Rev. Keith Baker, The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting

8/7/2019 Rev. Keith Baker, The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting

1/22

THE

REFORMED THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Vol. 62 APRIL, 2003 No.1

The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting - Part 1

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so isyour faith . . . you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15: 14, 17)

The matter of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ has beenan issue since the earliest days of Christianity, when the Jews accused Jesus' disciples of stealing the body (Matt 27:62-66). From that time on, various theories have arisen to try and explain the phenomenon that effectivelythrust Christianity as a missionary religion onto the Roman Empire, andsubsequently the world. The number of recent articles and monographs thathave been devoted to this topic from both people professing Christianityand people claiming to be disinterested observers shows that the resurrection of Christ remains an important topic for investigation and, for Chris

tians, of defence.One of the strands of inquiry that dates back to early times is the com

parison of the early Christian proclamation of the resurrection with religions of the Graeco-Roman world. Pagan critics such as Celsus claimedthat Christianity was derivative of Graeco-Roman cults. In the twentiethcentury, a renewed interest in this line of inquiry emerged. Authors such asReitzenstein tried to demonstrate the similarities between the pagan mystery cults and early Christianity. They argued that so many of the featuresoverlapped that one could not help but conclude that early Christianity wasnot unique, as it claimed, but had appropriated many of the beliefs andpractices of Graeco-Roman religion.


2/22

2 The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting - Part 1

This theory is picked up and expanded in a recent book by T. Freke andP. Gandy, entitled The Jesus Mysteries. In brief, they argue that early Christianity was a Jewish adaptation of the current and popular mystery cults, in

which the story of Jesus is a version of the myth of the dying and risinggodman. Whilst most mistook this myth for a 'literal history', the Gnostics,who understood it, reached an enlightened state of recognising the 'Christin themselves'.1

I t is with this understanding of the resurrection that I intend to interact inthis essay. Can the early Christian proclamation of the resurrection be likened to a concept of resurrection in Graeco-Roman religions of the day? Isit fair to cast the resurrection of Jesus as a myth which has been misunderstood as history by so many for so long? How 'new' was the proclamationof the bodily resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman setting?

I have chosen Freke and Gandy's book as a conversation partner forseveral reasons. First, although written for a popular market, it claims to bebased upon solid scholarship, and gathers together the views of many ofthose who have argued along a similar line. I t represents one of the latestexpressions of a theory which has a long pedigree. Second, because the

book is aimed at a popular market, it has the potential to influence readerswho do not have access to resources to verify its strong claims for an alternative understanding of the central tenet of Christianity, the resurrection ofJesus. I have had close contact with one such person, who has been persuaded they can no longer believe in Christianity after reading this book.My hope is that this essay will form the basis of a response which might beused at a popular level to refute the argument advanced by Freke and Gandy,and others before them.

Method

Freke and Gandy assert that mystery cults of the first century were intimately bound up with an understanding of a resurrected god. I will therefore begin by examining the myths that underpinned the two chief GraecoRoman mystery cults current in Corinth in the time of Paul, in order touncover their understanding of the resurrection of their gods. I will thencompare these findings with the presentation of Jesus' resurrection in 1

1 T. Freke & P. Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?(London: Thorsons, 1999), p.ll .


3/22

3The Reformed Theological Review 62:1 (April, 2003)

Corinthians, especially chapter 15.There are good reasons to choose Corinth as a base for this comparison.

First, there is solid external evidence that allows us to date Paul 's fIrst letter

to Corinth at an early stage in the spread of Christianity. Acts 18: 12 mentions Gallio as the proconsul of Achaia while Paul was in Corinth for thefirst time. There is a rescript of the Roman emperor Claudius to the peopleof Delphi which can be securely dated to 51AD, and which mentions theproconsul Gallio. I t is therefore likely that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around55AD from Ephesus, only twenty years or so after the death and resurrectionof Jesus.

Second, the letter contains several traditions which can be dated muchearlier than this (e.g. 1 Cor 11 :2; 15:3b-5), some of which go back to Jesushimself (e.g. the Lord's Supper tradition, 1 Cor 11 :23). Each of these ismarked out by the formula, 'For what I received, I passed on to you'. Theserepresent a core of teaching and belief that is very close to the source theyare discussing. For these reasons, 1 Corinthians is an excellent source todiscover the earliest Christian belief regarding the resurrection of Jesus;even Freke and Gandy are prepared to allow it as genuine evidence for

early Christian belief.2

Third, the city of Corinth itself was a hotbed of religious activity, andtherefore a good place to scour for evidence of a Graeco-Roman view of'resurrection' in the first century. Pausanias describes at least twenty sixsacred places for the Graeco-Roman pantheon and mystery cults (e.g. Description of Greece 1:7; 5:1-5). Archaeology has attested shrines to Neptune, Apollo, Aphrodite, Venus, Octavia, Asclepius, Demeter, Core, andPoseidon. Not only were there many cults, but there is also evidence within

