • Mithras – Mithras was carried into heaven on a chariot, alive. This is not a crucifixion.
  • Bali – There are various accounts regarding Bali’s death. One says that he was forced down (bodily) into the underworld after being deceived by Vamana, an avatar of Vishnu. In other accounts, Bali is said to have been released and granted kingship. No crucifixion occurs in either story.
  • Romulus – Romulus was not crucified, but rather is said to have been taken up into the heavens while still alive.
  • Quirinus – No accounts seem to indicate him dying.
  • Iao and Wittoba – there seems to be no information regarding the deaths of these two figures in any original sources.
  • Orpheus – He was not crucified, but said to have been killed by Dionysus’ frenzied maenads after refusing to worship any god but Apollo.
  • Bel – He is often associated with Zeus, and no accounts seem to indicate his death.
  • Prometheus – He was chained to a mountain where an eagle ate his liver on a daily basis, as punishment from Zeus. Hercules would later free him. No crucifixion.
  • Indra – There are different accounts of Indra’s death. In one narrative he is swallowed alive by a serpent called Vritra. Vritra then spits him out at the commands of some other gods. Because Indra is saved by the gods there is no death, nor a crucifixion.
  • Dionysus – There is no crucifixion, instead he was eaten alive by Titans during infancy.
  • Esus/Hesus – His followers would participate in human sacrifices by hanging a victim from a tree after disembowelment. There is no mention of a crucifixion.
  • Attis – Attis bled to death after castrating himself below a tree.
  • Alcestis – Alcestis agrees to die for her husband after he makes a deal with the gods. When the time comes, Alcestis is described as being in bed. The gods are touched by her devotion, take pity on her, and reunite her with her husband. No crucifixion is indicated here.
  • Tammuz – He was allegedly killed by demons sent by Ishtar after she found him on her throne. Not a crucifixion.
  • Krishna – Krishna was never crucified as he was shot in the foot with an arrow while he was meditating in a forest.
  • Osiris – Osiris was tricked by Set, then sealed into a chest, and dumped into the Nile. The method of crucifixion was not even invented by this time.
  • Questzalcoatl – Quetzalcoatl is never crucified at all. In one narrative he burns himself alive out of guilt for sleeping with a celibate priestess. In a different narrative we are told he was burnt by fire that was sent by the gods.

 

Do Muslims Really Love Jesus?

Contributing Writer Jordan Legg
Twitter: @JordanLegg2

If you’re a Muslim that has ever talked to a Christian about your faith, there’s a good chance that at some point during the conversation you’ve told your Christian friend that Muslims love Jesus as well. From spoken word videos to Independent articles at Christmas time to Islamic apologetics programs like the Deen Show, when Muslims invite Christians to examine their faith, they really want us to know how much they love Jesus. This is, it seems, partly intended to combat negative stereotypes of Muslims, but partly also as a precursor to Islamic proselytization or dawah. As if to say, “I encourage you to submit to Allah as he has revealed himself through Muhammad, Christian—but don’t think that means you have to give up your love for Jesus. You can have them both.”

There’s a sense in which Muslims are bound to do this by their scriptures. As many a Muslim knows well, Jesus is mentioned by name some 25 times in the Qur’an, and presented as a great prophet and Messiah, born of the virgin Mary and promised to return again at the end of time. Muslims and Christians hold these beliefs in common—and for many people, that’s enough of a reason to conclude that we’re really all saying the same thing.

Except, not really.

Muslims who claim to love Jesus also know and admit that the Qur’an teaches that Jesus is neither God nor God’s Son, contrary to Jesus’ claims in places like Matthew 11:27, Mark 14, or John 5. They know and admit that the Qur’an teaches that Jesus was not crucified, even though Jesus specifically promised, on multiple occasions, that he would die at the hands of his enemies and rise again the third day. He even went so far as to say that his death was the whole purpose of his role as Messiah (a term the Qur’an doesn’t define, and one that most Muslims don’t understand), and that by his death on the cross, sins would be forgiven, and that Jews and Gentiles would be granted new life as a result. The Qur’an also mischaracterizes the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which is that the one God’s being is shared by three distinct, coequal, coeternal Persons—namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each having a distinct role in the salvation of God’s people. And the Qur’an even goes so far as to assert that Jesus prophesied Muhammad’s coming, even though no trace of such prophecies exist anywhere in the New Testament, and Jesus actually regarded himself as the climax of God’s self-revelation, with no need for further prophets.

In light of all this, I have two questions:

1) If you’re a Muslim who’s ever said to Christians, “We Muslims love Jesus too,”—how would you like us to interpret that?

I don’t mean that as a kind of condescending insult. I genuinely want to know.

Because while it’s quite true that becoming a Muslim doesn’t mean Christians must give up their love for a figure named Jesus, what it does mean is that Christians must abandon everything about Jesus that makes Him most worthy of their love. What Muslims must understand is that Christians do not simply love Jesus because he was born of a virgin or will return at the end of time. We love Jesus because we believe that,

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Colossians 1:15-20).

So when Muslims say to me, “We encourage you to keep Jesus in your worldview, but come to an Islamic understanding of him,” it sounds to us like what they’re really saying is, “Continue to revere the name Jesus, but stop believing that he is worthy of your total love and worship. Stop believing that the greatest expression of his love for you, namely his death and resurrection, ever happened, and stop banking on the promise that Jesus will “make His home” with you, and by His Spirit draw you into greater love for God and others.”

And I dunno—to me, that just doesn’t sound a whole lot better.

2) If Muslims don’t take seriously Jesus’ claims about himself, what exactly do they mean when they say they love him?

In my experience, the vast majority of Muslims, when they’re pressed about the gulf between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Qur’an, tend to default to, “Well, in all those differences, the Qur’an is right because Muhammad was a prophet and he’s our authority.” But isn’t this precisely the opposite chain of reasoning the Qur’an itself seems to employ? Surah 7:157 and 61:6 both teach that Jesus prophesied Muhammad, and that Jews and Christians should look at their scriptures, see Muhammad foretold therein, and conclude that he is compatible with the prophets and figures they revere as sent of God. But if you’re a Muslim, and you’ve disregarded the links and references I’ve given above, thinking to yourself that the Bible must be corrupted (though the Qur’an affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Bible, contrary to common Muslim belief), then what you’re essentially saying is that you only really believe in Jesus because the Qur’an tells you to—rather than that you believe in the Qur’an as a natural result of believing in Jesus. If there’s any further doubt on this point, ask yourself this question: is there any really good reason to believe in Jesus as a Muslim prophet, and to revere him and honour him the way Muslims do, outside of the Qur’an? And if there isn’t, why bother insisting on this point as a tool for Muslim dawah?

The simple fact is that the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Qur’an are not compatible. Muslims may claim they love Jesus, but in denying everything about him that makes him most worthy of love, they do him an incredible disservice and sever themselves from any meaningful connection from the Jewish Messiah born of a virgin who will return at the end of time. If you’re a Muslim who genuinely wants to follow Jesus, then I encourage you and challenge you to take a look at the four Gospels yourself. Examine the correspondence between the Old Testament and the Jewish Messiah, and compare them with the figure you’ve been told of in the Qur’an. I think you’ll there find a far more dynamic, personal, three-dimensional Jesus than the one described in Surah 19 or Surah 4:157—not just a mighty prophet who asserts monotheism, but an all-sufficient Saviour, a sovereign King, and a loving God.