A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart

7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart

1/14

A Response to Joseph McCabesHow 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 theearly 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.

Lets 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 havenever 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 worshipat 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 prayerbut 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 Headvocated 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 scripture5

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

2referred 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 way2

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 abolishbut 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.

Thats 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 them4

Its 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 Jesusreasoning for using parables by saying that He deliberately told parables so that

they would not understand5 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 hes 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, whichsays, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing,

but will not perceive In addition, McCabes 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


2/14

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.

Ones 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 theywill 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 mens 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

presidentsTens 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.3

1. Liberty Bible Commentary, Vol. II, p. 164

2. Op. Cit., 5

3. And to inform you, the reader, the rock Jesus spoke of in Matthew 16:15-16 was Peters 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 others 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

priestsmuch less a Pope. Plinys lettersuggests the same simplicity.1

The authors intent here is to what show that the church grew and required

more organization? He also wants to imply by saying least frequently quoteddocuments that we have something to hide about our origins. Why quote that letter

when everyone knows it already? I dont 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 peoples 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 worlds twenty largest churches with more than thirty -five thousand

members. From this first Calvary Chapel, many men went out to start moreCalvary 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 thiseven 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 dont 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 & 5:42

3. www.calvarychapel.com/cosamesa/history.htm

4. www.vineyardusa.org


3/14

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 god1

Its

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 manyreligions 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 andChristianity. The only example McCabe (through Cumont) gives that could be

considered any distinct relation to Christianity is the idea of bread and wine, but weve

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. MerriamWebsterDictionary, New Edition, 1994; Entry: Priest

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 (Thats 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 authors 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 didnt! First, McCabe says that Christians refused to celebrate

Christmas or honor Mary3 until the 4th century because other pagan religions celebrated

one or the other. McCabe this time tells us that he has the references in his Little BlueBooks 1102 and 1104. 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 2nd

century. But here I believe lies one misconception by non-Christians we do not

celebrate Christmas as December 25th

. 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

events 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 asupremely important event the appearance of Israels 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 Christs appearance at birth. Christians

called it Epiphany, or manifestation. So the meaning of thefirstChristmas

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. Butthe date has nothing to do with an event that was celebrated by Christians from the

beginning.

1. Luke 22:8-13.

2. 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 well get into later, but the

chapter entitled The Mithraic Liturgy shows that the differences between the Christian and Mithraic servicesFAR outweighed the similarities. And even while Cumont was himself mistaken in some of his theories, thefacts 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 iscalled Blessed among women in Luke 1:36.

4. Christianity Today Magazine, Is Christmas Pagan? December 6, 1999, p. 26.


4/14

7At this point in this pamphlet, McCabe finally gets around to an attempt at

addressing his original thesis. McCabes 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 Mithra1

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 Worldnotes, The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of theNew Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of first-

century Christianity. Mithraism did not begin to blossom until after Christianitys

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, lets 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 Mithras 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 century4

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 Christs, Pauls, and the early churchs view ofcommunion, 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.

And besides this, the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any

influence upon first-century Christianity.5 The Encyclopedia of Religion and

1. Op. Cit,. 6.

2. Ronald Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World, 147.

3. Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, 85ff, 37, 97, 199.

4. Article: Baptism; Elwell, W. & Beitzel, B.Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1988].

5. Ronald Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

8Ethics 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, Ive 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 MysteryReligions 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.

McCabes next comparison is that they celebrated Mithras 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 25th,

which weve already addressed, and then moves on to say, in the spring theycelebrated 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 2:11-12.

4. Bruce Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (1968), 17.

5. Cumont, TheMysteriesofMithra, 55, 130-132. One version says that it was a mountain, though this isnot the common view. Even looking at it from this point of view, while a cave was left when he dug himselfout, saying that he was born in a cave would be misleading.

6. TheCatholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, tells us about Firmicus: Christian author of the 4th Century wrotea 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, 195

8. Eric V. Snow, How Do We Know Whether Christianity is True?


5/14

9account 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 outlook1

The conclusion on Mithraism is this: any similarities between it and Christianity are few

and vague. In addition, Mithraism didnt 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 tableauof 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 7th 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 Infact, 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

McCabes 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.com7

under the entry of Dionysus, says, Legends concerning him are

1. Nash, ChristianityandtheHellenisticWorld, p. 147.

2. 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 Jewshad been taken into captivity by Babylon, only to be freed in 538 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia defeatedBabylon. 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 Christs Resurrection Story Originate inMithraism?). 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. 6-7.4. Article: Horus; Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed.

5. James G. Frazer,Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Book 3, Chapter 1.

6. Op. Cit.,p. 7.

7. Referencing M. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age.

10profuse 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? Its 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 havent seen or even heard reference to a statue

of Dionysus in a basket (or manger). Plenty speak about the procession McCabementions, 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 its 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 (~310 403), 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 Korewas 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 Dionysus4

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 event6 2) preached on within 50days after the event was supposed to have taken place

7and 3) even predicted by Jesus

1. Hugo Rahner, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, p. 138 citing EpiphaniusPanarion, pp. 51, 22, 9-11.

2. In fact, in the Dictionary of Mythology by Bergen Evans, under the entry, Kore, it says SeePersephone.

3. Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, 30.a

4. Article: Zagreus; Barbara G. Walker, The Womens Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets.

5. Article: 5 January (Ancient Rome); Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, The Oxford

Companion to the Year.

6. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

7. Acts 1:3; 2:23, 24


6/14

11before it occurred.1 But laying this all aside, lets 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 bodys haircontinuing 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

treeany 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

orHilaria The evidence for the commemoration of the Hilaria datesfrom 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 131 -

161), 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.5

1. 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 ofChristian Feasts and Customs, p. 100.

4. Metzger, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

5. Metzger, op. cit., p. 21 quoting S. N. Kramer,Mythologies of the Ancient World, p. 10.

12I 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 independentcreations of the myth-making imagination.1

Well address Tammuz in a minute, but youll 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 cant 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 theHilaria 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

Egyptians 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 patternIn 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 piousdesire 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 4.

2. 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. 524-525.

4. Metzger, op. cit., p. 21 citing Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride, 359B {20}

5. Ibid.

6. McCabe, Little Blue Book No. 1104, Chapter 4.


7/14

132000 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 Greeks Persephone (Kore) as well as Dionysus, Osiris, Attis,

Adonis, Tammuz, and Sandan (which McCabe mentions at the end of the section, Howthe Creed was Synthetically Formed). Youll notice that McCabe calls the idea of

death and resurrection the universal myth2 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 weve

already discussed.3 But again, dont 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 vegetation7

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.8

1. Article: Osiris;Encyclopedia Britannica2. Op. cit., p. 7.

3. The first thing we should notice, actually, is their stark contrast with the nature of Christs 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, 6th Ed.

6. Article: Attis, Ibid.7. Frazer,Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Book 2, Chapter 1.

8. Frazer, The Golden Bough, p. 417.

14Adonis: 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 vegetationis furnished by

the gardens of Adonis2

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 vegetation4

Osiris: As a god of vegetation Osiris was naturally conceived as a god of creativity

energy in general5

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: themystery 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 Attis8

Such myths are the expression of ancient nature-symbolism; the spirit of

vegetation dies every year and rises every year.9

1. Frazer,Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Book 1, Chapter 9.

2. Ibid. Book 1, Chapter 10.

3. Article: Adonis; 1911Encyclopedia.org.

4. Article: Tammuz, TheColumbiaEncyclopedia, 6th Ed.

5. Frazer,Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Book 3, Chapter 5, Section 3.

6. 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 wasonly in anti-Christian literature that I could find a reference to him as a savior-god. Thats not saying he wasnever 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 aPhoenician and Carthaginian deity about whom little is known (Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris; Book 1, Chapter5).

