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.

Was the story of Jesus stolen from pagan figure Alexander of Abonuteichos?

A well-known atheist denizen says that in the account of this figure, found in the works of Lucian, we have something that "illustrates how easy it was to invent a god and watch the masses scurry to worship it." Easy to invent a god? Yes. Secure a reaction? Guaranteed. Make that cult stick? Not so fast. We are told that Alexander's cult "lasted well beyond his death in 170 A.D., drawing the patronage of emperors and provincial governors as well as the commons" and "may have even lasted into the 4th century, although the evidence is unclear."
Well enough then. Based on the clear evidence, this is exactly what we would expect of a false movement. What I have asked of Sabbatai Sevi elsewhere, I now ask here: Why then did Christianity not die out? But there is more to this mix than that, and we need some background data. Here from our denizen is how Alexander's religion came about:

The official story was that a snake-god with a human head was born as an incarnation of Asclepius, and Alexander was his keeper and intermediary. With this arrangement Alexander gave oracles, offered intercessory prayers, and even began his own mystery religion. Lucian tells us the inside story. Glycon was in fact a trained snake with a puppet head, and all the miracles surrounding him were either tall tales or the ingenious tricks of Alexander himself. But what might we think had there been no Lucian to tell us this?

All this is quite on the mark, but we can add a few things. In Culture and Society in Lucian (which our denizen uses, but only as far as it suits his purposes) and elsewhere we also learn that Alex:

• Probably studied under a doctor and had some medical knowledge, as even Lucian admits
• Set himself up with a professional writer of choruses
• Made money selling cures for diseases he diagnosed
• Mainly delivered oracles, and among their subjects, the correct birthplace of the poet Homer
• Was a good-looking fellow who used that fact to his charismatic advantage; indeed one of his original patrons was a wealthy, elderly woman who fell for his admiration -- without this, his efforts may have been dead in the cradle
• Explained away non-fulfillments of his oracles by blaming unbelievers, including Christians
• Established mysteries in which sexual attraction played a part

Alex's Magic Show Before comparisons can be made between Jesus and Alexander, it's a good idea to see what sort of skills they had. Here is an example of one of the magic tricks Alexander would pull: In the fullness of time, his plan took shape. He went one night to the temple foundations, still in the process of digging, and with standing water in them which had collected from the rainfall or otherwise; here he deposited a goose egg, into which, after blowing it, he had inserted some new-born reptile. He made a resting-place deep down in the mud for this, and departed. Early next morning he rushed into the market-place, naked expect for a gold-spangled loin-cloth; with nothing but this and his scimitar, and shaking his long loose hair, like the fanatics who collect money in the name of Cybele, he climbed on to a lofty altar and delivered a harangue, felicitating the city upon the advent of the god now to bless them with his presence. In a few minutes nearly the whole population was on the spot, women, old men, and children included; all was awe, prayer, and adoration. He uttered some unintelligible sounds, which might have been Hebrew or Phoenician, but completed his victory over his audience, who could make nothing of what he said, beyond the constant repetition of the names Apollo and Asclepius. He then set off at a run for the future temple. Arrived at the excavation and the already completed sacred fount, he got down into the water, chanted in a loud voice hymns to Asclepius and Apollo, and invited the god to come, a welcome guest, to the city. He next demanded a bowl, and when this was handed to him, had no difficulty in putting it down a the right place and scooping up, besides water and mud, the egg in which the god had been enclosed; the edges of the aperture had been joined with wax and white lead. He took the egg in his hand and announced that here he held Asclepius. The people, who had been sufficiently astonished by the discovery of the egg in the water, were now all eyes for what was to come. He broke it, and received in his hollowed palm the hardly developed reptile; the crowd could see it stirring and winding about his fingers; they raised a shout, hailed the god, blessed the city, and every mouth was full of prayers-for treasure and wealth and health and all the other good things that he might give. Our hero now departed homewards, till running, with the new-born Asclepius in his hands-the twice-born, too, whereas ordinary men can be born but once, and born moreover not of Coronis, nor even of her namesake the crow, but of a goose! After him streamed the whole people, in all the madness of fanatic hopes. Not bad -- but try hiding bread and fish for 5000 in the same way. Other tricks were along the lines of those used by magicians today, but nothing on the order of a blind man being healed.