1 Corinthians that Paul knew of them and their practices (1 Cor 8:4-6; 10: 14,20-30). Thus, if there were anywhere that Paul might wish to express hisChristian understanding of resurrection to his audience in terms drawn fromGraeco-Roman cults, one might expect it in correspondence regarding resurrection addressed to a place like Corinth. For these reasons the comparison of 1 Corinthians and the mystery cults of Corinth is a confined andsuitable case study by which to test the plausibility of the 'Jesus Mysteries'thesis.

2 Jesus Mysteries, p.185.


4/22

4 The Resurrection o f Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting - Part i

Resurrection in Mystery Cults in CorinthI will first examine the concept of 'resurrecti


5/22


b. Demeter/Isis

The other major mystery cult thought to be connected with the resurrection of a god is the cult of Demeter and her daughter Persephone (otherwise

known as Core). Archaeology attests shrines to Demeter and Core in Corinth in Paul's time and, given the fame of the Eleusinain Mysteries since thesixth century Be, it is likely that Paul would have had some knowledge ofwhat its devotees believed.

The myth that underlies the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone isdetailed in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, recorded by Hesiod. The parts ofthe myth most relevant to our interests here are as follows: Pluto, lord of theunderworld, kidnaps Demeter's daughter Persephone and takes her to hisabode (Hymn to Demeter, 10-32). Demeter mourns her loss and, during anextended sojourn on the earth, reveals her divinity to the people at Eleusis(Hymn, 265-274). She causes a drought, keeping the seed 'hid' in the ground(Hymn, 306-314), which then causes Zeus to tell Pluto to give Persephoneback to Demeter (Hymn, 347-356). On her way out of the underworld,Persephone eats a pomegranate seed given to her by Pluto (Hymn, 370-74),which causes her to spend a third of each year away from Demeter in the

underworld.When we tum to consider the type of 'resurrection' portrayed in thismyth, it is clear that Persephone's 'rising' from the underworld for twothirds of the year is clearly based upon the cycle of nature, as this extractshows:

But if you have tasted food, you must go back again beneath the secret places ofthe earth, there to dwell a third part of the seasons every year: yet for the twoparts you shall be with me and the other deathless gods. But when the earth

shall bloom with the fragrant flowersof

spring in every kind, then from therealm of darkness and gloom thou shalt come up once more to be a wonder forgods and mortal men (Hymn to Demeter, 397-404).

In addition, Wedderburn makes the important observation that devoteesof the mystery religions did not view the gods who followed the pattern ofvegetation, such as Persephone, as 'resurrected gods'. I t was more appropriate to speak of their 'return' rather than their 'resurrection' . Moreover, it

is striking that the early Christians' terms for the resurrectionof

Jesus(ciVclCJTQCJLS" and EYElPW) were not the ones used by the Graeco-Romanreligious devotees to describe the actions of their deities (e.g. c i V Q ~ L W C J L S " or


6/22


TTaALVYYEVEGLa).5I will now tum to an examination and comparison of the early Christian

understanding of resurrection as found in Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthinans

15.

Resurrection in 1 Corinthians

Paul's argument regarding the resurrection of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15begins by reminding the Corinthians of the foundation on which the churchin Corinth had been established: ' . .. this is what we preach, and this is whatyou believed' (1 Cor 15:1-11). It is generally agreed that verses 3b-5 arefrom a pre-Pauline kerygmatic formula, as indicated by the use of 'received'( T T a p E A a ~ o v ) and 'handed on' (TTapEowKa), and the fourfold usage of 'that'(OTL) to introduce each line. Here is a statement of Christian belief whichprobably predates Paul's conversion (c. AD 35), and which he is likely tohave received from the disciples of Jesus approximately ten years after theevents themselves. The value of this statement of the resurrection of Jesusis that it is not mentioned in an apologetic context, but as an agreed platform of teaching from which Paul can draw inferences for the Corinthian

situation. The details of this formula reveal some crucial distinctives in theway the early Christians expressed their understanding of the resurrectionof the one they worshipped.

