Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rev. Keith Baker, The Resurrection of Jesus in Its Graeco-Roman Setting
Rev. Keith Baker, The Resurrection of Jesus in Its Graeco-Roman Setting
REFORMED
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is
your faith ... you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15: 14, 17)
The matter of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been
an issue since the earliest days of Christianity, when the Jews accused Je
sus' disciples of stealing the body (Matt 27:62-66). From that time on, vari
ous theories have arisen to try and explain the phenomenon that effectively
thrust Christianity as a missionary religion onto the Roman Empire, and
subsequently the world. The number of recent articles and monographs that
have been devoted to this topic from both people professing Christianity
and people claiming to be disinterested observers shows that the resurrec
tion 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 reli
gions of the Graeco-Roman world. Pagan critics such as Celsus claimed
that Christianity was derivative of Graeco-Roman cults. In the twentieth
century, a renewed interest in this line of inquiry emerged. Authors such as
Reitzenstein tried to demonstrate the similarities between the pagan mys
tery cults and early Christianity. They argued that so many of the features
overlapped that one could not help but conclude that early Christianity was
not unique, as it claimed, but had appropriated many of the beliefs and
practices of Graeco-Roman religion.
2 The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting - Part 1
Method
Freke and Gandy assert that mystery cults of the first century were inti
mately bound up with an understanding of a resurrected god. I will there
fore begin by examining the myths that underpinned the two chief Graeco
Roman mystery cults current in Corinth in the time of Paul, in order to
uncover their understanding of the resurrection of their gods. I will then
compare 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?
3 Plutarch, for example, notes that the Greeks came to identify Osiris with Dionysus
due to his 'persuasive discourse combined with song and music' (Moralia 356B).
4 G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries: The Problem ofthe Pauline
Doctrine ofBaptism in Romans VI.i-ii, in the Light ofits Religio-Historical "Par
allels" (trans. J.P. Smith; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967), p.119.
The Reformed Theological Review 62:1 (April, 2003) 5
b. Demeter/Isis
The other major mystery cult thought to be connected with the resurrec
tion of a god is the cult of Demeter and her daughter Persephone (otherwise
known as Core). Archaeology attests shrines to Demeter and Core in Cor
inth in Paul's time and, given the fame of the Eleusinain Mysteries since the
sixth century Be, it is likely that Paul would have had some knowledge of
what its devotees believed.
The myth that underlies the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone is
detailed in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, recorded by Hesiod. The parts of
the myth most relevant to our interests here are as follows: Pluto, lord of the
underworld, kidnaps Demeter's daughter Persephone and takes her to his
abode (Hymn to Demeter, 10-32). Demeter mourns her loss and, during an
extended 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 Persephone
back 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 this
myth, it is clear that Persephone's 'rising' from the underworld for two
thirds of the year is clearly based upon the cycle of nature, as this extract
shows:
But if you have tasted food, you must go back again beneath the secret places of
the earth, there to dwell a third part of the seasons every year: yet for the two
parts you shall be with me and the other deathless gods. But when the earth
shall bloom with the fragrant flowers of spring in every kind, then from the
realm of darkness and gloom thou shalt come up once more to be a wonder for
gods and mortal men (Hymn to Demeter, 397-404).
TTaALVYYEVEGLa).5
I 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 15
begins by reminding the Corinthians of the foundation on which the church
in Corinth had been established: ' ... this is what we preach, and this is what
you believed' (1 Cor 15:1-11). It is generally agreed that verses 3b-5 are
from a pre-Pauline kerygmatic formula, as indicated by the use of 'received'
(TTapEAa~ov) and 'handed on' (TTapEowKa), and the fourfold usage of 'that'
(OTL) to introduce each line. Here is a statement of Christian belief which
probably predates Paul's conversion (c. AD 35), and which he is likely to
have received from the disciples of Jesus approximately ten years after the
events themselves. The value of this statement of the resurrection of Jesus
is that it is not mentioned in an apologetic context, but as an agreed plat
form of teaching from which Paul can draw inferences for the Corinthian
situation. The details of this formula reveal some crucial distinctives in the
way the early Christians expressed their understanding of the resurrection
of the one they worshipped.
The first line states: 'that Christ died for our sins according to the Scrip
tures' (XpLGTOS- CtTTE8avEv UTTEP TWV a~apTLwv ~~wv KaTu TUS- ypacj>us-).
Within this line there are elements which separate the early Christian un
derstanding from a Graeco-Roman 'godman'. First, the title 'Christ' indi
cates that the person of Jesus is tied very closely with the Jewish faith as
expressed in the Old Testament. 'Christ' (XpLGTOS-) was the Greek term
used to translate the Hebrew 'Messiah'. The Messiah in Jewish expectation
was a kingly figure, descended from the line of David (2 Sam 7), who would
come 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 not
with any of the Graeco-Roman pantheon of gods, weighs against his iden
tification as the 'godman' of mythology. Second, the idea of a once for all
vicarious death for sins is something absent from Graeco-Roman religion.
