OH-SIGH-RIS
The Pagan Origins of Resurrection Refuted!
By Mark McFall
The ministry of IN THE WORD (
Did the New Testament writers borrow the resurrection concept from myths? If they did, are there any observable parallels that would lend credibility to that hypothesis? Or, do skeptics create their own parallels that are made plausible by selective descriptions? Perhaps even by unsubstantiated presentments? And, do skeptics take what they think they know about ancient obscure myths (like those we find about Osiris) and amalgamate (i.e. unite) them with Christian elements that are heterogeneous (i.e. dissimilar in ingredient)? Or, are these alleged parallels real? After all, so the skeptics tell us, there are many tales of dying and raising gods in the ancient world (i.e. Mithra, Demeter, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Tummuz, etc..). In this essay, we will confront Mr. Till’s formulated parallels with original texts and observe those parallels evaporate in the heat of the facts, and, we will also consider the evidences surrounding Jesus Christ’s resurrection and will find that the evidences are of a kind that offer a much greater credibility and realism than any other religious "resurrection" claim. I believe that this should cause the average skeptic to take a moment of pause, to, rethink through the *strengths* of the available evidences.
By way of enlightenment, based on a thorough study of Mr. Till’s interpretations in light of the facts, the next time you hear such alleged comparisons between Osiris and Jesus Christ, you too may be compelled to throw up your hands and say, "OH-SIGH-ris...not that again!"
Clearing the Air
Before we engage in the process of discussing the facts, a brief prefatory remark is needed. In the beginning of Mr. Till’s essay, he developed the idea that I am out to "discredit" him. Mr. Till had stated that I mentioned his name 51 times second only to Osiris with minimal references to Jesus Christ. In other words, Mr. Till implied that I am out to "discredit" Farrell Till instead of his interpretation. However, in the opening paragraph of my original piece lies a very clear preliminary remark regarding intent:
"while this article focuses for the most part on Mr. Till’s formulated parallels between Jesus Christ and Osiris, it nonetheless will adequately equip Christians with enough critical information to give a ready response (1 Peter 3:15) to those who have expressed similar analogues." (Resurrection of Osiris)
I chose to come at this topic from an examination of Mr. Till’s *interpretation* because of the comments he made in his debate with Dr. Geisler (of Southern Evangelical Seminary) because he asked his audience to "go examine the evidence" of Osiris’ bodily resurrection and to compare its similarity to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.[1] In the process of examining the evidence for Osiris’ resurrection as explained by Mr. Till, it was necessary to give Mr. Till plenty of space within my article to adequately present his view. It is worth noting that out of 3,280 words in that essay, 815 were Mr. Till’s own. I quoted Mr. Till at length to diminish the possibility of misinterpreting or misrepresenting his view, and, since Mr. Till is so well known in skeptical circles, I thought it appropriate to dismantle the *interpretation* of the head gun. Hence, it was not my intention to discredit Farrell Till, on the contrary, the intention was/is to discredit the resurrection of Osiris *according* to Farrell Till.
But now lets get on with discussing the facts with a view to address the points that Farrell Till made in his response to my article.
Diversity In The Accounts of Osiris
Are there variations in the versions that relate the myth of Osiris? Well, it was interesting to see Mr. Till tell readers that much of my "confusion about the Osiris myth is rooted" in my "failure to recognize the diversity in Egyptian myths," when in fact, these recognized diversities were the point. It seems Mr. Till is making it appear to readers that the present writer "erred by relying on versions of the Osiris myth that were either vague about the nature of his resurrection or else had left it out entirely." But what of this confusion?
In prior confrontations with Mr. Till, he had forcibly argued, that, "different versions of the myth will disagree in some details, but an old inerrantist comment about inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of the resurrection is worth adapting to the Osiris myth: the important thing is that all of the accounts agree that Osiris was killed and resurrected to life"(Errancy,
"I need to point out that my summation of the Osiris myth was based on what I had read in the accounts of Plutarch and other more popular versions of the myth, so when I said all of the accounts had agreed that Osiris was resurrected, I was referring to the sources from which I had complied my summary. It still remains true that some versions of the myth did not mention a resurrection."