Does this sound like Jesus to you? It sounds, actually, more like Peter Popoff, or an Old West snake oil salesman; Alexander's story only "illustrates how easy it was to invent a god and watch the masses scurry to worship it" if the god is not very demanding and appeals to baser instincts. Alexander did little more, apparently, than deliver poetic oracles (with the help of a professional writer, no less!), keep a clever mouth running, do a little ventriloquism, and ask for some money in return, and later added some sex in the mix for good measure. This is a religion of the Tom Cruise variety, not a faith for the faithful.
One may justly ask how this compares, in terms of demand-for-belief ratio, to someone who claimed to be the Word and Wisdom of the only God, claimed to be at the helm where eternal life was concerned, and came out of a background of despised superstitions (Judaism), and demanded top-flight behavior. Alexander's demands for belief were on the level of today's Omar Bradley astrological columns and the Psychic Friends' call-in. There is (in that context) a low level of demand for acceptance.
Believing in Alexander did not require offending friends and neighbors (other than an old stodge like Lucian, of course), did not require giving up all else you believed in (just a few bucks maybe) and was not dripping with social unacceptability -- indeed Alexander helped himself by blasting away at the unpopular Christians. (And the Epicureans as well!)
Had Alexander stopped asking for drachma, and started seriously asking for pledges of souls and proclaimed himself sole and universal deity to the exclusion of Roman gods, we can be sure he would have had to pass some higher level of muster. Alex's story also illustrates what happens to flash-in-the-pan religions -- and leads us to note that this obviously did not happen to Christianity, while it clearly should have if indeed there was nothing substantive to it.
Some religions thrive by being vague (Rastafarianism) or by having only philosophical demands, or demands beyond verification (Buddhism, Hinduism). Others staked a claim to survival by isolation (Mormonism) or by the sword (Islam). Christianity did none of these things and had none of these benefits, other than a late flirtation with the sword when it was already a secure faith.
It doesn't matter how many statues, coins, or officials Alexander laid claim to, and the craze of Alexander does nothing to "explain why a new and strange religion like Christianity could become so popular, and its absurd claims so readily believed." Rather, it does a great deal to explain how far down Skeptics need to dig in order to try to refute Christianity.
-JPH

Was the story of Jesus stolen from that of the deity Alcides (Hercules)?

ou have heard of Alcides of Thebes, know it or not: Alcides is another name for Hercules. The claim has been made that Alcides was a "divine redeemer born of a virgin around 1200 BCE." From a site now defunct, we get the following (which I have verified elsewhere as well):

Hercules's mother was Alcmene, the wife of King Amphitryon of Troezen. His father was the leader of the Olympians, Zeus. He disguised himself as Amphitryon and visited Alcmene on a night that lasted as long as three ordinary nights. Zeus's wife, Hera, was furious when she learned that Alcmene was pregnant with Zeus's child. She sent witches to Troezen to stop Alcmene from going into labor, but the witches failed and Alcmene gave birth to twins: Hercule's, Zeus's son, and Iphicles, Amphitryon's son.

Virgin born? I would not try that on fathers of the girls you date, gents. How about that "redeemer" part? Just like in the cartoons, Hercules fought some battles; he liberated the folks of Thebes from their oppressors, but that's about as close as we get. What redeeming feat, we wonder, do critics have in mind?
Mark Smith in Origins of Biblical Monotheism notes an older tradition of a "Herakles" -- not the same as the Greek Hercules, actually, but because of the name similarity, often confused -- who is said by Josephus, in a passage referring to Hiram of Tyre (from Solomon's time) to have had an "awakening", but scholars are divided on what this refers to, and Josephus gives no details. Thackery reads the passages as referring rather to the building of a temple to Herakles, and nothing is said of this being's death. There is a tradition from ancient Spain [!] suggesting a death of Herakles, but his "resurrection" is described in terms of apotheosis.
One of Hercules' greatest feats, we are told, "was to clean the stables of Augeas, King of Elis, in one day. Augeas had 3,000 oxen, and his stables hadn't been cleaned in 30 years." Somehow, this reminds me of having to "clean up" after many claims like these made about Hercules!

Refuting atheist claims.Did jesus exist?part 1

Was the story of Jesus stolen from that of the Greek deity Adonis?



