A Response to Joseph McCabe s How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism

Transcription

1 A Response to Joseph McCabe s How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism By Aaron Lockhart The author divides his work into 2 sections. 1) How the Creed was Synthetically Formed, and 2) The Facts About Early Christianity. In the first section, our author struggles to convince us that the creed or belief of the church was influenced by other pagan beliefs, focusing quite a bit of attention on Mithraism. The sad thing is, the author knows the futility of his argument and ends up focusing on the practices of the early church rather than his stated goal. But I get ahead of myself. In the second section, the author attempts to discredit Christianity because of some of the actions of those in the early church. Let s begin with his first erroneous statement: [The gospels] represented Jesus as a violent opponent of priests, temples, services, set prayers, and every element of sacerdotal and ritual religion. 1 First of all, McCabe gives no reference as to where he got this information. Yet he precedes this statement by saying, We have no quarrel here with those who think that the gospels are real biography. Unfortunately, Mr. McCabe must have never read these biographies of Jesus, because they clearly show the true intention of Jesus. First of all, McCabe uses the phrase, violent opponent. Unlike the Zealots of His time, Jesus was not interested in change through violence. The only I repeat ONLY time we see Jesus mildly violent is when he overthrows the tables of the merchants and moneychangers in the temple. 2 This, unfortunately for McCabe, has nothing to do with the list of Jesus opponents that he gives, but with the extortion committed by these merchants on those who simply wished to worship at the temple. In fact, Jesus is shown here (contrary to what McCabe says) to be an advocate of the temple rather than a violent opponent when He says, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves. 3 Jesus could not tolerate perversion of what the temple was meant for. To see Jesus feelings on services, we can look at many instances where He advocated and took part in services rather than violently opposing them 4 as our author would have us believe. Was Jesus a violent opponent of priests? Well in 3 passages of scripture 5 we see Jesus instructing someone to go to a high priest. In fact, Jesus is Himself 1. Joseph McCabe, How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism, 5 2. Mark 11:15 3. Luke 19:46 4. Matthew 12:9, 13:54, Mark 1:21, 3:1, 6:2, and Luke 4:15 5. Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14 and 17:14 2 referred to as a priest over 15 times in the New Testament. 1 Was Jesus a violent opponent of set prayers? Well, when asked how to pray, Jesus replied, Pray, then in this way 2 Sorry, Mr. McCabe, wrong again. As for stating that Jesus was a violent opponent of every element of sacerdotal and ritual religion, a sacerdotal religion is one that emphasizes the priests as essential mediators between God and man. What was Jesus take on this? Jesus was not violently opposed to this type of system, but was simply there to change it to one where man could approach God himself. He says it this way, Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 3 He was not opposed to Judaism (a sacerdotal religion), but came to fulfill it as the Messiah, to replace the priests as mediator between God and man. That s why we see Him referred to as the High Priest so much in the NT because Jesus was now to be our mediator or representative of God (see John 14:6, Jesus own words). [Jesus] spoke in parables to the multitude so that they would not understand in the next page you read that he spoke to the multitude in parables because it was the simplest and most beautiful way to get his ideas over to them 4 It s funny (or sad) So many misconceptions about the Bible can be eradicated simply by reading the text from which they came. McCabe finds fault in Jesus reasoning for using parables by saying that He deliberately told parables so that they would not understand 5 and then turning around and saying that he did it so they WOULD understand. You notice, of course, McCabe (conveniently) does not cite his sources so we can check if what he s saying is true. However, all of this aside, by actually looking at the text, you can gain an understanding of what Jesus was talking about when he said, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. 6 The first thing you notice in Luke (when you actually look it up) is that this statement is a quotation of an Old Testament scripture. What Jesus was saying was that this statement (found in Isaiah 6:9) was being fulfilled by the people Jesus was talking to. But rather than taking my word for it, simply read the parallel passage in Matthew 13:14 In their case, the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive In addition, McCabe s statement, In the next page you read that he spoke to the multitude in parables because it was the simplest and most beautiful way to get his ideas over to them is a false statement. Not true. And McCabe (as happens most of the time) does not cite his source so you, the 1. Hebrews 2:17, 3:1 and elsewhere 2. Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2, emphasis mine 3. Matthew 5:17 4. Op. cit. 5. Luke 8:10, Matt. 13:11 6. Luke 8:10

2 3 reader can verify his statement. McCabe makes something up and then mocks it as a contradiction while the reader simply accepts it as truth. But Jesus did speak in parables for various reasons, which are outlined in the Liberty Bible Commentary: 1) To attract attention. They have tremendous interest value, and everyone likes a story. 2) To prevent hearers from being repelled too quickly by normal direct statements. 3) To stimulate inquiry (Matt 13:36, Luke 8:9) and to teach. These stories could easily be remembered, and were thus good vehicles for preserving the truth. 4) To reveal the truth, as some could understand a story taught in parabolic form more easily than regular teaching. 