How well do the much-touted similarities of the Jesus story to other myths hold up?

[Silent3]

I ran into to this Cracked article yesterday: 6 Famous Documentaries That Were Shockingly Full of Crap

It started out by taking "Supersize Me" to task. Then "Waiting for 'Superman'". Then Bill Maher's "Religulous".

I'd hardly be shocked if Maher got a few facts wrong, but the thrust of the article's disagreement with "Religulous" was something I have to admit I've bought into over the past few years: that the Jesus story has a lot of mythical elements copied from preexisting myths.

All this "Jesus was copied from earlier religions" stuff has been going around the Internet for a while, and it will make you look awesome if you post it on a Halo message board, but none of it is true.

I'm willing to consider this, but then the author also says:

Oh, by the way, original sin is totally in the Bible, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a scholar who disagrees with the overwhelming evidence that a person (not necessarily a divine being) matching Jesus' description existed during his purported lifetime.

That you'd be "hard-pressed to find a scholar" who doesn't think Jesus is a real person isn't an argument that caries a lot of weight with me, since so many of those supposed scholars are dedicated Christians who tout some fairly unimpressive evidence.

I don't have a strong opinion myself about whether Jesus is mythologized history or historicized mythology. There's more than enough bullshit to go around either way. No one comes close, of course, to meeting the burden of evidence that Jesus is both real and divine and actually performed miracles and rose from the dead.

I should be willing to give up bad arguments, however, and if the alleged similarities between Jesus and Horus and Mithras, etc., don't hold up as well as have been thinking they do, so be it.

What say my fellow atheists on this matter?

[mr blur]

1. Well, personally I couldn't care less whether or not "Jesus" ever existed, historically.

Nothing I've read has ever proved that he did but so what?

The history of the Christian religious cult "appropriating" other cultures' ideas and celebrations and ideas is obvious and acknowledged.

[trotsky]

2. There is no doubt the overall themes of the story of Jesus are present in many mythologies.

The humble birth, the hero, the sacrifice, etc. They're themes that people in many cultures and in many eras can identify with. A successful religion, therefore, is going to incorporate as many of those themes (memes!) as possible. I don't think it's a bad approach to make people aware of that - growing up Christian myself, I thought the story of Jesus was completely unique. I think many Christians are taught the same.

[OriginalGeek]

14. I had already been a non-believer for many years

before I even heard that the bible was similar to earlier fables or that some folks doubted a man named Jesus existed.

My church expended a lot of time and energy into making us believe we were special even among the special. We were extra special. lol.

[Brainstormy]

3. The similarities between Jesus, Horus, et all, are the least of it

The suggestion that Jesus was purely mythical has been around a long, long time, but if you thoughtfully read some of the newer, sharper religious historians like Richard Carrier or David Fitzgerald, you may, as I did, conclude that the case for myth is far stronger than the case for any actual historical Jesus. Ironically, the Bible itself is among the strongest pieces of evidence.

[Silent3]

4. My concern is simply about some of the details of the similarities...

...of the Jesus story with other myths. There's good enough a case to be made for Jesus being either heavily mythologized history or historicized mythology without going overboard on particular alleged parallels (virgin birth, on-or-near December 25 birth, rising from the dead, etc.) which might not hold up to close scrutiny.

[AlbertCat]

6. Don't get started on Moses!

and the Jews as slaves to the Egyptians.... or the 40 years of wandering around in the desert (of which there is zero evidence, even tho' there is evidence of other nomads in that period)

[AlbertCat]

5. I don't think....

...... the Abrahamic Religions have a single original idea in them.

A god coming to Earth as a man to play his part in some drama that preserves "the world" is exactly like a Hindu avatar.

And I find the whole "Good vs Evil" thing sophomoric. "good" and "evil" are relative most of the time. It's just not that simple.

I like a Yin/Yang kinda thing. Sounds like Physics.

[edhopper]

7. Ever see

"The Died with their Boots on"?

That is more accurate portrayal of Custer than the Bible is of whoever Yeshua was.

I think the primary point is that whether a man existed or not, there is no evidence that he was the what is portrayed in the NT.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It's a pointless argument over a meaningless claim. Christianity is based on Judaism

and that is undeniable. It doesn't matter in the slightest if there are minor details that are similar to various other religions; the major features come from Judaism. If some detail in the story of Jesus is not found in any other religion, it wouldn't mean that it's more likely that it happened; if it is found somewhere else, it wouldn't mean it's less likely. Humans have imaginations, and they also adapt ideas.

Many of the claims about similarities with other religions seem more like pareidolia to me, ironically - hoping to to see a similarity in a random pattern so that your existing beliefs are confirmed.

[uriel1972]

9. Overwhelming evidence?

An inserted piece in the Testimonium Flavium is overwhelming evidence? Colour me shocked.