The first line states: 'that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures' (XpLGTOS- CtTTE8avEvUTTEP TWV a ~ a p T L w v ~ ~ w v KaTu TUS- ypacj>us-).Within this line there are elements which separate the early Christian understanding from a Graeco-Roman 'godman'. First, the title 'Christ' indicates that the person of Jesus is tied very closely with the Jewish faith as

expressed in the Old Testament. 'Christ' (XpLGTOS-) was the Greek termused to translate the Hebrew 'Messiah'. The Messiah in Jewish expectationwas a kingly figure, descended from the line of David (2 Sam 7), who wouldcome in the 'last days' to bring in the rule ofYHWH's kingdom (Ps 2; 110;Isa 11). That Jesus is identified as this figure of Jewish expectation, and notwith any of the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods, weighs against his identification as the 'godman' of mythology. Second, the idea of a once for allvicarious death for sins is something absent from Graeco-Roman religion.

5 A. 1. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection (Ttibingen: l.C.B.Mohr, 1987),p.209.


7/22


In the myths of Persephone and Osiris, their respective deaths are describedas a result of inter-god rivalries. Paul's assertion here, however, is that Jesus' death was deliberate and purposeful. It had consequences for all hu

manity, rather than just those who worshipped him in a particular area. Third,Jesus' death is portrayed as a fulfilment of the Jewish Scriptures, believedto have been spoken by YHWH, whom the Jews claimed was the one andonly God. Nowhere is the 'death' of one of the Graeco-Roman gods predicted in such a way; nor are their deaths a 'fulfilment' of holy writings.

The second line of the kerygma states, 'that he was buried' (OTl ETa


8/22


demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has mali ciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has dis placed the sealing or other stones, against such one I order that trial be insti

tuted [ .. . ] In case of contravention I desire that the offender be sentenced tocapital punishment. .. 8

This inscription, dated between 41-54 AD, was written in the wake of thespread of early Christianity. One suggestion for its issue is as a response tothe Jews who had claimed that Jesus' body had been taken from its tomb. I f

this were the case, it would provide external evidence to the truth affirmedin this line of the kerygma, namely, that 'he was buried' in a tomb, and then

rose to leave the empty tomb later testified to by the Gospel narratives.The third line of the kerygma in 1 Corinthians 15 states, 'that he was

raised on the third day according to the Scriptures' (OTl E ' Y ~ ' Y E p T a l Tn~ ~ E p q Tl] TPLTlJ KaTeI TeIS 'Ypa


9/22


Jesus. This interpretation, however, is far from adequate. Given the historical nature of the verbs already used (died, was buried, was raised), it wouldbe unusual for the formula to refer now to an event that was not also thought

to be factual and historical.

Paul's List of WitnessesThe early kerygma that Paul has been citing ends at verse 5. He then

adds his own list of witnesses to the risen Christ: five hundred of the brothers, then James, then all the apostles, then lastly, himself (1 Cor 15:6-8).One of the striking features of the reference to the five hundred brothers isthe comment that they saw the risen Christ 'at the same thne' . This makes itextremely unlikely that they had all imagined the experience, for the chancesof more than five hundred having the same hallucination at the same timeare remote at best. In addition to this, Paul mentions that most of thesepeople were still alive at the time he was writing (1 Cor 15:6). This can onlyhave been to make it known that there were a large number of witnessesother than himself who could, if necessary, be approached to corroboratehis assertion of the resurrection of Jesus. There is no other adequate expla

nationof

such a detail in this sectionof

Paul's letter. Paulis

declaring thatthis event happened in history, in the same way that something like his visitto them had happened, and therefore he can draw valid inferences to counter their erroneous assertion that there would be no general resurrection ofthe dead (1 Cor 15:12).

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 'Myth'?Having analysed some of the details of Jesus' resurrection given in 1

Corinthians 15, we now tum to a comparison with the Graeco-Roman mystery cult myths. One of the key building blocks of Freke and Gandy's thesisis the idea that the myths of the so-called 'god-men' share the same 'basicanatomy'. They then fmd this same anatomy the New Testament. That is,they argue that the New Testament presentation of the resurrection of Jesusfits the anatomy of a dying and rising god myth, and therefore it should beunderstood as a myth:

Early literalist Christians mistakenly believed that the Jesus story was different

from other stories of Osiris-Dionysus because Jesus alone had been an historical rather than a mythical figure. This has left Christians feeling that their faith


10/22


is in opposition to all others-which it is not. 1O

The question that arises from this method is whether or not the New

Testament presentation of the resurrection can be fairly labelled 'myth'. Interms of our own case study, can the presentation of Jesus' resurrection in 1Corinthians 15:3-8 be fairly described as 'mythical'?