5) To conceal the truth. Often a story would protect the truth from the mockery of a scoffer who could not understand the meaning. One s spiritual condition would frequently determine how much he would understand of what Jesus said. 1 And knowing this last point, that Jesus also spoke in parables to separate the seekers from the scoffers, helps us understand the statement, though seeing they will not see, though hearing, they will not understand Luke 8:10. This is evidenced by the very next thing that Jesus talked about the condition of men s hearts and their reception of the truth through the parable of the sower. Which is exactly why Jesus said, seeing, they may not see, and hearing, they may not understand. Jesus did not necessarily speak in parables to keep the people from understanding, but to separate the seekers from the scoffers. Those truly interested in the things of God would probe deeper, as we see in these accounts. For security of Christian morality they must found a great church with buildings and choirs, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, priests, etc., vestments, incense, and dog-collars, the power to kill heretics and dictate to princes and presidents Tens of millions of Christians believe that. 2 This is one of the most ridiculous statements yet. Aside from having no basis for his assertion that tens of millions of Christians believe that (which is absolutely false), the Christian belief for the success of the church lies in one single statement made by Jesus found in Matthew 16:18. It says, Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. We place the success of the church squarely in His hands, not in the governmental hierarchy of the ecclesiastical establishment Liberty Bible Commentary, Vol. II, p Op. Cit., 5 3. And to inform you, the reader, the rock Jesus spoke of in Matthew 16:15-16 was Peter s confession of 4 In one of the most important, yet one of the least frequently quoted documents, of the first century is a Letter from the Christians of Rome to those of Corinth that says that the Romans have just simple meetings in each other s houses, for we know that they had no sort of chapel until after 200 AD at which they said prayers and sang a hymn (probably Jewish) or two The letter says nothing about priests much less a Pope. Pliny s letter suggests the same simplicity. 1 The author s intent here is to what show that the church grew and required more organization? He also wants to imply by saying least frequently quoted documents that we have something to hide about our origins. Why quote that letter when everyone knows it already? I don t know what the big deal is, but it is common knowledge that the early church met in houses at first and then moved on to buildings designated for the purpose of gathering together. The Bible mentions several different churches meeting in people s houses. 2 But it is only logical that as the church grew, they would move out of houses and into its own building(s). Let me give you a contemporary example of this first century occurrence. In 1965 in Costa Mesa, California, 25 people (enough to fit in a house) were meeting in a small, non-denominational church. They named this small church Calvary Chapel. Today, the church (Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa) is listed among the world s twenty largest churches with more than thirty-five thousand members. From this first Calvary Chapel, many men went out to start more Calvary Chapel churches across the nation. Today, there are over one thousand Calvary Chapels around the US and the world. 3 This group started in a small place the size of a classroom. When it began to grow, of course they needed to find a new place to meet. Similarly, the Vineyard movement began in 1976 with home meetings, yet 20 years later there are more than 850 Vineyard churches worldwide. 4 The same thing was true with the early Christian church. Just as Calvary Chapel and Vineyard are not ashamed of their humble beginnings, neither are we as Christians as a whole. Mr. McCabe, I suppose, is trying to discredit Christianity because it moved from its simple roots. Well, it was the next logical step of growth in any system or environment to move from the houses and into permanent locations. As for no reference to a pope or priests, it is true that the letter said nothing of a pope or priests that were instituted later, but how in the world does this even apply to the topic at hand the formation of our beliefs? Oh, and by the way, the Roman historian, Pliny the younger, spoke of the hymns they sang. I don t know why McCabe said that they were probably 1 Op. Cit., 5 2. Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Acts 2:46 & 5:

3 5 Jewish and then mentioned Pliny, because Pliny himself dismisses that idea when he says, they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god 1 It s obvious that these Christians were not singing Jewish songs, but songs worshipping Jesus. At the beginning of page 6, the author begins a feeble attempt to discredit Christianity by saying that many of the early church practices arose from pagan rituals. The first thing the author addresses is the idea of Mass (which by the way, is not practiced by the majority of Christianity and is in no way intrinsic to our beliefs). The author links Christianity to Paganism because the two (according to McCabe, he gives no references) used the same word or phrase to dismiss. By the way, that phrase they used means, you are dismissed a logical way to dismiss any service, Christian or pagan. But once again, not remotely addressing the topic at hand. McCabe then actually references to a real work of literature! He says that The Mysteries of up the Mithra by F. Cumont (which is wrong, the name of the work is The Mysteries of Mithra) speaks of ceremonies including candles, incense, priests in vestments, and bread and wine. First of all, this book does not say that they partook of bread and wine. To quote Cumont, A loaf of bread and a goblet of water were placed before the mystic, over which the priest pronounced the sacred formula. 2 Another very extensive reference, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, also says that the Mithraism sacrament was bread and 'water', not wine. 3 Furthermore, there are many religions that also have candles, incense, and priests are they to have developed from Mithraism, too? Candles have been in use all over the world for centuries. To draw a comparison between the two because they both used candles is ridiculous. As for incense, the Catholic use of incense comes from a Judaic practice that predates Mithraism by almost a thousand years. 