Daniel Marsh:
Let’s let Weigall testify for himself:
- The Twelve Disciples Derived From Zodiac: p25
- The 27 books of the New Testament Canon is invalid: p37
- The name Mary is of pagan origin: p41
No. 3 is very likely - given that
- several names of the descendants of Levi are Egyptian names (e.g. Phinehas, Moses)
- and as the original Mary or Miriam has a name which looks as though it is to be understood as M[e]ry-Y[a]m, “beloved of the god Yam = Sea]”
- and as the mother of Jesus is also called by this name
- that origin seems to be quite likely.
But why is that a problem - or an objection to anything ? Why is it significant ?
Does God cease to exist or become incredible because he is described in the OT pretty much like any other god, as having:
- chariot
- spear
- arrows
- sword
- house
- sons
- servants
- messengers
- clothing
Mythological language is almost all we have, if we are to talk about God at all. He may be infinite - but our resources of language & thought are not.
God, as Lewis points out, cannot “begin to be “original” in the vulgar sense”. One reason for this is that gods are all but certain to be called “glorious”, “holy”, “mighty”, “gracious”, “lord”, and so on - so when the Real Thing is incarnate, the words have already been used. Holy gods are ten a penny: Jesus is a “holy god” too - but in a different way; that’s why he has a date.
There is only so much a god/saviour/hero/divine being can do - a god who saved men by eating an ox might be original, but the salvation would not be very clear. Dying for them is a very good way to be a saviour - the two ideas go together coherently. So gods do some things, and not others; because men think in certain ways about certain things, and not in others. So certain themes and stories keep re-appearing, such as monster-fights. Sea-serpents & dragons make convincing monsters - beards do not; so there are no myths about beard-monsters being slain by divine heroes, & plenty about dragons & whatnot.
He could have added the idea of Calvary as a hill - there are holy hills for gods to meet on, or for feasts & councils of gods, or for creation. As the OT was formed in a culture which was full of such ideas, those ideas also come in the NT. It doesn’t follow that whoever required altars to be built on steps in RC worship had any intention of echoing Egyptian myths about creation beginning from a primaeval mound. Any more than that everyone who uses the phrase “something rotten in the state of Denmark”, can be assumed to have a detailed knowledge of the plays of Shakespeare and their sources.
Or is everyone who refers to the Flood in Genesis 6-9 to be assumed to have a detailed knowledge of the Sumerian flood legend which lies behind the Mesopotamian Flood story from which the OT text may have been derived ?
That is like supposing that US citizens must have a good knowledge of the county of Durham in England - after all, George Washington’s ancestors came from a village of that name in County Durham; which is why he is called Washington.
- The virgin birth is of pagan origin: p44,47,60
- The early life of Jesus is totally unknown: p49
- Jesus born in a stable and wrapped in swaddling clothing is of pagan origin: p52
- Miracles of Jesus are of pagan origin: p58
- Jesus’ 40 day temptation in wilderness is of pagan origin: p61
- Earthquake at cross is false: p62
Without reading him, it’s impossible to say why he says what he says - but this last point is fair enough; there was no earthquake in that place at that time.
There doesn’t need to be one - if the purpose of the evangelists was to describe the death of Jesus in terms taken from the OT “Day of the LORD”; which seems likely enough, given the parts of the OT which are echoed in the accounts and the theological intests and themes of the evangelists.
The accounts of the Passion would be “false” only if the evangelists were seeking to give an account of nothing but events. And they are at least as interested in the significance of Jesus, as in the events connected with Him.
Some of those points are fair enough - some, as stated, don’t mean much: Augustus Caesar, Scipio Africanus, & Alexander the Great all had their births attributed to divine beings; there is nothing special in that. The claim of such a birth as applied to Jesus, proves nothing about Him either way.
And why should mythological claims not be made about Him ? If there can be myths about dying gods or redeemer gods - why can’t there a dying god or a redeemer god who is also an historical character ? If God is ultimately responsible for both “myth” & “history” - why can’t He combine both in his character ?
Why must God Incarnate be a purely historical character ? Why is it forbidden for Him to be a character in a story as well ?
[see C.S. Lewis, Miracles,
passim ##
