Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

I. B. â€" Textual Criticism Explained

Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I'll call "M". Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I'll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I'll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:

M > C1 > C1a > C1a1

Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.

M----C1----C1a----C1a1
-------------C1b----C1b1
---------------------C1b2
-------------C1c----C1c1
---------------------C1c2
------C2----C2a----C2a1
-------------C2b----C2b1
------C3----C3a----C3a1
---------------------C3a2
-------------C3b----C3b1
-------------C3c----C3c1
---------------------C3c2
---------------------C3c3

Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I'm simplifying, of course).

We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or "typos", if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?

So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don't have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text?

By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called "Textual Criticism", provides a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have today contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.

Next, we'll take a look a just how high the estimates of accuracy really are.

[Randy Carson]

I. C. â€" An Accurate Text â€" Estimates of Accuracy

Norman Geisler notes in his book A General Introduction to the Bible that the late Bruce Metzer (who taught Bart Ehrman) said that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. Geisler goes on to say,

NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations.” In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a “thousandth part of the entire text.” So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.

Philip Schaff estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected “an article of faith.” Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that:

“In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another” (Misquoting Jesus, 55).

Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that:

The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).

Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through. Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.

• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS

Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. As noted earlier, there are about 5700 New Testament manuscripts in existence which provide hundreds, in some cases even thousands, of confirmations of every line in the NT.

As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:

1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000

Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT.”

Taken from:

A Look at Bart Ehrman: Agreements and Disagreements
By Eric Chabot
M.A. Southern Evangelical Seminary, Religious Studies.
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/


Next up, I will address the flaws in the infamous "Telephone Game" analogy. Don't touch that dial!

[Randy Carson]

I. D. â€" Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)

Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.

Rules of the Telephone Game:

1.   To play Telephone, you'll need a group of players. More is better. 

2.   Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words -- for instance, try using a phrase such as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia." The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.

3.   Only one player should know what the phrase is.

4.   The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.

5.   She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.

6.   Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.

7.   What began as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia" might end up as "Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand." If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and pinpointing where the various changes occurred.

Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:

1.   The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.

2.   The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.

3.   The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.

4.   The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.

5.   The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.

6.   The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.

7.   The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.

In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.

[Solomon Zorn]

Even if the text was consistent to itself, it was written long after the events, and the oral retelling before the written version is mostly where the myth took shape.

[aitm]

IT the babble had for a moment a bit of truth and eloquence, it is far overshadowed by the opulence of whack-a-doodle nonsense, plain stupidity, unbelievable cruelty propagated by the evil diety hisself, mindless drivel that promotes the most ridiculous belief in gibberish and hogwash. Complete trash with an occasional clever quote. Bully for the writers. The brothers Grimm did a better job, made more sense, and is far more believable. Honestly, cut off your wifes hand is she tries to defend her husband by grabbing an attackers balls? WHo the fuck would blame the woman? Oh yeah, your whack-a-doo babbling nut jobs.

[Mike Cl]

Randy, a word or two about your atheist hero: (Made by Richard Carrier)

Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
Bart Ehrman was again asked what evidence there is that Jesus existed this February 18, 2016, at Fresno City College. See the video here (he begins his answer at timestamp 23:18). First he says this:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.
This is not a very truthful statement.

There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.”
We are not “internet voices.” I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.
Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.” Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices” but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.
He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines” who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.
And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.” We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentialsâ€"some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).
And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated” among his colleagues is false.
The evidence is not, of course, overwhelming. It’s not even whelming. But you can see that for yourself. IMO, the fact that this is what he thinks, discredits his opinion. Because there is no way in the universe any historian in any other field would call the evidence for the historicity of Jesus “overwhelming.” Maybe Ehrman just doesn’t know what overwhelming evidence looks like. But since he can’t even be honest about how many fully qualified colleagues of his doubt the historicity of Jesus, he can’t even honestly tell an audience that a mainstream peer reviewed academic monograph exists questioning historicity, and he can’t even honestly tell an audience that it is being debated by many of his colleagues, we shouldn’t expect him to honestly use the word “overwhelming” either.


What I realized was that I missed this presentation--damn!  I live only 50 mi. from Fresno and would have loved to have been there. 