It seems I misunderstood the scope of what Mr. Till meant by "all." Nevertheless, I did learn from Mr. Till through previous correspondences, that, he had consulted the versions of the myth as related by Plutarch (as mentioned above), Diodorus of Siculus, and the Book of the Dead. Even though Mr. Till mentioned to me that these works were temporarily obtained through interlibrary loan processes, he assured me, and others, that, he was nonetheless "personally confident enough in the accuracy" of his note-taking to "stand by" what he has said concerning his assertion "that some versions of the myth had Osiris resurrected on earth, where he remained for a period of time before descending into the netherworld" (Errancy,
The Literary Evidence For Osiris’ Resurrection
Plutarch’s (AD 46-20) work, Isis and Osiris (De Iside Et Osiride), is the most complete ancient work on this myth in existence, and, it was originally dedicated to Clea (Ibid, 351D), a cultured and intelligent priestess at
"Furthermore, the tales regarding the Titans and the rites celebrated by night agree with the accounts of the dismemberment of Osiris and his revivification [anabiosesi] and regenesis [paliggenesiais]. Similar agreement is found too in the tales about their sepulchers." (Plutarch, Moralia, De Iside Et Osiride, 365A, (Babbit, LCL, Vol. V.)
Readers should take note that Plutarch devotes about 90 modern pages to the Osiris myth, and it is particularly noteworthy to consider that this is the only piece of evidence in Plutarch’s corpus that mentions Osiris’ resurrection, and even at that, it’s an *allusion* and not an actual account. What’s missing? Well, beside the fact that there is no resurrection narrative, there are also no reported appearances, and, to make this allusion even less credible, it is without a historical foundation as we see by Plutarch’s mention of the Titans. In fact, so weak are the evidences surrounding Osiris’ resurrection, that, Plutarch even advises Clea that "whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods...you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related" (De Iside Et Osiride, 355B). In contrast, not only does Christ’s resurrection have narrations and appearances, it’s also undergirded by historical characters, elements of which we will be discussing later on.
Moreover, it is also evident from Plutarch’s allusion to Osiris’ reanimation, that he uses anabiosesi (revivification) and paliggenesiais (regenesis) as reinterpreted terms of what he understood to be the beliefs of the followers of Osiris. But does the use of a particular term by someone describing something within a cult prove that the word itself was actually part of the cult’s terminology? Well, we know that Plutarch could not read Egyptian texts, we also know that "his knowledge of Egyptology was not profound" (Babbitt, Introduction to the Moralia, LCL, Vol. V, pg. 3), and, "in some cases Plutarch was mistaken about Egyptian beliefs" (Mercatante, The Facts On File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, pg. 501). So, in the opinion of the present writer, that’s a legitimate question to ask. Nevertheless, I will grant Mr. Till this sliver of evidence because Plutarch does mention "revivification" (anabiosesi) and "regenesis" (paliggenesiais) in his allusion to Osiris.
But wait just a minute! Isn’t it Mr. Till’s argument that Osiris *bodily* resurrected back to earth? It certainly is, and we see that Plutarch doesn’t give us any details to confirm Mr. Till’s thesis. To add insult to injury, the Egyptologist Wallis Budge (who is a *very* hostile source to Christianity) has this to say about Plutarch allusion:
"Unfortunately he does not say whether Osiris came in the form of a spirit, or in his natural body, which he had raised from the dead..."(Budge, Osiris And The Egyptian Resurrection, pg. 17).
After a more mature reflection on what I have just written above, I have decided to retract that sliver of evidence that I granted Mr. Till’s argument. Plutarch, writing a few thousand years after Osiris’ death (note: the New Testament was composed within a hundred years of Christ’s death), doesn’t explicitly affirm that the followers of Osiris believed that he had bodily resurrected. The implication is that Mr. Till’s alleged comparison has over-stepped the content available from Plutarch.