To answer this, I will look in detail at a section of Plutarch's recordingof the myth of Isis-Osiris. To begin his account of the myth to his correspondent Clea, he states: ' . . . whenever you hear the traditional tales whichthe Egyptians tell about their gods . . . you must not think that any of thesetales actually happened in the manner in which they are related' (Isis andOsiris, 355B). He further qualifies his account by telling Clea that what isimportant is not the myth itself, but observing the established rites of worship sincerely (355D). Regarding the details of the mythical narrative,Plutarch feels free to omit those that are 'unprofitable or superfluous' (355D).At many points the details are uncertain, and Plutarch gives several different accounts arising from different regions and sources. For example, thegoddess Isis is supposed to have killed the child of a queen ('whose namesome say was Astarte, others Saosis, and still other Nemanus') by lookingat him, but then the author states: 'Others will not have it so, but assert thathe fell overboard into the sea from the boat that was mentioned above'(357E). There is much repetition of this 'Some say this, others say that'device throughout his account, which suggests that specific details werenot important to the accurate relating of the myth.

I t is also clear that much of the myth is related because it explains current religious practice in Plutarch's day. An example of this is seen in a

detail of Isis' gathering of the dismembered body of Osiris:Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the malemember, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and thelepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these veryfishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replicaof the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of whichthe Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival (Isis and Osiris, 358B)

10 Freke & Gandy, Jesus Mysteries, p.16.


11/22


This aetiological function of the myth is reinforced by Plutarch's ownwords:

[ ... J the somewhat fanciful accounts here set down are but reflections of some

true tale which turns back our thoughts to other matters; their sacrifices plainlysuggest this, in that they have mourning and melancholy reflected in them; andso does the structure of their temples [ . . .J (Isis and Osiris, 359A).

It is evident in this example that specific details are not important in thismyth, but rather a general sequence of supposed events which add up to agenerally agreed upon picture of the activities of the god. In addition, thevalue of the myth in the ancient writer's eyes lies in its power to explain

current religious practice.When Plutarch's account is compared with Paul's presentation of the

resurrection of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, the differences are striking. Thereare no instances of Plutarch's, 'some say this, others say that' device. As wehave already noted, Paul's purpose for setting out the beliefs of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 is neither apologetic nor didactic, but rather to'remind' (1 Cor 15:1) the Corinthians of the common ground they share sothat he can move on to discuss their view of their own future resurrection.This purpose would be undermined if there were substantially differentversions of the resurrection of Jesus. Rather, Paul preserves the core of thebelief that had been handed down to him: 'For what I received, I passedonto you as of first importance' (1 Cor 15:3a).

Neither is Plutarch's aetiological motive evident in Paul's presentation.In this regard, some, including Freke and Gandy, have pointed to a parallelwith the Christian resurrection story and the early Christian celebration ofEaster. A . D. Nock, however, asserts an important difference. He arguesthat Easter observance did not rise out of belief in the resurrection, butdeveloped later by gradual stages out of the Jewish celebration of thePassover. 11 In other words, the early Christians did not hold to the resurrectionof Jesus as a means of explaining the significance of their Easter ritual, forthat explanation was found in the Jewish festival of the Passover, asreinterpreted in the last Supper (Lk 22:7-23). Rather, the reason for theirproclamation of the resurrection of Jesus should be seen in the physical

11 A. D. Nock, 'A Note on the Resurrection', in A. E. J. Rawlinson (ed.), Essays onthe Trinity and the Incarnation (London: Longmans, 1933), pA8.


12/22


death and resurrection of the historical Jesus, which had procured for themthe forgiveness of sins.

Canons of t-listory Writing in the First Century ADDespite these clear differences, Freke and Gandy still assert that the

resurrection in 1 Corinthians should be understood as myth, a way of preserving a story which can somehow be appropriated to the individual throughritual practice and reflection. A further question which then arises is: howwould a first century AD reader of Paul's letter have understood the assertions made therein? Were there standards by which Paul could assert theresurrection as historical fact, rather than as mythical 'quasi-fact?

I t is clear from other ancient sources that a genre of 'historical fact writing' existed, whereby history was distinguished from myth. The Romanhistorian Livy makes this distinction in his preface:

Such traditions as belong to the time before the city was founded, or rather waspresently to be founded, and are rather adorned with poetic legends than basedupon trustworthy historical proofs, 1 propose neither to affirm or refute .. .It isthe privilege of antiquity to mingle divine things with human, and so to adddignity to the beginnings of cities .. . But to legends such as these [ie. that Marswas the Founder of Rome], however they shall be regarded and judged, 1 shall,for my own part, attach no great importance (Annals 1:7-9).

Josephus, in his record of the Jewish War, declares: 'Yet shall the realtruth of historical facts be preferred by us, how much soever it be neglectedamong the Greek historians' (War, Preface, 16). He entreats his readers tooverlook his display of emotion in the text, even though he knows it is'contrary to the rules for writing history' (War, Preface, 11). He concludeshis preface by speaking of what follows: ' .. .1 have written it down for thesake of those that love truth, but not for those that please themselves [withfictitious accounts]' (War, Preface, 30).

