Is the story of Jesus pure myth - ref. The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur

Great Debates
1

My book club has been reviewing The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur. We are two thirds of the way through the book and so I feel I can finally bring a few issues to this forum to discuss.

Harpur claims that basically all of the stories found in the gospels about Jesus are really orignally stories found in Egyptian mythology - the virgin birth, 12 disciples and so on and so on.

On this point, I decided to do some reading up on Egyptian mythology and find it so complex that it’s difficult for me to confirm or deny his claims. Does anyone know enough about egyptian mythology to be able to discuss a comparison? Harpur admits the comparison is not direct but that many of the stories of Horus and Osiris parallel closely the stories told in the gospels - so much so that it cannot be a coincidence.

While there are many other things in the book that I more or less agree with - this is the one part I found difficult to engage with. I’ve always thought that there was some historical core to the story of Jesus.

Harpur claims that to read the new testament, and the old for that matter, as myth (a highly undervalued literary vehicle) is much more fulfilling than to read it as history. I’ve not reached that part of the book to know exactly what this means other than he means to say that the Christos/Christ/Divine Being is within us all - this being the true intended meaning of the story of Jesus.

Harpur claims to still be a christian but does not believe in a historical christ.

(Please keep in mind that there is much more to the book - but this is one aspect I’d like to discuss here.)

2

I’m no theological scholar, but I’d think the problem with the theory that Jesus was pure myth is that we have writings of people who were alive during his time and even knew him, as well as writings shortly after his death. I’d think this was way to soon to have the entire story made up out of whole clothe.

That said, I had a professor once who said that Jesus was the classic greek hero and fit the mold perfectly. Even the virgin birth and the way god came to Mary fits in nicely. So, my guess is that at its core there was a man…and that his actions, as well as perhaps those of others, was grafted on his legend. After that, I’m sure OTHER things were grafted on…be they Greek hero or Egyptian mythology. Christianity is rife with borrowing other peoples legends and myths and grafting them on after all…why not at the very beginning?

-XT

3

If you check out the first customer review on Amazon, you’ll see what seems to me a pretty damning critique on scholarly grounds. On further searching, this review seems to be taken from a slightly longer article. While his scholarship may be problematic, I do give Harpur points for going back to the ur-source of New Age religion (theosophy).

4

There’s a big difference between the idea that accounts of a figure are story or myth (which, it’s important to add, deals with narrative style rather than truth value) and the concept that the figure whom the accounts are about is purely fictitious.

For example, assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jesus of Luke is 100% historically accurate in portrayal. Every event, every bit of dialogue, happened just as recorded.

Where does this leave the Sermon on the Mount, over in Matthew? About 90% of it is reported as having been said in various other places throughout Luke. And, contrary to our English translations (any of them, AFAIK), Matthew does not claim that to be an accurate representation of what Jesus said on that day.

The verbs Matthew uses to introduce that, in 5:1-3, are in the imperfect not th e aorist. The proper rendering is something like “He was accustomed to teach them, in this manner…” And it’s fairly evident from comparing the two stories that Matthew has gathered pericopés of Jesus’s teaching into five major and several minor groups on the basis of subject matter.

In other words, those are, according to Matthew, things that Jesus was accustomed to teach, gathered together here to constitute a discourse on proper human behavior. And to recreate such a discourse was proper behavior for a Classical writer. Nobody took down verbatim accounts of oral discourse; the writer was expected to achieve something like verisimilitude by recreating it in terms somewhat similar to the content of the original, much like a modern English indirect quotation: “He said that he was…”

There are extensive instances where actions and miracles attributed to Jesus would call to mind instances from the Tanakh, particularly the stories of Elijah and Elisha and of Moses. They were no doubt written with the intent of calling the parallel story to mind.

Derived from Egyptian mythology? Debatable – the underlying message of Egyptian beliefs (which were on the decline at that time anyway) are quite different than the underlying message of Jesus.

You’ll find that if you investigate the fringe writings about Jesus, there will be a lot of attempts to attribute him and his teachings to something else. Every so often somebody shows up here absolutely amazed at the idea that Jesus learned all his stuff at a Tibetan lamasery. Well, in a word: No. Lama-istic Mahayana Buddhism has a few things to commend it, but influence on Jesus is not among them. His teachings focus on the intimate relationship of God and man and on the need for humane behavior of man towards man, carrying on a tradition dating back to the Torah, brought out in Isaiah and Micah among other prophets, and taught by rabbis in the years after the Tanakh’s contents were completed – Zev can perhaps note how much of Jesus’s teachings were also Hillel’s.