[Freelancer]

10. Jesus definitely existed. He's my 89th cousin's daughter's kid on my mom's side :)

We still have a birthday card he made for my aunt in aramaic. He was always good at shop class.

Seriously, though, I don't think the question about Jesus existing will ever be settled.

What I wish somebody would explore is the history of stage magic in the ancient world and what bearing that could have on the way the miracles attributed to Jesus are viewed. Magicians today could easily reproduce the miracles in the bible, like the changing of wine, the loaves and fishes, the staff of Moses turning into a snake, and the like. What about in ancient times? If high priests of the pharaohs were using "magic" to keep the masses enthralled in Egypt, it's possible that Jewish carpenters were involved in building the apparatus. Generations later, their own royal and priestly classes may have found those skills useful for crowd control in Israel.

The story of how Daniel debunked the priests of Bel in Babylon to prove to the king that he and the rest of Babylon were being fooled for the priests' profit, comes to mind. It showed that he had an intimate knowledge of how devices and misdirection could be used to trick others with "magic."

[NeoGreen]

11. Cookie Cutter Christs...

https://ffrf.org/publications/nontract

I recommend the variety/sample pack:
https://ffrf.org/shop/nontracts/nontract-sample-pack

https://ffrf.org/publications/brochures/item/23737-cookie-cutter-christs
I'm not allowed to reprint the info.

I have read the entire non-track and it is somewhere in the house (my son has since misplaced it).
I will create the complete list once I find it.

So you will have to sort through and find the similarities:

Mithra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra


Attis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis


Krishna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna


Quexalcote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl
(shows that many of the themes are universal)


Horus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus


Adonis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonis


Quirinus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinus


Indra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra


There are at least a dozen more...

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I can't see any similarity in the Mithra Wikipedia article

Jesus and Mitra are impressively different.

[Silent3]

13. I've encounted a lot of this before, I'm just wondering if the degree of similiarity...

...is sometimes exaggerated.

Please don't misunderstand that I'm trying to argue the opposite point, I'm just wondering if I haven't been overly confident myself about some of the alleged similarities.

[Iggo]

15. So the comparisons of one bullshit story to a bunch of other bullshit stories don't hold up?

Yawn.

[Silent3]

16. It might be a "yawn" in the overall picture of "believe/don't believe"...

...but to me details matter. I'd rather not act like a fundie who never, ever lets go of any bad argument (like saying evolution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics, or "Why are there still monkeys?&quot .

The similarity of savior stories isn't a pivotal argument for atheism, but it's clearly something many people think adds weight to the case for atheism, or it wouldn't get repeated so much.

If the similarities aren't that close, I don't want to obstinately cling to the idea that they are.

[Iggo]

17. I got away from "believe/don't believe" and now I look at it as "real/not real".

And I don't have to go all the way back to Jesus/Horus to do it.

God/Santa works quite nicely.

But still, I get what you're saying. And it's an important difference between them and us, the search for and the elimination of our own bullshit. The "self-check" as it were.

We do it. They don't. And that makes us better.

[cleanhippie]

18. In the big picture, historical jesus is irrelevant. Supernatural jesus is a myth, end of story.

And since the whole religion is based on Supernatural Jesus...

[Silent3]

19. From the viewpoint of a believer that might be having doubts, however...

...the myth-ier the myth looks, the more reason there might be to wonder if there's any truth to the myth at all.

I want to provide good reasons to spark that doubt, however, not bad reasons that make it look like I'm just drinking a different brand of koolaid.

[Promethean]

20. So about the historical accuracy of the Jesus story.

I read a book by a historian and he laid it out like this but of course much wordier.

There was a time period when the Romans ruled over the Hebrews and weren't exactly nice about it. This isn't surprising as they weren't nice to anybody that they conquered. There was an upper class of wealthy Hebrews who worked with the Romans and basically ran the religion. There were a lot of street preachers at that time with doomsday and anti-wealth messages. It is likely at least one of those preachers got a following. It is not unreasonable that a radicalized preacher would ransack one of the symbols of wealth of the wealthy overclass. It is not unreasonable that a radical preacher that got a following and/or attacked the wealthy would get arrested and executed. Jesus was a commonly used name back then. The tradition is still carried forward to this day in some cultures (how many Hey-soos' do you know?). Finally; people tell stories, they miss-attribute people for deeds, they mix up names and other common errors.

Mix the previous in with ideas from other well known mythologies and viola.

[Silent3]

21. I'm certainly willing to believe that there might actually be a real man behind the myth...

...but at the same time, the historical evidence isn't anywhere near as good as many people think it is. I suppose there could even be multiple real people who turned into a composite character.

My concern in this thread is more about the myth side, and how much of the Jesus myth is unique, how much is copied, and if the copying hits on as many categories at once for as many savior-like religious figures as some people claim.