8. Bruce Precourt, Adonis, Demeter (Ceres) & Persephone, Dionysus (Bacchus).

9. Bruce Metzger, op. cit., p. 23.


8/14

15Concerning 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 1He con-

tinues 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 formthe old tale reappears

in the myth of Demeter and Persephone. Substantially, their myth is identical withthe 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 McCabes

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 Pauls creed was developed out of the late Jewish

ideas of the Messiah. But didnt 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 theMessiah 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 didnt, 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. 415.

2. Ibid., p. 456.

3. Op. Cit., p. 8.

4. Based on Isaiah 9:2-

7 and noted by Edward Gibbon inDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 207: that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters

16Secondly, McCabe says these things were borrowed after the creed won power to

stay all its rivals by imperial decrees. However, the creed didnt 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 4th

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 cant these things arent 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 terminologywith 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 wouldnt 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 15:3-7.

2. 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, thelaws advocating persecution of Christians were still in place). And although Constantine receives the creditfor 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 ScottLatourette,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.


9/14

17Testament 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 byCumont when he says, resemblances do not necessarily suppose an

imitation1].

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 earlyChristianity 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 churchborrowed some of its practices, thats 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.

1. Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra,p. 194.

18How 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 Pauls 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

McCabes 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. 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.


10/14

19That the coming Redeemer was to be the off-spring or seed of the

woman is important in a patriarchal culture. Why of a woman?

Normally, descendants were traced through their father (cf. Gen. 5, 11)

In the unique term, seed of the woman, there is implied that the messiah

would come by a woman but not a natural father.1

This same type of reasoning can be applied to the prophecy in Jeremiah 22:28 -30. Josh

McDowell, inA Ready Defense says:

Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to

claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of

Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendant of

King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of

Jeconiah. Jesus would have been of the cursed lineage. The virgin birth of

Christ is not only an historical fact, but it was also a necessary historical fact

when one considers all the data.2

But rather than look exclusively to things implied, we can also look at the

prophecies of Isaiah, where he specifically says, Therefore the Lord Himself will give

you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son3 The belief that Jesus

was born of a virgin was not taken from Isis, Kore, or any other pagan god, but fromJewish prophecy concerning the Messiah.

The Old Testament also predicted the Messiahs birth in Bethlehem, 4 His ancestry,5

the time of His arrival,6

the heralding of His arrival,7

and His miracles8

all of which

were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. As for the idea of the divine child, the Old Testament

also presents the ideas that the Messiah would be the Son of God, 9 the incarnation of

God,10

and the atonement for sin.11

In addition to all this, resurrection was not a pagan idea implemented by the early

Christians and applied to Christ either. First of all, their idea of resurrection did not

need to be borrowed from pagan religions because there were accounts of (and

1. Geisler,Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 760.

2. Josh McDowell,A Ready Defense,p. 188.

3. Isaiah 7:14 (NASB).

4. Micah 5:2; fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-6

5. Genesis 12:2-3, Gen. 49:10, 2 Samuel 7:14, Isaiah 9:7; fulfilled in Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38.

6. Daniel 9:24-27.

7. Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 3:1; fulfilled in Matthew 3:1-3, Luke 4:17-21.

8. Isaiah 35:3-6; fulfilled throughout the gospels, specifically in Matthew 9:35, Matt. 11:2-5.

9. Psalms 2:7, fulfilled throughout the gospels, specifically mentioned in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5.

10. Isaiah 9:6.

11. Isaiah 53:6-12.

20belief in) resurrection in their scriptures.1 Secondly, it was predicted that the Messiah

would not undergo decay, but would be resurrected.2 Thirdly, Jesus Himself predicted

His death, burial, and resurrection many times.3

Finally, and this leads me to my next

point, the disciples could not have borrowed the idea of resurrection (or any other

belief) from pagan religions because they were writing about events that actually

occurred in history and that they were eyewitness to.

You see, there is a HUGE difference between Christianity and the pagan religions.

