Will Stars fall? Are they not larger than the Earth?

Will Stars fall? Are they not larger than the Earth?

    There are many who reject the idea that the Biblical prophecies that announce the fall of stars on Earth, could occur. They deem it impossible because of their narrow-minded approach that stars are much bigger than Earth, therefore a rain of stars will be impossible.
    It is clear that the purpose of stars falling on the Earth is to give a clear and matchless sign of the Coming of the Lord, not to introduce a new astronomical theory.

    "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken."        ( Mtt 24:29 )

    Even though stars are very big, the common person sees them as small. They will not be able to tell the difference between a meteorite and a real star. If several thousands of meteorites the size of an egg, a fist, or a coconut would fall on our planet, for the common person it is as if the stars had fallen or at least a great quantity of them. Nevertheless, the physical impact on our planet will be just as if thousands of small stones would have fallen on the Earth. Nothing, however, capable of destroying the planet.
    The warnings in the Bible are directed to the common person, not only for astronomers. It is fulfilling a prophecy for all mankind. When the sun and the moon darkens, the falling of the stars will indicate to mankind that the era of their haughtiness is over, and that we are in the threshold of the Eternal Kingdom of God.
    When the prophecy arrives, the common person and skeptics alike will be clear that it isn't an ordinary eclipse or meteor shower. A fearful rain of meteorites will achieve the goal for what it was prophesied: it is to warn mankind the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    It is my opinion that the falling of the stars will be a great meteor shower. I believe so because of what is written in Rev 8:12. There it says that when the fourth angel blows the trumpet, there are still stars in the firmament.
    In short, the purpose of the falling stars is to make mankind aware that a prophetical sign has been fulfilled. Therefore only what is enough for that purpose will occur.

The Foolishness of Atheism

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

As I travel around the country delivering seminars on God’s existence, I am frequently engaged in conversations with people who understand that atheism is founded on many disproven assumptions. In the course of the discussion, the person will often say, “Atheism is founded on so many unproven assumptions. It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I just don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” This sentiment was explicitly expressed by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in the title of their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (2004). While I understand and appreciate the motivation behind such a statement, I would like to suggest that it is ill-advised, and would urge Christians to reconsider framing the discussion in such terms. Here is why.
It is unfortunate for Christianity that numerous people misunderstand the basic concept of faith. For many in Christendom, faith is a warm feeling in their hearts when they have failed to find adequate evidence to justify their beliefs. Dictionaries have done much to ingrain this false definition of faith into modern Christianity. For instance, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary states that faith is “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (1988). The American Heritage Dictionary gives as a primary definition of faith: “belief that does not rest on logical or material evidence” (2000, p. 636). The idea that faith is a fuzzy, emotional feeling that is divorced from logical thinking and “material evidence” does not coincide with what the Bible actually says about faith (cf. Sztanyo, 1996). As Sztanyo correctly noted: “There is not a single item in Christianity, upon which our souls’ salvation depends, that is only ‘probably’ true. In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faith” (1996, p. 7).
The false view that faith is “a leap in the dark” without adequate evidence is the concept that Christians have in mind when they say that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. According to a proper definition of biblical faith, however, it is only because of the rational justification and logical evidence available that true Christians hold to their beliefs (see Miller, 2003). What it takes to be an atheist is not biblical faith. To be an atheist, a person must choose to completely deny the concept of biblical faith and adopt an irrational allegiance to that which has been repeatedly disproven.
When Richard Dawkins states, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe” (p. 306), he manifests his lack of knowledge of what biblical faith is. Biblical faith is based on truth and reason, as the apostle Paul succinctly stated in Acts 26:25. The prophet Isaiah underscored this fundamental fact about biblical faith when He recorded God’s invitation to the Israelites: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (1:18). Luke, in his introduction to the book of Acts, pressed the point that Jesus’ resurrection was attested by “many infallible proofs.” For one to believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the resurrection requires faith—based on infallible proofs.
Throughout the Bible those who had great faith were commended (Luke 7:9), and those who had little or no faith were sharply rebuked (Matthew 8:26; Mark 16:14). In fact, the Hebrews writer clearly stated that “without faith it is impossible to please Him [God], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (11:6). Faith is a desirable characteristic by which a person assesses the available evidence and comes to a valid conclusion based on that evidence. By allowing the greater religious world and the skeptical community to redefine faith as something negative, we have done a serious disservice to the biblical concept of faith.
If atheists truly have faith, they should be commended for it; but they do not have faith. Instead, atheism is a failure to assess the evidence correctly and come to the proper conclusion. It is the exact opposite of true faith. Romans 1:20 shows the contrast between biblical faith and atheism. That verse says: “For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” In this passage, faith means coming to the proper, rational conclusion that there is a God based on the evidence of His creation. Irrational belief in spite of the evidence leads one to conclude that there is no God. To arrive at this atheistic conclusion is to kick evidence, reason, and faith to the curb and adopt a baseless form of improper reasoning supported only by subjective human whim—an approach that, sadly, will leave atheists “without excuse” on the Day of Judgment.
The philosophy of atheism is fraught with logical inconsistency and error. It cannot account for the beginning of the Universe (Miller, 2011); it cannot give an adequate explanation for the obvious design in our world (Fausz, 2007); atheism completely fails to offer a satisfactory explanation of human morality (Lyons, 2011); and human freewill defies an atheistic explanation (Butt, 2010). To cling to atheism in the face of such overwhelming evidence takes an irrational belief that is motivated by something other than a sincere quest for truth and knowledge—it certainly is not true faith. So, in order to help the greater religious world and the skeptical community to understand what true faith is, let’s not misuse the word or attribute to atheism something it cannot rightly claim to have.

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Butt, Kyle (2010), “Biologist Uses His Free Will To Reject Free Will,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2855.
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Fausz, Jerry (2007), “Design Rules,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=591.
Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek (2004), I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books).
Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Blind Faith,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.
Miller, Jeff (2011), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716.
Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/far.pdf.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).

evilbible.com fails part 1

Is the Bible ‘evil’?

Moral accusations against God and Scripture fall flat

by Lita Cosner

Published: 21 September 2010(GMT+10)

Every so often, we receive emails from Christians who are troubled by anti-Bible websites lurking in the darker hovels of the Internet. One such website (not linked to, since we don’t want to give them any undeserved publicity) accuses God of being morally corrupt, and Scripture of reflecting this in the commands and actions it records. Christians should not be surprised that unbelievers would attack Scripture, and it should not cause us to doubt our faith. For one thing, few of the skeptics’ attacks on the Bible are new, and the ones that did arise in modern times are even more incompetent than the previous ones.
The website alluded to above has a pretty exhaustive list of the passages that nonbelievers object to, so it is ideal to serve as a basis for the refutation of the claims that the Bible condones morally bad behavior.

Human Sacrifice

There is no passage where God condones actual child sacrifice; in fact, some of the worst condemnation comes to those who sacrifice their children (archaeological evidence shows that it was usually infant sacrifice) to Moloch (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5; Jeremiah 32:34–35). In the Bible, human sacrifice is detestable because it falls under the category of the murder of an innocent human being, which is always condemned. But skeptics cite a number of passages where, they say, God condones and even commands human sacrifice:
Genesis 22:1-8: The fact that God never intended for Abraham to kill his son doesn’t let Him off the hook, in the atheists’ mind (neither does the fact that the atheist doesn’t actually believe that He exists). It’s still an incredibly horrible thing for someone to do, the argument goes, and had Abraham lived in modern days, he’d be arrested for child abuse!
But there are several things to consider in this case. Abraham, by this time, is an old man, and Isaac is old enough that he could have struggled and gotten away if he wanted. The fact that Abraham was able to bind him and put him on the altar suggests that Isaac was cooperating with the whole thing. Second, Abraham himself didn’t expect Isaac to die, or at least, he didn’t expect him to stay dead. Abraham told his servants that he and his son would return. Abraham knew very well that Isaac was the son through whom God had promised to build a great nation. So the only options were that God would provide another sacrifice (as eventually happened) or that God would resurrect Isaac.
Exodus 13:1-2; 11 16: An average, rational person would have trouble seeing what this has to do with human sacrifice, so the atheistic argument must be spelled out: apparently, the priests are threatening to kill the kids unless they are redeemed with a burnt offering. This isn’t the case. The firstborn males are consecrated to the Lord, which means the firstborn males of the clean animals are destined to become burnt offerings (and the firstborn males of other animals and of humans must be redeemed with a burnt offering of the clean animals). Atheists unanimously ignore the context and symbolism of the consecration.
Leviticus 27:28-29: These two verses refer to different situations. In the first instance, a man has made a vow to give something over to God; perhaps a family member, or an animal, or a piece of land. This is saying that he can’t pay to get out of keeping the vow. Verse 29 refers to a person “devoted to destruction”; i.e. a person who has committed a capital offense under the Law, so must be killed. Neither one of these is a human sacrifice; in the first case, the person would face life-long Temple service, and in the second, it’s capital punishment.
Judges 11:29-40: No list of Bible atrocities would be complete without the case of Jephthah’s daughter. First, the vow was public—his daughter would have known about it. This makes it likely that she was the first one out of the house on purpose. Second, even if Jephthah had intended to make his daughter into a burnt offering, a Levite would be extremely unlikely to allow that. Third, the book of Judges is all about how bad Israel became when they forgot God and there was no king to enforce the Law. So this is an example of the Bible reporting something that it doesn’t necessarily condone. Most importantly, the fact that Jephthah’s daughter was much more concerned about her perpetual virginity than the end of her life strongly suggests that she was dedicated for lifelong Temple service, not burnt as an offering.
Joshua 7; 1 Kings 13:1-2; 2 Kings 23:20-25: Joshua 7 is the case of Achan being killed for taking things that were supposed to be dedicated to the Lord and destroyed. The method of killing happened to include burning the corpses after stoning them. This is again an execution not human sacrifice, for a crime of treason, since Achan’s actions endangered the new nation. The prediction in 1 Kings 13 and its fulfillment in 2 Kings 23 involved people being burned on pagan altars to defile the altars and as a sign of judgment, not human sacrifice.

