Alisa Childers I Blog

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

3/26/2018

We are coming up on a time of year when the resurrection of a virgin-born child whose followers called the "Good Shepherd" and "Messiah" is celebrated. He had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself for the peace of the world. He was buried in a tomb only to rise from the dead three days later. His followers went on to celebrate his resurrection every year, and this celebration eventually became what we call "Easter."

Think I'm talking about Jesus?

Nope. I'm talking about Mithras.

This is a common claim that is made by skeptics all over popular media, the internet, and even in some universities. The only problem—it's simply not true. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was born out of solid rock (I guess it counts if the rock was a virgin?) His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but Christians already knew that wasn't the real date of Christ's birth. There is no evidence that he had twelve disciples, sacrificed himself for world peace, or that he was called "Good Shepherd" or "Messiah." Many mythological characters were thought to be miracle workers (so maybe they can have that one), but there is no evidence he ever even died—which makes his "resurrection" a wee bit of a dilemma.

Church Father Tertullian wrote about Mithraic believers acting out resurrection stories, but this was well after the time of the New Testament. So, if there are a couple of similarities between Jesus and Mithras, it could be that Mithraic believers copied the Christians....rather than the other way around.

Mithras isn't the only pagan myth that Christians are accused of copying. Although most scholars are agreed that no such "dying and rising gods" existed before Christ,* here are 5 reasons the resurrection of Jesus could NOT be a copycat. (These 5 points are my summary of this 5 part video series by Dr. Michael Licona.)

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

When I was a little girl I remember asking someone why there are thunder and lightning. I was jokingly told thunder meant either that God was clapping his hands or maybe the angels were bowling in heaven. In the ancient world, people would describe things like the change of seasons, drought, and rain in a similar way...to their children.

Imagine an ancient Egyptian little boy asking his mom why it hadn’t rained in a while. The mom might tell him the story of the storm god Ba’al who was swallowed by his brother Mot, the god of death and the underworld. When the mother of the two gods was able to convince Mot to let his brother go, it would rain again—thus explaining the cycle of rain.

Unlike pagan myths, which were annual events going back to the distant past, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time occurrence. It was reported as a recent event that happened within the lifetimes of the people who claimed to witness it—and it was not connected to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

First century Christians were constantly debating things related to the law. Should Jewish men maintain the temple purification rites? Should Gentile men be circumcised? Should Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols? These are the types of problems they took very seriously and went to great lengths to solve.

Bottom line—it's absurd to conclude that people who were pious Jews, debating things as particular as whether or not Jewish and Gentile believers should even eat together—would borrow from pagan myths to create their own.

3. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

During the course of human history, similarities in stories and parallels in experience are not going to be hard to find. For example, we are all familiar with a plane that took off from Massachusetts one morning and flew into one of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City between the 78th and 80th floors, killing everyone on the plane. You are probably thinking of the horrifying terrorist attack of 911 that forever changed our country. However, I'm actually referring to the B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building in 1945.

Although these two tragedies share some eerie similarities, there is no causal connection between them. Likewise, no causal connection has been shown between the resurrection of Jesus and pagan myths.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

Much like the Mithras example given above, most of the pagan parallels are not that persuasive, once we get past the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence. The most comparable pagan myth that preceded the life of Jesus might be the story of a demi-god named Asclepius. Even so, the only thing that is really similar is that he, like Jesus, was known to be a healer, and according to the myth, raised someone from the dead.

Most of the pagan comparisons rely on taking bits and pieces from different ancient myths and figures that pre-dated Jesus and combine them with some real people who post-dated Him. The lengths one must go to in order to piece together a composite figure of Jesus is a bit of a stretch, and frankly, just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn't cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

If you go to Barnes & Noble and take a look at the section for romance fiction, you will find cover after cover of helpless women trying to solve the biggest problem in their lives: which handsome and gallant hero will they choose? It's a tired formula that borders on the ridiculous—but just because tons of romance fiction is out there—it doesn't negate the idea that real romantic love exists.

The truth is that there are so many silly romantic novels because romance seems to be an insatiable desire of the human condition.

Life in the Roman Empire was brutal, with most people living in poverty, and given such a society, people were naturally looking for hope. They wanted to know that evil would be punished and goodness would be rewarded and that there would be life after death where justice would be done. Like the impetus behind modern romance fiction, this is a common desire of the human condition.

We should expect that stories would emerge that would satisfy this hope for immortality. This doesn't mean that Jesus actually rising from the dead is fictitious or impossible. If we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which we do), there's no reason to reject it simply because there may be some similarities in fictional stories.

This Easter, we don't celebrate Mithras or some other impotent figure of an ancient fairy tale. We celebrate the true and living Savior who conquered death and the grave to save us and reconcile us to God. I pray this post helps you confidently agree with the angel at Jesus' tomb by saying: He is risen!