There are other examples that could be cited,12 but these two show thatthere existed in the minds of Graeco-Roman and Jewish writers of Paul'sday a distinction between the wliting of 'facts' and the writing of 'myth'.One then has to ask: which of these categories does Paul's presentation in 1

12 Cf. Thucydides, History of the Peloponesian War, 1;1; Sallust, Conspiracy ofCatiline, 177; Polybius, Histories, 5:5; Appian, Roman History, p.13.


13/22


Corinthians 15 look like? The appeal to witnesses, some important ones byname, and many others o f whom were alive and could be contacted forverification of details, must point us towards the conclusion that Paul was

assuming historical reality for the details he was transmitting. l3

Conclusion

Freke and Gandy's thesis is that Jesus of Nazareth was yet another example of a 'dying and rising god' commonly found in the Graeco-Romanreligious landscape of the frrst century AD. As such, Christians have beenmistaken in their understanding of Jesus' resurrection as an historical event,and therefore the person of Jesus as unique in the history of the world. Inthe case study undertaken above, I believe this thesis is found wanting. Themyths that underlie the major mystery cults likely to be found in Corinth inthe tilne of Paul demonstrate a vastly different concept of 'resurrection' tothat of early Christianity. Osiris wasn't 'resurrected' in any bodily sense,but rather transferred between realms to become lord of the underworld;Persephone was thought to 'return' in line with the cycle of seasons. Incontrast, the earliest kerygma demonstrates a serious concern with the his

torical factof

the bodily resurrectionof

a man who was the fulfilmentof

Jewish prophecy, the Messiah.In a further article I intend to examine the theological, eschatological

and missiological frameworks espoused by 1 Corinthians and the mysterycults of Corinth respectively, and to reinforce my conclusion that Freke andGandy's thesis of Jesus as a 'dying and rising god' typical of the GraecoRoman religious climate is unsustainable.

KEITH BAKER

Macquarie Anglican Churches, Sydney

13 It is worth noting that the early Creed that Paul cites, as well as the additional listof witnesses given by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3b-8 also fulfils the Jewish criteria for proving facts in a case of law, as set out in Deut 17:6; 19: 15. These passages speak of theneed for more than one witness to establish facts in a legal trial; that Paul is aware ofthis seems clear from an independent context, 2 Cor 13:1, where he compares histwo visits to 2 witnesses that have plainly established the facts; cf. H.Strathmann,IV, 'martu-', in Kittel (ed), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, n.p. onCD Rom. cf. also 1 Cor 15: 15, where Paul says that he and the other apostles are'witnesses' , 'testifying about God that he raised Jesus from the dead'.


14/22

97The Reformed Theological Review 62:2 (August, 2003)

The Resurrection of Jesusin its Graeco-Roman Setting, Part 2

The resurrection of Jesus has been incorrectly understood as an historicalevent, with disastrous consequences. So argue T. Freke and P. Gandy in theirbook, The Jesus Mysteries, published in 1991. 1 They claim that earlyChristianity was a Jewish adaptation of the current and popular mystery cults,in which the story of Jesus is a version of the myth of the dying and risinggodman. In a previous article, I sought to show how the Jesus Mysteries

thesis is found wanting through a comparisonof

the conceptof

resurrectionin 1 Corinthians and in the Graeco-Roman mystery cults of first centuryCorinth. In this article, my goal is to highlight some other conceptual problemsthat arise for the Jesus Mysteries thesis from the data of 1 Corinthians. Since1 Corinthians was written to a pluralistic Graeco-Roman city, areas of Paul'sthinking which indicate incongruity with a Graeco-Roman worldview are amajor problem for the Jesus Mysteries thesis.

Language of 'Mystery'A problem in Freke and Gandy's work is the way Paul is tied to the beliefs

of the mystery cults via the language of 'mystery'. Paul must have beenaware of 'mystery' religions, and one could even make a good argument thathe was aware of the language that was used in them. However, Paul uses theword 'mystery' in a totally different sense from that of the Graeco-Romanrites. There, it meant something that was not to be shared, a set of holy secretsinto which one was initiated through special ceremonies. In 1 Corinthians a

'mystery' is knowledge that was once hidden by God, but has now beenrevealed. Raymond Brown, in a seminal work, has catalogued the Semiticbackground to the term 'mystery', and asserts that its usage in 1 Corinthiansreflects this background first and foremost. 2 For example, he argues that theuse of the expression EV ~ U a T r l P L 0 in 1 Corinthians 2:7 does not refer to theGraeco-Roman idea of new ideas reserved for the few, but is Paul's attempt touse language from his Jewish background to 'subsume the plan [of salvation

IT . Freke and P. Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God? (London: Thorsons, 1999), p.11. 2 R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term "Mystery" in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), pp.40-50.