Our sole source for this article is Smith's Origins of Biblical Monotheism [116].
Adonis is reckoned an ancient deity, but the only account of his death comes from a text dated to the second century -- too late to influence the story of Jesus -- in which it is described how his death at the hands of a boar was mourned by worshippers in Byblos. After mourning, worshippers the next day "proclaim that he lives and send him into the air."
Is this a "resurrection"? It sounds much more like Roman apotheosis (exaltation via the ascent of the spirit) as stated; in any event no method of getting alive again is described. Other rituals known for Adonis seem to connect him to vegetation, and accentuate his death, with "no hint of rebirth." J. Z. Smith, the scholar of the history of religions, notes that "classical accounts of Adonis neither mention nor describe his rising from death and that only accounts fashioned by Christian writers introduces the theme of Adonis's resurrection." This is too little, too late to influence the story of Jesus.
Other characteristics of Adonis are no help for copycat theorists: He is young and good-looking, a lousy hunter, and "a paragon of anti-heroic behavior." Nothing bears a likeness to Jesus here. One specific offered by copycat theorists Freke and Gandy is that Adonis had a "virgin mother" named Myrrha and a comparison is made between communion and "the bones of the dead Adonis" which were "said to be ground on a mill and then scattered to the wind."
The latter claim is derived from Frazer and is such an enormous non-parallel that it deserves no comment, unless one wishes to add that Adonisian communion consisted of running around in the wind catching Adonis' ashes in cups and between slices of bread.
The former I find verified nowhere. Here it is said, "The generally accepted version is that Aphrodite compelled Myrrha (or Smyrna) to commit incest with Theias, her father, the king of Assyria. Her nurse helped her with this trickery to become pregnant, and when Theias discovered this he chased her with a knife. To avoid his wrath the gods turned her into a myrrh tree. The tree later burst open, allowing Adonis to emerge. Another version says that after she slept with her father she hid in a forest where Aphrodite changed her into a tree. Theias struck the tree with an arrow, causing the tree to open and Adonis to be born. Yet another version says a wild boar open the tree with its tusks and freed the child; this is considered to be a foreshadowing of his death."
Virgin? I don't think that would work as an excuse on a date!
Finally it is said that "Icthys" (as in the Christian fish symbol) "had for centuries been the Greek name for Adonis", a matter which, if true, we consider conceptually refuted by the linked article.
In short, this is yet another unprofitable proposition for the copycat theorist.

Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed

Introduction

The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who deny Jesus' existence 'Jesus Mythologists'.
A huge amount has been written on the web and elsewhere which you can find in the further reading section below. Not all Jesus Mythologists are lunatics and one at least, Earl Doherty, is extremely erudite and worth reading. Nevertheless, he is still wrong and, as I have seen myself, he reacts badly to those who demonstrate it. It is not my intention to study the minutiae of the argument but instead focus on three central points which are often brought up on discussion boards. These are the lack of secular references, the alleged similarities to paganism and the silence of Paul. Finally I want to bring all these together to show how ideas similar to those that deny Jesus' existence can be used on practically any ancient historical figure. With this in mind I set out to prove that Hannibal never existed.

Roman Historians

Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.
Christianity is mentioned by the historian Tacitus in the early second century. But he talks about it only because Christians were unfortunate enough to be made scapegoats by the Emperor Nero for the great fire of Rome. Tacitus is interested in the Emperor, not his victims about whom he gives very limited information. Still, he does tell us that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Jesus Mythologists counter this by claiming that he could have got his information from Christians which means his evidence is not independent. So, we have a very convenient situation for the Jesus Mythologists. Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out of court as they are tainted by association with Christianity. This sort of special pleading is one of the reasons that modern historians have no time for these theories as they are set up to be impossible to disprove. In fact, Christian evidence for a human Jesus who was crucified is trustworthy because it ran counter to the myths of the time and suggested that he had suffered a humiliating death. If they made it up and then suppressed the truth with clinical efficiency, why did they come up with a story which even the Christian apologist, Tertullian, admitted was absurd? It seems far more likely that they had a large number of historical facts that they had to rationalise into a religion rather than creating all these difficulties for themselves.
Sometimes Jesus Mythologists will produce long lists of writers none of whom have the slightest reason to mention an obscure Jewish miracle worker and somehow think this strengthens their point. In fact, it has all the relevance of picking fifty books off your local library shelf and finding that none of them mention Carl Sagan. Does that mean he did not exist either? Jesus was not even a failed military leader of the kind that Romans might have noticed - especially if he had been defeated by someone famous.