4 Priests in vestments? The word priest is a generic term defined as a person having authority to perform the sacred rites of a religion, 5 and could be used (and rightly so) by any religion with a leader. And a vestment is simply a ceremonial robe, which again, the terminology could be applied to anyone wearing anything of the sort. In fact, Judaism employed the use of incense, priests in vestments, bread, and wine long before the creation of Mithraism can you accuse Mithraism of borrowing from Judaism? Just because Mithraism began using candles,incense, and ceremonial robes in no way creates a parallel between it and Christianity. The only example McCabe (through Cumont) gives that could be considered any distinct relation to Christianity is the idea of bread and wine, but we ve 6 shown that Mithraism used bread and water, not wine. And besides, the New Testament use of bread and wine clearly came from the Jewish Passover (That s the reason Jesus and His disciples were in the upper room), 1 which was instituted in 1446 BC, not from Mithraism. And, on top of all this, this argument does nothing for the author s purpose to show that the Christian Creed came from pagan sources. 2 And then the author (of course) attacks the idea of Christmas. I would have been disappointed if he didn t! First, McCabe says that Christians refused to celebrate Christmas or honor Mary 3 until the 4 th century because other pagan religions celebrated one or the other. McCabe this time tells us that he has the references in his Little Blue Books 1102 and Well, I checked these sources, and there was no additional information given, much less any references to valid sources of antiquity that spoke on the issue. And the notion that Christians refused to celebrate Christmas is simply wrong. They did indeed celebrate it in a ceremony called Epiphany as early as the 2 nd century. But here I believe lies one misconception by non-christians we do not celebrate Christmas as December 25 th. We celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ. Whether or not He was born December 25 th is inconsequential. So yes, the early church DID celebrate Christmas, because for Christians, Christmas is not a date, but an event s celebration that could occur on ANY date. Allow me quote Bruce L. Shelley, Senior Professor of Church History at Denver Seminary: The first Christmas celebration did not commemorate a date at all but a supremely important event the appearance of Israel s promised messiah Down to the first half of the fourth century the churches attached no greater significance to December 25 than to many other dates. This much we know: Before there was December 25, there was January 6. As early as the second century, Christians celebrated Jesus appearance at the Jordan [and] later expanded this festival to include Christ s appearance at birth. Christians called it Epiphany, or manifestation. So the meaning of the first Christmas was not pagan; it was a celebration of the birth of the Messiah. 4 When Constantine sought to use the date of the celebration of the Roman sun god to celebrate the birth of the Messiah (the coming of the TRUE light of the world), he and other Christian leaders saw this as an instrumental way to convert the pagan world. But the date has nothing to do with an event that was celebrated by Christians from the beginning. 1. Pliny, Letters, 10:96 2. Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, 158. The only reference to wine was an assumption by Cumont in which he says, undoubtedly wine was afterward mixed (ibid.). 3. Article: Sacraments (Christian, Eastern); Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Ed. by J. Hastings 4. When the tabernacle was erected while the Israelites were in the wilderness, there was an altar of incense that represented the prayers of the people rising up to God. 5. Merriam Webster Dictionary, New Edition, 1994; Entry: Priest 1. Luke 22: Reading the book, The Mysteries of Mithra, which McCabe calls the highest authority on the subject was indeed enlightening. There are more things gleaned from this work that we ll get into later, but the chapter entitled The Mithraic Liturgy shows that the differences between the Christian and Mithraic services FAR outweighed the similarities. And even while Cumont was himself mistaken in some of his theories, the facts that he presents about Mithraism prove quite beneficial to our argument. 3. The Christians did indeed honor Mary (though not in the same way as the Catholic church today), who is called Blessed among women in Luke 1: Christianity Today Magazine, Is Christmas Pagan? December 6, 1999, p. 26.

4 7 At this point in this pamphlet, McCabe finally gets around to an attempt at addressing his original thesis. McCabe s first assertion is that Christianity borrowed some of its beliefs from Mithraism because of similarities. The similarities he lists are these: Mithra was a Savior God who brought eternal life to his votaries (especially through baptism and communion), They celebrated his birth in a cave, and In the spring, they celebrated the death and resurrection of Mithra 1 Let me bring to your recognition one major problem that arises when accusing Christianity of borrowing from Mithraism. Ronald Nash in his work, Christianity and the Hellenistic World notes, The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of firstcentury Christianity. Mithraism did not begin to blossom until after Christianity s beliefs were well established, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. Cumont himself also reveals to us that the timing is all wrong for Mithraism to have influenced first-century Christianity. 3 Unfortunately, Mr. McCabe decided not to reveal to the reader this important information. So with this in mind, let s examine, according to McCabe, what Christianity borrowed from Mithraism. The first thing that McCabe says is that Mithra was a savior-god who brought eternal life through baptism and communion. But there are many problems with this statement. 1) The earliest references to Mithra s followers being promised immortality date to around 200 AD, again, too late to have influenced Christianity. 2) Chronological difficulties also apply to baptism as well. The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible reveals to us that sacral baths became important elements of the Eleusinian and Mithras rites. Because of this, some have argued that Christianity borrowed the theology of this movement. However, there is no evidence that such beliefs existed before the late 2 nd century 4 And in early Mithraism, any sort of baptism was from sprinkling, not the immersion that was practiced in the New Testament and by the early church. 