This is a continuation of a series of responses to “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories” by Raphael Lataster. This time, we will look at his suggestion that some supposed parallels in other texts suggest the Gospels cannot be taken as history.
I found this to be one of the weakest parts of Lataster’s article.
Many scholars have commented on mythic parallels between Jesus’ story as told in the Gospels and the stories of earlier gods and mythical heroes.
It is true that many scholars have commented on the parallels, but the majority of those commenting scholars have discounted them, at least as evidence of direct borrowing by the Gospel writers to create a fictional account of Jesus.
Lataster mentions some similar language in Philo. So there is similar language among Jewish first century texts that were written in Greek? Is that really surprising? There is actually an entire body of literature that looks for connections between Philo and the New Testament. Scholars recognize that any evidence of dependence is elusive because although certain words or phrases are used by both, they almost always use them in a completely different way.
As for the similarities of the Golden Rule, that is not surprising either. It is not evidence for the lack of historical Jesus just as it is not evidence that the other teachers didn’t exist. The same is true about Laozi telling people to love enemies. In any body of ethical and moral teaching, we would expect some similarities.
Such parallels include the dying-and- rising god motif.
This is one of the most common arguments and yet it is also one of the weakest. When you look at the actual myth of the supposed dying and rising gods, most of them don’t actually fit that label. Most often they do not actually experience an actual resurrection. When a god is attached to a seasonal celebration, of nature dying and coming back to life, the actual story of the god doesn’t actually include those elements. Plus, there is a lack of harvest and agriculture celebrations attached to Jesus, unlike the myths mentioned.
Lataster, specifically mentions Osiris. I have spoken elsewhere on this. I will say here that Osiris never actually comes back to life. He dies, is vindicated, and becomes lord of the underworld. The story of Jesus is not that he died and then ruled in heaven but that he rose bodily from the dead. That is far from the story of Osiris. I would encourage you to read the account of Osiris and see for yourself how far it is from the passion narratives in the Gospels.
It is also problematic to use Plutarch’s account of Osiris to show dependence by the Gospels. Plutarch wrote after the Gospels were written. Even if there were similarities, one could argue that Plutarch included Christian elements in his story of Osiris.
The one part of Lataster’s argument from parallels that I have not responded to much in the past is the way Justin Martyr uses potential parallels for his apologetics. But that is worth a blog post of its own.
But before I do that, let me point you to Samuel Sandmel’s article Parallelomania for further reading.
