It is nothing new to draw comparisons or ana- logies between the NT story of the resurrection of Jesus and the mj'ths of the death and resurrection of gods in pagan religions. Celsus had already made a beginning in this direction. He compaied the NT narratives of the Resurrection with simil.ar mytlis in Greek story (see Origen, c. Geh. ii. 55 f.). What is characteristic of this new scientific school of thought is that it is no longer comparisons or
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST 363
analogies merely which are sought between the Gospel narratives and pagan nij-tlis, but an actual derivation the one from the other. (uiuUel, e.g., thus derives from Oriental, and ultimalely Irom liabylonian, conceptions, the NT story of tlic Ite- surrectiou from the dead on the thiril day {op. nt. pp. 76-S3 ; cf. pp. 31-.S5), the Ascension {ib. p. 71 i.), and the origin of Sunday as a Clinstum festival (ih pp. 73-76). And Cheyne holds that 'the apostle Paul, when he says (1 Co 15^'-) that Christ died and that He rose again "according to the Scriptures," in reality points to a pre-Christian sketch of the life of Clirist, partly . . . derived from widely-spread non-.Jewish myths, and em- bodied in .lewish writings' (Bible Problems, p. 113). This is the theory of Strauss over again, with the substitution of Babylonian mythology for Of prophecy.
In criticism ot such an attempted derivation ot the apostolic belief in the Resurrection it lias to be said : (1) that the funda- mental assumption or allefiation on which the apphi-ation ot the theory to the NT story depends, viz. the intluence ot Oriental conceptions on Jewish thought m the way of giving rise to a pre-Christian sketch ot a dying and rismg Messiah, is unjustilied. That Jewish thought in the time ot Christ was familiar with the idea of a resurrection of the dead— a resurrec- tion ot the body at the last day— is certain (though Gunkel s attempt to trace its origin to extra-Jewish Oriental sources must he contested ; see Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions tt.f the Last Things, p. «4). But that the idea of a d.^nng and rising .Messiah formed part of this thought, that the idea of a resur- rection from the dead was connected with the Messiah m current Jewish beliefs, is contrary to evidence. The notion ot a resur- rection of the Messiah had nothing corresponding to it in the beliefs of Judaism. Even when Jesus had given repeated iii- tiraations of His death and resurrection, and had represented this as in accordance with OT prophecy, so contrary was the idea to contemporary Judaism that the disciples themselves were ' slow of heart ' to believe the things that Jesus had spoken to them (Lk 24'.»f W-JB). . , ., .v,
(■>) «ot only is the fundamental assumption ot the theory without support, but the analogies quoted between the NT and extra-Jewish mvthological thought are altogether in- adequate for the purpose in view. If God is in all history we may expect to Und a preparation for the higher in the lower in the way of foreshadowings or prefiguiations of Christian truths in ethnic religious. But the analogies cited to explain the Christian ideas are no real parallels. Take, e.g., the mythological explanations of the Resurrection on the third day. "Why was the third day fixed upon for the occurrence? Strauss maintained that it was because of OT hints. The in- suffloiencj of sucli an answer Gunkel and Cheyne acknowledge, and they claim that the matter can be satisfactorily explained onlv from the historical-religious point of view, as due to the intluence of pagan myths of solar deities on Jewish thought. 'The three days' of Jonah and 'the three and one half ot Dn. (-25 1-2') and the Apocahpse (1112.14) arc all forms of Oriental sun-god myths (Gunkel,' p. me.; Cheyne, p. llUfE.). To this influence also is due the observance of .Sunday as the day of the commemoration of the Resurrection. The Lord's Day was the day of the sun-god. Easter Sunday was the day of the sun s emergence from the night of winter (Gunkel, pp. 74, 79). It is not strange that this was the day on which Jesus was said by the primitive Christian cominunitj»to have risen. It is really an ancient Oriental festival which has here been taken over liy the earlv Church. But a borrowed story ought at least to ha\e some real likeness to its source, and there is no true analogy between the story of Christ's death and resurrection on the third day and the' pagan myths of slain and risen gods, beyond the general ideas of death and survival. These myths were polytheistic in origin, and were a poetic rendering of the phenomena of the yearly death and revival of vegetation repre- sented in ritual and personifled. The death and resurrection of Christ, on the other hand, were historical facts which bore no relation whatever to these myths. The resurrection of Attis, Adonis, and Osiris was an annual affair symbolizing the sun s victory over winter in spring. The resurrection of Christ, how- ever was commemorated not only once a year at Easter, but also everv Sunday. Had it been suggested by pagan myths and rituals, its commemoration would have shown some trace at least of the rites which suggested the belief, but nothing such is found. That Christ's death and resurrection took place at the time of such a pagan commemoration may be regarded as a coincidence and nothing more, although it ma.\ have had some influence in furthering the acceptance of the story itself among pagans. The pagan beliefs in slam and risen gods, there- fore, bear no real likeness to the account ot Christ's death and resurrection in the NT. Attis, Adonis, and Osiris are in no sense historical characters. They are ideal embodiments of the decay and reanimation of natural life year by year. Even if the apostles knew of such myths there is no evidence that they suggested to them the idea of a resurrection of their Master. All the evidence shows that the last thing the disciples expected was such a resurrection. The change in their attitude came about suddenly. It was not a slow growth, and it claimed to