3) According to Christianity and the Bible, Jesus did not bring eternal life through baptism and communion, so there is no similarity. Adherents to any of the pagan rituals that had any sort of sacraments believed that the sacraments themselves had the power to bring eternal life in some magical way. This absolutely contradicts Christ s, Paul s, and the early church s view of communion, which was established as a memorial of the death of Christ. 4) Again, the Mithraic sacraments were a piece of bread and water, not wine. 1. Op. Cit,. 6. And besides this, the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any influence upon first-century Christianity. 5 The Encyclopedia of Religion and 2. Ronald Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World, Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, 85ff, 37, 97, Article: Baptism; Elwell, W. & Beitzel, B.Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988]. 5. Ronald Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? 8 Ethics says, It is not at all improbable that the sacramental rite was adopted as an imitation of the Eucharist. 1 5) On top of all this, it is quite obvious from where these practices were developed: Judaism. As for communion, I ve already demonstrated that the New Testament use of bread and wine came from the Jewish Passover, not from Mithraism. And as for baptism, it was necessary for converts to Judaism to take a ritual bath cleansing them from impurities. 2 In addition to this, Paul compares the practice of baptism to the Judaic practice of circumcision. 3 Bruce Metzger, in his essay, Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity, 4 says, That the antecedents of Christian baptism are to be sought in the purificatory washings mentioned in the Old Testament and in the rite of Jewish proselyte baptism, is generally acknowledged by scholars today. McCabe s next comparison is that they celebrated Mithra s birth in a cave. The wording here is interesting: did they celebrate in a cave? Or did they celebrate his being born in a cave? McCabe, again, gives no references so we can check his work to tell. I am guessing the latter, because if they worshipped in a cave, there would be no comparison to Christianity. However, it is still puzzling because Mithra was birthed from rock not born in a cave. 5 McCabe then mentions the date of December 25 th, which we ve already addressed, and then moves on to say, in the spring they celebrated the death and resurrection of Mithra and refers to Firmicus. As always, McCabe does not give us any reference to look up and verify the claim, but when you do your own research, you will see that Firmicus was writing about Mithraic practices in the late fourth century. 6 Again, to assume that Christianity borrowed its beliefs from occurrences three centuries after the events of the New Testament and early church is ridiculous and simply bad scholarship. Or as Gordon Clark, a historian of philosophy says, Such surmises are not so much bad scholarship as prejudiced irresponsibility. 7 It is observed that seeing parallels between the ideas of (say) Gnosticism or Mithraism and Christianity were common in the period from about 1890 to 1940, but are rarely circulated today except by the uninformed. 8 And in addition to all this, the earliest 1. MacCulloch, J. A. Sacraments in Mystery Religions. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol X. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1918]. Edited by James Hastings. 2. Article: Baptism; Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. 3. Colossians 2: Bruce Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (1968), Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, 55, One version says that it was a mountain, though this is not the common view. Even looking at it from this point of view, while a cave was left when he dug himself out, saying that he was born in a cave would be misleading. 6. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, tells us about Firmicus: Christian author of the 4 th Century wrote a work De errore profanarum religionum. Nothing is known about him except what can be gleaned from this work, which is only found in one MS (Codex Vaticano Palatinus Saec. X) (Article: Firmicus Maternus). 7. Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey, Eric V. Snow, How Do We Know Whether Christianity is True?

5 9 account in Mithraism that mentions rebirth of any sort appears at the end of the 2 nd century, again, too late to have influenced the Christian doctrine. Ronald Nash notes: 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 1 The conclusion on Mithraism is this: any similarities between it and Christianity are few and vague. In addition, Mithraism didn t begin to flourish until after Christianity, and the supposed similar aspects were introduced to Mithraism centuries after the beliefs of Christianity were in place. In fact, considering the age of Mithraism, it appears that Mithraism borrowed elements from Christianity, not the other way around. 2 Moving on to the next allegation of supposed borrowing from pagan religions, McCabe says the early Christian Paschal Chronicle tells us that in mid-winter the temple of Isis used to exhibit a sort of tableau of the mother Isis and her newborn divine child, Horus, lying in a manger. 3 Two problems arise. First of all, and most detrimental to his argument, the Paschal Chronicle was not early at all it was written in the 7 th century AD! And secondly, As Horus the Child, called Harpocrates by the Greeks and Romans, he was represented as a small boy with a finger to his lips. 4 In fact, in all references to Horus, I have found only one with him represented as a babe in a manger (the Paschal Chronicle), and it is in a document written six hundred years after the birth of Christ. Of course, this is way too late to have influenced Christianity and the tableau mentioned was possibly, if not probably, itself influenced by Christianity. In addition, in what McCabe calls a masterly work, it says that Horus was born in the swamps and mentions nothing of a manger. 5 McCabe s next assertion is that Dionysos (or Bacchus) [was] represented by the statue of a newborn infant lying in a basket (some say manger). 6 Well, first of all, Encyclopedia.com 7 under the entry of Dionysus, says, Legends concerning him are 1. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World, p One interesting note on Mithraism: in the 6 th century BC, Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) reformed the polytheistic religion of Persia, which included Mithra. It is interesting to note that at this exact time, the Jews had been taken into captivity by Babylon, only to be freed in 538 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia defeated Babylon. It is observed that the Persians (specifically Zoroaster) were influenced by Jewish thought to create a hierarchical system out of their gods Zoroaster also incorporated the expectation of a savior, who was to be a god incarnated into human form (Judy Williams, Does Christ s Resurrection Story Originate in Mithraism? ). In the Paschal Chronicle (referred to by McCabe), it is noted that Jewish prophecies were possibly incorporated into the Egyptian religion as well (Paschal Chronicle, Col. 385, in Migne edition, vol. XCII). 3. Op. Cit., pp Article: Horus; Columbia Encyclopedia, 6 th Ed. 5. James G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Book 3, Chapter Op. Cit., p Referencing M. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age. 10 profuse and contradictory. Secondly, if you are going to dismiss the idea of Jesus being laid in a manger because of this, then we must throw Moses out as well for he was also laid in a basket. So did Jews get the story of Moses from Dionysos as well? Or did the followers of Dionysos get the idea from Moses? This comparison is simply ridiculous. Thirdly, McCabe says that this was a statue, correct? Then why does he say, Some say manger? It s obvious McCabe has never seen this representation of Dionysos, but only read of accounts that describe it where some author(s) say that it was a manger. And in all of my research, I haven t seen or even heard reference to a statue of Dionysus in a basket (or manger). Plenty speak about the procession McCabe mentions, how a statue of Dionysus was carried from its altar to the theater to observe plays, but none of them mention that this statue was Dionysus in a basket. I really wish McCabe would tell us where he got this stuff. He then says, At Alexandria, another early Christian writer tells us, there was a cult of a virgin-mother Kore, who was particularly honored as giving birth to a divine child in mid-winter. First of all, (and you, the reader, should be noting this by now), which Christian writer? Secondly, if it s a Christian writer, then we know that this is after Christ, too late to influence Christian doctrine. However, allow me to educate you. This writer that McCabe mentions is Epiphanius (~ ), who is writing of something he observed in the fourth century. And in his writings he says, And if anyone asks them what manner of mysteries these might be, they reply saying, Today at this hour, Kore, that is the virgin, has given birth to Aeon [or Aion]. 1 But Kore was not a virgin the name Kore simply means virgin or maiden. You may recognize Kore under her more common name, Persephone. 2 Kore/Persephone was seduced by Zeus and became pregnant with Zagreus, 3 also known as Dionysus 4 or Aion. 5 Zeus seduced her she was not a virgin. Divine child? Well, Aion/Dionysus/ Zagreus was born of gods of course he would be divine. But to use this wording to suggest that this is where Christianity got the idea of a divine child is trying too hard to force an analogy. McCabe now moves past the idea that Christianity received the idea of a virgin birth from pagan religions into the idea that Christianity took the idea of resurrection from pagan religions as well. The immediate problem that arises is that the idea of the resurrection was central to Christianity from the outset, not developed centuries later. It was 1) part of the Christian belief within 3 years of the event 6 2) preached on within 50 days after the event was supposed to have taken place 7 and 3) even predicted by Jesus 1. Hugo Rahner, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, p. 138 citing Epiphanius Panarion, pp. 51, 22, In fact, in the Dictionary of Mythology by Bergen Evans, under the entry, Kore, it says See Persephone. 3. Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, 30.a 4. Article: Zagreus; Barbara G. Walker, The Women s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. 5. Article: 5 January (Ancient Rome); Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year Corinthians 15: Acts 1:3; 2:23, 24

6 11 before it occurred. 1 But laying this all aside, let s look at the things McCabe mentions. He begins by mentioning Cybele and Athis. Unfortunately, there is no such person as Athis. The name is actually Attis (McCabe even refers to the book, Adonis, Attis, Osiris ), which makes me wonder if McCabe has even researched this for himself or if he is simply regurgitating false information. Attis was not only the son of Cybele, but also her consort. Out of jealousy she drove him insane until he finally castrated himself and died. Commenting on his resurrection, Ronald Nash says, There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis 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 return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree any resemblance to the bodily resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated. 2 And if McCabe mentioned the pine tree to show further similarities, rest assured there is none. The earliest that a pine tree was ever used and decorated for Christmas was in 1521 in Germany (in the region of Alsace) and with no connection to any type of pagan ritual. 3 Besides, the Christmas tree has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. But to further elaborate on the festival McCabe mentions: The devotees of Attis commemorated his death on March 22, the Day of Blood, and his coming to life four days later, March 25, the Feast of Joy or Hilaria The evidence for the commemoration of the Hilaria dates from the latter part of the second Christian century. There are, in fact, no literary or epigraphical texts prior to the time of Antonius Pius (AD ), which refer to Attis as the divine consort of Cybele, much less, any that speak of his resurrection. With good grounds, therefore, it has been argued that the festival of the Hilaria was not introduced into the cultus of Cybele until the latter part of the second Christian century or even later. 