This page was found on an atheist web site.  All text in black was written by Paul Carlson. Although we have seen several atheist claiming authorship.   This version will be assumed written by Paul Carlson.   All green text was written by the creator of this refutation or from other sources.  It amazes me, how someone (on the surface) seems to know so much about biblical text, the Hebrew and Greek language, and biblical times.  Yet show consistently the huge level of misunderstanding associated with the Bible.  Mr. Carlson has obviously "read" the Bible.  Yet has read the Bible for discrepancies only.   It is a shame that Mr. Carlson does not seem to level the playing field (all atheist seem to do this. . .).  What is fine reasoning for atheist views and writings, is not applied to the Bible.  Please note  Mr. Carlson's attacks of his supposed contradictions includes one or more of the following.

1.  His so called conclusions are not conclusions at all.  Only his opinion, which I believe is due to mistakes from not understanding.  His opinions show that he does not understand the Bible.   However, this act of gaining the necessary understanding will never be achieved without God.

2.  Ninety percent of Mr. Carlson's questions (as with most atheist) are from the stand point:  "If I do not have absolute facts/physical proof; then it could not have happened".  With this type of questioning, it is very difficult to argue a point when neither he nor I was present when the events occurred.  Also keep in mind that we are discussing spiritual things.   Spiritual things cannot be understood by someone who is not in the least bit spiritual.

3.  Most of Mr. Carlson's question's deal with what I like to call "non-events".  Those things which do not make or break who Jesus Christ was.  This again  is due to not understanding and not being associated with God.

4.  I am not trying to be mean about this, however this article is on every atheist/pro evolutionist site on the web. Many people ask these questions and could possibly consider Mr. Carlson a source of knowledge.

    Please note that the answer to each question follows his question/comment.

For more information; see Atheist Common Errors

For More Information on Atheism, Evolution and Other Cults and Religions; visit the site 

"Deceived By The Light"

I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS

A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH

1. Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages."

2. Why genealogies of Joseph?

Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David.

Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.

The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David.

The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.

This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the "seed of David" through Mary.

Dueling Genealogies

By Dr. Henrietta Mears and Guy Cramer

Why are there two different genealogies for Jesus?
Part of the answer solves another prophecy.

For an general answer we can turn to the book "What The Bible Is All About" By Dr. Henrietta C. Mears, p.356-357, 396

The skeptic responds: The passage from Luke 3: 23-31 does not use the term begotten. Allowing your argument that this phrasing is used to indicate that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, I find it interesting that this entire passage does not use the term begotten all the way back to David and beyond.

Following your line of reasoning, these men were all son-in-laws and not sons to the previous generation. Considering that the Israelites did not trace lines of descent through matriarchal lines but through patriarchal lines this seems to be a very tenuous linkage at best.

The Genealogy Jigsaw Puzzle
By Guy Cramer

The original Greek in Luke 3:24 reads: being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat,... notice it does not say son of Heli... sure they could be son-in-laws and not sons but you must take note that it does not say son of Heli...

But if we look at the original Greek of Matthew 1:2 we read that Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob... so here we have a definite patriarchal line.

Matthew was written for the Jews so we have the patriarchal line listed in Matthew 1. Luke was written to the Greeks, a highly feminized culture in the first century so a matriarchal line is possible. Can we confirm that Matthew was written for the Jews? Often Matthew leaves Jewish phrases and customs unexplained, assuming that his readers are familiar with them. And where Luke would say "kingdom of God," Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven," out of respect for Jews, who never wrote out the word God.

Matthew 1:18-25 even states that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. So the genealogy he gives prior to this is only a legal line of decent.

Sons from Luke 3

Do we have proof that any of the Men listed in the Luke 3:23-38 are not son-in-laws?

First the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 shows in the original Greek that each man is the father of the next. The genealogy in Luke just says that the man "of" the next one all the way to Adam of God. But both genealogies lists the same 12 men from David to Abraham. Therefore, those passages in Luke 3:32-43 are showing the actual fathers and cannot be understood as son-in-laws.

Our question now shifts to the prior men in Luke 3:23-31 were they all son-in-laws?

As mentioned before, the split in genealogies happens with David's sons. Matthew lists the line of Solomon, Luke lists the line of Nathan.

In 2 Samuel 5:13-14 we read "...Also more sons and daughters were born to David. Now these are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,...

So we know that Nathan was David's son.

If we turn to Zechariah 12:12-14 we read in this Old Testament book a prophecy who will mourn for the Messiah when He is pierced:

"And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves.

It turns out that the pierced Messiah is not the only prophecy in these passages.

If we go back to the genealogy in Luke 3:26, 3:29, 3:31 we find all four of these same names in the proper order. This doesn't mean that the names are one immediately after the other, but If we look at the first two names in Zechariah David and Nathan we do find these are one after the other in Luke 3. The next name in Zechariah 12 is Levi. If we begin at David and then Nathan we have to skip 9 names until we run into Levi. If we skip ahead 17 more names from Levi we find Semei. The Hebrew name in Zechariah 12 is Shimei. This same Hebrew name in the Greek New Testament would be translated as Semei.

I asked James D. Price a Professor of Hebrew, if this was correct. His response: "The Greek language has no "sh" sound, and no letter for "sh". So both the Greek Septuagint and the Greek NT transliterate Hebrew "sh" with "s"." I also asked him, "Can the Hebrew name Shimei be understood as Semei?" His responded, "If you are talking about a Greek translation, yes."

So considering that the Israelites did not trace lines of descent through matriarchal lines but through patriarchal lines, if we look at Zechariah 12:12-14 we find that the author who is an Israelite traces this line through a patriarchal system from David to Shimei.

This only leaves us with 14 generations from Joseph to Semei (not 41 from Joseph to David) in which could have had been son-in-laws in the Luke 3 genealogy. There is no other data in the Bible on these remaining 14 generations to express a dogmatic view on the issue but the information from the prophecy of Zechariah seems to suggest that we should expect only one in the genealogy who is a son-in-law - Joseph.

Zechariah picked four names in correct order from the blood line of the Messiah 500 year before Jesus was born. Zechariah knew from other prophecies the Messiah was to come from the line of David. In 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 we find that David had at least 15 sons. So Zechariah correctly picked Nathan as the line in which the Messiah would come. He also correctly picked the names Levi and Shimei (Semei) to be part of that line in his prophecy. What are the odds?

The skeptic has his answer.

© Copyright 1997, Trinity Consulting, All Rights Reserved.

References:

1. Mears, Henrietta C.,"What The Bible Is All About",G/L Publications 1953,1954,1960,1966, p.356-357, 396

The Lineage Loophole

By Phil Luna

Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Jesus,
except for a little known exception to the rule.


In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary.   However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).

Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.

What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance!  Did Mary have any brothers?

By Guy Cramer

After reading the detailed information above, I asked Phil if he knew of any information on Mary's brothers. He cited numerous non-canonical works such as The Catholic Encyclopedia, the apocryphal book called, the Protoevangelium of James... tradition states that Mary had no brothers.

Curious, I went through the four gospels looking for any reference to collaborate Phil's references.

In John 19:25-27 we read:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw His Mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his home.

We see from this passage that Mary had a sister.

Jesus is not saying to His mother "Look at me on the cross" with the statement "Woman, behold your son!" Jesus is telling his mother that John (the only disciple at the cross) is going to care for her. Jesus also tells John that he must care for Mary.

We must acknowledge that Joseph (Jesus Father) has probably died since we see no references to Joseph after Jesus was 12 years old in Luke 2:41-52.

To understand why Jesus is telling John to care for Mary we must understand the Jewish culture at that time. When an woman with children was widowed she would move back with her father or brother. If her father had also died and there were no brothers then one of her sons might care for her.

In this case, Jesus was the eldest son of Mary and was possibly supporting her at this time. He passes the responsibility to John one of His disciples and not a son of Mary.

From the comments of Jesus we can extrapolate that Jesus was caring for Mary, which means that Mary had no brothers (at least none that were alive at this time). Taken with the extra-biblical literature that Mary had no brothers we can assume that she passed the first prerequisite that God had given as law (Num 27:8).

Now we see the reason for two different genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Not only do we see Joseph's line in Matthew 1 but also Mary's line in Luke 3. Both these genealogies show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe of Judah fulfilling the second requirement by Law (Num 36:6). So the reason for God placing two genealogies is to show that Jesus being of Virgin birth came from Mary's line which was not cursed as was Joseph's. Also to show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same line which was a legal necessity if Jesus was to claim Mary's line and not Joseph's cursed line.

We find that on the surface the Bible can be a simple enough to understand but the complexity we are discovering in which it was written is astonishing.

Phil Luna is an ordained Assemblies of God minister. He teaches a weekly Bible study verse by verse through the Bible. His favorite area of study is the Hebraic roots of Christianity.

© Copyright 1998, Phil Luna & Trinity Consulting, All Rights Reserved.

Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narration's of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to the above. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan.

Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David's throne?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph's physical descendants were qualified to sit on David's throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph's genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how Jesus avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David's throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Jesus' true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: 'the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David'. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful heir to David's throne.

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)

Return To Question

3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

The problem seems to be that you think everybody who wrote in the NT should mention every event over and over again.  Considering your statement "one would expect"; seems to me to be an opinion.  The four gospel's were not written at exactly the same time.  Please keep in mind that all four were written by different authors.  I'm sure one of the gospel writers probably read one of the other gospels prior to writing his own.  Is this a possibility?  Could it be that the gospel writers were trying not to be redundant?  Exclusion does not mean an event did not happen. Considering that 2 of the 4 gospels do mention the virgin birth.   If all four gospels contained exactly the same events, the same wording, no discrepancies (on the surface); then why have four different gospels?  If they were all exactly the same we would need only one.  There seems to be among atheist a consensus that if every writer does not mention every event that the event in question must be false.  If the atheist applied the same regulations to any secular historical event, we would have to dismiss 95 percent of all historical recordings as untrue and or unreliable.

4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.

a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).

b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).

c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).

d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).

To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

See The "Lineage Loophole"

B. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE

In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.

If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.

There is not a problem here.  If a supernatural event happened to you, what members of your family would believe you?  Especially considering you had no physical proof.  I doubt too many would/could believe you.  However this is speculation that the "entire family" felt this way. You are grouping the entire family in this statement.   Obviously someone in his family believed Jesus.    what about Mary?   Joseph is not mentioned after the trip by Jesus at twelve.  This is basically a non event.  I suppose that if the Gospel writers would have written every single detail then possibly we would know the day and hour, shoe sizes etc...

C. THE DATE

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

***Note:  This question was answered using another question's answer.  The reason is obvious as you continue reading. The question portion is in Bold***

Quirinius, the governor of Syria whom Luke's Gospel mentions, is known from a careful history of affairs in Judea which was compiled by Josephus, an educated Jew, writing in Greek at Rome between c. 75 and c. 80. Josephus had his own prejudices and areas of interest, but he worked with a framework of hard facts which were freely available for checking and which he had collected responsibly. According to Josephus, Quirinius was governor of Syria with authority over Judea in AD 6, when the province was brought under direct Roman control. The year was a critical moment in Jewish history, as important to its province as the 1972 to Northern Ireland, the start of direct rule. On such a fact, at such a moment, Josephus and his sources cannot be brushed aside. There is however, an awkward problem. Luke's Gospel links Jesus' birth with Quirinius

I may have a problem with the word 'with' but keep going....

and with King Herod, but in AD 6 Herod had long disappeared. He had died soon after an eclipse of the moon which is dated by astronomers to 12-13 March 4 BC, although a minority of scholars have argued for 5 BC instead.

So far, so good....

The Gospel, therefore, assumes that Quirinius and King Herod were contemporaries, when they were separated by ten years or more.

I assume you mean contemporaries in office--they were certainly contemporaries in life...Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.

There is no doubt about the Herod in question. When the great King Herod died, his kingdom was split between his sons, two of whom did add Herod to their names. Herod Antipas locally in Galilee as a tetrarch until 39, but Luke 1:5 connects the Annunciation with Herod `king of Judea':

This is correct...the Annunciation occurred around the census point, under King Herod--the reference in 1.5 is correct...so why did you use the word 'but'? Did you think the annunciation was under Antipas? King Herod (I) was 'king of Judea' but was also 'king of Galilee'..the terms would not have been understood as restrictive (king of 'only') BEFORE the kingdom divided...

When he refers to Herod Antipas at 3:1, he correctly calls him tetrarch, not king. Herod Archelaus ruled Judea until AD 6, but only as an ethnarch: like Matthew 2:22, Luke might have misdescribed him as king, but, like Matthew, he would have called him Archelaus or Herod Archelaus.

You have confused something here. Both Luke 1.5 and 2.2 BOTH refer to King Herod the Great...3.1 refers to Antipas...no problem so far

At 1:5 the Herod must be the great King Herod, just as Matthew's Gospel describes. In Matthew the Nativity coincides with the great Herod, Massacre of the Innocents, whose death is a reason for the return from the Flight into Egypt.

Correct.

Luke's Gospel, therefore, assumes that King Herod and the governor Quirinius were contemporaries, but they were separated by over ten years or more. The incoherent dating is only the start of the problem.

I think I already explained this above.

Also, it is worth noting that we have a MS that describes a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' TWICE during this timeframe.

There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."  

The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.  

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

Luke's Nativity story hinges on its `decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.' `Caesar Augustus' was the Roman Emperor, but if the Nativity took place in the reign of the King Herod the Great, the Jews were still Herod's subjects, members of a client kingdom, not a province under direct Roman rule.

You are somewhat mistaken here. It is true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until 6 AD, but the facts prior to that indicate much tighter authority and control than your statement might lead one to believe. Rome did a military conquest before Herod the Great was even born. Pompey attacked Jerusalem and even invaded the Temple. was made a tributary (read: PAID TRIBUTE$) to Rome until Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt around 48 BC. Herod the Great's dad had aided Caesar in that endeavor and so won the favor of Julius Caesar (and with it a procuratorship of, plus Roman citizenship and exemption from taxes.) Then in 47 BC, the daddy Herod appointed the son Herod to be governor of Galilee...still completely under Roman rule. He still had to be appointed tetrarch by Antony-- still a thrall, eh?!. He was also proclaimed 'king' by the Roman leaders (Octavius and Antony) in 40 bc--but he had to re-conquer the land from the Parthians, which he did in 37bc. As a 'client kingdom', they were still under the authority of Rome (all of the rulers, for example, were appointed--including ALL the Herods--and ratified by Rome.)

Actually, when I keep reading your paragraph, it sounds like you are calling Luke mistaken in referring to Rome as 'driving the issue' of the census. He is INDEED making that point, but HE is correct in that...The client-kings WERE still subject to Roman enrollment decrees. [see Blaiklock, The Century of the New Testament,(1962) and The Archeology of the New Testament (1970)]

The status of client-kings in the Roman Empire left them responsibility for their subjects' taxation.

Not decision-making authority--they couldn't say 'no', but local execution of the enrollment process-"yes".

Relations between the Emperor Augustus and King Herod had often been stormy and had even led to threats of Roman interference which Herod and his envoys had to avert. However, their conflicts never caused the removal of Herod's royal status, although this was the only way in which his kingdom could have been taxed on the Roman model in accordance with orders from the Roman Emperor. It is not just that Herod the Great never coincided with Quirinius the governor: he never coincided with a Roman taxing of."

The relationship between Augustus and King Herod had its ups and downs, indeed, but the argument that his Roman-granted title of king meant that his nation was exempt from taxes/tribute/census is just flat wrong. As I hinted at up above, it had become a tribute-paying tributary since its conquest by Pompey LONG BEFORE King Herod gets his title! (more below on this).

Augustus never issued a decree to tax the whole world.

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, p. 29.

"It is even doubtful if the Emperor Augustus ever issued a decree to Rome's provinces that `all the world should be taxed.' Certainly, Romans did take censuses in individual provinces which were ruled directly by their governors. They were not, however, co-ordinated by an order from Augustus to all the world, at least so far as our evidence goes.

Read: argument from silence! (see below the points from Historian's Fallacies)

As that evidence extends through histories, local inscriptions and the papyrus returns of tax-payers in Egypt, it is immensely unlikely that a new edict of such consequence has escaped our knowledge.

Who are you trying to kid? You and I are looking at the same sources, no doubt, and there are HUGE, HUGE, HUGE gaps in the records! 'immensely unlikely'?!

In AD 6 we do know that Augustus was enacting a new tax on inheritance to help pay for his armies;

BTW, the taxation to support his army, is the main reason it is believed that Quirinius assisted in the taxing of 8-5 BC...his extended military maneuvers on the Pisidian highlands (dating from around 12 BC) would have required additional financing...

however, the tax affected only Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth, and there was no need for a worldwide census to register their names.

Remember, the census in AD 6 is NOT the one of Luke 2.2 (of 8-6 BC.)...but the census of AD 6 DID hit the Jews pretty heavily...at least 600 talents as a nation acc. to Josephus (Antiq. 17.320; Jewish War 2.97--cited in Jeremias' Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus: An investigation into the economic and social conditions during the New Testament period,Fortress: 1969). As a national tax, it DID effect the Jewish folk--loads like this are ALWAYS 'distributed to the people'(!) in addition to the already oppressive tax structure of the Herods...

And Luke does NOT place the 'worldwide census' at the time of the AD 6 tax...but rather puts it some time BEFORE the Syrian-based one in 7-5 BC...

But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [CKC:89-90] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this:

" A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. is the coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."

What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!)

In Judea under Quirinius, we know from Josephus's histories of something more appropriate, not a worldwide decree but a local census in AD 6 to assess Judea when the province passed from rule by Herod's family to direct rule by Rome. Although this census was local, it caused a notorious outcry, not least because some of the Jews argued that the innovation was contrary to scripture and the will of God. According to the third Gospel, the census which took Joseph to Bethlehem was `the first while Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

I have already pointed out that 'first while' is probably a mistranslation of the text -- 'before' is more in line with koine idiom (see the reference of N. Turner, above)

Quirinius's census was indeed the first, but it belonged in AD 6 when King Herod, the story's other marker, was long since dead."

A couple of concluding points:

•That Augustus MIGHT HAVE issued a world-wide census decree (a record of which is only preserved in Luke's gospel) is ALTOGETHER reasonable and plausible. The data about Augustus' 'propensity' to count and tax is well known. For example, he documents, in his own records, how he counted the Roman nation some three times (Res Gestae Divi Augusti , 8--from Roman Civilization--SourceBook II: the Empire, eds. Lewis and Reinhold, p 12)., and increasingly levied detailed taxes throughout his reign--with the attendant increase in bribery and vice (see Gibbons' Rise and Fall). As vain as he was, it would not be surprising at all for this to have occurred.

•It was also customary for the Roman empire to take a census when there was a change of local government (e.g. when Archelaus was deposed in AD 6, one of Quirinius' first tasks was to liquidate his estate and hold a census to determine the tribute load.) The implication of this pattern for our discussion is that when Varus became governor of Syria in 7 BC, one of his first acts would have been to take a census (the one which would have produced the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Joseph/Mary.)

•We KNOW Augustus instituted a 14-year census-cycle for EGYPT in 10/9 BC...(SourceBook II, above, p. 388)...Not only does this give us more confirmation that Augustus was a "countin' sorta guy'" but it may reflect a local execution of a 'worldwide decree' of Augustus.

•To assert that Augustus did not make such a decree is an affirmative historical statement. And, "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.).

•And to argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though). Hacket again:

"evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object [read: "worldwide decree"-gmm] is established not by nonexistent evidence [read: "we can't find the decree so far"-gmm] but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist [e.g. a document that says it did not happen--gmm]" (above, p62)

•And, in spite of the above methodological and background problems, we DO HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an empire-wide Augustian registration--literary, archeological, iconographic.

•To summarize this section on the 'the missing census of 7/5 BC': I HAVE affirmative evidence and good arguments for such a census--  

•Luke, a very, very, very reliable historian SAYS SO! •Augustus was this 'type of person' with repeated, known actions along this line.

•These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel--a situation that obtained in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.

•Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, in roughly the same time (i.e. Egypt 10/9 BC). •There is not a scrap of contrary data.

•Quirinius' participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.

•We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date.

D. THE PLACE

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).

Micah 5:2   But as for you Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel.  His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.

Matthew 2:6  And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;  For out of you shall come a ruler, who will shepherd my people of Israel.

Where is the poor Hebrew shown?  Yes it is worded different.  This does not even suggest that Matthew has a poor understanding of the Hebrew language.  This quote (Matthew 2:6) says the same thing as Micah 5:2.  Another example of Biblical misunderstanding.

Luke 2:4 does not contradict Matthew 2:21-23.   One passage records a single event; the other passage quotes a single event (the same event) and a historical fact.  If a passage does not include ALL events; does not mean that it is to be dismissed.

 For those who read Jerry McCoy's column (March 27) in which he referred to scholars as doubting that Roman officials would have had everyone returning to their homes for a census at the time of Jesus' birth, and also questioning that Quirinius was governor of Syria at that time, please be aware of the following contrary information: Conservative Bible scholars report discovering a letter to a Roman officer that explains that it was necessary that a census be taken, in part so that landowners could renew their claims to land that they tilled, and additionally, conservative Bible scholars point out that the probable date of Jesus' birth (6 B.C.) was in the cycle of census. (From the Peoria Journal.)

Another Roman Document

The Roman Census

A Public Notice A.D. 104

Gaius Vibius, Chief prefect of Egypt. In view of the approaching census, it is necessary for all those residing for any cause away from their own districts, to prepare to return at once to their own areas of administration, in order that they may meet the family obligation of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may remain in legal possession. Knowing that your district has need of food supplies, I desire..._{document becomes unreadable} 

Example of a Census Document

A.D. 48 The Fourth Census Required by Rome

To Dorian chief magistrate and to Didymus town clerk, from Thermoutharion, the daughter of Thoonis, with her guardian Apollonious the son of Sotades. The inhabinats of the house belonging to me in the South Lane are: Theremoutharian a free woman of the aforesaid Sotades, about 65 years of age, of medium height, with honey-colored complexion, having a long face and a scar on the right knee _{unreadable line in the document}

I, the aforesaid Thermoutharion, with my guardian the said Apollonious, swear by Tiberious Claudius Caesar Emperor, that I have assuredly, honestly and truthfully presented the preceding return of those living with me, neither a stranger, Alexandrian, nor freedman, nor Roman, nor Egyptian, except the aforesaid. If I am swearing truly may it be well with me, if falsely the opposite.

 
Comments by witJa

Although the following public notice was in Egypt and of the 8th Roman census. This same type of notice was probably found through out the Roman Empire. Possibly the same type of notice was read by Joseph and Mary 100 years earlier.

Other such documents exist as well as documents stating the birth of children. The Roman Census was done every 14 years the two documents stated here A.D. 48 and A.D. 104 fall within the 14 year span from the year that Jesus was born.

THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS
The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5

Ronald Marchant
Feasterville, Pennsylvania

ABSTRACT

Critics have objected to every statement of fact in the census account of Luke 2:1-5. Here the critical view is analyzed with special attention to Quirinius' association with this census. A false correlation by critics between Luke's narrative and a later census described by Josephus seems to be the error involved. Although as yet no independent confirmation of Luke's census has turned up, similar events from the same period and locale substantiate every statement of his account.

THE PROBLEM SKETCHED

Luke's account of the setting of Christ's birth has often been criticized by those who would charge the Scripture with error. Unlike other passages of the Gospels which have scarcely any material which allows firm correlations with secular history (thus proving, for the critics, that the writers of the Gospels had no concern for, nor sense of, history), this section has abundant chronological and political content. It firmly roots the story of Christ's birth in the context of the worldwide administration of Roman government and shows how God uses unwitting and unwilling men to bring about His purposes.

To some, however, the chronological exactness of the narrative invites rigorous questioning and skeptical contempt. Perhaps for them their theory of the composition and significance of the Scripture is better served by having certain "stock contradictions" between Biblical history and secular history or between different Scripture writers who describe the same events. Whatever their reasons, it is a matter of fact that scholars have called into question every statement of fact in the first five verses of Luke's second chapter. Indeed, if these doubts and accusations are warranted, then the trustworthiness of Luke and his Gospel is severely compromised.

Let us look briefly at the issues involved in this case and try to see what is known about the events Luke describes as well as other historical parallels. In addition we shall try to identify assumptions that are made about the text both by its supporters and opponents.

The Decree of Augustus

It is doubted that there was any decree made by Augustus to "enroll the inhabited earth." No evidence for such an order is known.

The Census while Quirinius was Governor of Syria

The Greek text indicates that the census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. A chronological conflict is alleged as follows:

Matt. 2:1 places the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod the Great who, according to Josephus, died in 4 BC.

Luke 2:2 places the trip of Joseph and Mary during the governorship of Quirinius, giving the census as the occasion for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

Josephus (Antiquities 15.1.1) tells us of Quirinius being made ruler of Syria and coming to take a census of the Jews after the dismissal of Archelaus as ruler of Judea in AD 6.

Thus, taking Josephus as the standard, there is a difference of ten years between the dates given by Matthew (prior to 4 BC) and Luke (after AD 6) for the birth of Christ. Further confusion occurs when the evidence of the church father Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.19) is admitted. He claims that the birth of Christ was recorded in the census of Sentius Saturninus, governor of Syria. With these conflicting sources the synchronism of the Biblical writers is alleged to be in serious contradiction.

Return to Parental City

There is no precedent for such a return to the city of one's parents in an enrolment for purposes of taxing property. This would have an effect counter to the Roman goal of replacing nationalistic and local patriotism with loyalty to the Empire. Here the critics see a contrivance to provide a Bethlehem birth for Jesus (as required by prophecy) when his parents are natives of Nazareth.

Presence of Mary in Bethlehem

There was no need for Mary to accompany Joseph to be enrolled, since such measures would require the heads of households only.

Roman Census in a Client Kingdom

If Luke 2 is not identified with Josephus' account of the census of AD 6, then it would force a census on the kingdom of Herod. This is felt to be unlikely. On the other hand, if Luke and Josephus correctly speak of the same event, then the problem is shifted to Matthew's credibility. However, Luke must then be wrong to connect Jesus' birth with John's (1:5, 24, 26; 3:1).

Thus on every statement of fact in Luke 2:1-5, objections have been raised regarding its probability or verity. If the critical view is accepted, this seemingly historical account is only an attempt to cover up the writer's lack of definite knowledge of the facts (if there were any) which he is relating.

Is this really a fair view of the historical reliability of this passage? Let us see.

THE PARALLELS

Our knowledge of ancient history, although continually expanding, is nonetheless partial and, in places, almost nil. In general, historians are aware of the limited knowledge they have of any given event in history and of the possibility that some events are recorded in only a single remaining source. Thus if we are adamant in demanding multiple-source confirmation of any given fact, we will suffer by having fewer facts in our fund of admissible knowledge.

Our situation in assessing Luke 2 will depend, therefore, on an examination of a number of available historical parallels, keeping in mind our fragmentary knowledge of detail for the events we are studying. Let us look in turn at each of the points mentioned in sketching the problem above.

