Part 11 (1/2)
The Resurrection of Lazarus?
The raising of Lazarus at John 11:1-44 presents us with another interesting conundrum that likely reflects not history but propaganda-and that represents another of the clearest fingerprints of the Christ. As discussed, this pericope appears only in John's gospel, leaving one to wonder why the others would omit such a stunning display of Christ's divinity. It is possible that the reason Lazarus's resurrection was not included in the synoptics is because, as suggested earlier, it const.i.tutes not a historical episode but a retelling of an ancient mythological theme found in other cultures.
Regarding the important subject of correspondences between the non-Christian and Christian religions, such as the divine births elucidated by Jerome, New Testament scholar, minister and contributor to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, remarks: That there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity has been observed since the early centuries of the Church, when both Christian and non-Christian alike commented upon certain similarities.1 As a confessing Christian, however, Dr. Metzger proceeds to clarify, reduce and dismiss a number of these purported parallels, in an effort that, while reflective of immense and impressive erudition, does not satisfactorily incorporate the fact of numerous previous instances of ”borrowing” within both pre-Christian Judaism and so-called Paganism. When it comes to Christianity, there seems to be some difficulty in mainstream scholars.h.i.+p to accept into its a.n.a.lysis the basic human nature of absorbing from others interesting and significant ideas that may be beneficial to the individual or group in question. That such borrowing and absorption did occur widely remains a fact that must be included into any honest and scientific discussion of the origin of religion in general and Christianity in specific.
In his dismissal and clarification of the correspondences between these religions, Metzger adds, ”Even when parallels are genealogical, it must not be uncritically a.s.sumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction.”2 By ”genealogical,” Metzger evidently means following a linear progression of one parallel begetting another. Although he then claims that Christianity may have influenced Paganism, because the Pagan priesthood was attempting to keep its flock from fleeing to a more desirable Christian faith, the word ”always” in Metzger's commentary implies that there are influences of the Pagan mysteries upon Christianity, as does the clarification ”certain cases.” Moreover, on p. 18 of his apology, Metzger further attempts to delineate the differences between Paganism and Christianity: ...The motif of a dying and rising savior-G.o.d has been frequently supposed to be related to the account of the saving efficacy of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The formal resemblance between the two, however, must not be allowed to obscure the great differences in content.
...In all the Mysteries which tell of a dying deity, the G.o.d dies by compulsion and not by choice, sometimes in bitterness and despair, never in a self-giving love. But according to the New Testament, G.o.d's purpose of redeeming-love was the free divine motive for the death of Jesus, who accepted with equal freedom that motive as his own.
In the first place, unlike many apologists, here at least Metzger does not deny the motif of the dying-and-rising savior-G.o.d that has been contended to have existed within Pagan religion long prior to the Christian era. Metzger even goes so far as to declare the parallel a ”formal resemblance,” although splitting hairs in order to create distance between the two. Secondly, Metzger disingenuously depicts the non-Christian dying G.o.ds unfavorably, while ignoring the wretched state of Jesus upon his own pending agony and death: For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus begs his Father not to compel him to undergo the coming torment! Quoting Metzger's own RSV: Then he said to them, ”My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, ”My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”... Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, ”My Father, if this cannot pa.s.s unless I drink it, thy will be done.”... So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words. (Mt 26:38-44) It is obvious that Jesus went very reluctantly to the cross, dramatically if not hysterically ”falling on his face,” and agitatedly asking G.o.d three times not to do this thing to him. Like other apologists, Metzger attempts to differentiate between the tales of non-Christian dying-and-rising G.o.ds and that of Jesus by saying that these G.o.ds' pa.s.sions were caused by others, while Jesus's was not. However, the fact remains that Jesus's death was likewise caused by others, including not only Jews and Romans but also G.o.d the Father, as is obvious from this episode in Gethsemane.
Furthermore, while on the cross, the pitiful Christ is made to cry out, ”Eli, eli, lama sabachthani!” (Mt 27:46) This bitter and desperate wail has universally been translated into English as, ”My G.o.d! My G.o.d, why have you forsaken me?!” Therefore, what exactly are the meaningful differences between the deaths and resurrections of the pre-Christian G.o.ds and that of Jesus?