Josephus

The only historian who we might expect to mention Jesus is Josephus, a Jew who wrote a history of his people up to 66AD, which is called 'Jewish Antiquities'. In fact, Josephus does mention Jesus twice and so Jesus Mythologists have to devote a lot of attention to attacking the relevant passages. Their job is made easier because Josephus, a Pharisee, probably felt nothing but contempt for Jesus which meant later Christians tried to 'correct' his negative wording.
The majority opinion on Josephus is that the parts of the passage from book 18 of 'Jewish Antiquities' which are in red below are the additions of a Christian scribe trying to make Jesus appear in a better light.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3

To support this idea we can look at the works of the Christian father Origen who was writing in the mid-third century. This was while Christianity was still a minor cult with no power or influence. It was generally ignored by the authorities as long as it kept its head down. Therefore there is no way that Christians this early could have either knobbled Josephus so that no undoctored copies were available or got away with quoting something from Josephus that was not there. We have no reason to suppose that a bright chap like Origen would even have tried and so can be sure that the copy of Josephus he read and quoted from was unamended by earlier Christians. We can be doubly sure of this because Origen flatly contradicts the modern version of Josephus where the Jewish historian is made to say Jesus was the Messiah. Origen makes clear he said no such thing.
What use would the early fathers have had for a passage in Josephus saying Jesus was not the Messiah? An educated Jew saying this would not be helpful in an apologetic sense as it would demonstrate that the prophecies in the Old Testament were not nearly as clear cut as early Christians would have liked to have believed. And because no one ever challenged Jesus' existence, they never had reason to point to a critical Jewish source to prove he did. Hence Josephus was not quoted by the few earlier Christian writers.
So what exactly did Origen say? Here are two passages which say basically the same thing and which reinforce each other:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Origen - Matthew X, XVII

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ) - the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

Origen, - Against Celsus I, XLVII

This tells us that the later passage about 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' certainly existed in Josephus in Origen's time because he uses the phrase 'called Christ' twice. It cannot be a Christian interpolation as they called James either 'James the Just' or 'James the Brother of the Lord'. The reference to 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' is still found in Antiquities 20 and this by itself torpedoes the idea that Jesus never existed. The fact idea that Christians were going around doctoring copies of Josephus while they were still a persecuted minority is just laughable. Origen also says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah so our present day passage on Jesus in Antiquities 18 cannot have existed although the passing reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20 is further evidence that he was actually mentioned in less flattering terms. It should be pointed out that Origen himself reads too much into Josephus who does say the people thought the killing of James was wrong but does not go quite so far as to blame the entire Jewish War on the event.

Pagan similarities

Allegations that Christianity is an adaptation of a pagan religion have been around for ages. In the 19th century, Kersey Graves wrote his notorious The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours - a book so poor that even the Internet Infidels admit (in rather more diplomatic language) that it is a load of old cobblers. Just recently the tradition was carried on in The Jesus Mysteries by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. These two amateurs are equally willing to play fast and loose with the facts using carefully pruned quotations, mis-translation and anachronism to produce a woefully inaccurate picture.
With this is in mind I present "Bede's Guide to the Production of a Best-seller that Undermines the Roots of Christianity". With this I can guarantee that you will be able to find all the parallels you like between paganism and Christianity or indeed, properly adapted, between any other two unrelated subjects that you care to name.