In the myths of Persephone and Osiris, their respective deaths are described
as a result of inter-god rivalries. Paul's assertion here, however, is that Je
sus' 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, believed
to have been spoken by YHWH, whom the Jews claimed was the one and
only God. Nowhere is the 'death' of one of the Graeco-Roman gods pre
dicted 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<Pll).
This asserts the historicity of the burial of Jesus within a tomb, which the
Christians then claimed was empty after the resurrection (e.g. Matt 28: 1-7).
Some have suggested that the absence of a specific mention of the empty
tomb in this detailed discussion of the resurrection shows that the empty
tomb was a later construct in Christian resurrection apologetic. 6 In response
to this, however, William Lane Craig shows that the sequence of events
listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3b-5 means that Paul did not need to men
tion the empty tomb specifically, for it is a clear inference. 7 In contrast,
Plutarch's account of the myth of Osiris records many different traditions
about where the body of Osiris is laid. He mentions that in his day, there is
one region in Egypt where many prosperous men are buried because it is
one of the places where the body of the great Osiris may lie (Moralia
359B,C). Paul's use of this early tradition shows that the early Christians
expressed themselves quite differently: their Lord had been buried in a tomb,
and then rose from the dead, leaving that tomb empty.
There is an inscription of an edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius that
was discovered in the region of Nazereth which is possible evidence sup
porting the early Christian tradition of Jesus' burial in a tomb and subse
quent absence from it. The ordinance reads:
It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for
those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or mem
bers of their house. If however any man has information that another has either
6 B. Lindars, 'The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb', in P. Avis (ed.), The Resur
rection ofJesus Christ (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993), p.125.
7 W. Lane Craig, 'The Empty Tomb of Jesus', in R. T. France & D. Wenham (eds.),
Gospel Perspectives. Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, Vol II
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), p.174.
8 The Resurrection of Jesus in its Graeco-Roman Setting - Part 1
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 to
capital punishment. .. 8
This inscription, dated between 41-54 AD, was written in the wake of the
spread of early Christianity. One suggestion for its issue is as a response to
the Jews who had claimed that Jesus' body had been taken from its tomb. If
this were the case, it would provide external evidence to the truth affirmed
in 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~'YEpTal Tn
~~Epq
Tl] TPLTlJ KaTeI TeIS 'Ypa<pCts). There is an exegetical issue here regarding
the relationship between the phrases 'he was raised on the third day' and
'according to the Scriptures'. The heart of the issue is that there are no Old
Testament SCliptures which mention specifically that the Messiah would
rise again on the third day. O'Collins concludes that since the fulfilment of
a specific Scripture was likely to have been a fundamental tenet of the ear
liest proclamation, and since Paul nowhere else mentions a specific fulfil
ment of Scripture referring to the resurrection, the most likely source of this
part of the kerygma was the historical fact of the disciples' discovery of the
empty tomb on the Sunday morning. 9 Again, it is important to note the
specificity of the early Christian proclamation of the gospel.
The fourth line of the kerygma states, 'that he appeared to Peter, and
then to the twelve' (W<P811 Kll<Pi ElTa TOts OWOEKa). Here we see the impor
tance given to eyewitness verification of the resurrected Jesus in the earli
est proclamation of the resurrection. These first witnesses include the leader
of the new movement, Peter, and those who would have exercised the high
est authority under him. Freke and Gandy try to explain this verse in non
historical terms; Peter and the others merely had a 'mystical experience' of
Jesus. This interpretation, however, is far from adequate. Given the histori
cal nature of the verbs already used (died, was buried, was raised), it would
be unusual for the formula to refer now to an event that was not also thought
to be factual and historical.
The question that arises from this method is whether or not the New
Testament presentation of the resurrection can be fairly labelled 'myth'. In
terms of our own case study, can the presentation of Jesus' resurrection in 1
Corinthians 15:3-8 be fairly described as 'mythical'?
To answer this, I will look in detail at a section of Plutarch's recording
of the myth of Isis-Osiris. To begin his account of the myth to his corre
spondent Clea, he states: ' ... whenever you hear the traditional tales which
the Egyptians tell about their gods ... you must not think that any of these
tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related' (Isis and
Osiris, 355B). He further qualifies his account by telling Clea that what is
important is·not the myth itself, but observing the established rites of wor
ship 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 differ
ent accounts arising from different regions and sources. For example, the
goddess Isis is supposed to have killed the child of a queen ('whose name
some say was Astarte, others Saosis, and still other Nemanus') by looking
at him, but then the author states: 'Others will not have it so, but assert that
he 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 were
not important to the accurate relating of the myth.
It is also clear that much of the myth is related because it explains cur
rent 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 male
member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the
lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very
fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica
of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which
the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival (Isis and Osiris, 358B)
It is evident in this example that specific details are not important in this
myth, but rather a general sequence of supposed events which add up to a
generally agreed upon picture of the activities of the god. In addition, the
value 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. There
are no instances of Plutarch's, 'some say this, others say that' device. As we
have already noted, Paul's purpose for setting out the beliefs of the resur
rection 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 so
that he can move on to discuss their view of their own future resurrection.
This purpose would be undermined if there were substantially different
versions of the resurrection of Jesus. Rather, Paul preserves the core of the
belief that had been handed down to him: 'For what I received, I passed
onto 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 parallel
with the Christian resurrection story and the early Christian celebration of
Easter. A. D. Nock, however, asserts an important difference. He argues
that Easter observance did not rise out of belief in the resurrection, but
developed later by gradual stages out of the Jewish celebration of the
Passover. 11 In other words, the early Christians did not hold to the resurrection
of Jesus as a means of explaining the significance of their Easter ritual, for
that explanation was found in the Jewish festival of the Passover, as
reinterpreted in the last Supper (Lk 22:7-23). Rather, the reason for their
proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus should be seen in the physical
death and resurrection of the historical Jesus, which had procured for them
the forgiveness of sins.
Josephus, in his record of the Jewish War, declares: 'Yet shall the real
truth of historical facts be preferred by us, how much soever it be neglected
among the Greek historians' (War, Preface, 16). He entreats his readers to
overlook his display of emotion in the text, even though he knows it is
'contrary to the rules for writing history' (War, Preface, 11). He concludes
his preface by speaking of what follows: ' .. .1 have written it down for the
sake of those that love truth, but not for those that please themselves [with
fictitious accounts]' (War, Preface, 30).
There are other examples that could be cited,12 but these two show that
there existed in the minds of Graeco-Roman and Jewish writers of Paul's
day 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
Conclusion
Freke and Gandy's thesis is that Jesus of Nazareth was yet another ex
ample of a 'dying and rising god' commonly found in the Graeco-Roman
religious landscape of the frrst century AD. As such, Christians have been
mistaken in their understanding of Jesus' resurrection as an historical event,
and therefore the person of Jesus as unique in the history of the world. In
the case study undertaken above, I believe this thesis is found wanting. The
myths that underlie the major mystery cults likely to be found in Corinth in
the tilne of Paul demonstrate a vastly different concept of 'resurrection' to
that 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. In
contrast, the earliest kerygma demonstrates a serious concern with the his
torical fact of the bodily resurrection of a man who was the fulfilment of
Jewish prophecy, the Messiah.
In a further article I intend to examine the theological, eschatological
and missiological frameworks espoused by 1 Corinthians and the mystery
cults of Corinth respectively, and to reinforce my conclusion that Freke and
Gandy's thesis of Jesus as a 'dying and rising god' typical of the Graeco
Roman 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 list
of witnesses given by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3b-8 also fulfils the Jewish criteria for prov
ing facts in a case of law, as set out in Deut 17:6; 19: 15. These passages speak of the
need for more than one witness to establish facts in a legal trial; that Paul is aware of
this seems clear from an independent context, 2 Cor 13:1, where he compares his
two 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. on
CD 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'.
The Reformed Theological Review 62:2 (August, 2003) 97
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 been
aware of 'mystery' religions, and one could even make a good argument that
he was aware of the language that was used in them. However, Paul uses the
word 'mystery' in a totally different sense from that of the Graeco-Roman
rites. There, it meant something that was not to be shared, a set of holy secrets
into which one was initiated through special ceremonies. In 1 Corinthians a
'mystery' is knowledge that was once hidden by God, but has now been
revealed. Raymond Brown, in a seminal work, has catalogued the Semitic
background to the term 'mystery', and asserts that its usage in 1 Corinthians
reflects this background first and foremost. 2 For example, he argues that the
use of the expression EV ~UaTrlPL0 in 1 Corinthians 2:7 does not refer to the
Graeco-Roman idea of new ideas reserved for the few, but is Paul's attempt to
use 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?
