Elwed beat me to it. We’ve been over the Testimonium Flavianum before here on SEB. It’s been beaten to death a few times now.

Les: gotcha!

I am not invested either way, but I can see how the absence of primary non-Biblical sources documenting Jesus as an actual historical figure could get an apologist’s knickers in a twist.

Come to think of it, it’s been a while since the last Nunya sighting…

I am not invested either way, but I can see how the absence of primary non-Biblical sources documenting Jesus as an actual historical figure could get an apologist’s knickers in a twist.

Your statement of opinion comes across as though it’s fact and not theory.  But theory it is, and the posted link and information come from a source with an axe to grind, so what else would anyone think except that they are simply grinding an axe?

As acknowledged even by proponents of the forgery theory, the style and vocabulary of the passage is essentially that of Josephus (cf. the studies employing the Rengstorf concordance and the TLG database). Thus, an imitator must have made a substantial effort to create something Josephus might have written. This effort by the imitator would have been hindered, not aided, by taking passages from Luke as a model, as this would add a foreign voice to the text. Since the proposed imitator wished people to mistake the passage for a Josephus original, it would have been perverse to employ a text that would undermine this goal—indeed, it is such foreign elements that have caused scholars to suspect a forgery.  http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/question.htm#us

There are many other reasons it is accepted as genuine:  It is found in all surviving manuscripts; uoted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE; vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus; no other passage in the Antiquities has been seriously questioned, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics.  So far, they have been unconvincing.

Especially when they quote other skeptics for their “proof.“ 

(Not that I don’t at least find the skeptics interesting reading—I have a few oddities on my shelf, like Darrow’s Infidels and Heretics and A.N. Wilson’s God’s Funeral.  I digest such books, but I don’t just swallow them whole.)

Your statement of opinion comes across as though it’s fact and not theory.  But theory it is, and the posted link and information come from a source with an axe to grind, so what else would anyone think except that they are simply grinding an axe?

And you and your sources have no axe to grind?

You are free to be convinced by whatever floats your boat. I for one couldn’t care less if Jesus was an actual historical figure or if Jesus is a carbon copy of Horus or whoever.

Having said that, let me tell you why I am not persuaded by your reply.

It is found in all surviving manuscripts

Early Christians stand accused of destroying a large number of inconvenient documents and forging others. All surviving, eh.

quoted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE

Wasn’t that the very guy accused of forgery? Anyway, whatever he quoted a couple hundred years after is hearsay and not the least bit convincing.

vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus;

If true, a somewhat careful forgery…

no other passage in the Antiquities has been seriously questioned,

If so, it is one of the more important passages allegedly written in the Antiques and of course it is seriously questioned.

so the burden of proof is on the skeptics

There are two different matters to be proven. First, the veracity of the passage itself. Second, is the passage a forgery or not.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again - I don’t care if Jesus was a historical figure or not, but if he was, he received substantial after-market upgrades.

In closing, believe what you will.

Mxyzptlk writes..

Your statement of opinion comes across as though it’s fact and not theory.  But theory it is, and the posted link and information come from a source with an axe to grind, so what else would anyone think except that they are simply grinding an axe?

Please explain how the site in question has an axe to grind. I’m curious as to what your theory is.

There are many other reasons it is accepted as genuine:  It is found in all surviving manuscripts; qouted in full by Eusebius, c. 324 CE; vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus; no other passage in the Antiquities has been seriously questioned, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics.  So far, they have been unconvincing.

Especially when they quote other skeptics for their “proof.�

Have you even fully read the pages you’re using to back up your claims? I have, the author states that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at best, partially the work of Josephus with some interpolation by Christians at a later date. Further more he asserts that it’s not a first hand account on the part of Josephus, but an account taken from an unknown Christian manuscript which also ended up being the basis of a very similar passage in Luke:

Why does Josephus’ account resemble a statement of Christian faith, in particular, the Lukan kerygma (gospel message)?   Because the source Josephus used was a Christian explanatory document. It therefore contained the same material as was used in the earliest Christian proselytizing, such as we find in the gospel speeches of Acts. As these speeches were a telling of the story for the benefit of non-Christians it is reasonable to think that Josephus’ written source was of the same genre—that is, he used a document that was composed for just such people as himself and his audience. The difference between Josephus recounting a story versus stating he believed the story rests on the presence of absence of a few words, as discussed previously.   Upon reflection, any scholar must ask him or her self: “If Josephus wanted to explain who the Christians were, what would he do?“ And receive the answer: “As always in his work, unless he was recounting his own direct experience he would employ some reliable, prior source. The proselytizing of Christians would have been more readily available than Roman or Judean records, the latter likely destroyed in the war. So, in fact, the most reasonable thing to expect a priori is that Josephus would have simply rewritten a Christian proselytizing document. And that is exactly what we see—the same sort of document found repeatedly, with variations, in the Book of Luke-Acts.“   This most logical of possibilities in fact is the solution to the mystery of Josephus’ account of Jesus.   Note, also, that each of the objections to the proposed Christian interpolator discussed previously are, by contrast, confirmatory of Josephus’ use of a now lost document. The text would have not been obscure but a readily available Jewish-Christian self-description. The material would not have been so familiar to Josephus that he wouldn’t prefer to adhere to a written source. The early Jewish-Christian nature of the text is the form that Josephus would be the Jerusalem form he would have been most familiar with. The peculiar phrases are evidence of the influence of his source, examples of which can be found throughout the Antiquities (compare any of his Biblical sections with the appropriate part of the Bible); the more difficult the phrase is to understand, the more likely it is that Josephus would not have tried to alter it, accounting for “the third day” and other peculiarities.

Based on your own source about all the TF is good for is to definitively state that Josephus once read and copied some Christian propaganda in one of his works that was later interpolated by Christians wishing to paint Jesus in a better light.

As an establishment of the historicity of Jesus it’s not very good. Especially considering that this is pretty much all you’re going to find in the way of references to Jesus outside of the Bible.

(Not that I don’t at least find the skeptics interesting reading—I have a few oddities on my shelf, like Darrow’s Infidels and Heretics and A.N. Wilson’s God’s Funeral.  I digest such books, but I don’t just swallow them whole.)

Of course not. You’re too busy cherry picking from sources that you think support your stance.

Les, you should be sleeping.

Come to think of it, so should I…

Yeah I should be, but I’m stressing too much over not getting the best of the possible jobs today. Can’t get the brain to shut down long enough to go to sleep. Perhaps I’ll give it another try in a couple of minutes…

Mxyzptlk (great handle, btw), do you believe in the Shroud of Turin too?  Sorry, everyone…

Mxyzptlk (great handle, btw)

I concur… and further apologize for the thread drift. However, in the interest of the education of the comically (heh) ignorant, an excerpt from The Many Faces Of… Mxyzptlk

Superman has faced many enemies throughout the years. Some have challenged him on a physical level, some on a mental level. There is one foe, however, who has challenged his patience more than anything else. The mischievous Imp from 5th Dimension known as Mr. Mxyzptlk has annoyed, confounded and confused The Man of Steel for decades, usually in the name of a good laugh. This devilish, magical prankster can appear on Earth once every 90 days, playing jokes and causing trouble on an epic scale, until Superman can outsmart him (which usually involves tricking him into saying his name backwards) and send him back to his own dimension. Sound crazy? That’s exactly the point.

Hmm… I suppose a bit of Supes isn’t entirely off-topic here, what with his Sun-generated god-like powers and being one of those Sons come to Earth to “save” man and all…

Have you even fully read the pages you’re using to back up your claims? I have, the author states that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at best, partially the work of Josephus with some interpolation by Christians at a later date. Further more he asserts that it’s not a first hand account on the part of Josephus, but an account taken from an unknown Christian manuscript which also ended up being the basis of a very similar passage in Luke:

Oh, yes, I’ve read it, but I can’t say I agree with you on where he landed with it.  On his summary page of the issue, a chronology is listed detailing what various scholars have done with the question.  It’s easy to see what direction he goes, because for the most part, he simply reports “scholar X gave opinion Y.“  But with some of them, additional comments indicating his support of certain details, establishes his direction:

1954
  Paul Winter argues that there are just three interpolations in the TF, and the rest is genuine. “He was the Messiah” and “if indeed he can be called a man” are considered most suspect, as is the latter section describing the resurrection and the prophecies. This identification of the interpolations becomes a popular view (reiterated by John Meier, 1991).

1963
  Feldman writes: “The most probably view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator.“ (p. 49, Loeb edition)

1971
  In a startling find, Shlomo Pines publishes citations of the TF appearing in Arabic and Syriac works of the 9th-10th century. These quotations substantially resemble our current Testimonium, but do not have two of the most suspicious phrases: “he was the Messiah” and “if indeed he can be called a man”. Pines suggests these editions may have used an authentic, uninterpolated version of Josephus’ work.

1991
  John Meier studies the question again, repeats support for Winter’s view. This work is influential among contemporary scholars, including John Dominic Crossan and John O’Connor-Murphy.