The Decree of Augustus

It is true that we do not have an official decree¹ from Augustan times ordering that all the people of the "inhabited world" be enrolled at a census. We must understand the motivation for the census as stemming from the administrative reorganization that occurred as Augustus built the Empire on the ruins of the Republic. Having consolidated his power after disposing of the other contenders for sole leadership in the wake of Julius Caesar's assassination, Augustus used this power to refashion the whole machinery of the Roman administration. He began this process by restoring economic stability to the war-weary society so as to generate the funds necessary to maintain the new imperial civil service and the large standing army for their peace-time roles of occupation and maintenance of order. To raise the needed revenue he devised the strategy of causing

the gradual disappearance of the tax-farming companies who levied the direct and indirect taxes. Their place was taken by the imperial officials or procurators, who were employed in the Emperor's name in all the provinces, both imperial and senatorial. These men, except those filling the highest positions, were almost all either imperial slaves or imperial freedmen. They had offices for collecting the taxes in the chief town of the province and branch offices elsewhere; and all the threads of this network of finance were gathered up in the personal treasury of the Emperor at Rome. Thus the financial administration of the Empire was gradually converted into an elaborate bureaucratic machine, governed from the centre by the Emperors.2

To allow for an accurate assessment and collection of the new taxes on both citizens and provincials a new procedure was devised and carried out.

A preparatory step in this direction was a general census of property owned in the provinces; this was started by Augustus and admirably carried out in Gaul by his stepson Drusus; and perhaps the same thing was done in Galatia, Syria and Palestine, the newly annexed provinces in the East.3

Rostovzeff is writing about the broad outlines of Imperial policy, not dealing with particular applications, but he acknowledges the possibility of such an occurrence in "Galatia, Syria and Palestine." In fact we have documentary evidence of such censuses carried out at this time in Egypt, Lebanon and Nabatea, to mention several other locations in the East. As in all the reforms which Augustus introduced, he was flexible to the utmost and made use of existing institutions and customs wherever possible. This pragmatic approach remained a characteristic of the Empire's method of dealing with existing cultures whenever they came to rule them and to integrate them into the overall fabric of the worldwide system they were weaving.

These censuses were seen by many provincials as intrusions. They were resisted to the point of bloodshed in Gaul (requiring forty years to complete!)⁴ and in Judea (Judas' rebellion of AD 6).⁵ In areas previously subject to severe regulation, however (e.g., Egypt), there was no such resistance. As each new area was added to the Roman territory this painful process was repeated.

It is true that we do not have any copy of an order from Augustus to the effect that a worldwide census was to be held at some given time. However, the knowledge that we do have of the initiatives of Augustus in centralizing and bureaucratizing the Roman administration of the Empire allows us to see how the census mentioned by Luke fits into the wider scheme of the regulation and taxation of the whole. The census was carried out by the legatus of that area. If necessary, military force was used. The census was an important and obligatory feature of Roman rule in every province. That Luke mentions the census in Judea that was the occasion of the birth of Christ is rather to his credit than to his fault.

The "Governorship" of Quirinius

Since the crux of the chronological problem is the matter of Quirinius' association with this census, most of our discussion will be concentrated here. Let us begin by noting that the phrase in the KJV "when ... was governor" translates the present active participle of the verb hegemoneuw. The sense of the word is "while ... was ruling." The reading of the KJV is perfectly acceptable, though it may make us Americans think of the position or office titled "governor," whereas the Greek is really less specific than that. The New Translation of the Bible renders it "when ... had the government." In fact, the Greek word denotes rulership or leadership in general. In Luke 3:1 the word appears twice, first in noun form referring to the emperor Tiberius' reign, then as a verb for Pontius Pilate's rule in Judea. Thus the one speaks of the superior to the governor of Syria, the other of his subordinate. Thus, although the word can mean "governor" in the technical sense, this is not necessary. To avoid confusion here, our text is better translated "while ... was ruling."

In the second verse there is another difficult word, protos, which the KJV translates adverbially as "first." This Greek word is a superlative adjective normally translated "first." It can refer either to (1) the first item of several things, or (2) the first of two things. Many have stated their misgivings over the lack or an object to which the comparison refers. The KJV treats the word as an adverb: "this taxing was first made when..." Others have suggested another adverbial rendering. They take the adverb to apply to the participle discussed in the previous paragraph and obtain: "this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria."⁶ This latter suggestion would allow us to place the census in the time of Herod regardless of the time of Quirinius' rulership in Syria.

Sir William Ramsay has said of this latter solution that it overlooks the obvious meaning of the words.⁷? He suggests that the simplest rendering be adopted -- "this was the first census while Quirinius was ruling Syria" -- and that our historical understanding be worked out on this basis. His suggestion, fitting the Classical meaning of protos, is that Luke is speaking of the first census of a series. Equally possible is the similar translation using the meaning of protos which came into vogue in Hellenistic Greek (the Greek of the N.T. period), namely: "this was the first census (of two) while Quirinius was ruling Syria." The essential meaning is the same as Ramsay's, but Luke would not necessarily imply there was an extended series of censuses following this one. It would serve primarily to distinguish the census which occasioned the birth of Christ from a later one which occurred while Quirinius was still (or again) ruling Syria. If this is the case, then we can see how Josephus might speak of the second census with which Quirinius was associated in Judea, whereas Luke correctly identifies the earlier census as that which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Luke does in fact mention this second census in Acts 5:37, noting that it was opposed by Jewish rebels, fitting well with Josephus' description. We thus have good reason for rejecting the notion that Luke wrongly places the AD 6 census mentioned by Josephus before 4 BC as some critics have alleged.

Turning now to the "governorship" of Quirinius, we must ask the question: if Luke 2:2 is translated "this was the first census while Quirinius was ruling Syria," is it possible that Quirinius was ruling Syria at some time before the death of Herod the Great (before 4 BC)? The only known dates for Quirinius as governor of Syria are AD 6-7. However, an interesting possibility has been suggested by an inscription called the "Lapis Tiburtinus," a tombstone which records the achievements of an Augustan army officer. (See Appendix for text of inscription). The key phrase translates as "pro praetor of Syria twice."⁸ Unfortunately the stone is broken in such a way that the name of the officer is missing. There is no one of the governors of Syria whom we know to have been appointed twice to that office. William Ramsay thought the inscription referred to Quirinius.⁹ Sherwin-White does not.¹⁰ If it was Ouirinius who twice served as legatus or pro praetor of Syria, then the earlier term of office might well fit with the "first census" mentioned in Luke 2. However, the only certain gap in the line of the governors of Syria occurs between P. Quinctilius Varus (6-4 BC) and C. Caesar (1 BC - AD 4). This gap probably falls just after the death of Herod the Great, therefore too late to synchronize with the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. Unless some new information is found which allows for or proves that this gap falls within the lifetime of Herod, the evidence of the "Lapis Tiburtinus" will not materially affect the question of the historicity of Luke 2.

Summarizing so far, we have seen that the verb used in Luke 2:2 means "to rule" (including "to command") and that Luke distinguishes this census from one or more later ones by calling it the "first census." We have not yet seen how we can best understand this verse in its historical background.

The political control of Syria and the East was a major objective of Roman policy. Even prior to the Empire the Romans deemed it wise to have a supreme commander in the East. Pompey and later Mark Antony were two such. In 23 BC Augustus named M. Agrippa the vice-emperor of the Orient.¹¹ His extraordinary authority is noted by Josephus (Antiquities 15.10.2): "Now Agrippa was about this time sent to succeed Caesar in the government of the countries beyond the lonian Sea." Agrippa held this post for ten years, even though he ruled in absentia through messengers part of this time. Agrippa died in March of 12 BC. Curiously enough, in August of that year Quirinius was released by Augustus from his duties as consul even though he still had four months to serve. We have no further information from antiquity as to Quirinius' next assignment, but we do know that sometime between 12 and 6 BC he successfully commanded the Roman army in a campaign against the Homonadensian tribe in the Taurus Mountains of Cilicia. Since the only Roman legion based in the whole of Asia belonged to Syria,¹² and since the area to be conquered was contiguous to Syria, it is reasonable to think that Quirinius was placed in command of this Syrian legion and was given responsibility for overseeing the entire region in the effort to pacify the Homonadensians. If this is the path which Quirinius followed, it is possible to see his whole career in the East not simply as a series of isolated events, but as different functions of his overall command of the whole area. (See inscriptions in Appendix.)

How, then, do we understand the succession of the regular governors of Syria? Normally we would expect the governor to be the supreme commander in the area, the direct representative of the Emperor, the head of both civil and military affairs. This would leave no room for either an extraordinary commander over the whole region on the one hand, or else for a governor of Syria on the other, providing we understand the office of governor in its usual sense. The solution, it appears, lies in realizing that the office of governor of Syria was much less strictly defined than we might expect. If we can rely on Josephus' account (Antiquities 16.9.1) regarding the Roman government of Syria, he reports that during Herod's reign there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, the "officers of Caesar" (Greek Kaisaros hegemosi). Apparently the responsibilities of the office were very great and required an assistant to help with everyday affairs. Whether Voulmnius was co-equal with Saturninus or only his chief assistant, the passage still indicates that more than one person could be "governors" or "leaders of Syria" (twn Surias epistatountwn). The implication of these facts is that, at least during the period with which we are concerned, we cannot confine our conclusions about who was "ruling Syria" to the list of provincial governors which scholars have compiled. The objection that Quirinius was not governor (or legatus) of Syria until AD 6, and that therefore Luke is in error, thus falls to the ground.

Furthermore, based on our understanding of the irregular nature of Roman administration of the province, it appears highly likely that Quirinius was exercising an important command in the area of Syria from about 12 BC until 6 BC at least and possibly until AD 9 or even later. Like Agrippa before him, this may not have required his constant presence but would have made it imperative from him personally to oversee the more sensitive matters like the Homonadensian war, the census after Archelaus' banishment in AD 6, and very possibly the census mentioned in Luke 2.

We have some interesting epigraphic evidence which confirms our ideas about Quirinius' work and influence in the area. Two inscriptions have been found in the Roman garrison colony at Pisidian Antioch which record the fact that Quirinius was elected duumvir by the citizens. This was really an honorary appointment which Quirinius accepted and then assigned a local citizen to act as his praefect. There is also another inscription (found in Italy) which corroborates Quirinius' work of census-taking in the area north of Palestine. The "Lapis Venetus" is a tombstone inscription which summarizes the career of an army officer who served under Ouirinius. The relevant part reads: "On command of Quirinius I have carried out the census of Apamea, a city-state of one hundred and seventeen thousand citizens ..."¹³

As a final consideration on the question of the governorship of Quirinius, let us take note of a tradition which is preserved by Tertullian. In Against Marcion 4.19 he states that the census of Luke 2 was "taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus." Luke, however, says that the census occurred "while Quirinius was ruling Syria." Neither passage requires that the man named was personally in charge of the census-taking. Each uses his rulership as a reference point for dating the event. It may well be that Saturninus was legatus of Syria and was responsible for the earlier census in Herod's kingdom (his dates as governor are 9-6 BC) as part or his jurisdiction over civil and administrative affairs. If Quirinius was in charge of the military affairs of Syria at the time, then he would be called in if there were any need for enforcement, as was necessary in the Apamean census and the Judean census of AD 6. This may indeed be the correct view of the actual census procedure, but we cannot be sure that Tertullian's information is accurate.¹⁴

To sum up this lengthy section: (1) The meaning of the text is best taken as "while Quirinius was ruling Syria." (2) This was the "first census" which took place during Quirinius' rule. (3) Roman policy in the East at this period was usually in the hands of a single supreme commander; the facts of Quirinius' career are consistent with the suggestion that he held this position near the end of Herod's kingship in Judea. (4) The text allows for the possibility that Quirinius was not directly in charge of the census, but that it was carried out by one of the Syrian governors, possibly Sentius Saturninus. (5) There is still a possibility that Quirinus twice held the office of governor of Syria and carried out a Judean census in each tenure.

The Return to Bethlehem

Unlike the question of the 'governorship" of Syria, there is no potential conflict with secular information on this point. The objection of critics here usually takes the form of a doubt that the Romans would require provincials to return home for a census.

The text twice asserts that it was necessary to return home: (1) everyone went to his own city (v. 3) (2) Joseph returned to Bethlehem because his family was from there (v, 4). This feature of the census seems to be central to the whole story Luke is relating.

There is, however, no necessity to assume that the procedure was the same in every Roman census. In verse one the official administrative policy of the Emperor is set forth. Then the second verse notes that this "first" Judean census occurred while Quirinius was ruling. With this we have moved to the particulars of this census, not necessarily the requirements for all censuses. The third verse may then reflect the circumstances of this particular census. Recall that the Roman administration often made use of existing forms of government in conquered lands. The East had long acquaintance with census procedures, as confirmed in the Mari texts, the finds at Tell el-Amarna and Ras Shamra, Herodotus' accounts of the Persian empire, and many documents from the Hellenistic period.¹⁵ This return may have been a feature of these earlier cesuses.

On the other hand, it is possible that there were special conditions in Judea which necessitated this return to the ancestral home. The biblical pattern of property inheritance would have produced rather complicated patterns of land ownership which might have required personal depositions on lineage, inheritance and such. Quite possibly Joseph had property rights (probably undivided) in some small plots of land around Bethlehem.

We do have one historical parallel, found in a papyrus copy of an edict of C. Vibius Maximus (c AD 104), eparch of Egypt. This order (see Appendix) was issued to prepare the people for an upcoming census and reminded them that everyone who was away from "his own place" was required to return home for purposes of the census. Although we cannot say that the Egyptian procedure necessarily held for Palestine, it is clear that it was at least a permissible option for the praefect to use in taking a census.

Mary Accompanying Joseph

Our passage moves from the decrees of the Emperor, to the actions of a provincial administrator, to the travels of a carpenter, to the fact that his betrothed was with him and gave birth. At each point the narrative moves from the verifiable and obvious to the specific and human and, unexpectedly, to that which is truly significant. As we move away from the Roman world and into the life of common people in Judea we leave behind our written records and other sources of verification. This was already apparent in the last point and is even more so here. The objections raised against these last two points of the narrative are little more than the conjectures of skepticism.

The critics doubt that Mary would also have been required to appear with Joseph in any census. Here let us note that it is possible to read verses four and five in two distinct ways: (1) Mary with Joseph was to be enrolled; (2) only Joseph was to be enrolled, but Mary went with him. Since either translation is possible, we are making an assumption whichever choice we make. If the former is correct, then we have an official requirement for Mary to be present. In that case, we have no historical parallels though we have seen that a great deal of latitude existed in census arrangements. If the latter choice is correct, then there could be any number of reasons for Mary being with Joseph which we cannot now know. Some possibilities which the text allows are: (1) Mary had other relatives in Judea (Luke 1:39) whom she may have wished to be with at the end of her term; (2) Joseph wanted to be with her at the time of her delivery but he had to be in Bethlehem for the census; (3) there may have been bad feelings toward Mary in Nazareth due to the circumstances of her pregnancy. Any of these might explain the point at issue, but we have insufficient information to choose among them We certainly do riot know enough to give any substantial reason for doubting Scripture at this point.

A Roman Census in Herod's Kingdom?

Critics have raised the question: Would the Romans carry out a census in an independent kingdom? Herod was king in Judea with the support of Rome, as were rulers in other lands around Palestine at this time. The Roman means of controlling newly annexed territories was to leave the basic structure intact but to use and control it by directing the more important matters while leaving the lesser matters to the client rulers. Although independent in some matters, Herod was completely dependent on Roman wishes in whatever affairs they considered important enough to control directly. If they decided to take a census as part of their overall plans, then Herod could only comply.

While it is true that Herod was a personal friend of the Emperor and was given the titles "Friend of Caesar" and "Ally of the Roman People"¹⁶ during the earlier part of his reign, we also know that in 8 BC he was demoted by Augustus and became a subject, losing his former privileges. In the Roman system privilege was usually expressed in terms of immunity from taxation. When Herod incurred the displeasure of the Emperor it is reasonable to think that he thereby lost whatever immunity from taxation he or his kingdom had previously possessed. This change of relationship may have triggered the Roman decision to assess the property of Herod's subjects. In addition, the uncertainty over Herod's successor, made more pressing by his advancing age and proclivity to kill his own sons, would make such a census a wise move in the event the Romans should choose to impose direct rule over his kingdom. Eventually the Romans did exercise such power when they deposed Herod's successor Archelaus and sent Coponius to be the first praefect of Judea in AD 6.¹⁷

Finally, we should bear in mind the evidence of the inscription "Lapis Venetus" mentioned above (see also Appendix). This shows that Quirinius imposed a census on the powerful city-state of Apamea, an independent city with 117,000 citizens and the privilege of minting its own coins bearing the title "Autonomos."

When the position of Herod in the eyes of the Emperor is combined with this instance of Quirinius' census taking in the nearby state of Apamea from the same period, it becomes highly likely that there would have been an Imperial census in Herod's kingdom and unlikely that his "independent" status would have posed any obstacle to a Roman determination to assess his subjects.

THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE

In this brief investigation of the facts which surround the census narrative of Luke 2 we have gleaned sufficient information to warrant several conclusions.

There is no actual historical confirmation of the incident which Luke recounts. Luke is our only extant source of information on this subject. This should not be particularly surprising as historians must often rely on information provided by only one source when they would know about details in ancient history.

None of the assertions made by Luke is in any way contradicted by any known historical fact. There is no evidence from any historical source that indicates any statement of fact in our passage is incorrect.

The "problem" which this passage has posed is the result of our lack of historical information outside Luke and of several assumptions which have been made about the relation of these events to similar ones in secular sources. The foundation of the critics' attacks on Luke is a false correlation of his account with Josephus' account of the later census in AD 6. The correlation rests on two facts: (1) a census in Judea, and (2) the mention of the name of Quirinius. It ignores Luke's words "this is the first census made while Quirinius was ruling Syria."

Since we do not have any other historical data about the circumstances of the census during Herod's reign, we are forced to seek analogies to similar events from the same period and area if we are to confirm or dispute this account. In doing so we have found that every statement in the passage, properly understood, can be substantiated by similarity to other documented occurrences.

Although such verification of the accuracy of Scriptural statements is heartening, we must realize that our convictions about the authority of the Bible do not and cannot rest solely on historical or archeological research. We must base our belief in the complete truthfulness of Scripture on its own statements and claims about itself, and such evidence as the Bible supplies that it is what it claims to be.¹⁸ The conclusions of historical study do indeed strengthen the case for the reliability of the Bible and should be used insofar as they are helpful, but the demand by the Word of God for our obedience and trust is total and immediate, thus far beyond the ability of scholarship to supply.

APPENDIX

1. Inscription "Lapis Tiburtinus":

(BELLUM GESSIT CUM GENTE HOMONADENSIM QUAE INTERFECERAT AMYNTAM R)EGUM QUA REDACTA IN POT(ESTATEM IMP. CAESARIS) AUGUSTI POPULIQUE ROMANI SENATU(S DIS IMMORTALIBUS) SUPPLICATIONES BINAS OB RES PROSP(ERE AB EO GESTAS ET) IPSI ORNAMENTA TRIUMPH(ALIA DECRUIT) PRO CONSUL ASIAM PROVINCIAM OP(TINUIT PR. PR.) DIVI AUGUSTI (I)TERUM SYRIAM ET PH(OENICEN OPTINUIT).

Source: Corpus Inscriptorum Latinum 14:3613. See Schurer, History of the Jewish People I;1, p. 354. Text restored by Mommsen with conjectures in parentheses.

2. Inscription " Lapis Venetus":

IUSSU QUIRINI CENSUM EGI APAMENAE CIVITATUS MILLIUM HOMINUM CIVIUM CXVII. IDEM MISSU QUIRINI ADVERSUS ITRURAEOS IN LIBANO MONTE CASTELLUM EORUM CEPI.

Translation: On command of Quirinius I have carried out the census in Apamea, a city-state of one hundred and seventeen thousand citizens. Likewise I was sent by Quirinius to march against the Itrureans, and conquered their citadel on Lebanon mountain.

Source: Corpus Inscriptorum Latinum, 3rd Supplement 6687. English translation from Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 28.

3. Inscription from base of statue at Pisidian Antioch:

C. CARISTA(NIO) C.F. SER. FRONT(ONI) CAESIANO IULI(O) PRAEF(ECTO) FAB(RUM) PONT(IFICI) SACERDOTI PRAEFECTO P. SULPICI QUIRINI DUUMV(IRI) PRAERECTA M. SERVILI HUIC PRIMO OMNIUM PUBLICE D(ECURIONUM) D(ECRETO) STATUA POSITA EST.

Source: Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 235.

4. Papyrus Edict of C. Vibius Maximus, AD 104: (transliterated Greek)

G(AIOS YI)BIO(S MAXIMOS EPA)RC(OS) AIGYPT(OY LEGEI) THS KAT' OI(KIAN APOGRAFHS E)NESTW(SHS) ANAGKAION (ESTIN PASIN TOI)S KATH' H(NTINA) DHPOTE AIT(IAN EKSTASI TWN HEAUTWN) NOMON PROSA(GGELLE)STHAI EPA(NEL)THEIN EIS TA HEAU(TWN E)FESTIA HIN(A) KAI THN SUNHTHH (OI)KONOMIAN TH(S APO)GRAFES PLHRWSWSIN KAI TH PROS(HKOU)SH AUTOIS GEWRGIAI PROSKARTERHSO(SIN).

Source: Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 271. Text restored by Ulrich Wilcken.

REFERENCES

1. Luke's use of dogma "decree" exactly corresponds to the technical meaning of the term as used for Imperial decrees.
   
2. Michael Rostovzeff, Rome (New York: Oxford, 1960), p. 202.
   
3. Ibid., p. 173.
   
4. Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1960) p. 23.
   
5. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1.
   
6. A. Higgins, "Sidelights on Christian Beginnings in the Graeco-Roman World," Evangelical Quarterly 16 (1944), 200.
   
7. William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), p. 238.
   
8. There is a possibility that "twice" refers to the appointment rather than to the same province twice. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), p. 164.
   
9. Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 281.
   
10. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 164.
    
11. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 29.
    
12. Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p 279.
    
13. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 18.
    
14. C. F. Evans, "Tertullian's References to Sentius Saturninus and the Lukan Census," Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973), 24.
    
15. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, p. 24.
    
16. Ibid., p. 28.
    
17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1.
    
18. See, for instance, John W. Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991).

Luke 2 vv 1,2 - Anachronism on Census?

In confirmation of the above opinion it may be observed that, in the Roman provinces, Land, which could be shown to have been under cultivation for ten years, was liable to taxation. (Ulpian, de Censibus, Jus Civile, i. p.705) And the census of Cyrenius was about ten years after Jesus' birth. The census at the time of the nativity would then come into full operation. In this sense, the earlier census might well be called the first census. We may explain that as taxing was then in operation, an insurrection took place (Acts v.37).

E. THE PROPHECIES

Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:

1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)

This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.

This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

This is a misinterpretation.  This text seems to be quite simple.  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;  Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.  This verse says a sign.  This verse has nothing to do with King Ahaz. As for your Hebrew skills;  you are wrong on the original Hebrew.  I would love to know where you get your information.  I suggest changing sources.    Immanuel translated is Jesus.  Immanuel translated is "God WITH US.  Jesus translated means "God AMONG US"  Big difference. 

2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.

The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

Unfortunately Josephus did not record every single event that happened during those times. Because of the fact that Josephus did not mention this event does not mean that it did not happen. If you want to make Josephus the law, and only those things that Josephus mentions; lets look at few things Josephus DID say. Since Josephus is the law then the following is true and is fact:

I am assuming that the atheist would now like to recant the statement about Josephus. Not only does Josephus mention Jesus; he calls him the Christ, he says he was crucified and he says that he was seen after death. When this is presented to the atheist; the next line of defense seems to be that this is not reliable.  In other words Josephus wrote everything else credited to himself except this portion.  We could stop here but the question is about the town of Bethlehem.

3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents.

This first section is in response to Matthew quoting Hosea 11:1

Here follows the explanation of Matthew 2:15, the text "Out of Egypt, I called My Son". This explanation is given in the form of a letter. It is the final response of a Christian in a discussion with Jews.

Dear all,

Weeks ago the quote of Matthew, "Out of Egypt have I called my son", has been discussed here. It was stated here that Matthew turned the history of Hosea 11:1 into a prophecy, quoted in Matthew 2:15. You used this change as yet another proof for the quality of the authors of the New Testament. This was pointed out to me, and at the end of the discussion I was forced to say that, though I didn't understand what Matthew was doing in changing a history into a prophecy, I yet kept it with him through faith.

I was sure that Matthew had not wrested the words of Hosea, but didn't understand how he then was able to write down such things. After a long while, however, I found the solution, through the grace of God. It appears that sometimes matters are much simpler then one can think at the first glance. The solution is so simple, that I was amazed at it.

Before I will give you the solution, let me remind you of the problem.

The prophet Hosea wrote in chapter 11:1,2:

1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

In verse one the prophet says that Israel is God's son, and that God called Israel out of Egypt. This is clearly a history, and not a prophecy. There is no doubt about this.

Matthew quotes this. When Jesus returned from His flight into Egypt, because Herod was dead, Matthew associates that with the history as rendered in Hosea 11:1. Matthew writes in chapter 2:15 (according to the KJV):

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

It was stated by you that Matthew quotes the words as if they were a prophecy, being fulfilled in Jesus. But this statement is entirely wrong. There is nothing in the words of Matthew on the basis whereof one can decide that he sees it as a prophecy. He simply is quoting the history of the Jews exit out of Egypt, and says that it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. But that doesn't make it a prophecy. From nothing in the text of Matthew 2:15 appears that it is seen as a prophecy.

One may object and say: Surely does Matthew see Hosea 11:1 as a prophecy, because he writes "that it might be fulfilled". The very word "fulfilled" is used of prophecies. So Matthew sees it as a prophecy. To this the answer is easy: The original language, the Greek, uses a word that has, besides "fulfilled" also other meanings; meanings that have nothing to do with prophecies. So, this objection is false. There is nothing in Matthew's words that make a prophecy of Hosea 11:1.

The Greek uses the word "plero-o". This word has to do with "becoming full", and the like meanings. "Fulfilled" is one of its meanings, but there are many others.

The Greek word "plero-o" has two chief meanings. The first one is:

- To make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

The second one is:

- To render full, i.e. to complete

The word is used by Matthew in the second sense. Different shades in meaning are:

- To fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim

- To consummate: a number

- To make complete in every particular, to render perfect

- To carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)

- To carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise

- Of matters of duty: to perform, execute

- Of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish

- To fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets)

- To receive fulfilment

In this list of meanings you can find also "to fulfil", namely of prophecies. But it takes up only a part of all the meanings. Another meaning is "to render perfect", or "to carry through to the end". It is in this sense that Matthew uses the word.

The verse then should be this:

And He was there until the death of Herod, in order that be perfected the thing spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me.

Before anyone says that this all is invented, let me give the Greek text in transcription with the translation thereunder.

kai en ekei heos tes teleutes herodou

And He was there until the death of Herod

Hina plerote to reten

in order that be perfected the thing spoken

hupo tou kuriou dia tou profetou,

by the Lord through the prophet

legontos, eks aiguptou ekalesa ton huion mou.

saying, Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me.

What Matthew then is saying is this: God first called His son out of Egypt. That was Israel. This we find in Hosea 11:1. But in the second verse of that same chapter, the prophet says, "[As] they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images." They were called out of Egypt, but as they called them, so they went from them. They served the Baalim and the graven images instead of the true God. In short: imperfection. Then Matthew continues with saying that in Jesus this history is perfected. The Israelites were called out of Egypt, but were imperfect in serving Baalim. But Jesus was called out of Egypt, and was perfect in His obedience towards God. The Israelites were the sons of God. But Jesus perfected this being the Son of God. For Jesus was the Son of God in a more perfect sense, namely directly born from the Spirit.