Indeed, when Christ is resurrected, he cautions Mary Magdalene not to touch him, because he has not yet ”ascended to the Father” (Jn 20:17). Is not Jesus implying that G.o.d has not yet entirely acted upon him? Did not the all-powerful G.o.d resurrect his own Son? Wasn't this resurrection by G.o.d one of the major points of Jesus's advent? Moreover, at the end of the gospel of John, Jesus makes a long, drawn-out speech using the word ”Father” 10 times over the span of 23 verses. In using the word ”Father” 134 times in 111 verses overall in his gospel, it seems to be one of John's purposes to emphasize the Fatherhood aspect of G.o.d-and the Father's reigning role in Christ's life.1 Also, if Christ specifically asks Mary not to touch him because he has not ascended yet to the Father, why does he later allow Doubting Thomas to handle him, before he has ascended to the Father? (Jn 20:27) This story seems bizarre, illogical and artificial.
As another example of a Jewish writer who evidently influenced Christianity-as one of those, perhaps, whom Dr. Moreland cites-there appears in the works of the h.e.l.lenized Jewish philosopher and historian Philo of Alexandria (20 bce-50 ad/ce) a ”trial of a mock-king,” or pa.s.sion, which oddly resembles that of Christ. Philo lived at the precise time and wrote about the same area as that of Christ's alleged advent but made no mention of the ”Word made flesh” or his followers, even though Philo was well known for his Judeo-h.e.l.lenistic development of the Logos concept. If we factor in the many other evidences, it seems that the gospel pa.s.sion was based significantly on the pa.s.sion account found in Philo as concerns a man named ”Karabbas,” who was dressed up in a mock crown and purple robe, given a fake ”scepter,” and paraded about in the same manner as Christ.1 Regarding the Jewish philosopher and the New Testament, Friedlander remarks, ”Philo has been a valuable mine whence the writers of the New Testament have drawn some of their best treasures.”2 He then names several of them, including the famed concept of the Logos, which, again, Philo developed intricately long before it showed up within Christianity.
In reality, the correspondences between Jesus and the G.o.ds of the religions of the Roman Empire at the time rank as well known enough within the scholarly world that the believing Christian Tenney observed: The cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, came from Asia; that of Isis and Osiris or Serapis, from Egypt; Mithraism originated in Persia. While all of them differed from each other in origin and detail, all were alike in certain broad characteristics. Each was centered about a G.o.d who had died and who was resuscitated. Each had a ritual of formulas and l.u.s.trations, of symbol and of secret dramatic representations of the experience of the G.o.d, by which the initiate was inducted into that experience, and so presumably rendered a candidate for immortality.1 Both Metzger and Tenney's conclusion that there do in fact exist significant parallels between Christ and other G.o.ds is well founded, because, as Metzger remarked, from the earliest centuries both non-Christian and Christian alike commented on these correspondences.
As one extremely important example of an early Christian comparison of Jesus with other G.o.ds, in his defense of the ”new superst.i.tion” of Christianity, Church father Justin Martyr (c. 150 ad/ce) felt compelled to provide a.n.a.logies to Christ's story from previous non-Christian mythology and legend, remarking: And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of G.o.d, was produced without s.e.xual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?2 Thus, Martyr's apology contains the utterly astonis.h.i.+ng admission by an early Church father that there existed in the stories of other G.o.ds the themes of the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the death and resurrection, and the ascension.3 The divine subjects of the commentaries by Martyr and other early Church fathers, in fact, could be viewed as the ”DNA of the Christ.” Again, Martyr is undoubtedly one of those Christian sources raised by Dr. Metzger in his concurrence that there are parallels between the story of Jesus Christ and pre-Christian tales.
Even though in his apology comparing Jesus to other characters of pre-Christian myth and legend Justin Martyr does not specifically mention any Egyptian G.o.ds, the Christian father does discuss the ”Greek” G.o.d Bacchus or Dionysus, who, like the Egyptian G.o.d Osiris, was torn to pieces but who is also immortal and eternal, which essentially means that he too rose from the dead, as Martyr appears to be confirming. Although perceived as a Greek G.o.d, Dionysus possessed a long a.s.sociation with Egypt, in particular with the highly popular Osiris.