In the past, Mr. Till has tried to counter the present writer’s conclusions by stating that Osiris was "resurrect[ed] back to earth long enough for Osiris to instruct his son Horus in the art of war and to urge him to avenge the death of his father on Set...After this, Osiris descended into the world of the dead" (Errancy,
By way of interest, in The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, which Mr. Till made reference to in his essay, its writer, George Frazer, says that when "Isis fanned the cold clay with her wings: Osiris revived, and thenceforth reigned as king over the dead in the other world" (Ch. 38, Section 9). Here, we find that there is no mention of Osiris’ discussion with Horus on the art of war in the interval between Osiris’ resurrection and his descent into the other world which would imply that he resurrected back to earth. The story is just not told in the sequence that Mr. Till asserts as even his own sources indicate.
Since Mr. Till has also cited Diodorus (writing career: 60-30 BC) as another one of his sources that would affirm a bodily resurrected Osiris, a consideration of that evidence is warranted here as well. Diodorus relates two different tales of Osiris death and resurrection. First, Diodorus writes:
"Some explain the origin of the honour accorded this bull in this way, saying at the death of Osiris his soul passed into this animal [Apis], and therefore up to this day has always passed into its successors at the times of the manifestation of Osiris; but some say that when Osiris died at the hands of Typhon Isis collected the members of his body and put them in an ox (bous), made of wood covered over with fine linen, and because of this the city was called Bousiris. Many other stories are told about the Apis, but we feel that it would be a long task to recount all the details regarding them." (Book 1, Chapter 85, pp. 291-93) [2]
Who or what is Apis? In Egyptian mythology, Apis (a sacred icon of a black bull with white markings), came to be identified with Osiris. According to Plutarch, "most of the [Egyptian] priests...regard[ed] Apis as the bodily image of the soul of Osiris" (De Iside Et Osiride, 362D, 368B-D). Do readers find a parallel here? In the opinion of the present writer, there’s simply no connection between the two concepts, and, the mythical over-tones from this source are immediately apparent. Perhaps, however, Mr. Till sees a bodily resurrection in the other belief that Diodorus relates concerning Osiris’ resurrection. Diodorus writes:
"But the Egyptians offer another explanation for the honor accorded this animal, although it pertains more to the realm of myth; for they say that in early times when Isis, aided by her son Horus, was about to commence her struggle with Tryphon, Osiris came from Hades to help his son and his wife, having taken on the guise of a wolf; and so, upon the death of Tryphon, his conquerors commanded men to honor the animal [the wolf] upon whose appearance the victory followed." (Book 1, Chapter 88, pp. 301-303). [3]
It appears that Osiris reanimated into a wolf in this account. Is Mr. Till interpreting a parallel here between the bodily resurrected Christ, and the bodily resurrected "wolf?" If so, this similarity seems a bit far fetched. In my view, Mr. Till’s ability to confidently assert a meaningful parallel has been compromised by the use of this source (this does not mean that I am questioning Mr. Till’s honesty). In any case, in the primary documents that report Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, he always appears in human form.