In short: What was done imperfect in the Israelites, was perfected in Jesus

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15:
An Alternative Solution
--
Tracy L. Howard

The use of the Old Testament in the New continues to be a subject of great debate. One of the thornier problems is the use of Hosea 11:1 ("Out of Egypt I called My son") in Matthew 2:15. The difficulty of this problem is evidenced by the numerous solutions offered by evangelicals, some of which have serious ramifications in both hermeneutics and theology. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the various attempts to solve the problem. After proposing a solution, both the hermeneutical and theological implications will be set forth. However, it is necessary first to state clearly the problem that exists in the quotation by Matthew.

The Problem

The problem of Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 is articulated by Ellis, who writes, "To many Christian readers, to say nothing of Jewish readers, the New Testament interpretation of the Old appears to be exceedingly arbitrary. For example, Hosea 11:1 ('Out of Egypt I called my son') refers to Israel's experience of the Exodus; how can Mt. 2:15 apply it to Jesus' sojourn in Egypt?" ¹ As Ellis correctly points out, Hosea 11:1-2 describes the history of the nation of Israel at the time of the Exodus as well as the succeeding events. In verse 1 the Lord declared, "When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son." This verse looks back to the beginning of the nation, at which time the Lord manifested His electing love in bringing her out of bondage in Egypt. ²

314

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution 315

compared His relationship to Israel with that of a parent to a son. The word /B@ ("son") expresses the endearment the Lord has toward His people; this complements the biblical figures of the Lord as Shepherd, Husband, and Redeemer of His people. ³

It is important to observe that the reference in Hosea 11:1 is to the nation Israel and her historical Exodus. No exegetical evidence exists that a concept of Messiah (either explicitly or implicitly) is in this passage. That Hosea's focus was on the nation and not Messiah is also demonstrated from verse 2, in which he described the events after the Exodus. Instead of obeying the Lord and reciprocating His love, the nation acted like a disobedient son and went after other gods. Hosea 11:2b states that Israel "kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols." ⁴ As in verse 1, the nation is in view and in this case the prophet described her disobedience to the Lord. Any reference, therefore, to Messiah is inconceivable contextually.

However, when Matthew quoted Hosea 11:1, he said it was "fulfilled" (i{na plhrwqh'/) by events that transpired in the life of the Messiah (specifically, Jesus' departure into Egypt to escape the slaughter by Herod). ⁵ Herein lies the problem. Matthew wrote that the two events are connected in such a close fashion that the latter "fulfilled" the former. The question that must be addressed is this: How and on what basis could Matthew make the connection between two events that on the surface appear so disparate?

Various Solutions to the Problem ⁶

Predictive Prophecy

Some commentators regard Matthew 2:15 as a direct fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. ⁷ This interpretation explains the phrase i{na plhrwqh'/ as meaning a fulfillment of predictive prophecy. Such an understanding is coupled with a translation of yt!ar*q* in Hosea 11:1 "I will have called (My Son)," that is, as a future perfect. This would mean that Hosea 11:1 is a reference solely to Christ and not to Israel at all. ⁸

This interpretation faces at least two problems. First, plhrovw can convey the nuance of "to complete" or "to establish" without any reference to predictive fulfillment. ⁹ Delling notes that this nuance of "complete" is possible because "God fulfills His Word by fully actualizing it." ¹⁰ In other words this concept views an event in process which God ultimately brings to completion. Metzger comments on this idea as it applies to Jesus in Matthew 2:15: "More

316 Bibliotheca Sacra -- October-December 1986

precisely, the characteristically Christian view of the continuing activity of God in the historical events comprising the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, fulfilling and completing the divine revelation recorded in the OT, is reflected even in the choice of formulas introducing quotations of Scripture in the NT." ¹¹

Thus Matthew viewed Hosea 11:1 as being confirmed or fulfilled by another event that was much like it and that came to pass at a later time. ¹² So it is unnecessary to see Matthew 2:15 as a predictive fulfillment simply because plhrovw is used.

Second, to take yt!ar*q* in Hosea 11:1 as a future perfect is tenuous contextually. On the one hand the previous verb is a "definite past" preterite that looks back to God's election of Israel at the Exodus. On the other hand verse 2 picks up the theme of the nation's rejection of the Lord to follow Baal, also a past reference. Nothing could be further from the context of Hosea 11:1 than a prediction of the Messiah. Thus to interpret the second colon of verse 1 as a predictive prophecy is unwarranted.

Sensus Plenior

William LaSor has argued that the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 is an appropriate example of sensus plenior. ¹³ The principle of sensus plenior, advocated primarily by Roman Catholic scholars, ¹⁴ has been debated frequently, However, in recent years it has also been the subject of discussion by evangelicals, particularly with the renewed study of the use of the Old Testament in the New. ¹⁵

The subject has been treated most fully by Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown. He defines sensus plenior as follows: "The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a Biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation." ¹⁶

The principle of sensus plenior, however, is not without its problems. First, this view presents questionable implications with regard to inspiration. The principle of sensus plenior makes the inspired writer a secondary element in the process, while God is viewed as supplying directly to the interpreter many additional meanings not intended in the original context. This would suggest a process of inspiration that closely parallels "mechanical dictation." ¹⁷

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution 317

Second, a problem that is perhaps the most critical for the modern exegete is that of objectivity in the interpretive endeavor. If God is supplying meanings unknown to the human author, how would an interpreter ever understand all the divine implications given in the text other than the written expression? One cannot go beyond that and attempt to discover a "fuller sense" unknown to the human author. To do so immediately thrusts one from objectivity into total subjectivism, Kaiser remarks, "When extrinsic implications are read into the biblical text, with a note of divine authentication, then we have introduced an uncontrollable element of subjectivity if not indeed eisegesis." ¹⁸

Third, some have advocated the "fuller sense," particularly in the Matthean fulfillment texts, because of the use of plhrovw ("to fulfill"). ¹⁹ However, as with the position of "predictive prophecy," this view also fails to consider that plhrovw does not have to mean "predictive fulfillment" or "fuller sense" but can convey the nuance of "to complete." Hence the use of plhroovw in Matthew 2:15 does not necessarily validate the principle of sensus plenior.

To suggest a genuine example of the sensus plenior, criteria would have to be established to control and ensure objectivity in the interpretation. Three are suggested. First, the sensus plenior would have to be given by further revelation in the New Testament. Second, the sensus plenior would have to be a sense of which the human author was at least vaguely aware, that is, a messianic tendency. ²⁰ Third, the "fuller sense" would have to be grounded in a historical-grammatical interpretation of the Old Testament text. In other words it would not be something arbitrary or unrelated to the meaning of the Old Testament passage. ²¹ There would have to be some continuity between the Old and New Testament texts. Yet even with these criteria, it seems that many instances labeled as sensus plenior would better fit under another category. Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 appears to be one of these instances.

One might argue that the Hosea quotation in Matthew 2:15 satisfies the first requirement, namely, that Matthew explicitly stated that the calling of Jesus out of Egypt fulfilled (cf. I{na plhrwqh'/ ) the historical Exodus described in Hosea 11:1. However, a nuance of "fuller sense" or even "fulfillment" for plhrovw is debatable. Regarding the second and third requirements, it is difficult to conceive that Hosea had any messianic tendencies in his description of the Exodus. It is evident from what follows in verse 2 that the nation went after the Baals in spite of the Lord's love in calling her from Egypt. Thus Israel and not Messiah is certainly what the

318 Bibliotheca Sacra -- October-December 1986

prophet referred to. For this reason, it is improbable that someone using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic could derive a prophetic implication from a historical proposition as found in Hosea 11:1. The difficulty in seeing any clear connection between Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1 is admitted even by LaSor, who writes regarding both Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1: "In neither case is there any indication that the author had some distant future event in mind, hence it is most difficult to conclude that the authors were speaking of Jesus Christ or even an unnamed Messiah. . . . Yet both of these passages are cited as fulfilled in Jesus Christ." ²²

For reasons cited, sensus plenior must be rejected as a valid solution to the problem of the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15.

Midrash-Pesher

In 1954 Krister Stendahl published The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, in which he attempted to articulate a theory of the origin of the Gospel of Matthew. One of the key features of Stendahl's work is his understanding of the exegetical procedure of what he calls the "Matthean school" in its use of the Old Testament. He labels this procedure "midrash-pesher," arguing that such an exegetical technique closely resembles the exegetical procedure of the Qumran sect, particularly in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran) commentary on Habakkuk (lQpH5 ). ²³ He includes Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 in this category.

Several problems are evident with Stendahl's hypothesis. First, the formal features between the quotations in the Qumran commentary on Habakkuk and Matthew are not similar. The formal quotations in Matthew are of the so-called "fulfillment" type (i{na plhrwqh'/), of which Matthew 2:15 is an example. However, this type of introductory formula is singularly absent from the Qumran texts. ²⁴

Second, the reason for this absence of plhrovw is that the hermeneutical features are quite different from what is found in the Matthean use of the Old Testament. The Qumran community saw itself as being in the "last days" to which all prophecy pointed. As a result of this perspective the Qumran community completely disregarded the original context when exegeting prophetic passages. The community felt that the original intention of the particular citation was for the community. Such exegesis can be seen

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution 319

in the community's attempt to equate the Chaldeans in the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Kittim, or Romans. ²⁵ Admittedly some New Testament authors, as well as those of Qumran, introduced quotations that were understood as reapplying Old Testament texts eschatologically to the contemporary situation. This certainly could be said for Matthew 2:15, as will be noted later. However, in Qumran, application became virtually equivalent with interpretation in which there was little if any regard for the original context of the Old Testament citation. Matthew's Old Testament quotations (particularly Matt. 2:15), on the other hand, exhibit a different character because of the clear connection with the historical intent of the Old Testament context.

Third, there is a significant difference between Matthew's technique of recording a story about Jesus (and accompanying it with Old Testament citations fulfilled therein) and the "pesher" technique of Qumran in which the method is a line-by-line analysis of the Old Testament. ²⁶ Davies comments on the considerable stylistic difference between the use of fulfillment texts in Matthew and the "pesher" use at Qumran: "In the former [Matthew], the 'historical' event seems to determine the incidence and nature of the quotation, which serves as a closure to a pericope, that is, the scriptural quotation subserves the event. In the latter [Qumran], the opposite is the case: the scriptural text is normative for the event, not a commentary upon this, but its ground." ²⁷

The same point could be made for any attempt to compare the Matthean quotations and contemporary midrash. ²⁸ So in Matthew 2:15, Matthew was not giving a midrashic homily on the Hosea text but rather was supporting his record with the Old Testament quotation.

Fourth, an identification of a Matthean hermeneutic with that of the Qumran community raises serious questions regarding inspiration. ²⁹ The reason is that frequently the Qumran community distorted the original intent of the Old Testament passage they were quoting. ³⁰ In essence this implies that the Old Testament writer was at times misinformed and thus communicated error that the community then correctly interpreted.

Though Stendahl's thesis has been influential, the criticisms cited provide a sufficient basis for rejecting his category "midrash-pesher" as applicable for the formal quotations of Matthew. Since Matthew 2:15 falls into this category, Stendahl's hypothesis is inadequate as a solution to the problem of Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1. ³¹

320 Bibliotheca Sacra -- October-December 1986

Typological

This solution maintains that the events in the life of the nation as described in Hosea 11:1-2 "typified" the life of Messiah in Matthew 2:13-15. Exactly what this means can vary because the word "type" is used loosely. ³² Traditionally typology has been defined by centering on the idea of prefiguration. For example Fritsch says that a type is "an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity." ³³ According to this position, the events described in Matthew 2:13-15 were prefigured in Hosea 11:1-2. ³⁴ However, the prefigurative view of typology has questionable implications.

Applying the concept of prefiguration to Hosea 11:1 presupposes a meaning latent in the text of which the human author was unaware. This concept is similar to the principle of sensus plenior discussed earlier. Brown is aware of the similarity. He recognizes that typology (as traditionally defined) and sensus plenior both contain meaning that exceeds human awareness. The only distinction for Brown is that the "one [sensus plenior] primarily deals with words; the other [type] deals with things." ³⁵ The traditional position of typology is subject to many of the criticisms leveled at sensus plenior particularly in reference to Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1. There is no evidence that a messianic antitype was latent in the discussion of Hosea 11:1. Hosea's reference to the disobedient son Israel is incongruous with a prefiguring of the obedient Son, the Messiah. Thus another definition of typology must be sought if it is to be considered as a possible solution to the problem.

A Refinement: Analogical Correspondence

An excellent definition of typology is proposed by Woolcombe:

Typology, considered as a method of exegesis, may be defined as the establishment of historical connexions [sic] between certain events, persons or things in the Old Testament and similar events, persons or things in the New Testament. Considered as a method of writing, it may be defined as the description of an event, person or thing in the New Testament in terms borrowed from the description of its prototypal counterpart in the Old Testament. ³⁶

This definition reflects the concept of historical correspondence rather than that of prefiguration. According to this definition the New Testament writer looked back and drew correspondences or analogies with events described in the Old Testament. ³⁷ The typological connection is retrospective rather than prospective. ³⁸ Furthermore from the standpoint of exegesis

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution 321

this approach considerably reduces the element of subjectivity that the traditional prefigurement view of typology introduces. With this in mind it is now possible to posit a plausible explanation of the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15; the solution to the problem will be called "analogical correspondence" rather than "typological."

As previously discussed, Hosea 11:1-2 describes the history of the nation since her Exodus from Egypt and her subsequent disobedience to the Lord. Matthew looked back and saw an analogical correspondence between the history of the nation Israel and the history of the Messiah. There are specific points of similarity that Matthew used in his analogy between the events of Hosea 11:1-2 and Matthew 2:13-15. First, one sees a clear Exodus pattern in Matthew's connection with Hosea 11:1-2. This Exodus analogy contains a reference both to the nation's past and to its future. Matthew's primary connection with the nation's past was geographical. He showed that even as the nation was taken into Egypt and brought out, so also the Messiah was taken into Egypt and brought out. Coupled with this is a possible persecution parallel. Even as the nation was persecuted by Pharaoh at the time of the first Exodus from Egypt, so also the Messiah was persecuted by Herod at the time of His "Exodus" (cf. Matt. 2:13).

Matthew also drew a connection with the nation's future. 1t is quite possible that Matthew looked beyond Hosea 11:1 to the entire chapter and included Hosea 11:10-11 in his Exodus analogy. This writer would argue that Hosea 11:1 is quoted by Matthew as a touchstone for other events in the chapter. In other words Matthew was interested in more than one isolated text; he was interested in the context. The likelihood of this suggestion is supported by Albright and Mann: "'Proof texts,' with the ensuing barren controversies they have engendered down the years, would consequently have puzzled any NT writer. Not only would the whole context of a cited passage have to be searched -- if indeed a gospel author wished to discover what we call a 'verse' -- but the whole context would usually be known by heart." ³⁹

Hosea 11:10-11 describes an eschatological "exodus" from Egypt. The exodus would be a starting over for the nation. This would occur at the inauguration of the "age to come." Hence if Matthew had in mind all of Hosea 11 and was attempting to present parallels between the life of the nation and the life of Jesus, it is plausible that Matthew saw Messiah as the One who will lead this new exodus for Israel and hence inaugurate the new age. In light of

322 Bibliotheca Sacra -- October-December 1986

this, one might suggest not only a parallel between Herod and Pharaoh but also a parallel between Jesus and Moses. ⁴⁰

Second, one also can observe a "son" pattern in Matthew's connection with Hosea 11:1-2. It is evident from Matthew's reference to Hosea 11:1 that he wanted to emphasize the concept of sonship. Instead of using the Septuagint reading, which contains the phrase taV tevkna aujtou' ("His children"), he rendered the Masoretic text literally and hence used toVn uiJovn mou ("My Son"). The Lord called the nation of Israel His son, whom Pharaoh was told to release so that they could go and worship the Lord (Exod. 4:22-23). However, Hosea 11:2 reveals the sad result that instead of worshiping the Lord the nation committed the sin of idolatry. Matthew then viewed Jesus as the obedient Son, who would inaugurate the new "exodus," in contrast to the disobedient son Israel, who after the first Exodus miserably failed to keep the covenant. All that Israel should have done, Jesus did by exhibiting obedience instead of disobedience. ⁴¹ Consequently after Jesus' "exodus" from Egypt and His baptism by John, God could say, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17).

Having evaluated the different options, the most satisfactory answer to the problem of Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 is "analogical correspondence," in which Matthew saw an analogy between the events of the nation described in Hosea 11:1-2 and the events of Messiah's life in Matthew 2:13-15. As Matthew drew these correspondences he saw Jesus as the One who actualizes and completes all that God intended for the nation. ⁴²

Hermeneutical Implications

Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 would appear to be an example of conclusions at which the modern exegete would have difficldty arriving. Thus one might be inclined to agree with Longenecker, who concluded that the exegetical technique of the apostles is not a pattern for contemporary exegesis. ⁴³ However, Longenecker appears to have confused "inspired conclusions" with "method." From this study of Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1, it seems clear that the exegetical technique used in Matthew 2:15 still serves as a guide to a historical-grammatical exegetical procedure. Matthew did not use the Hosea 11:1 quotation as a springboard for a totally unrelated exposition or homily (as in "midrash"), nor did he exegete the quotation as being applicable solely to Jesus at the expense of Hosea's original meaning (as in "midrash-pesher"). Neither did

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution 323

Matthew ascribe a meaning to the Hosea passage of which the prophet was unaware (as in sensus plenior). Instead Matthew drew specific "analogical correspondences" between certain events in Israel's history and certain events in Jesus' life. This requires a historical-grammatical understanding of the Hosea passage for the "analogical correspondence" to make sense. In fact nothing suggests that Matthew understood Hosea 11:1 in any way other than according to its historical-grammatical context. For this reason, it is totally unacceptable to regard the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 as an example of "arbitrary" exegesis on the part of the New Testament writers.

Theological Implications

Bibliology

All the positions discussed in this article are subscribed to by the evangelical community in some form as possible options in solving the problem of Matthew's use of Hosea 1 1: 1. However, some of them pose serious implications for inspiration. As has been noted, sensus plenior can misrepresent the process of inspiration, since it must allow for some aspect of "mechanical dictation." In this view the Prophet Hosea, instead of being an active agent, was a passive instrument through whom and to whom God communicated "unknown" meanings; in this case, the meanings would be messianic.

The view of "midrash-pesher" likewise runs into problems with an evangelical understanding of inspiration. The midrash-pesher technique of the Qumran community frequently disregarded or distorted the original intent of the Old Testament text it was citing for the sake of making a "relevant" application to the community. If this exegetical procedure is the explanation of the problem at hand, then Matthew is seen as perhaps distorting or even misunderstanding the meaning of Hosea 11:1. This kind of implication points up the importance of differentiating between "midrashic tendency" and the pure midrash-pesher hermeneutic. This writer certainly agrees that Matthew, like those at Qumran, applied the meaning of the Old Testament to the contemporary situation. However, Matthew did not do so at the expense of the Old Testament text's meaning as did the writers at Qumran.

Therefore one must posit a solution that maintains the integrity of the meaning of the Old Testament quotation. The principle

324 Bibliotheca Sacra -- October-December 1986

of "analogical correspondence" does full justice to the context of the Old Testament quotation. This solution easily explains the hermeneutical problems involved in Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 while at the same time upholding inspiration. By using this principle, meanings unknown to Hosea are not extrapolated from the passage. Furthermore it presents Matthew as having interpreted the events of Hosea 11 as the prophet presented them in the historical-grammatical context.

Christology

Clearly Matthew presented Jesus as the King of Israel. However, the present study has yielded further insights into other Christological motifs that Matthew understood regarding Jesus' identity. For example Matthew portrayed Jesus as the One who completes all that Israel as a nation was designed to perform. Jesus recapitulated in a positive sense the history of the nation. He is the obedient Son in whom God delights. For that reason Matthew saw Him as the One who would inaugurate a new exodus for the nation Israel.

Eschatology

If Matthew viewed Jesus as the One who would inaugurate a new exodus, then it is likely that he also thought of Jesus as the One who would introduce the new age. Though there is a sense in which this is "realized" today by those who are united to Him by faith, this period finds its ultimate fulfillment and consummation in the future. The promise of Hosea 11:10-11 looks at the time when the nation Israel will be restored from dispersion and will experience blessing in the land in the millennium. Jesus is the Messiah who will lead the nation through the new exodus into that new age with all its wonderful provisions.

Conclusion

Frequently evangelicals have espoused positions on the use of the Old Testament in the New without realizing the implications that stem from such positions. This article has attempted to tackle one passage that has caused not a few interpreters to question the Matthean hermeneutic. The conclusion drawn in this study is that the Hosea 11:1 quotation by Matthew is not an example of arbitrary exegesis on the part of a New Testament writer. On the contrary

The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution 325

Matthew looked back and carefully drew analogies between the events of the nation's history and the historical incidents in the life of Jesus. The solution proposed in this article -- the principle of analogical correspondence -- maintains the contextual integrity of both Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15.

Copyright 1997 by Dallas Theological Seminary and Galaxie Software

Footnotes

¹ E. Earle Ellis, "How the New Testament Uses the Old," in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), p. 209. In a recent article Moisés Silva expresses the same thought: "'Out of Egypt I have called my son' (Hosea 11:1) is applied in Matthew 2:14-15 to what appears to be a different and unrelated event" ("The New Testament Use of the Old Testament," in Scripture and Truth , ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983], p. 156 [italics added]).

² The verb bh@a* ("tolove") here conveys the idea of covenant love. This is evident from its close connection with the Exodus event in the second colon. Also in this text bh@a* denotes more than simple affection. It also describes the Lord's love toward Israel in election (cf. Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament [New York: Schocken Books, 1964], p. 95).

³ Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament , s.v. "/B@," p. 102; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament , s.v. "/B@," by H. Haag (1977) 2:155.

⁴ Both Piel imperfects WjB@z^y= and /WrF@q^y= are "customary" or "habitual" and thus denote repeated action in past time, hence the translation " kept sacrificing and burning."

⁵ Robert H. Gundry argues that the connection between Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15 is not the departure into and out of Egypt (Exodus) but "preservation in Egypt" ( Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982], p. 34). However, the focus of Hosea 11:1-2 is the Exodus from Egypt and the nation's subsequent disobedience; the passage does not describe the preservation of Israel in Egypt. Also though the quotation in Matthew 2 occurs before Jesus' actual departure from Egypt (cf. 2:21), it is reasonable to propose that Matthew had in view the entire event of departure into and out of Egypt and thus felt free to quote the passage as early as verse 15 (cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of Messiah [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1977], pp. 219- 20; see also Krister Stendahl, " Quis et Unde ?: An Analysis of Mt 1-2," in Judentum, Urchristentum: Kirche , ed. W. Eltester [Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1960], p. 97).

⁶ For a more complete discussion of the different solutions to the problem consult the writer's work, "The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15" (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984), pp. 41-64.

⁷ R. C. H. Lenski, An Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964), pp. 77-79.

⁸ J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), pp. 269-70; see esp. n. 43.

⁹ Hermann Cremer, Biblico- Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), s.v. "plhrovw," p. 500. Jack Kingsbury notes that the so-called formula quotations indicate that the coming of Jesus means that the time of prophecy has been brought to an end and the time of fulfillment inaugurated ("Form and Message of Matthew," Interpretation 29 [1975]: 16).

¹⁰ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , s.v. "plhrovw," by Gerhard Delling (1968), 6:295.

¹¹ Bruce M. Metzger, "The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Mishnah," Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951):307.

¹² Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1980), p. 55.

¹³ William S. LaSor, "The Sensus Plenior and Biblical Interpretation," in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation , ed. W. Ward Gasque and William S. LaSor (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), p. 275.

¹⁴ See Rudolph Bierberg, "Does Sacred Scripture Have a Sensus Plenior ?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10 (1948):182-95; Raymond E. Brown, The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture (Baltimore: St. Mary's University 1955); "The History and Development of the Theory of a Sensus Plenior ," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953):141-62; "The Sensus Plenior in the Last Ten Years," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963):262-85; Joseph Coppens, "Levels of Meaning in the Bible," in How Does the Christian Confront the Old Testament? ed. Pierre Benoit and Roland Murphy (New York: Paulist Press, 1968), pp. 125-39: Robert H. Krumholtz, "Instrumentality and the Sensus Plenior ," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20 (1958):200-205; John J. O'Rourke, "Marginal Notes on the Sensus Plenior ," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 2l (1959):64-71; Edmund F. Sutcliffe, "The Plenary Sense as a Principle of Interpretation," Biblica 24 (1953):333-43; Bruce Vawter, "The Fuller Sense: Some Considerations," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 26 (1969):85-96.

¹⁵ In addition to LaSor's proposal, see G. N. Bergado, "The Sensus Plenior as a New Testament Hermeneutical Principle" (MA thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, May 1969); Donald H. Hagner, "The Old Testament in the New Testament, " in Interpreting the Word of God , ed. Samuel J. Schultz and Morris Inch (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), p. 92; S. Lewis Johnson, The Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), p. 50; J. I. Packer, "Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics, and Inerrancy," in Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til . ed. E. R. Geehan (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 147-48. Elliott E. Johnson seems to propose a variation of the principle, though he redresses it ("Author's Intention and Biblical Interpretation," in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible , ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], pp. 407-29). Bruce K. Waltke likewise comes very close to advocating a form of sensus plenior in his article "A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms." in Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg , ed. John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 3-18.

¹⁶ Brown, Sensus Plenior , p. 92.

¹⁷ In discussing the role of the instrumentality of the human author, Krumholtz notes that in accord with the principles of instrumental causality, the sensus plenior would be attributed more properly to God than to the human author ( Sensus Plenior , p. 205). This would mean the human author is more passive, thus strongly suggesting some kind of mechanical dictation.

¹⁸ Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "A Response to Author's Intention and Biblical Interpretation by Elliott E. Johnson," Paper read at the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Chicago, November, 1982, p. 1.

¹⁹ This seems to be one reason why LaSor chooses two fulfillment texts in Matthew as illustrations of the "fuller sense" (LaSor, "The Sensus Plenior and Biblical Interpretation," p. 271).

²⁰ D. A. Carson argues that the "son" language in Hosea 11:1 is part of a messianic matrix that includes such descriptions as Seed of the woman, the elect Son of Abraham, the Prophet like Moses, the Davidic King, and the Messiah; thus "insofar as that matrix points to Jesus the Messiah and insofar as Israel's history looks forward to one who sums it up, then so far also Hosea 11:1 looks forward" ("Matthew," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], 8:92). This point would be more feasible, however, if the "son" terminology were used in the context of Israel's future restoration (cf. Hos. 11:8-11). However, it is used in a text that describes the inception of Israel's history as a people of Yahweh (cf. 11:1-2), a text that is retrospective in its focus.

²¹ Cf. Packer, "Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics, and Inerrancy," pp. 145-48.

²² LaSor, "The Sensus Plenior and Biblical Interpretation,"p. 271.

²³ Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Lund: G. W. K. Gleerup, 1954), p. 35; also see H. Benedict Green, The Gospel according to Matthew , New Clarendon Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). p. 14. Stendahl's classification has also been adopted by Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 144-45.

²⁴ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," New Testament Studies 7 (1961):331; every major section in the Dead Sea Scrolls Commentary on Habakkuk begins with either lu wrvp or rbdh rvp, which in the Qumran community means "its prophetic interpretation" or "the interpretation of the prophetic word."

