Pagan Christs Paperback – October 7, 2020

Was Jesus of Nazareth a historical figure? The answer to this often unaksed question is usually assumed to be "yes". In Pagan Christs John Robinson researches this dilema with unconventional and startling results. By looking at the origins of Christianity, pre-Christain and non-Christain religious rituals and the existing historical documents pertaining to the life of Jesus of Nazareth, Robinson attempts to answer this important question and address the common assuptions about Christianity's supposed founding figure. Was Jesus of Nazareth a unique phenomenon? Did he even exist, or is he purely mythological fiction? What of the pre-Christian crucifiction rituals and mythology in the ancient world? Robinson ties all of these important questions together in his quest to reveal the existence, or the fiction of Jesus of Nazareth. Robinson's work is guarenteed to challenge your assumtions about the figure of Jesus, and to change the way you view the accounts of his life and death.

`Pagan Christs' is actually a more approachable (simplified) version of another work, `Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology' (1928) and should be viewed in that context. Indeed, the explanatory scholarship and arguments are detailed in the earlier book, and it is logical to assume one would have read it before coming to `Pagan Christs'.Having said that, I believe the more natural step is to read `Pagan Christs' FIRST - then go to the more compendious volume for the scholarly details, logical arguments etc.The key or core theme exposed in this book - and Robertson's other effort- is that Christianity is not a unique God-man religion. Many others preceded it and there is solid evidence that Christianity's scribes (who put together the New Testament) liberally copied from the earlier efforts. Some common themes, commonalities include: Jesus was born of a Virgin ("Anahita") like his predecessor Mithra (Mithras), also - like Mithra- Jesus suffered a public execution, was buried, and "ascended" into heaven.Followers of Mithra consumed a sacred meal ("Myazda") which was completely analogous to the Cathololic Eucharist. In addition, those who refused to partake of the body and blood of Mithras were condemned to everlasting perdition. This is not amazing or astounding since "theophagy" (eating the god) dates far back into antiquity (p. 33). In any case, the eucharist, burial and resurrection are all Mithraic in origin (p. 53).In his excellent expose article (`How Jesus Got A Life', The American Atheist, June, 1992, p. 46) author Frank Zindler notes even more comparisons, such as: Mithras was born on December 25th (the Winter Solstice, according to crude computations of the time); he was also worshipped on SUN-days (being a solar deity), and the leader was called "papa" (pope) and ruled from the "mithraeum" on Vatican Hill in Rome. In addition, the hat for Catholic bishops - the "mitre" - is derived directly from a similar hat worn by Mithraic priests.Much controversy surrounds whether there was in fact a "Book of Mithras" - but the evidence seems to be there wasn't. Instead, there were likely excerpted teachings, doctrines that migrated into many other sources, such as the Zendavesta (and specifically the "Izeds" within).Robertson's thesis, which is plausible, is that Christianity suppressed outward Mithraic teachings when it "absorbed it" (p. 114). He also points to "elaborate treatises" from ancient scholars such as Porphyry setting forth the religion of Mithra in detail, but "every one of these has been destroyed by the care of the Church" (ibid.) Robertson believes as much narrative as didactic material was extirpated. Clearly, it would need to be - since if it remained extant - skeptics might deduce the Christians stole their themes from the Mithraists.As it is there is more than ample evidence to show they did! (But readers are again referred to Robertson's earlier book)Of more immediate concern, perhaps, is exactly how a limited Jewish cult led by a fiery Galilean preacher or rabbi, evolved into a world-wide cult of Gentiles - all subscribing to a divine "Savior" myth. Robertson provides a good account in his Chapter Six: `The Quest for the Historical Jesus' (p. 63) but I strongly urge readers - when they go through it - to also have in hand Oxford scholar Geza Vermes' superb book, `The Authentic Gospel of Jesus'.As Vermes notes (p. 402, Epilog) Jesus "never chose to call himself `Messiah' or `son of God' and "even when others questioned him about his alleged Messiahship he usually declined to give a straight answer". Vermes adds that as for the epithet `Son of God'- disallowing the combined expression "Messiah, the Son of God" in Matt. 26:63 (where the two are obviously used as synonymns) it is NEVER spoken by Jesus himself. Vermes adds: "One has to be foolish to believe the mockery of the chief priests and scribes, taunting Jesus to get down from the cross because he claimed to be the `Son of God' (Matt.27:43) . Indeed, "only demons or people possessed by demons addressed Jesus with this title" (Matt. 4:3, Luke 4:3, Matt. 3:11, Luke 4:41 etc) The "only example in which the disciples call Jesus the `Son of God' and `worship him' comes from a LATE LEGENDARY ADDITION by Matthew to the story of Jesus walking on the water "(Matt: 14:33). Meanwhile, in the parallel passage in Mark (6:51-52) the astonishment of Jesus' companions is caused not by walking on water but the earlier feeding of the five thousand.Vermes shows from his passage-by passage textual analysis, that the syncretic later additions and embellishments to the basic initial writings were probably a result of increasing skepticism and boredom among disillusions Christians (Vermes, p. 384) After all, over a century had passed since the days of Jesus and the church- which had NO role to play during his life- had by then become institutionalized. It thus had become an entity to serve no other purpose than to perpetuate the teaching of Jesus in an indefinitely postponed "Parousia". This in turn, led to the impetus to add to, further embellish and reinforce the Savior -Redeemer myth. The easiest way to do so was to copy select legendary tales from earlier pagan sources and insert them into later translations. This mightily helped church leaders in their constant exhortations to the faithful to not lose sight of the goal.Thus, there came new and revised parables and more "Son of God" sayings to encourage the need for quiet optimism and hopefulness, and to simplify a formulaic salvation. E.g. "John 3:5 and 3:16 are perfect examples of later syncretic additions. By the time of the 2nd Council of Constantinople - with flocks being pulled away by many other sects, the time had come to get more forceful to preserve integrity and "Hell" was inserted into doctrines. (Before that, reincarnation- as metempsychosis- was accepted by