Dr Bart Ehrman would seem to be a contradiction in terms, an atheist who is also a New Testament (Bible) scholar. He is a popular author of over a dozen books. Actually, Ehrman is one of several atheistic Bible scholars. Biblical scholars come in all shapes, sizes, and beliefs (or lack thereof.) In 2012, Ehrman wrote the book “Did Jesus Exist?” You would think that as an atheist, he would have concluded that the answer would be”NO!!” But instead it was an enthusiastic “YES.” In his introduction, Ehrman writes that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus did in fact exist. He felt bound to write the book to refute what he considers an uneducated view that Jesus is a myth. He even notes that the crucifixion was real, that Jesus died on a Roman cross. What the scholars cannot agree on is who or what Jesus was and meant for His time.
Growing up in the ’60’s, everyone I knew believed that Jesus was a real human who lived in the 1st century. The discussion back then was what or who Jesus was. His historical reality was seldom if ever in question. Today, however, it is popular to question whether or not Jesus really existed, or was he simply a myth made up by a group of people who were either desperate for some sort of meaning, or for power.
If you would Google Jesus you will find quite a few websites and YouTube videos that insist on the myth narrative. According to these, the “myth” of Jesus is simply a replay of other ancient myths, especially those which involve fertility rites. Some “god” or ‘goddess” dies in winter, then is reborn in the spring, releasing new life. But they fall far short of the story of Jesus. Let’s take a moment and look at one or two.
My favorite, and the one I see most cited, is the ancient Egyptian myth of Osiris, Isis, Set, and Horus. Osiris was the god of life, and was deeply involved in the cycles of life, including death. He was also responsible for the land of the dead. According to the myth, his brother Set was jealous of him, and wanted his throne as head of the gods. Set killed Osiris and cut him up into pieces.
Osiris’ wife, Isis, was devastated. She put all the pieces back together, so that he could go to the underworld and live. However, she could not find his penis, which had been eaten by a crocodile. So she had one made of gold and plunged it into her vagina in order to conceive a child from her now dead husband. The son, Horus, then killed his uncle in retaliation. Meanwhile, Osiris remained from then til now in the underworld, of which he can never escape.
Those who say that since Osiris is clearly mythological, therefore so is Jesus, are way off the mark. It’s hard to know where to begin in comparing the two accounts. First, all the characters in the Osiris story are gods, acting like gods. In the Jesus story, only Jesus is seen as God. Osiris dies and is relegated to the underworld, Jesus is seen on earth, then ascends to heaven. Osiris starts off as a god, at a time when no humans are around. Jesus comes to earth as God, living as a fully human being, is recognized by some as God, and is killed by men. Nowhere do we find Jesus’ body torn to pieces and magically put back together. And of course, the whole penis thing is missing from the account of Jesus (although I’m sure he had one). While the story of Osiris and family of gods is clearly mythological, the story of Jesus, with the two possible exceptions of his miraculous birth and resurrection, are clearly within the realm of human life in his time.
Some also want to use the story of Mithra as another example. Mithra was an Iranian god adopted by the Romans. Here again, we find too many dissimilar points. Mithra is born fully formed as a god out of a rock. He kills a bull, and shares it with the Roman sun god. From the death of the bull sprung new life. Thus, goes the theory, Jesus is simply the bull in a new setting. This view is reinforced by the fact that the young Christian church used elements of the Mithra cult to speak to its adherents, something that Ehrman talks about as well. The truth is that people often used myth and other stories to help those familiar with them to prove some point, such as the need to follow Jesus as God.
The biggest difference between these mythological stories and that of Jesus is the form of death each shared. In the various myths, all died some form of proud, honorable death. They were all tragic, yet somehow honorable. Not so the death of Jesus. In his case, he was placed upon a cross. in the ancient world, the cross was not considered honorable. In Roman times the cross was reserved for slaves, traitors, and enemies of the state. It was such a dishonorable, horrific, barbaric method of not only death but of torture, that no citizen could be put to death in this manner. It was considered the greatest of all indignities, to die naked, often over several days, in public, under absolute suffering. No god would be expected to die in such a way. To think that a god would suffer such indignities was unheard of. And to be killed by mere mortals, especially in such a gruesome manner was inconceivable!
And yet that is the story of Jesus. The god who was placed by men upon a wooden cross, to suffer, bleed, die in agony, while naked. His death was considered the ultimate in humiliation, subjugation, and weakness. This is not the death of a god, but of a criminal. It is more than extraordinary that his followers would invent such a death. This is one of the main reasons that even atheist scholars such as Ehrman insist that it is true. Only a madman would make up such a story and then expect people to follow such a seemingly impotent god, one who could not even save himself from such degradation.
The dating of Jesus birth is often looked upon as proof by the mythologizers (I just made that word up) that Jesus could not have been real but was a myth all along. December 25th was not universally chosen as His birth date until sometime in the 4th century. A number of reasons are put forth for choosing this date, including it being the birth date of the aforementioned Mithra, the Roman festival held around that date of the mid-winter Saturnalia, the Roman feast of the Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) and other feasts and festivals built around the time of the winter solstice by various middle eastern people. But the adoption of this date does not mean the life of Jesus is a myth. According to the story, He was born to a common family, in a common town, which meant that, like most people of the time, it would not have been recorded. Therefore, borrowing a date does not imply myth. Instead, it means that after a few centuries Christians began to feel the need for a date they could celebrate. The reality is that we have no dating other than a year, and often not even that, for many famous persons of ancient times.
I’m sure we could go on looking at more myths and see whether or not they comport in any way to the story of Jesus as handed down to us by his biographers (the gospel writers.) In fact, as already noted the early Church often used the mythology of the various local cults as an entry into the hearts and minds of those around them. This does not mean that Jesus was a myth, only that the church understood how to talk to people involved in cults and change their way of thinking.
I know that this is not a full treatment of proof that Jesus was real. Again, all Biblical scholars, including atheistic ones (Ehrman, ) accept His life as real. The disagreement is not whether or not He lived, but whether or not he claimed to be God, or if He claimed to be God, but was in fact delusional. I’ll talk more on this later. Until next time.
Tracy AtHome Church 