Rape

The passages in the Bible which skeptics accuse of advocating rape fall into several broad categories, so I will cover them according to those categories:
“Rape” which is actually marriage:
Judges 21:10-24: It should be noted that the book of Judges records a lot of atrocities that it doesn’t condone; the whole point of the book is that there was anarchy and that the nation of Israel got worse and worse when they forgot God and had no king to rule them. That being said, this incident doesn’t imply rape; it implies kidnapping and forced marriage. These women became the wives of their abductors. That doesn’t make the incident honorable, but the Bible doesn’t condone it in any case.

Slavery was an evil that occurred on all inhabited continents, and all races have practised it and been its victims (the word comes from a heavily enslaved ‘white’ race, the Slavs). It was finally abolished only by evangelical Christians in the West using explicit biblical reasoning (see Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero). Yet who do the antitheists single out for the evil of slavery? The Christian West!

Numbers 31:7-18: The Midianites were previously involved in leading Israel into sin which caused God to judge the nation, so the death penalty for those involved was just. The virgin girls who were spared would have been mostly little girls who were too young to be married, and too young to be much good as slaves. So this is a case of the girls being mercifully absorbed into the nation of Israel.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: This passage laid out the rules for marrying a captive woman from the nations that the Israelites conquered. This is not rape, but marriage. This was actually merciful; the fact that there are any laws to protect captive women shows how far ahead of its time the Mosaic Law was. The woman was not allowed to be sold as a slave if the man disliked her; he had to let her go free.
Exodus 21:7-11: This is one of the most-cited instances of misogyny in the Bible; apparently, the skeptic crows, the Bible regards women as property, so the father can sell his daughter as a slave if he wants to! But this is more like the following situation: A family is destitute. The father has the choice of letting his teenage daughter starve with the rest of the family, or he can ‘sell’ her to someone better off who can take care of her, and the money he gets can help the rest of the family to survive. This is really a form of giving in marriage, but such that the woman’s children do not automatically have inheritance rights (the husband can give her the status of a full wife, and her children full inheritance rights, at a later time if he wants). It isn’t what one would read in a modern romance novel, but in the ancient world (without the social welfare system that atheistic web writers often live off), it would mean the difference between survival and starvation for the woman and her family.
Passages taken out of context to support rape:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29: To understand the reason behind this law, it is necessary to point out a few details. First, the Hebrew word here is simply the word “to have sexual relations with”; some English translations simply interpret this as “rape.” In the ancient world, women were so closely guarded by their families that it is possible that in this instance, it is not rape at all, and that the woman was willing. Furthermore, even in the case of rape, the woman might well demand that the man marry her because she would be unmarriageable. See 2 Samuel 13:1–22 for an instance where a rape victim demanded marriage.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24: Like the above, this law uses the word for “to have sexual relations with”; some modern translations assume the meaning “rape” but this is not in the original. This refers specifically to engaged women (in the ancient world engagement was as legally binding as marriage and required a divorce to cancel) who are inside a town. As closely-packed as ancient towns were, she would be helped if she screamed; since she did not scream, there is an assumption that it was not rape, but adultery.
Furthermore, why is the atheist concerned? Two atheistic evolutionists wrote a book with the horrifying claim that men rape for evolutionary reasons¹—one of them squirmed in an interview to justify why rape should be considered wrong under his worldview.²

Murder

God condemns murder in so many places that to accuse Him of murder (that is, the intentional killing of persons which have committed no capital offense) is ludicrous. But if illogical arguments were eliminated from the atheists’ arsenal, the apologist would have considerably less to answer.

If antitheists really want to show concern for murder, they could start with all those murdered by atheistic/evolutionary regimes: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.

The “atrocity lists” invariably include the death penalty passages from the Mosaic Law. But these are made into capital offenses, so someone who is killed as a result of disobeying these laws is being executed, not murdered. Unbelievers might complain that capital punishment for these reasons is unjust, but the burden of proof is on them to prove that it is unjust. So the death penalty passages will not be dealt with in this article. Killing in the biblical wars is also not dealt with, because criticisms of war killing assume that the war is not just, which the critic must prove.
2 Kings 2:23-24: The mauling of the forty-two youths is a mainstay of the atrocities lists. Once again, the context will show that this is not an unreasonable act at all. First of all, the word that is translated “youths” more accurately means teenagers or young adults. Second, the reference to “bald head” probably refers to Elisha’s shaved head in mourning that his mentor Elijah was taken from him (male pattern baldness was not common in ancient times,³ so this explanation is the most likely). So a group of at least 42 young men is jeering at Elisha’s bereavement, and “go on up” is probably a threatening wish that the same thing that happened to Elijah would happen to Elisha. Elisha is therefore protecting himself by cursing them (and God obviously agrees because he sends the bears). 42 of the young men are mauled (the word can refer to an injury as minor as a scratch). That two bears were able to injure so many indicates that the youths were fighting the bears, and didn’t scatter.
Furthermore, in the ancient world, what were 42 young men doing idle? They should have been helping their families. They were dangerous juvenile delinquents. A modern day equivalent would be finding one-self in a shady, abandoned part of town, and a gang of young thugs starts jeering.
1 Samuel 6:19-20; 2 Samuel 6:3-7: This involves the deaths of some Israelites who looked in the Ark of the Covenant and the death of Uzzah when he touched the Ark. Numbers 4:1–20 has very specific instructions for moving the Ark, with the explicit warning that anyone who touches the Ark or looks in it will die. Multiple instructions had been disregarded in both passages before anyone died; the people moving the Ark were not even Levites—and only Kohathites were supposed to move the Ark. The Ark was moved on a cart instead of on poles carried by Kohathites. God actually showed incredible mercy in only killing those who actually touched and looked into the Ark. This is an example of God upholding His holiness; He had to draw the line somewhere.
Acts 5:1-11: The death of Ananias and Sapphira is often mis-credited to Peter in the atrocity lists. But Peter never lays a hand on them; he simply announces the death sentence, which God carries out. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not holding back some of their own property; Peter says very clearly that the property was theirs to do with as they wished. Immediately preceding this story, Barnabas was noted for selling his field and giving the whole proceeds to the apostles. Ananias and Sapphira sold their field to compete with Barnabas, and by keeping some of the money back for themselves, they were trying to take credit for more than they were actually doing, which involved lying to the apostles and to the Holy Spirit. Especially with the Church in its infancy, such a thing had to be dealt with severely so it would stop others from doing the same thing.
If the antitheists really want to show concern for murder, they could start with all those murdered by atheistic/evolutionary regimes: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.⁴ See also:

• The blood-stained century of evolution
• Genocide, evolution and the Bible
• Review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day
• Review of What’s So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D Souza

Slavery

The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it. At best, it’s seen to be a reflection of the morals of its time, at worst, actively evil. But it is a mistake to view the institution allowed in the Bible as equivalent to the slavery of Africans in American history. The slavery in the Bible is more like a form of indentured servitude. Such an arrangement would allow a poor man to survive. While not ideal, in an era before government welfare programs, slavery would be preferable to death, especially when some forms were more equivalent to modern-day employment than what we think of as slavery.
We also see the rank hypocrisy of atheistic attacks on the Bible. Slavery was an evil that occurred on all inhabited continents, and all races have practised it and been its victims (the word comes from a heavily enslaved “white” race, the Slavs). It was finally abolished only by evangelical Christians in the West using explicit biblical reasoning (see Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero). Yet who do the antitheists single out for the evil of slavery? The Christian West!

Conclusion

Atrocity lists in the Bible are not so much a product of bad hermeneutical skills as a complete lack of knowledge about the social context of the passage, and even basic reading skills. While this article only covered a sampling of the most common “biblical atrocities”, this serves to show that the arguments of those who accuse God of moral depravity based on episodes from Scripture unravel upon closer examination.

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Crite of Chaldea?

Once again, as with Beddru, the name "Crite of Chaldea" (I also searched with "Babylon") turns up nothing on the Net other than repeats of Kersey Graves' list. Once again as with Beddru, relevant sources were searched (ANE mythology books) and no reference was found to a Crite of Chaldea. The closest match was a "Keret" -- a king with a tragic story of loss who invades a foreign land in search of a bride. But that's no match at all for what is claimed, as offered by Graves:

The Chaldeans, as Mr. Higgins informs us, have noted in their sacred books the account of the crucifixion of a God with the above name. He was also known as "the Redeemer," and was styled "the Ever Blessed Son of God," "the Savior of the Race," "the Atoning Offering for an Angry God." And when he was offered up, both heaven and earth were shaken to their foundations.