more than half the original Church's flock - following teachings by Origen of Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria.)All of this will be of great benefit in helping the reader to understand Robertson's explanation of the transformation of "Jewish Jesuism" into a formidable Gentile-based salvation faith - in which the central figure has attained the status of a god. The Vermes book will also help readers better understand the salvation basis of Christianity - in terms of the payout of a "ransom" for humankind, compliments of the expiation of the divine victim. In fact, this Christian version is merely the most recent of a fashion that goes far back into the past with the sacrificial death assuming all manner of variety (cf. p. 29)This ransom notion is key, especially to many current "fundagelical" sects. In their thinking, once one "believes on the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior" - the magic deed has been accomplished and the person is "saved". His soul has been instantly purchased via the ransom template - with Christ as the purchaser, via his "infinite" sacrifice. Never mind the one saved may be the world's worst beast, a serial killer or rapist - once he professes the magic words, all is well. Meantime, the most singular humanitarian who gives her whole life to helping the poor in Calcutta, India or the Sudan will surely go to "Hell" unless she also professes the magic mantra.In this light also, Robertson's chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 will also hold key interest for the religious skeptic. Chapter 9 compares Apollonius to Jesus. Apollnius lived in the first century CE, and by the third had quite a legend assimilated around him (p. 96- 97). Miracles of all sorts were attributed to him, all of which Church Fathers accepted without question (ibid.) As Robertson notes "No one ever thought of testing whether Apollonius was a real person", as opposed to an artifact. People DO think of doing it today (e.g. John Dominic Crossan, in his 'Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography') but of course, all the orthodox minions go ballistic when any such effort materializes. (Some Christians in some forums I have been have gone so far as to argue that "the issue of the Historical Jesus" is bogus. Er....ah, no it isn't.)Chapter 10, `The Evolution of Mithra' shows how the concept of the "Savior God" commenced in the Mithraic mysteries and narratives. Chapter 11, "Mithraism and Christianity' discloses how Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr became incensed at the impudence of the Mithraists to "copy" the Christian mysteries for their own.Most interesting, in the face of claims for Mithraists doing the copying, is Robertson's referencing of Church Father Justin Martyr who expressly argues that: "the demons anticipated the Christian mysteries and prepared parodies of them beforehand".(p. 118) He notes this also underlies the arguments of Tertullian and Julius Firmicus. (ibid.)Clearly, the term "anticipated" must mean the Mithraists' featured those mysteries BEFORE the Christians arrived on the scene. Why else "anticipate" them? As Robertson sarcastically notes "Nobody pretends the Perseus myth is LATER than Christianity". While adding that "Justin Martyr is perhaps the most foolish of the Christian fathers". (ibid)Thus, it seems far more probable that the Christians stole from the Mithraists, rather than vice versa.Chapter 12, `The Transformation of Mithra", basically details the process of incorporation of Mithraic themes, mysteries, and doctrines into Christian lore. As Robertson observes (p. 124) the assimilation took place because "the features imitated were found by experience to be religiously attractive". This is also a plausible explanation for the rapid benediction of Christianity compliments of the Emperor Constantine - and the fact his Sol Invictus cult (based on Mithra) could so easily become a state religion once fused with Christianity.`Has Christianity survived so long because it has "truth" on its side, or is there another, more realistic reason? Robertson provides it on p. 128, noting that "religions like organisms and opinions struggle for survival and the fittest survive". Christianity has survived because it is precisely the "fittest" in "copying sedulously from every one of its rivals while developing special features of its own".It is the development of "special features" which have enabled its more rapid adaptation. One of the more interesting of these late features is how it has found a practical compromise with the theory of evolution by natural selection - which by all rights ought to literally destroy the basis for the Christian paradigm. The Christians (most of the sensible ones, anyway) get around this by using the meme: "Evolution is God's means for creating new life and species". Which is almost a perfect method of absorption. Never mind that evolution requires no ad hoc gods to enable it to proceed. All such agents are redundant, and certainly don't advance the quality of predictions or improve tests for falsification.On the whole - Robertson's book is a good read, and a fair introduction to comparative religion, and basic comparative hierology. However, I do strongly suggest the serious reader obtain all the other texts I referenced, and use them in tandem with this book. I awarded the book five stars, because I believe it accomplishes what it sets out to do within the frame of reference of its non-scholarly context. Those who demand more, need to get hold of Robertson's `Studies in Comparative Hierology'.

The subject of the historicity of Jesus is now a thriving enterprise. One one side are philosophers, professors, psychologists and ex-churchmen writing storms of "myth" books only to be countered by archeologists, theologians and divinity professors on the "He existed" side. Strangely, no other religion has worked so hard nor stressed so fervently the historicity of its founder as Christianity. My own thoughts are that a series of events brought this Jewish sect to its current state - there were certainly no magin mushroom, secret advisor or high level Roman conspiracy to start a new religion.This "non-fiction" tale talks of mystical numbers, symbols, Asian run-ins, Buddha and other unlikely characters rolled into an unholy mishmash of conjecture and conclusions. What is this great need for conspiracies, gnosticism, and Eastern mysticism? At least we doesn't have JESUS taking a vacation to France with Mary Magdelene and child as seems currenly in vogue in some circles.As long as we have questions about the personhood of Jesus we will be beset with exaggerated, farfetched tales introducing big behind the scenes moves. The idea of evolutionary growth of an idea seems to have escaped these folks. Try one of Well's excellent books or even Robin Lane Fox's great works.

Sehr empfehlenswert!