Who were the "dying and rising" savior gods?
Where is the evidence that they rose again?
Isaiah is the first real prophecy of a messiah, and as any Jew will tell you, it’s about re establishing the Davidian line of kings on earth, not in heaven. Jesus simply doesn’t fulfill the prophecies and it’s painfully obvious that he is just another dying and rising savior god as many others were from that time frame.
What "many others"? There were no other historical figures in the written record who reportedly resurrected after having died. The "dying and rising" gods either were not real historical persons at all, or the ones which were historical are obscured by all the legends evolving over many centuries of storytelling -- unlike the case of Jesus in the 1st century, for whom we have at least 5 good 1st-century sources which attest to his resurrection after he had been killed. I.e., sources similar to those we have for most of our ancient history events, which typically are recorded for us in sources 50-100 years later. So the evidence for the Jesus Resurrection meets the critical standards necessary for establishing ancient history facts. Whereas there is no such evidence for the "dying and rising" gods of the pagan myths.
It is pseudo-scientific to equate someone who never existed (or for whom evidence is lacking) with someone who is established as a real historical person for whom we have more than the normal needed evidence for his unusual acts.
Richard Carrier says there’s a plethora of them:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890
And he lists specifically the following: Hercules, Zalmoxis, Romulus, Osiris, Dionysus, Inanna, Adonis, Asclepius, Baal, and Tammuz.
He does dismiss Mithras.
Of course he gives the usual laundry list. But he never gives any ancient source for them, no ancient text which reports their miracle acts. He never presents the evidence but just expects you to believe him without question. You can't just believe your guru, but you must ask him for the ancient text evidence. He can't give it for even one of them.
The evidence for the Jesus miracles comes from multiple 1st-century sources, from 20-70 years after Jesus. There is no evidence like that for any of those on Carrier's laundry list above.
Well, easy enough to check. Osiris is well documented throughout numerous ancient texts.
Of course there are poems and homilies 1000 or 2000 years later than Osiris lived (if he was historical, which is possible). These later writings 1000 years after he lived are not evidence for what happened in 3100 or 3200 BC. Evidence for historical events must come from sources near to the time of the reported event(s). It's OK for later writers to quote from the earlier sources, but only those earlier sources are evidence for what happened. I.e., Richard Carrier is not a source for 1st-century events. He must cite the ancient texts, which he never does.
There are plenty of poems and other writings which mention Hercules and Asclepius and Prometheus, etc. thousands of years later than they lived. But their miracle acts are NOT "well documented" in anything near to the time they lived (if they were real historical characters). Some miracle heroes are legends based on real historical figures from earlier times.
The cult was still strong in Roman times. Same for Dionysus and his rituals are fairly well known.
Yes, the legend grows and continues for centuries later, also the rituals and religious traditions and celebrations and festivals.
But these are not any evidence for miracle claims or whatever happened 1000 years earlier when the original hero character lived. Like the Santa Claus legend. Despite the later fanfare, the original character did not perform any miracle acts.
Rather, that original historical character did something noteworthy and became popular, maybe famous eventually, such that over time miracle legends developed. This mythologizing normally happened over a period of many centuries. In some very unusual cases, like Alexander the Great, the historical character accumulated so much power and popularity that a few miracle claims might emerge even during his lifetime. But this was because he was so popular among millions of worshipers and had power over millions of subjects. Such as a popular King or Emperor --- only someone with vast power could have such wide popularity that miracle legends would get started.
An example of such a powerful political figure is Emperor Vespasian who became credited with a miracle act. This can be explained by the fact of his vast power and wealth and popularity among millions who worshiped him as a god,
during his lifetime, unlike Jesus in 30 AD who had no power or popularity during his life, other than possibly his popularity as a miracle healer who attracted hundreds (thousands?) of poor from the local region.
So the existence of a
later cult or of rituals or celebrations in honor of the legendary hero is not any evidence about what the original hero character did. The evidence must come from witnesses during the lifetime of the hero in his real life in history, not from centuries later.
Baal is referenced not only in the Bible but in many ancient sources inscriptions, stele and various other writings.
Yes, but there are no accounts attesting to any miracle acts performed by an historical character named Baal. Obviously there were thousands of gods here and there, but no evidence that these were historical characters who performed miracle acts. Later legends, centuries later, are not evidence. We don't know when these gods existed in history (if any of them were historical), other than maybe far back for thousands of years. Like Yahweh in the Garden of Eden. There's no evidence for such gods, or for any miracle acts they did. Just that they are "referenced" in religious texts thousands of years later than when they might have lived is no evidence for anything they did in history. in their time. Those inscriptions etc. are not evidence for something which might have happened centuries earlier.
