Upload
toby42
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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?
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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..
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.
7/29/2019 A Response to McCabe's 'How Christianity Grew Out of Paganism' by Aaron Lockhart
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.