As we turn now to The Book Of The Dead, otherwise known as The Book Of Going Forth By Day. This 3,500 year old piece of ancient literature signified to the Egyptians the soul emerging into the restorative rays of the sun’s light after a nighttime in the underworld. Its purpose seems not to be for the intention of setting forth basic tenants of Egyptian religion or religious guides, but, rather, to assist its reader into the afterlife of the underworld (duat). Hence, unlike Islam, Judaism, and of course Christianity, The Book of the Dead was not consider an authoritative text for its readers. Nevertheless, it is in Plate 33 translated by the Egyptologist Dr. Raymond Faulkner where we read these words attributed to the goddess Isis as she hovered over the dead Egyptian King Osiris:
"I have come that I may be your protection. I fan air at your nostrils for you, I fan the north wind which comes forth from Atum for your nose. I clear your windpipe for you. I cause you to be a god with your enemies fallen under you sandals. May you be vindicated in the sky and may your flesh be powerful among the gods." (BD, Plate 33)
Besides the fact that this is the only Plate that alludes to Osiris’ reanimation in the 37 plates that make up the main corpus of The Book Of The Dead, this text, gives the impression that
"When Osiris comes back to life, however, he never returns to the land of the living, but remains in the Underworld, the Duat, where he rules as King of Eternity and supreme judge of the dead. His resurrection was limited to the next world and so he passed on the rights of kingship to his son and avenger, Horus." (Goelet, A Commentary on the Corpus of Literature and Tradition which Constitues The Book of Going
Mr. Till also made several references to Egyptian poems or inscription to indicate a non-decayed rejuvenated Osiris body. But as Wallis Budge aptly put it:
"This belief may have rested upon the view that the life in the next word was but a continuation of the life upon earth, which it resembled closely" (Budge, Papyrus of Ani, p. lxxviii)
According to Dr. Goelet, "contrary to a common misconception about the [Egyptian] concept of life after death, the Egyptians neither believed in the transmigration of the soul on earth in the Hindu or Pythagorean manner, nor hoped for a resurrection in this world. Rather, they believed in a transfiguration into the next world. Except in dreams or visions, the dead did not reappear on earth" (Goelet, A Commentary on the Corpus of Literature and Tradition which Constitutes The Book of Going Forth by Day, pg. 151).
This leaves us with Mr. Till’s most recent appeal to the Egyptian poem The Book of the Breaths of Life (521 BC), where, we find priestly recitals in mortuary literature concerning the non-decayed rejuvenated body of Osiris (as mentioned earlier). However, these recitals were just that - recitals. There is no tradition that has come down to us that suggests that these priests (or anybody else for that matter) saw Osiris resurrected. In fact, Dr. Goelet, specifically says of these inscriptions that contain phrases similar to what Mr. Till has appealed to, that:
"Throughout Egyptian religious history such denials of death were a constant them in mortuary literature. As in many other cultures, the Egyptian dead would be treated as if they were merely in a deep sleep and needed to awaken and go about their business. In the Book of the Dead the denial of death appears mostly in the form of euphemism." (Goelet, A Commentary on the Corpus of Literature and Tradition which Constitutes The Book of Going
These euphemisms according to Dr. Goelet (i.e." Rise up thou, O Osiris, Thou hast thy backbone" etc..), present the idea of not speaking ill of the dead. Dr. Goelet tells us that to be called dead in Egyptian literature implies a damned or unhappy state of death. The Egyptians felt that by reciting Pyramid Texts or Coffin Texts that reflect a rejuvenated Osiris, they would be avoiding death’s power over them. This same type of euphemism is present in today’s world with expressions that refer to the dead as: "the departed" or "passed away" (etc..). This insight from the distinguished Egyptologist, Dr. Goelet, provides a perspective not considered by Mr. Till. In light of the preceding sections, it appears that not only is the present writer’s position (i.e. that Osiris did NOT resurrect back to earth according to the myth) backed with heavy scholarly (non-Christian) weight, but more importantly, it is also backed by observations from original texts.
The Literary Evidence For Jesus Christ’s Resurrection
What is the literary evidence surrounding Christ’s resurrection? Well, there seems to be five (possibly six) independent literary (and one additional dependent source) streams of tradition from the not-too-distant event. First, we have Paul’s report which he "received" in creedal formula (1Corn. 15:3-8) just two to eight years after Christ’s death (dating is reflected by the general scholarly consensus, and to my knowledge, Mr. Till has no problem with this {see: TSR, "Put Me Down For Myth," July/Aug. 1996}). Secondly, we have the Markan tradition, where, the women leave the empty tomb after the angel had told them that Jesus "has risen" (vs:6), and that they would see him in "
What is the evidence surrounding the nature of Christ’s resurrection? Though some accounts assume physical resurrection, other accounts are intent on proving physical resurrection. One of the most clearest reports comes from the writer of Luke (an early non-eyewitness church historian). He reports the not-too-distant tradition that Jesus said in a post-resurrection experience: "Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). This same tradition (via the writer of Luke) also reports that "they gave him [Christ] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence" (vss 41-42). Moreover, the not-too-distant tradition of Matthew reports a post-resurrection experience where the women at the tomb "took hold of His feet and worshiped Him" (Mat. 28:9).