The ancient pagan religions were based on the cycle of death and rebirth observed in

nature they were purely symbolic figures. 4 Christianity was based on a historicalperson and historical facts. Now whether or not you personally believe that the

historical accounts of the life of Christ are true is inconsequential the fact is the

disciples were writing about what they believed they saw, not incorporating some

mythological account. Peter, a disciple of Jesus, says it this way: For we did not

follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.5

John testifies in saying,

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes,

what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life

what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also6

And those who were early

Christians but not disciples or eyewitnesses took great pains to accurately record the

events surrounding Jesus life. Luke, a physician, historian, and friend of Paul says this:

In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things

accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who

from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed

fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the

beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent

Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have

been taught.7

There is also another important aspect to consider if you want to say that myth

arose in the gospel accounts. In attempting to establish the validity of ancient

documents, there are a few tests that can be applied to the document in question: the

bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. Oneaspect of the bibliographical test includes taking into account how soon the copying of

1. 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:31-37, Hebrews 11:17-19, Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2.

2. Psalm 16:9-10.

3. Matthew 12:38-40; 16:21; 17:9, 22-23; Luke 18:31-33; Mark 9:30-32; 8:31; 10:33-34.

4. Aside from the quotes we have mentioned evidencing this, there is an excellent objective perspective givenon this in the college textbook,Philosophy An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, Sixth Edition, by JamesL. Christian that mentions many of the myths McCabe used including Persephone, Tammuz, Adonis, and

Osiris.

5. 2 Peter 1:16, NASB.

6. 1 John 1:1-3, NASB. For more of these types of testimonies, see John 19:35, 21:24-25.

7. Luke 1:1-4, NASB.


11/14

21the original manuscripts began. The time span between the original document and the

first copy becomes important when the copies are attacked as not being the same as the

original (such as myth creeping in over time). Considering the works written from 900

BC through 115 AD of great writers such as Sophocles, Aristotle, and Plato, the average

time span between when a work was first written and the earliest copy is about 1,200

years. There are a few exceptions, such as Suetonius'De Vita Caesaum (800 years) and

Homer's Iliad (500 years). The writing of the New Testament started at around 40 AD

and the earliest portion of the New Testament we have dates to around 50 AD and

includes fragments of Mark, Acts (60 AD), Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, and James (allat 70 AD).1 This means that the copying of the original gospel accounts began almost

immediately, but more importantly this means that the Gospels were written within the

lifetimes of immediate witnesses (both friendly and hostile) to the life of Christ. With

this being the case, this gospel account was open to criticism and scrutiny of the

enemies of Christ yet the accounts were not refuted. Heres what a few scholars say

about this subject:

F.F. Bruce: The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak

of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those

who would be happy to do so.2

Norman Geisler: Legends do not develop if the stories are written whileeyewitnesses are still alive to refute inaccuracies3 and a legend takes time

and/or remoteness to develop, neither of which were available. 4

C. S. Lewis, famous author, literary critic, and professor at Oxford: All I am

in my private life is a literary critic and historian, thats my job If anyone

thinks the gospels are either legends or novels, then that person is simply

showing his incompetence as a literary critic.5

A former curator of the British Museum, Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was the

authority of his time on ancient manuscripts: The interval then between the

dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so

small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that theScriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now

been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of

the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.6

1. Dead Sea Scrolls fragments 7Q4-7Q10, 7Q15. Article: New Testament, Dating of; Geisler,Baker

Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

2. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable, p. 44.

3. Article: Divine Birth Stories; Geisler,Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

4. Article; Mythology and the New Testament; Ibid.

5. Lewis, Christian Reflections, p. 209.

6. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p. 288.

