The Pagan Christ

My brother is hooked on the Canadian book, The Pagan Christ, by Tom Harpur. It argues that Jesus never lived. The books claims have been largely countered in detail by several websites, notably this one. They show that his scholarship is faulty and that his claims of similarity between the Jesus story and other myths are often wrong. But as far as I can see, nobody has addressed the larger issues.

Harpur’s thesis is based on two unstated assumptions:

1. A thing cannot be both a good myth and historically true; and

2. For Christianity to be true, other religions must be false.

Both of these assumptions are not just false, but the opposite of the truth.

Harpur leaves another important matter unstated:

3. The interpretation of Christianity he is offering is neither new nor newly discovered. It is the oldest Christian heresy, Gnosticism.

Let’s address these three points in general terms.

1. If God is God, he is in charge of both the spiritual and material worlds. If he thinks something is important enough to express it as an archetype or compelling myth in the human imagination, he probably also thinks it is important enough to express it in the material world as well, and is of course fully capable of doing so. Accordingly, if the same thing appears in myth and history, this does not disprove the history; it reinforces its divine importance. As, for example, similarities between mythic figures and the historical account of Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Again, if God is God, he would not create any of us without giving us an honest shot at salvation, at achieving the purpose for which we were created. It follows that the truth must in some way be written into the minds of each one of us. Therefore, all major religions must be essentially true. Accordingly, if similarities are found between Christianity and other religions, it does not prove that these things are false. It proves these things are true.

Gnostic medallion showing Abraxas, from a 19th century book of antiquities.

3. As to Gnosticism, Harpur must be aware of the origins of his doctrine; he even uses the term “gnosis”. But so far as I have seen, I have not seen him anywhere acknowledge the doctrine by name or mention its history. Why not? Because had he done so, he would have had to acknowledge and address all the powerful arguments against this doctrine. When he takes pains to repeat that the reader has “nothing to fear” from his line of thinking, methinks he doth protest too much.