I think all of this was made up by Higgins. And I hereby challenge any Christ-myther to produce a modern reference to this "Crite of Chaldea" from a work by an authority on ANE mythology, and a modern reference to "Beddru of Japan" from a work by an authority on Japanese mythology.
I don't think this will happen

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Chu Chulainn?

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Chu Chulainn?

On lists where Chu Chulainn of Ireland is given as a source for Jesus, only his name is given; nothing is said about his life or deeds, though the paragraph introducing the list says that those on it shared attributes of Christ such as being virgin-born. For a savior and a son of God, though, old Chu Chu seems a mite underpublicized. I found no reference to him in a dozen books on Irish/Celtic mythology/history. For this one, I had to turn to the Web for information, and here's what we have:
From http://www.gtolle.atfreeweb.com/quotes2.htm (now defunct):

The old Irish epic The Tain (or "Cattle-Raid") tells how Chu Chulainn, the great Irish warrior, still boiling with this martial heat, his hero-halo like a ring of fire around his head, returned to Ulster from his first battle with the bloody heads of the three brothers he had just killed hanging from his chariot.

Seeing that he was still in his battle frenzy, the watchman cried out, "If he comes on us with his anger still upon him, the best men of Ulster will fall by his hand." Then the people of Ulster took quick council and agreed "to send out three fifties of the women of Emain red-naked to meet him."

Taken aback, Chu Chulainn "hid his countenance. Immediately the warriors of Emain seized him and plunged him in a vat of cold water. That vat burst asunder about him. Then he was seized and thrust in another vat and it boiled with bubbles the size of fists. He was at last placed in a third vat and warmed it till its heat and cold were equal. Only then was he cooled enough to return safely to the world." (Thomas Kinsella, translator, "The Tain", Oxford, 1971)

That sounded awful Jesus-like, didn't it? Maybe all Jesus needed was a cold bath after that frenzy in the temple. Let's try another.

From http://gcc.bradley.edu/ireland/99/63.html (also now defunct):

"The Tragic Death of Cu Roi mac Dairi" is one of a group of sagas which feature this half-demonic person with magic powers. There are numerous versions of it in early Irish and it is echoed in stories in Wales and even in Belgium. At first Cu Roi was allied with the great hero Cu Chulainn, the Hound of Ulster. But after a ferocious battle in Scotland, when they were dividing the plunder, they did not give the magician Cu Roi his fair share. Although Cu Roi was, by right, able to claim as his reward the lovely lady Blathnad, Cu Chulainn wanted the woman for himself. When Cu Chulainn would not agree to turn his lover over to Cu Roi, the magician turned upon him, thrust him into the earth to his armpits, cropped his hair with his sword, rubbed cow-dung into his head, and then went home to his fort on top of the mountain. He took Blathnad with him and married her.

His fortress was impregnable. Not only was it situated on this forbidding, isolated mountaintop, but it was also guarded by Cu Roi's magical powers. At night, when he slept, he was able to make the fort spin around and around, confounding his enemies.

But Blathnad's love for Cu Chulainn was greater than the evil Cu Roi's magic. After Cu Chulainn's hair grew back and he regained his courage, they plotted the demise of Cu Roi.

Blathnad flattered her husband by telling him that the construction of the fort was not suitable for one as great as he. So the magician sent his warriors out to gather more stones so that the fort could be enlarged. While the fort was undefended, Blathnad hid Cu Roi's weapons. As he slept, she poured milk into the stream that runs down the mountain. Cu Chulainn and his men, camping in the valley below, saw the stream turn white, and knew that the time to attack had arrived.

They rushed up the mountain with a roar, and killed the evil magician. Blathnad and Cu Chulainn were reunited. (They didn't live happily ever after, but that's another story.)

Hey, that gives new meaning to "shave and a haircut," doesn't it? And Pilate should have tried that spinning stuff with the Antonia Fortress. Some other tidbits I found: C7hu's special day is June 23 (not Dec. 25). He may be related to legends of the Green Man and Robin Hood. Do we get the picture? Chu Chu is about as much as savior-figure as is Superman, maybe fitting under the category of "did impressive stuff to help people", but not much else.
-JPH

---

Update from an Interested Party And now an update. I recently received a helpful letter from a person with a keen interest in Celtic myths. He offered the following observations, all, he acknowledges, from memory: As the first of the excerpts you quote mentions, the 'Tain bo Cuilgne' or "Cattle Raid of Coolney" is the primary source for our knowledge of Cu Chulainn, and the Thomas Kinsella translation/edition is by far the best modern treatment of it. (Unfortunately, while I'm writing this email from home, my Kinsella 'Tain' is at my office! So I'll have to be vague on a few details, and might perhaps make a few minor mistakes of memory.) While the 'Tain' (pronounced "tawn", approximately) itself covers only one major episode of Cu Chulainn's life (think of it as a parallel with 'The Twelve Labours of Heracles'--he did a bunch of other stuff, but it's the 12 Labours he's famous for), it is usually printed along with the other smaller writings such as 'The Contest of the Two Pigherds' episode which provides the background for the cattle raid, or 'The Youth of Cu Chulainn' which fills us in on his personal background. Cu grew up to be the mightiest warrior for King Conchobhar of Ulaid, which is usually translated as 'Ulster' (while not corresponding 100%, it was the historical basis for what later became Ulster). The warriors of Ulaid were called the Red Branch; it's not strictly speaking proper to call them the army of Ulaid, as they were as much a bunch of individualists as Jason's crew on the Argo in Classical mythology, without any real organisation to speak of. Quite a few of them had individual myths about them; Cu was "merely" the best and brightest of the lot. Fergus was the acknowledged leader of the Red Branch, but even he didn't boss Cu around much. Cu could work what I guess Graves might call "miracles", although they were almost all of martial type: he could run along the blade of a sword, for instance, or throw a spear so hard it could pierce a tree as well as a man hiding behind the tree; that sort of thing. He could knock a hurling ball a mile, and then run and catch it on his hurley before it hit the ground. Regular Heracles stuff; no healing, no raising the dead, no feeding thousands on a few fish. He was a "saviour" (as per Graves' title) only in the sense of a military "salvation"--the famous cattle raid was an attempt by Queen Mebh ('Maeve' in modern spelling) of Connaught to grab a more-or-less miraculous bull from Ulaid, and Cu winds up defeating the Connaught army pretty much single-handedly. Not what you call your general Christ-figure. The only way to work 'Crucified' (again, as per Graves' title) into Cu's story is to be extremely broad-minded. During Cu's last fight (which the Celtic magic/ warrior goddess The Morrighan [prototype of Arthur's Morgan le Fay, by the way] had already told him would be his final and fatal fight), against a huge army, he had his charioteer tie him standing to a rock (assuming a rather pillar-shaped rock) so that his foes wouldn't know how badly wounded he was. And he stayed there tied to that rock, with the army too scared to approach him, until finally a raven (The Morrighan's most common animal form) perched on his head and started picking at his eyes. When he made no move, a "hero" from the other side launched a spear into him to prove he was dead (notice, this was not done out of convenience, vis-a-vis "Longinus" at Christ's crucifixion, but rather because nobody wanted to get within sword-reach of him until they knew for sure that he was dead). He was honored as a great warrior even by his enemies, but he was dead nonetheless. No burial in a borrowed tomb, no resurrection, no ascension into Heaven. The closest parallel I can think of for it is the final act of El Cid in Spanish mytho-history, when he had his dead body tied sitting in his saddle and "rode" out against the army beseiging his city. There's a great statue of the dying Cu in Dublin's General Post Office (GPO), which was the rebels' headquarters during the 1916 Easter Rising which more-or- less led to the final successful secession of most of Ireland from the UK. One of the more intesting/strange/downright peculiar aspects of the Cu legends, if you know your recent Irish history, is that both the Nationalists and the Union- ists try to maintain Cu as a mythic prototype for their side! The Nationalists because he was the major Celtic warrior-figure; the Unionists because he was the great defender of what they identify as their own Ulster against the "Irish" army of Connaught. Imagine, if you will, both Jews and Palestinians claiming Joshua or someone as "their" particular hero-figure! The mind fair boggles. Our expert also provided this on Chu Chu's birth: "The men of Ulster pressed on until they reached Brug on the Boann river [1], and night overtook them there. It snowed heavily upon them, and Conchobor [king of Ulaid/Ulster] told his people to unyoke their chariots [2] and start looking for a shelter. Conall and Bricriu [two warriors of the Red Branch] searched about and found a solitary house, newly built. They went up to it and found a couple there and were made welcome. But when they returned to their people, Bricriu [3] said it was useless to go there unless they brought their own food and set the table themselves--that even so it would be meagre enough [4]. Nevertheless, they went there with all their chariots, and crowded with difficulty into the house.... "Later, the man of the house told them his wife was in her birth-pangs in the store-room. Deichtine [sister of Conchobor] went in to her and helped her bear a son. At the same time a mare at the door of the house gave birth to two foals. The Ulstermen took charge of the baby boy and gave him the foals as a present [5], and Deichtine nursed him. "When morning came there was nothing to be seen eastward of the Brug--no house, no birds--only their own horses, the baby and the foals. They went back to Emain [Emain Macha, the capital of Ulaid] and reared the baby until he was a boy. "He caught an illness then, and died. And they made a lamentation for him, and Deichtine's grief was great at the loss of her foster-son. She came home from lamenting him and grew thirsty and asked for a drink, and the drink was brought in a cup. She set it to her lips to drink from it and a tiny creature slipped into her mouth with the liquid. As she took the cup from her lips she swallowed the creature and it vanished. "She slept that night and dreamed that a man came toward her and spoke to her, saying she would bear a child by him--that it was he who had brought her to the Brug to sleep with her there [6], that the boy she had reared was his, that he was again planted in her womb and was to be called Setanta, that he himself was Lug mac Ethnenn [Lug[h] Lamfada elsewhere], and that the foals should be reared with the boy. [7] "The woman grew heavy with a child, and the people of Ulster made much of not knowing its father, saying it might have been Conchobor himself, in his drunkenness, that night she had stayed with him at the Brug. "Then Conchobor gave his sister in marriage to Suldam mac Roich. She was ashamed to go pregnant to bed with her husband, and got sick when she reached the bedstead. The living thing spilled away in the sickness, and so she was made virgin [8] and whole and went to her husband. She grew preg- nant again and bore a son, and called him Setanta." My notes: [1] Often spelled Brugh-na-Boyne, this is the prehistoric tomb Newgrange on the Boyne River, which in Celtic mythology usually was associated with Dagda rather than Lugh. [2] Not really relavent to the story, but it's extremely curious how this and so many other Irish myths and legends refer to the chariot culture of the Celts, when not one single chariot or piece of chariot gear has been found in the archaeology! However, recently a couple of bog trackways have been discovered that might have been made for chariots. [3] Bricriu was the troublemaker of the Red Branch, similar to the position held by Hermes/Mercury in classical mythology or Loki in Norse. [4] In all of Celtic culture and mythology (not just Irish), hospitality for guests was a primary concern, and not providing a decent table when guests arrived was a shocking omission. This just ties in later with the revelation that the house and people weren't real. [5] Obviously, the mare was one of the Red Branch chariot horses rather than belonging to the "man" of the house. Not that the charioteers would have harnessed a mare that late in pregnancy; it's a miraculous occurrence coincident with the boy's birth. [6] Lug[h] here claims that he slept with Deichtine at the Brug, although earlier in the story there is no mention of it. So there was intercourse of a kind, although it obviously is more mystical than not. [7] The foals would later become CuChulainn's prized chariot team. [8] Note that "she was made virgin"--she was not a virgin continuously until Setanta's birth, as was Mary with Christ. She became pregnant through swallow- ing a "little creature"--and so large with it that people were talking--then threw up the "creature" and became a virgin again, then was impregnated by her husband, then gave birth to Setanta. Meanwhile, from his point of view, he was born to some fantasy-woman conjured by Lug[h] and raised for at least several years by Deichtine, then died, then was a fetus in Deichtine's womb but was 'aborted' when she got sick, then was conceived again and was born to Deichtine and Suldam. All in all, hardly a parallel to the Bethlehem story, which was my ori ginal point.