22There are a great many other things I can say about this issue. But my goal here is

not to prove that Christ was indeed resurrected or that the accounts of His life are

historically accurate (I leave that to other dissertations). It is to simply show that the

early church did not develop the ideas surrounding their Christ from any pagan sources,

but rather from Jewish prophecy and eyewitness accounts. The authors of the New

Testament claim to be writing about events in actual history. Norman Geisler puts it

perfectly when he says:

An honest reading of the New Testament data shows that Paul did not teach anew religion or draw on existing mythology. The foundation stones for

Christianity are patently taken from the Old Testament, Judaism generally,

and the life of a historical figure named Jesus.1

In short, the most devastating blow to McCabes theory (which can seem

convincing) is the fact that Jewish scripture anticipated every single doctrine that

Christianity is accused of borrowing. The Christian ideas that Christ was a Savior-God

that was born of a virgin (a divine child) who brought eternal life through His death and

resurrection could not have been incorporated from any pagan religions because it was

part of Jewish teaching for centuries.

McCabes section, The Facts About Early Christianity

I only go into this next farcical section of McCabes pamphlet because I must. It is

unfortunate that this drivel should even warrant a response, and my original intention

was to only comment on this section in general, but upon further research I find myself

compelled to go further. But first of all, let me point out that this section totally

deviates from the pamphlets topic, How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism, and

instead focuses on the practices of people within the early church it has absolutely

nothing to do with what the Bible teaches or what the Christian believes.

Now I do not know whether McCabe is simply mistaken or if he is deliberately

attempting to deceive his readers, but due to the baseless statements he makes, it is

beginning to look like the latter. The first being his statement that apparently they

(preachers) do not know that the Christians did not live in Rome at all but outside thewalls2 However, history tells us that Neros persecution of the Christians that began

in 64 AD was confined to the walls of Rome. 3 And apparently McCabe did not know

that there were Christians even within Ceasars household, that Christians were

employed as officials of the imperial court,5 and that in Rome there were Christians

1. Article: Mithraism; Geisler,Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

2. Op. cit., p. 9.

3. Edward Gibbon,Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 214.

4. Philippians 4:22, written by Paul from Rome around AD 61.

5. Irenaeus,Against Heresies, IV, XXX, 1.


12/14

23among the families who were distinguished for wealth and noble descent. 1 I would

like to know McCabe got this idea, because history and ancient literature disagrees with

him.

And I have no idea what McCabe is trying to accomplish by referring to

Hippolytus. I do see that he is hinting at some sort of immorality on the part of Pope

Victor, but he has no grounds to do so. According to Hippolytus, Marcia summoned

Pope Victor to the palace for a list of all Christians imprisoned to work the mines in

Sardinia by Marcus Aurelius so that she might have them freed. Emperor Commodus

granted her wish, and Hyacinth went to Sardinia with the pardon.2 That was the favorthe Christians received, and Pope Victor was simply the supplier of the list of prisoners.

But McCabe attempts to deceive his readers through spurious fabrications and

insinuations. Before this story, Hippolytus did give us the story of Callistus. And while

there may have been some misconduct on the part of Callistus, this in no way impugns

Christianity.

McCabe also mentions St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. John

Chrysostum, and Gregory of Nyssa, but does not tell us their works so we can

investigate the allegations. And even if these few stories are accurate (which, with

McCabes history, is doubtful), they are in no way, shape, or form, representative of the

Christians belief system. If they happen to be true, they are simply a few stories about

a few corrupt men I could present the same to you today. That does not necessarily

reflect upon Christianity, but simply shows the fact that man is sinful, and as such issusceptible to wrongdoing. I can only hope that you, the reader, did not allow your

intelligence to be insulted by giving McCabes arguments anything beyond a cursory

glance.

McCabes other attack comes in the form of assaulting the historical understanding

of early Christian martyrs. And it is indeed acknowledged that from the persecution

that occurred under Nero until around 250 AD, the number of actual deaths were

relatively small in comparison with the two main persecutions under Decius in 249 AD

and Diocletian in 303 AD (Though the persecution of Nero itself was quite severe 3).