[Mike Cl]

More from your hero, Randy:

Anyway, he goes on…

The people who are called mythicists argue that Jesus was invented, that he’s a myth, that was made up, that there never was an actual man Jesus.
Not quite. We argue that the Gospel Jesus was made up. A conclusion even Bart Ehrman largely agrees with. He seems to be confused as to what the mythicist thesis actually is (as will become evident below). The peer reviewed mythicist thesis is that the first Christians genuinely believed there was an archangel named Jesus who underwent a cosmic ordeal to fix the universe using standard Jewish atonement magic (OHJ Chapters 3 and 4). They “met” this Jesus in visions and “discovered” what he said and what happened to him by finding hidden messages in the Old Testament (this is not conjecture; we know it for a fact: OHJ, Chapter 12.3-4).

So they didn’t make him up, in the sense Ehrman means (they might have, but it’s not necessary to assume they did: see OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 15). What a later generation of Christians did (not the first Christians, nor anyone who ever met any of the first Christians so far as we can tell) is make up the version of Jesus that had him tromping around earth interacting with historical figures. The distinction is crucial. Yet Ehrman conflates the two. And with this conflation he proceeds…

Here’s one reason for thinking that’s wrong. The early Christiansâ€"whether or not Jesus existedâ€"the early Christians said that Jesus was the messiah, and they said he was crucified. That would be a nonsensical statement for people in antiquity, that the messiah got crucified. The messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
This is false. The Talmudic Jews preached that the messiah would suffer and die. So it clearly was not nonsensical. Even the Old Testament said the messiah would die. More on that in a moment. But the Talmud is clear on the matter (OHJ, pp. 73-75). There is in fact no evidence of any Jew ever finding this notion nonsensical. Many found it not to their preference. But it still made sense (as Hebrews 9 makes clear; see also OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 18, and Chapter 5, Elements 31 and 43). Especially since he wasn’t defeated in this account, but gained the power from it that he would use upon his return. Thus, a dying messiah is also a militarily victorious messiah. He just has to get resurrected.

Now Christians today typically say … that you have a prediction of a suffering messiah in the Old Testament. If you actually read the Old Testament, there is no passage in the Old Testament that talks about the messiah, that says anything about the messiah suffering. There are passages in the Old Testament that talk about somebody suffering, but they are never talking about the messiah. There are other passages that talk about the messiah, and they don’t talk about the messiah suffering. These were two incommensurate categories.
This is false. Daniel 9 says the messiah will die. Explicitly. And Isaiah 53 says so as wellâ€"using the word “Chosen One,” which Ehrman has otherwise agreed is a term used in the OT for the messiah (How Jesus Became God, p. 66). And Talmudic Rabbis agreed this was about the messiah. Even Psalms 89:32-52 says the messiah will be abandoned by God and suffer at his enemies’ hands (before being redeemed). And that is explicit that this is what will happen to the messiah. So Ehrman remains very truth challenged. Compare the evidence in OHJ, Chapter 4, Element 5.

So for Ehrman to keep repeating this claim, as if none of the above evidence existed, is simply dishonest.

Because the messiah was supposed to be the great king of Israel who overthrew the enemy, and set up God’s kingdom in Jerusalem. He was to be the great political, military leader of the Jews, who destroyed the enemy. That’s what the messiah was expected to be.
Not by everyone (Dan. 9; Is. 53; Ps. 89; the Talmud). Everyone expected that ultimately that would happen (as even the Christians still preached it would). But many did imagine there would be some suffering and possibly a brief death on the way. Moreover, Ehrman agrees we can’t claim to know what all Jews expected, so we can’t argue from what no Jews would have expected. Ehrman himself has said this explicitly: “saying what Jews thought is itself highly problematic, since lots of different Jews thought lots of different things. It would be like asking what Christians think today” (HJBG, p. 50) and “how would we know [what] ‘every’ early Christian [thought], unless all of them left us writings and told us everything they knew and did?” (DJE, p. 193), which is even more true of the Jews, who were even more divided into varying sects than the early Christians were, and about whom we know even less. So once again he is not telling his audience the truth.

[Mike Cl]

Randy, one more on your hero:

Ehrman also is betraying his incompetence as a historian by falsely thinking religions never make up scandalous, ludicrous, difficult-to-believe ideas. In fact, religions routinely do that. Why would Attis cult invent a castrated savior? Why would Romans invent and revere a mythical founder who murdered his own brother? Why would the Nicene council back the wildly illogical Trinitarian creed? How are the seer stone and golden plates of Joseph Smith anything but ludicrous? And why would Mormons advocate polygamy even though it brought severe and constant persecution upon them? Ehrman is a lousy historian if he doesn’t even know that the ludicrous is what religions specialize in. See OHJ, pp. 613-16 (and PH, pp. 124-69).