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Beddru of Japan?

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Beddru of Japan?


It may be a case of no Beddru, one bath.
I figured that when I looked into one alleged source for Christ called "Beddru of Japan" I might find some Samurai Jack sorta guy who saved the day at one time back in feudal Japan. As it happens, I didn't find even that much. In fact, in spite of looking through a dozen books on Japanese history and mythology, in spite of an Internet search, and in spite of consulting the Online Catalog of the Library of Congress, I found -- nothing.
No Beddru -- not in Japan or anywhere. The only place this figure IS mentioned is in the same list which is also repeated uncritically by dozens of Skeptics around the Internet. Where did they get it from? That's the real story here so far -- it was originally from Kersey Graves' World's 16 Crucified Saviors. And where did Graves get to know Beddru? Who knows?
(An alert reader informs me of a consultation with an expert in Oriental languages who says, "Beddru looks like it could be a Japanese transliteration of a European name, except that 'dru' isn't an allowed syllable in standard Japanese." Another reader familiar with Japanese vocabulary says that the double D combo is not known in modern Japanese. Comments are welcome from any readers in Japan.)
At this point, I consider it likely that "Beddru of Japan" is a complete ringer -- Graves either made this name up out of whole cloth, or so badly mangled some source that whatever lies behind his cite will be difficult, if not impossible, to recover. If any critic can prove otherwise, I want to hear about it.
-JPH

---

Comments from a Japanese Mythologist Here are some thoughts that came from a correspondence by one of our readers with Timothy Takemoto, whose homepage is now defunct. Our reader wrote him because he seemed to have some expertise in Japanese mythology. There can not be a Japanese God called Beddru because constonants are followed by a vowel in Japanese. At the closest "Beddoru" but that does not sound like a Japanese god either since double dd is only used for loan words. There is a chance that "Beddoru" could be a Japanese name for a Hindu God. The nearest name that could be Japanese is Bedoru but even the combination "bedo" does not sound Japanese. Looking in a large dictionary that mentions quite minor Japanese gods, I find the only "Beddo-" of "Bedo-" entries are for loanwords such as Beddoru-mu (Bedroom) and "Bedouin" (Bedouin arabs). Checking the other vowels Beda - nothing Bede- no (only a German proper name) Bedi (pronounced Beji) - nothing Bedu (prounced Bedzu) - nothing Bedo - no only European loan words. Occascionally "be" is a way of writing loan words beginning with "ve." These are now normally written in a different way (with a fricative "u" in place of the v). So perhaps this is really something like Vedoru? Ve-da is the Japanese for the (Rg) Veda of Hinduism - Hindu Holy book. Ve-ta-nta is the Vendanta school of Hinduism and the Upanishads. Does Be-da-nnta" sound like "Beddoru"? Not really. ....As I said in my last mail, I can imagine that there is some truth in the rumour but the name has been badly distorted. I have also seen this God's name spelled Beddin. This is also impossible in Japanese. D when followed by I is pronounced "ji" and there are no bouble "j"s in Japanese, as English. Beddin would have to be a foreign word. It is very close to "Beddo-in" or "Bed in" which is or was slang for sedduce (to get someone in your bed), which I think originated in the Bed in for Peace done by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I am sure that there is are many people that sacrificed themselves for others in Japan, such as Kamikaze pilots, and people become gods after their death, and even while they are alive through their deeds. So, in that sense, there is no shortage of Christ like gods. There is also "Amida Buddha" who is the the Buddha of the largest religion in Japan "Joudo shu" and New "joudou shu" Buddhism. Amida (the Indian God Amitahba?) is a sexually neutre super being that carries the sins of the world. By praying to Amitahba one can be saved. This god became popular just when they were trying to stamp out Christianity in Japan. The Japanese are good at imitating things. I think that Amida is the Japanese version of Christ, made in Japan.

---

Update: Acharya S has claimed that "Beddru" is to be identified with "Buddha". As one of our resource masters noted in reply, this would mean Graves had Buddha listed three times on his list of 16. It also makes little sense, for as our source noted: "Wasn't Buddha born in India? It would be like saying that the Anglican Church believed in 'Jesus of England'." We reprint his further commentary below as it appeaered on a forum, edited for brevity.

---

Acharya S writes:

"There can be no question that in referring to "Beddou" Graves - and The New York Correspondent, which he quotes - is talking about plain old Gautama Buddha aka Siddhartha aka Sakyamuni, et al. So this mystery, which has perplexed so many, is quite simply resolved: "Beddru" is a typo for "Beddou," which is a variation of "Buddha."

In his first chapter, Kersey Graves lists a number of gods. Two of the gods from that list are:
2. Budha Sakia of India.
21. Beddru of Japan.
Clearly, whoever "Beddru of Japan" is, Graves believes that he is different to Buddha. Not only are the names different, but also the country of origin.
What else does Graves tell us about Buddha?
"The ninth avatar of India (Sakia) furnishes to some extent a similar parallel. According to the account of an exploration made in India, and published in the New York Correspondent of 1828, "There is on a silver plate in a cave in India an inscription stating that about the time of the advent of Buddha Sakia (600 B.C.)"
So, Graves uses "The New York Correspondent" journal of 1828 to tell us that Buddha was born around 600 BCE.
Here is what Graves has to say about "Beddou"....
"The New York Correspondent," published in 1828, furnishes us the following brief history of an ancient Chinese God, known as Beddou: --
"All the Eastern writers agree in placing the birth of Beddou 1027 B.C. The doctrines of this Deity prevailed over Japan, China, and Ceylon. According to the sacred tenets of his religion, 'God is incessantly rendering himself incarnate,' but his greatest and most solemn incarnation was three thousand years ago, in the province of Cashmere [Kashmir], under the name of Fot, or Beddou. He was believed to have sprung from the right intercostal of a virgin of the royal blood, who, when she became a mother, did not the less continue to be a virgin; that the king of the country, uneasy at his birth, was desirous to put him to death, and hence caused all the males that were born at the same period to be put to death, and also that, being saved by shepherds, he lived in the desert to the age of thirty years, at which time he opened his commission, preaching the doctrines of truth, and casting out devils; that he performed a multitude of the most astonishing miracles, spent his life fasting, and in the severest mortifications, and at his death bequeathed to his disciples the volume in which the principles of his religion are contained."
If you read the synopsis above (again, coming from "The New York Correspondent", 1828) you will see that "Beddou" is plainly not "Buddha". Different birth years, different birth places, and different life narratives (though some similarities there).
Acharya writes on her webpage:
"Graves goes on to list these 20 or so beings, including "Beddru of Japan." In reality, the reason detractors have been unable to find the term "Beddru" is because they've been looking for the wrong word. With the help of a friend who made a simple but brilliant observation, I determined that "Beddru" is a TYPO of the kind not uncommon in the 19th century, when manuscripts were handwritten, such that the typesetters could easily make such a mistake. I have noticed many such typos in numerous books from that era. Even in the computer era, typos make their way into the best proofread texts, and there is an unfortunate amount in those I have written as well."
Could Graves have meant "Beddou of Cashmere" when he wrote "Beddru of Japan"? It's possible. According to his source, "The New York Correspondent", Beddou was known in Japan. But the problem here is that Graves calls him "Beddru of JAPAN". In the list of gods in Chapter 1, Graves appears to give the birth country as their origin, which is what you would normally expect. (Anglicans don't talk about "Jesus of England", for example).
Now, if Graves had written "Beddru of Cashmere" (or even "ancient Chinese God Beddru"), then it would obviously be a typo. It is easy to use the wrong letter. But it is much more difficult to mispell "Cashmere" as "Japan". The only two choices are that Graves was either very sloppy, or he was discussing a different god altogether.
Acharya writes:
"In actuality, Buddha's "name" is a title that does not represent a single individual, and there were, according to Buddhist tradition, countless Buddhas prior to the purported advent of Gautama, he himself having myriad previous incarnations. Because of this fact of plurality, it is impossible and virtually pointless to attempt to create a "biography" of a "real person" named Buddha."
at's fine, as it goes. There may have been a Buddha specific to Japan, another to China, etc. But when an author starts assigning birth years to someone, then it is apparent that the author has in mind a particular individual rather than a title.
Graves is the first person to refer to "Beddru of Japan". Did he mean "Beddou of Kashmir"? Perhaps. Does it matter whether he made it up, or mispelt the name from an earlier source? No, not at all.