1995
  G. J. Goldberg identifies a regular series of correspondences between the TF and the Emmaus narrative of Luke. He argues these are so close the two must have been derived from a common source, a Christian document now lost.
  Moreover, the correspondences are not plausibly what would be expected of a Christian forger, nor can later interpolations have been made or the relationship between the texts would have been destroyed.
  The significant variations between the two texts is that the Luke texts have neither the phrase “if indeed he can be called a man” nor “he was the Messiah” at appropriate locations, in accordance with the Arabic version published by Pines (1971) and verifying the speculations of Winter.
  However, both texts contain the resurrection and the prophecy in parallel locations and with unusual overlapping vocabulary, again in accordance with the Arabic version, but in disagreement with the speculations of Winter, Meier, and others.
 
The questions raised by scholars are answered, from the perspective of this theory, on the Questions page.

In other words, his whole rationale for the discussion seems to be an evaluation of the “new evidence.“  And the new evidence seems to confirm, in his opinion, a direction already supported by a growing number of scholars, that the piece has literary and stylistic patterns that give substantial confirmation to Josephus as author.  The main interpolated material, apparently, involves two phrases, “if he can indeed be called a man” and “he was the Messiah.“

And I hope you have not overlooked my earlier comment acknowledging that the date given to the passage is 93 C.E., placing it in a time not contemporary with Jesus.  That gives a little bit of leeway for speculation by those who want to knock its value for giving extra-biblical authenticity to an actual human historical person named Jesus.  There are some also who would like to claim that Josephus’ use of a Christian document in discussion of the matter gives less credence, since it is not Josephus saying it.  But the author has also covered that ground, when he mentioned the tendency of Josephus to seek out original sources for authentication purposes.  The fact that he sought out the piece he uses tends therefore to give more historical significance to his inclusion of it, not less.  Even in our times, the researcher who seeks out original documents is considered more reliable than one who does not, verdad?  In doing so, Josephus has provided a document that not only places Jesus within extra-biblical historical accounts, but is also perhaps with even more accurately pinpointed dating than is possible with the canonical Christian documents. 

The greatest single barrier to denial of the existence of the actual historical Jesus, of course, is the death of the martyrs.  Many people are willing to die for a cause they believe in, but there are very few who, if involved in fomenting a belief they know very well to be untrue, will persist in it till their very deaths.

The greatest single barrier to denial of the existence of the actual historical Jesus, of course, is the death of the martyrs.

Sigh. Okay, I’ll bite: which martyrs are you talking about?  Of course, you must mean martyrs who claimed to have know Jesus personally, and are documented elsewhere than in the Bible.  Not that the existence or non-existence of Jesus is anything other than a mildly interesting historical footnote- I’m fairly certain Mohammed and L. Ron Hubbard existed, but that doesn’t make Islam or Scientology more likely to be true…

And what about that Shroud of Turin?

And what about that Shroud of Turin?

And what about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?

And what about that Shroud of Turin?

Yeah, what about it?

Nevermind, folks, Mxyzptlk has made it clear he/she/it can’t answer simple questions. No point in even engaging this idiot any further.

Nevermind, folks, Mxyzptlk has made it clear he/she/it can’t answer simple questions. No point in even engaging this idiot any further.

So exactly what do you propose I should do with a non-question like “What about the Shroud of Turin?“

If my answer seems vague to you, then consider the question.  Until I can pierce through the vague fog and find out what he wants to know, I can’t give any definitive answer. 

I answered your own assertions above, time 10:27 a.m., and the response I get is that I’m an idiot who can’t answer questions?

And the only followup I get from anyone else is to totally ignore the rest of what I had to say and sidetrack onto the one unrelated comment found in the last two lines of my post?

If you really think you can convince anyone of that, obviously you believe there’s more than one idiot here.

Zilch: “Mxyzptlk (great handle, btw), do you believe in the Shroud of Turin too?“

Zilch: “And what about that Shroud of Turin?“

Mxyzptlk: “Yeah, what about it?“

Les: “Mxyzptlk has made it clear he/she/it can’t answer simple questions.“

Mxyzptlk: “So exactly what do you propose I should do with a non-question like “What about the Shroud of Turin?â€?“

Les 1, Mxyzptlk 0.

Point taken.  I missed the first reference, making the second question one of those wide-open spaces genre, which I never try to address without specifics.

With the additional info, I think a simple “no” is all that’s necessary.  Certainly it was a thing I followed with some interest, but not something I ever saw as an issue my faith would rise or fall on.

