Is Jesus just an amalgam of mythical figures?

One of the claims I heard made by an atheist recently was that Jesus was just an amalgam of earlier mythical figures and that many of his attributes can be derived from earlier heroes of Greek and Persian antiquity.  I remembered wrestling with this material when I first began to be convinced that atheism was insupportable.  Not recalling my conclusions, and not wanting to speak from a lack of knowledge, I didn't say much at the time.

I've since gone and done some re-reading and what has struck me is the difference between academic historians and internet historians.  Internet historians grab at disconnected facts and wield them out of context.  For example, take Mithras.  Internet historians point out that he predates Jesus by around 1400 years; that he was born on Dec 25, to a virgin, in a cave; that he offered eternal life by spilling his blood; that he was buried in a tomb and rose again 3 days later; and that he said, 'He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.'

Pretty devastating for a Christian, huh?

Well, no.  You see, there were two Mithras in antiquity.  The Persians first mention Mithra in around 1400BC, though more recent scholarship suggests that the date is more like 700BC.  And the Romans had a Mithra(s), too.  But scholars have been unable to find any connection between the two.  All of the parallels between Jesus and Mithras mentioned above are parallels with the Roman Mithras.  And here's the clanger: he came after Jesus.

In other words, the claims about Jesus were not derived from stories about Mithras.  It's the other way around.  The earliest record of a narrative about the Roman Mithras is dated at least 100 years after the manuscripts of the New Testament.  The only specific mention of a Mithraic offer of eternal life exists in a piece of writing dated to 200A.D.

But it gets worse.  Mithras was not born from a virgin, in a cave.  According to the Mithraic tradition, he was born fully formed, from rock, and when he moved he left a cave behind.  There is no mention of a virgin.  The blood by which he saves is not the blood of Mithras, but of a bull he slaughtered.  Christians have never suggested that the birthday of Jesus was Dec 25 - it was just a day we borrowed from existing pagan celebrations (along with Easter).  The only reference to a Mithraic resurrection is from the writings of Tertullian, an early Church father.  And scholars have attributed the eating/drinking saying to Zarathustra, not Mithras.

So where does all this misinformation come from?  Well, the stuff about Mithras comes largely from a 1903 work by a Belgian scholar called Franz Cumont.  However, the idea that Jesus is an amalgam of various figures derives from the discredited and largely abandoned Religionsgeschichte (History of Religions) movement which was much in vogue in the 19th century.  It depended largely on lacking or overlooking accurate dating of manuscripts, which is why it has now largely absent in peer-reviewed scholarship.  Like all memes, though, it has found a home among the hyper-skeptics of the web, who lovingly tend the trash of earlier eras.

Tragically, I had none of this to hand on Thursday night.  But then again, I also don't retain a structured critique (with academic testimony) of the notion that black holes are very large gerbils with an eating disorder.

Which makes more sense?

I had a fascinating debate last night with Atheist Foundation of Australia and Sydney Atheists spokesperson Alan Conradi.  He did a great job of setting forth the beliefs of his 'kind' of atheists.

What really struck me was the shift that some atheists have made away from the traditional definition of atheism.  It used to be that atheism was defined as the belief that there was no God, and agnosticism expressed a softer view.  Some people have suggested that this definition has been abandoned because atheists kept getting pounded in debates where they had the (somewhat intolerable) burden of defending the indefensible.

Alan (and his team) define atheism not as the belief that there are no gods, but 'having no belief in god.'  This, they insist, is a null hypothesis, and therefore must be assumed as the default position for all humankind.  In other words, whereas once atheists had to bear the burden of proof, it has now been dumped right back into the lap of Christians (and theists in general).  This may just be a bit of cosmic karma for Christians.

Of course, there are problems with this approach.  Null hypotheses are generally something you choose to work with for statistical reasons, rather than have forced upon you.  And, of course, theists can do the same thing.  Atheists, for example, believe that religion is a natural phenomenon.  Theists could pose the null hypothesis, 'religion has nothing to do with natural phenomenon' and demand that this be disproven.  None of this rhetorical sleight of hand makes for engaging discussion, of course.