In his Exhortation to the Heathen (IV), Church father Clement of Alexandria (died c. 215) shows a familiarity-although contemptuously, as is typical of the early Christian apologists towards other religions-with the myth of Osiris, as well as the Greco-Egyptian G.o.d Serapis, a hybrid of Osiris and the Egyptian G.o.d Apis, which, per Clement, ”together make Osirapis.” Serapis himself was a.s.sociated with the Greek G.o.d Asclepius,1 who, as can be seen from Justin's remarks, was also killed and raised to heaven. The G.o.d Serapis/Asclepius is important for a couple of reasons: 1. The Emperor Hadrian is quoted as saying that the Christians of his time wors.h.i.+pped Serapis;2 and 2. There was a Serapis/Asclepius sanctuary built at Jerusalem during Hadrian's reign, c. 135 ad/ce, prior to the clear emergence of the canonical gospels in the literary record.
Depicted as a man wearing white robes and sporting long, dark hair and a beard, the healing G.o.d Asclepius was called ”Soter”-Savior-centuries before the Christian era, as were other pre-Christian G.o.ds, including the father G.o.d Zeus/Jove and various other ”sons of Jove.”3 Oddly enough, John's gospel (5:1-13) depicts Jesus as curing a man at the ”Pool of Bethesda,” the precise location of ”the miraculous medicinal baths where clients of the G.o.d Serapis (Asclepius) gathered in hope of healing.”4 Interestingly, John (5:2) describes the pool as having ”five porticoes,” and the only building at the site with five porches apparently was the sanctuary of Serapis/Aesclepius, built in honor of the healing G.o.d's five daughters. According to Dr. James Charlesworth, no one besides John had mentioned this large structure with five porches at Jerusalem: ...in John 5:2 the author describes a monumental pool with ”five porticoes” inside the Sheep Gate of Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed: the pool, we are told, is called Bethesda. No other ancient writer-no author or editor of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, not even Josephus-mentions such a significant pool in Jerusalem. Moreover, no known ancient building was a pentagon, which was apparently what John was describing with five porticoes. It seemed that the author of John could not have been a Jew who knew Jerusalem. Archaeologists, however, decided to dig precisely where the author of John claimed a pool was set aside for healing. Their excavations revealed an ancient pool with porticoes (open areas with large columns) and with shrines dedicated to the Greek G.o.d of healing, Asclepius... The author of John knew more about Jerusalem than we thought.1 John may have known more about Jerusalem than previously thought-too much, in reality, for Christian apologetics to handle, even though this fact of John's accuracy would certainly bolster the case that the gospels represent ”reliable history.” The problem is, of course, that the evidence suggests the evangelist was anachronistically describing a post-Hadrianic Jerusalem, sometime after 135 ce, when this pentagonal building was purportedly constructed! In other words, John's gospel must have been written sometime after 135 ce.
Since the Pool of Bethesda episode is not found in the synoptic gospels, and since the emergence of John cannot be scientifically dated to earlier than the last quarter of the second century, it is possible, if not probable, that this pool pericope was included not because it is ”historical” but in order to appropriate the followers of Serapis at Jerusalem. Hence, we have a strong gospel connection to the sanctuary of a G.o.d, Serapis-Asclepius, who was a.s.serted by Justin to have died and resurrected.
In reality, any G.o.d who was ”killed” yet maintained immortality/ascended to heaven could be said to have been ”resurrected.” The applicable definition of the word ”resurrection” means, ”The act of rising from the dead or returning to life.”2 ”Resurrection” is not a strictly Christian term; nor does it apply in some peculiar way only to Jesus. As we see from Justin Martyr, the idea of a G.o.d dying and rising is abundant enough within pre-Christian religion and mythology-these aspects of Pagan religion, in fact, represent part of what are called ”the mysteries,” as discussed by Dr. Metzger and Dr. Tenney.