Furthermore, according to the Johannine tradition, Christ appeared to an Apostle who was likely just as skeptical as Mr. Till. It was the Apostle Thomas who said to the other disciples (who said they saw the resurrected Christ) that: "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe" (John
In regards to this type literary evidence, do we find this kind of tangible language and interaction used in describing Osiris’ resurrection? Do we even find reported appearances of Osiris’ post-resurrection? Did Osiris make any attempt all to convince anybody that he had resurrected? The lack of these evidences is why Osiris’ resurrection (Christianity’s #1 competitor) is immediately considered mythical. In contrast, the evidences for Christ’s resurrection should cause all of us to pause and reflect on the following questions: Is the Bible grounded in earthly history? Are the tales of Osiris grounded in earthly history? How do they compare? How do they contrast?
In a popular recent book hostile to the Christian cause, The Bible Unearthed, its writers admit that, "unlike other ancient Near Eastern mythologies, such as the Egyptian tales of Osiris, Isis, and Horus or the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic, the Bible is grounded firmly in earthly history. It is a divine drama played out before the eyes of humanity" (pg. 8). While the authors of that book do not believe the Bible to have general historical accuracy (note: many competent respected scholars affirm general accuracy on the verifiable), they nonetheless affirm historical settings that lend credibility to Christ’s resurrection over the tales that surround Osiris’ resurrection.
By way of connected histories, is there any available evidence in that regard that would lend credibility to Osiris’ resurrection? According to Wallis Budge:
"Unfortunately, however, we find nowhere in Egyptian works a connected narrative of the life, acts and deeds, and suffering and death, and resurrection of Osiris" (Budge, The Gods Of The Egyptians, pg. 123)
Budge points out, that, "only by piecing together the information which is given here and there can we arrive at any connected views of what happened to him, and to this day, in spite of the mass of religious and magical literature which is available, we are wholly ignorant of the origin and general history of the first human being in Egypt who rose from the dead" (Budge, Osiris and The Egyptian Resurrection, pg 67).
How does that evidence compare to the connected histories that we find in the Gospels that lend credibility to Jesus resurrection? In contrast to the zero evidence for Osiris’ life and deeds, we see an apparent *methodological* principle involved in the Gospels that lend credibility to Christ’s resurrection. Admittedly, if we were to remove the accounts of Christ’s public ministry and teaching, we would have something resembling a myth. But the fact is, when we consider the evidence for Christ’s resurrection in light of the total picture of His life and the impression made by Him during his ministry, a consistent account emerges of one who, as Peter declared seven weeks later at Pentecost, was raised from death "because it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:24).[5] Indeed, in all the strata of Christian testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "everything is made to turn upon a dated experience of a historical Person,"[6] whereas nothing in the allusions of Osiris (or in any other mythical character) point to any attempt to undergird belief with historical evidence of the god’s resurrection. While this evidence is certainly impressive, it must be tempered with the acknowledgment that this of course doesn’t mean the Bible is true. It just means that these observations are what I believe to be strong enough evidences to cause the average skeptic to pause.
By way of additional interest, Budge notes that "there is nothing in the texts which justifies the assumption that Osiris knew that he would rise from the dead, and that he would become the king and judge of the dead, or that the Egyptians believed that Osiris died on their behalf and rose again in order that they also might rise from the dead" (Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, pg. 312). Christ on the other hand, foretold his own death and resurrection as related through the not-too-distant traditions of Matthew (20:17-19) and Luke (20:31-34), and, it’s also apparent from the entire theme of the New Testament that the early Christians generally believed that Christ died on their behalf and rose again in order that they may have eternal life.