15/22


through Christ] and its realisation in one phrase.'3 Another example is foundin 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, where Paul says, 'Listen, I tell you a mystery: Wewill not all sleep, but we will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of aneye, at the last trumpet'. So, with this clear difference in the way that Paul isusing a key term related to Graeco-Roman mystery cults, the distance betweenthe content of their presentations of resurrection is widened, rather thannarrowed, as in Freke and Gandy's thesis. I t seems that Paul, by 'declaringthe mystery', is deliberately trying to present his understanding of Jesus'resurrection as not comparable to anything in Graeco-Roman mystery religions.

Resurrection within different concepts of timeA major problem for the notion that early Christianity was a Jewishadaptation of a Graeco-Roman mythical dying and rising god lies in the vastlydifferent eschatologies in the two systems of thought.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explicitly connects the resurrection of Jesus withthe 'end of time'. Christ is said to be 'the frrstfruits of those who have fallenasleep' (v. 20). That is, just as Christ has risen, so all will rise at his secondcoming (v. 23). This resurrection of all will mark the end: 'Then the end will

come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyedall dominion, authority and power' (v. 24).4 There is a distinctly linear viewof history here, one that begins with the creation of the first man Adam, and isdriven by God's unfolding revelation of his solution to the problem of sin thatcame through Adam: 'For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be madealive' (v. 22). This history ends with Christ's defeat of his last enemy, death,as all escape the clutches of death in the final resurrection (v. 26). All of thishas been made possible by the events 'of first importance': 'Christ died for

our sins according to the Scriptures ... was buried . . . and was raised' (vv. 3-4).Thus, the resurrection of Jesus is portrayed as part of a history that movesfrom creation to new creation in a straight line. I t is a once-off event thatmarks out a distinctly Christian view of the end of time, namely, that it hascome in Christ, and will come for all who are united to him by faith.

The Graeco-Roman mythical portrayal of a resurrected god stands withina markedly different understanding of time. As noted in the myth of Demeterand Persephone in the previous article, the dying and rising of the god is

3 Ibid., pp.41-42. 4 R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), pp.28-34, notes how this phrase is linked to Psalm 110 and Jewish eschatological expectation.


16/22


17/22


god. The goddess Isis appears to him and promises him protection in this lifeand a blessed existence in the afterlife (Metamorhposes 11.15). Klauck makes

this observation of the expectations of the initiates into the mystery cults ingeneral:The hope for salvation can be innerworldly, looking for protection from life'smany tribulations ego sickness, poverty, dangers on journey, and death; but it canalso look for something better in the life after death. I t always involves anintensification of vitality and of life expectation, to be achieved throughparticipation in the indestructible life of a god. 7

The mystery-cult initiate did not expect that they would experience somesort of physical resurrection in the same way that the early Christians whoread 1 Cor 15 would have. 8 The overwhelming evidence from the ancientsources is that a bodily resurrection was thought to be impossible. 9 Lane Foxpoints out that the idea would have actually seemed absurd to them: 'Thinkingpagans had worried more about the beginning of the world than its possibleend. There was no question about the body being 'resurrected' : the factswere obvious to anyone who opened a grave and saw bare bones.' 10

This analysis points to clear differences. The Christian's understanding of

the resurrection of Jesus in relation to themselves was a guaranteenow

oftheir own resurrection in the future, and their salvation from God's wrathwhich would come at the judgment at the end of the age, when this worldwould be destroyed. The mystery-cult initiate, on the other hand, believedthat by participating in the cult of the 'resurrected' god, they were invokingthe protection of that god for the experiences of this life, and for the afterlifeto come. 11 However, the Graeco- Roman notion of the afterlife did not involveany process of passing through an eschatological judgment in a resurrected

body.In fact, the only cult which possibly espoused an eschatology of judgmentsimilar to that in 1 Corinthians 15 is Mithraism. Freke and Gandy assert that

7 Klauck, Religious Context, p.88. 8 M. Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God (London: SCM Press, 1986; repro 1997), pp.23-28. 9 E.g. Homer, Iliad 24.551,756; Aeschylus, Eumenidies 647f.; Herodotus, History 3.62.3f; Euripides, Helen 1285-87; cf. P. G. Bolt, 'Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the

Graeco-Roman World', in R. N. Longenecker (ed.), Life in the Face of Death. The Resurrection Message o f the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p .74. 10 R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (London: Penguin, 1986), p.265. I I A. J. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background (Ttibingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987),p.189.