5

Harpur relies on some dubious scholarship as well as some pretty disingenuous connections with Egyptian mythology. Other claims (like that Horus was crucified between two thieves) are completely fabricated.

There is definitely some Egyptian influence on the OT and some Pagan influence on Christianity but the parallels are not nearly as close as Harpur claims and in some cases they don’t exist at all.

6

I’d like more information or a cite on that - my understanding is that there is no firm secular evidence found of his existence. And that the earliest christian papyrus writings were dated at about 130 c.e. Harpur has more compelling arguments in this vein than in the Egyptian mythology hypothesis.

And this is part of Harpur’s argument - the story of Christ follows such a typical hero story for the mythology of the time. If God were really to send a messanger/son whatever…wouldn’t it be a more original story rather than being so formulaic for its time? Many other arguments are given but that was a real common sense line that struck me as true.

7

One explanation for that advanced by the church (way back when, as I recall, like 400 bc) is that the prior myths were influenced by God to resemble the Jesus story, so that when Jesus came his story would resonate with the people. The myths would be a sort of almost-prophecy.

8

Thanks for the comment. After reading the first two chapters of the book this was my first action - found the articles you cite. However, I cannot summarily dismiss the concept on this basis. First off the writer of the critique is I think rather biased. And while he does rely on Massey and Kuhn there are many other references I found valid. I’m not wholly convinced of course or I wouldn’t have brought the topic here. But in the reading I’ve done on Egyptian mythology I have found some interesting similarities. I’ve not bought into it but think it’s worth investigation. Unfortunately I don’t know any egyptologists to interrogate.

9

Well, I could be completely wrong about this of course. As I said, I’m no biblical scholar. I’m thinking of things like the various letters and writings by some of the diciples. If I recall correctly they were writen down after his death, sometimes by a third party…but still long enough after his death to be madeup completely.

You seem to be asking two separate things here. One, was Jesus (the man) pure myth…i.e. was there never really anyone who we think of as Jesus, no core man at the heart of the myth. Secondly, was Jesus the Son of God. Those are separate issues. Your claim was that Jesus is pure myth…i.e. there never was a man at the core of the legend. THATS what I was responding too. I’m not getting into the whole ‘Jesus Son of God’ thing.

So, IF there were a man at the core of the legends and myths then certainly it makes sense that fragements of other peoples deeds could be grafted on him…and that fragements of legends and myths at his time could also be grafted on him. Doesn’t take away from the possibility that there was a man at the core though.

-XT

10

Have you read the book? While Harpur does make some sweeping statements that are utterly unbelieveable I did find that conceptually the theory is plausible. Particularly paired with other information provided in chapters 7 & 8. He particularly has an interesting view of Paul. Paul really doesn’t mention the gospels at all.

When I took an intro to bible course in university we covered off - what I thought was generally accepted in the mid to upper echelons of theologians that much of the penteteuch is mythology, and that the creation of the bible was really somewhat arbitrary…well the all knowing Cecil has already spoken on that subject and pretty juch jives with what I learned in my class.

It doesn’t seem to me that it’s a farther stretch to believe that Jesus may not have existed at all. I guess I’m finding the non-egyptian theories presented in the book pretty compelling. The egyptian origins is what’s causing the problems for me at the moment.

11

My understanding is that the Gospels weren’t written when Paul wrote.

That the story was embellished with common mythical components, to make it a hero story doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a historical Jesus, anymore than the Washington throwing a dollar across the Potomac means there wasn’t a Washington. As for me, the similarities between the NT story and Greek and Roman myth (the semi-divinity of the hero, for instance, the harrowing of Hell) suggests a more local influence of myth.

12

It would be a bit strong to say that Egypt is the source for the Jesus myths. But a syncretistic influence is likely, given Israel’s proximity to Egypt, even if its extent is hard to determine.

As to the historical existence of Jesus, I find it difficult to believe that someone who never existed could inpire so many nearly-contemporary books, of which the New Testament comprises only a few.

13

Not really, no. I mean, it all depends on what you accept as evidence I suppose.

Are there any first hand contemporary reports of Jesus’s existence?

No.

I’ve heard this idea put forth-based on the works of Paul (IIRC). It’s about a spiritual messiah. I’m not entirely certain I agree with it. You should pick up a book called “The Jesus Puzzle”.

I’ve heard of such people, but I have no direct experience with them. I suppose it’s possible.

14

Originally posted by Gaudere

Yes, but you see that is a rationalization. It can all be rationalized away. There is NO WAY a true believer could ever be convinced otherwise.