²⁵ In the Qumran Habakkuk commentary, column 2:10-12 the text reads, "Behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans . . . its prophetic meaning concerns the Kittim." Maurya Horgan notes that the Kittim are surely to be identified with the Romans and that the period to which the commentary refers is the Roman conquest in 63 B.C. (cf. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books , The Catholic Biblical Monograph Series, no. 8 [Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979], pp. 8, 26).

²⁶ Brown, The Birth of Messiah , p. 102, n. 13.

²⁷ W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge:University Press, 1964), pp. 209-10; see also David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew , New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 36.

²⁸ Cf. Brown, The Birth of Messiah , pp. 560-61.

²⁹ In his book The Old Testament in the New S. Lewis Johnson proposes that the New Testament writers took into account the original intent of the Old Testament passages when they quoted those passages. He attempts to show that any approach that distorts the meaning of the Old Testament context runs the risk of denying inspiration.

³⁰ Fitzmyer finds only seven places in which the original context was considered by the Qumran community ("The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," pp. 297-333). Elsewhere the community either modernized, accommodated, or applied the texts eschatologically (i.e., considered them strictly predictive).

³¹ In Gundry's controversial commentary on Matthew he proposed that Matthew is a Gospel written in the Jewish tradition of "midrash and haggadah." The connection, however, that he makes between Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1 is literal and historical. Even though his "preservation" motif is questionable (see n. 5), he feels the meaning of Hosea 11:1 is legitimately applied in the Matthean setting; hence Matthew's hermeneutic does not violate the contextual integrity of the Hosea passage. Thus the problem with Gundry is not his view of how Matthew used the Old Testament specifically (the problem with Stendahl) but his view of Matthew's alteration of the dominical tradition which thus results in a different picture of the Matthean tradition.

³² For the best survey of literature on the subject of typology, see Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical TUPOS Structures , Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, no. 2 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), pp. 15-114. For a helpful discussion of modern definitions of "typology," see D. L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of Some Modern Solutions to the Theological Problem of the Relationship between the Old and New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 242-43.

³³ C. T. Fritsch, "Biblical Typology," Bibliotheca Sacra 104 (1947):214-22 (italics added); also see Leonard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the New , trans. Donald H. Madvig (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982). pp. 17-18.

³⁴ See A. B. Bruce, "Matthew," in The Expositor's Greek Testament , ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols. (reprint, Grand Rapids; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979).1:75; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), pp. 178-79; Alfred Plummer , An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), p. 19.

³⁵ Brown, Sensus Plenior , p. 118.

³⁶ K. J. Woolcombe, "The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology," in Essays on Typology , Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 22, ed. Geoffrey W. H. Lampe and Kenneth J. Woolcombe (Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1957), pp. 39-40.

³⁷ Hans W. Wolff likewise develops the idea of typology as the "analogy" between the Old and New Testaments ("The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament, " in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation , ed. Claus Westermann (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1963], pp. 167-81). Also see Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology , trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), 2:363; he uses the term "structural analogies."

³⁸ This writer does not deny a prefiguration typology in places where the Old Testament writer understood some aspect of a latent antitype (see, e.g., Davidson, who suggests that Exodus 25:40 is an example of prefiguration: Typology in Scripture , pp. 367-88). However, in places where the New Testament author clearly draws a correspondence, it is preferable to speak of analogy rather than type. This seems to be the case with Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1.

³⁹ W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew , The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), p. lxii (italics added). C. H. Dodd argues that the single verses in Old Testament quotations in the New were frequently pointers to the entire context ( According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology [London: Misbet, 1952], p. 126).

⁴⁰ Davies sees Jesus as the new Moses who inaugurates a new exodus. Moses was the key figure in the Exodus from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, the journey through the wilderness, and the reception of the Law. According to Davies, in a similar fashion Matthew portrayed Jesus as the central figure in the new exodus (Matt. 2), the baptism (Matt. 3), the temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4), and the inauguration of New Covenant law (Matt. 5-7) ( The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, p. 78).

⁴¹ Cf. Dietrich Ritschl, "God's Conversion," Interpretation l5 (1961):297.

⁴² This view is quite compatible with the proposed nuance of plhrovw as "to complete" or "to establish" (see n. 9). Cf. Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., "Matthew," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary , ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 2 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983, 1985), 2:22-23.

⁴³ Richard N. Longenecker, "Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?" Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970):3-38.

As for the other events;  I don't really understand the problem with the events mentioned.  All of these events could happen in a forty day period.  Again, A Lack of mentioning all events, does not mean that this could never happen.  This is not a discrepancy; this is not seeing a need to mention every nuance.

F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER

Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:

1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies."

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!

( misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)

The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event.

It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no "contradiction" as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.

Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says:

"Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey'."

Matthew 21:5

By saying "a donkey" and then "on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as "parallelism", simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," yet says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.

So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.

Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two.

Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is predicted time and time again.

G. CONCLUSIONS REACHED SO FAR

From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered "the inerrant Word of God," or even "the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and practice."

The Conclusions reached so far; indicate that Mr. Carlson has a poor understanding of the Bible.  Mr. Carlson also has a poor understanding of the hebrew and greek language, and deciphering historical data.  Mr. Carlson seems to be somewhat lost as to the meaning of scripture as a whole.  This is not a surprise due to the fact that as stated earlier; alot of this information is of spiritual nature. The conclusions reached so far is that Mr. Carlson's list of contradictions is typical of not having the true meaning of the scripture revealed to him.  This list of contradictions proves how people can say anything about the Bible and to the unlearned actually think that this can/could carry any weight at all.   I hope Mr. Carlson does see the mistakes that he has applied throughout this list and rethink with a different mindset. This is all but impossible to a person who is not trying to find God.

II. JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

A. WHAT DID JOHN THE BAPTIST KNOW ABOUT JESUS AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy (Luke 1:44). Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" (John 1:29,36). Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive. John's definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke 7:18-23 in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?"

John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

John's statement in John 1:33 that he would not have known Jesus except for seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and remain, can be understood to mean that John would not have known for sure without this definite sign. John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15) and we have record of an amazing recognition of Jesus even while John was in his mother's womb. Luke 1:41-44 relates that when Mary visited John's mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary's presence, as the mother of the Lord.

From this passage we can also see that John's mother had some knowledge about who Jesus would be. It is very likely that she told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he was young).

In the light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy Spirit within John, it is most likely that this sign of the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus was simply a sure confirmation of what he already thought. God removed any doubt so that he could be sure that it was not his imagination or someone else's mistake.

John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism?

(Category: misread the text)

In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is abundantly clear that John recognised Jesus. We should have no doubt at all about this.

Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many things have happened in the interum. John's original knowledge of Jesus was limited and it seems that subsequent events had disillusioned him somewhat. He did not know exactly what form Jesus' ministry would take. We are told from Matthew 3:11,12 some of what John knew: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah as the conquering king who would bring God's judgement on all those who reject him, bringing peace and justice to those who follow him. John obviously understood this.

However, the Messiah was also portrayed in the scriptures as a suffering servant who would suffer on behalf of God's people. This is shown clearly in Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: "For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors". John also understood this, as shown by his statement in John 1:29: "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

What was sometimes not so well understood was how the two portrayals of the Messiah interacted. Many thought that the Messiah would bring his terrible judgement as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur when he returns again (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example). Some were confused, therefore, by Jesus' reluctance to act as a military leader and release the nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time.

This confusion is illustrated by Luke 24:13-33, where Jesus spoke with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. They were initially kept from recognising him (v.16). They told him how they "had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (v.21). They were correct in this hope, but failed to understand the first stage in God's redemptive process. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding in v. 25,26: "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" (emphasis added)

It is most likely that a similar misunderstanding prompted John's question in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been so sure of Jesus' identity as the Messiah of Israel, further events had clouded his certainty    After expecting Jesus to oust the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel as in the days of king David, instead he had seen Jesus 'teach and preach in the towns of Galilee' (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military campaign. John surely wondered what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah's role, or perhaps he had made a bigger mistake in thinking Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus' answer in Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear:

"Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."

These activities were Messianic prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah 29:18; 35:5,6; 61:1-3. Although John's disillusionment was a natural human reaction, he had been right the first time. Jesus ended his reply with an exhortation to John not to give up hope. The Messiah was here without a doubt and all would be revealed in its proper time

    Another scenario could be that John knew Jesus was the Messiah, and he was sending his two disciples to question Jesus for the disciples benefit not John's.  According to the scripture of Matthew 11:2-6,  thinking in this way seems to hint at the possibility that Jesus and John both knew the true purpose of this exchange.

B. WHY DID JOHN BAPTIZE JESUS?

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew 3:14-15 "to fulfill all righteousness." Other passages, which indicate that Jesus did not consider himself sinless, are also an embarrassment to the church (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21).

This is misunderstood.    .  By making the statement "meaningless explanation" in reference  to fulfill all righteousness.  This is a perfect example of not understanding God.  The word means in right standing, uprightness, honor, properness etc...  Jesus was showing John honor.  Is this still an meaningless explanation?   As for Jesus being a sinner;   In Mark 10:18  Jesus says: "Why do you call me good?"  There are two ways you can look at this question.  Mr. Carlson (or whoever) seems to think that Jesus is saying do not call me good.  I am not good. I am a sinner.   However Jesus was asking to see why this man thought he was good.  Did he think that he was good or did he think that Jesus was God?  Jesus knew what the man thought, yet Jesus was trying to get the man to realize what he was thinking.  Jesus was saying that only God is good.  So if you are calling me good are you acknowledging me as God?  The man never answered this portion of the question.

C. WHY DIDN'T JOHN THE BAPTIST BECOME A FOLLOWER OF JESUS?

If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus? And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God. The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus.

Why should John The Baptist follow Jesus?  John the Baptist said that Jesus must increase, while he (John) decreases.  John The Baptist knew that following Jesus would result in turmoil in the ranks.  Shortly after the baptism of Jesus; John was arrested and beheaded.   Pure speculation on stating that John The Baptist had followers for centuries after his death.

III. THE LAST SUPPER

A. WHEN - BEFORE OR DURING PASSOVER?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

B. THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence.

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism. That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.

John 13:1 states:   Now BEFORE the FEAST of the Passover. The next statement in John (v2) says during supper (the Passover meal).

Matthew  26:17 states: Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus saying, where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?

This is not a contradiction.  I do not see where this opinion was arrived at.    The Sadducees looked at Passover as sundown to sundown.  The Pharisee's treated Passover as sunrise to sunrise.   So you basically had from sunrise - sundown the next day.  The writers were referring to both Passover period.  This is a known fact which comes to light very easily to one who is investigating the Bible for understanding.

Paul is stating he received everything from the Lord.  Can the Lord not speak thru other men?  It would be questioned if it was from the Lord if some person ignorant about Jesus started quoting words and Paul latched on to these sayings.  This is not the case.  And you would be fooling know one by making such claims.  Again grasping at straws.  As for the pagan religions...

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?
Dr. Ronald H. Nash

Summary

Many Christian college students have encountered criticisms of Christianity based on claims that early Christianity and the New Testament borrowed important beliefs and practices from a number of pagan mystery religions. Since these claims undermine such central Christian doctrines as Christ's death and resurrection, the charges are serious. But the evidence for such claims, when it even exists, often lies in sources several centuries older than the New Testament. Moreover, the alleged parallels often result from liberal scholars uncritically describing pagan beliefs and practices in Christian language and then marveling at the striking parallels they think they've discovered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


During the first half of the twentieth century, a number of liberal authors and professors claimed that the New Testament teaching about Jesus' death and resurrection, the New Birth, and the Christian practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper were derived from the pagan mystery religions. Of major concern in all this is the charge that the New Testament doctrine of salvation parallels themes commonly found in the mystery religions: a savior-god dies violently for those he will eventually deliver, after which that god is restored to life.

Was the New Testament influenced by the pagan religions of the first century A.D.? Even though I surveyed this matter in a 1992 book,[1] the issues are so important -- especially for Christian college students who often do not know where to look for answers -- that there is considerable merit in addressing this question in a popular, non-technical format.

What Were the Mystery Religions?

Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called "mystery religions" is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation.

The mystery religions were not, of course, the only manifestations of the religious spirit in the eastern Roman Empire. One could also find public cults not requiring an initiation ceremony into secret beliefs and practices. The Greek Olympian religion and its Roman counterpart are examples of this type of religion.

Each Mediterranean region produced its own mystery religion. Out of Greece came the cults of Demeter and Dionysus, as well as the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions, which developed later.[2] Asia Minor gave birth to the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, and her beloved, a shepherd named Attis. The cult of Isis and Osiris (later changed to Serapis) originated in Egypt, while Syria and Palestine saw the rise of the cult of Adonis. Finally, Persia (Iran) was a leading early locale for the cult of Mithras, which -- due to its frequent use of the imagery of war -- held a special appeal to Roman soldiers. The earlier Greek mystery religions were state religions in the sense that they attained the status of a public or civil cult and served a national or public function. The later non-Greek mysteries were personal, private, and individualistic.

Basic Traits

One must avoid any suggestion that there was one common mystery religion. While a tendency toward eclecticism or synthesis developed after A.D. 300, each of the mystery cults was a separate and distinct religion during the century that saw the birth of the Christian church. Moreover, each mystery cult assumed different forms in different cultural settings and underwent significant changes, especially after A.D. 100. Nevertheless, the mystery religions exhibited five common traits.


1.Central to each mystery was its use of an annual vegetation cycle in which life is renewed each spring and dies each fall. Followers of the mystery cults found deep symbolic significance in the natural processes of growth, death, decay, and rebirth.

2.As noted above, each cult made important use of secret ceremonies or mysteries, often in connection with an initiation rite. Each mystery religion also passed on a "secret" to the initiate that included information about the life of the cult's god or goddess and how humans might achieve unity with that deity. This "knowledge" was always a secret or esoteric knowledge, unattainable by any outside the circle of the cult.

3.Each mystery also centered around a myth in which the deity either returned to life after death or else triumphed over his enemies. Implicit in the myth was the theme of redemption from everything earthly and temporal. The secret meaning of the cult and its accompanying myth was expressed in a "sacramental drama" that appealed largely to the feelings and emotions of the initiates. This religious ecstasy was supposed to lead them to think they were experiencing the beginning of a new life.

4.The mysteries had little or no use for doctrine and correct belief. They were primarily concerned with the emotional life of their followers. The cults used many different means to affect the emotions and imaginations of initiates and hence bring about "union with the god": processions, fasting, a play, acts of purification, blazing lights, and esoteric liturgies. This lack of any emphasis on correct belief marked an important difference between the mysteries and Christianity. The Christian faith was exclusivistic in the sense that it recognized only one legitimate path to God and salvation, Jesus Christ. The mysteries were inclusivistic in the sense that nothing prevented a believer in one cult from following other mysteries.

5.The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. Beyond this quest for mystical union were two more ultimate goals: some kind of redemption or salvation, and immortality.

Evolution

Before A.D. 100, the mystery religions were still largely confined to specific localities and were still a relatively novel phenomenon. After A.D. 100, they gradually began to attain a widespread popular influence throughout the Roman Empire. But they also underwent significant changes that often resulted from the various cults absorbing elements from each other. As devotees of the mysteries became increasingly eclectic in their beliefs and practices, new and odd combinations of the older mysteries began to emerge. And as the cults continued to tone down the more objectionable features of their older practices, they began to attract greater numbers of followers.

Reconstructing the Mysteries

It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use this late source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of the cults. This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first century.

The Cult of Isis and Osiris

The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt.

From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers.

The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."[3]

This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.

As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.

The Cult of Cybele and Attis

Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life.

Most of our information about the cult describes its practices during its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the close of the New Testament canon.

According to myth, Cybele loved a shepherd named Attis. Because Attis was unfaithful, she drove him insane. Overcome by madness, Attis castrated himself and died. This drove Cybele into great mourning, and it introduced death into the natural world. But then Cybele restored Attis to life, an event that also brought the world of nature back to life.

The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language used to describe what followed Attis's death. Many writers refer carelessly to the "resurrection of Attis." But surely this is an exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis's dead body. Beyond this, there is mention of the body's hair continuing to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree. Since the basic idea underlying the myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated.

Eventually a public rehearsal of the Attis myth became an annual event in which worshipers shared in Attis's "immortality." Each spring the followers of Cybele would mourn for the dead Attis in acts of fasting and flagellation.

It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a "resurrection" appears. The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives. The next night, the "grave" of the tree was opened and the "resurrection of Attis" was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly ambiguous. In truth, no clear-cut, unambiguous reference to the supposed "resurrection" of Attis appears, even in the very late literature from the fourth century after Christ.

The Taurobolium

The best-known rite of the cult of the Great Mother was the taurobolium. It is important to note, however, that this ritual was not part of the cult in its earlier stages. It entered the religion sometime after the middle of the second century A.D.

During the ceremony, initiates stood or reclined in a pit as a bull was slaughtered on a platform above them.[6] The initiate would then be bathed in the warm blood of the dying animal. It has been alleged that the taurobolium was a source for Christian language about being washed in the blood of the lamb (Rev. 7:14) or sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (1 Pet. 1:2). It has also been cited as the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6:1-4, where he relates Christian baptism to the Christian's identification with Christ's death and resurrection.

No notion of death and resurrection was ever part of the taurobolium, however. The best available evidence requires us to date the ritual about one hundred years after Paul wrote Romans 6:1-4. Not one existing text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and "resurrection" of Attis. The pagan rite could not possibly have been the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6. Only near the end of the fourth century A.D. did the ritual add the notion of rebirth. Several important scholars see a Christian influence at work in this later development.[7] It is clear, then, that the chronological development of the rite makes it impossible for it to have influenced first-century Christianity. The New Testament teaching about the shedding of blood should be viewed in the context of its Old Testament background -- the Passover and the temple sacrifice.

Mithraism

Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.[8]

The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament.[9] Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.

Striking Parallels?

Enough has been said thus far to permit comment on one of the major faults of the above-mentioned liberal scholars. I refer to the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think they have discovered. One can go a long way toward "proving" early Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in his book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, which describes the criobolium (see footnote 6) as a "blood baptism" in which the initiate is "washed in the blood of the lamb."[10] While uninformed readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to Christianity (see Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against Christianity.

Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord's Supper and similar "sacraments" in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged "resurrections" of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail.

Pagan Rituals and the Christian Sacraments

The mere fact that Christianity has a sacred meal and a washing of the body is supposed to prove that it borrowed these ceremonies from similar meals and washings in the pagan cults. By themselves, of course, such outward similarities prove nothing. After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms, and they will naturally relate to important or common aspects of human life. The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices. Ceremonial washings that antedate the New Testament have a different meaning from New Testament baptism, while pagan washings after A.D. 100 come too late to influence the New Testament and, indeed, might themselves have been influenced by Christianity.[11] Sacred meals in the pre-Christian Greek mysteries fail to prove anything since the chronology is all wrong. The Greek ceremonies that are supposed to have influenced first-century Christians had long since disappeared by the time we get to Jesus and Paul. Sacred meals in such post-Christian mysteries as Mithraism come too late.

Unlike the initiation rites of the mystery cults, Christian baptism looks back to what a real, historical person -- Jesus Christ -- did in history. Advocates of the mystery cults believed their "sacraments" had the power to give the individual the benefits of immortality in a mechanical or magical way, without his or her undergoing any moral or spiritual transformation. This certainly was not Paul's view, either of salvation or of the operation of the Christian sacraments. In contrast with pagan initiation ceremonies, Christian baptism is not a mechanical or magical ceremony. It is clear that the sources of Christian baptism are not to be found either in the taurobolium (which is post first-century anyway) or in the washings of the pagan mysteries. Its sources lie rather in the washings of purification found in the Old Testament and in the Jewish practice of baptizing proselytes, the latter being the most likely source for the baptistic practices of John the Baptist.

Of all the mystery cults, only Mithraism had anything that resembled the Lord's Supper. A piece of bread and a cup of water were placed before initiates while the priest of Mithra spoke some ceremonial words. But the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any influence upon first-century Christianity.

Claims that the Lord's Supper was derived from pagan sacred meals are grounded in exaggerations and oversimplifications. The supposed parallels and analogies break down completely.[12] Any quest for the historical antecedents of the Lord's Supper is more likely to succeed if it stays closer to the Jewish foundations of the Christian faith than if it wanders off into the practices of the pagan cults. The Lord's Supper looked back to a real, historical person and to something He did in history. The occasion for Jesus' introduction of the Christian Lord's Supper was the Jewish Passover feast. Attempts to find pagan sources for baptism and the Lord's Supper must be judged to fail.

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:


1.None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]

2.Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."[14]

3.Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

4.Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]

5.Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

6.And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]

The Risen Christ and the "Risen Savior-Gods"

Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a "resurrection" in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses.[17] For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris's dismembered body, Osiris became "Lord of the Underworld." This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism.[18] Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected.

Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites

Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries.[19] But the evidence makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous. They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate's "new birth." The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used "rebirth" as a technical term lacks support from even one single text.

Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D. 300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such scholars are willing to concede is the possibility that some Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its content within Christianity was unique.[20]

Seven Arguments Against Christian Dependence on the Mysteries

I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

1.Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

2.Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

3.The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

4.Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).

5.Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone."[21] This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

6.Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

7.What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction."[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.





A Final Word

Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would describe them as "prejudiced irresponsibility."[23] But in order to become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work through material cited in the brief bibliography.

Suggested Reading

•Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
•J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1925).
•Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992).
•Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ronald Nash is Professor of Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando. The latest of his 25 books are Beyond Liberation Theology (Baker), World-Views in Conflict (Zondervan), Great Divides (NavPress), and The Summit Ministries Guide to Choosing a College (Summit Ministries Press). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay originally appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994.  Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693.  It is used by permission of the author.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

1.See Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992).  The book was originally published in 1984 under the title, Christianity and the Hellenist World. 2.I must pass over these Greek versions of the mystery cults. See Nash, 131-36. 3.Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Macmillan, 1943), 104. 4.See Edwin Yamauchi, "Easter -- Myth, Hallucination, or History?" Christianity Today, 29 March 1974, 660-63. 5.See Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 260ff. 6.When the ceremony used a lamb, it was the criobolium. Since lambs cost far less than bulls, this modification was rather common. 7.See Nash, chapter 9. 8.For more detail, see Nash, 143-48. 9.See Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff. 10.Joscelyn Godwin, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1981), 111. 11.See Nash, chapter 9. 12.See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 24. 13.See Martin Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 26. 14.Wagner, 284. 15.See W. K. C. Guthrie, Ortheus and Greek Religion, 2d ed. (London: Methuen, 1952), 268. 16.See A. D. Nock, "Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background," in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, ed. A. E. J. Rawlinson (London: Longmans, Green, 1928), 106. 17.See J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 234-35. 18.See Nash, 161-99. 19.See Nash, 173-78. 20.See W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: SPCK, 1948), 76-81. 21.Machen, 9. 22.Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11. The possible parallels in view here would naturally be dated late, after A.D. 200 for the most part. 23.Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 195.

Author: Dr. Ronald H. Nash of Summit Ministries
HTML version, Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, all rights reserved

This is one of those questions that amaze me that it is STILL raised...so I decided to write it all up. Often I get an email that reads like this:

The reason for this letter is that I am wondering if you could answer a question I have. In one of your html pages the subject of Mithras is touched upon lightly and a link is given for further information. The link goes nowhere though, and I am really interested in finding out more about Mithras and other Dying-God mythologies. The reason is because I often enter correspondences and dialogues with atheists. Recently one such atheist raised his question, and I am still waiting to respond to him, because of my unfamiliarity with the subject. His letter went like this:

How can a historic personage (such as Jesus) have a recorded life (according to the New Testament in the Bible) almost identical to various other mythos out there including but not limited to:

1.Mithras (Roman Mithraism) 2.Horus (Egyptian God of Light)

Both of these religions came *before* Christianity and are clearly labeled as myths yet the 'stories' of their lives are, in many ways, identical to the 'life' of Jesus the Christ.

Now, before you say that I am jumping logic or that you have never ever heard of what I am talking about . . my question is this:

*IF* the information that I have just stated above is TRUE
*THEN* would it not bear strong evidence to the face that Jesus the Christ was and is not a historic personage?

Just answer that directly.

I would appreciate any help or information you could offer on the subject. Thank you ......................................................................................

Notice the general allegation--

There are material, significant, and pervasive similarities between Jesus Christ and other Dying God-figures (and/or Savior-figures), and that these similarities are best explained by the hypothesis that the figure of Jesus is materially derived from (or heavily influenced by) these other Dying God/Savior-figures..

Sometimes the allegation is worded strongly--Jesus was NOT a real person, but a legend; sometimes it is worded less strongly--Jesus was real, but was fused with these derivative mythic elements such that THEY became the core teachings about Jesus.

Now, to analyze this carefully--and with some rigor, since there are MANY 'fuzzy' notions in this--requires us to evaluate several assertions--ALL OF WHICH must be true for the allegation to stand. They are:

•The similarities between Jesus (as portrayed in the NT) and the other relevant Savior-gods are material, significant, and pervasive enough to suspect borrowing; •That these similarities are of such a nature to either require borrowing, or be best explained by borrowing; •That we can come up with a historically plausible explanation of HOW the borrowing occurred; •That we can come up with a historically plausible explanation for the production and character of the relevant literature (e.g. NT, apocrypha); •That we can come up with a historically plausible explanation of how the borrowing was more persuasive than some presumably available TRUE historical account; •That we can come up with a historically plausible explanation for the other contextual and/or consequential data (e.g. persecution) •That we can come up with a historically plausible explanation for the origin of any significant differences between Jesus and the Savior-gods.
 

The above conditions must be met to even consider the CopyCat hypothesis a POSSIBLE one; to consider it to be the MOST PROBABLE one requires that we must also show that this explanation is a BETTER ONE than alternative hypotheses--including the traditional one.

Notice that it is not simply enough to point to some vague similarities and yell "copy cat!"--one must come up with some argument/evidence for EACH of the above more detailed assertions---which are simply part of the allegation of 'copy cat'...

So, let's examine each of these in turn...remembering that if ANY seem significantly implausible, the whole structure falls.

•The similarities between Jesus and the other relevant Savior-gods are material and substantial enough to suspect borrowing.


This issue is somehow seen as the 'strength' of the position(!), for the normal reader can sometimes be amazed at alleged similarities (note the words "almost identical" in the email question above).

However, there are several considerations that must be examined BEFORE we get into the alleged similarities:
1.There is a surprising tendency of scholars of all persuasions to adopt Christian terminology in describing non-Christian religions, rituals, myths, etc. (e.g. "baptism", the "Last Supper"). [Joseph Campbell is sometimes a good example of this.] Sometimes this is done to establish some conceptual link for the reader, but often it borders on misleading the reader. Too often a writer uses such terminology imprecisely in describing a non-Christian element and then expresses shock in finding such similarities between the religions! This is highly misleading, and borders on the irresponsible and inexcusable. Complex matters such a religious myth and rite demand much more cautious and careful approaches.


A good example of this would be the rite of the Tauroboleum (from the cult of the Worship of the Great Mother or Cybele/Attis). In it a priest stood in a pit under a plank floor containing a bull (or lamb, for reasons of expense-control). The animal was slaughtered and the blood of the animal fell upon the priest below. Predictably, some writers have used the phrase "washed in the blood of the Lamb" to describe this ceremony. Besides the HUGE chronological problem that this rite is not evidenced for at least 150 years after the close of the NT(!), the problem is one of identifying the point of the ritual. Was it a 'washing', was it a 'consumption', or was it a 'union with' the Bull (or more likely, the destruction/defeat of the bull, as it was in the later Mithraic versions of this rite)? [NTB:125f, 134; TAM:128ff]. The pit is sometimes understood as 'cave' [so NTB] and by others as 'tomb' [TAM, but of whom we do not know].