The Uniqueness Of Christ’s Resurrection In Light Of Other Reported Resurrections In The Bible
Mr. Till also said that even if I "could establish that no pagan myths had ever alleged" a bodily resurrection, I would be hard pressed to find anything unique about Jesus’ resurrection because the Bible itself "contains several claims that dead people had been resurrected to life." Mr. Till cited 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:17-36 , Luke 7:11-15, and John 11:1-44, to lend support to his thesis. Mr. Till went on to tell us that these "tales were related in the Bible as obvious examples of people who had been bodily resurrected from the dead" for the purpose of "living on earth." But while it is certainly true that these resurrections entail a restoration of life, it is all true that unlike the permanence and glory of the resurrected Christ, these lives were restored for a temporary period of time.
Jeffery Lowder, co-founder and former President of Secular Web (Internet Infidels), wrote an insightful essay that is aimed at another prolific skeptical colleague by the name of Dennis McKinsey on How Not to Argue Against the Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus. Since that article is focused on improving quality skepticism, and, since Mr. Till has committed the same argumentative error as Dennis McKinsey. Let’s consider Lowder’s reasonable objection and correction to that line of argumentation:
"But is the resurrection of Jesus insignificant, given the various revivification stories in the Bible? Unlike the other Biblical figures who allegedly came back to life, only Jesus purportedly inhabited a transformed supernatural body. According to the text, this supernatural body was immune to aging, sickness, injury, and even future death. That is clearly a significant difference between Jesus and the other Biblical figures who supposedly came back to life." (Lowder, How Not to Argue Against the Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus)[7]
In Jeffery Lowder’s attempt to curb bad skepticism within his own circles, he relates the "fact" that just because "the Bible contains other stories of people coming back to life," that this "does not in any way undermine the assertion that Jesus allegedly rose from the dead" (Ibid.). Now Mr. Till will tell readers that he appreciates Jeffery Lowder’s work and the contributions that he has made to the Skeptical community. But he will also go on to tell readers that he thinks that Lowder generally bends "over backwards to try to give the impression that he [is] being ‘scholarly’ in the materials he publishes against the resurrection" (Errancy,
Did Paul Teach A Spiritual Resurrection?
This brings us to a portion of the debate that I saw looming on the horizon early on. Mr. Till, and the rest of the Skeptical community, assert with confidence, that Paul, the earliest of New Testament writers, describes merely a spiritual resurrected Christ. They charge that "the Christian belief in a bodily resurrection was a result of doctrinal evolution that had begun with belief in only a spiritual resurrection" (TSR, "Put Me Down For Myth," July/Aug 1996) But what should we make of this?
Mr. Till cited 1 Corinthians 15: 36-38 to get the ball rolling. According to that verse, we "do not sow that body that shall be." Mr. Till said that he would have to give Paul an "F" in botany because seeds do not die in order to reproduce. However, Paul’s analogy of sowing a seed in the ground and what emerges from it, reflects only a change of bodily properties, and not in the blueprint of our bodies. In other words, the body that is raised is different because it is immortal (1 Cor.
"But our citizenship is in heaven; and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will change (metaschema) our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself." (Phil. 3:20-21)
This verse gives us excellent insight into Paul's beliefs concerning the resurrection. Here Paul emphasizes that our resurrection bodies are glorified via transformation (rather than an exchange) of our current bodies. This is confirmed when the Greek word for "change" is examined: metaschema, which means to change the figure of, transform, or transfer; and occurs four times in the New Testament (1Cor.4:6, 1Cor. 11:13-15), reflects Paul’s understanding concerning a transformation of what is already present, as opposed to a destruction and complete rebuilding.
Moreover, in 1Cor.
Mr. Till also cited 1Cor.
Did Paul really teach a different resurrection than what we find in the Gospels? As we consider that for a moment, we must be aware of the fact that Paul, throughout his writings, taught resurrection theology. In the Gospels, there is no teaching on resurrection theology, all we have are accounts of post-resurrection appearances without any attempt to elaborate on the concept. Hence, all we have are our own subjective attempts at interpreting the appearances in the Gospel texts.