Most of all, it means that some atheists wander around claiming that the statement 'I have no belief in God' is logically equivalent to 'I have no beliefs about God'.  This is, of course, simply not true.  Let's take the example of fairies.  I can say: there is no evidence for fairies.  Therefore, I have no belief in fairies.  However, this isn't the same as saying: 'I have no beliefs about fairies.'  I do, in fact, have a belief about fairies.  I have a psychological commitment to the idea that they do not exist.

Now, I don't doubt that atheists have more to say on this topic.  I've asked Alan to consider forming a joint blog with me to allow discussion of this and other issues to see where it takes us.  Stay tuned.

Because suffering is not the problem

We all know that recent history (not to mention the ancient past) is littered the examples of governments which have been brutal and corrupt.  Why is it, then, that Paul is able to say

Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. Rom 13:1

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, for Christians, there are greater enemies than death.  Byron Smith has commented on this here, so I won't attempt a poor reproduction of his work.  I will simply make some observations about how this applies to the political sphere.

Firstly, we know Jesus submitted to the unjust judgments of a corrupt and broken political system.  He was falsely accused, had his life exchanged for the life of a terrorist, and horribly executed between men who were guilty as charged.  Was God out of control?  No.  In Jn 19, when Pontius Pilate, confused and frustrated, bursts out:

Don't you know that I have the authority to release you and the authority to crucify you?

Jesus replied

You would have no authority over me at all if it hadn't been given you from above.

Perhaps, though, Jesus is - as in so many other ways - unique, distinct, salutary but not exemplary?  And yet when Babylon, that most pragmatic of imperial powers, sweeps through Jerusalem and carries the best and brightest of Judah into exile, what does God command in Jer 29?

Build houses and live in them.  Plant gardens and eat their produce.  Take wives and have sons and daughters.  Take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men in marriage so that they may bear sons and daughters.  Multiply there; do not decrease.  Seek the welfare of the city to which I have deported you.  Pray to the Lord on its behalf, for when it has prosperity, you will prosper.

Rev 13 is basic reading for a Christian political worldview. In it, a terrible government is described as a 'beast'.  It is given 'authority' by the dragon, Satan, who was thrown out of heaven. With this authority, the beast wages war on the saints of God.  Yet we know, already, that Satanic authority is only a chimaera and an illusion.  Satan may the the constituting agent of this government, but his power is ordered by Lord of Hosts.

Why does God allow this to happen?  Why does he allow his people to be persecuted, churches burned down, pastors murdered?  Because suffering is not the enemy.  Nor is death.

The bald truth is that God is on about laying an axe to the root of the tree of suffering, not pruning its branches.  God's purpose is to exalt his Son and defeat death and recreate the cosmos.  And along the way he uses suffering to shape his people and grow his church.

Stanley Hauerwas wrote

What we must fear as Christians is not our death at the hand of an unjust aggressor but how as Christians we might serve the neighbor without resorting to unjust means.

This is why Christianity produces martyrs, not terrorists.  Because there are greater enemies than death.  Stay tuned for Michael Jensen's work in this area!

On the danger of moralizing size

I thoroughly recommend this article by Tim Keller on the differences between churches at different stages of growth.

The valley of vision

Lord, high and holy, meek and lowly,

Thou hast brought me to the valley of vision,

where I live in the depths but see thee in the heights;

hemmed in by the mountains of sin I behold thy glory.

Let me learn by paradox

that the way down is the way up,

that to be low is to be high,

that the broken heart is the healed heart,

that the contrite spirit is the rejoicing spirit,

that the repenting soul is the victorious soul,

that to have nothing is to possess all,

that to bear the cross is to wear the crown,

that to give is to receive,

that the valley is the place of vision.

Lord, in the daytime stars can be seen from the deepest wells,

and the deeper the wells the brighter thy stars shine.