[trotsky]

22. The Romans!

"Well, apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

Sorry, your post just reminded me of that movie.

[whatthehey]

23. Depends on how you want it to "stand up"

There are many common tropes in the Jesus story that could easily have been integrated onto local folk tales. The risen hero. The poor savior. The noble sacrifice. But these will only persuade people who already understand them and how folk literature develops in the first place. It's easy for such people to see parallels between, say, Jesus and Osiris or Zoroaster, but the simplistic audience fixates on disparate details. Remember there are many people who do not get the parallel between Romeo and Juliet (itself utterly unoriginal BTW) and West Side Story because there are no singing streetgangs in the former. Osiris lost his penis! Zoroaster wasn't the son of God!

There is probably more fertile ground with a believing audience in restricting criticism to the Jesus myth itself and not having to rely on external knowledge of folklore arcana. How his life story becomes more embellished and more divine from earliest gospel Mark to latest John. How it is an amalgam of Jerusalem and Galilee traditions. How the very first christological writings from Paul barely acknowledge a living human messiah at all. If they are likely to be persuaded by other source parallels it may be better to start with the numerous hagiographies of other would be Messiahs that abounded in 1st Century Palestine like Grisham novels in 21st Century JFK, and how several of these featured the same character as the scriptural Jesus flying like Superman, killing childhood pals (it's ok, he raised him again) and acting more Marvel than Mishnah. If they can handle that it's only then worth much effort talking about basic hero-myth themes and how Jesus suspiciously ticks all the boxes.

As far as historical corroboration goes, only an idiot believes the bit in Josephus is genuine and original, and just about all other non-biblical historical references even close to the same time mention not the man/god but his followers. There are many very accurate current writings about MUFON. It doesn't mean MIB is a documentary. The only even vaguely convincing bit is Tacitus, written about 75 years after. Tacitus was a good historian for his time, not a Herodotus-like tale-spinner, but he makes a mistake in the very same passage about Pilate so he's not infallible, and in any event is merely relating who the Christians are, and in doing so gives their origin story. It's the equivalent of us saying something like "Muslims greatly revere Muhammed. who listened to the Angel Gibreel and wrote the Koran". We are not saying that Gibreel really exists let alone dictated stuff to a medieval Arabic merchant. We are saying, accurately, that's the figure whom Muslims revere, and for that reason among others.

To be fair though it's straining credulity to assume whole cloth fiction too. These were not the times of googling or video evidence, and religious and superstitious ferment was widespread, but even so we do know, unquestionably, that people who were adults when he was supposed to have lived were willing to be killed for saying he was at least a prophet of God if not God incarnate. To be sure even in this age we have Moonies and Davidians and Schneerson-as-Messiah Chabadis, but all those leaders, surely mortal all, actually existed. Even then it's hard to imagine such a strong following built around somebody who never drew breath at all.

The TLDR version. There is little to no unbiased corroboration he existed, and we can say nothing positively true abut his life at all. The miraculous stuff can be dismissed out of hand (we have tanners' price lists from that milieu; if the dead rose from their graves when he was crucified, or if a king, who BTW died in 4 BCE, had slaughtered an entire cohort of infants, there'd be some mention of it). There are numerous both detailed and themic parallels with other hero myths and clear evidence of massive rapid embellishment, but there in all probability was some charismatic preacher around whom those myths and embellishments coalesced, but about whom we know bugger all for sure.

[Major Nikon]

24. I didn't watch the documentary so I'm not entirely sure about what some of the references are

The link to the proof about the "original sin" is a dead link, but it most certainly isn't in the old testament at least in any form that isn't interpreted metaphor, which like many other things which are supposedly in the bible are highly subject to whatever the interpreter wants to interpret. Whatever references to it that are imagined to have appeared in the new testament never existed as church doctrine until the 2nd century. Said doctrine is mostly based on Romans 5:12-14, written by the self-described "apostle", Paul who never even met Jesus. Even the RCC acknowledges that the "original sin" narrative in Genesis isn't literal.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Claiming a person "matching Jesus' description existed" is a bit of a stretch. The majority opinion of biblical historians is that a person named Jesus existed around the time described by the bible and he was crucified around the time the new testament claims. That's a pretty far cry from a person "matching Jesus' description existed". It's not even clear if the entire town of Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus, and there's no other non-biblical references to this person named Jesus outside of his mere existence and crucifixion.

[Silent3]

25. This isn't about matching a possible real-life Jesus, however...

...it's about how much the mythical Jesus is supposedly similar to other mythical religious figures like Horus, Mithras, etc.

[Major Nikon]

26. I understood that part

I just haven't seen Maher's documentary, so I can't speak to whatever claims he made. I'm just saying that some of the claims made by the retort are a bit misleading at best.