Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions / Being a Comparison of the Old and New Testament Myths and Miracles with those of the Heathen Nations of Antiquity Considering also their Origin and Meaning

by T. W. Doane

It is very certain that the same circumstances which are claimed to have taken place with respect to the Christian religion, are also claimed to have taken place in the religions of Crishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Æsculapius, Bacchus, Apollonius, Simon Magus, &c. Histories of these persons, with miracles, relics, circumstances of locality, suitable to them, were as common, as well authenticated (if not better), and as much believed by the devotees as were those relating to Jesus.

All the Christian theologians which the world has yet produced have not been able to procure any evidence of the miracles recorded in the Gospels, half so strong as can be procured in evidence of miracles performed by heathens and heathen gods, both before and after the time of Jesus; and, as they cannot do this, let them give us a reason why we should reject the one and receive the other. And if they cannot do this, let them candidly confess that we must either admit them all, or reject them all, for they all stand on the same footing.

In the early times of the Roman republic, in the war with the Latins, the gods Castor and Pollux are said to have appeared on white horses in the Roman army, which by their assistance gained a complete victory: in memory of which, the General Posthumius vowed and built a temple to these deities; and for a proof of the fact, there was shown, we find, in Cicero's time (106 to 43 B. C.), the marks of the horses' hoofs on a rock at Regillum, where they first appeared.[270:1]

Now this miracle, with those which have already been mentioned, and many others of the same kind which could be mentioned, has as authentic an attestation, if not more so, as any of the Gospel miracles. It has, for instance: The decree of a senate to confirm it; visible marks on the spot where it was transacted; and all this supported by the best authors of antiquity, amongst whom Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, who says that there was subsisting in his time at Rome many evident proofs of its reality, besides a yearly festival, with a solemn sacrifice and procession, in memory of it.[270:2]

With all these evidences in favor of this miracle having really happened, it seems to us so ridiculous, that we wonder how there could ever have been any so simple as to believe it, yet we should believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the tomb four days, our only authority being that anonymous book known as the "Gospel according to St. John," which was not known until after A. D. 173. Albert Barnes, in his "Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity," speaking of the authenticity of the Gospel miracles, makes the following damaging confession:

"An important question is, whether there is any stronger evidence in favor of miracles, than there is in favor of witchcraft, or sorcery, or the re-appearance of the dead, of ghosts, of apparitions? Is not the evidence in favor of these as strong as any that can be adduced in favor of miracles? Have not these things been matters of universal belief? In what respect is the evidence in favor of the miracles of the Bible stronger than that which can be adduced in favor of witchcraft and sorcery? Does it differ in nature and degrees; and if it differs, is it not in favor of witchcraft and sorcery? Has not the evidence in favor of the latter been derived from as competent and reliable witnesses? Has it not been brought to us from those who saw the facts alleged? Has it not been subjected to a close scrutiny in the courts of justice, to cross-examination, to tortures? Has it not convinced those of highest legal attainments; those accustomed to sift testimony; those who understood the true principles of evidence? Has not the evidence in favor of witchcraft and sorcery had, what the evidence in favor of miracles has not had, the advantage of strict judicial investigation? and been subjected to trial, where evidence should be, before courts of law? Have not the most eminent judges in the most civilized and enlightened courts of Europe and America admitted the force of such evidence, and on the ground of it committed great numbers of innocent persons to the gallows and to the stake? I confess that of all the questions ever asked on the subject of miracles, this is the most perplexing and the most difficult to answer. It is rather to be wondered at that it has not been pressed with more zeal by those who deny the reality of miracles, and that they have placed their objections so extensively on other grounds."

It was a common adage among the Greeks, "Miracles for fools," and the same proverb obtained among the shrewder Romans, in the saying: "The common people like to be deceived—deceived let them be."

St. Chrysostom declares that "miracles are proper only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds, men of sense have no occasion for them;" and that "they frequently carry some untoward suspicion along with them;" and Saint Chrysostom, Jerome, Euthemius, and Theophylact, prove by several instances, that real miracles had been performed by those who were not Catholic, but heretic, Christians.[271:1]

Celsus (an Epicurean philosopher, towards the close of the second century), the first writer who entered the lists against the claims of the Christians, in speaking of the miracles which were claimed to have been performed by Jesus, says:

"His miracles, granted to be true, were nothing more than the common works of those enchanters, who, for a few oboli, will perform greater deeds in the midst of the Forum, calling up the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous banquets, and tables covered with food, which have no reality. Such things do not prove these jugglers to be sons of God; nor do Christ's miracles."[271:2]