18/22

101The Reformed Theological Review 62:2 (August, 2003)

similarities between the Christian and Mithraic eschatological systems providefurther evidence for Christianity's derivation from Graeco-Roman religion. 12

One problem with this assertion is the lack of evidence that has survived for

Mithraism. Their assertion is based upon the work of Cumont in 1903, whichFerguson notes is a 'best guess', rather than a platform upon which one wouldwish to construct a convincing argument. 13 Another problem lies in the factthat the type of Mithraism that is likely to have had any influence on Paul isRoman Mithraism, for which evidence of such a similar eschatological systemis lacking. 14 Therefore it seems that there is no Graeco-Roman parallel to theeschatology that Paul is asserting, and no clear source from which he couldhave 'borrowed' these ideas. Since Paul 's discussion of the resurrection of

Jesus is inseparably bound up with a linear view of time that will come to anend with the judgment of the world and the resurrection of all believers, andsince there seems to be no Graeco-Roman parallel to this combination ofbeliefs, it seems fair to assert that Paul's presentation of the resurrection ofJesus is significantly different from that of the Graeco-Roman climate to whichhe was writing. IS

The Foolishness of the Gospel

A further problem for Freke and Gandy's thesis is evidence Paul providesregarding the way his gospel was received by Graeco-Roman society inCorinth. Freke and Gandy state that the 'ancients recognised that all the variousMystery godmen [ego Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Mithras] were essentiallythe same mythic being', and so 'elements from different myths and rites werecontinually combined and recombined to create new forms of the Mysteries.' 16Further to this, they claim that 'the great Pagan philosophers' such as Socrates,Empodocles, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Diogenes were 'the enlightenedmasters of the Mysteries'.17 I f this were the case, one would expect that suchphilosophers of the ancient world would have no problems receiving Paul's

12 Freke and Gandy, Jesus Mysteries, pp.89-90. 13 E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp.270-271. 14 Ibid. 15 Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection, p. 196, who notes that in contrast to the portrayal of Osiris as one who merely 'continued to exist', 'resurrection for Jews and Christians was nonnally part of God's new, final re-creation of the world that he had made.' Cf. also pp.230-32. 16 Freke and Gandy, Jesus Mysteries, pp.28-29.17 Ibid, 20-21.
http:///reader/full/religion.12http:///reader/full/religion.12http:///reader/full/lacking.14http:///reader/full/lacking.14http:///reader/full/Mysteries'.17http:///reader/full/religion.12http:///reader/full/lacking.14http:///reader/full/Mysteries'.17


19/22

102 The English Standard Version: A Review Article

message of a 'dying and rising godman'.The evidence from 1 Corinthians, however, suggests otherwise. Paul asserts

that the gospel he is preaching is 'foolishness' to the wise men of the GraecoRoman world:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to uswho are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy thewisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent 1 will frustrate'. Where isthe wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Hasnot God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of Godthe world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through thefoolishness of what was preached (8la T115' j.1WpLa5' TOU KTJPvYj.1aT05') to save

those who believe ( l Cor 1:18-21).It is fair to assume that the expression ' the message of the cross' is unpacked

in the kerygma he summarises in 1 Cor 15:3b-5, for there it is cited as acommon ground of belief between the Corinthian church and himself (1 Cor15:11: OUTW5' K T l P U ( J ( J O ~ E V K a l OUTW5' ETTl(JTEu(JaTE - 'thus we preach andthus you believed'). The 'message of the cross' is that the man Jesus whodied the humiliating death of a slave on a cross did so for the forgiveness ofsins, in accordance with the Jewish Scriptures, and then rose again from thedead, also in accordance with those Scriptures. It is this message that wasregarded as ' foolishness' by the Gentile world. In particular, Paul states thatthis gospel, deemed to be foolish, has in fact made foolish the wisdom heldby the philosophers.

In the light of Paul's comments, the following question arises: if the deathand resurrection of Jesus is properly understood as a Jewish assimilation ofGraeco-Roman myths, why would Paul's message be foolishness to theGraeco-Roman world? To put the question another way: if the philosopherswere the 'Grand Masters' of the mystery-cults which professed a dying andrising god, what was it about the Christian proclamation of the death andresurrection of Jesus that made their 'wisdom' foolish? The fact is the JesusMysteries thesis of Freke and Gandy does not explain this element of Paul'steaching in 1 Corinthians. I f Paul 's message about resurrection of Jesus weremerely an assimilation of mythical elements of other Graeco-Roman gods,then his Gentile audience would not have found it 'foolish' at all; they wouldmore likely have found it benign and unremarkable.