Moreover, even the Old Testament contains a hint of the important dying-and-rising-G.o.d mystery, in the scripture at Ezekiel 8:14 concerning the Jewish women's mourning for the Sumero-Syro-Babylonian G.o.d Tammuz: Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord; and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
The word ”Tammuz” is defined by Strong's (H8542) as ”sprout of life” and as referring to ”a Sumerian deity of food or vegetation.” From these facts of the ”sprout of life” being mourned for his death, it is clear that Tammuz represents a very old dying-and-rising G.o.d in the precise area where the gospel tale supposedly took place centuries later. Regarding this scripture about the mourning for Tammuz, conservative Christian authority Matthew Henry remarks: An abominable thing indeed, that any should choose rather to serve an idol in tears than to serve the true G.o.d with joyfulness and gladness of heart! Yet such absurdities as these are those guilty of who follow after lying vanities and forsake their own mercies. Some think it was for Adonis, an idol among the Greeks, others for Osiris, an idol of the Egyptians, that they shed these tears. The image, they say, was made to weep, and then the wors.h.i.+ppers wept with it. They bewailed the death of this Tammuz, and anon rejoiced in its returning to life again.1 Thus, the resurrecting G.o.d Tammuz was evidently a.s.sociated with the Egyptian G.o.d Osiris, whose ancient presence in Israel, in fact, has been indicated by certain intriguing archaeological discoveries, such as a stele from Hazor with the name of Osiris on it and an apparent Egyptian temple at Jerusalem.2 Concerning the Tammuz verse in Ezekiel, Christian commentators Jamieson, Fausset and Brown also state: Tammuz (the Syrian for Adonis), the paramour of Venus, and of the same name as the river flowing from Lebanon; killed by a wild boar, and, according to the fable, permitted to spend half the year on earth, and obliged to spend the other half in the lower world. An annual feast was celebrated to him in June (hence called Tammuz in the Jewish calendar) at Byblos, when the Syrian women, in wild grief, tore off their hair and yielded their persons to prost.i.tution, consecrating the hire of their infamy to Venus; next followed days of rejoicing for his return to the earth; the former feast being called ”the disappearance of Adonis,” the latter, ”the finding of Adonis.” This Phoenician feast answered to the similar Egyptian one in honor of Osiris.1 It is clear from these facts as well that the concept of a dying-and-rising G.o.d was prominent in the ancient religions, including and especially in the myth of Osiris. In reality, within the Egyptian religion existed the long-held belief in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead, as evidenced not only in very ancient pre-Christian texts such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead (c. 15801350 bce) but also in the practice of mummification. Indeed, the numerous mummies found all over Egypt clearly indicate an obsession with the physical resurrection of the dead, long pre-dating the Christian era. Upon close scrutiny, it seems that, rather than representing an implausible ”historical” event, the biblical resurrection of Lazarus-in his wrappings, similar to a mummy (Jn 11:44)-may likewise const.i.tute a motif from the Egyptian religion.
The Greek name ”Lazarus” or ”Lazaros” equals ”Eleazar” in Hebrew and, per Strong's (G2976), means ”whom G.o.d helps.” It is a strange coincidence firstly that the person whom Jesus resurrects happens to be named ”whom G.o.d helps,” and secondly that ”Eleazar”-or, breaking down its original components in Hebrew, El-Azar-closely resembles a combination of the Semitic word for G.o.d, ”El,” with the Egyptian name for Osiris, ”Ausar.” Interestingly, there exists an ancient Phoenician inscription called ”the Carpentras” that does indeed identify Osiris with the Semitic G.o.d ”El” or ”Elohim,” calling him ”Osiris-Eloh.”2 Deemed ”the G.o.d of the resurrection,” Osiris himself was resurrected, as is evident from the myth in which he is torn to pieces, put together, and comes alive again, to attain to everlasting life. The a.s.sociation of Osiris with the resurrection is so abundant in ancient Egyptian texts it would be impossible to list all the references here.3 As famed Christian Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge remarks: The story of Osiris is nowhere found in a connected form in Egyptian literature, but everywhere, and in texts of all periods, the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Osiris are accepted as facts universally admitted.4 If the abundance of texts proves the factuality of a story, as is claimed within Christian apologetics regarding the New Testament ma.n.u.scripts, Osiris would need to be recognized as what he is claimed to be in numerous very ancient Egyptian texts: The everlasting Lord of the Resurrection!1 This ”argument of abundance,” however, const.i.tutes a logical fallacy and in reality does not prove historicity, as might be obvious from the immense popularity of fiction books today printed by the millions globally.