---

 

Was the story of Jesus stolen from the Norse deities Balder and Frey?

Was the story of Jesus stolen from the Norse deities Balder and Frey?


Our subject(s) are a pair, one named Balder, the other Frey. Now being these guys are Norse in origin, one would guess that they are seriously post AD, and they would be right; source material for these guys is between the 11th and 13th century AD, making "copycatting" by Christians a matter of who lost the keys to the Delorean. But even if they were not AD critters, they don't make much of a Christ.
First, Balder. From this site (with supplements from The Dictionary of Norse Mythology and Legend, 12-13) we have the story of "The Death of Balder" -- he did die, to be sure, but that everyday event is where all resemblance to Jesus ends. Balder was apparently a really Mr. Clean kind of guy: "fair in appearance and so brilliant that all light flashes from him." He was beautiful, had nice hair, nice voice, and was no nauseatingly nice all around that "none of his decisions have effect." Anyways, the story goes that:

Balder the Good had some terrible dreams that threatened his life. When he told the Æsir these dreams, they decided to seek protection for Balder from every kind of peril. Frigg exacted an oath from fire and water, iron and all kinds of metals, stones, earth, trees, ailments, beasts, birds, poison, and serpents, that they would not harm Balder. And when this had been done and put to the test, Balder and the Æsir used to amuse themselves by making him stand up at their assemblies for some of them to throw darts at, others to strike and the rest to throw stones at.

No matter what was done he was never hurt, and everyone thought that a fine thing. When Loki, Laufey's son, saw that, however, he was annoyed that Balder was not hurt, and he went disguised as a woman to Fensalir to visit Frigg. Frigg asked this woman if she knew what the Æsir were doing at the assembly. She answered that they were all throwing things at Balder, moreover that he was not being hurt. Frigg remarked: "Neither weapons nor trees will injure Balder; I have taken an oath from them all."

The woman asked: "Has everything sworn you an oath to spare Balder?"

Frigg replied: "West of Valhalla grows a little bush called mistletoe, I did not exact an oath from it; I thought it too young." Thereupon the woman disappeared.

Loki took hold of the mistletoe, pulled it up and went to the assembly. Now Hod was standing on the outer edge of the circle of men because he was blind.

Loki asked him: "Why aren't you throwing darts at Balder?"

He replied: "Because I can't see where Balder is, and, another thing, I have no weapon."

Then Loki said: "You go and do as the others are doing and show Balder honor like the other men. I will show you where he is standing. Throw this twig at him."

Hod took the mistletoe and aimed at Balder as directed by Loki. The dart went right through him, and he fell dead to the ground. This was the greatest misfortune ever to befall gods and men.

Oops! Well, at least it wasn't lawn darts that killed Balder, we'd have the Consumer Product Safety Commission all over Valhalla. After recovering from the surprise, the gods pack up Balder's body in a funeral pyre and set it out to sea after it is lit.
Elsewhere it is noted that Balder is the god of "light, joy, purity, beauty, innocence, and reconciliation." Not a bad job, but Balder ends up in the underworld and has to stay there until after Ragnarok (the Norse Armageddon).
The gods try to get him out, and almost succeed when an agreement is reached that if everything on earth weeps (including stones and metal) he can go home, but one grumpy giantess name Thokk refuses, so Balder ends up stuck.
So what do we have in common with Jesus? 1) A death. 2) An association with light (and if we stretch it, reconciliation, but not between God and man). That's it.
Now for Frey, whose name often has an "r" on the end. From here (and confirmed by the Dictionary, 47-8) we have this:

Freyr is the god of sun and rain, and the patron of bountiful harvests. He is both a god of peace and a brave warrior. He is also the ruler of the elves. Freyr is the most prominent and most beautiful of the male members of the Vanir, and is called 'God of the World'. After the merging of the Aesir and the Vanir, Freyr was called 'Lord of the Aesir'. Freyr was also called upon to grant a fertile marriage.

Ruler of the elves! Well, that's a match for the disciples, isn't it? Bet you didn't know the loaves at the feeding of the 5000 were actually Keebler cookies. But there's more:

He is married to the beautiful giantess Gerd, and is the son of Njord. His sister is Freya. He rides a chariot pulled by the golden boar Gullinbursti which was made for him by the dwarves Brokk and Eitri. He owns the ship Skidbladnir ("wooden-bladed"), which always sails directly towards its target, and which can become so small that it can fit in Freyr's pocket. He also possesses a sword that would by itself emerge from its sheath and spread a field with carnage whenever the owner desired it.

Freyr's shield bearer and servant is Skirnir, to whom he gave his sword, which Skirnir demanded as a reward for making Gerd his wife. On the day of Ragnarok he will battle without weapons (for he gave his sword away to Skirnir), and will be the first to be killed by the fire giant Surt.

Do you see any resemblance to Jesus here? I sure don't -- and that's all we need to say.

Was the story of Jesus stolen from the Canaanite deity Baal?

Baal is a figure known from the OT who is sometimes claimed to be another parallel for Christ. Let's have a look at this -- our source is Smith's Origins of Biblical Monotheism [104ff].
Baal is sometimes reckoned as one of those "dying and rising gods" under Frazer's outdated thesis. It should first be noted that the actual tablets describing Baal's story do not actually preserve an account of Baal's death and supposed return to life; that portion of the tablets are lost, and the events are inferred from remaining parts of the story.
In what we have left, Baal is discovered dead and given a burial; but later in the narrative, he reappears alive. In other works, if a certain verb is read as passive, it MAY refer to Baal as "brought to life," but it may also be an active verb describing Baal as one who "brings to life."
Secondarily, one of Baal's daughters is named "Earthy" but the name MAY mean "Netherworldly." And that is the sum and total of the evidence. In 70+ other texts about Baal, there is no mention of his death at all.
Anything like Christ? Not at all, and no more even on the surface than the naturally-expected theme of reversal of death as the ultimate bugaboo; no more an imitation of Christ than your latest zombie creature feature. Smith, seemingly with pagan-mythers in mind, writes: "...any attempt to render a reconstruction of Baal's death and return to life should make no assumption about the nature of the latter." [120] After extended analysis Smith connects the story to the succession of the Ugaritic kingship, with Baal's death representing the demise of the king and his return to life representing the role of the living king. [128]