And yet it wasn’t even all that ludicrous. Human sacrifice as heroic and potent was revered, not laughed at (OHJ, Chapter 5, Element 43; Chapter 4, Element 18). Dying-then-triumphant heroes were ubiquitous among the very savior cults of the time that Christianity most resembled (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 13 and 14, and Chapter 5, Element 31). And the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. And the Talmudic Jews agreed the scriptures already said there would be a murdered messiah. So evidently, it wasn’t ludicrous to even Rabbinical Jews, much less to a counter-cultural anti-Rabbinical fringe sect such as Christianity. What was ludicrous was that Christians could claim to know that a celestial archangel had performed this sacrifice (Hebrews 9), when there hadn’t been the public signs expected (OHJ, pp. 613-15). Paul does not say the crucifixion was turning the Jews off. He explicitly said it was the lack of signs confirming it that was turning the Jews off (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). Quoting verses out of context is what Christian apologists do; not what a secular scholar like Bart Ehrman should be doing. That’s pseudo-scholarship.

And on top of that, apart from being hopelessly fact-challenged, Ehrman’s entire point is illogical. As I’ve pointed out before, his question, “Why would you invent” anything other than a victorious king “if you wanted to convince people?” answers itself. Obviously you can’t invent a military victor when no such person exists! So the only messiah anyone could invent was one whose victory was invisible (to all but the revelators announcing it). Thus, Ehrman’s claim that “if” someone invented a messiah, they would have invented a “king of Jerusalem” is false. And it is not merely false; it is false because it is logically impossible. So his argument makes zero sense.

A better question is “Why did they invent the idea that the messiah got crucified?” Because they needed one, is the mythicist answer. It accomplished what they needed: the elimination of dependence on the Jewish temple cult and its Jewish leadership. It also created a plausible Jewish variant of a massively popular fashion among salvation cults at the time. Yet Ehrman does not show any sign of knowing what the mythicist answer to that question is. Because he provides no rebuttal to it. Yet he cannot argue for “a crucified messiah was more likely to be real than a revelation” without rebutting why it made sense as a revelation (OHJ, Chapter 4, Elements 16-18, and Chapter 5, Elements 23-31).

So Ehrman has no logically coherent argument here. And no facts to rest it on. This is not evidence for a historical Jesus. At all. Much less “overwhelmingly.” It’s just as likely that a radical sect like Christianity would invent a celestial sacrificial deity as that they would try selling an actual man as having been one. The odds of either are the same. The odds of either succeeding are the same. This makes the evidential weight of the fact zero.

Ehrman does what many christian historians do is to make hypothesis and treat that as a theory.  They don't test their hypothesis; Richard Carrier also creates hypothesis--but he will and does test it.  He tries to make the evidence fit as many possible hypothesis as he can think of then he tests them all to find out which one holds water--if any.  That is the hypothesis he then settles on.  But he is willing to revise said hypothesis whenever new evidence is provided.  Ehrman and his ilk are not.

[SGOS]

Comparing the Bible to Homer?  Really?  The Bible is as accurate as Homer?  It's accurate only to the extent that it says what the uneducated fanatical writers who wrote it were trying to say.  You either believe Jesus walked on water or you don't.

[Randy Carson]

Even if the text was consistent to itself, it was written long after the events, and the oral retelling before the written version is mostly where the myth took shape.

No, Solomon. The Gospels can easily be dated prior to AD 70 with dates as early as the 40's and 50's being very possible. And 1 Corinthians 15 contains a proto-creed of the Early Church which proves that the Church was preaching the resurrection of Jesus within 1-3 years of the event.

There is no accretion of legend and mythology at work.

I covered that in this thread:

When were the gospels written?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0

[Randy Carson]

IT the babble had for a moment a bit of truth and eloquence, it is far overshadowed by the opulence of whack-a-doodle nonsense, plain stupidity, unbelievable cruelty propagated by the evil diety hisself, mindless drivel that promotes the most ridiculous belief in gibberish and hogwash. Complete trash with an occasional clever quote. Bully for the writers. The brothers Grimm did a better job, made more sense, and is far more believable. Honestly, cut off your wifes hand is she tries to defend her husband by grabbing an attackers balls? WHo the fuck would blame the woman? Oh yeah, your whack-a-doo babbling nut jobs.

I see that you are an admin. Apparently, the ability to form a coherent argument germane to the topic of the thread is not a requirement for the job.