1. The first thing to do is ensure you cast your net as widely as possible. So within Christianity you should include every cult, heresy and sect you can get your hands on. Gnosticism will be particularly helpful as they did indeed borrow large chunks of pagan thought which is partly why they were considered heretics in the first place. As for paganism, this can include just about everything. Freke and Gandy comb not only Greek cults (Oedipus) but also Egyptian (Horus and Osiris), Roman (Bacchus) and Persian (Mithras). Elsewhere you will find Celtic deities, Norse beserkers and Indian mystics pulled into the fray. Now, with this vast body of writing, finding parallels will not be too challenging provided you are willing to wade through it all.
2. But don't restrict yourselves to pagan religions from before the time of Christ. Remember your methodology should be that Christians copied pagans and not the other way around. This is useful because you can now point to similarities between paganism and Christianity after the latter was already widespread. So if, like Freke and Gandy, you can find a picture showing Bacchus on a cross dating from two hundred years after Jesus was crucified you can still claim that the Christians copied the pagans and not the other way around.
3. Language is important. Christian terms such as 'salvation', 'Eucharist', 'word made flesh' and 'lamb of god' are common currency today. Therefore when translating or paraphrasing pagan sources always use modern Christian language. Never mind that the ancient pagans would not have known what you were on about - you are not talking to them. In this way you can call a woman being raped by various kinds of wildlife a 'virgin birth', you can call having ones body parts stuck back together a 'resurrection' and you can call just about every Greek hero a 'son of god'. Also it is helpful to use King James Bible phrases and style when quoting pagan texts. It gives them some more gravitas.
4. Do try to confuse liturgy and practice with history. For instance the mystery religions and Christianity were both underground movements so they had to operate in similar sorts of ways. Sacred meals and ritual washing are as old as religion itself so the Christianity using them as well as pagans is not surprising at all. Make it sound like a complete revelation.
5. Say totally different things are in fact closely related. For instance, Mithras was sometimes represented by a bull. Say this is the same as Jesus being called the lamb of God (ignoring that one is a symbol of sexuality and strength and the other of innocence and humility). Compare the Mithric ritual of taking a shower in the warm blood of the aforementioned bull with Christian baptism with water. Claim that the thieves crucified with Jesus are the same as a pair of torch bearers that appear on some illustrations of Bacchus.
6. For goodness sake do not mention the things that really made the pagan mysteries interesting. After all your work of showing that Jesus and Bacchus are one and the same, you will lose everything if you let on that Bacchus was the god of drunkenness and his worship involved getting plastered and having sex with anything in sight (goats being a particular favourite). In fact, keep sex out of it altogether. Yes, sex was the central feature of an awful lot of these pagan rituals but that is not the point your are trying to make.
7. Avoid up to date scholarship which will probably pour cold water over your vaunted theories. You will find plenty of nineteenth and early twentieth century writers with a bone to pick that can support your wildest speculations. And do not worry if not everyone agrees with you - you can always dismiss the dissenters as apologists or as those unable to cope with your earth shattering ideas.

Using this guide you should be able to produce as many parallels as you require to convince even the most blinkered of readers. As you can probably tell from the above I am not impressed by the pagan myth hypothesis. It is interesting to note that despite his vast amount of reading, hostility to orthodox Christianity and willingness to allege that most the New Testament is fictional, not even John Dominic Crossan has any time for the idea that Jesus was made up of pagan motifs. Nor indeed do the vast majority of liberal scholars - the pagan myth hypothesis is firmly outside the pale of scholarship and with good reason.

The Non - Silence of Paul

The whole idea that Jesus did not exist started with the fact that Paul does not say very much about his life or ministry. It is instructive to first find out what he did say so here is a list. You can read the relevent snippet biblical text by holding your mouse over the red scripture references.

• Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galatians 4:4)
• Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
• Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galatians 4:6)
• Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
• Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)
• Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galatians 1:19)
• Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)

It turns out that careful analysis of the letters shows that Paul was not actually all that silent at all. The first reaction to all this from the Jesus Mythologist is to dispute that Paul wrote very many of these letters. But actually seven of his letters are completely undisputed and all facts about Jesus's life shown above are from these. It is ironic that the pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, that liberals insist are late (and date from after the synoptic Gospels), contain practically no details about the life of Jesus at all.
As there are still rather a lot of details about the historical Jesus in the undisputed letters, the Jesus Mythologist will use special pleading to try and explain them away. But as we can see, Paul is not attempting to tell Jesus's life story, he is just using the odd snippet about Jesus where it is helpful to illustrate his point. He knows that his readers are aware of what happened because all of his letters are to people who are already Christians. He is not trying to convert them and he is not engaged in apologetics.
If we look at the letters of the early Christian fathers, they rarely have details about the life of Jesus except in passing because they know their readers are familiar with the Gospels. What we today call the Gospels had not, of course, been written down at the time that Paul was preaching but oral communication was considered to be more reliable than the written word at the time. When these people had heard about Jesus they did not need a revision primer when Paul wrote to them but specific advice about problems and controversies. Of course, none of this will convince the Jesus Mythologist who just cannot understand why Paul does not just repeat verbatim to his correspondents what he has already told them in person.