Ah, Elwed beats me to it before I can come up with a pithy reply.

M:

I was all excited when I saw that this thread was resurrected.   I mean no offense in my response here, but you make a mistake in your offensive. The mistake is switching the topic to one in which you have the burden.  On the subject that started this thread, the folks making the affirmative statement—Les, Nunya and Spocko had the burden.

They failed to carry the burden at all.  The thread stood as a testament to that.  You will notice a very telling fact—Les, who is not shy, but is respectable in his claims, failed to come to Nunya’s and Spocko’s defense in the thread.  To Les’s credit, he has also stopped making the Horus reference since this thread.

Recommendation for any further posting on this site:

Make sure your sources are solid and insist on the same.
Don’t ever mistaate a fact.
Be fair in granting them an inference when one can be fairly drawn.
Always make sure Elwed and zilch (they are a pretty good tag team and have a good sense of humor) don’t get the burden of proof confused. They will switch it on you let them.

Other than that, I think that we likely agree on much.  There aren’t many posters of a similar persuasion, so nice to see ya.

Always make sure Elwed and zilch (they are a pretty good tag team and have a good sense of humor) don’t get the burden of proof confused. They will switch it on you let them.

Can you prove that, consi?  You are the one making the claim- the burden is on you

Consi - now, now.

Historical documents are a bit like witnesses in a trial of a crime committed a really long time ago.

Are the witnesses who they say they are? Are they reporting an eyewitness account (primary sources) or hearsay (secondary sources)? Do they report the truth as they saw it at the time? Do they report the truth, nothing but the truth, and all of it?

And like in a jury trial, it doesn’t matter who has the facts and the law on his side, but who the jury believes.

I have said before that it is of no particular interest to me if Jesus was an actual historical figure; that doesn’t put me above expressing grave doubts about Christian historical claims.

Historical documents are a bit like witnesses in a trial of a crime committed a really long time ago.

We agree.   I was telling M he shouldn’t have undertaken a proposition for which he had the burden of proof, the existence of Jesus.  It makes for a very long endeavor.

Having said that, I would maintain, and properly so, that once M established that there were historical documents, and there clearly are, that established Jesus’s existence.  There would be in effect a presumption of the veracity of the documents, until evidence to the contrary is submitted to the “jury.“  The burden then shifts to Les and Co. to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the historical documents were forged or altered. That is much more than just casting about speculation that the documents might or could have been forged.

As a result, I think in the last discussion we had even zilch admitted that in all likelihood there was most likely a historical Jesus.  He took issue with the possibilities of the liberties taken by some of the biblical authors, and that is fair.    I know of no evidence that could carry the burden on that point.

Can’t we just get back to Horus?

As far as the TF is concerned, there are a couple of related questions to settle. Who wrote the passage in question, when was it written, and is it a primary source? None of the answers is of particular interest to me.

To the best of my shallow knowledge about Christianity, this is the only non-Biblical reference to a historic Jesus that is claimed to be a primary source. Small wonder that it is interpreted to death by Christians and others alike. And of course, even if it was written by whom apologists claim, the veracity of the passage remains to be shown.

I’ll simply side with zilch, except that I’m not convinced that some kind of historical Jesus existed. You would think that he would have raised enough of a stink to be documented far and wide by non-Christians, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

con:

Do not confuse boredom with capitulation!

klt:

Flavius’ account proves nothing whether he wrote it or not. He was born decades after the alleged Jesus character lived and died and he cites no source. In other words, this is hearsay - not an eyewitness account. The first to say that Flavius’ wrote this account of Jesus was Eusebius. What can we make of a man who writes…

“We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.“
—Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

and how ‘bout the title to this chapter in Praeparatio Evangelica

“How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived”

—Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica

Pitiful, yes? End of story if you ask me. Funny that the xtians latch onto this tiny mention of Jesus in Antiquities but don’t bother with the many references to Hercules! If Flavius’ paragraph on Jesus proves “His” existence then why not Hercules too? The Herc’s tale should sound a bit familiar to you; born of a god and a mortal woman, Hera wanted him dead (hmmm - Hera/Herod?, nah), he traveled the earth helping folks out and performing miraculous deeds, dies and rises up to “heaven” (Mt Olympus) to become a god himself.

Why are there no eyewitness accounts of this Jesus guy anyway? Not one. The earliest writings, the epistles and so-called gospels, were all written decades (or centuries) after the tale and not only are they not eyewitness accounts but they are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. None of the authors of the epistles even describe Jesus as a human being at all!