4 McCabe then says that Attis has been known in other cultures as Adonis or Tammuz. As for Adonis: There is no trace of a resurrection in pictorial representations or in any texts prior to the beginning of the Christian era. In fact, the only for witnesses that refer to the resurrection of Adonis date from the second to fourth century (Lucian, Origen, Jerome (who depends upon Origen), and Cyril of Alexandria) The attempt to link the Adonis and Attis cults to the worship of Tammuz and his alleged resurrection rests, as Kramer put it, on nothing but inference and surmise, guess and conjecture Matthew 12:38-40; John 2:19-22, 10:18 2. Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? 3. J.Leffts and A. Pfleger, Elsassische Weihnacht, cited by Francis X. Weiser in his Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, p Metzger, op. cit., pp Metzger, op. cit., p. 21 quoting S. N. Kramer, Mythologies of the Ancient World, p I have seen this mistake done by other authors as well, but it appears that the god was NOT variously called Athis, Adonis, and Tammuz. Attis (the correct name) and Adonis, possibly, but not Tammuz. McCabe even contradicts himself, because in his Little Blue Book No. 1104, he says this: Many a writer of the time confuses the cults of Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, and Osiris. A god had been slain and had risen from the dead; and these were merely different names given to the god in different regions. They were wrong Tammuz, Attis, and Osiris are three separate and independent creations of the myth-making imagination. 1 We ll address Tammuz in a minute, but you ll also notice that McCabe says that the Bible makes a reference to Tammuz in Ezekiel 8:15. But when you read the verse, you find that there is no mention of Tammuz. McCabe can t even get this right he cited the wrong verse. 2 However, the bible does make mention of women weeping for Tammuz in Ezekiel 8:14. But to link this to the Hilaria celebration of Cybele and Attis is simply ridiculous. Ezekiel does not refer to the celebration that McCabe mentions. McCabe at this point moves from the Greek, Roman, and Mesopotamian myths to the Egyptian s version of a resurrection the story of Osiris. In this story, Osiris was murdered by his brother, Set. Set then cut Osiris into 14 pieces and scattered them. After this: 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. 3 In the story of Osiris, he is rejuvenated (not bodily resurrected) to become ruler of the Underworld. Furthermore, followers of Osiris believed that his body was buried, not resurrected. Referencing the observations of Plutarch, Metzger writes: it was the pious desire of devotees to be buried in the same ground where, according to local tradition, the body of Osiris was still lying. 4 Metzger also notes that no fewer than twenty-three locations, identified by classical authors and Greek inscriptions, claimed to be the place where Osiris body lay. 5 McCabe himself also says that there were fourteen graves of Osiris. 6 The Encyclopedia Britannica says this under the article Osiris: From about 1. McCabe, Little Blue Book No. 1104, Chapter This entire verse reads, He said to me, Do you see this, son of man? Yet you will see still greater abominations than these (NASB version, Ezekiel 8:15). 3. Johnathan Z. Smith, Dying and Rising Gods, p Metzger, op. cit., p. 21 citing Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride, 359B {20} 5. Ibid. 6. McCabe, Little Blue Book No. 1104, Chapter 4.

7 BC onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death. This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead (emphasis mine). 1 Finally, McCabe mentions the Greek legend of Persephone to complete the circle of the ancient world. But does he not realize that he already mentioned Persephone? She and Kore are one and the same (McCabe really does not know his mythology and it makes me question how much research he really did). But I want to look at something that does involve the Greek s Persephone (Kore) as well as Dionysus, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, and Sandan (which McCabe mentions at the end of the section, How the Creed was Synthetically Formed ). You ll notice that McCabe calls the idea of death and resurrection the universal myth 2 and this may indeed be true. Because, when researching this topic, you find that all of the references to death and resurrection were derived from the cycle of life and death among nature the observance of the seasons. But it is only logical that any agricultural society that created their own gods would incorporate the idea of death and rebirth. It was already central to their very survival. And when they begin to attribute their survival to a catalog of gods, of course there would be a god who reflected what they saw in nature death and rebirth. And you see this evidenced by the nature of the various gods resurrections, which we ve already discussed. 3 But again, don t take my word for it listen to what other reliable, objective sources have to say: Dionysus: Dionysus (or Bacchus) was originally another form of fertility deity, a god associated with the natural cycle of life and death of plants. 4 Kore/ Persephone: When Persephone left the earth, the flowers withered and the grain died, but when shereturned, life blossomed anew. This story, which symbolizes the annual vegetation cycle, was celebrated in the Eleusinian Mysteries, in which Persephone appeared under the name Kore. 5 Attis: Attis, in Phrygian religion, vegetation god. 6 Like Adonis, he appears to have been a god of vegetation 7 Now the death and resurrection of Attis were officially celebrated at Rome on the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of March, the latter being regarded as the spring equinox, and therefore as the most appropriate day for the revival of a god of vegetation who had been sleeping throughout the winter Article: Osiris; Encyclopedia Britannica 2. Op. cit., p The first thing we should notice, actually, is their stark contrast with the nature of Christ s resurrection, which is based on an actual person in history and includes a bodily resurrection, eyewitnesses, confirmation by those in opposition, and referenced to by Christian and non-christian historians alike. 4. Bruce Precourt, Adonis, Demeter (Ceres) & Persephone, Dionysus (Bacchus). 5. Article: Persephone; The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6 th Ed. 6. Article: Attis, Ibid. 7. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Book 2, Chapter Frazer, The Golden Bough, p Adonis: The ceremony of the death and resurrection of Adonis must also have been a dramatic representation of the decay and revival of plant life. 1 Perhaps the best proof that Adonis was a deity of vegetation is furnished by the gardens of Adonis 2 It is now generally agreed that Adonis is a vegetation spirit, whose death and return to life represent the decay of nature in winter and its revival in spring. 3 Tammuz: A god of agriculture and flocks, he personified the creative powers of spring These legends and his festival, [commemorated] the yearly death and rebirth of vegetation 4 Osiris: As a god of vegetation Osiris was naturally conceived as a god of creativity energy in general 5 In Book 3, Chapter 7 of the same work, Frazer states that the proper interpretation of the death of Osiris is the annual growth and decay of vegetation. Originally a vegetation god. 6 Sandan: A secondary deity was Sandan, the worship of whom figured heavily in fertility rites climaxed annually by a funeral observance representing the death of this god of vegetation. 7 The overall view is this: In fact all of these Greek myths have the same underlying theme: the mystery of life and death, with characters that all relate to fertility beliefs based on the natural cycle of plant life. This theme is not found only in the Greek world; it is an important element of the Near Eastern religions which the Greeks were familiar with The different myths from many cultures feature a goddess and a story of return from death; in Egypt there was the myth of Isis and Osiris, in Phrygia it was Cybele and Attis 8 Such myths are the expression of ancient nature-symbolism; the spirit of vegetation dies every year and rises every year Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Book 1, Chapter Ibid. Book 1, Chapter Article: Adonis; 1911Encyclopedia.org. 4. Article: Tammuz, The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6 th Ed. 5. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Book 3, Chapter 5, Section Article: Egypt, Religion of; Vergilius Ferm, An Encyclopedia of Religion. 7. David J. Valleskey, A Portrait of Paul. McCabe also mentions the Phoenician god, Esmun, but it was only in anti-christian literature that I could find a reference to him as a savior-god. That s not saying he was never referred to as such, but with not one single person citing their sources, I could not find any objective references on which to comment. This is understandable when Frazer identifies Eshmun (Esmun) as a Phoenician and Carthaginian deity about whom little is known (Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Book 1, Chapter 5). 8. Bruce Precourt, Adonis, Demeter (Ceres) & Persephone, Dionysus (Bacchus). 9. Bruce Metzger, op. cit., p. 23.

8 15 Concerning any resemblance between Christianity and the pagan religions, J. G. Frazer (to whom McCabe references) says, the modern student of comparative religion traces such resemblances to the similar and independent workings of the minds of man in his sincere, if crude, attempts to fathom the secret of the universe 1 He continues later on, saying: Dionysus was not the only Greek deity whose tragic story and ritual appear to reflect the decay and revival of vegetation. In another form the old tale reappears in the myth of Demeter and Persephone. Substantially, their myth is identical with the Syrian one of Aphrodite (Astarte) and Adonis, the Phrygian one of Cybele and Attis, and the Egyptian one of Isis and Osiris. 2 It is interesting that some of the most detrimental statements to McCabe s arguments actually occur in the references and authors that he cites (Frazer and Cumont, for example). And from these, it now becomes obvious from where the pagan religions derived their gods. It becomes equally obvious that similarities between the pagan religions and Christianity occur only in the most superficial form AFTER the Christian creed was developed. McCabe then summarizes the section titled How the Creed was Synthetically Formed with this statement: But what I have said will suffice to illustrate how the austere creed of Paul, which was developed out of late Jewish ideas of what the Messiah was to do for them, and the still simpler religion ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, once it won power to stay all its rivals by imperial decrees, borrowed their myths and services, their art and temple-paraphernalia (vestments, incense, holy water, etc.), and attracted the old pagan worshipers. 3 To begin with, McCabe says that Paul s creed was developed out of the late Jewish ideas of the Messiah. But didn t he spend the past 7 pages attempting to show that the creed was developed out of paganism? In addition, McCabe has his Jewish history backwards. The creed was not developed from the late Jewish ideas of what the Messiah was to do because the late Jewish idea was that the Messiah was going to come and free them from Roman rule and oppression, 4 and when He didn t, the Jews rejected him as Messiah. The creed says that Jesus came to die for our sins very different from the Jewish idea of what the Messiah was to do. 1. Frazer, The Golden Bough, p Ibid., p Op. Cit., p Based on Isaiah 9:2-7 and noted by Edward Gibbon in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 207: that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters 16 Secondly, McCabe says these things were borrowed after the creed won power to stay all its rivals by imperial decrees. However, the creed didn t win power to stay all its rivals by imperial decrees until the fourth and fifth centuries hundreds of years after the Christian creed was already in place. McCabe says that Christianity adopted pagan myths into the creed in the 4 th century when the reality is that they were part of the creed from the beginning. 1 The creed (belief) of the church was well established immediately following the events of the gospels not developed in the fourth century. 