---

A few claims have also circulated about an alleged "Passion" of Baal with details very close to that of the Passion of Jesus. A very helpful research associate has sent us copies of some material that deals in this issue and addresses the question.
In a 1921 edition of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, a scholar named H. Zimmern claimed a find of "stage-directions for a sort of miracle-play" performed at the temple of Bel-Marduk (i.e., Baal) annually. In this play, Baal was alleged to have been "bound and brought before the tribunal which awaits mankind on the bank of the river of death." He was scourged, condemned to death, and then led away to a prison-house.
Another "malefactor was led also away to execution," while a second one was released.
Once Baal was put in prison, "the city was plunged in confusion" and his clothes were stripped from his dead body. A goddess then washed away blood that had flowed from a "wound in the side" of Baal; and eventually he rose from the dead after his followers lamented. A parallel is also alleged in that Baal "descended into hell" and was welcomed by the other spirits.
Even on the surface, there are some problems here with a comparison to the Passion of Jesus. The "malefactors" would fit not the two thieves on the cross, but maybe one thief, and Barabbas; a third party is missing.
The "descent into hell" for Jesus is questionable, and we have noted above problems with an alleged death of Baal.
The problem is that this report by Zimmern was uncritically picked up by the Christ-myther G. R. S. Mead, who in his periodical The Quest, though he admitted the highly fragmentary nature of the text and considered it "perhaps foolhardy" to make comments, nevertheless creates two parallel columns in which he finds over a dozen parallels between Jesus and Baal based on this text.
Again, many comparisons do not fit; many more though are of the sort that would be found of ANY prisoner in the ancient world condemned to death (being led away; being tried before officials; being scourged - as part of the normal status degradation ritual; the dividing of clothes; the care for the dead).
Other than this, Mead also hops from one Gospel to another, treating them as a whole so he can parallel Matthew's guards at the tomb to those who guard Baal in prison; and he also uses John's singular episode of Mary Magdalene as a parallel to the lament of a female follower of Baal (even though it is doubtful Mead would have seen a unified tradition behind all four Gospels). However, correctives come first from admonitions above that the text is fragmentary; second, from Alasdair Livingstone's update in Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Clarendon, 1986) which tempers some of Zimmern's enthusiasms in which he himself made a comparison to the Passion of Jesus.
Livingstone reports that later scholars (van Soden, Postgate) re-examined the text and found no death of Baal, nor a resurrection; they connected the text to the destruction of Babylon in 689 BC and the "deportation of the statue or symbol of Marduk [Baal] to Assyria." Livingstone himself finds it to be an Assyrian composition, dated no later than 612 BC.
Livingstone's commentary is of definite interest. References to another deity and his cult center affirm that the point is that Baal's statue is what has been captured, and this is what the play is about. The other god, Nabu, goes out and sprinkles date palm stamens as a sort of rebellion; in this way he becomes the other "criminal" of the story.
Later, athletes are commissioned to guard Baal while in prison, at the order of Assur (another god; again reflecting the capture of Baal's statue). Discord in the city also clearly relates to the discord caused by the invasion; no parallel can be had here to the story of the darkness over the land, etc. at the crucifixion of Jesus.
The critical lines (59-67) refers to someone who is "invoked to keep alive, and not kill" and another (?) someone who asks "to be allowed to mourn and bury." The names of these someones is not preserved. Baal is clearly in danger, but there is no actual record of his execution. Whoever did die, his clothes are collected (line 84) but these are also not clearly Baal's. The reason a clear identification cannot be made is that while Baal is indeed a criminal in this story, so is Nabu, and Livingstone notes that there may have been other criminals present.
In conclusion, any attempt to parallel the "passions" of Baal and Jesus must account for the clear nature of the Baal story as an elaborate allegory for what happened when Babylon was invaded and Baal's statue was taken, as well as consider that most of the parallels drawn by Mead involve "universals" of practice in the ancient world.

Was the story of Jesus stolen from the pagan hero Attis?

Attis of Phrygia offers the following similarities to Jesus, according to some critics:

1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.
2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.
4. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."
5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
6. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
7. He descended into the underworld.
8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."
9. Attis was represented as a "a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree..."
10. On March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis' grave empty.

Let's see how kind the facts are to these claims.
Shepherd Boy Does Good: Some Background Information
I'm going to begin by providing some relevant background data, as well as some commentary on what modern Attis-related scholarship, such as it is, makes of any alleged connection to Christianity.
Our first mention of Attis comes from the well-known writings of the Greek historian Herodotus [Verm.CA, 88-9]. According to Herodotus, Attis was a shepherd from Phrygia and the son of a king, Croseus of Lydia. King Croseus had a nasty dream in which his son was killed by an iron spear, and because of this, he refused to allow Attis out on a boar hunt, until Attis himself persuaded him that it would be OK.
Still a tad worried, Croseus hires a gent named Adreastus, whom he had earlier granted sanctuary to, to guard his son's welfare on the hunt. Unfortunately, the foot of irony stomps right in when Adreastus throws his spear at a boar and misses, instead hitting you-know-who and killing him.
This is our first mention of Attis, and by now you should be asking, "Where's the beef? How do the copycatters think this relates to Christ?" The answer is, it doesn't -- and that most of the material about Attis that the copycatters get excited over is from a time seriously postdating Christianity.
And as it happens, the general theory of "diabolical mimicry" which the Church Fathers often pulled up in these cases (the idea that Satan copied Christianity), and which many critics make fun of, is actually on the mark 100% (though whether Satan would embarrass himself by taking part in such a crude and obvious theft is another matter).
Attis scholarship, we should note, is rather a small club -- a key name is familiar: M. J. Vermaseren, he who also followed Cumont in the study of Mithra, was a major player; beyond that I have found only five books on Attis available (see source list), and many of them are primarily concerned with Cybele.
But neither Vermaseren, nor any modern scholar of Attis, so much as lays a hint that Christianity stole anything from the Attis cult -- indeed, they aver that the opposite is what happened. Vermaseren notes that all of our information on parallels comes from early Christian writers, and refers to "a tendency to add more and more complicated theories to the Phrygian cult in the course of time." [Verm.CA, 182] Gasparro [Gasp.Sot, 106] avers that the sources show an evolution in the Attis cult in response to Christianity.
A. T. Fear, in an essay devoted entirely to this subject [Fear.CC, 41-2] notes that the Attis cult "did modify itself in significant ways with the passing of the years" and concludes, based on the dated evidence, that the ways of the Attis cult similar to Christianity "seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity." In this case, the church was Pokemon, and the Attis people were doing the Digimon ripoff. But not very well, as we will see.

Now Was That Honest? It's worth noting that copycat theorists Freke and Gandy refer to Fear's essay in a footnote in The Jesus Mysteries -- but for some reason, do not report Fear's conclusions about how the religion of Attis derived so much from Christianity.

What Has Phrygia to Do with Jerusalem?
Now let's take a look at those alleged similarities.

• Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana. One story cited makes Cybele Attis' virgin mother, but this comes from Ovid and perhaps from some statues -- it is not the chief story. We've already talked twice now, with Mithra and Dionysus, about Dec. 25th and why it doesn't matter -- but as gravy, let me add that I have found nowhere any indication that this date was associated with Attis in any way. That said, what of Attis' virgin birth? Herodotus records nothing about such a thing; the story alluded to comes much, much later, and rather than being a virgin birth, it is rather another case of Zeus playing the role of dirty old god -- albeit this time, much less directly.
  As the story goes [Verm.CA, 90-1; VermLAGR, 4, 9], Zeus (as Jupiter) was running around looking for ways to get his jollies and saw Mt. Agdus, which looked liked the goddess Rhea. (Don't ask how, but I guess if you're a sexual maniac like Zeus, after a while, it could be that even a mountain looks good.) In the ensuing fracas, Zeus drops some of his seed on the mountain, and from this arises a wild and androgynous creature named Agdistis.
  The gods don't like the obnoxious Agdistis, so Dionysus sneaks up and puts wine in Agdistis' water to put him to sleep. While he is asleep, Dionysus ties a rope around Agdistis' genitals, ties the other end of the rope to a tree, yells "Boo!" and -- well, you can take it from there.
  From the resulting blood, a pomegranate (or almond) tree springs up, and much later, Nana happens by, picks some of the fruit, and puts it in her lap, and then it disappears -- upon which, she finds herself pregnant with Attis.
  Virgin birth? Sort of -- virgin conception? No -- it's just Grandpa Zeus being the deadbeat dad again. The baby Attis is abandoned, but does end up being raised by goats.
  
• He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. On we go, to Attis' soteriology -- and to put it mildly, this is just plain wrong. In a study devoted entirely to the subject of "soteriology" in the Attis cult, Gasparro finds no "explicit statements about the prospects open to the mystai of Cybele and Attis" and "little basis in the documents in our possession" for the idea of "a ritual containing a symbology of death and resurrection to a new life." [Gasp.AAO, 82] Put it bluntly: Attis was no savior, and was never recognized as such. The closest we get to this is from a writer named Damascius (480-550 AD!) who had a dream in which a festival of Attis celebrated "salvation from Hades" (see more below). We also see some evidence of Attis as a protector of tombs (as other gods also were, guarding them from violation); use of Attis with reference to grief and mourning -- but when it comes to the gravestones of devotees of Cybele and Attis, they are "all equally oblivious to special benefits the future life guaranteed by such a religious status." [Gasp.Sot, 90-4].
  Attis may indeed have been raised somehow (see below), but it didn't do us any good! We do see some evidence of a soteriology in a related rite, however, and that we will save for later (pun not intended).
  

  No Salvation Offer If the Attis cult didn't offer any salvation after life, then what was its attraction? Jesus-myth proponent Earl Doherty supposes that there must have been some sort of salvation offer to make the movement attractive to its "millions" of followers -- a very odd argument for someone like Doherty to make as a secular humanist. Chances are the religion of Attis offered some kind of benefit in this life -- which is more than enough for many people today to join a religion. There's also no evidence that the Attis cult had "millions" of followers.