Let me find thy light in my darkness,

thy life in my death,

thy joy in my sorrow,

thy grace in my sin,

thy riches in my poverty,

thy glory in my valley.

- from The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions, by Arthur Bennett

Did you choose your church for the wrong reasons?

Why did you choose to make your church your church?

And are you ready to repent of your reasons?

Here are some of the reasons that Christians have given me for making Barneys their home church. They love the music. They love the preaching. They love the informal style. They love having a family-friendly congregation with a kids’ ministry at 5pm. These are all good things – they’re just terrible reasons for a Christian to choose a church. Because they are all about what suits you. And that’s a terrible reason to choose a church.

That’s because the style, music and timing of a church service ought to be matters of indifference to the Christian, with one exception. They are a matter of indifference because, as the apostle Paul wrote, ‘to the pure, all things are pure’ (Tit 1.15). So long as I am praising Jesus, exhorting and being encouraged by fellow believers (Heb 10.24-25) and hearing God’s word taught faithfully, what do I care about the packaging – so long as the packaging makes church as effective as possible in reaching the lost.

Paul’s predominant concern about the ordering of church meetings was that they must be edifying and they must not be a barrier to unbelievers. However, when we choose a church because of time or style, or require that our church maintain that time or style because it suits us, we have forgotten entirely the missional character of church. Choose your church because it is committed to mission. That means that, at the very least, it will change its preaching style and music and time slot and whatever else necessary to be as accessible as possible to the outsider. It will be completely firm on doctrine; and completely relaxed on method.

For those of my readers who church at Barneys: what would this look like for us? What kind of church will you need to be part of to reach your friends with families? What about workers without children? Will you need to stop clinging to the evening and embrace a morning service?

What will Barneys need to change to be more effective? What will you need to do?

Love takes planning

One of the great recurring church discussions/debates/flameouts is whether welcoming and follow-up should be entrusted to the spontaneous exhibition of love by Christians. It’s always amazed me how strongly many of my brothers and sisters react to the idea of a Welcoming Team or follow-up systems and strangers.

I don’t buy it. I’m as much a product of the Romantic/Existentialist movement (spontaneity=authenticity) as anyone, but the sad truth is that many churches depend upon off-the-cuff engagement, not because they love too much, but because they love too little to get their finger out and plan.

If I’m in a church and it catches fire (one of the beauties of working at Barneys is that I can raise this example without being accused of deploying a hyberbolic rhetorical device) I don’t care how many of the congregation are willing to throw their bodies out of the window to create a cushion for my safe descent. I want to know that some paper-pusher has ensured their building is compliant with the latest fire-safety codes. I love paper-pushers.

God tells us to ‘consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds’ (Heb 10.24). The Greek word for ‘consider’ means to ‘to give careful, proper and decisive thought about something.’ Love is not just to be spontaneous – it is to be intentional and thought out in advance wherever possible. After all, spontaneity is only a matter of perspective – the only good works we do are the ones which God has prepared in advance for us to do (Eph 2.10).

For the last 10 years, Barneys has been operating a substantial ‘business’ (currently around $1M p.a.) off the back of Microsoft Access. Now, Access isn’t the work of the devil. I’ve got verses. But it is no longer sufficient to support the kind of internal processes that we need to implement in order to demonstrate considered love to the outsider. Access isn’t a tool which can help us at both the front and back door. And so we’ve decided to put our money where our love is and invest in a web-based church management system. It looks a little like Facebook, and I think it rocks.

What we hope this system will help us to do is plug some of the gaps. For a start, it will put all of the leaders, and ultimately all of our church, into an online community. It will enable growth group leaders to manage their groups online and for groups to have their own web pages to communicate and share. It will help us to track visitors and help move people along the path to being fully integrated and fruitful members of the community. No more missed emails and lost scraps of paper. It will facilitate information flow, which becomes more and more important as a church will grow.

However, it won’t tell our friends about Jesus. Which is cool, because there are some things only people should get to do.