I’ve had the pleasure of debating some people on a discussion forum about Joel Pearson’s and my article No Evidence for Jesus Mythicism which is necessary context for what follows, where I will dive straight into the discussion, points 1-3 are a response to points 1-3 of the original article. The interculators’ words are in italics, mine in regular print(there will be multiple people’s objections discussed in future posts).
1. So were Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, Antinous, Imhotep, Faustina and Sabina among many others. Apotheosis of individuals after their death was more common than people realize.
2. There is no plausible way it is ‘unexpected’ for there to be no eyewitnesses – there are no eyewitnesses for *most* figures from antiquity. Most people couldn’t write. There are no eyewitness accounts of Theudas, John the Baptist, Simon of Peraea, Jesus son of Ananias, Antinous, Jonathan the Weaver, Hillel the Elder, Honi the Circle Drawer and many other figures from this time period.
3. It isn’t clear at all that Christianity was a mystery cult. As a general rule, mystery cults never publicly declared what their beliefs or practices were, but Paul is explicitly states that he was publicly proclaiming Christ as crucified (which an adherent of a mystery cult wouldn’t do). There’s a lot of evidence that the Gospel texts were read publicly, even among groups with non-believers, which isn’t at all what would happen with a mystery cult. Most of the available evidence here points against this actually being a mystery religion.
1. Apotheosis wasn’t the main thrust here, rather the demigod and resurrecting god theme (not mere apotheosis, but resurrection rather). I noted some exceptions but indicated that I don’t believe this is the rule.
2. “There is no plausible way it is ‘unexpected’ for there to be no eyewitnesses“ sure there is: on mythicism this is 100% probable and on historicism is somewhat less than 100% probably even if not drastically so. Then again since the church was the ‘filter’ through which our information came down and they amplified what they wanted and tended to suppress what they didn’t then it has much harder (albeit not impossible) to explain why we don’t have any authentic eyewitness testimony. “There are no eyewitness accounts of Theudas, John the Baptist, Simon of Peraea, Jesus son of Ananias, Antinous, Jonathan the Weaver, Hillel the Elder, Honi the Circle Drawer and many other figures from this time period.” The existence of some of these people, namely John and Jesus Bar-Ananias, have been questioned and partly because the sources are poor quality.
3. There were mysteries of Osiris but stories of his death and resurrection and such were hardly secret. Paul speaks an awful lot about secret teachings and mysteries. David Litwa has weighed in on this about 25:30 minutes in with evidence galore that Christianity was a mystery religion: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=utZwQVKzcC8
1. The “theme” of a dying and resurrecting god is one that most scholars of religion really don’t take very seriously anymore, and that was in part due to the work of Jonathan Z Smith (one of the most well respected scholars of religion of the last century) who wrote this about the subject: “All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.” I’ve read some of the ancient sources that discuss figures that are sometimes called ‘dying and rising’ (Romulus, Zalmoxis, Osiris) and I agree with Smith, the case that calling these gods “dying and rising” is extremely dubious.
Second point though – in my initial point, I was just responding to what was in the article, and the point in the article was just that it is a point for mythicism because Jesus was depicted as a demigod.
2. “namely John and Jesus Bar-Ananias, have been questioned” – can you cite which scholars have questioned those two?
For John: Jean Magne, From Gnosis to Christianity and from Christianity to Gnosis, p.203. It should also be noted that Rivka Nir, in her book In Search of John the Baptist, believes the Josephan passage is a forgery and that the gospels only contain an after the fact Christian creation featuring John, leaving us with essentially no evidence of a historical John though she never quite says John didn’t exist. There is the Mandeans who claim to be founded by John the Baptist, though Edwin Yamauchi (in his Case for Christ interview) has suggested that this claim is a later, motivated myth.
For Jesus Ben Ananias: Theodore J. Weeden (source): “Weeden does not view the oracle of Jesus-Ananias as a real warning in the early 60s . . . but as an invention of Josephus who saw both himself and the prophet as a latter-day Jeremiah.”
Because I don’t know of any – and Joel Marcus just recently wrote a lengthy book about John the Baptist making the case that he may have been a former member of the Qumran Community. In any event, that’s just a short list. The reality is that the figures we have no eyewitnesses for is far greater than the historical figures we *do* have eyewitnesses for. There are not even any eyewitnesses for the High Priest Caliphas, or Judas of Galilee, Gamaliel the Elder, Judas Maccabeus, Mattathias – I could go on but the point still stands. There’s little to no reason at all to be surprised to have no eyewitnesses for Jesus – especially considering there’s an insanely small chance that any of his followers knew how to write at all.
3. “There were mysteries of Osiris” – and there was also cults of Osiris that *weren’t* mysteries. We get the bulk of the information we have from the followings that weren’t involved in the mystery cults.
” an awful lot about secret teachings and mysteries…” – Paul speaks about hidden mysteries that were eventually revealed (like God’s plan for the Christ) – he speaks of knowledge that he thinks non-believers don’t realize or understand, but he’s more or less saying they aren’t smart enough to really understand it the way proper believers do.
But Paul is definitely not a follower of a mystery cult – a big giveaway is the fact that Paul seems to have known full well what the Christians were teaching *before* he became a believer – then he experienced a vision and became a full believer evidently without ever going through any initiation rites (at least he never speaks about going through any). And then he discusses publicly proclaiming Christ as crucified, which is definitely something an adherent of a mystery cult simply could not and would not do. A lot of our evidence suggests Christians were teaching about Jesus publicly, and that non-believers were well aware of what they were teaching and what some of their rituals include. For example, we know that some non-Christians thought that Christians were engaging in cannibalism (a misunderstanding of the Eucharist) – but that has to be because of some public knowledge of what Christians were practicing. All that heavily points away from this as a mystery.
Regarding Zalmoxis, I think the case for his dying and resurrecting is unambiguous. From Histories 4.95:
“[Zalmoxis] taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their descendants would ever die, but that they would go to a place where they would live forever and have all good things. [4] While he was doing as I have said and teaching this doctrine, he was meanwhile making an underground chamber. When this was finished, he vanished from the sight of the Thracians, and went down into the underground chamber, where he lived for three years, [5] while the Thracians wished him back and mourned him for dead; then in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what Salmoxis had told them. Such is the Greek story about him.“
The Thracians clearly thought Zalmoxis dead (as it says they did) because why else would his reappearance have proved “what Zalmoxis had told them” which was “neither he nor his guests… would ever die”?
This is confirmed by the pagan critic Celsus whom I quoted in my original article:
“Yet how many others are there who practise such juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their deception?— as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus in Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift); and also with Orpheus among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in Thessaly, and Hercules at Cape Tænarus, and Theseus. But the question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body.
Or consider Aristeas, whom Porphyry said the Christian story borrowed from:
“They say that Aristeas, who was in birth inferior to none of the citizens, entered into a fuller’s shop in Proconnesos and there died; and the fuller closed his workshop and went away to report the matter to those who were related to the dead man. And when the news had been spread abroad about the city that Aristeas was dead, a man of Kyzicos who had come from the town of Artake entered into controversy with those who said so, and declared that he had met him going towards Kyzicos and had spoken with him: and while he was vehement in dispute, those who were related to the dead man came to the fuller’s shop with the things proper in order to take up the corpse for burial; and when the house was opened, Aristeas was not found there either dead or alive. In the seventh year after this he appeared at Proconnesos and composed those verses which are now called by the Hellenes the Arimaspeia, and having composed them he disappeared the second time.” (Herodotus, History, Book 4, 14-15)
Second point though – in my initial point, I was just responding to what was in the article, and the point in the article was just that it is a point for mythicism because Jesus was depicted as a demigod.
Granted, but this need not be considered an absolute point, I do not assert “all demigods” or even “all mystery religion gods” are mythical, nor does one need to to make a point for mythicism. If *most* of those who fit the category are (even by a small margin, 51% let’s say) then we can deduce a high prior probability of mythicism. Not necessarily a high final probability (if you know a bit of Bayes’ theorem). Even establishing 10% of comparable figures to Jesus are mythical allows mythicism a decent enough prior probability to be considered at least.
After Zalmoxis’ reappearance, they were convinced that he hadn’t actually died – that’s not a resurrection. A resurrection (anastasis) as understood at the time requires dying and then returning to earthly, human life. If they thought Zalmoxis hadn’t actually died, they wouldn’t have considered it a resurrection.