It is worth noting that even within those texts of the Gospels that set out to prove the physical reality of the resurrected Christ, we see an apparent continuity between the physical and spiritual aspects of His transformed body. As mentioned earlier, Christ was able to pass into an enclosed room and offer his wounds as an inspection for the physical reality of His resurrection. We also find in Luke, two disciples (one named Cleopas, Luke 24:18), who were walking toward Emmaus after Christ’s death, then, "Jesus himself came up and walked along with them" (vs.16). At first they did not recognize who he was, but, when they did finally recognize Him, Jesus "disappeared out of their sight" (vs. 31). With these considerations in mind, we see that the text of the Gospels reflect ambiguous appearances sharpened by the resurrection teachings of Paul on a continuity between the body and spirit.
Horus
Mr. Till said that a response to my article would not be complete without mentioning Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis, who later became a god himself. I am not sure why this argument appeared so late in his response; perhaps it was a comparison being newly realized on the spot? In any case, as Mr. Till noted, in some of the versions that relate this tale, Horus drowns, and, in others he is stung (her tchetem-f) by a scorpion. Either way, Mr. Till’s point, was, that there is no way that I can deny the parallel of a bodily resurrected Horus. Umm, shall we look at more ancient texts?
In the scorpion version, it is unclear if Horus was even dead. According to the ancient Egyptian text known as the Sorrows of Isis (dated well into the BC era) translated by Wallis Budge, we read, that, "
In the drowning version (which by the way only Diodorus tells), Horus is given a "drug" which gives him immortality. Does this sound like a genuine parallel? Or, are heterogeneous elements present here as well? If not, then perhaps Mr. Till sees the sour wine offered to the crucified Christ as making this connection? If so, that’s quite a parallel! In any event, Diodorus undergirds Horus’ resurrection with the mythical characters of the giant "Titans" just like we see in Plutarch’s allusion to Osiris’ resurrection (incidentally, neither Plutarch nor The Book of the Dead mention Horus’ revivification). How do readers view the strength of evidence regarding Horus’ resurrection? How does that compare with the evidence surrounding Christ’s resurrection? Does the evidence that surrounds Christ’s resurrection cause you to take a moment of pause in light of what you know concerning the tales that surround Horus or Osiris?
Summation and Conclusion
By way of recapulation, Mr. Till first argued that Jesus Christ’s physical resurrection was borrowed from the tales that surround Osiris’. The present writer responded by sifting through the evidences appealed to by Mr. Till; these evidences included the works of Plutarch, Diodorus of Siculus, The Book of the Dead, The Book of the Breaths of Life, The Pyramid Texts, and The Coffin Texts; in every instance we discovered that there is no tradition to support Mr. Till’s thesis that Osiris’ followers believed that he bodily rose for a period of time here on earth. All indications are that Osiris’ reanimation was limited to the land of the dead (duat) in the minds of his followers. Moreover, we also became aware of the fact that there is a vast difference between the evidences that surround Jesus’ and Osiris’ resurrections. In the case of Osiris, we have no narrations, no reported appearances, no connected histories, no embedded historical strata, and no predictions for a future death and resurrected Osiris. In the case for Christ, however, all of these important elements that lend credibility to his resurrection are present.
Secondly, Mr. Till then argued that Christ’s resurrection was not unique because other characters in the Bible were bodily resurrected too. He cited 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:17-36 , Luke 7:11-15, and John 11:1-44 to lend support to his thesis. Here, however, we learned that other prominent and prolific skeptical writers who reside in the Skeptical community are diligently working hard to curb this type of weak approach common within their own circles.
Thirdly, Mr. Till then granted my argument that Osiris’ resurrection was isolated to the Underworld according to the myth. He did this in order to change the direction of his argument toward proving the Skeptical community’s theory that Paul, the earliest of the New Testament writers, taught that Jesus Christ merely resurrected spiritually. However, we observed in Paul’s writings a continuity between the "physical body" and the "spiritual body" (1Cor.