15

Yes.

The Gospels weren’t written until Paul was dead.

[quote]
When I took an intro to bible course in university we covered off - what I thought was generally accepted in the mid to upper echelons of theologians that much of the penteteuch is mythology, and that the creation of the bible was really somewhat arbitrary…well the all knowing Cecil has already spoken on that subject and pretty juch jives with what I learned in my class.[.quote]
I’m not sure if “arbitrary” is the correct word, nut yes, the Penteteuch is mythology and so are much of the Gospels.

Harpur’s reliance on sources like Kersey Graves is part of the problem. The parallels to pagan mythology are largely exaggerated or not found at all in the source material.

That’s not to say that there isn’t some pagan influence on Christian mythology, there certainly is, but Harpur goes overboard in his thesis that Jesus=Horus.

Leaving aside Pagan parallels and just focusing on the mythicist question in general, probably the strongest point the mythicist position has going for it is Paul’s seeming lack of knowledge of many of the historical claims made about Jesus in the Gospels. Of course Paul couldn’t have been aware of the Gospels themselves but Paul doen’t mention a number of key historical claims such as the Virgin Birth, any miracles besides the resurrection, any part of Jesus’ ministry or teaching, any details of the crucifixion or anything about the empty tomb. Paul does not even quote Jesus except for one highly liturgical reference to the Eucharist. Paul shows virtually no interest at all in the living Jesus and focuses almost exclusively on his cosmic vision of the risen “Christ.”

Mythicists take this as evidence that Christ started as a purely spiritual, symbolic entity and was later “historicized” in the Gospels with fictional biographies.

This is an argument from absence of course. Just because Paul didn’t talk about those things in those seven letters doesn’t mean he didn’t know about them. I actually find the lack of quotations by Jesus in Paul’s Epistles to be more telling than the lack of historical reference, especially since Paul often esposes similar messages and one would thing that a quote from Jesus himself would be a judicious way for Paul to make his point.

It still doesn’t mean that Jesus was completely mythical, though. The more common consensus in historical scholarship these days is that there was probably some sort of historical figure at the core of the Christian movement, that a sayings tradition can be traced back to those this figure (which is by no means everything attributed to Jesus in the gospels but only a small percentage of it), that he was crucified under Pilate and that the movement continued after his death. At this point mythology and legend enter into it but I think if you read much about this stuff you’ll find that the Gospels owe far more to the Tanakh as a literary source than pagan mythology.

16

biscuithead, while I haven’t read the book, the fact is that Harpur’s primary sources are not well-respected scholars in the fields of either Egyptology or comparative religion. The fact that passages can be pulled from The Book of the Dead and other ancient sources that seem, in isolation, to support his thesis is no more impressive than when Velikovsky or von Daniken did the same thing.

Bottom line, it just feels like yet another “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” conspiracy, with The Church suppressing true religion in a 2,000-year-old plot. If his thesis (or Kuhn’s, since he was there first) really had good evidence behind it, then real scholars (as opposed to ex-Anglican priests now writing books and newspaper columns) would be fighting over first publication rights to win tenure, speaking tours, etc.

17

Urm, in Greek myth, at least, there would have been more than an annunciation. Maybe some weird sex act with a goose. So, typical it’s not.

18

Here’s a pretty accessible comparison of the lives of Horus and Jesus. Ditto for Osiris and Jesus. Or you can read about other possible pagan links to Jesus.

19

As others have said, by collecting parallels you can “prove” that the Jesus story was stolen from egyptian myth, pagan mystery-cults, the life of Julius Caesar, etc.

However, there is a much closer linkage between the gospel stories of Jesus and a different source: the Old Testament (OT). NT scholars have shown how Mark’s story of the crucifixion, e.g., is basically built of snippets of the OT. The crowning, the whipping, the dice-rolling for his clothes, even his famous last words, are nearly direct quotes from the OT. Where in the NT is there anything like a direct quote from the myth of Horus?

Now, which is more likely, that early Christians, who after all were Jewish and living in a Jewish region and surrounded by Jewish culture, adopted Jewish traditions in telling the story of Jesus, or that they reached over and stole Egyptian ones?

This is not to say that the Jewish tradition itself was not influenced by Egyptian (and Persian, and Canaanite, and Greek) myth. Or that some of the stories about Jesus weren’t taken from those traditions. (Turning water into wine, for example, was probably borrowed from the Dionysus tradition.) But the closest and most direct influence was clearly Judaism. Anyone who ignores that fact is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

20

Oh thank you - I needed that laugh!