Evidently, Aristeas made claims that his soul could leave his body whenever he wanted, this figure seems to fall more into the category of a “disappearing” figure. Herodotus reports that there was a citizen that vehemently denied the report that Aristeas had died, and when they went to find the body, he had vanished. But also though, does he really count as a god? Or just a miracle-worker?
” If *most* of those who fit the category are (even by a small margin, 51% let’s say) then we can deduce a high prior probability of mythicism” – the problem is then we also have to consider the fact that all early Christian authors *also* were adamant that Jesus was a human too. Just because the mythicist model proposes that this means a human in a supernatural realm doesn’t change the fact that **most of the time** when authors wrote about humans (even demi-gods figures or figures who eventually became exalted later) — their human existence was assumed to be on Earth. The myth side still has to show that there’s enough reason to think an early Jewish sect would have belief in a human in the heavens **and** show that there were any Christians at all who thought that about Jesus (which I don’t think they’ve done).
Regarding your assertion that human=on earth, it certainly is possible to theorize a mythical earthly Jesus (as the original article noted with the examples of other mythical messiahs). However, it is equally true that most angelic beings are thought to live in the sky. Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God details how Paul called Jesus an angel (Galatians 4:14) and it is clear that the ‘angel of Jesus Christ’ visiting John in Revelation *is* Jesus Christ (identified by the burns on his feet, signaling he is the son of man from the book of Daniel). Thus, there are two conflicting generalizations (is Jesus as ‘man’ to be thought earthly because most are or is Jesus as ‘angel’ to be thought celestial because most are?) with known exceptions on each end (Rev. 5:3 “And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book…”) means there were indeed men in heaven while it is also true angels could come down to earth. Likewise, Paul met a man once caught up to the third heaven and the Ascension of Isaiah (9:1) has Isaiah travel high into the sky before finally changing bodies in order to ascend higher.
“Evidently, Aristeas made claims that his soul could leave his body whenever he wanted, this figure seems to fall more into the category of a ’disappearing‘ figure.“
“They say that Aristeas, who was in birth inferior to none of the citizens, entered into a fuller’s shop in Proconnesos and there died; and the fuller closed his workshop and went away to report the matter to those who were related to the dead man.“ He died in the story, he is later seen alive (twice) and the shop where his body was laid is found empty. Ever heard of the five facts case for Jesus’ resurrection? I have a two facts case for the resurrection of Aristeas: (1) A story pericope about post-mortem appearances plus (2) A story pericope of an empty shop (body missing) is therefore a story about a resurrection. The poste mortem appearances can’t be mere visions or sightings of Aristaeus’ spirit or some such, because we’d then need a separate explanation for the empty shop.
At this point I return to Osiris with a quote from a scholar:
“J.Z. Smith admits that even in very ancient records Osiris is said to have been dismembered, reassembled by Isis like the Frankenstein Monster, and brought back to blood-circulating, breathing physical life. But for Smith, it doesn’t count as a resurrection! Why the hell not? Well, you see, Osiris did not resume his life on the earthly plane. He reigned henceforth in the realm of the dead. And this is not analogous to Jesus? In case Smith hadn’t noticed, the post-Easter Jesus did not take up fly-fishing in Galilee. Instead, he took the celestial omnibus to reign forever at the right hand of God in heaven as the judge of the dead. So, if we go by J.Z. Smith’s criteria, not even Jesus would qualify as a dying and rising god. But whatever the heck Osiris is, Jesus is another one.”
— Page 133, Bart Ehrman Interpreted: How One Radical New Testament Scholar Understands Another by Robert M. Price
https://a.co/6U4K5ZV
More on Osiris’ resurrection can be found here as well as in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus.
There is a hidden Jewish “dying and rising god”: Esther (effectively a euhemerized Ishtar with an adaptation of her death story), as documented especially by Neal at Gnostic Informant (21:30-40:00).
I really don’t agree with Price’s assessment here at all. Especially what he has to say at the end, because all accounts of the resurrection, even including Paul’s in 1 Corinth attest to Earthly appearances. The Christian authors even distinguish between Jesus’ *resurrection* (his return to human life) and his *exaltation* (when he was exalted to Heaven) because those were thought to be two distinct, different events. There were other Jewish figures who were thought to have been exalted to Heaven (Elijah, some even thought Moses was exalted as well) – but they were never understood to have been resurrected because they hadn’t returned to human life in their human body.