The'Oneness'ofGod

The Jesus Mysteries thesis also fails to explain Paul's strong anti-idolpolemic in 1 Corinthians 8. In that passage Paul states that there are many


20/22

The Reformed Theological Review 62:2 (August, 2003) 103

'so-called gods' , but only one 'God', and that idols that attract food offeringsare in fact nothing (1 Cor 8:5-6). Freke and Gandy do at one point try toaffirm the fact that even though Graeco-Roman religion appears to bepluralistic, underlying the pluralism was a belief that god was essentially one. 18

Quotes are listed from several authors from various parts of the ancient world,and from various times in history, which all discuss 'god' as being 'one'.This method assumes that all Graeco-Roman (and even Eastern) religion canbe treated as a single unit, and so if one part of it asserts that 'god is one', thenit can be asserted for Graeco-Roman religion in general, in a comparison toChristianity.19 Moreover, there is a difference in the type of 'oneness' that isrepresented by the quotes they collect, and they themselves recognise that

'Pagans could all worship the same one God via any particular god or goddessthat appealed to them without being in contradiction with their neighbourswho chose a different divine face.'2o

Paul, on the other hand, is asserting a 'oneness' of God that is in totalcontrast to this understanding. Speaking of the idols that represented manyof the Graeco-Roman pantheon in Corinth, he does not say that they are validavenues to the worship of the 'one god'. On the contrary, he argues that thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ has revealed that there is 'but one God,

the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is butone Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom welive' (1 Cor 8:6).21 He entreats those within the Corinthian church who havecome to realise that idols are in fact nothing to pay heed to the 'weak ', whostill believe that food sacrificed to the idols of such gods is defiled (1 Cor 8:713). Just as the death of Christ has brought the 'strong' into a knowledge ofGod that informs them that idols are nothing, so they ought to look out for the'weak', for whom Christ also died (1 Cor 8:11). So, in this section of hisletter, Paul argues that the 'oneness' of the God who has brought people intorelationship with himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus is totallyexclusive of other' gods' or 'idols '. They are not alternate avenues of worship

18 Freke and Gandy, Jesus Mysteries, pp.95-101. 19W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), p.27. 20 Freke and Gandy, Jesus Mysteries, p.97.

21 Bauckham, Go d Crucified, pp.45-79, shows how this reflects a consistent Christological reading of Isaiah 40-55, where God is one and idols are shown to be nothing, and where God reveals himself as Lord over the nations at the eschaton through the atoning work of the Suffering Servant.
http:///reader/full/Christianity.19http:///reader/full/Christianity.19


21/22


of the same God; they are nothing at all. Such an assertion written to a placelike Corinth, which contained many Graeco-Roman cults, is clear evidencethat early Christianity was not pluralistic, and so to argue that it was merelyanother expression of widely held Graeco-Roman beliefs is to disregard theclear, contrary evidence.

The missionary nature of Early ChristianityThe final element of 1 Corinthians which causes problems for Freke and

Gandy's thesis is the missionary nature of early Christianity. Paul explicitlylinks the fact of the historical resurrection of Jesus as the first fruits of theresurrection of all believers with his missionary endeavours, which havebrought him much hardship: 'Now if there is no resurrection, [ . . . J why do weendanger ourselves every hour? I die every day - I mean that, brothers - justas surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. I f I fought wild beastsin Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are notraised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'" (1 Co r 15:29-32). Paul'sargument is that i f there is no hope of his own resurrection, based on theresurrection of Jesus as the 'firstfruits', then his serious hardships have been

mvam.The trials Paul has endured are another witness to the truth of the message

of the resurrection which he is expounding to the Corinthian church in thisletter. 22 Barnett points out that the spread of Christianity through zealousmissionaries such as Paul must have arisen from an historical starting pointwhich necessitated the widespread proclamation of the message of theresurrection. 23 That is, the logic of history suggests that the phenomenon ofthe rapid and far flung proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus in the Roman

Empire and beyond is best explained by an historical resurrection of Jesus,which was believed to have consequences for all of humanity.

There is no parallel to this missionary activity within the mystery-cultswhich professed a 'dying and rising' god. The cult of Demeter had someadherents outside of Greece, but it is striking that the centre of the cult wasalways thought to be at Eleusis, the place the goddess was thought to havevisited during her sojourn to earth. The very fact that the Egyptian god Osiris

22 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp.768-772. 23 P. W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Leicester: Apollos, 1997), esp. pp.128131.
http:///reader/full/letter.22http:///reader/full/letter.22http:///reader/full/resurrection.23http:///reader/full/resurrection.23http:///reader/full/letter.22http:///reader/full/resurrection.23


22/22

Rev. Keith Baker, The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting

Documents

Transcript of Rev. Keith Baker, The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting