Chapter 60
The ancient Greeks also believed that _Amphiaraus_--one of their most celebrated prophets and demi-G.o.ds--_rose from the dead_. They even pointed to the place of his resurrection.[224:7]
_Baldur_, the Scandinavian Lord and Saviour, is put to death, but does not rest in his grave. He too rises again to life and immortality.[224:8]
When "Baldur the Good," the beneficent G.o.d, descended into h.e.l.l, Hela (Death) said to Hermod (who mourned for Baldur): "If all things in the world, both living and lifeless, weep for him, then shall he return to the aesir (the G.o.ds)." Upon hearing this, messengers were dispatched throughout the world to beg everything to weep in order that Baldur might be delivered from h.e.l.l. All things everywhere willingly complied with this request, both men and every other living being, so that _wailing_ was heard in all quarters.[225:1]
Thus we see the same myth among the northern nations. As Bunsen says:
"The tragedy of the _murdered and risen G.o.d_ is familiar to us from the days of ancient Egypt: must it not be of equally primeval origin here?" [In Teutonic tradition.]
The ancient Scandinavians also wors.h.i.+ped a G.o.d called _Frey_, who was put to death, _and rose again from the dead_.[225:2]
The ancient _Druids_ celebrated, in the British Isles, in heathen times, the rites of the resurrected Bacchus, and other ceremonies, similar to the Greeks and Romans.[225:3]
_Quetzalcoatle_, the Mexican crucified Saviour, after being put to death, _rose from the dead_. His resurrection was represented in Mexican _hieroglyphics_, and may be seen in the _Codex Borgia.n.u.s_.[225:4]
The Jews in Palestine celebrated their _Pa.s.sover_ on the same day that the Pagans celebrated the resurrection of their G.o.ds.
Besides the resurrected G.o.ds mentioned in this chapter, who were believed in for centuries before the time a.s.signed for the birth of Christ Jesus, many others might be named, as we shall see in our chapter on "Explanation." In the words of Dunbar T. Heath:
"We find men taught everywhere, from Southern Arabia to Greece, by hundreds of symbolisms, the birth, death, and resurrection of deities, and a resurrection too, apparently after the second day, _i. e._, _on the third_."[225:5]
And now, to conclude all, _another G.o.d_ is said to have been born on the _same day_[225:6] as these Pagan deities; he is crucified and buried, and on the _same day_[225:7] rises again from the dead. Christians of Europe and America celebrate annually the resurrection of _their_ Saviour in almost the identical manner in which the Pagans celebrated the resurrection of _their_ Saviours, centuries before the G.o.d of the Christians is said to have been born. In Roman Catholic churches, in Catholic countries, the body of a young man is laid on a bier, and placed before the altar; the wound in his side is to be seen, and his death is bewailed in mournful dirges, and the verse, _Gloria Patri_, is discontinued in the ma.s.s. All the images in the churches and the altar _are covered with black_, and the priest and attendants are robed in black; nearly all lights are put out, and the windows are darkened. This is the "Agonie," the "Miserere," the "Good Friday" ma.s.s. On Easter Sunday[226:1] all the drapery has disappeared; the church is _illuminated_, and rejoicing, in place of sorrow, is manifest. The Easter hymns partake of the following expression:
"_Rejoice, Oh sacred Initiated, your G.o.d is risen. His death, his pains, his sufferings, have worked our salvation._"
Cedrenus (a celebrated Byzantine writer), speaking of the 25th of March, says:
"The first day of the first month, is the first of the month _Nisan_; it corresponds to the 25th of March of the _Romans_, and the _Phamenot_ of the _Egyptians_. On that day Gabriel saluted Mary, in order to make her conceive the Saviour. I observe that it is the same month, _Phamenot_, that _Osiris_ gave fecundity to _Isis_, according to the Egyptian theology.
_On the very same day, our G.o.d Saviour _(Christ Jesus)_, after the termination of his career, arose from the dead_; that is, what our forefathers called the _Pa.s.s-over_, or the pa.s.sage of the Lord. It is also on the _same day_, that our ancient theologians have fixed his return, or his second advent."[226:2]
We have seen, then, that a festival celebrating the resurrection of their several G.o.ds was annually held among the Pagans, before the time of Christ Jesus, and that it was almost universal. That it dates to a period of great antiquity is very certain. The adventures of these incarnate G.o.ds, exposed in their infancy, put to death, and rising again from the grave to life and immortality, were acted on the _Deisuls_ and in the sacred theatres of the ancient Pagans,[226:3] just as the "Pa.s.sion Play" is acted to-day.
Eusebius relates a _tale_ to the effect that, at one time, the Christians were about to celebrate "the solemn vigils of Easter," when, to their dismay, they found that _oil_ was wanted. Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was among the number, "commanded that such as had charge of the _lights_, speedily to bring unto him water, drawn up out of the next well." This water Narcissus, "by the wonderful power of G.o.d,"
changed into _oil_, and the celebration was continued.[227:1]
This tells the whole story. Here we see the _oil_--which the Pagans had in their ceremonies, and with which the priests anointed the lips of the Initiates--and the _lights_, which were suddenly lighted when the G.o.d was feigned to have risen from the dead.
With her usual policy, the Christian Church endeavored to give a _Christian_ significance to the rites borrowed from Paganism, and in this case, as in many others, the conversion was particularly easy.
In the earliest times, the Christians did not celebrate the resurrection of their Lord from the grave. They made the _Jewish Pa.s.sover_ their chief festival, celebrating it on the same day as the Jews, the 14th of Nisan, no matter in what part of the week that day might fall.
Believing, according to the tradition, that Jesus on the eve of his death had eaten the Pa.s.sover with his disciples, they regarded such a solemnity as a commemoration of the Supper and not as a memorial of the Resurrection. But in proportion as Christianity more and more separated itself from Judaism and imbibed paganism, this way of looking at the matter became less easy. A new tradition gained currency among the Roman Christians to the effect that Jesus before his death had not eaten the Pa.s.sover, but had died on the very day of the Pa.s.sover, thus subst.i.tuting himself for the Paschal Lamb. The
This _Easter_ celebration was observed in _China_, and called a "Festival of Grat.i.tude to Tien." From there it extended over the then known world to the extreme West.
The ancient Pagan inhabitants of Europe celebrated annually this same feast, which is yet continued over all the Christian world. This festival began with a week's indulgence in all kinds of sports, called the _carne-vale_, or the taking _a farewell to animal_ food, because it was followed by a fast of forty days. This was in honor of the Saxon G.o.ddess _Ostrt_ or _Eostre_ of the Germans, whence our _Easter_.[227:2]
The most characteristic Easter rite, and the one most widely diffused, is the use of _Easter eggs_. They are usually stained of various colors with dye-woods or herbs, and people mutually make presents of them; sometimes they are kept as _amulets_, sometimes eaten. Now, "dyed eggs were sacred Easter offerings in _Egypt_;"[228:1] the ancient _Persians_, "when they kept the festival of the solar new year (in March), mutually presented each other with colored eggs;"[228:2] "the _Jews_ used eggs in the feast of the Pa.s.sover;" and the custom prevailed in Western countries.[228:3]
The stories of the resurrection written by the Gospel narrators are altogether different. This is owing to the fact that the story, as related by one, was written to correct the mistakes and to endeavor to reconcile with common sense the absurdities of the other. For instance, the "_Matthew_" narrator says: "And when they saw him (after he had risen from the dead) they wors.h.i.+ped him; _but some doubted_."[228:4]
To leave the question where this writer leaves it would be fatal. In such a case there must be no doubt. Therefore, the "_Mark_" narrator makes Jesus appear _three times_, under such circ.u.mstances as to render a mistake next to impossible, and to silence the most obstinate skepticism. He is first made to appear to Mary Magdalene, who was convinced that it was Jesus, because she went and told the disciples that he had risen, and that she had seen him. They--_notwithstanding that Jesus had foretold them of his resurrection_[228:5]--disbelieved, nor could they be convinced until he appeared to _them_. They in turn told it to the other disciples, who were also skeptical; and, that they might be convinced, Jesus also appeared to _them_ as they sat at meat, when he upbraided them for their unbelief.
This story is much improved in the hands of the "_Mark_" narrator, but, in the anxiety to make a clear case, it is overdone, as often happens when the object is to remedy or correct an oversight or mistake previously made. In relating that the disciples _doubted_ the words of Mary Magdalene, he had probably forgotten Jesus had promised them that he should rise, for, if he had told them this, _why did they doubt_?
Neither the "_Matthew_" nor the "_Mark_" narrator says in what _way_ Jesus made his appearance--whether it was in the _body_ or only in the _spirit_. If in the latter, it would be fatal to the whole theory of the resurrection, as it is a _material_ resurrection that Christianity taught--just like their neighbors the Persians--and not a spiritual.[229:1]
To put this disputed question in its true light, and to silence the objections which must naturally have arisen against it, was the object which the "_Luke_" narrator had in view. He says that when Jesus appeared and spoke to the disciples they were afraid: "But they were terrified and affrighted, and _supposed_ they had seen a _spirit_."[229:2] Jesus then--to show that he was _not_ a spirit--showed the wounds in his hands and feet. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, _and did eat before them_."[229:3] After this, who is there that can doubt? but, if the _fish_ and _honeycomb_ story was true, why did the "_Matthew_" and "_Mark_" narrators fail to mention it?
The "_Luke_" narrator, like his predecessors, had also overdone the matter, and instead of convincing the skeptical, he only excited their ridicule.
The "_John_" narrator now comes, and endeavors to set matters right. He does not omit entirely the story of Jesus eating fish, _for that would not do, after there had been so much said about it_. He might leave it to be inferred that the "_Luke_" narrator made a mistake, so he modifies the story and omits the ridiculous part. The scene is laid on the sh.o.r.es of the Sea of Tiberias. Under the direction of Jesus, Peter drew his net to land, full of fish. "Jesus said unto them: Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
Jesus then cometh, and taketh _bread_, and _giveth them_, and _fish_ likewise."[229:4]
It does not appear from _this_ account that Jesus ate the fish at all.