Nevertheless, in a.s.sessing this situation, we must rationally and logically ask whether or not the nascent Christianity could truly have made any inroads into Egypt, where this deeply revered G.o.d Osiris had been wors.h.i.+pped for thousands of years, without incorporating major tenets from the Egyptian religion into its own doctrines. Indeed, it would seem the height of naivete and a lack of education to insist otherwise.
In consideration of the facts that the gospel of John appears to contain blatantly Egyptian elements, that it was one of the earliest texts used by the Egyptian Christian congregation, and that the earliest extant fragment of a copy of it was discovered in Egypt, it is not unreasonable to
suggest that, in addition to looking for the emergence of this gospel in the wrong century, its provenance is likewise sought in the wrong country. Could the Gospel of St. John in actuality have been composed at Alexandria in Egypt for an
Egyptian audience familiar with, or followers of, Egyptian religion?
As we have seen previously in the instances of the water-to-wine miracle and the virgin-birth motif, this type of political maneuver within religion is well known and well practiced. Indeed, an in-depth a.n.a.lysis as found here reveals indications that Christianity as a whole was created for political reasons: Firstly, in order to usurp the G.o.ds of other cultures with a Jewish messiah; and secondly, to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion combining Judaism and Paganism.
In addition to these intriguing connections to ancient G.o.ds, the concept of the resurrection itself within Christianity has been altered and clarified in a variety of manners in order to satisfy evident political needs. Regarding the many doctrinal meanings of the resurrection, the Interpreter's Dictionary remarks, ”This diversity of view is due to the fact that the doctrine was evolved in different philosophies to resolve different problems.”3 In other words, the variances in the resurrection doctrines are a result of sectarian interpretations that frequently contradicted each other and needed to be smoothed over.
The Naked Youth.
Within our a.n.a.lysis of various elements of the NT that seem to serve as propaganda, there do emerge a couple of homey touches in the gospels that seemingly attach some historicity to the story. One such earthy example occurs in a pericope found only in Mark (14:51-52), regarding the ”young man” in the garden of Gethsemane who followed Jesus as the latter was being arrested, and who was wearing nothing but a ”linen cloth” that came off him as he was seized, thus causing him to run away naked. The commentary over the centuries on this strange episode centers on whether or not the naked young man was in fact Mark himself, the a.s.sumed author of the gospel, who was trying to show that he was at the scene, but it was so disturbing even he had fled. In attempting to paint him in a better light, it has further been presumed that this young man ”fled” in order to tell others what was happening. For various reasons, including Church father Papias's explicit statement that Mark was not one of the disciples who saw the Lord at any point, it cannot be argued for certain that this character is Mark.
This peculiar pa.s.sage has led to much other speculation, rightfully asking why the youth was only wearing a flimsy linen cloth and was naked underneath, and why it was such an important issue to mention this naked boy running away. Biblical commentator Matthew Henry was adamant that this naked boy was ”no disciple of Christ,” i.e., Mark or any other, speculating instead that he was an adherent of a certain ascetic Jewish sect whose members went about wearing only a thin linen cloth in order to display their piety and mortification of the body. The pericope may have been included for political reasons to cast this particular sect in a bad light, as being cowardly.
In The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Dr. Robert Price evinces that the pa.s.sage is borrowed from Amos 2:16: ”'...and he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day,' says the Lord.”1 In other words, upon inspection this ”homey touch” may not in fact add anything ”historical” to the tale, but may represent either propaganda or yet another Old Testament scripture used as a blueprint to create a fictionalized patchwork ”biography.”
The ”Twelve”
In still another example of a possible ”political” motive, some ancient ma.n.u.scripts and modern translations of Luke 22:14, depicting Christ sitting at the table with the disciples, omit the word ”twelve,” as it is not found in the earliest ma.n.u.script. In consideration of its importance in the Old Testament and in pre-Christian symbolism, the establishment of 12 disciples or apostles may not have been historical but may have served as part of a doctrinal and ritualistic formula added later. That there is symbolism in the Bible is admitted even by the most fervent apologists, such as Norman Geisler, who refers to the patent symbolism in the book of Revelation.1 In addition, according to Geisler we may also engage in ”spiritual interpretation” of difficult pa.s.sages;2 hence, our metaphorical and symbolic explorations are not unwarranted in our quest to discover who Jesus was.