To automatically put it into the category of 'washed in the blood of the Lamb' (Rev 7.14) or 'sprinkled with the blood of Jesus' (I Pet 1.2) is considerably presumptuous, given the paucity of the data. We don't know the meaning of the ceremony at all, other than that it was for the consecration of a priest (and NOT for the initiation of the faithful--another 'disconnect') [NTB:125f]. The bull was called a 'sacrifice'--it was a presumably offered to the Great Mother and Attis. The bull was in NO WAY identified with the deities (that we can tell from the few references to it), so it certainly wasn't being 'washed in the Great Mother's or Attis' blood!

Besides the obvious problems in making this "parallel" actually parallel(!), trying to associate this with the biblical passages fares no better. The passage in Revelation specifically says that it is the 'robes' that are washed--not the people--with the obvious harkening back to 3.14 and the Jewish ritual of sacrificial purification of utensils in the OT [The pagan ceremony had the priest washing his head, face, hands, and even inside the mouth with the blood.]. And the I Peter passage is very closely identified with the OT blood-sprinklings of the people by Moses (cf. Ex 24.6-8: Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey." 8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." )

Another very common alleged similarity is the virgin birth. Other religious figures, especially warrior gods (and actually some heroic human figures such as Alexander the Great) over time became associated with some form of miraculous birth, occasionally connected with virginity. It is all too easy to simply accept this on face value without investigating further. In Raymond Brown's highly respected tome on the Birth Narratives of Jesus [BM:522-523], he evaluates these non-Christian "examples" of virgin births and his conclusions bear repeating here:

"Among the parallels offered for the virginal conception of Jesus have been the conceptions of figures in world religions (the Buddha, Krishna, and the son of Zoroaster), in Greco-Roman mythology (Perseus, Romulus), in Egyptian and Classical History (the Pharaohs, Alexander, Augustus), and among famous philosophers or religious thinkers (Plato, Apollonius of Tyana), to name only a few.

"Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit? These "parallels" consistently involve a type of hieros gamos (note: "holy seed" or "divine semen") where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus."

From a much less sympathetic perspective, the history-of-religions scholar David Adams Leeming (writing in EOR, s.v. "Virgin Birth") begins his article by pointing out that all 'virgin births' are NOT necessarily such:

"A virgin is someone who has not experienced sexual intercourse, and a virgin birth, or parthenogenesis (Gr., parthenos, "virgin"; genesis, "birth"), is one in which a virgin gives birth. According to this definition, the story of the birth of Jesus is a virgin birth story whereas the birth of the Buddha and of Orphic Dionysos are not. Technically what is at issue is the loss or the preservation of virginity during the process of conception. The Virgin Mary was simply "found with child of the Holy Ghost" before she was married and before she had "known" a man. So, too, did the preexistent Buddha enter the womb of his mother, but since she was already a married woman, there is no reason to suppose she was a virgin at the time. In the Ophic story of Dionysos, Zeus came to Persephone in the form of a serpent and impregnated her, so that the maiden's virginity was technically lost."

So, one needs to be VERY careful and detailed in examining alleged parallels between figures widely separated in space and time. 2.We need also remember that we must confine our question to the issue of the New Testament. We are concerned with the Jesus of the gospels and of the message of the post-ascension early Church. Items and elements 'borrowed' from non-Christian religions after the Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D. simply cannot be used to argue for borrowing in the years 33-70 a.d., when the NT was composed.


For example, the Christmas date of Decemeber 25 was originally the celebrated birthdate of the Roman version of Mitras. When the 4th-5th century Church decided to 'borrow' that date for the sake of establishing a national holiday, it cannot be assumed that the NT writers had any idea of that! This simply cannot be used to argue that the NT figure of Jesus was 'borrowed' from aspects of Mitraism.

Another common example is the Mother & Child iconographic evidence. The images of Horus-the-Child on the lap of his mother Isis was certainly used by the post-Constantine church as a exemplar for the post-NT elaboration of the Mary & Child-Jesus art [TAM:159]. This does not in any way equate the two or support a view that the NT adopts the Horus & Mother motif for Jesus and Mary (indeed, note Jesus' almost trivialization of the entire matter in Luke 11.27-28!) 3.It must be remembered that SOME general similarities MUST apply to any religious leader. They must generally be good leaders, do noteworthy feats of goodness and/or supernatural power, establish teachings and traditions, create community rituals, and overcome some forms of evil. These are common elements of the religious life--NOT objects that require some theory of dependence.


For example, to argue that since Jesus did miracles and so did the earlier figure of Krishna, the Jesus 'legend' must have borrowed from the Krishna 'legend' is simply fallacious. The common aspect of homo religiosus is an adequate and more plausible explanation than dependence. 4.Closely related to the above is the use of religious language and symbols. As CMM:160 notes (in studying parallels between John 1 and the Mandean cult:

"Words such as light, darkness, life, death, spirit, word, love, believing, water, bread, clean, birth, and children of God can be found in almost any religion. Frequently they have very different referents as one moves from religion to religion, but the vocabulary is a popular as religion itself. Nowhere, perhaps, has the importance of this phenomenon been more clearly set forth than in a little-known essay by Kysar. He compares the studies of Dodd and Bultmann on the prologue (John 1.1-18), noting in particular the list of possible parallels each of the two scholars draws up to every conceivable phrase in those verses. Dodd and Bultmann each advance over three hundred parallels, but the overlap in the lists is only 7 percent. The dangers of what Sandmel calls parallelomania become depressingly obvious."

So, to say that Horus was called the "Son of the Father" or that the Iranian version of Mit(h)ra was called the "Light of the World" or that Krishna was called a "Shepherd God" is totally irrelevant to the issue of dependences between Jesus and these other religious figures. 5.At the same time, however, we must be aware that the early Christians, even though they might have used "pagan" religious language (as the movement spread into the Gentile community), radically changed the content of those words.


So, DSG:15-16 describe even the Christian use of the two categories of deity at the time (emphasis mine):

"It has not been our intention to oversimplify what is in fact an extremely complex subject, namely, the ways in which ancient Mediterranean peoples conceived of their Savior Gods. Nevertheless, during the Hellenistic-Roman period (300 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) there seems to have been a definite pattern across many cultural boundaries regarding certain Gods, who were consistently called "Saviors." They seem to have been of two types. One was the divine/ human offspring of a sexual union between a God(dess) and a human, who was rewarded with immortality for her or his many benefactions. The second type was the temporary manifestation in adult human form of one of the great, immortal Gods, who came into the human world to save a city or nation or the whole civilized world. We have called these, for lack of better labels, the demigod type and the incarnation type. One thing is certain. Justin Martyr had good reason for saying that Christians did not claim anything about their Savior God beyond what the Greeks said about theirs.

"However, it has not been our intention to oversimplify in the other direction either, that is, by glossing over or ignoring the manifold ways in which Christianity stood out as a unique and unusual religion in its time. If Christians utilized familiar concepts and terms in order to communicate their faith, they made two significant changes to them. First of all, they used them in an exclusivist sense. When they proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the Savior of the world, it carried with it a powerful negation: "Neither Caesar, nor Asklepios, nor Herakles, nor Dionysos, nor Ptolemy, nor any other God is the Savior of the world--only Jesus Christ is!"...

"Second, if the Christians took over many basic concepts and ideas from their cultures--and how could they do otherwise--they nevertheless filled them with such new meaning that their contemporaries were often mystified and even violently repelled by what they heard. The same Justin Martyr who was conscious of the similarities also said: "People think we are insane when we name a crucified man as second in rank after the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, for they do not discern the mystery involved." (Apol. 1.13) "The Apostle Paul had also experienced the painful rejection of his so-called 'good news': his Jewish kinsmen considered it an abhorrent blasphemy, while his Greek listeners thought it utter foolishness. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him or other Christians from continuing to use--and break up and reshape into new meaning--all of the familiar concepts and well-known categories in their attempts to communicate something new, something radically unfamiliar, which had been revealed to them by their God through his Son Jesus Christ, about the whole divine-human relationship."

The same can be seen in the use of the motif of the Cross. The Cross has been a major symbol in world religion since humanity began, but the early church radically transformed the meaning of that symbol. So, Julien Ries in Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion, s.v. "Cross" (emphasis mine):

"It is because of a historical event--the death of Jesus of Nazareth crucified at Golgotha--that the cross is endowed with transcendent significance. The entire ancient symbol systems in assumed, but it is now placed within the context of a new vision of history framed by the theology of creation and redemption. In the eyes of the Christian, the cross is considered inseparable from the mystery of the divine Logos. Hence, it takes on a cosmic dimension, a biblical dimension, and a soteriological dimension."

So, even if similar words are used, we must never assume that the content is the same. 6.But...what would we expect, anyway? If the Judeo-Christian system is correct, then God built the universe in such a way as to enable communication of His existence, character, provision, blessings, and demands upon us. In keeping with the various ways scholars have explained the universality of myth and the commonality of basic mythic structures (e.g. the Tree, Deity, End-time Judgment, Savior) [PM:267-303], God would have built into us the basic conceptual apparatus to process this (cf. Levi-Strauss), provided some basic psychological structures into which to map "divine concepts" (cf. Jung), and architected an original revelation in history (e.g. the Garden and the promise in Genesis 3) and the transmission of the basic categories of those events (cf. the cultural diffusionism of Eliade). We would simply EXPECT some common categories across cultures into which His more specific message could be expressed. Without common mythic concepts or structures, one could simply not 'hear' the Good News about the True God and the acts in history of His unique Son, incarnated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.


We would also expect, however, that this mythic "vocabulary" would be universal, and that various groups would build different "sentences" and "paragraphs" from this vocabulary. Some would look like paraphrases of each other; some would be almost unique. But God would provide some way (e.g. broad-pattern prophecy, miracle-patterns, unpredictability, ethical incisiveness) by which to identify His message when it came. 7.We also have a special problem in the religions of antiquity. The vast majority of the pre-modern world was syncretistic, meaning that one religion would often incorporate the myth and ritual of other cults with which it came in contact. Often the deities would simply change names. In the ANE, Western Semites adopted deities from the Sumerian pantheon and Israel took up the pagan Canaanite cult. Closer to NT times, we see the Greek colonists at Ephesus "adopt" the goddess of the natives (e.g. The Great Mother) and call her by THEIR name "Artemis" (ZPEB, s.v. "Ephesus"). In some cases, deities would 'merge' into one.


The problem this creates for us is that we will sometimes be comparing Jesus (one individual in the NT) to the combined characteristics of multiple agents that are all called by the SAME NAME. For example, "Horus" applies to several DIFFERENT deities in the multi-threaded Egyptian religion [see Lesko, in EOR:s.v. "Horus"]. Horus literally has some TEN to TWENTY different names/versions/forms, some of which are: "Horus-the-Child" (Egyptian), Harpokrates, Harsomtus, Horus (as king), Harsiese, Horus-Yun-Mutef, Harendote Harakhti, Horus of Behdet, Harmachis, and several local versions (Nekhen, Mesen, Khenty-irty, Baki, Buhen, Miam) [EGG:87-96]. All of these have slightly different characteristics and legends--esp. with the wide variation between Horus the King and Horus the Sun-God. So, Budge (Gods of Egypt, vol1., p.493): "But besides the attributes of the other Horus gods, Horus, son of Isis, was endowed with many of the characteristics of other gods." When one glups together the diverse characteristics of a dozen deities, one is bound to come up with overlap with the true God! We have the same problem with Mitra--he is a mixture of Iranian, Greek, and Roman cults; Buddha--he is a mixture of various strands of "later" developing biographical tradition; Krishna fares the same--it is difficult to separate the pieces of legends that belong to Vasudeva Krsna and those which belong to Krsna Gopala [EOR:s.v. "Krsna", p.385].

In the case of the specific question above, the impact of this issue can be seen quite readily. The questioner makes the comment that Roman Mithraism predates Jesus. As we shall see, only Iranian mithraism predates Jesus, and Roman Mithraism--which shares ONLY its name with the other!--does NOT predate Jesus in any relevant sense. 8.Related to the above is the fact that we must compare the core-Jesus with a core-Other-Deity. In other words, in religions of antiquity, legends about deities would grow and develop along different paths in different parts of a geography. Hence, the legends of Horus in Northern Egypt would be different than the legends of Horus in Southern Egypt. What this forces us to do is to compare like with like. We will need to confine our description of a deity to either all the characteristics of that deity IN A SPECIFIC LOCALITY or confine our description to the common elements across ALL locations. Osiris was considered the brother of Seth in some traditions, and the father of Seth in others. We cannot combine the two meaningfully (for any number of reasons) in comparing the historical image we have in the NT of Jesus Christ. 9.We must also be careful to focus on the critical and radical similarities, not the incidental ones. The Christian message about Jesus centered on His Lordship over all creation, His voluntary and sacrificial death, His physical resurrection, and His fulfillment of a stream of OT prophetic prediction (as means to identify Him and as means to fulfill the plan of God in salvation history). Incidental elements might be (but the issue of fulfilled prophecy might counter this by making the 'incidentals' into 'requirements') the number of the original disciples (although that might be keyed to the twelve tribes of Israel), how long He stayed dead before the Resurrection, His ministry in Galilee, His birthplace, and even His virgin conception/birth. 10.A final consideration on data sources and methods concerns not overstepping the evidence. Much of our data about the mystery cults (esp. Mithra) comes from iconographic data--pictures and carvings on walls. Without some textual material to guide us, the interpretation of that material must necessarily be tenuous. So the cautionary words of Barrett [NTB:120]:

"The evidence upon which our knowledge of the so-called mystery religions rests is for the most part fragmentary and by no means easy to interpret. Very much of it consists of single lines and passing allusions in ancient authors (many of whom were either bound to secrecy or inspired with loathing with regard to the subject of which they were treating), inscriptions (many of them incomplete), and artistic and other objects discovered by archaeologists."

An example of where this would apply to our study can be seen in the grossly out-dated (but, AMAZINGLY, still widely cited by skeptics?!!!!) work of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves. The chapter in which he identifies these 'saviors' (some of whom will be discussed below) is dependent TOTALLY on a secondary source (without citations often) that itself is based almost TOTALLY on interpretations of iconographic data. And these interpretations were made 150 years ago, without the benefit of the virtual explosion of knowledge in comparative religion and ANE thought, and without the scholarly 'control' of slightly later works (such as Budge, GOE, below). Graves identifies 16 of these 'crucified Saviors' whereas modern scholarship, working on a much broader base of literary and archeological data, disagrees. So the brilliant and thorough German Scholar Martin Hengel of Tubingdon [Crux:5-7, 11]:

"True, the Hellenistic world was familiar with the death and apotheosis of some predominantly barbarian demigods and heroes of primeval times. Attis and Adonis were killed by a wild boar, Osiris was torn to pieces by Typhon-Seth and Dionysus-Zagreus by the Titans. Heracles alone of the 'Greeks' voluntarily immolated himself of Mount Oeta. However, not only did all this take place in the darkest and most distant past, but it was narrated in questionable myths which had to be interpreted either euhemeristically or at least allegorically. By contrast, to believe that the one pre-existent Son of the one true God, the mediator at creation and the redeemer of the world, had appeared in very recent times in out-of-the-way Galilee as a member of the obscure people of the Jews, and even worse, had died the death of a common criminal on the cross, could only be regarded as a sign of madness...The only possibility of something like a 'crucified god' appearing on the periphery of the ancient world was in the form of a malicious parody, intended to mock the arbitrariness and wickedness of the father of the gods on Olympus, who had now become obsolete. This happens in the dialogue called Prometheus, written by Lucian, the Voltaire of antiquity."

The point should be clear: perhaps there was not enough data when Graves wrote, but there is now--and Jesus of Nazareth starkly stands out as unique in His manner and purpose of death, among claimants to "all authority in heaven and earth"! (cf. Matt 28.18)
 

Most of the observed 'similarities' are explained by the above considerations, but let's go ahead and probe a litte farther.

These alleged "identicalities" generally attempt to identify Jesus with deities within a couple of categories (which have some overlap).

1.First there are the "Dying and Rising Gods" (e.g. Adonis, Baal (and Hadad), Marduk, Osiris, Tammuz/Dumuzi, Melquart, Eshmun), popularized in James G. Frazer's The Golden Bough [WR:GB] 2.Secondly are the figures in the Mystery Religions (e.g. Mithra, Dionysos, Hellenistic period Isis/Osirus). 3.Third, there are the more "major players" (e.g. Buddha, Krishna) 4.Finally are the figures that are allegedly linked by broader motifs such as 'miracle worker', 'savior' or 'virgin born'--heroes and divine men-- without an explicit death/resurrection notion (e.g. Indra, Thor, Horus?)


Let's look at these in turn...

1.the Dying and Rising Gods


It is in this category that we will begin to see a major weakness in the CopyCat hypotheis--that of being radically out-of-date with scholarship.

If one looks at the 'skeptical' literature on the subject, the citations and sources used are generally a century old (!) or more recent 'popular literature' (based on those out-of-date resources) that is NEVER cited in the scholarly works of the past twenty years.

Just for example, the abysmal piece on "Origins of Christianity" cited by some who come through the ThinkTank--besides being riddled with gross errors of fact and method--does not cite a SINGLE scholarly work dealing with primary materials, and its main supports are from works hopelessly out of date (e.g. Joseph Wheless, Kersey Graves, Albert Churchward, Gerald Massey, Robert Taylor). The few recent works cited in the piece either (1) do not even TRY to defend/document their assertions(!)--e.g. Lloyd Graham's Myths and Deceptions of the Bible; or (2) mix such non-documented assertions with statements supported only by secondary materials--e.g. Barbara Walker's The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. [I have been told by a prominent skeptic on the web that these works are considered 'embarrassments' to their cause.]

But why does the CopyCat believer not produce more recent works that the above? (Even the field of biblical studies sometimes refers to this motif--even though it is slightly out of the subject matter field.) It is because history-of-religions scholarship has abandoned the position!

I want to give an extended quote here from the outstanding reference work edited by the preminent comparative religions scholar Mircea Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion [Macmillian: 1987]. The entry under "Dying and Rising Gods" starts this way (emphasis mine):

"The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.

"Definition. As applied in the scholarly literature, 'dying and rising gods' is a generic appellation for a group of male deities found in agrarian Mediterranean societies who serve as the focus of myths and rituals that allegedly narrate and annually represent their death and resurrection.

" Beyond this sufficient criterion, dying and rising deities were often held by scholars to have a number of cultic associations, sometimes thought to form a "pattern." They were young male figures of fertility; the drama of their lives was often associated with mother or virgin goddesses; in some areas, they were related to the institution of sacred kingship, often expressed through rituals of sacred marriage; there were dramatic reenactments of their life, death, and putative resurrection, often accompanied by a ritual identification of either the society or given individuals with their fate.

"The category of dying and rising gods, as well as the pattern of its mythic and ritual associations, received its earliest full formulation in the influential work of James G. Frazer The Golden Bough, especially in its two central volumes, The Dying God and Adonis, Arris, Osiris. Frazer offered two interpretations, one euhemerist, the other naturist. In the former, which focused on the figure of the dying god, it was held that a (sacred) king would be slain when his fertility waned. This practice, it was suggested, would be later mythologized, giving rise to a dying god. The naturist explanation, which covered the full cycle of dying and rising, held the deities to be personifications of the seasonal cycle of vegetation. The two interpretations were linked by the notion that death followed upon a loss of fertility, with a period of sterility being followed by one of rejuvenation, either in the transfer of the kingship to a successor or by the rebirth or resurrection of the deity.

"There are empirical problems with the euhemerist theory. The evidence for sacral regicide is limited and ambiguous; where it appears to occur, there are no instances of a dying god figure. The naturist explanation is flawed at the level of theory. Modern scholarship has largely rejected, for good reasons, an interpretation of deities as projections of natural phenomena.

"Nevertheless, the figure of the dying and rising deity has continued to be employed, largely as a preoccupation of biblical scholarship, among those working on ancient Near Eastern sacred kingship in relation to the Hebrew Bible and among those concerned with the Hellenistic mystery cults in relation to the New Testament.

"Broader Categories. Despite the shock this fact may deal to modern Western religious sensibilities, it is a commonplace within the history of religions that immortality is not a prime characteristic of divinity: gods die. Nor is the concomitant of omnipresence a widespread requisite: gods disappear. The putative category of dying and rising deities thus takes its place within the larger category of dying gods and the even larger category of disappearing deities. Some of these divine figures simply disappear; some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future; some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. 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."

Now, we can summarize this quote thus:
1.There is simply NO data to support the belief in the existence of ANY dyin'-n-risin' deity apart from Jesus Christ; 2.There is therefore data CONTRARY to the belief that this was a COMMON figure before the time of Christ (to say the least!); 3.And therefore, there would not be ANY motif/images FROM WHICH the NT authors could even borrow the image of a dying and rising God!!!! 4.(And also that any biblical and ANE scholarship that still uses this image in trying to understand ANE sacral kingship and NT Mystery Religions is simply unaware of the fact that the comparative data has moved out from under them!)


Now, from a practical standpoint, we SHOULD BE able to end the matter here. Since most of the alleged pre-Christian "Christs" are held up as dying-and-rising deities, this SINGLE criticism of modern scholarship ALONE would destroy the 'material borrowing' or CopyCat hypothesis totally.

But let's go a bit further...let's look at some of the specific deities offered as pagan christs, and see how scholarship views these 'almost identical' claims (pages cited are from the Eliade work, cited above, "Dying and Rising Gods", by J. Smith):
•Adonis (p.522). "There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either the Panyasisian form or the Ovidian form of the myth)"..... "Only late texts, largely influenced by or written by Christians, claim that there is a subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised from the dead." (op.cit.).


By the way, this pattern of Christians THEMSELVES imputing a dying-n-risin' motif onto other deities is an odd one, but one noticed by Smith:

"This pattern will recur for many of the figures considered: an indigenous mythology and ritual focusing on the deity's death and rituals of lamentation, followed by a later Christian report adding the element nowhere found in the earlier native sources, that the god was resurrected. (p.522)

and again...

"The majority of evidence for Near Eastern dying and rising deities occurs in Greek and Latin texts of late antiquity, usually post-Christian in date.

Notice how ironic this is; the Christians, in their efforts to find semantic categories of adequate overlap to share the good news about Jesus, read Jesus 'back into' the pre-Christian myths! They created the very problem I am having to address today! (We will look further at this semantic-overlap need below.) •Baal/Hadad/Adad (p. 522f). In discussing the fragmentary evidence we have about these, Smith points out that "This is a disappearing-reappearing narrative. There is no suggestion of death and resurrection...Nor is there any suggestion of an annual cycle of death and rebirth...The question whether Aliyan Baal is a dying and rising deity must remain sub judice."


It should be pointed out that it is not only the history-of-religions crowd that rejects the dying-and-rising-deity ascription to Baal, but it is also the Ugaritic scholars Cyrus Gordon and Godfrey Driver who reject this pattern (see their respective collections of Ugaritic literature).

Baal is supposed to be one of the best examples of a dying and rising god--that the data is ambiguous at best is not a good sign for the CopyCat crowd... •Attis (p. 523). "The complex mythology of Attis is largely irrelevant to the quesion of dying and rising deities. In the old, Phrygian versions, Attis is killed by being castrated, either by himself or by another; in the old Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither case is there any question of his returning to life...Neither myth nor ritual offer any warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising deity." •Marduk (p. 523-4). "There is no hint of Marduk's death in the triumphant account of his cosmic kingship in Enuma elish......The so-called Death and Resurrection of Bel-Marduk is most likely an Assyrian political parody of some now unrecoverable Babylonian ritual...it is doubtful that Marduk was understood as a dying and rising deity...There is no evidence that the Babylonian Marduk was ever understood to be a dying and rising deity..." •Osiris (p.524-525).


The Osiris story is surprisingly consistent over its long history.

"Osiris was murdered and his body dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the god was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris be said to have 'risen' in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern"

"In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods."

•Tammuz/Dumuzi (p. 525f). The death of Tammuz is fairly widely attested--his rebirth is not. "The ritual evidence is unambiguously negative...In all of these varied reports, the character of the ritual is the same. It is a relentlessly funereal cult...There is no evidence for any cultic celebration of a rebirth of Tammuz apart from late Christian texts where he is identified with Adonis...Even more detrimental to the dying and rising hypothesis, the actions performed on Tammuz in these three strophes are elements from the funeral ritual...." •Melquart, Eshmun. These are phonecian deities, discussed by Ward in POTW:204: "Dying and reviving gods (Melquart, Eshmun, and Adonis) related to the seasonal pattern have been postulated (emphasis mine), though here the evidence is all from classical sources."
 
 
Smith simply summaries the bankruptcy of the Dying and Rising Gods position (p.526):

"As the above examples make plain, the category of dying and rising deities is exceedingly dubious. It has been based largely on Christian interest and tenuous evidence. As such, the category is of more interest to the history of scholarship than to the history of religions."

In other words, the Jesus stories were NOT based on some alleged earlier (and common) Dying and Rising God theme--for it simply has never existed!


..............................................................................................

2.Secondly are the figures in the Mystery Religions (e.g. Mithra, Dionysos, Hellenistic period Isis/Osirus).


(First, let me point out that, according to Smith (above), IF WE FIND Dying and Rising God elements in these religions, then they will be POST-CHRISTIAN in dating and cannot, therefore, be responsible for the production of the New Testament.)

The Mystery Religions flourished during the Hellenistic Age (ca. 300bc - 200 ad+), and were small, local cults up until 100 a.d. [For a wider analysis of these cults and their possible impact on Christianity, see Nash, cited below as simply "Nash"]. "These mysteries, involving the worship of deities from Greece, Syria, Anatolia, Egypt, or Persia, were diverse in geographical origin and heterogeneous in historical development and theological orientation." [TAM:4], and were generally confined to specific localities until around 100 a.d. [Nash]. They were essentially closed, small groups, in which initiation into 'the secrets of the god' had to be earned through deeds and rituals.

We have almost no contemporary data about the Hellenistic mystery cults [NTB:120], and we are almost totally dependent on 3rd century a.d. sources [NASH]. Nash cautions about this:

"It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find sufficient source material to permit a relatively complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use this later source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of the cults. This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about a cult that formed several hundred years after the close of the New Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first century."

We immediately run into a problem here--that of "who borrowed from whom?". If the NT was completed before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., and the Mystery Religions (MR's) in the Roman Empire only started 'flourishing' after 100 A.D. (and were almost certainly not present in Jerusalem before its Fall!), then any alleged dependence of the gospels on the MR's is a bit tenuous. This problem is most acute in the case of Mithras, but also applies to a lesser extent to the Hellenistic version of Isis/Osiris and Dionysos. So, the scholar Meyer, in his sourcebook about the subject [TAM:226]:

"Scholars have proposed several theories to account for the obvious similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions. Theories of dependence frequently have been proposed. Early Christian authors noted the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism and charged that the mysteries were godless, demonically inspired imitations of true Christianity....Some modern scholars, conversely, have suggested that early Christianity (even before the fourth century C.E., when Christianity began to adopt the practices of its non-Christian neighbors with vigor) borrowed substantially from the mystery religions all around...