Returned to human life? Jesus lived up in the sky post-mortem. According to later gospel authors the resurrected Jesus was on earth for a time (though Paul does not quite specify this and his resurrection appearances might be no more than appearances from the sky a la the Book of Acts or Reveleation). This is exactly the nonsense Robert M. Price just refuted!
After Zalmoxis’ reappearance, they were convinced that he hadn’t actually died – that’s not a resurrection. A resurrection (anastasis) as understood at the time requires dying and then returning to earthly, human life.
I’d call attention to the source once again: “[Zalmoxis] taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their descendants would ever die, but that they would go to a place where they would live forever and have all good things.” What, precisely, was Zalmoxis talking about, that the Thracians would not die, but would instead go to a place of all good things? The place of all good things is the afterlife. As for not dying, it would have been blindingly obvious that in hundreds of years since Zalmoxis there were indeed Thracians dying. That’s what people do. So of course he was not saying that they would all never have a heart attack or succumb to disease (keep in mind this was true for “all their descendants” too). And someone disappearing and later reappearing hardly proves anything about living forever, unless the disappearance was thought a death. As the text says: “while the Thracians wished him back and mourned him for dead; then in the fourth year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what Salmoxis had told them. Such is the Greek story about him.“
That’s still not resurrection. Resurrection, anastasis as understood at the time, was a return to human life on Earth after a period of being dead. In all the texts of Romulus, Zalmoxis, Osiris, the word anastasis is not used, and in these cases people at the time would *not* have understood what happened to these individuals to have been a case of anastasis.
As it is though, Zalmoxis fits the mold of a disappearing and reappearing God based on the story as told by Herodotus (because the Thracians specifically did not believe that he died).
They did believe he died. The stuff in the earlier part of the passage about “we will not die” is the same as a Christian saying it today: they don’t mean “literally our bodies won’t undergo composition in due time,” they mean “because of the afterlife, it’ll be like we never die in the loss of awareness sense.” The thracians had a practice of sacraficing someone every several years to visit Zalmoxis and tell him the needs of the people, so of course they knew that they died (and recall, Zalmoxis promised no death for them or there descendants).
The idea that anastasis has to be used for it to be a resurrection is ludicrous and completely arbitrary, just the same as a murder is a murder whether they mob boss calls it that or ”snuffing someone out.” Resurrection is bodily return to life which Zalmoxis and Aristaeus were clearly thought to do.
How would it prove that the Thracians themselves and their descendants would “never die,” for Zalmoxis to disappear for a while and then turn back up? And if this leaving-and-coming-back-again was not about dying and being made alive again, how would that apply to the fates of the Thracians? Obviously they would undergo biological death, and did undergo biological death. So in what way were their fates the same as Zalmoxis?
The problem is all we really have to go on is what Herodotus says about this instance. What Herodotus *says* Thracians believed happened to Zalmoxis (that he disappeared for a while and then returned again) would *not* have constituted as a resurrection if the Thracians believed that Zalmoxis never actually died (which is what Herodotus says.
Resurrection means spending a period of time actually being dead. Greeks understood this as being in the shadowy existence of Hades. Jews understood this as being in Sheol (the Jewish realm of the dead).
It may be that the Thracians thought they would be instantaneously transported into another world where they would be with Zalmoxis – but that still would be a resurrection if it was thought that there was no period of time when the person was actually dead.
Herodotus says they mourned for him as dead, and years later they saw him and this confirmed (in their minds at least) his doctrine of immortality. I doubt if I go to Mexico for six weeks and come back it would prove life after death for anyone, so I simply don’t see any way out of this one. They believed he died and came back.
“It may be that the Thracians thought they would be instantaneously transported into another world where they would be with Zalmoxis – but that still wouldn’t be a resurrection if it was thought that there was no period of time when the person was actually dead.
This isn’t very different from the Christian after life, is it? You go to sheol, and, at least eventually, to your resurrection body in the sky after you die (2 Corinthians 5:1-5), which is confirmed by 2 Tim. 2:18’s warning about those who say the resurrection already took place (how could they unless it was a celestial event, unverifiable to people on earth?). The Thracians likewise believed Zalmoxis had been to the great beyond and back (if their fate is analogous with his, which is what Zalmoxis says) in other words, he’d died. In any case, he disappears, so he is not bodily present among them (his body must have gone into the afterworld/ sky /hades) and subsequently shows back up and in bodily form.