* Lund University Professor and Biblical Scholar T. N. D. Mettinger wrote, "The consensus among modern scholars—nearly universal—is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century." (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

7 Comments

Audrey

3/26/2018 05:17:14 pm

Amen. Christ is risen. I love this post. Thank you so much for the work you are doing!

Bob Seidensticker link

3/28/2018 09:35:16 pm

That's always the response--yeah, but look at how the Jesus story was *different* than those other guys.

Sure, Jesus was different from Dionysus. Otherwise, we'd call him "Dionysus." But Dionysus still had a rising-from-the-dead story before Jesus, and that story would've been familiar in the Ancient Near East.

It's hard to see the Jesus resurrection arising from a culture suffused with resurrection stories from surrounding cultures and not see that cast considerable doubt. If the other guys' resurrections were myths, why not the one for Jesus?

Dan Jensen link

3/29/2018 08:19:31 pm

Hey Bob, what's up.

You are largely missing the methodological point. If there were little evidence for the Resurrection, then yes a lot of the arguments we make in regard to the similarities fall apart. But if we start out by showing the extremely strong evidence for the Resurrection, then when people offer objections these secondary arguments become a great deal stronger. The similarities really are very shallow, there is evidence that a lot of the pagan myths came after Christ even if the actual religion itself in its original form came before Christianity (a key point very often missed by many of our opponents), and the Old Testament does hint at the Resurrection and so many of the pagan myths may have been watered down and distorted versions of this teaching.

With all of that in mind, you cannot simply dismiss the extremely strong historical evidence with these distractions, you must address it head on.

Thanks!

3/30/2018 12:35:17 am

I’ve read (and written) much about the resurrection. Long story short, I find very little evidence for it. We can get into that if you want, or you can follow up by searching on my blog.

If resurrection stories after Jesus muddy the waters, don’t bring them up. (They’re relevant only to show that ANE cultures must’ve really liked resurrections for their gods, and there apparently was a lot of pressure for resurrections to creep into their stories . . . so perhaps Christians were susceptible, too?)

You’re left again with the damning situation of the Jesus resurrection story arising from a culture suffused with prior resurrection stories. The obvious default assumption is that the Jesus resurrection story was copied. Of course, we can study the claim that, no, the Jesus story was the only one that was the real deal, but understand the huge mountain you have to climb.

3/30/2018 03:32:28 pm

Hey Bob, I have been reading, researching, studying, teaching, and earning degrees in history and theology for almost 20 years and as part of that I've of course studied the evidence for the Resurrection a great deal as I have the information for all key points of Christianity and apologetics. Long story short, the evidence is there whether you choose to see it (you say find it, but I don't buy that) or not.

We don't bring up the stories as they are rather irrelevant to our faith, our opponents bring them up and so we have to answer them. The fact that the ANE was suffused with resurrection stories makes little difference. All religions and worldviews are suffused with morality and stories of gods coming to the world in physical form to help us. All that proves is that this is a longing we have and points to the fact that God put this longing within us and only Christ fulfills that longing. Alisa made this point very well. And again, copy cats have no bearing on the original and as was said the Hebrew conception of resurrection and the divine Messiah may precede all of these stories and the Hebrew original is only fulfilled in Christ.

I completely agree that we cannot prove the Resurrection as an incontrovertible fact from a purely historical vantage point (we can prove it on other grounds that include philosophical considerations). I have often debated with my Christian brothers and sisters in Christ who do not have a lot of background in history, historical analysis, and historiography, that they often make way too much of the evidence. They do not understand the extremely high burden of proof that is required for proving any historical phenomena as incontrovertible fact and on top of that how high the burden of proof is to prove a miracle of any kind, let alone the Resurrection, and especially as an incontrovertible fact. You are correct that this simply cannot be done for the Resurrection given the information that we have.

However, what we can do is prove that the evidence for the Resurrection far, far outweighs the non-existent evidence for these other stories and that the best and simplest explanation of the historical evidence for the Resurrection is in fact that Jesus was probably raised from the dead. Even here though I would agree that this does not prove the deity of Christ or the inspiration of Scripture or many other things that people try to extrapolate from that conclusion. But again, the best explanation for the evidence is that Jesus was probably raised from the dead and the only reason for denying this conclusion comes from philosophical presuppositions that I vehemently reject.

(To clarify, in case any of my fellow believers are confused when I say that Jesus was probably raised from the dead, I am not saying that I think the Resurrection is only probably true. I know based on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is the word of God and it unequivocally teaches the Resurrection and therefore I know that it is a fact. I am merely talking about from a purely historical standpoint when I say Jesus was probably raised from the dead.)

I am down to debate with you here, on my website, on your website, or in a formal debate if you would like. Thanks man.

3/30/2018 11:41:21 pm

Dan:

“Long story short, the evidence is there whether you choose to see it (you say find it, but I don't buy that) or not.”

Is the evidence there for you to become a Muslim or Scientologist? I find the evidence for Yahweh no more compelling.