"Today, however, most scholars are considerably more cautious about the parallels between early Christianity and the mysteries and hesitate before jumping to conclusions about dependence."

(Would that the CopyCat-advocates would learn a lesson from the scholars!!)

To Meyer's quote we might add additional modern scholars who are convinced that (1) most of the 'obvious similarities' are inconsequential or incidental; and (2) that the MR's borrowed from early Christianity. Nash cites Bruce Metzger:

"What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, 'It must not be critically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction.' It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measure instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor form A.D. 361 to 363."

Since there is still a great deal of confusion about the Dying and Rising God (DARG) motif, on the part of biblical scholars (as noted above by Smith, from the history-of-religions field), let me cite some of the major differences between the death of Jesus and the various deities subsumed so far in the previous two sections (as summarized by Nash):

"The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:
1.None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity. 2.Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)." 3.Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature. 4.Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults. 5.Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries. 6.And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods."
 

These are some very material and significant differences between even a most generous reading of the MR and DARG texts! This SHOULD be enough data to indicate that "dependence" (as opposed to "similarities") are going to be very difficult to maintain--in the opinions of scholars. But let's also take a brief look at the major figures that are prominent in the better known MR's of the Roman Empire. The ones most often referenced in NT background reference sourcebooks such as KOC, DSG, and NTB are the Greek MRs (Eleusinian--based on the rape of Persephone by Pluto; Dionysos (Bacchus)) and the Oriental MRs (Isis, Cybele/Attis--examined above, Mithras) [For a discussion of this breakdown, see NTSE:132-137.] We will look at some of these below.
•The MR of Isis/Osiris/Serapis.


This MR was NOT the same as the earlier Osiris religion we looked at. This was a substantial modification of that religion by Ptolemy I in the Hellenistic period. So Kee in KOC:77:

"Under Ptolemy I, the hellenistic ruler of Egypt from 305 to 285 B.C., a new cult was established in honor of Serapis, a composite deity whose attributes included features of Osiris (the God of the Nile), Aesclepius (the god of healing), Jupiter (the supreme Olympian god, Zeus, adapted for Roman use), and Pluto (the god of the underworld). In their efforts to create a one-world culture, the hellenistic rulers found a cult as inclusive as that of Serapis enormously useful, because people of diverse backgrounds could unite in honoring this divinity."

The cult of Osiris (Egyptian) was transformed into an MR of Serapis by Ptolemy. The MR version made inroads into Rome--from Egypt--during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41), and although Osiris was certainly a dying god, we know that Serapis was NOT a dying god at all [NASH]. •The MR of Dionysos (Bacchus).


Dionysos was the god of wine, and most of the cult was concerned with partying, to such an extent that the Roman Senate restricted its size and meeting frequency in 186 BC (NTSE:133). There were the vague intimations of renewal in the seasonal changes of the earth, but the similarities with Jesus are few and insubstantial. It is one of the older cults, going back into the 7th century B.C. but it was only turned into an MR during the Roman period. •The MR of Mithras.


This is a strange one, and one that is under considerable re-assessment in the scholarly community. Earlier scholars in the field followed the 1903 standard by Cumont in which the Mithra of the Roman MR's was connected with the Iranian and Persian deities of the name Mithra/Mitra. This position has been under radical and critical fire for some 25 years, since the only connection between the Middle Eastern cult and the Roman MR was the name! And the bull-ceremony, in which Mithra kills a bull, does not occur in the Iranian/Persian versions. Recent leaders in the fields, such as David Ulansey have argued for a strictly Roman origin for this MR, based exclusively on the zodiacial orientation of the period.

If we accept Ulansey's view, then is very little DARG content in the "Mithra" MR; most of it would have been in the Persian/Iranian versions. Accordingly, there is nothing to be 'similar to' and the identification fails.

If we accept the Iranian origination, then we have Mithra arriving too late on the scene to influence the NT. So Stambach and Balch, in NTSE:137: "This myth, in which Mithras overcame the powers of evil, spread from Iran across the Roman world during the second and third centuries."

This late timing is largely responsible for the diminishing belief that Mithra influenced early (as opposed to late) Christianity. So Nash:

"Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light) and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic forces.

"The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament. Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence."

It is difficult to decide if the earliest Roman references to Mithraism are to the Iranian version or the later Roman MR version. Plutarch, for example, says that the mysteries of Mithy were in evidence among the pirates in southeastern Asia Minor during the first century B.C. and were introduced by them to Rome (cited in TAM:200). Certainly all of the mentions we have in late antiquity (e.g. Lucian, Firmicus Maternus, Origen, Porphyry) are 2nd-5th century. We have no even 'soft' data upon which to base either (1) dependence or even (2) similarity between Jesus and the MR Mithra.
 
 
So, once again, the 'almost identical' issue is either (1) methodologically flawed; (2) hopelessly ambiguous; or (3) chronologically anachronistic. We just don't have the data to suggest either enough similarity or dependence.

.........................................................................................

3.Third, there are the more "major players" (e.g. Buddha, Krishna)


To what extent are the lives of Jesus, Buddha, Krisha "almost identical" enough to justify suspicion of borrowing?

Let's do Buddha first...

Let's use the list from Origins:
1.Buddha was born of the virgin Maya. 2.He performed miracles and wonders. 3.He crushed a serpent's head. 4.He abolished idolatry. 5.He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven." 6.He was considered the "Good Shepherd."


Now, there are two main questions hiding in here: (1) did the Buddha legend include these legends in the way portrayed--"elements in common with Jesus Christ"; and (2) are these sufficient to conclude "almost identical" or even "material similarity"?

The second is relatively easy to answer, given the above discussions. These elements--even IF accurate--would not even be close enough to implicate borrowing. Let's go back through them.
1.Buddha was born of the virgin Maya. [We have already seen the radical differences here, and the data that his mom was married before his conception counts against the factuality of this. There ARE later traditions, however, that assert that she had taken vows of abstinence even during her marriage (a bit odd?), but it can be understood (so in EOR) to refer only to the time of that midsummer festival. The first and finest biography of the Buddha, written by Ashvaghosha in the 1st century, called the Buddhacarita ("acts of the buddha") gives a rather strong indication of her non-virgin status in canto 1: "He [the king of the Shakyas] had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just before her conception she had a dream." (WR:BS:35).] 2.He performed miracles and wonders. [We have already seen how this is expected, not surprising.] 3.He crushed a serpent's head. [Strangely enough, even though this is commonly associated with the Messianic figure in the OT from Genesis 3, there is no point of contact with the NT portrayal of Jesus! The history-of-religions field, however, argues that this pervasive theme could be related to some primeval religious revelation/insight.] 4.He abolished idolatry. [Not only is this HIGHLY questionable, given the various deities/tantric deities/manifestations in many of the forms of Buddism(!), but it can also be pointed out that Jesus never did this! Idolatry as a heresy was legally abolished in the Law of Moses, but was practically eradicated in the Exile. Some of buddhism is atheistic; some of it has thousands of spirits/deities. Indeed, the 1st-century buddhist biographer cited above from WR:BS, in canto 21 ("Parinirvana"), in describing the events that happened at the death of the Buddha, says this: "But, well established in the practice of the supreme Dharma, the gathering of the gods round king Vaishravana was not grieved and shed no tears, so great was their attachment to the Dharma. The Gods of the Pure Abode, though they had great reverence for the Great Seer, remained composed, and their minds were unaffected; for they hold the things of this world in the utmost contempt."] 5.He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven." [This is a gross distortion of the Buddhist teaching on Nirvana! It is not a 'place' nor is 'ascension' (especially BODILY, VISIBLE, and HISTORICAL ascension as in the life of Christ!!!!) a relevant concept. This is another example of imprecise and misleading language. The Buddha is said to have traversed (on his death-couch) all nine of the trance levels--twice, and then his body was cremated (WR:BS:64-65; WR:BIG:42)] 6.He was considered the "Good Shepherd." [Again, this is expected and common, especially in pastoral-based cultures; not a cause to suspect borrowing!]


These 'similarities' turn out to be either superficial, misinformed, misunderstood, or simply irrelevant. As in most of the cases we will look at in this paper, it is the differences that are the most striking!

Just to cite a few:
•Buddha did not in any sense suffer a voluntary, sacrificial, and substitutionary death--he most likely died of indigestion at 80 years of age [WR:Eliade:27]. •Buddha said "there is no savior"; Jesus said "I have come to seek and to save the lost" and "I came not to judge the world but to save it". •Buddha did not experience a bodily resurrection from physical death; Jesus did. •The single alleged prophecy of Buddha's coming applied only to a FUTURE Buddha (Maitreya), NOT the historical one (WR:BS:237ff); the prophetic stream from which Jesus stepped is rich, varied, prior to Him, and established BEFORE His arrival.

Now, Horus...

Again, the list from Origins:

1.Horus was born of a virgin on December 25th. 2.He had 12 disciples. 3.He was buried in a tomb and resurrected. 4.He was also the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Good Shepherd, etc. 5.He performed miracles and rose one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead. 6.Horus' personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." 7.Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story



Let's look at these:

1.Horus was born of a virgin on December 25th. [We have already seen that Horus was NOT born of a virgin at all. Indeed, one ancient Egyptian relief depicts this conception by showing his mother Isis in a falcon form, hovering over an erect phallus of a dead and prone Osiris in the Underworld! (EOR, s.v. "Phallus"). And the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all.


But, just to check the reliability of the assertion about December 25th...As it turns out, this CopyCat assertion is also incorrect. E.A. Wallis Budge was one of the leading Egyptologists of this century, and his work is still cited in the scholarly literature. His two-volume work entitled The Gods of Egypt (Dover 1969 repub of the earlier 1904 work)--cited below as GOE--provides much detail about the legends of Horus. In this case, Budge has a section on the calendar and lists Horus' birthday (the ORIGINAL 'big' Horus) as the 2nd epagomenal/intercalary day of the year (GOE:2.109, 293). The Egyptian official calendar was of 360 days, followed by 5 intercalary (i.e.inserted into the calendar) days (to fill out the year to 365), which began with the helical rising of the star Sirius (Religious Holidays and Calendars: An Encyclopedic Handbook by Kelly, Dresser, Ross; Ominigraphics:1993, p.44), also known as the first day of the month Thoth. This places the start of the year around July 19-21 [Chronology of the Ancient World, by E.J. Bickerman, Cornell:1980, 2nd ed.], and would place the 5 extra days immediately preceding that date (i.e., at the END of the previous year). These extra days, therefore, would fall in the month of July--NOT December! ] 2.He had 12 disciples. [This would be so incidental as to be of no consequence--even if I could verify this fact!


But again, my research in the academic literature does not surface this fact. I can find references to FOUR "disciples"--variously called the semi-divine HERU-SHEMSU ("Followers of Horus") [GOE:1.491]. I can find references to SIXTEEN human followers (GOE:1.196). And I can find reference to an UNNUMBERED group of followers called mesniu/mesnitu ("blacksmiths") who accompanied Horus in some of his battles [GOE:1.475f; although these might be identified with the HERU-SHEMSU in GOE:1.84]. But I cannot find TWELVE anywhere... ] 3.He was buried in a tomb and resurrected. [We have already seen that the DARG pattern simply cannot be demonstrated in ANY case. And the data is against this "fact" even being true! I can find no references to Horus EVER dying, until he later becomes "merged" with Re the Sun god, after which he dies and is 'reborn' every single day as the sun rises!!!. This is not even close to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!] 4.He was also the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Good Shepherd, etc. [We saw above that the commonality of religious terms means almost nothing.] 5.He performed miracles and rose one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead. [Miracle stories abound, even among religious groups that could not possibly have influenced one another, such as Latin American groups (e.g. Aztecs) and Roman MR's, so this 'similarity' carries no force. The reference to this resurrection I cannot find ANYWHERE in the scholarly literature. I have looked under all forms of the name to no avail. The fact that something so striking is not even mentioned in modern works of Egyptology indicates its questionable status. It simply cannot be adduced as data without SOME real substantiation. The closest thing to it I can find is in Horus' official funerary role, in which he "introduces" the newly dead to Osirus and his underworld kingdom. In the Book of the Dead, for example, Horus introduces the newly departed Ani to Osirus, and asks Osirus to accept and care for Ani (GOE:1.490). ] 6.Horus' personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." [Again, a case of religious epithets without any force for this argument.


This fact has likewise escaped me and my research. I have looked at probably 50 epithets of the various Horus deities, and most major indices of the standard Egyptology reference works and come up virtually empty-handed. I can find a city named "Iusaas" [GOE:1.85], a pre-Islamic Arab deity by the name of "Iusaas", thought by some to be the same as the Egyptian god Tehuti/Thoth [GOE:2.289], and a female counterpart to Tem, named "Iusaaset" [GOE:1.354]. But no reference to Horus as being "Iusa"... ] 7.Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story [This is still yet another religious name or symbol, without import for our topic. Anointing of religious figures was a common motif in ANE and AME religion anyway. I cannot find this anywhere either!]
 

Most of the above 'similarities' simply vanish, become irrelevant, or contribute nothing to the argument for some alleged 'identical lives' assertion for Horus and Jesus. To further highlight this, let's look at the thumbnail sketch of Horus' life given in Encyclopedia of Religions, s.v. "Horus":

"In ancient Egypt there were originally several gods known by the name Horus, but the best known and most important from the beginning of the historic period was the son of Osiris and Isis who was identified with the king of Egypt. According to myth, Osiris, who assumed the rulership of the earth shortly after its creation, was slain by his jealous brother, Seth. The sister- wife of Osiris, Isis, who collected the pieces of her dismembered husband and revived him, also conceived his son and avenger, Horus. Horus fought with Seth, and, despite the loss of one eye in the contest, was successful in avenging the death of his father and in becoming his legitimate successor. Osiris then became king of the dead and Horus king of the living, this transfer being renewed at every change of earthly rule. The myth of divine kingship probably elevated the position of the god as much as it did that of the king. In the fourth dynasty, the king, the living god, may have been one of the greatest gods as well, but by the fifth dynasty the supremacy of the cult of Re, the sun god, was accepted even by the kings. The Horus-king was now also "son of Re." This was made possible mythologically by personifying the entire older genealogy of Horus (the Heliopolitan ennead) as the goddess Hathor, "house of Horus," who was also the spouse of Re and mother of Horus.

"Horus was usually represented as a falcon, and one view of him was as a great sky god whose outstretched wings filled the heavens; his sound eye was the sun and his injured eye the moon. Another portrayal of him particularly popular in the Late Period, was as a human child suckling at the breast of his mother, Isis. The two principal cult centers for the worship of Horus were at Bekhdet in the north, where very little survives, and at Idfu in the south, which has a very large and well- preserved temple dating from the Ptolemaic period. The earlier myths involving Horus, as well as the ritual per- formed there, are recorded at Idfu."



Notice how "almost identical lives" Horus and Jesus had!!! (NOT!):

•There is no mention of the more striking claims of similarity made by the CopyCat authors (such as resurrection of El-Azar-us), even though such items would surely be noteworthy in books in the Western world(!); •This sketch does not even REMOTELY look 'almost identical' to the life of Jesus Christ! To look at this and make claims of 'majority overlap' would be ridiculous in the extreme! •The alleged similarities (which much MUST be present to even START the argument about borrowing, remember!) are so weak and so dwarfed by the differences between the two figures, as to leave us wondering why anyone brought this argument up in the first place...

And finally, Krishna....

(Again, the list from Origins):

1.Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") 2.He is called the Shepherd God. 3.He is the second person of the Trinity. 4.He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. 5.He worked miracles and wonders. 6.In some traditions he died on a tree. 7.He ascended to heaven.

Looking a little more closely,

1.Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") [We have already seen how these 'virgin birth' parallels are not close enough to constitute a 'compelling similarity', but this one is particularly inappropriate. The facts are simply otherwise--cf. Joseph Campbell, Occidental Mythology, p. 342:

In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior's mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant's niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison, where he murdered their first six infants as they came. (emphasis mine).

According to the story, the mother had six normal children before the 7th and 8th 'special' kids--a rather clear indication that the mom was not a virgin when she conceived Krishna. The CopyCat statement above is simply wrong.

But there is another problem with this birth story--it is way too late in history to count. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and Sister Nivedita in Myths of the Hindus and Buddhists (Dover: 1967, repub. of 1913), pp.217ff, point out that the childhood legends of Krisha did not begin surfacing until AFTER the Gita of 200-300 a.d., with most of the child-lore originating closer to 1000 a.d. and later (in the bhakti developments). In a case like this can we seriously think that 1st century Jews were clever enough to invent a time machine and steal legends from the future? ] 2.He is called the Shepherd God. [So he was a cow-herd...so what?...Simply a common religious title, not a 'compelling similarity'] 3.He is the second person of the Trinity. [This is a grossly naïve understanding of the Hindu pantheon! The Hindu pantheon--to the extent it can be called a panTHEOn at all--differs from the Christian trinity substantially. The biggest problem with the assertion, however, is that it is simply wrong! Although the Hindu pantheon has changed considerably over over time, Krsna has NEVER been the 'second person of a 3-in-1'. In the oldest layers of Hindu tradition--the Rig Veda--the dominant three were Agni, Ushas (goddess), and Indra, although there were a number of other important deities [WS:SW:84]. After the Vedic period (before 1000 bc), and before the Epic period (400 bc - 400 ad) is the period in which a DIFFERENT "trinity" emerged. So WR:RT:105:

"Traces of the original indigenous religion are plain in the later phases of the history of Hinduism. In the course of time, large shifts occur in the world of the gods. Some gods lose significance while others move into the foreground, until at last the 'Hindu trinity' emerges: Brahma, Visnu, and Siva..."

Krishna was an avatar (manifestation, incarnation, theophany) of Visnu. As such, Krishna only appeared on the scene during the Epic period, and most of the legendary materials about him show up in the Harivamsa, or Genealogy of Visnu (fourth century a.d.) and in the Puranas (written between 300-1200 a.d.). He is one of TEN avatars of Visnu. Much of the material about him is LATER THAN the NT(!)--for example, the beautiful work the Bhagavadgita, in which he is the main speaker, is dated to be a 2nd century a.d. insertion into the older epic the Mahabharata [WR:Eliade:133; WR:SW:91f; WR:RT:105f].

One can see quite clearly that the CopyCat assertion is wholly mistaken.

This is another case of someone sloppily using Christian terminology to describe non-Christian phenomena, and then being surprised by the similarity!] 4.He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. [Now, this is interesting. The only event in the life of Krsna I can find that is close to this kind of event is the story cited above, involving only 6-7 infants. How this person would turn that into "thousands" is beyond me (and probably beyond responsible writing as well!). And, this motif of a king attempting to kill a supposed 'infant rival' is common to royal settings--not just divine ones. Hence, one can find this plot-line--a common one throughout human history--in the lives of Gilgamesh, Sargon, Cyrus, Perseus, and Romulous and Remus.(BM:227)] 5.He worked miracles and wonders. [Surprise, surprise--another religious leader is credited with miracles...Hmm, did Krishna 'borrow' from Buddha or from Thor? From Horus or from...?] 6.In some traditions he died on a tree. [Not necessarily surprising. The tree has always been a mystical and religious symbol for humanity (see Encyclopedia of Religions, s.v. "Cross"). In India it was used to symbolize the entire created order. So, in the Bhagavadgita 15.1-3, the cosmos is compared to a giant tree. (see also Katha Upanisad 6.1 and Maitri Upanisad 6.4). The tree in India would in no way have the despicable connotations of the Roman cross of execution. Notice, also that for a similarity to exist, the borrowed trait must be common to ALL/MOST traditions of the figure, NOT just 'some'. Local traditions could always be cited with almost infinite variety, decreasing the force of the identification.


From the standpoint of accuracy, let me mention that I cannot find any reference to him dying on a tree. The records I have to his death run something like this (WR:SDFML, s.v. "krishna"):

"Krishna was accidentally slain by the hunter Jaras...when he was mistaken for a deer and shot in the foot, his vulnerable spot."

Perhaps he died under a tree, but that would not be very 'similar' to Jesus, now would it?! ] 7.He ascended to heaven. [Another distortion of Hindu thought. "Heaven" is not a place in Hindu thought, nor does one 'ascend' to it--especially not 'bodily' as did Jesus. The language in later legends (post-800ad) DO sometimes use ascension images, but again, this is WAY too late...it may suggest borrowing, but only in the wrong direction for the CopyCat theorist. ]
 

These similarities--like most--simply vanish under inspection. And the differences between Jesus Christ and the Krishna of the legends is considerable. The earlier warrior-images of Krisha are those of a worthy and noble hero-type, but the later child/young man legends stand in start contrast to Jesus. Krishnaic legends portray his playfulness and mischief in positive terms, but his consistent thievery (he stole cheese ROUTINELY from the villagers and lied about it to his mom--he was nicknamed the 'butter-thief' in the literature), his erotic adventures with all the cow-maidens of the village, his tricking the people into idolatrous worship of a mountain--just to irritate the god Indra, and the hiding of the clothes of the village women while they were bathing, and then forcing them to walk naked in front him before he would give the clothes back--these all draw a line between him and the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. [These stories can be found in the Myths of the Hindus and Buddhist reference above, as well as in many summaries of his legend.] The adult images of Krishna were considerably more 'worthy' and he came to be worshipped as a supreme deity. But his overall life (above) and his death as a hunting accident are so completely dissimilar to the life and voluntary crucifixion of the Son of God on earth. The similarities are paltry; the differences are staggering.

 
• Finally are the figures that are allegedly linked by broader motifs such as 'miracle worker', 'savior' or 'virgin born'--along the line of the "divine man" or hero image in later times, without an explicit death/resurrection notion (e.g. Indra, Thor, Horus?)


These generally do not carry the force of the above categories, and so the borrowing/dependence claim is much weaker here. These 'overlaps' are simply explained:

•Most of the overlapping traits are so generic as to carry no force (e.g. miracle worker, savior, divine king) •Many of the overlapping traits are errors of equivocation (e.g. 'virgin births', sacrificial death--a martyr is not a sacrificial substitute) •Most of the overlapping traits and titles fall into the category of the general expression of ALL religon, and do not require a borrowing/dependence theory at all (unless you count the primeval revelation to humanity and its subsequent transmission through culture--e.g. the Flood traditions). •Most of the overlapping traits are dwarfed by the radical differences between Jesus and the figure in question. For example, the myth of Indra's 'miraculous' birth is given thus:

"His birth, like that of many great warriors and heroes, is unnatural: kept against his will inside his mother's womb for many years, he burst forth out of her side and kills his own father" (Rig Veda 4.18, as discussed in EOR, s.v. "Indra")

This cannot be remotely correlated with the birth of Christ, as neither can Indra's subsequent life as an immoral womanizer, a criminal punished by castration, and a declining failure to the end. •Even the category of "Divine man" (theos aner) is a questionable construct for impacting the NT.


Ancient Greek mythology is replete with examples of gods and men doing miracles, some very much like the ones in the Gospels. Alexander the Great, for example, was said to have been born of a virgin and to have been called a god (acc. to Plutarch). The earliest sources on Alexander depict him as 'normal' (i.e. Arrian of Nicomedia), but a millennium later he is a god. But in the gospels, the earliest strata still portray Christ as a miracle worker. The process called the 'divine man' motif has very few parallels with the gospel development (see Theissen's Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, Fortress Press: 1983, pp. 265-276.), and many doubt if we can speak of a clear concept of the 'divine man' before the 2nd century A.D. --AFTER the NT was written (see David Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker, Scholars Press: 1972).

One of the most interesting (and striking) of parallels is The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written by one Philostratus. DSG:203 summarizes the background and dating:

"One of the most famous in this succession of Pythagorean philosophers was a man named Apollonios, of the Greek city of Tyana in the Province of Cappadocia, in what is today eastern Turkey. Although he lived in the second half of the first century A.D., we have little direct information about Apollonios, except for this biography by Philostratus of Lemnos, written much later, i.e., around A.D. 218.

"When the emperor Caracalla was on his way to capture the territories to the East, he stopped at Tyana to pay tribute to 'the divine Apollonios,' even donating the funds to build a temple to him there. And Caracalla's mother, Julia Domna, commissioned one of the professional writers in her entourage to publish a fitting account of Apollonios' life. "

The incredible thing about this piece, though, is its strange similarities to the gospel literature (but NOT to the life of Christ--BLOM:85,86). So DSG:203f:

"This conjunction of events suggests that the title of Philostratus' work might best be translated: 'In Honor of Apollonios of Tyana,' for the entire account from beginning to end consists of carefully constructed praise, using every device known to this well-trained writer. In other words, just as Caracalla's architects built a shrine for Apollonios out of marble, one of his court rhetoricians built a temple out of words--for the same purpose, i.e., to celebrate Apollonios' God-like nature and inspire reverence for him. Thus, Philostratus' narrative is a virtual catalogue of every rhetorical device known to the professional sophistic writers of that time: sudden supernatural omens, mini-dialogues on the favorite topics of the day, colorful bits of archeological 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: the Philosopher lectures his disciples on being willing to die for truth; the Philosopher is abandoned by his cowardly disciples; the Philosopher confronts the tyrant; the brave Philosopher is alone in prison unafraid; the Philosopher victoriously defends himself in the court, and so on. On the other hand, Philostratus included enough accurate historical details to give his writing the ring of genuine truth. But mixed in with the real people and places are all sorts of imaginary "official" letters, inscriptions, decrees, and edicts, the whole bound together by an "eyewitness" diary. Finally, to give it the proper supernatural flavor, he has included numerous miraculous and supernatural occurrences: dreams, pre-vision, teleportation, exorcism and finally, vanishing from earth only to reappear later from Heaven to convince a doubting disciple of the soul's immortality.

"Guiding Philostratus at each point in constructing his narrative was the reputation of Apollonios as a divine/human Savior God."

What is interesting here is that reverse-copying seems to be going on! Philostratus is setting out to 'honor' Apollonius and creates a rhetorical hodge-podge of praise. But some are convinced that Philostratus had the NT in front of him (esp. since he wrote the piece 150 years later than it!). Elizabeth Haight observed:

"[Philostratus] wrote with full knowledge of Xenophon's romantic biography of Cyrus the Great as the ideal ruler, of the Greek novels of war and adventure, of the Greek love romances...and of the Christian Acts with a saint for a hero. [In view of all these possibilities] Philostratus chose to present a theos aner, a divine sage, a Pythagorean philosopher, as the center of his story. To make the life of his hero interesting and to promulgate his philosophy, he used every device of the Greek and Latin novels of the second and third centuries." (More Essays on Greek Romances, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1945, p. 111f; cited in DSG:205-206.

Meier also discounts the "divine man" construct and believes that Philostratus drew from the NT documents (MJ:2.596):

"In the case of the phrase 'divine man,' scholars cannot point to one clear and coherent concept--or collection of concepts--connected with the phrase 'divine man' that was current in Greco-Roman literature before or during the time of Jesus. To construct their concept of a 'divine man,' scholars of the 20th century have culled ideas from a vast array of Greek and Roman works from Homer up until the writings of the late Roman Empire. While the vague constant in the phrase "divine man" is divine power as revealed or embodied in some human being, the exact human referent ranges widely over priest-kings of Asia Minor and Egypt (including kingly magicians and law- givers), monarchs whose vast power on earth was believed to extend over nature itself (especially the Roman Emperors), and various kinds of prophetic philosophers (including ecstatics, magicians, miracle-workers, apostles, hero-sages, founders and leaders of religious groups, shamans, and charlatans). In many of the reconstructions, scholars rely heavily on works like The Death of Peregrinus and Alexander or the False Prophet by Lucian, the satirist of the 2d century A.D., and The Life of Apollonius by Philostratus, the rhetorician of the 3d century A.D. Lucian almost certainly knew the Christian Gospels, and Philostratus probably did as well."