He took the fish and _gave to the disciples_; the inference is that _they_ were the ones that ate. In the "_Luke_" narrator's account _the statement is reversed_; the disciples gave the fish to Jesus, _and he ate_. The "_John_" narrator has taken out of the story that which was absurd, but he leaves us to infer that the "_Luke_" narrator was _careless_ in stating the account of what took place. If we leave out of the "_Luke_" narrator's account the part that relates to the fish and honeycomb, he fails to prove what it really was which appeared to the disciples, as it seems from this that the disciples could not be convinced that Jesus was not a spirit until he had actually eaten something.
Now, if the _eating_ part is struck out--which the "_John_" narrator does, and which, no doubt, the ridicule cast upon it drove him to do--the "_Luke_" narrator leaves the question _just where he found it_.
It was the business of the "_John_" narrator to attempt to leave it clean, and put an end to all cavil.
Jesus appeared to the disciples when they a.s.sembled at Jerusalem. "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side."[230:1]
They were satisfied, and no doubts were expressed. But Thomas was not present, and when he was told by the brethren that Jesus had appeared to them, he refused to believe; nor would he, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."[230:2]
Now, if Thomas could be convinced, with all _his_ doubts, it would be foolish after _that_ to deny that Jesus was not in the _body_ when he appeared to his disciples.
After eight days Jesus again appears, for no other purpose--as it would seem--but to convince the doubting disciple Thomas. Then said he to Thomas: "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing."[230:3] This convinced Thomas, and he exclaimed: "My Lord and my G.o.d." After _this evidence_, if there were still unbelievers, they were even more skeptical than Thomas himself. We should be at a loss to understand _why the writers of the first three Gospels entirely omitted the story of Thomas_, if we were not aware that when the "_John_"
narrator wrote the state of the public mind was such that proof of the most unquestionable character was demanded that Christ Jesus had risen in the body. The "_John_" narrator selected a person who claimed he was hard to convince, and if the evidence was such as to satisfy _him_, it ought to satisfy the balance of the world.[230:4]
The first that we knew of the fourth Gospel--attributed to _John_--is from the writings of _Irenaeus_ (A. D. 177-202), and the evidence is that _he is the author of it_.[230:5] That controversies were rife in his day concerning the resurrection of Jesus, is very evident from other sources. We find that at this time the resurrection of the dead (according to the accounts of the Christian forgers) was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place, and that the persons thus restored by their prayers had lived afterwards among them many years. At such a period, when faith could boast of so many wonderful victories over death, it seems difficult to account for the skepticism of those philosophers, who still rejected and derided the doctrine of the resurrection. A n.o.ble Grecian had rested on this important ground the whole controversy, and promised Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, _that if he could be gratified by the sight of a single person who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christian religion_.
"It is somewhat remarkable," says Gibbon, the historian, from whom we take the above, "that the prelate of the first Eastern Church, however anxious for the conversion of his friend, thought proper to _decline_ this fair and reasonable challenge."[231:1]
This Christian _saint_, Irenaeus, had invented many stories of others being raised from the dead, for the purpose of attempting to strengthen the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. In the words of the Rev.
Jeremiah Jones:
"Such _pious frauds_ were very common among Christians even in the first three centuries; and a forgery of this nature, with the view above-mentioned, _seems natural and probable_."
One of these "_pious frauds_" is the "_Gospel of Nicodemus the Disciple, concerning the Sufferings and Resurrection of our Master and Saviour Jesus Christ_." Although attributed to Nicodemus, a disciple of Jesus, it has been shown to be a forgery, written towards the close of the second century--during the time of _Irenaeus_, the well-known pious forger. In this book we find the following:
"And now hear me a little. We all know the blessed Simeon, the high-priest, who took Jesus when an infant into his arms in the temple. This same Simeon had two sons of his own, _and we were all present at their death and funeral_. Go therefore and see their _tombs_, for these are open, _and they are risen_; and behold, they are in the city of Arimathaea, spending their time together in offices of devotion."[231:2]
The purpose of this story is very evident. Some "zealous believer,"
observing the appeals for proof of the resurrection, wis.h.i.+ng to make it appear that resurrections from the dead were common occurrences, invented this story _towards the close of the second century_, and fathered it upon Nicodemus.
We shall speak, anon, more fully on the subject of the frauds of the early Christians, the "lying and deceiving _for the cause of Christ_,"
which is carried on even to the present day.
As President Cheney of Bates College has lately remarked, "_The resurrection is the doctrine of Christianity and the foundation of the entire system_,"[232:1] but outside of the four spurious gospels this greatest of all recorded miracles is hardly mentioned. "We have epistles from Peter, James, John, and Jude--all of whom are said by the evangelists to have _seen_ Jesus after he rose from the dead, in none of which epistles is the fact of the resurrection even stated, much less that Jesus was seen by the writer after his resurrection."[232:2]
Many of the early Christian sects denied the resurrection of Christ Jesus, but taught that he will rise, when there shall be a general resurrection.