It sure seems odd to me that such a famous dude like Jesus would have been written about extensively by folks, outside of the Bible, that lived during his time! If we are to believe that the Bible relates the truth then Jesus was not some obscure fellow but known by many, king or peasant. “Matthew” tells us that “there followed him (Jesus) great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan” and that even Herod “knew of the fame of Jesus” (Matt 4 & 14). “Luke” says that there grew “a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear…“ and an “innumberable multitude of people… trode one upon another.“ Luke 5 & 12. “Multitudes” are supposed to have known of him, chief priests and scribes, “those abroad”, folks of all sorts followed him around.

Yet, given these “truths”, no believer questions the fact that there is nothing written about this Superman anywhere outside the anonymous penpals in the Bible! Herod kills every child in Bethlehem, indeed a horrible crime, but why do we have no “news reports” about this? SuperJebus brings the rotting dead up from the grave, heals the blind, heals lepers, croaks and pops out of the grave himself and no one bothers to jot down so much as a footnote!

There were many brilliant scholars who should have written about such a great and famous man if, indeed, Jesus lived and did all that we are told. Philo Judaeus comes to mind, he wrote detailed descriptions of the events of the Jews that occurred in the same area, but makes not one mention of the “godchild”. Nothing from Pliny the Elder or Seneca or anyone else for that matter.

I will never accept hearsay, anonymous or otherwise, as evidence for anything. Give me verifiable eyewitness accounts by noted scholars and I’ll consider it.

“We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can’t really say anything.“

—David Noel Freedman, Bible Review magazine (1993)

The originator of this thread basically sets up a false dichotomy and straw-man argument and then proceeds to tear it apart: The story of Horus must be exactly the same as the Jesus mythos or any of its similarities must be ignored completely.

Clever plagiarizers modify the story they copy. Osiris/Horus was only the beginning of a very long list of religions that all bare similar traits. Check out Mithra, Prometheus, Hermes, Perseus, Apollonius, Dionysus, Bacchus, Attis, Zoroaster, Zarathustra, and who knows how many others and see if you don’t catch a bit of Déjà Vu.

“...all served as pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; got born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by “wise men” and had allegedly fasted for forty days.“

—Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus

“When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus).“

—Justin Martyr to the “Pagans” [First Apology, ch. xxi]

The pre-xtian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the Most High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan Mithraism mysteries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament of bread & water (Eucharist), the marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, the symbol of the Rock, the Seven Spirits and seven stars, all before the advent of xtianity.

In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents not only a challenge to the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals that early pre-Gospel Christian documents show that the concept of Jesus sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from Jewish scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New Testament epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus’ life on earth or his followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word “disciple” (they of course use the term “apostle” but the word simply means messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for two well known interpolations, Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed before all time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a revelation from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, “Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus were in circulation.“

When one takes the time to investigate all of these fantasy stories one cannot help but see the thread of truth in the evolution of the gods, unless you have your eyes and mind squeezed tight with the blindfold of “faith”.

A historical Jesus may have existed, I’ll grant that, maybe based on an actual human being even though his true history was lost. We do have an tremendous evidence supporting the evolution of the Jesus mythos. Practically every detail in the gospels occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the invention of xtianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of this “Jesus Christ” character. This is merely evidence for the belief of Jesus.

Damn, it’s almost 5:00! I better shut up and hit the sack!

Ref:
http://godhatesfigs.com
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com
http://www.thegodmovie.com
http://www.nobeliefs.com
http://www.godchecker.com
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Totally off topic but everyone should read this!
http://www.freepress.net/news/8120

The writer did not set up a false dichotomy unless one uses a very loose standard for a false dichotomy.

Spocko said: “...all served as pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; got born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by “wise men� and had allegedly fasted for forty days.�

So this is the gold standard so to speak?  Let me use it then.  Horus did have a god for a father-Osiris.  Isis, Horus’s mother was not virginal.  There is no mention anywhere of any stars announcing Horus’s birth (most accounts are a cave).  The date for Horus’s birth is never specificied and we don’t know when it was celebrated or even if it was, and there is not a specific text that refers to any wisemen at Horus birth. We have been through this before.  No source for any of these allegations, and as you correctly note, the burden is on the proponent.

Using the gold standard, and without incorporating every god that might have been, only the one at issue here-Horus, we find that there is no comparison.  In fact, I sometimes think that those that allege that Horus=Jesus have confabulated the accounts of other gods into the Horus account.

A quick side note not relevant to the topic at hand.  This comment

Practically every detail in the gospels occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the invention of xtianity.

really establishes nothing.  It neither leads one towards belief or disbelief.