“The fact that the ANE was suffused with resurrection stories makes little difference.”

Gotta disagree with you there. We know what invented religions look like. That Judaism and Christianity look like variations on other ANE religions suggests that they’re more of the same. I expand on this idea here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/why-christianity-looks-invented/

“I completely agree that we cannot prove the Resurrection as an incontrovertible fact from a purely historical vantage point”

I don’t demand proof, just a preponderance of evidence.

Could you convince me that leprechauns exist? With the right evidence, sure. The same may be true for the resurrection.

“However, what we can do is prove that the evidence for the Resurrection far, far outweighs the non-existent evidence for these other stories”

What other stories? You mean the swoon theory or the apostles-stole-the-body theory? I never appeal to them. I simply say that it’s legend.

We know how legends can get attached to stories. You’ve probably heard that Julius Caesar, as he sat at the edge of the Rubicon, wondering if he should take that big step, saw a divine messenger urging him to cross. Or that a Roman senator saw Caesar Augustus rise bodily into heaven on his death. How long does it take us to tentatively put these into the Legend/Mythology bin? I do the same for the resurrection of Jesus.

“I am down to debate with you here, on my website, on your website, or in a formal debate if you would like.”

I suggest you go to my site, pick a post that infuriates you, and write some comments. You’re also welcome to contact me directly (see the About page).

3/31/2018 12:21:00 pm

No there is no piece of evidence that could ever cause me to reject Christ. That would be the equivalent of saying is there any piece of evidence that could ever cause you to reject one of your children. Jesus Christ has revealed Himself to me. He doesn't choose to reveal Himself to everyone and so I fully understand that to those He has not chosen to reveal Himself to (or has not chosen to reveal Himself yet) will never understand where we are coming from and I am in no way asking you to understand that.

But that doesn't make me completely bias, although it certainly makes me bias to a large degree and I in no way try to deny that or hide that fact. I don't need the evidence for Christianity, but it is a massive boost to my faith and I am required by God in Scripture to point out that evidence when people say things against Him. Hence, I as a historian taking painstaking measures to look at any and all evidence as objectively as possible. When Christians make bad arguments I call them out on it. To whatever extent Scientology makes good arguments I would heartily accept them, the problem is they don't exist. Islam is categorically different than Scientology in its claims. If the evidence for Islam was stronger than it is for Christianity I would admit that, I'm not convinced that it is though, but either way it doesn't affect my faith.

For example, I am not a Roman Catholic, I will never ever become a Roman Catholic. I believe that many Catholics are saved, not fully understanding the teachings of their church, but I reject that religion. Most of the apparitions and so-called miracles are very weak as far as evidence supporting them. But the miracle of the sun at Fatima simply does not fall into that category. I am not saying something supernatural happened that day, but as of now no other better explanation exists for that event. As a Christian I would say that something demonic occurred that day. But there were way too many witnesses of too many varied backgrounds to dismiss the event and as of today no solid scientific explanation exists for the event.

That there are similarities between ANE religions and Judaism and Christianity cannot be denied, but the idea that they are just variations is laughable from a historical perspective. Judaism was fiercely monotheistic in a way that made it fundamentally different than ANE religions and that is one of the reasons they were so despised.

But there is a preponderance of evidence for the Resurrection, to simply dismiss it as legendary is to not deal with the evidence head on, not even close. And as a good historian, nothing should be off the table. If leprechauns exist, fine. That attitude is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about philosophical presuppositions that I reject. The supernatural should not be ruled out from the outset, nor should things that the majority in a culture currently find incredible or unseemly. People didn't think gorillas were real until bam they were discovered. We should not dismiss things such as alien sightings, bigfoot, etc., without first examining the evidence. I don't believe in those things, but that is largely due to theological considerations. Right now none of those things have been definitively established and most of the evidence is garbage, but some of the evidence is credible and must be dealt with on its own merits and not simply dismissed based on gratuitous philosophical starting points.

No, I meant the other resurrection stories. And maybe Caesar did see something. Again, if you are always going to assume the supernatural cannot be true, you're not going to get anywhere with me and that is not just because I passionately accept the supernatural as a Christian. As an objective historian I should not dismiss anything out of hand. Maybe Caesar had a hallucination, maybe it was demonic. As far as the Roman Senator, again maybe the same things occurred. I don't think so because that is one person and we don't know much about him. To compare one dude to the multiple witnesses concerning the Resurrection is a ridiculous comparison.

And infuriates me? Why do you guys always have to make the personal jabs. I always tell my kids that when they are witnessing to people to never make personal jabs unless it is big time warranted. When people do that it reflects the weakness of their position. Am I passionate about these things, sure. But what have I said that would remotely imply that I am infuriated by you?

I will check out your website next week and we can go from there. But I always find it interesting when people won't debate in person, I think that says a lot.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

Leave a Reply.