Fourthly, Mr. Till’s effort to make parallels with Horus demonstrates the incredible lengths that over enthusiastic skeptics will go to. The obscurity of texts that touch on Horus make it impossible to track down Mr. Till’s alleged and embellished parallel. Could this be a thoroughly studied interpretation on Mr. Till’s part? Unfortunately not. After all, the best that Mr. Till could do to bridge this parallel was to cite the 19th century mythicist George Frazer. Where are the ancient texts to back this parallel up?
By way of conclusion, the various arguments that we have seen Mr. Till use are generally thought provoking, though, at times quite imaginative and entertaining. But are they convincing? Well, not only did we observe the evaporation of Mr. Till’s formulated parallels after we confronted them with original texts, but, we also became aware of just how strong the evidences surrounding Christ’s resurrection really are. While I realize that the judgment of the *strength* of that evidence is subjective in the eyes of each individual, I do believe it to be strong enough to cause the average skeptic to consider the New Testament account of Jesus’ resurrection in a higher class of religious claims. The surrounding elements that undergird the resurrection of Jesus Christ catapult His resurrection out of the category assigned to mere myths. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is unique in the sense that it is believable (even among some the most educated individuals in the world) despite the apparent impossibility of such a feat. A feat which understandably left His own disciples skeptical at first about (Matt. 28:17; Mk. 16:11-14; Lk. 24:11,25,37-38; Jn. 20:25). Should we be any less skeptical than them? No, but like them, neither should we pass over lightly the strengths of the supporting features that have the potential to make what seems highly unlikely - likely.
~ End Article
Appendix
(On The Ending of Mark)
A) Biblical scholar Raymond Brown provides some insightful objectivity on vss 9-20 of Mark:
"The material resembles resurrection accounts found in Matt and Luke-Acts (and perhaps in John [for Mary Magdalene]), but whether the copyist who composed it drew directly from those Gospels or simply from similar traditions is UNCERTAIN." (Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament, pg. 148, fn. 58)
B) Irenaeus (130 - 200 AD) cites Mark 16:9 in his work Against Heresies (Book 3 Ch.10:5). Even though that reference is admittedly found in later Latin mss, it is consider authentic by competent scholars; nevertheless, Tatian (a pupil of Justin Martyr) also included vs9-20 in his Diatessaron (Greek for: through the Four) around 150-60 A.D, though that text comes through the processes of secondary and tertiary witnesses.
----Footnotes----
[1] See: Till - Geisler Debate http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/till3.html
[2] Diodorus Siculus I, Books I-II.34, Loeb Classical Library (279), Translated by C.H. Oldfather.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Note: "Almost all textual studies and critical commentaries on the Gospel according to Mark agree that the last twelve verses cannot be regarded as Marcan."(Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 229, fn. 2)
Moreover, vss. 9-20 are included in our Bible's (except in a few versions) for "traditional purposes" even though they were *probably not* written by the original writer. This is not an isolated case. Similar examples of accepted traditional interpolations can be found in Luke 22: 43-44, John
[5] See: Bruce Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. pg. 18.
[6] Ibid, 18. The phrase is used by Metzger but actually comes from A.D. Nock’s work A Note on the Resurrection, pg. 49.
[7] See: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html
[8] The late and respected skeptic, Joseph Crea, tried to counter my claim by pointing out an obscure word atet-f in the Sorrows of Isis which Budge translated as "nothing" (Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. II, pg. 238) as a possible "synonym for dead/death" (Errancy,
[9] A similar hyperbole presentment is found in The Facts On File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, by Anthony S. Mercatante. Here we read that:
"
Again, however, the text of the Sorrows of Isis doesn’t use this type of strong or even suggestive language. Quite interesting...wouldn’t you say?
Look for various printed resources at https://www.christianbook.com home of
END Posted: 11/19/02