What this means for us, is that one of the better examples of a candidate for 'borrowing' is in the wrong direction. And since the hero and the divine man concepts are either too general, too insignificant, or too 'late' to make a good case for the CopyCat theorist, we are back where we started--the uniqueness of Jesus the Christ and His life, death, and resurrection.
 
 
Thus, it is difficult to make a case for "material, significant, and pervasive" borrowing between Jesus and the plenitude of other religious deities of the world.

..................................................................................................

The Net of the allegation of material, significant, and pervasive borrowing: You simply cannot find MORE 'tight' similarities THAN you can find 'tight' dissimilarities between Jesus and the other alleged gods of the world. The DARG's are a fiction, the MR's are too late or not influential enough, the "major figures" are too dissimilar, and the "minor players" are not even close. What similarities DO SEEM to appear are weak, incidental, expected from the nature of humanity, due to equivocation, constitute only a very small fraction of the data of His life/character, or altogether forced. There is an absolute uniqueness about this Jesus of Nazareth that is not duplicated ANYWHERE--in whole or in part.
 
 
• That these similarities are of such a nature to either require borrowing, or be best explained by borrowing;


This point is rather moot--we do not have anything to explain.

Let me make this point with two examples.

One, if similarities are incidental, they don't require borrowing/dependence at all. I can ALWAYS find elements in common between people (e.g. size, shape, color, IQ, preferences, place of birth). How often in talking with someone do you find out that your birthdays are within a few days of one another? It always SEEMS odd, but there is no reason in the world to suspect 'dependence'!!!

Closer to the subject would be the symbol of the cross. The cross as a religious symbol (in various shapes, of course) can be traced back to the earliest civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Does this mean that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus on the Roman instrument of execution was 'borrowed' from that symbol?! Crucifixion by the Roman empire was common--and certainly NOT motivated by religious concerns or traditions! How preposterous it would seem to the historian to suggest that the writers of the NT constructed the entire Passion narrative involving Pilate and the Cross--because of a religious motif!! The level of detail and political intrigue and aberrations of Jewish legal praxis screams out for the judgment of authenticity. The similarity between the Cross as the symbol of Anu in Sumeria and the execution instrument of the Roman Empire used on Jesus in NO WAY implies 'borrowing' or 'dependence'.

Thus, there really is nothing to explain...

But, for the sake of argument and completeness...let's move on to the issue of...
• That we can come up with a historically plausible explanation of HOW the borrowing occurred;

We have already seen that if the NT authors were influenced by pagan religions of the day, then they did not show it very well! The image painted of Jesus of Nazareth does not seem similar enough to the other possible religious figures to prompt us to suspect 'borrowing' or 'dependence'.

But to continue this study, I want to look now at the NT authors and ask the basic question of influences.

•Question One: How would they have come in contact with these religions? •Question Two: Why might they have accepted some of these religious ideas (and correspondingly, interpreted Jesus in those categories)? •Question Three: What factors would have retarded their acceptance of these foreign-to-Judaism notions? •Question Four: Where there any public 'checks and balances' that would have hindered publication of these views by the early Christian community, even if a lone NT author would have accepted them? •Question Five: What does the literature and/or history they produced tell us about the views they accepted?

We will look at seven major authors in the NT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter. (I will be using the position of the early church on authorship--I judge their "closer-to-the-data" testimony (and the Mss. Testimony) to be more likely to be true than our "modern" judgments based on 'internal factors'.) I will also examine two related issues: (1) were there Jewish "legends" that might have influenced these writers (such as miracle-working holymen); and (2) did the gospel writers write 'legendizing' midrash?
 

Matthew

..................................................................................................
Question One: How would he have come in contact with these religions?
..................................................................................................

What do we know about Matthew/Levi?

He was a tax-collector (customs official) in the small town of Capernum, in the country of Galilee.

So, what do we know about tax-collectors, Capernum, and Galillee, with regard to foreign influences?

•Tax-collectors.


In the time frame we are concerned with (basically, the lifespan of each reputed NT author prior to meeting Jesus--probably 15 BC To 30 AD), there were several different kinds of taxes levied in the different parts of Palestine. There were the Roman taxes on property and people (e.g. the poll-tax), there were the import/export customs on trade, there were regional/ municipal levies, and there were religious taxes, such as the temple-tax.

The Roman taxes were the responsibility of the head of state in each country, and the religious taxes were the responsibility of local groups throughout the world [JPB:52, 84,156]. However, customs taxes were auctioned/leased out to the highest bidder, and administered through a network [HJP:1.2.17, p.71ff]. In the case of Matthew, he was a lower level customs collector, probably from Capernaum, who reported up through a chain of command to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, who lived in the city of Tiberas. The proceeds from the toll went into Antipas' pockets, not Rome's--with the collectors pocketing a good bit of the overcharge themselves.

Matthew would have had a toll-both on the major thoroughfare into Gaulanitis (Golan Heights) [SHJ:136]. Capernaum was connected via the Wadi Beth ha-Kerem to Acco-Ptolemais [NTSE:93], and formed a major hub on the trade to/from Tyre and the regions east of the Sea of Galilee--Philip's territory and the Decapolis [GLA:16].

Tax-collectors were a wealthy lot, although they were ostracized by the local populace (probably) and religious authorities of Judaism (definitely). They had social connections with other tax-collectors (e.g. Mt 9:10: "While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and 'sinners' came and ate with him and his disciples. "), and would have had enough wide linguistic skills to maintain social contacts with other 'outcasts' such as Gentiles, certain types of herdsmen, and usurers.

On the other hand they were both despised by the locals and altogether rejected by the religious establishment of Jewry. Since they levied tariffs on even the basic necessities of life needed by the peasantry, they were despised by the locals [HFJ:229].

But it is the religious and civic rejection that is most striking in this case. The later Rabbinic writings (seeming to agree with the general picture of the Gospels) portray the religious establishment as rendering the tax-collector as almost impossible to save. Jeremias, in discussing the "despised trade lists" in the literature [JTJ:chapter 14], shows the almost irredeemable nature of tax-collectors [p. 310-311]:

"In the same way experience had shown that tax- collectors and publicans, whose post went to the highest bidder, together with their subordinates, almost always abused their position to enrich themselves by dishonesty. 'For herdsmen, tax collectors and publicans is repentance hard', it was once said (b. B.K. 94b Bar.). The reason was that they could never know every person they had injured or cheated, and to whom they must make amends."

E.P. Sanders points out that this judgment was based on the conviction that these trades were usurious [HJ:34-35], and a radical violation of Leviticus 25.36-38.

But it gets worse...The literature about tax-collectors (of all types, by the way) is almost unanimous in painting tax-collectors as greedy and dishonest, with only one exception by Josephus [HFJ:228-229]. In fact, in the Rabbinic material (Nedarim iii.4) it was okay for the common Jew to lie to one about his property (!), and beggars and merchants were not even supposed to take money from their cash-box (Baba kamma 10.1,2) [for discussion, see Schurer, HJP:1.2.17, p. 71, note 108].

But it gets worse yet...If the later rabbinic traditions DO have a substantial measure of applicability to the earlier setting we are discussing, then Jeremias' discussion of 'official' viewpoints of tax-collectors points to abject civil rejection as well [JTJ:311-312]:

"Characteristically, linguistic custom associates tax-collectors and thieves (M. Toh. vii.6), publicans and robbers (M.B.K. x.2; b. Shebu. 39a Bar.; cf. Luke 18.II; M. Ned. iii.4; Derek eres 2); tax-collectors, robbers, money-changers and publicans (Derek eres 2); publicans and sinners (Mark 2.I5f; Matt. 9.10f.; Luke 5.30; Matt. 11.19 par. Luke 7.34; Luke 15.If) ; publicans and Gentiles (Matt. 18.17); publicans and harlots (Matt. 21.31f); extortioners, impostors, adulterers and publicans (Luke 18.11); murderers, robbers and taxgatherers (M. Ned. iii.4); indeed 'publican' was generally almost a synonym for 'sinner' (Luke 19.7). It was forbidden to accept alms for the poor or to use money for exchange, from 'the counter of excisemen or from the wallet of tax-gatherers', for such money was tainted. If tax-collectors and publicans had belonged to a Pharisaic community before taking on the office, they were expelled and could not be reinstated until they had given up the posts (T. Dem. iii.4, 49; j. Dem. ii.3, 23a.10)."

"But men who followed the trades in list IV were not only despised, nay hated, by the people; they were de jure and officially deprived of rights and ostracized. Anyone engaging in such trades could never be a judge, and his inadmissibility as a witness put him on the same footing as a gentile slave (M.R. Sh. i.8). In other words he was deprived of civil and political rights to which every Israelite had claim, even those such as bastards who were of seriously blemished descent. This makes us realize the enormity of Jesus' act in calling a publican to be one of his intimate disciples (Matt. 9.9 par.; 10.3), and announcing the Good News to publicans and 'sinners' by sitting down to eat with them."

On the other hand, we have no way of knowing to what extent these rabbinic admonitions and perspectives would have been shared by the populace of Capernaum--although, as Galileans they were certainly in conflict with other rabbinic traditions in other settings. Although only 5% of the Palestinian populace of the day was even associated with a "party" (i.e. Pharisee, Sadducee, Zealot, Essene) [NTF:90], the Pharisees played a very important part in public life, due largely to their close connection with country, lay-run synagogues [NTF:80, 85-86].

But overall, we get a view of Matthew as a wealthy, unpopular, ostracized Jew in the town of Capernaum. His employer would have been Herod Antipas (not as bad as his predecessors, but not really popular at the time--see below). He would have not had access to the traditional Jewish cultic rituals that presupposed Jerusalem or official sanction (e.g. public feasts). As a highly literate individual (and probably selected for the post in part due to that), and as probably a Jew, he would have had perhaps better-than-average access to the biblical materials as well. His social circles would have been with "outcasts" (many wealthy and/or aristocratic and/or official personages). •Capernaum.


What do we know about Capernaum at the time?
1.Population: Estimates range from "a thousand at most" [AHSG:114], to the standard estimate of 12-15K [SHJ:136], up to 20K [GLA:27]. It is understood to have been one of the most densely populated areas in the Roman world [SHJ:136]. This would have been a mixture of Jew and Gentile--but predominately Jewish-- so Matthew presumably would have had access to gentiles as well [NTSE:83]. 2.Economics: The economic conditions at the time were mixed. There was growth in the economy due to the economic expansion programs of Herod Antipas, but this would have also had a negative impact due to increased taxation. The principal export of the city was salted fish, with some grain and vegetable trade as well[SHJ:136]. The family of James and John, recruited by Jesus there, was apparently a large enough operation as to warrant hired help (Mark 1.19-20). As noted above, however, it was also a major boundary city between the various areas of the region, and as such, would have had an economy also influenced by distribution and export/import. 3.Organization: There are several indications of the internal organization and administration of the city.
•The presence of a Roman military detachment. In Matthew 8.5ff, we read :

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, `Go,' and he goes; and that one, `Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

This soldier would not actually have been a Roman centurion, but an auxilliary centurion, likely chosen from the surrounding areas of Caesarea and the Decapolis [RLRS:124; GLA:104], perhaps even commanding a group of Hellenistic-Jewish soldiers [EBC, in. loc. Matt 8.5] in service to Herod. On a border town, especially a major trade route, they would be a 'peacekeeping' force. There was a Roman road there, which typically had soldiers stationed there for police activities (e.g. retarding bandits and brigands) [Atlas of the Roman World, Facts on File:1982, p. 156-157].

This centurion is painted in glowing terms by Luke (in his parallel account), in virtue of his attitude toward the Jews of the city, with the additional historical detail (luke 7.2f):The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." 6 So Jesus went with them. .

There is an interesting piece of archaeological data that illuminates this [BAFCSP:203-204]:

"Perhaps archaeology also has something to contribute. The splendid limestone synagogue visible today in Capernaum is to be dated to the end of the 4th century AD. But underneath the assembly hall lies a basalt building of the same ground plan. By means of the ceramics below the walls that earlier building was dated by S. Loffreda to the 3rd century AD. Exactly under the central nave of the two later buildings is located a pavement of basalt stones dating back to the 1st century AD. According to Loffreda we have here the remains of the centurion's synagogue. Nearby, but separated by an uninhabited piece of land, V. Tsaferis found other houses of the 1st century AD. They were built in a better fashion than the houses of the main settlement, and one of them was a typical Roman bathhouse. We may think of the centurion living here, separated as a pagan mercenary (cf. Lk 7.6) from the Jewish village."

Although in normal circumstances one could expect the Roman soldiers to be "missionaries" for the imperial cult (and in a century or two later, for the cult of Mithras), in the case of local militia/mercenaries, this would not typically be the case. Instead, they would be 'carriers' for the local religions of THEIR source of origin. In this case we have a centurion who was obviously impressed with the beauty and strength of the core Jewish faith. •A local administrator of Herod's was there. In John 4.46ff we have the following account:

Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. 48 "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." 49 The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 50 Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour." 53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed.

The term 'royal official' probably refers to an officer of Herods (so Morris, NICNT: in.loc.). He was probably the local representative in Capernaum, overseeing the town and reporting up through the toparch intermediary (see below). He could very easily have been a Jew, but there is no indication one way or another in the passage. That he is called "royal" indicates a close connection with Herodian authority. •There was a synagogue there. Although early synagogues functioned both as religious centers and as "town halls" [AHSG:chapter 6], their presence is typically indicative of the influence of Pharisaism at his time. This would suggest that Jerusalem also had considerable influence and authority in the city. •There was Matthew, a customs official. This in itself indicated a large enough and important enough city to warrant a paid-employee of the hierarchy. This would have been true for any border town with significant enough trade routes to warrant a military presence. •There would have been a local village council, probably presided over by the royal official, to maintain order, taxation, judicial functions of a minor nature [GLA:67].
   
4.Jesus used it as a base of operations (Mk 1.29; 2.1; 7.17; 9.33--the home of Simon and Andrew). From this point, He made his travels into Galilean villages, Tyre and Sidon, the Greek free cities in the Decapolis, the Hellenistic cities in Philip's region (e.g. Bethsaida), and Caesarea Philippi.
•Galilee?

So, what do we know about Galilee?
•The population was concentrated in small towns, rather than the big cities. "The vast majority of Jews in Jesus' lifetime in Galilee, Transjordan, and Judea lived in small towns, not in the large cities such as Tiberias and Jerusalem" [NTSE:83].

•The populace would have been predominately Jewish in religion. The Maccabees (c. mid 1st century BC) forced all the Gentiles in Palestine to either leave or convert to Judaism. The result was a predominantly Jewish cast to the culture, in most of the land [NTSE:82].

•The Jews in the villages were generally alienated from the Jews living in the cities: "It remains true, however, that the Jews living in the towns of Capernum and Tarichaea were alienated from the Jews in the Greek cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias" [NTSE:104; SHJ:109, 118], with this being not altogether unrelieved [GLA:71].

•Galilee had 204 villages, organized into 5 regions called toparchies, which reported into Herod Antipas, whose headquarters were in the city of Tiberias [BSNT:43ff]. The region was densely populated[GLA:55].

•The capital of Galilee was Tiberias, although the only other large city--Sepphoris--constantly battled with it for the place of administrative preeminence [GLA:67 ]. They were both being either rebuilt or refurbished, adding to the tax burden of the area [SHJ:104]. •The capital cities were predominately Jewish in populaton, but were thoroughly Hellenistic [SHJ:84; GLA:17; NTSE:90] in organization and administration. Herod build Tiberias on a graveyard and used animal figures as decorations--both practices were anathema to strict Jews--and forced Jews to live there (but compensated them with land grants) [SHJ:86, 89, 108f; GLA:17]. Sepphoris was a few miles northwest of Nazareth had all the features of a Hellenistic city--"including a theater, hippodrome, and temples" [GLA:15], although it was a "priestly city, populated by wealthy Jewish landowners who favored the Romans during the Jewish wars" [NTSE:92].

•Galilee was surrounded by Hellenism: "As Hengel points out, Galilee was completely surrounded by hellenistic culture, with Acco-Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon in the west and north-west, Panias-Caesarea Philippi, Hippos and Gadara in the north-east, east and south-east, and Scythopolis and Gaba in the south" [SHJ:135]. •Hellenism had made considerable impact on Galilean trade, political organization, language, and commerce [SHJ:105; NTSE:89], but in matters of religion, the regular pilgrimage of Galileans to Jerusalem "demonstrates the religious and cultural loyalty of Galilean Jews to the Temple of Jerusalem" [NTSE:94]. Their loyalty to Jerusalem did NOT imply their acceptance of the full range of Pharisaic demands--for example, the rural populace simply did NOT observe their purity laws [NTSE:103]. So Martin [NTF:91]:  "The common people were alienated from official religion. No matter how much they admired the zeal of the Pharisees and were impressed by the grandeur of the temple ritual, accepting the religious regimen was, for the mass of them, an invitation to assume a heavy yoke."

•Exports were mainly the salted fish of Taricheae [SHJ:110], pottery from Kefar Hanania [SHJ:111], and oil [SHJ:82]. •Imports typically came through Acco-Ptolemais, and originated in such regions as Babylon (beer), Egypt (barley beer, smoked fish, lentils, parchment, papyrus, jewelry), Bythinia (cheese), Spain (mackerel), Lydia (wines, asses), and Tyre (dye).
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this background, which religious ideas would he have come in contact with?

Well, what are the possibilities?

Most historical reference works on this period/area do not mention the religions of the Far East as plausible candidates for 'influence'. So John Ferguson, in his book The Religions of the Roman Empire [Cornell:1970] does not even list or discuss these religions as players. The only references to India and China are Post-Jesus (Apollonius, p. 51; and Basilides, p. 131). Likewise, NTSE surveys the practical options, describing three basic options in the core NT setting: Olympian deities (Greek/Roman gods), the Imperial Cult ("Emperor" worship), Mystery Religions (MR's)--both Greek and Oriental--but does NOT list other 'candidates' such as Buddhism or Hinduism. And most of the references to 'influence' are too late for our period. So Frend, mentions Buddhist influences on Mani (early 3rd century AD heretic) and on Clement of Alexandria (same time period) [FRC:315ff; 372]. His quote about Clement shows that this situation was a novel one for the West, and one that by its time-frame, would not have been operative in NT times [p.372]:

"Nonetheless, Clement's ideal would not have been unacceptable to his Gnostic opponents and seemed even to be more Buddhist than Christian. His knowledge of Indian religion, shown by his numerous if critical references to Indian customs and the correct distinction he bade between the Brahmins and Sarmanians, may be more relevant to his outlook than is sometimes admitted. The early third century saw strong links being made between the Roman Empire and India and these links affected thought as well as trade."

The Silk and Spice routes flourished in the 1st few centuries AD (largely through Egypt) [Atlas of the Greek World, Facts on File, page 186].

The interplay between the Greek/Roman empires and the regions/religions of the Far East is a very, very complex one.

The situation for China is perhaps the easiest to understand [RW:304]:

"Until the opening of the Silk Road in the first century B.C., communication across the land and sea spaces between China and western Asia was too slight to leave traces at either end."

The situation with Indian thought is a bit more complex but may be summarized under the following ideas:

1.Greek colonies are known to have existed in India at least since the time of the Buddha in the 6th century B.C. The Buddha actually refers to the Greeks in a discourse in the Middle Length Sayings, as he is trying to convince someone against a fixed caste system [WR:AW:3]. 2.Prior to Alexander the Great's invasion of northern India in 327 BC, what little exchanges had occurred between East and Mid-East was confined to the Indus Valley, and was probably trade-based [RW:298-9]. 3.Alexander's invasion brought Hellenism to India during the rise of the brilliant Mauryan empire (322-185bc) in Northern India, and had significant impact on the upper class and urban segments. So, McNeill [RW:298]:

"On the whole, diffracted elements of Hellenistic civilization attracted a larger share of favorable attention than did the achievements of any of the other cultures of the world between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. The history of art gives the clearest evidence for this; for both Indian and Chinese art styles of the period were profoundly affected by Greek sculpture. In religion and in science, a parallel, though less striking, process may be detected. Mahayana Buddhism, for example, shows influence of Hellenistic religious conceptions, while Indian and Chinese astronomy and astrology appropriated numerous Hellenistic elements, though important local differences of course remained."

and again [RW:304]:

"To sum up: India's development to the time of Alexander's invasion appears to have pursued lines laid down at the beginning of the fifth century or before. With the new intimacy between India and the hellenistic world that resulted from Alexander's venture, and with the rise of the 'philhellenic' Mauryan dynasty within India itself, new, though still comparatively superficial, foreign influences upon Indian society became apparent. The royal court patronized a westernizing art style, and perhaps promulgated Greco-Iranian patterns of administration and political theory. "

We know, for example, of an early Buddhist sculptor in Gandhara (now Pakistan) who copied in stone a scene from a sub-Homeric epic showing the wooden horse at the fall of Troy--which he used as a miracle of the Buddha. Similarly, we have a silver cup from Tibet "of the finest post-Greek workmanship" with a scene on it which began life as an illustration to Euripides [Atlas of the Greek World, p. 189]. 4.Although the most significant cultural impact was eastward, from the Greeks to the Indians, there was also a brief spurt of knowledge flow that went from India to Greece in the subsequent period.


After Alexander died, his empire divided into several pieces--one of which was called the Seleucid dynasty. In spite of the fact that the Seleucid and Mauryan dynasties were border-competitors, they still had a great deal of friendly interchange between them, and the first two kings of the Mauryan dynasty are referred to in Greek sources. The peace treaty between them in 303 BC included a marriage alliance, and Seleucus' ambassador Megasthenes lived for 10 years and traveled extensively in the Mauryan empire [WR:HI:71] during the reign of the founding king Chandragupta (Sandrocottos in the greek). Megasthenes gathered huge amounts of information about India and wrote a book (which is lost), many parts/information of which are preserved in the writings of Strabo, Arrian, and Diodorus [HSC:197].

There were two other greek-oriented contacts made with that empire--the 2nd Seleucid ambassador Deimarchos, and Dionysios an envoy from Ptolemaios Philadelphos--but neither of these left any writings [HSC:198]. Any information about religious practices of India at this point would have been concerning the brahmanical system. So Bachelor in WR:AW:7-8:

"Megasthenes lived for an entire decade in the heartland of the Buddha's dispensation, less than two hundred years after the Buddha's death--but there is no mention in the Indika of Buddhist monks. At the time of Megasthenes, Buddhism was a small sect with no influential followers. Chandragupta, a staunch upholder of brahmanical values, was certainly no Buddhist. And Kautilya, Chandragupta's chief minister, fails to even mention Buddhism in his famous book on statecraft, the Arthashastra.

"Yet within fifty years of Megasthenes' departure from India Buddhism had exploded across the subcontinent as the imperial philosophy of Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka. Europe, however, was to wait another fifteen hundred years (until 1255) before it received a first-hand report of Buddhism and its practices."

The most famous of the three kings was the last--Ashoka. He was originally Hindu, but converted to Buddhist while on the throne. Although he is not mentioned in any greek sources, he "records having sent missions from India bearing his message of the victory of the Dharma [i.e. Buddhism in his life] to the Greek kings Antiochus II of Syria, Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirius...There is no mention in Western sources, however, of the arrival of any such missions." [WR:AW:9]. Until his death in 232 BC, he maintained frequent communications with the south and the west [WR:HI:73], even sending missionaries to Ceylon (definitely) and to the West (probably) [HSC:204].

As the data and quotes above show, there was some, but very sporadic and limited information about the religious content of proto-Hinduism transmitted to the West, and even less about Buddhism. 5.At this point in time, the window of exchange simply closes. The last two centuries B.C. saw the rise of the Parthian empire, which quickly became a barrier to cultural exchange. So HSC:521-2:

"The essential difference between the Parthian empire and the Seleucid one which it partly replaced lies in the fact that the Seleucid rulers were of Greek origin and the main champions of Hellenism in Asia, while the Arsacids were Scythians or Asiatics, who were not at all hypnotized by Greek culture."

"All considered, it would seem that the Parthian empire was (at least in pre-Christian times) a barrier to the Hellenization of the East and the Orientalization of the West, rather than a channel for them. It was not a solid barrier, however, but a kind of grille or trellis permitting a little silk, as well as peaches and apricots, to move westward and pomegranates to go east."

6.Most of our information about East-West exchanges after this comes from post-Christian times [HSC:523]. The transmission of information about the East at this point came through traveling merchants, many of whom passed through Egypt and Alexandria. Bachelor describes some of these [WR:AW:25]:

"Commerce between Asia and the Roman Empire increased; luxury goods were imported from China; a community of Indian merchants was settled in Alexandria; an Indian holy man immolated himself in public in Athens; and a Ceylonese embassy reached the court of Claudius in Rome."

These are, of course, all post-NT situations and the first mentions in the West of the Buddha were 2nd and 3rd century AD figures such as Clement and Basilides of Alexandria [WR:AW:27ff].

In summary, the influence and dissemination of Hindu and Buddhist thought from India far enough west to make a difference simply had not occurred by the time of the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth on the scene.

So that basically leaves us with the three options of NTSE:

•Olympian deities: These were the Greek gods (and Roman versions of them) that were honored by leading families in Roman cities. As a tax-collector, Matthew would have been in the hire of the cities, WITHOUT the responsibility to collect Roman taxes (e.g. poll tax and property tax). Rural Galilee, per se, was Hellenized only in areas of economy, city organization, and language. There is virtually no Hellenistic influence on religious praxis in the smaller cities and villages. Capernaum's only exposure to these deities would be through the frequent local traveler (who generally would not stay long enough to do any serious evangelism work!) on his way through or to the Roman administrative centers at Caesarea or Sepphoris. There was also a strongly pharisaic element at Capernaum, which having lost its political power under the persecutions of Herod, became a distinctly religious force in "urban" parts of Galille [NTSE:101]. This tended to discourage the public display or discussion relative to foreign cults. [Local indigenous cults had been virtually destroyed in the 'forced conversion' to Judaism enforced by the Hasmoneans 142-63 bc.] So, there would have been little chance for substantial exposure to these ideas in Capernaum. •The imperial cult (or ruler cult): This was the worship of the emperor, involving traditional elements--images, shrines, temples, sacrifices, prayers, etc. This tended to exist among the wealthy, Roman families, and occasionally among aristocratic families in the cities--families that would have had ties to Rome. It would have also been manifest in Roman soldiers, although not in the case of local auxiliary militia (as in Capernaum). In the case of Capernaum, the number of aristocratic families that would have strong ties to Rome would be few indeed. Actually, the Jews of these smaller Galilean towns had little respect for those aristocratic Jews. So NTSE:104:

"It remains true, however, that the Jews living in the towns of Capernum and Tarichaea were alienated from the Jews in the Greek cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias."