[Randy Carson]

Comparing the Bible to Homer?  Really?  The Bible is as accurate as Homer?  It's accurate only to the extent that it says what the uneducated fanatical writers who wrote it were trying to say.  You either believe Jesus walked on water or you don't.

Perhaps you should review my post.

The point I made was that we have more manuscripts of the Gospels that were produced within shorter time gaps than we have for any of Homer's works.

Since we have believe the texts of the Illiad to be accurate despite the relatively few number of manuscripts and the enormous gaps between the autograph and the extant copies, how much more confidence should we have in the gospels?

Get it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OP, there is no evidence that a single word of JC's was recorded when he spoke it.

[SGOS]

Perhaps you should review my post.

The point I made was that we have more manuscripts of the Gospels that were produced within shorter time gaps than we have for any of Homer's works.

Since we have believe the texts of the Illiad to be accurate despite the relatively few number of manuscripts and the enormous gaps between the autograph and the extant copies, how much more confidence should we have in the gospels?

Get it?

Yes, I got it.  You apparently believe the Illiad.  Further, we can have no more confidence in the accuracy of the old testament as well as the gospels, both of which are claimed to be true) than the Illiad.  In fact, when I read the Illiad in high school, I thought its fairy tale qualities resembled the Bible in remarkable ways.  It was one of the early things that got me to start questioning the accuracy of the Bible.

[Randy Carson]

Oh geez, internet crap huh?

Yep. Pretty much. Same ol', same ol'.

But since you persist...

Jesus and the “Dying-and-Rising” Gods

The claim is that Jesus is a "copy cat god" and that the disciples of Jesus simply took beliefs from older religions and molded them together to create a storyline for their new religion. Since this line of argumentation is pursued by atheists on a regular basis, it will be instructive to review the type of academic scholarship that has been done on these so-called gods.

Edwin Yamauchi, is a top Mithra scholar with a doctorate in Mediterranean studies. He has studied 22 languages and written 17 books including Persia and the Bible. (The Mithras religion is said to have started in Persia before coming to the Roman Empire.) Yamauchi was also one of the scholars who attended the Second Mithraic Congress in Tehran, Iran in the 1970′s.

Dr. Yamauchi addressed each of the alleged similarities between Jesus and Mithra:

1. Mithraism did not teach that he was born of a virgin; rather, the mythical Mithra was born out of a rock.
2. Furthermore, he was born an adult, not a baby as was Jesus.
3. And, Jesus was, of course, not born in a cave as the second century letter of Barnabas alleges.
4. The birthday of Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Bible and is not known. In fact, the earliest birth date for Jesus celebrated by Christians was January 6th. The earliest time in which Dec. 25 th was used by Christians is AD 336 when Emperor Constantine proposed this day â€" possibly appropriated from the sun god worship. December 25th is close to the winter solstice and was chosen by Emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to the sun god.
5. Mithra was not a traveling teacher of disciples.
6. The belief of immortality may be inferred in Mithraism, but that is common to almost all religions, so is not significant.
7. Mithra did not sacrifice himself for anyone; he killed a bull.
8. After extensive study, Yamauchi knows of no references to Mithra’s death. And, consequently, there are no records of his resurrection.
9. Any possible sacramental meal in Mithraism is unrelated to the Lord’s Supper because it was initiated much later, in the second century. Furthermore, the Christian meal is based on the Passover, begun during the time of Moses.

From a Wikipedia article on the "Dying-and-rising gods" category of ancient Near East religions:

"One of the leading scholars in the deconstruction of the "dying-and-rising god" category was Jonathan Z. Smith, whose 1969 dissertation discusses Frazer's Golden Bough, and who in Mircea Eliade's 1987 Encyclopedia of Religion wrote the "Dying and rising gods" entry, where he dismisses the category as "largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceeding late or highly ambiguous texts", suggesting a more detailed categorization into "dying gods" and "disappearing gods", arguing that before Christianity, the two categories were distinct and gods who "died" did not return, and those who returned never truly "died"."

Smith also wrote:

“Some of these divine figures simply disappear, some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future, some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.” (volume 4, page 521-522)

If there is no credible support for a dying and rising deity in the ancient religions, then Christianity cannot possibly be indebted to them. Jesus of Nazareth is God and was God before He died. He rose again as He promised, but He did not become God in the process.

Thus, unlike the false gods of the "dying-and-rising gods" category, He is unique in history despite the claims of similarity made by non-Christians.

+++

If you need more:

Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection
http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/

Hope this helps.