But this was the case because the strategy of the early persecutions was not to wipe out

Christianity by killing every Christian, but to go after the leaders (bishops, apostles,

etc.) and those in the public eye in effort to disperse the congregation at large.4 And this

they did. 10 of the 12 Disciples (Judas killed himself and John died a natural death)were martyred along with early well-known Christian authors such as Ignatius,

Polycarp, Justin Martyr,5 Iraneus, and even two early church fathers that McCabe refers

1. Article: Pope St. Victor I; The CatholicEncyclopedia, Volume VIII, citing Eusebius, EcclesiasticalHistory, V, XXI.

2. Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, Chapter VII.

3. Tacitus, Annals, Book XV. 44. According to Tacitus, a secular Roman historian, the Christians werecovered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or weredoomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Neros

persecution is also mentioned by another non-Christian, Seutonius,De Vita Caesarum Nero, c. 16.

4. Gibbon,Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 217.

5. Justin Martyr, who was martyred with six others, said that the witness of other martyrs was instrumental inhis conversion. Justin also relays the martyrdom of Ptolemy and Lucius in his 1stDefense, 2.2.

24to: Hippolytus and Cyprian.1 Another person to whom McCabe references, Pliny the

Younger, even admits to having Christians martyred himself. 2 But it wasnt until

Decius and Diocletian that state-sanctioned, systematic persecutions of all Christians

took place. McCabe calls these the only two real general persecutions of Christians,

though there were 10 separate and distinct persecutions of the early Church3. For an

accurate understanding of Christian martyrdom, it is recommended that you read the

16th century classic work of literature, FoxesBook of Martyrs or even the 18th century

work,Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon.4 Or if you want to,

you can go directly to the source and read Tacitus, 5 Eusebius,6 Origen,7 Augustine,8Justin Martyr,9 or the many works of Tertullian or Lactantius.

What troubles me, however, is that McCabe unblinkingly lies and misrepresents his

sources. McCabe says, the learned Origen himself says that for the first two

centuries you could count the martyrs on your fingers.10 Notice that again McCabe

refuses to tell us where he got this information. Of course he doesnt, for it would

destroy his argument if you actually researched it for yourself! Origen did notsay that

he could count the number of martyrs on his fingers. His exact words were, these

individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of

Christianity11

And it is observed by Paul Tobin in The Roman Persecution of the

Early Christians that Origen was speaking of the martyrs during Decius persecution.12

1. Prudentius wrote a hymn on the martyr Hippolytus (Peristephanon, hymn XI, in P.L., LX, 530 sqq.), in

which he places the scene of the martyrdom at Ostia or Porto, and describes Hippolytus as being torn to p iecesby wild horses. Gibbon, in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , gives a two-page account of the eventssurrounding Cyprians martyrdom, pp. 218-219.

2. Letters, 10.96-97.

3. Outlined quite well by Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History andFoxes Book of Martyrs. They are also each

mentioned by name by Augustine, City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 52; and all mentioned, but not outlined

as such by Gibbon,Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 16.

4. His work, though often referenced to here, is definitely not partial to Christianity. In fact, it speaks againstthe traditional views of martyrdom as well.

5. Roman historian who wrote of the persecution of Nero inAnnals.6. Who chronicled the history of the early church inEcclesiastical History and specifically the Diocletian

persecution in The Martyrs of Palestine, a work Delehaye calls an historic record of the firstorder (Delehaye,Legends of the Saints, p. 1.

7. Who wrote about the persecutions of both Maximus (Exhortation to Martyrdom) and Decius.

8. City of God.

9. 1stDefense.10. Op. cit, p. 11.

11. Origen, ContraCelsus, Book 3, Chapter 8. It would also do the reader good to note that Origen was

writing this in response to the Christian critic Celsus. When reading this in context, you see that Origen wasdefending the idea that God would preserve His church even though it was being persecuted. Origen inanother work makes mention of a small number of martyrs, but it is speaking of martyrs in Alexandria alone

(Homilies on Jeremiah).

12. He comes to this conclusion based on the classic work weve referenced ourselves, GibbonsDecline and

Fall of the Roman Empire..