• His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. The critics Freke and Gandy add, based on a note from Godwin, that initiates of the Mysteries of Attis "had some form of communion" in which they ate from a tambourine and drank from a cymbal, and then say, "What they ate and drank from these sacred instruments is not recorded, but most likely it was bread and wine." [50] Despite the footnote to Godwin's text at the end of this sentence by Freke and Gandy, Godwin makes no such assertion in his text; what Godwin does say is that "what they ate or drank we do not know" -- not a word is said about it being "likely" bread and wine, and Freke and Gandy's footnote is therefore a partial fabrication.
  Vermaseren, the dean of Attis studies [Verm.CA, 118-9], adds more. Vermaseren confirms the use of the cymbals, and the eating and drinking, but suggests that milk was the drink of choice, because wine and bread were forbidden during the Attis festivals -- if wine and bread was the snack of choice, it would have had to have been an exception to this rule.
  Nevertheless, as usual, this stuff about the snacking habits of Attis' devotees comes from Christian writers -- and at best would reflect the sort of communal meal all ancient societies practiced (being that bread and wine were the key ancient staples).
• His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." It is certainly true that Attis' priests were eunuchs; they emasculated themselves in imitation of Attis [Verm.CA, 96], who, in later stories, did this to himself out of grief. However, the priests also cross-dressed, flogged themselves, and danced in a frenzy. They didn't emasculate themselves "for the kingdom of heaven" (the term is unknown in this context; see above re Attis' "soteriology") but in imitation of Attis as an unwitting hemaphrodite. On the side, it is worth noting that this part of the Attis legend tends to confirm that the parallels to Christian practice and belief were late add-ons. The Christian writers made fun of Attis for castrating himself, and of his priests for following in the example; but the Romans like Juvenal and Seneca thought it was stupid also, and the Romans associated being a eunuch with sexual perversion and decadence [Fear.CC, 47-8]. In light of this, and the new rivalry of Christianity, it makes sense that the Attis cult would try to liven up the membership drives by absorbing the best parts of Christian belief.
  
• He was both the Divine Son and the Father. Well, that makes no sense, and doesn't match any Christian view I know of (it's probably a wrenching around of John 10:30 in view), but at any rate, in terms of applying to Attis, it sort of does. Attis is obviously a divine grandson of Zeus, but the title "Divine Son" is nowhere applied to him. As to being a Father, he never was one in the stories, but Frazer [Fraz.AAO, 281] told us that his name "appears to mean simply 'father,'" and in this context he was the consort of Cybele, the mother goddess. No later Attis scholar repeats this idea. Gasparro notes some representations of the infant Attis seemingly as the son of Cybele [Gasp.Sot, 31]. But at best all we have here is a correspondence of very common familial terms, and Attis had to be someone's son.
• On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. I have found utterly no verification for any of this -- Attis died under a tree, not crucified on it; there is no reference to it happening on a Friday, much less a "Black" one; Attis did shed blood, but all it did was make flowers (especially violets), in some stories -- if you want to call that "redeeming" the earth, then maybe your local farmer is doing the same thing by rotating the crops. It sure didn't "redeem" anything or anyone with reference to sin or do those of us outside the floral business a lot of good.
• He descended into the underworld. That's true, but Jesus didn't do this.
  
  
  
• After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."
• Attis was represented as a "a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree..."
• On March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis' grave empty. I'm putting these three together because they are intimately related. Is there any indication, generally, of life after death for Attis, in particular a resurrection? Well, yes, but chew on these stories for a moment.
  In one story [Verm.CA, 91], Attis is getting married, when Agdistis (remember him?) shows up at the wedding. Apparently Agdistis shows up ticked off and takes a page from Dionysus' book, driving everyone nuts. The bride dies; Attis then gets upset, falls under a pine (or fir) tree, and out of sheer rational contemplation, emasculates himself, and then dies. Agdistis, seeing this, goes on a guilt trip and asks Zeus to resuscitate Attis. Zeus, in a playful mood, consents minimally: Attis' body remains uncorrupted, his hair continues to grow, and his little finger moves continuously.
  Didn't like that one? Try this [ibid., 91-2]: Cybele falls in love with Attis, who prefers a nymph. Cybele kills the nymph; Attis goes nuts and emasculates himself; from his blood, flowers grow out of the ground, and he turns into a pine tree.
  Still not a happy enough ending? OK, try #3 [ibid., 92]: Cybele, who unknown to herself is the daughter of a king, marries Attis; when the king finds out about this, he kills Attis and makes sure the body is never found.
  Still no good? What about the story above? The closest I can find to this is a story reported by Frazer [Fraz.AAO, 288] in which a Phrygian satyr who was a good flute player vainly challenged Apollo to a fluting contest and lost -- and so was tied to a tree, then flayed from limb to limb. Frazer suggested, because the satyr was also a comforter of Cybele, that he was somehow to be equated with Attis, but this seems more like creative writing by Frazer than sense. And there is no lamb in the story at all.
  So, do you see a resurrection here? You won't -- because any of that that there is comes later, after Christianity gets going, as Fear says, a "late-comer to the cult." [Fear.CC, 41] But in this case we do have some connection with the dates given (though as with Dec. 25th, Mar. 25th is a much later choice of the church with no Biblical verification or apostolic roots), so let's get into detail on that first [Verm.CA, 113ff].
  Based on a calendar dated to 354 AD, there were six Roman celebrations to Attis -- dated March 15, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. The one on the 22nd was indeed as Jackson relates -- a pine tree was felled, and the figure of Attis attached, although it represents his death under the tree -- the figure being affixed to the tree therefore being no more than a matter of practically depicting the scene, since the figurine of Attis isn't just going to float along while the tree is carried by the processioneers.
  The problem with all of this, though, is that the only one of the six feasts known certainly to have crossed paths with Christianity was the one on the 27th, which is the only festival attested on a calendar dated 50AD. A sixth-century writer says that the Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) instituted the festival on the 22nd. (The 23rd was a day of mourning; on the 24th the priests of Attis would flagellate themselves.)
  And what the "resurrection" on the 25th? It is here, on the festival called the Hilaria, that a return from the underworld is implied (but not directly pronounced). It is attested no earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD [Gasp.Sot, 57; contra Verm.LAGR, 47, who interperts pictures of Attis only dancing, as early as the 4th century BC, as somehow celebrating his release from death).
  

  That's Not Good Enough One critic, Robert Price, argues in his book Deconstructing Jesus that pictures of Attis dancing is evidence of Attis' release from death. He argues that this is proven because dancing was also what Attis did after release from death in later depictions. He gives no evidence supporting this assertion, but we would point out that proof of release from death, not just proof of dancing, is required; otherwise the evidence only indicates at most that later Attisians assimilated an episode of Attis-dance into their mythology. But certainly it is hard to argue that Attis (or any other figure) had no more than one possible reason to dance.

  There were undoubtedly joyous celebrations in the cult prior to this, as early as the 1st century, but with reference to Attis returning to life, the sources "do not of course express the idea of a 'resurrection' of Attis, of which there is no trace in contemporary sources, but rather the certainty of his survival, either in the form of physical incorruptibility or in that, religiously defined, of his constant presence in the cult beside [Cybele]. Moreover, the mythical image of the body of Attis saved from dissolution and able to grow and move, albeit only in certain features, expresses the idea that his disappearance is neither total nor final." [ibid., 59]
  And so, in summary: All of our detailed information on these festivals, with reference to their alleged similarity to Christianity, come from late Christian authors -- such as the fourth century writer Firmicus Maternus, 350AD, who says that Attis comes back to life to comfort Cybele -- and connects Attis' "resurrection" with the return of vegetation (and thus, as Gasparro notes, the term "resurrection" is not suitable, for there is really no death, just a cycle of presence and absence -- the vegetable connection is confirmed by iconographic evidence) [Gasp.Sot, 48]. We'll tie all this together with one last entry.
  
• Finally, from the rites of Attis, certain critics relate the practice of the taurobolium, or bull-sacrifice, in which the initiate was "born again" when he was bathed in the blood of the bull (or sheep, if they could not afford a bull). Some critics even describe this ceremony with the terminology "washed in the blood of the lamb." This is perhaps the most popular cite by critics, but the taurobolium as a soteriological rite is not attested until much later than the start of Christianity [Verm.CA, 102-3] -- the slaying of a bull generally is known as early as the second century BC, outside the Cybele cult; it is attested with reference to Cybele only in the second century AD. A detailed description of the rite is found, dated 245 AD, in Rome -- but the first description of the taurobolium as having "saving" power is not found until the writings of Prudentius -- dated 400 AD (interestingly, corresponding to the same time that the March 25th celebration shows up).
  Prior to this, the rite was only done for the sake of the health of the emperor [Gasp.Sot, 198] -- it had no significance with reference to personal sin. So what's up with this? This is the main thing that Fear argues that Attisians stole from Christianity -- although they didn't plan too well, since few people could afford to buy a bull or sheep for sacrifice. This, by the way, is a strong hint that the taurobolium as a soteriological event was a recent innovation! (For more on this rite, see here.)
  

In conclusion -- the evidence is very clear that Attis had nothing to do with the institution of the Christain faith.
-JPH
Sources

Fear.CC -- Fear, A. T. "Cybele and Christ." in Cybele, Attis and Related Cults, Eugene Lane, ed., Brll, 1996.

Fraz.AAO -- Frazer, James G. Adonis, Attis, Osiris. University Books, 1967.

Gasp.Sot -- Gasparro, Sfameni. Soteriology: Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis. Brill, 1995.

Verm.CA -- Vermaseren, M. J. Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult. Thames and Hudson: 1977.

Verm.LAGR -- Vermaseren, M. J. The Legend of Attis in Greek and Roman Art. Brill, 1966.

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Apollonius of Tyana?

Was the story of Jesus stolen from Apollonius of Tyana?