Adonis is described in Ovid’s metamorphosis.
But Ovid is no source for Adonis, who lived at least 1000 years earlier, if he was historical. Of course Ovid mentions many legendary heroes and gods of thousands of years earlier. Obviously there is no real evidence for any of these miracle characters, about whom nothing was written (or no miracle acts recorded) near the time they lived (if they lived).
Zalmoxis is described by Herodotus.
But Herodotus does not attest to any miracles done by Zalmoxis. He mentions that this mystic had some disciples, and some of them thought there was something miraculous about him. But Herodotus does not confirm any of those claims. Such as the Gospel writers affirm the miracles of Jesus, for which they had many oral reports of the time, and they believed these reports, unlike Herodotus who disbelieved the story that Zalmoxis somehow resurrected. He explains that the guru's disciples made a mistake believing this. Herodotus is evidence that Zalmoxis did NOT resurrect after having died. He says clearly that Zalmoxis had not died, as his disciples believed erroneously.
There are extant poems about Tammuz (Dumuzid) and Inanna (who is also Ishtar, and possibly Asherah mentioned in the Bible).
But nothing near the time that these miracle characters lived (if they were real). In all these cases there are no written sources about them except from centuries later, after a long period of mythologizing. Just as today's stories about Santa Claus are not evidence for St. Nicholas who lived centuries ago, those later stories about Ishtar etc. are not evidence about any miracles those characters might have done.
Carrier isn’t making these gods up out of whole cloth.
He's making up his own facts/history when he says they are reputed miracle-workers similar to Jesus in the 1st century. There is no parallel, because Jesus was a real person in history for whom we have normal evidence -- written accounts near the time -- which attest to his miracle acts. Carrier is fabricating his own historical facts to equate this real case to those obvious fictions for which there is no evidence.
And certainly we don’t have contemporary texts about their lives like we do the New Testament. They’re ancient gods even at that time. But I don’t think that helps your case much. There’s no evidence because they’re myths, but . . .
Because you pronounce them as "myth" and that disqualifies them as evidence? your bias that they are myth/fiction? I.e., they're not fact because they're fiction. Or, they're not true because they're false.
So you can disprove any claim by just saying it's false. "It can't be true because it's false."?????? Or, it's false because it's false. Fallacy of circular reasoning. It's false because I say it's false. Or it's true because I say it's true.
. . . they're myths, but well known myths in the first century.
But there's the same evidence for them as we have for other ancient history events. If our mainline ancient history is not myth, why are these reported events placed into the "myth" category? You are obviously proceeding from the fundamental premise that
all miracle claims must ipso facto be false, regardless of any evidence. We don't all have to follow that rigid dogma as a premise. A better premise is that
for miracle claims we need extra evidence. Which we do have in the case of the Jesus miracle-worker of 30 AD.
. . . well known myths in the first century.
But why are these the only well-known miracle fiction myths which became recognized and recorded in multiple written accounts from the time, by educated persons who otherwise generally rejected miracle claims? Why did several writers make an exception in this one case? reporting that in this case only the miracle claims are true? Where's another example of multiple writers reporting miracle-worker claims which were recent to them? reporting them as true events? What's another case attested to in multiple accounts near the time of the alleged miracle event(s) and not contradicted by any other evidence?
It still seems painfully obvious that Jesus is just another example.
No, it's obvious that in his case there is real evidence, the same as for other ancient history events, whereas for the legends of Osiris and Hercules etc. there is no evidence. Where there's evidence there is reason to believe the claims, as long as it's significantly more evidence than usual. Which is the case for the Jesus miracle acts of about 30 AD. We do have the extra evidence necessary in this case. There are other miracle claims for the same period, the 1st century -- Hanina ben Dosa and Apollonius of Tyana, e.g., and for these also there is no evidence, or no written sources near their time, but only 200+ years later.
Is he so different because he’s based on a possibly historical figure? Not really. John Frum might be based on a historical figure too. Myths like that can spread widely and catch on quickly.
No no no. We're talking about
miracle myths, about
miracle hero characters, not normal people who did something normal humans can do. Whoever Frum was in history, there is no miracle story about him -- only that he brought lots of goodies to the islanders, which is not a miracle. To the natives it might seem miraculous, but still they are only retelling what really happened, without fabricating "supernatural" miracles, like instantly healing the natives of diseases -- no such miracles are part of the John Frum legend.