2 Finally, McCabe says that once the creed won power to stay all its rivals, it borrowed their myths and services, their art and temple paraphernalia (vestments, incense, holy water, etc.). How can a creed borrow services, art, vestments, incense, and holy water? It can t these things aren t part of a creed. Yes, hundreds of years later, these things were incorporated into church services, but they are not intrinsic to Christianity. Besides, these things have origins that are in no way connected to paganism. We have already mentioned the origin of communion, baptism, the use of incense, vestments, etc. and have shown that these were not derived from any pagan religion, but from Judaism itself. As for art, McCabe only barely mentioned it before, and not with the idea that Christianity borrowed its art from pagan religions, and he never even mentioned holy water. And again, these things have nothing to do with the subject of his sentence or his entire booklet the creed or beliefs of Christianity. And there is one more thing that is problematic in this line of reasoning that comes forth both here and throughout the entire booklet: the applying of Christian terminology with the sole intent to draw (or force) an analogy. Such as the supposed resurrection of Attis when, in truth, only his hair would grow and his little finger would move. Or Osiris, who did not rise from the dead, but became Lord of the Underworld. To use the term resurrection is to apply Christian terminology to force a similarity between the two. You have any type of ceremonial washing being labeled baptism and any type of ceremonial meal being called communion. Using these criteria, it wouldn t be hard at all to find similarities with any number of religions. McCabe did this type of thing many times throughout this booklet such as when he said that Mithra brought eternal life through baptism and communion. He specifically applied Christian terminology to force an analogy. Commenting on this type of reasoning, Edwyn R. Bevan says, On this plan, you first put in the Christian elements and then are staggered to find them there. 3 In closing this section, allow me to share a few of the arguments against Christian dependence on pagan religions as presented by Ronald Nash in Was the New 1. Acts 2:22-24; 1 Corinthians 15: It was in 306 AD that Constantine was named Emperor of Rome by his troops (though he did not become sole Emperor until 323) and Christianity began to be accepted by the Roman Empire (up until his reign, the laws advocating persecution of Christians were still in place). And although Constantine receives the credit for establishing Christianity as the Roman religion, the policy of Constantine was one of toleration. He did not make Christianity the sole religion of the state. That was to follow under later Emperors (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, p. 92). 3. Edwyn R. Bevan, in the symposium, the History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge (Glasgow, 1929), p. 105; reprinted by Thomas S. Kepler, Contemporary Thinking About Paul, An Anthology (New York, 940) p. 43.

9 17 Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? You will find that they echo what we have talked about thus far. 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. [This point is also noted by Cumont when he says, resemblances do not necessarily suppose an imitation 1 ]. 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. Through these arguments, we have shown that the Christian creed could not have been formed from any pagan sources whatsoever. If you want to look at it in the most superficial sense, there may be vague similarities, but a careful, in-depth study of these religions will exonerate Christianity from any accusation of borrowing its beliefs from pagan religions. Now if you still insist on saying that the fourth century church borrowed some of its practices, that s between you and the facts; but it has nothing to do with the creed of the Christian church. With this being the case, we are now required to ask the question, How was the Christian creed developed? If it did not develop from pagan religions, where did it truly come from? The next section deals with this very question. 18 How the Creed was Formed McCabe spent a great deal of time attempting to show that Christian practices were adopted from pagan religions while spending relatively little time on the beliefs themselves. He does make a feeble attempt at saying that the birth, death, and resurrection stories were borrowed, but in addition to the arguments we have presented, there are a few other major reasons that these could not have developed from paganism. The first reason is that the early Christians (especially the disciples of Jesus) were originally Jews. In fact, Christianity began to flourish in Jerusalem itself! To claim that these devout Jews would haphazardly adopt pagan practices, rituals, and beliefs into their system of faith is to not understand the passion and devotion these Jewish people had in relation to their religion. Paul himself was a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and described himself and his dedication in Philippians 3:4-6: Circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless (NASB). Furthermore, in the book of Acts, Luke records Paul s defense to Herod Agrippa II in which Paul says, I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. 1 Furthermore, he warns the church against being influenced by pagan sources, but rather to focus on Christ. To assume that he or any other devout Jew would simply incorporate pagan practices into the faith they would ultimately die for is ludicrous. One of the reasons this is true (besides their incredible devotion and rigorous discipline) is that they knew their scriptures well and that these scriptures said that pagan gods would be destroyed and that God would be sovereign throughout all eternity. 3 And they believed these scriptures with the whole of their being. They would not flippantly abandon them and embrace pagan myths. The second reason that Christianity did not have to (nor could) develop its beliefs from paganism is that all of the themes of Christianity are found in the Old Testament. In a sense, you could say that Christianity could not have developed from paganism because it actually developed from Judaism. Both Paul and Christ taught that Christianity was the continuation, the fulfillment of Judaism a religion predating Mithraism by 1500 years (and this being the case, if there are any similarities, by McCabe s own reasoning you must assume that Mithraism borrowed from Judaism). To begin with, the virgin birth was foreseen by the Old Testament centuries before the event, even in the first few chapters of the Bible. 4 Norman Geisler in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics explains it this way: 1. Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, p Acts 26:5 (NASB). 2. Colossians 2:8. 3. Jeremiah 10:5, 11; Ezekiel 30:13; Psalm 145:13, and elsewhere. 4. Genesis 3:15.