13/14

25Nor did Origen say that he was speaking of the martyrs of the first two centuries

(another blatant interpolation by McCabe). It would be a ridiculous thing for him to say

he knew of the disciples, of the persecution under Nero (among others), he wrote

about the persecutions of Maximus and Decius, he had students who were martyred, and

even his own father was martyred! Martyrdom was the foundational point of his

teaching and he even wrote a work entitled Exhortation to Martyrdom. And in

GibbonsDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it goes on to say this:

The general assertion of Origen may be explained and confirmed by theparticular testimony of his friend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of

Alexandria, and under the rigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only ten

men and seven women who suffered for the profession of the Christian

name.1

McCabes assertion that Origen could count the martyrs of the first and second centuries

on his fingers is ludicrous and false. This letter from Dionysius includes seventeen

martyrs in one city alone. I dont know how many fingers Origen had, but that one

account alone disproves McCabes statement. Add to this the martyrdom of the

apostles, the writings of early historians (Christian and non-Christian alike, such as

Eusebius and Tertullian, Tacitus and Pliny), and even the accounts by Bishop Gregg and

Duchesne (whom McCabe mentions) and you have a substantial amount. And thats

even laying aside the most exhaustive work on the subject, Foxes Book of Martyrs.Even Gibbon, while attempting to debunk the traditional views of martyrdom, gives an

extremely conservative estimate of 1,500 2,000 martyrs before the time of

Constantine.2

McCabe also makes reference to the letter of Dionysius when relaying that some of

the Christians in Alexandria (though McCabe implies all) chose to disown their faith,

evoking the jeers and mockery of the crowd.3

But McCabe does not tell you of the

accounts in that very letterthat contradict his argument. Nor does he properly cite his

source so you can easily research the matter for yourself. If you actually readthe letter

McCabe mentions,4

you find that this bishop of Alexandria relayed, in detail, the

martyrdoms of seventeen individuals. But does McCabe tell you this? Of course not!

McCabe gives references from Eusebius work that suit his bias, and then refuses to

relay the enormous amount of information that speaks volumes against his ownarguments. If you are going to use a source for your arguments, and trust it to be

reliable, you must take the entire work into account. What McCabe has done here is

irresponsible and an insult to scholarly work.5

1. Gibbon, p. 217, citing Dionysius ap. Eusebius 1.vi.c.41.

2. Ibid., p. 233.

3. Op. cit., p. 10.

4. Found in Eusebius Church History, 6.41.

5. In the conclusion of his section on martyrdom, Gibbon says, I have purposefully refrained from describing

the particular sufferings and deaths of the Christian Martyrs. It would have been an easy task, from thehistory of Eusebius, from the declamations of Lactantius, and from the most ancient acts, to collect a longseries of horrid and disgusting pictures, and to fill many pages with racks and scourges, with iron hooks and

red-hot beds, and with all the variety of tortures which fire and steel, savage beasts, and more savageexecutioners, could inflict on the human body (Gibbon, 232).

26The last comment McCabe makes that I would like to address is his statement that

Delehaye has shown in a special study that all stories of Christians being exposed to

lions in the Roman Amphitheaterare bogus.1

Im sorry, but McCabe is lying to you

(again). What Delehaye actually says is, I do not want to deny that there were martyrs

of Flavians Amphitheater [the Coliseum]; but we do not know if there were any. In

any case, their names are unknown to us.2

Delehaye left it open to the possibility that

there were indeed Christians martyred in the Coliseum. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts

it this way:

The evidence, therefore, which we possess in the Roman Acts in favour of

certain martyrs suffering in the Coliseum isregarded by Father Delehaye as

inconclusive [emphasis mine]. He does not deny that there may have been

martyrs who suffered in the Coliseum, but we know nothing on the subject

one way or the other It is, of course, probable enough that some of the

Christians condemned ad bestias suffered in the Coliseum.3

How can it be said simpler? Delehaye does not deny that there may have been martyrs

who suffered in the Coliseum. McCabe said that Delehaye considered all such accounts

bogus. Well, McCabe lied. Again. And I dont know whether or not it was McCabe

or Delehaye that does not know this, but Ignatius, who we mentioned earlier, was

himself martyred in the Coliseum by being torn apart by lions4

and Tertullian mentionsthe hastiness in which Roman citizens would cry, Away with the Christians to the

lion!.5

So while there may be disagreement, misunderstanding, and even possible

fabrications concerning the severity of the persecution of the early church, McCabe has

invented plenty of his own. My only purpose for even delving into this area of his

pamphlet was to show the multitude of false information he is relaying. So there are 2

things that you should realize here: 1) While the actual number of martyrs may not be as

large as some would like to imagine, there were certainly a great deal more martyrs than

McCabe tries to convince us of, and 2) McCabe has simply and purposefully lied to his

readers.

It is on this note that I close: McCabe has proven that he is not to be trusted. His

pamphlet is a wealth of misinformation. He seldom cites his sources, and when hedoes, he cites them wrong (The Mysteries of up the Mithra; Ezekiel 8:15). Often

times, he simply does not know what hes talking about (Kore is Persephone;Attis not

1. Op. cit., p. 11.

2. Translated from Je ne veux pas nier quil y ait eu des martyrs de lamphitheatre Flavien; mais nous nesavons pas non plus sil y en a eu, et en tout cas leurs noms nous sont inconnus, Hippolyte Delehaye,

LAmphitheatre Flavien, p. 37.

3. Article: The Coliseum; TheCatholicEncyclopedia, Volume IV.

4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, The Martyrdom of Ignatius;Foxes Book of Martyrs, Bk 1, Chpt 2.

5. Tertullian,Apology, chapter XL.


14/14

27Athis). When you actually go to the sources he mentions, you find that he misrepresents

the information found there and leaves out the things he doesnt want you to know (the

works of Cumont, Frazer, Pliny, Hippolytus, Dionysius). His arguments are faulty and

outdated and he repeatedly and deliberately tries to deceive his readers (the early

Christian Paschal Chronicle, Origen counting the martyrs on his fingers, Delehayes

conclusion). Im sorry, but this is becoming less and less bad scholarship and more

and more deceitful indoctrination. I just pity the person who tries to use these

arguments on someone who knows what theyre talking about.

And through all my studies on this subject (which is considerable), I have made afew observations. First of all, like McCabe, it is a rare occurrence when someone cites

their sources. The writers go on rambling about how the stories are similar, but seldom

give you, the reader, a chance to verify their claims. And this is extremely problematic

because this means the authors can (and many times do) interpolate blatant lies with

their discoveries. They will find something remotely similar (Osiris body pieces being

reassembled and his rule in the Underworld = resurrection?) and stretch it out, twist the

story, and use Christian phraseology to make it sound similar. Another thing that this

frees up the author to do is to hide all things detrimental to his argument. The

similarities end up being few and vague (yet selected for the biased goal of the author),

and the dissimilarities are great and show that any resemblance is pure speculation.

And the sad thing is, so much of this comes from self-proclaimed free-thinkers

when these free-thinkers are indoctrinating the minds of their disciples without giving

them the option of thinking free by researching the matter for themselves. And its

funny the Apostle Paul was actually one of the first true free -thinkers when he

encouraged and lauded those he taught for not simply believing what he said just

because he said it, but researching to see if what he was saying was true!1

Paul also

tells the church to Test all things2 You want free-thought? Do your own

research. Test the writers. Test me! Of course, unlike most of these authors, I actually

cite my sources so you can, if you want, make sure Im telling you the truth. You cant

tell if Joseph McCabe (or any other author on this subject) is or is not telling the truth.

And if you simply believe everything they tell you, well, you have more faith than I do.

1. Acts 17:10-

12.

2. 1 Thessalonians 5:21, NASB.