In ancient times there was once a Teacher. This Teacher was a lofty idealist who represented the highest consciousness and intelligence his society had to offer; he regarded himself as appointed by God for his task, and he operated a ministry with an eye towards revolutionizing conduct. His methods were simple and direct: He went straight to the public, offering his direction at no charge; at the same time, he shunned official institutions.
In time, this Teacher gathered followers who absorbed his message, so that he would eventually be recognized as the founder of a movement. However, he angered the authorities of his day, was put on trial, and condemned to death.
After his execution, the Teacher's followers were dismayed for a time; yet the inspiration their Teacher had given them lived on in their hearts. Wishing to restore the Teachers' reputation, which had been injured by his trial and execution, they published - as much as 20 to 30 years later; how long exactly we cannot be certain - the Teachers' sayings and deeds, and an accounting of his personal traits; for the Teacher himself had written nothing of his own volition to remember him by.
In our modern times, the view of the Teacher has been, at times, skeptical. Many recognized his genius, and accepted what his followers reported as absolutely true; but still others maintained that his followers were so dedicated to him that his true sayings and personality could not be recovered from their texts. His life was said to be so dramatized, idealized, and pragmatized that there was no way to reach the original Teacher; some even went as far as to say that the Teacher never actually existed and was a construct of his followers!
Thankfully, however, more moderate forms of criticism have prevailed, and it is recognized that while each of the Teacher's biographers were in their own way painting a portrait of the Teacher, they did report the Teachers' life and sayings with a good measure of fulness and accuracy. They did not, to be sure, report the Teachers' exact words - as of course would never be possible under the circumstances - but they did accurately report the Voice of the Teacher in their writings.

---

By now, of course, you realize that my diversion above describes Jesus - and yet, that is not who I am talking about! In fact, these are the very descriptions applied to none other than Socrates [Vota.GCB, 30-34]; his followers were Plato and Xenophon, who each wrote a biography of their master.
The point of this exercise, as it relates to common skeptical objections, is to show that alleged close parallels between the biography of Apollonius (written by Philostratus) and the New Testament gospels incidences of demons being cast out by Apollonius; Apollonius raising the dead; Apollonius on trial, Apollonius performing general miracles; Apollonius spouting wisdom - cannot serve as a means of learning anything about the Gospels. Truly enough, some have tried to put Jesus and Apollonius on the same footing: It even got to the point where F. C. Baur postulated that Apollonius never existed, much in the same vein as our modern Christ-mythers. [Mead.ApT, 48]
However, there are several reasons why the Gospels and the work of Philostratus cannot be considered in tandem:
Apollonius is not representative of the bioi genre. Some find contact points in that the Gospels and the story of Apollonius are in the same genre, ancient biography. But this genre also contains Tacitus' Agricola, a very sober piece of literature, and other "serious" biois.
Furthermore, the biography of Apollonius violates a number of the conventions of ancient biography: It is over 4 times longer than any other biography known from ancient history, having some 82,000 words ([Burr.WAG, 169] - and I would add, it is rather tedious reading); it contains geographical, historical, and ethnographical information of the type found in "sophistic novels" of the time (ibid., 172); and finally, it has the traits of both novel and romance. It has rightly been wondered if this work belongs in the bioi genre at all!
Apollonius is not the closest semblance to the life of Jesus. In highlighting these many similarities to the events recorded in the Gospels, critics imply that the depiction of miracles being performed by Apollonius, his penchant for spouting wisdom, and the fact that he was put on trial, makes the Life the best comparison to the Gospels.
As we have seen, however, there is a far better biographical comparison available: Socrates. (Indeed, the performance of miracles is the ONLY thing that Apollonius and Jesus have in common that Jesus and Socrates do not! Unlike the latter pair, Apollonius was NOT executed!) Moreover, in a comparison between the Gospels and the Life, Votaw [Vota.GCB, 21-2] notes 8 similarities, but 10 differences.
Talbert places the Life in the "B" category of ancient biography: an effort to dispel a false image. What is this false image that Philostratus is trying to dispel? Quite simply, Apollonius had been accused of being an evil magician, both by a contemporary named Euphrates [Ph.LAT, x] and by an author named Moeragenes [Talb.WIG, 94-8]; Philostratus, therefore, was aiming to show that Apollonius' powers were "by-products of his philosophical virtue or saintliness." (ibid., 125) He ignored Moeragenes' books of Apollonius' life, saying that "he paid no attention to them, because they displayed an ignorance of many things which concerned the sage." [Ph.LAT, ix]
Philostratus also therefore concentrated on Apollonius' teaching (which reflects a high degree of virtue, and much of which may go back to the real Apollonius); on the other hand, there does seem to have been some indication that Apollonius was a miracle-worker - though whether he was an effective one is another issue!
However, we then fall upon the third, and most important point:
The stories of Apollonius were written some 150 years after the crucifixion of Jesus! Whether through neglect, carelessness, or outright deception, in omitting this fact critics allow the reader to assume that the Gospels are somehow copied from or influenced by the Apollonius stories.
If anything, the evidence would point to just the opposite: Philostratus copied what was in the gospels; although it is not necessary to think that he did. (As Mead puts it [Mead.ApT, 35]: "...as a plagarist of the Gospel story Philostratus is a conspicuous failure.") The small similarity in genre between the Gospels and the story of Apollonius is fascinating, but the incredible DIFFERENCES between the material are far more important - and as we have noted, this leads some scholars to take Apollonius' story out of the genre of bioi entirely! The reader should be aware that:

1. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was written no earlier than AD 217. This is over 100 years after Apollonius lived - twice as long as the time between the life of Jesus and the latest proposed date for the first Gospel writing (75 AD) and four times longer than the earliest proposed time (50 AD). The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried. This makes a substantial difference when comparing the texts.
2. The Life is filled with all manner of material that distinguishes it from the Gospels. We have alluded to this generally; now let's get down to specifics! Cartlidge and Dungan describes the contents thusly: "...a virtual catalogue of every rhetorical device known to the professional sophistic writers of that time: sudden supernatural omens, minidialogues on the favorite topics of the day, colorful bits of archaeological lore, plenty of magic, rapid action scenes, amazing descriptions of fabled, far-off lands, occasional touches of naughty eroticism, and a whole series of favorite 'philosophical' scenes..." [Cart.DSG, 205]
3. The Life is rooted in a problematic source. Philostratus' source, the diary of Damis, is "full of historical anachronisms and gross geographical errors." [Meie.MarJ, 576-8] Elsewhere, Philostratus makes use of imaginary official letters, inscriptions, decrees and edicts. [Cart.DSG, 205] The Gospels have been cited for minor geographical and historical errors, some of which have suitable explanations, but none may be described as "gross," and they have NEVER been found guilty of faking official documents.
   Furthermore, Philostratus was PAID to write his work - by Julia Domna, the mother of the emperor Caracalla, who had donated funds to build a temple dedicated to Apollonius. (ibid.) This in itself is not necessarily problematic, save that the same critics who use Apollonius to make comparisons all too often reject the Gospels as "biased" or as "confessional" documents.
4. Apollonius does not enjoy the level of secular attestation that Jesus does. The earliest historical reference to Apollonius comes from Dio Cassius' Roman History, 68:17 - and he is given less space than Josephus gave to Jesus. [Wilk.JUF, 37]

A Career of Unusual Events If someone says that the Life of Apollonius sounds like one of the New Testament Gospels, perhaps they need to read both again. Consider these selections from the Life: Reporting Apollonius' birth, Philostratus says that Apollonius' mother had fallen asleep in a meadow, where the swans who lived in the meadow danced around her, then cried aloud, causing her to give birth prematurely. [Ph.LAT, 13] Apollonius specifically condemns the practice of taking hot baths. (ibid., 47) Apollonius professes to be able to speak all human languages - without ever having learned them. (ibid., 53) He also learns to speak the language of birds. (ibid., 57) He professes to have seen the chains of Prometheus while traveling in the Caucasus mountains. [Mead.ApT, 60] He and his party encounter a hobgoblin, which they chase away by calling it names. [Ph.LAT., 125] Apollonius states that captive elephants cry and mourn at night when men are not watching; but when men come around, they stop crying because they are ashamed. (ibid., 145 - this comes as part of a very long section devoted to elephants, which was taken from Juba's History of Libya - Mead.ApT, 60n) A short paragraph by Philostratus describes different types of dragons. (ibid., 245-7) Apollonius confronts a satyr and puts it to sleep by offering it wine. (ibid., v. 2, 107-9) During his trial, Apollonius causes the writing to disappear from the tablets of one of his accusers. [Mead.ApT, 188] Does any of this sound like what we find in the Gospels? Of course not; the Gospels lack the outrageous and dramatic flair that is found in the story of Apollonius. Thus they should not be used in comparison.

In short, to compare the Gospels with Life of Apollonius is to compare apples with tangerines. There is a vast gulf of difference between the two. It is inaccurate and/or misleading to say that the Gospels are in ANY way comparable to the story of Apollonius, or that we can learn anything about the historicity of the Gospels by studying the work of Philostratus.
-JPH
Sources

Burr.WAG Burridge, Richard. What are the Gospels? Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1992.

Cart.DSG Cartlidge, David and David L. Dungan. Documents for the Study of the Gospels. Philadelpia: Fortress, 1980.

Helm.GosFic Helms, Randall. Gospel Fictions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1988.

Meie.MarJ Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Mead.ApT Mead, G. R. S. Apollonius of Tyana. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1980. (Originally published 1819.)

Ph.LAT Philostratrus. The Life of Apollonious of Tyana. Cambridge:Harvard U. Press, 1912.

Talb.WIG Talbert, Charles H. What Is A Gospel? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Vota.GCB Votaw, Clyde W. The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Greco-Roman World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.