You cannot give an example of miracle stories spreading quickly and being widely believed, in only 50-100 years. Some legends can spread quickly in cases where there is no miracle claim being made. But there is no other example of a quickly spreading miracle claim, where the miracle-worker becomes famous only 10-20-30 years later, widely believed by hundreds/thousands of disciples. If there is such a case, you will present it to us. There is none, so you won't give any example. It's not true that the masses slurp up miracle stories quickly. You cannot give any example of it.
There are cases where maybe a dozen disciples believe a fiction miracle claim. Never large numbers, unless it evolves over 100-200 years or longer. A charismatic religious cult figure who has a long career, like Sai Baba, might accumulate a following of several hundred who believe he did miracles, over his lifetime of preaching and inspiring disciples. But even then there are always just as many scoffers who deny the claims. In the publishing there are always just as many who accuse the guru of being a fraud as there are believers praising his miracle power. So then there is evidence both ways, and the evidence denying the miracle claims offsets the evidence affirming them = no net evidence either way.
And while there are differences in all of these cults there are peculiar similarities as well. Inanna is dead for three days. Women go to her corpse and revive it. Dionysus did change water into wine. He also uses a phrase to his tormentors that Jesus uses on Paul: why do you kick against the goads. They also have similar Eucharists.
Here you're mainly correct -- it's true that Christianity eventually adopted many symbols from the pagan and Jewish cultures. But miracle-worker stories were not a significant part of either paganism or Judaism, in the centuries before Jesus. There are no other reported miracle-workers of the period before Jesus. Virtually all the miracle-worker stories come AFTER Jesus, after the Gospel stories were circulating.
Unless you go way back, 800+ years, to Elijah and Elisha. Except for this case, from I-II Kings, and possibly Moses 500 years earlier, there is no tradition of miracle-worker stories in Judaism. And the miracles of Elijah/Elisha are extremely different from those of Jesus in the Gospel accounts. Only 3 of them are healing stories -- most of them are stories of some curse by Yahweh, sending down fire or plague or sickness upon people to punish them. And Jews mostly dismissed the miracles of Elijah and Elisha -- these two prophets were among the least popular Jewish prophets down through the centuries, until the time of Jesus and after, when Jewish Christians made these 2 Jewish prophets popular.
Regardless, we have no contemporary sources for Jesus either.
Just as we have virtually no contemporary sources for ancient history characters generally. There are a tiny few exceptions, where a historian wrote of events contemporary to himself. That's the rare exception. The norm is 50-100-200 years later, from the time of the event(s) to the date of the source which reports it.
None of the gospels are written by eyewitnesses.
Virtually none of the ancient history we know comes to us from eyewitness accounts. Very tiny few exceptions to this. The writers you rely on for the ancient history you know were 99% non eyewitnesses, never having seen the events they report to you and yet which you believe without question. Virtually all the historians rely on oral reports, popular rumors, hearsay. A few find reliable sources, but mostly from ancient records, generations before their time. Which also the Gospel writers did. The evidence of Jesus healing the sick is very similar to the evidence we have for much of our ancient history knowledge.
(However, the Apostle Paul actually was contemporary to Jesus, though not being a direct witness. He likely knew something close to the actual events, being in direct contact with the direct disciples.)
The time lapse between Jesus and the later written accounts is 20-70 years. The Apostle Paul is the earliest source, reporting the Resurrection only about 20 years after it happened. While 40-70 years for the Gospel writers is still a relatively short time span between the event(s) and the later written accounts. And these are 4 sources (or 5 for the Resurrection) all reported in a relatively short time from when the miracle event(s) happened. These 4 (5) sources are unusual for ancient history events, which are mostly reported in only one source (or maybe 2).
They’re written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. They tell different stories. Paul never quotes Jesus in any of his letters, an odd omission since it would have helped him at various points.
This is evidence that maybe Jesus was not the religious teacher we have been told he was. Maybe the "teachings of Jesus" are mainly words put into his mouth by later writers. If he did not preach all that stuff, then maybe it's reasonable that Paul would not quote from him. Much of the teachings really came later, though some also came from earlier apocalyptic preachers, i.e., Jewish preachers who put their words into the mouth of Jesus just as later Christian writers put their Christian teachings into his mouth.
All in all, a divine being would have left a better record.
No, maybe a better record would be one with LESS religious teaching, pontificating, huffing-and-puffing Hell-fire condemning fanaticism, and more of the healing miracles, which is probably what Jesus was really about.