Did Hannibal really exist?

I want to wrap up by showing how easy it is to produce a scenario where we can deny the historicity of a major public figure. When I published this spoof on the Secular Web's discussion board it was taken seriously even though with hindsight it seems ridiculous. The comments in italics are annotations to bring out points of similarity with the various Jesus Myth ideas in currency.
I would invite any Jesus Mythologist to explain to me the substantial differences between their theory and the spurious one below.

To ask whether or not the great Carthaginian general Hannibal every actually existed might seem rather pointless. An exercise for a student learning about the nature of historical evidence perhaps but not something any serious scholar would waste time on. But maybe we should not be too hasty in acquiescing with the opinion of establishment historians (in other words, there's a plot by academics stifling debate).
In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources - incredible given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! We find when we actually try to pin him down he tends to recede further into the mists of time. His exploits, such as leading elephants over the Alps, are clearly legendary (the sceptic pretends to be incredulous but seems happy to buy his own amazing theory) and it is not hard to find a motive for the creation of this colourful character by Roman writers (as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists).
Rome and Carthage were great trading rivals in the Western Mediterranean and it did not take them long to come to blows. Rome signed a peace treaty but, under the leadership of the elder Cato desperately wanted to rid itself permanently of the competition. (this is actually true and so helps to hide when we slip into fantasy) They needed an excuse and the idea they came up with was brilliant. Like all ancient civilisations, the Romans rewrote history as it suited them to demonstrate their own prowess. (a useful and exaggerated generalisation) Consequently we should not be surprised to find that they invented a great enemy from Carthage to demonstrate the threat still existed and justify a further war to wipe them out.
The author of the fiction was Cato himself (we need someone to point the finger at and note how there is no distinction made between the background material above and theorising here) who we know wrote the earliest Roman History (true as well, actually). But it was intended simply as a justification for a further war with Carthage. It contained the details of Hannibal's alleged campaigns against the Romans including victories on Italian soil (it might well do but Cato's history has conveniently not survived). Cato brilliantly combined the truth with his own anti-Carthaginian propaganda with the intention of goading Rome into another wholly unjustified war with the old enemy (give the fabricator lots of credit for his invention). Once the war was over and Carthage razed to the ground, the Romans were able to ensure that only their version of history survived (this is important as it enables all other sources to be declared forgeries).
Therefore the myth of the great Carthaginian war leader became fact and later Roman historians like the notoriously unreliable Livy (we have to denigrate counter sources) simply assumed Cato's fabrications were true (because the ancients were stupid and simply could not do any research themselves).

Conclusion

In history there is little that is certain but there is also a level of scepticism that makes the task of the historian impossible. Furthermore, the thesis that Jesus never existed requires selective scepticism about which sources are reliable and how others are interpreted. In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did.

Further reading

Books:

• The Evidence for Jesus - RT France: Very few scholars have bothered reply to the Jesus Mythologists but France was one who did. This book refutes elements of GA Wells with rigour and honesty. Sadly only available in the UK.
• One Hundred Years Before Christ - Alvar Ellegard - Literary critic invents a variation on the Dead Sea Scrolls conspiracy and then redates all the ancient documents to support it.
• The Jesus Mysteries - Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy: Unadulterated rubbish from the masters of the genre.
• The Jesus Puzzle - Earl Doherty: A serious minded and worthwhile effort to put the best case for an impossible theory.
• The Christ Conspiracy - Acharya S: Makes Freke and Gandy look like serious scholars. Really, really, silly and unintentionally quite funny.
• The Jesus Myth - GA Wells: Another serious effort to show Jesus never existed. Sadly for devotees the author has changed his mind now and admits he was wrong.

Web sites:

Historical proof that Jesus existed.

Historical proof that Jesus existed.