Presumably, Matthew would have seen aspects of this in scattered contacts with magistrates and soldiers, but the absence of any regular center of the cult in Capernaum reduces the probability of influence considerably. •The Mystery Cults (both Greek and Oriental): We have seen earlier that there are some chronological problems with having these be a major influence ANYWHERE in the early 1st century AD, but this is specifically acute in regards to areas outside of Greece and Asia Minor. The MR's were originally local-only cults of various agricultural and nature deities, and hence were largely confined to their specific locality [NTSE:132ff]. At this time in history, they would not have been a presence in lower Galilee, including Capernaum. Again, however, we would have the possibility of some traveling merchant, bring his god with him (as was done often in cases of colonists and migration--cf. NTSE:41-42). Since these are systems with rather elaborate ritual and paraphernalia, they are not quite as 'portable' as others--they require some level of critical mass to take root. Again, this would entail very minimal exposure for Matthew.

..................................................................................................
Question Two: Why might they (i.e. Matthew) have accepted some of these religious ideas (and correspondingly, interpreted Jesus in those categories)?
..................................................................................................

It is difficult to construct a plausible scenario in which Matthew would find any foreign ideas more attractive than the rudimentary Jewish faith that he no doubt originally had as a local resident.

One can easily see why Matthew would be disenchanted with official Judaism (since it would have radically marginalized and excluded him from specific forms of community ritual), but it is difficult to see how he would have abandoned a more basic form of personal faith in favor of the elaborate trappings of the foreign cults. The simple fact that he responded positively to a Galilean messianic figure so easily (Matt 9.9: As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. ) indicates at least some adherence to aspects of messianic Judaism. The most plausible scenario would have him as an aware, but non-practicing Jew, and not rather as a practicing member of the imperial cult (e.g. emperor worship) nor of any of the more exotic Olympian deities.

We do know that he did have a social circle constituted by other 'sinners', which would have included other of the despised trades (e.g. gamblers, camel drivers, bath attendants, select types of merchants). These would have been local Jews as well, at various levels of non-practice. How much social interaction he had with the higher-ups in the Hellenistic cities is unclear, but even the hierarchy in which he was positioned was generally filled with Jews. For example, the one good example of a tax collector was a Jew in Caesarea, and the 'bad' examples scorned by Josephus and Philo of Alexandria were also from large cities. His "social pressures" would have been still that of non-practicing or culturally-hellenized Judaism--NOT the pagan religions with which we are concerned here.

Given the infrequent contact that he would have had with any foreign religion (he would not have been at his 'post' ALL the time, plus he probably shared some of his duties with others--cf. Mt 9.10), it is likewise difficult to see how he would have been persuaded by any foreign "savior" figures or motifs, nor would he accrue any social and/or membership advantages of such religions.

In short, there does not seem to be any compelling reason (or even opportunity) for Matthew to adopt foreign religious theologies/praxis, and we actually have data that indicates his more basic Jewish faith.

..................................................................................................
Question Three: What factors would have retarded their acceptance of these foreign-to-Judaism notions?
..................................................................................................

Here we want to look at the opposite--what 'influences' would be operating on Matthew AGAINST adoption of foreign cults?

There are some factors in this category, which are mostly community and social.

•The local communities of Galilee did not "take kindly" to defilement of the land by foreign idols. Cultic practices involving pagan temples/shrines (as all of the 'candidate' cults would have had) were seen as affecting the very community, and NOT simply the individual. There would have been a strong negative pressure on Matthew to avoid adopting (or at least to avoid displaying) such practices. •There was actually a small social force on him from the Centurion who loved the Jewish people. As an authority figure, this would have exerted exemplar-force (i.e. "the foreign gods must not be really any better that the Jewish God, or this fellow would not have 'converted'"). •The sheer wealth-addiction issue would have militated against Matthew/Levi from adopting ANY vigorous religion--irrespective of land of origin. •There is a distinct possibility that many of the foreign cults would have been somewhat incomprehensible to him. Some of the proto-Gnostic notions in some early MR's, for example, require an understanding of Greek metaphysics of spirit/matter. Although Matthew would have been fluent in Greek, the probability that he was versed in Greek philosophy to the degree required to understand some of the subtleties of the oriental cults/MR's is extremely minute. •There would have been a political force from Antipas that would have retarded adoption of pagan deities. Herod Antipas had built Tiberias in defiance of Jewish scruples, but in deference to them had not put images on his coinage [SHJ:86]. He had learned from his father's mistakes and made genuine attempts at compromise around Jewish religious sensibilities. This policy of limited-agitation would have frowned upon overtly antagonistic practices (esp. practice of pagan religions in the rural areas--the main source of rebels!) by those in the employ of Herod (i.e. Matthew).

In the aggregate, the forces/influences on him NOT to adopt foreign practices are probably much stronger than the forces/influences on him TO adopt foreign practices.

..............................................................................................
Question Four: Where there any public 'checks and balances' that would have hindered publication of these views by the early Christian community, even if a lone NT author would have accepted them?
..................................................................................................

This question is a fascinating one, and the data indicates a STRONG 'check and balance' environment This data falls into three categories: (1) indication that the NT documents are mostly group products; (2) indications of close interactions/associations among the authors; and (3) indications of relatively close apostolic oversight of the spread of the gospel content.

1.Indications that the NT documents are mostly GROUP products:
•To state this in summary form is Ellis in GAG:46:

"Although the (synoptic) evangelists are probably identified correctly by the second-century sources, their individual role may be overstated there and indeed, with the possible exception of Luke, it is difficult to assess with any precision. In some of these sources, however, Matthew, Mark, and John are presented as arrangers of gospel traditions whose work, in the case of Mark and John, is then ratified by others. That is, they are participants in a corporate enterprise"

•Matthew was said by Papias to have 'collected the sayings' (Eusebius, HE, 3.39.16) •Papias also recounted the tradition that Mark "became Peter's expositor/interpreter and wrote...Peter ratified (kurosai) the writing for study" (Eusebius, HE, 3.39.15; 2.14f). •The Muratorian Canon has this comment: "When (John was) exhorted by his fellow disciples and bishops (to write)...it was revealed to Andrew, on of the apostles, that John was to write all things in his own name, and they were all to certify" •Ellis points out that Luke's "mention of the 'many' who drew up a narrative possibly refers to the corporate composition of one document, as the singular may suggest, rather than the individual compostion of many narratives" [GAG:46]. •The usage of prior sources by the evangelists points to at least one dimension of collegial effort. Mark certainly used sources--esp. the pre-Markan passion narrative [Pesch, in GAG:106ff]--and Matthew uses "special exegetical traditions that appear to reflect the work of a circle of highly skilled prophets and/or teachers" [GAG:47] Since "prior documents" would be kept in official places, this appears to be activity that takes place in a scribal/school setting. •John actually indicates (or at least hints) that collaboration was involved in his gospel:

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. (John 19.34-35)

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (John 21.24)

•Stendahl in the classic The School of St. Matthew argues that Matthew 13.52 (He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." ) indicates a scribal school setting. •The letters of the NT consistently manifest group-construction data. The usage of amanuenses (dictation scribes) is well attested: Rom 16.22; I Cor 16.21; Col 4.18; 2 Thess 3.17; Phlm 19. These co-writers often influenced the wording, which in the case of the gifted individuals used by Paul, would be expected. •Another more important piece on the epistles is the use of a "co-sender" which would have had considerable impact on the content. For example, we have these in I Cor 1.1 (Sosthenes); 2 Cor 1.1 (Timothy ); Gal 1.2 ("all the brothers with me"); Phil 1.1 (Timothy). So, PLW:

"Such contemporary data suggests that the mention of those associated with Paul in the address should be explained in terms of the letter; that is, he selected them to play a role in the creation of the epistle as coauthors. It seems obvious that the recipients of such letters would have taken the 'we' at face value as referring to the senders." (p. 19)

"How did coauthorship work in practice? In light of what Pliny the Younger has said about his working habits (Letters 9.36)..., we might reasonably assume that, whereas Pliny communed with himself, Paul consulted his companions and, as the lead, did the actual dictation. Within this broad framework, however, circumstances influenced the exact procedure in each letter...At the time of the composition of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Paul was still a neophyte both as a leader and a writer. The committee of three (note: Paul, Silas, Timothy) produced the letters, and Paul kept his personal comments to the minimum. As the one dictating, however, he could interject without difficulty...The circumstances of 1 Corinthians were different." (p. 33)

•The epistle of Peter manifests this as well--I Pet 5.12 cites Silas as co-author. •Indeed, Wenham suggests as the best explanation for the basic order in the synoptic material, that:

"The canonical gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, were major works, written by leaders of great competence, and it is unlikely that knowledge of their projected books was kept secret. Rather, we would expect one evangelist to be glad of another's help while preparing his own work." [RMML:10].

•In the case of Paul, the "corporate" nature of his letters extends to his mission as well. So Gamble, BREC:99:

"It was Paul's custom to name others together with himself as cosenders of his letters. This was probably not a formality but a reflection of the involvement of his associates in the conception, if not in the composition, of many of the letters. The evidence strongly suggests that Paul's missionary enterprise had a corporate structure and a school dimension..."


This stream of data strongly suggests that "the same apostolic circles were involved in the formation and/or transmission of both gospel and epistolary traditions" (E. Earle Ellis, in GAG:52). The fact that the NT literature was a group-effort or collaborative in nature would have acted as a significant barrier to the individual writers "smuggling in" pagan and/or foreign images of Jesus. 2.Indications of close interactions/associations among the authors:


It is quite easy to demonstrate that the various writers/sources of NT documents were in constant communication and collaborative work. Some of the data are as follows:
•The letters of James, I Peter, and the Pauline letters were written by apostles who--according to Paul and his sometime companion Luke--worked together. The data is extensive: Gal 1.18; 2.1, 9; I cor 3.22-4.1; 9.5; 11.16, 23ff; 14.33ff; 15.3-7; Rom 15.25; Acts 11.29f; 12.25; 15.6-35; 21.17f; cf. 2 Pet 3.15f; Jude 17f with I Tim 4.1). •The letters and the Book of Acts connect their authors with the synoptic authors:
•Peter and Paul with Mark (Col 4.10f;2 Tim 4.11; Phlm 24; I Pet 5.13; Acts 12.12-25; 13.5, 13; 15.37ff). •Paul and James with Luke (Paul: Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11; Phlm 24; Acts 16.10-17; 20.5-21.17; 27.1-28.16 ["we"]; James: Acts 21.17f ["we"]). •Acts puts James and Matthew together in Jerusalem (Acts 1.13f with 12.12-17, 25)
 

 
•The epistles reveal that Paul and Peter and James know a number of synoptic traditions [GAG:44]
1.Paul: I Cor 7.10; 9.14 (I tim 5.18); I Cor 11.23; 15.3; cf. Col2.8; see GP:II:345-375 for a substantial list of Pauline overlaps with the Synoptic Apocalypse. 2.Peter: I Pet 1.10ff (Luke 10.24=Matt 13.17); 2.7 (Mark 12:10); 2.12 (Matt 5.16); 4.13f (Matt 5.11f=Luke 6.22f). 3.James shows special affinities to Matthew: 1:5,6, 22f; 2:5, 13; 4.10; 5.12.
•Peter was apparently the source of much information for Paul--Gal 1.18.

The NT writers were in constant communication and collaboration with each other, and demonstrate this in their writings. It would have been difficult if not impossible for one of this group to have held to foreign, pagan notions without it becoming widely known. We even know of disagreements within the early church, and that they are surfaced quite visibly(!)--such as Peter vs. Paul in Galatians and the circumcision issue in Acts 14-15. All the indications along these lines are well within Jewish-Christian thought, and foreign notions do not start to show up until after the NT era at the earliest. 3.Indications of relatively close apostolic oversight of the spread of the gospel content:
1.The early church had a center (Jerusalem) and leaders (apostles). 2.When the church expanded into Samaria, there was interaction with the leaders of the founding church (Acts 8.14): "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them". [By all accounts, Peter and John would have been closest to ANY information about Jesus' acts/words.] 3.When the church expanded into Antioch, we see the same pattern occur (Act 11:22): "News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch." 4.When the issue of circumcision came up, the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas "to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15.2) 5.The first church council was held at Jerusalem (Act 15:23-29) 6.The reference in Acts 15:24--"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you..."--is a STRONG indication of a 'sense of control'! 7....as is 16.6: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. . 8.Paul accepted the importance of the Jerusalem center (Gal 2.1-2): "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain." 9.Davids points out how significant this was [GP:I:87f]:

"Confirmation of the picture in Acts comes from the fact that even Paul felt the power and authority of the Jerusalem church and the apostles. While Paul insists that his legitimacy as an apostle comes directly from Christ, he still reports that he found it necessary to go to Jerusalem at least twice and on one occasion to seek formal approval of his gospel from the apostles (Gal. 2.1-10). This would be most astounding if Paul did not feel that the apostles had at least some type of authority over the content of the tradition. Thus although Paul refuses to become dependent upon Jerusalem, he has the highest respect for the role of the community as a stronghold of pure doctrine and tradition".

10.At Jrs. Paul was welcomed and sent to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9f): "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." 11.Paul (a native of Tarsus!) returned to Jerusalem after EACH missionary journey. 12.Even Peter is subject to the apostles as a group (Acts 8.4). 13.The leading apostles and evangelists had traveling ministries, bringing them into contact with churches and believers everywhere. 14.The early churches did NOT live in a vacuum. They corresponded with each other (cf. I Clement, a letter from Rome to Corinth, a.d. 95, see ATNT:48-49) and exchanged NT documents (cf. Col. 4.16). 15.Bauckham summarizes the authority succinctly [BAFCSPS:450]:

"The Jerusalem council presupposes the authority of Jerusalem to decide the issue of Gentile Christians' obedience to the Law (Acts 15). Its decision binds not only Antioch and its daughter churches (15.22-31) but also the churches founded by Paul and Barnabas (16.4). When James recalls the decision in 21.25, the effect is to imply that Paul's Gentile mission is still subject to it."

This controlling group of apostles and elders would have been a serious 'check and balance' against any foreign notions, held by any individual or minority.
 
The "Net" of this is clear: there were CONSIDERABLE 'checks and balances' in place during this early period, which would have prohibited the introduction of individual foreign elements into the content of the NT. The NT literature was generally a group-product, the authors were in frequent communication/co-work with each other, and the original apostolic community oversaw the development and transmission of the gospel content. Even novel elements that could be produced by the pneumatic and prophetic ministries of the Spirit were to be 'judged' by the core content and authoritative followers of Jesus (cf. I Cor 14.29; I Thess 5.19-21; I John 4.1-3).

..................................................................................................
Question Five: What does the literature they produced, and/or post-Easter history tell us about the views they accepted?
..................................................................................................

In the case of Matthew, the issue of post-Easter history is easy--we have very, very little information about him. By far and away the most consistent data we have has to do with his authorship of the Gospel! Early tradition is unanimous in stating that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and for Hebrews. Wenham discusses these witnesses in RMML, chapter 5 (i.e. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusibius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Augustine, et. al.!).

The issue of literature is a bit more straightforward:

1.It is widely agreed (as well as obvious to the most casual reader!) that Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the gospels (see NT Wright's discussion in NTPG:384ff, and standard commentaries). 2.We have seen already in Part A of this study that pagan elements do not manifest themselves in Matthew's portrayal of Christ. 3.It would have been evangelistic 'suicide' to have appealed to the Jewish population in 1st century Roman-occupied Palestine on behalf of a Jesus colored by pagan associations (transmitted by gentile merchants or slaves) or the imperial cult (transmitted by Roman soldiers or the oppressive Hellenistic/Roman elite)!!! 4.The very argumentation content and methods of Matthew reflect the basic milieu of the Jewish community--not the argument forms of pagan theologies [BEAP:140-152]. 5.Matthew's argument for the Messianic status of Jesus is NOT from his 'divine powers', but from His fulfillment of OT scriptures--the opposite approach of pagan deities. 6.Jesus appears in a number of non-Jewish or Hellenistic cities (e.g. Phoenicia, Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi), but there is NO hint that Matthew (or Jesus) tries to 'relate' to the pagan theological figures/concepts that were present in those areas. This would have been the perfect setting for Matthew to "smuggle" those associations into the narrative. 7.Likewise, the visit of the pagan Magi in Matthew 2.1-12 would have been a great place to insert something about Persian and/or Iranian legends, but he didn't.
 
In short, not only do we have no indication of pagan notions in Matthew, but the ABSENCE of such notions in places in the text which would have been perfect places to insert those notions counts heavily against his carrying these in his belief system.

................................................................................
Conclusion
................................................................................

We have seen that:

1.Matthew had minimal contact with outside religions.

2.Matthew had minimal forces on him to adopt such outside religious ideas.

3.Matthew had non-trivial forces upon him to avoid adopting outside religious ideas.

4.Production of the NT literature (including Matthew's gospel) would have been largely a group effort, in constant review/feedback with apostolic figures, and under the authority of the 'keepers of the tradition' in Jerusalem.

5.The very character of Matthew's literary production demonstrates a strong argument that he did not maintain foreign religious ideas.

We have seen in Part A that Matthew's portrait of Jesus is unique, and not a mere copy of pagan religious motifs; in this study we can understand part of why that was the case.

As for the charge of Paul's pagan influences:

THE CHARGE OF PAGAN INFLUENCE

The last charge that we would briefly address at this point is once again a rehash of outdated negative critical scholarship mixed with a misinformed and misleading Muslim "version" of church history.[21] According to this charge the apostle Paul and some of the later church fathers corrupted much of the purity of Jesus' teachings by mixing the paganism of their day with the original message of Christ. For example, Yousuf Saleem Chisti in his book What Is Christianity: Being a Critical Examination of Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, attributes such doctrines as the deity of Christ and the atonement to the pagan teachings of the apostle Paul, and the doctrine of the Trinity to the pagan formulations of church fathers.[22]

Chisti also attempts to demonstrate the vast influence of mystery religions on Christianity by stating:

The Christian doctrine of atonement was greatly coloured by the influence of the mystery religions, especially Mithraism, which had its own son of God and virgin Mother, and crucifixion and resurrection after expiating for the sins of mankind and finally his ascension to the 7th heaven.
If you study the teachings of Mithraism side by side with that of Christianity, you are sure to be amazed at the close affinity which is visible between them, so much so that many critics are constrained to conclude that Christianity is the facsimile or the second edition of Mithraism.[23]

The author goes on to list some of these similarities by noting that Mithra was also considered the son of God and savior, was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, was crucified, rose from the grave the third day, atoned for the sins of humankind, and finally returned to his father in heaven.[24] By way of a brief response we need to point out that an honest reading of all the New Testament data will clearly demonstrate that Paul did not teach a new religion. Paul, similar to Jesus, taught that Christianity was a fulfillment of Judaism (Rom. 10:4, 9-11; Col. 2:16-17; Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:16-17). Both taught that men are sinners (Mark 3:38; Rom. 3:23) and that Jesus died, with his shed blood providing atonement for sin (Matt. 26:28; Mark 10:45; Eph.1:7; Rom.5:8). The death and burial of Jesus were completed by his resurrection (Luke 24:46-47; John 20:25-29; Rom.10:9). Yet man cannot save himself, but needs God's grace and leading (Matt. 19:25-26; John 4:44; Eph.2:8-9), which is imparted through faith and surrender to Christ (Mark 1:15; John 6:47; Rom. 10:9-11). The result is a changed life and commitment (Luke 14:25-35; John 15: 1-11; 2 Cor.5: 17). Finally, we should remember that Paul's message of the gospel was both checked and approved by the original apostles (Gal. 1-2), demonstrating official recognition that his message was not opposed to that of Jesus.[25] As we have already pointed out in Chapter 12, even though the Trinity - either the term itself or its specific formulation - does not appear in the Bible, nevertheless, it is a faithful expression dealing with all the biblical data. Also, an accurate understanding of the historical and theological development of this doctrine would amply illustrate that it was exactly because of the dangers of paganism that the Council of Nicea formulated the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.[26] In response to the specific charges of the influence of Mithraism on Christianity, Chisti's descriptions of this religion are baseless (it is interesting that the author gives no reference for such alleged similarities). Ronald Nash, the author of The Gospel and the Greeks, describes Mithraism in the following way:

We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.[27]

Nash continues,

Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages ... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook ... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians.
Perhaps the most important argument against an early Christian dependence on Mithraism is the fact that the timing is all wrong. The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.[28]

In fact, all the allegations of Christian dependence on various mystery religions or Gnostic movements have been rejected by scholars in the fields of biblical and classical studies.[29] The reasons for such a rejection are mainly due to the historical character of Christianity and the early date of the New Testament documents that would not have allowed enough time for mythological developments on one hand, and on the other hand, the complete lack of any early historical evidence in support of the mystery religions. As the British scholar Sir Norman Anderson explains,

The basic difference between Christianity and the mysteries is the historic basis of the one and the mythological character of the others. The deities of the mysteries were no more than "nebulous figures of an imaginary past," while the Christ whom the apostolic kerygma proclaimed had lived and died only a few years before the first New Testament documents were written. Even when the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians the majority of some five hundred witnesses to the resurrection were still alive.[30]

Concerning the Qur'an, we would like to point out that, based on the findings of reputable scholars of Islam, much of the content of the Qur'an can be traced to either Jewish or Christian works (often from Jewish or Christian apocrypha) or pagan sources.

Arthur Jeffery, in his technical and scholarly volume The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, ably proves that "not only the greater part of the religious vocabulary, but also most of the cultural vocabulary of the Qur'an is of non-Arabic origin."[31] Some of the vocabulary sources include Abyssinian, Persian, Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, and Coptic.[32]

W. St. Clair-Tisdall, in his classic The Sources of Islam, also demonstrates the direct dependence of certain Qur'anic stories of the Old Testament on the Jewish Talmud. The influence of the Jewish apocrypha can be seen on the Qur'anic stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and the idols, and the Queen of Sheeba.[33] The direct influence of Christian apocrypha can be seen in the story of seven sleepers and the childhood miracles of Jesus. For the existence of Zoroastrian doctrines in the Qur'an we can cite the Qur'anic descriptions of the houries (virgins) in Paradise and the sirat (the bridge between hell and Paradise).[34] In addition to these, important Muslim practices such as visiting the shrine of Ka'aba, and the many details of the ceremony of hajj, including visits to the hills of Safa and Marwa, and also the throwing of stones against a stone pillar symbolizing Satan, were all pre-Islamic practices of pagan Arabia.[35]

It spite of the above evidences, it is interesting that Muslim authors have been most unwilling to address the issue of the human origins of the Qur'an, but have simply repeated their dogmatic assertions about its divine origin. In fact, in our research of Muslim authors we have not even come across an acknowledgment of such problems in the Qur'an, to say nothing of solutions.

In conclusion, it is our sincere hope that the readers will consider the evidences set forth in this book, pursue their specific areas of interest even farther, and make their decision concerning the integrity and the reliability of the New Testament based on historical FACTS! Notes:
21. See M. A. Yusseff, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Barnabas and the New Testament (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1985).
22. Yousuf Saleem Chisti, What Is Christianity: Being A Critical Examination of Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Karachi, Pakistan: World Federation of Islamic Missions, 1970).
23. Ibid., 87.
24. Ibid., 87-88.
25. See Habermas, 67-72. For further response to the charge that Paul corrupted Jesus' orginal message, the reader should refer to J. Gresham Machen's classic The Origin of Paul's Religion (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1925), F.F. Bruce, Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974) and Herman Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957).
26. For a brief treatment of the history of this doctrine, see E. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton: Tyndale House). Two of the classics in this field are G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K., 1952) and J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1958).
27. Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks (Dallas: Word Publishing 1992), 144
28. Ibid., 147.
29. Ibid., 119.
30. Sir Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 52-53.
31. Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an (Lahore: Al-Biruni, 1977), 2.
32. Ibid., 12-32.
33. W. St. Clair-Tisdall, The Sources of Islam (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), 11-30. For a host of other similarities, see pp. 39-45.
34. Ibid., 46-59, 74-9l.
35. See Ali Dashti, Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985), 55, 93-94, 164.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

With permission of the author, this material was taken from the pages 306-309 (Appendix 4) of
Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb
Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross
Baker Books, 1993, ISBN 0-8010-3859-6

C. JUDAS ISCARIOT

It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot's betrayal consisted of, probably because there was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any number of times without the general populace knowing about it. It would have been simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The religious authorities did not need a betrayal - only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more "prophecies" could be fulfilled. The whole episode is pure fiction - and, as might be expected, it is riddled with contradictions.

I do not understand why you think there was no need for a betrayal.  People tend to think that Jesus Christ was followed by twelve followers only.  If this was the case a betrayal would not have been needed.  Jesus Christ was followed by hundreds and in some case thousands.  As Jesus Christ said in Matthew 26:55 when he was arrested in the garden: 

"Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as against a robber?  Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me,

It is apparent that they could not arrest him in front of all his followers.  Jesus had to leave on several occasions to be alone with his disciples.  If he did not do this; hundreds would be with him at all times.   This is why a betrayal was needed.  No one was around except for his disciples and maybe a few hanger-ons.  Why didn't they arrest him in the temple?

1. The prophecy

Matthew says that Judas' payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 as proof!

2. Thirty pieces of silver

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

You are mistaking about silver.  In  66AD,  33 or so years after this event involving Judas;  Florus took (stolen) 17 pounds of silver pieces from the temple.  If silver was not in circulation then why did the temple have so much.  This is a claim of discrepancy which shows a poor understanding or a lack of research regarding the history regarding this  matter..

3. Who bought the Field of Blood?

a. In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.

b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.

Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?

(misunderstood the author's intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?' In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death.

4. How did Judas die?

a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

One of the twelve at the time.  Does anybody really think that Judas was still one of the twelve, even though he was dead?  Absolute nonsense to even imply this.  As for how Judas dies...

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

5. How did the Field of Blood get its name?

a. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money (Matthew 27:6-8).

b. Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas' bursting open (Acts 1:18-19).

Is the field called the 'field of blood' because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas's bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.  In other words the high priest bought the field for burial of criminals, unknown people.  Because they used the "blood money" that Judas threw back into the temple, this is how the field was purchased.  Dead men can't buy land.

    This concludes part one of the supposed contradictions.  Part two, when available will be linked below.

    So far we can reach the following conclusions.

• Mr. Carlson has misunderstood the Bible, the true meaning of scripture, history and the Greek language.
• Mr. Carlson shows the above point over and over again.
• If you want to find discrepancies in the Bible; this is a simple task.  Anyone can find supposed discrepancies/contradictions if this is what you are looking for.  However, finding an explanation via true intent, historical data, and biblical times requires quite a bit of research.
• Those who are  not of God; and or have no desire to be of God, will never understand the Bible.  The Bible is a spiritual book which is attacked in the physical world.  We are not even playing in the same ball park.
• Mr. Carlson has used the typical atheist stance which reminds me of the evolutionist tactics used for attempting to explain the theory of evolution.  Using such terms as  " it seems to me", " this leads us to believe"  "it is obvious",  etc...  By employing these statements, it shows the mistakes involved in Mr. Carlson's reasoning.   In his mind he may be able to justify using these statements.  Yet to most people, this would be considered grasping at straws.  We all have a right to express our opinion.  However Mr. Carlson seems to be trying to suggest that extensive research was done.  It does not seem that this has been the case.

    Part two of Mr. Carlson's Supposed New Testament Contradictions include the following subjects.

• JESUS' TRIALS, DEATH AND RESURRECTION
• THE CRUCIFIXION
• THE RESURRECTION
• THE ASCENSION
• MISCELLANEOUS
• THE SECOND COMING
• THE CAUSES OF THE CONTRADICTIONS

Page Two

For More Information on Atheism, Evolution and Other Cults and Religions; visit the site 

"Deceived By The Light"

©2001 . All rights reserved.  Contact Us