JOSEPHUS, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, III. 3 “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, ad many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; and, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

And in 2009 A.D. “the tribe of Christians, so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

Roman secular sources:
Celsus, an anti-Christian writer of the Roman Empire in the second century A.D. wrote: “It was by magic that he (Jesus) was able to do the miracles which he appeared to have done.” In this statement, an antagonist of Christianity grudgingly acknowledges the reality of Christ’s “miracles”. WILKEN, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p. 98

However, Quadratus, writing in approximately 117-134 A.D. “urged people to believe in Jesus because the effect of his miracles continued up to the present – people had been cured and raised from the dead, and ‘some of them … have survived even to our own day.” WILKEN, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p. 99-100

Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, writing about the Christians several decades after the death of Christ, stated: “their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judae, Pontius Pilate.” WILKEN, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p. 49

Clearly Roman records confirm that Jesus Christ lived, and that he was executed in Judea during the administration of Pontius Pilate. Even his detractors and non-Christian writers acknowledge that he performed supernatural deeds, and one writer recorded that some previously dead persons were known to be alive as a result of being resurrected by Jesus Christ. Whatever one thinks about Jesus Christ, we begin with the fact that he indeed lived and died when the Bible states that he lived and died, the he performed marvelous deeds, and that he made a major impression on the civilization of his day.

Christ was born at a time when Rome and Parthia were both superpowers. Rome ruled the eastern side of the Euphrates River, and Parthia ruled Asian lands from modern Syria to India. Palestine was located within the Roman empire, but was close to the Parthian border (the Euphrates River).

In the decades before the Birth of Jesus, Rome and Parthia fought several battles with one being fought near Antioch of Syria (very close to Palestine) RAWLINSON The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, pp 199-205

About 40 BC, the Parthians launched a major assault which swept the Romans out of Asia for a short time. For three years (40 – 37 BC) Palestine was within the Parthian Empire and was ruled by a Jewish vassal king of the Parthians named Antigonus. At that time King Herod (the Roman king of Judea) fled from the Parthians in fear of his life. While the Parthian-sponsored rule of Antigonus was brief, it was apparently popular with the Jews. Antigonus, with help from Jewish support, attempted to maintain himself as king of the Jews, but was defeated by Herod. JOSEPHUS Antiquities of the Jews xv 1, 2

Mark Antony (noted for his dalliance with Cleopatra) ordered Antigonus beheaded, and Josephus records that this was done to compel the Jews to reaccept the hated Herod as their king.

To help you gain a better frame of reference for these ancient events, these Roman-Parthian wars were more recent events for the people in the period when Jesus was born than WWII and the Korean War are to modern readers. Parthian rule over Palestine was, therefore, vividly remembered by many in Jewish society as being preferable to Roman rule.

Mark Antony’s defeat led to a long period of “détente” between the two empires, with the Euphrates River serving as the border between their two vast empires. This prolonged period of peaceful relations lasted from 36BC to 58 AD. RAWLINSON The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, pp 216

Without this rule of “détente” it would have been nearly impossible for some of the events of Jesus Christ’s life to have occurred as we shall see.

The first event was the coming of the Magi, or “Wise Men” to pay homage to Jesus. Matt. 2: 1-12

The Magi were powerful members of one of the two assemblies which elected Parthian monarch and wielded great influence within the empire. One assembly was composed of members of the the royal family (the Arascids), and the other consisted of the priests (the Magi) and influential Parthians of non-royal blood (the “Wise Men”).
The Magi and Wise Men were jointly known as the Megistanes. RAWLINSON The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, p.85

The Greek word translated “wise men” is “magian”, literally mening “Persian astronomer or priest.” Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, see work “Wise” subhead 8 p.1060

While traditional Christian accounts of this episode celebrate the coming of “the three wise men”, the Bible does not limit the number of visiting Magi/Wise Men to three men. Indeed, Biblical events and the realities of that time argue for a much larger contingent of Parthian Magi.

Further, the Bible shows that the Magi did not visit the young Jesus in the manger at Bethlehem (as most nativity scenes depict), but rather visited Jesus in a house somewhat after his birth. Matt. 2:11 states that this visit of the Magi took place in a house (not at the manger) when Jesus was old enough to be called “a young child” (no longer an ”infant in swaddling clothes”) Luke 2: 8-40 mentions the shepherds’ arrival at the manger, but makes no mention of any Magi visiting Christ at that time. Mastt. 2:8 adds that Herod sent the Magi “to Bethlehem” after conferring with the Jewish hierarchy about the prophesied location of the Messiah’s birth. They cited Micah 5:2, and they were likely familiar with Daniel 9:25-26.
Also consider these words in Matt. 2:1-3 “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Saying, where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him. When Herod the king heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” Herod as you recall had all the male children under 2 murdered.