2 R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term "Mystery" in the New Testament
through Christ] and its realisation in one phrase.'3 Another example is found
in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, where Paul says, 'Listen, I tell you a mystery: We
will not all sleep, but we will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an
eye, at the last trumpet'. So, with this clear difference in the way that Paul is
using a key term related to Graeco-Roman mystery cults, the distance between
the content of their presentations of resurrection is widened, rather than
narrowed, as in Freke and Gandy's thesis. It seems that Paul, by 'declaring
the mystery', is deliberately trying to present his understanding of Jesus'
resurrection as not comparable to anything in Graeco-Roman mystery religions.
4R. 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
celebrated in conjunction with the seasons of winter and spring, the seasons
of death and new life for agricultural societies. These 'resurrections' are
understood as mythical representations of the continuous cycle of time. The
Roman poet Virgil gives us a further example of this prevalent Graeco-Roman
understanding of time:
Now is come the last age of Cumean song; the great line of the centuries begins
anew. Now the Virgin returns, the reign of Saturn returns; now a new generation
descends from heaven on high. [...J Yet will a few traces of old times live on, to
bid men to tempt the sea in ships, girdle towns with walls, and cleave the earth
with furrows. A second Tiphys will then arise, and a second Argo to carry chosen
heroes; a second war will be fought, and great Achilles will again be sent to Troy.5
This extract shows the expectation of the repetition of events within a
cycle of time, akin to the repetition of events portrayed in the myths of dying
and rising gods. This understanding of time is clearly quite different from the
linear concept associated with the resurrection of Jesus and his believers in 1
Corinthians 15.
5VIrgil, 'Eclogue IV', 4-7; 31-36, in Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid 1-6 (trans. H. R.
god. The goddess Isis appears to him and promises him protection in this life
and a blessed existence in the afterlife (Metamorhposes 11.15). Klauck makes
this observation of the expectations of the initiates into the mystery cults in
general:
The hope for salvation can be innerworldly, looking for protection from life's
many tribulations ego sickness, poverty, dangers on journey, and death; but it can
also look for something better in the life after death. It always involves an
intensification of vitality and of life expectation, to be achieved through
participation in the indestructible life of a god. 7
The mystery-cult initiate did not expect that they would experience some
sort of physical resurrection in the same way that the early Christians who
read 1 Cor 15 would have. 8 The overwhelming evidence from the ancient
sources is that a bodily resurrection was thought to be impossible. 9 Lane Fox
points out that the idea would have actually seemed absurd to them: 'Thinking
pagans had worried more about the beginning of the world than its possible
end. There was no question about the body being 'resurrected': the facts
were 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 guarantee now of
their own resurrection in the future, and their salvation from God's wrath
which would come at the judgment at the end of the age, when this world
would be destroyed. The mystery-cult initiate, on the other hand, believed
that by participating in the cult of the 'resurrected' god, they were invoking
the protection of that god for the experiences of this life, and for the afterlife
to come. 11 However, the Graeco-Roman notion of the afterlife did not involve
any process of passing through an eschatological judgment in a resurrected
body.
In fact, the only cult which possibly espoused an eschatology of judgment
similar to that in 1 Corinthians 15 is Mithraism. Freke and Gandy assert that
8 M. Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God (London: SCM Press, 1986; repro 1997),
pp.23-28.
3.62.3f; Euripides, Helen 1285-87; cf. P. G. Bolt, 'Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the
Resurrection Message of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p.74.
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
The'Oneness'ofGod
The Jesus Mysteries thesis also fails to explain Paul's strong anti-idol
polemic in 1 Corinthians 8. In that passage Paul states that there are many
The Reformed Theological Review 62:2 (August, 2003) 103
'so-called gods', but only one 'God', and that idols that attract food offerings
are in fact nothing (1 Cor 8:5-6). Freke and Gandy do at one point try to
affirm the fact that even though Graeco-Roman religion appears to be
pluralistic, 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 can
be treated as a single unit, and so if one part of it asserts that 'god is one', then
it can be asserted for Graeco-Roman religion in general, in a comparison to
Christianity.19 Moreover, there is a difference in the type of 'oneness' that is
represented by the quotes they collect, and they themselves recognise that
'Pagans could all worship the same one God via any particular god or goddess
that appealed to them without being in contradiction with their neighbours
who chose a different divine face.'2o
Paul, on the other hand, is asserting a 'oneness' of God that is in total
contrast to this understanding. Speaking of the idols that represented many
of the Graeco-Roman pantheon in Corinth, he does not say that they are valid
avenues to the worship of the 'one god'. On the contrary, he argues that the
death 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 but
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we
live' (1 Cor 8:6).21 He entreats those within the Corinthian church who have
come to realise that idols are in fact nothing to pay heed to the 'weak', who
still believe that food sacrificed to the idols of such gods is defiled (1 Cor 8:7
13). Just as the death of Christ has brought the 'strong' into a knowledge of
God 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 his
letter, Paul argues that the 'oneness' of the God who has brought people into
relationship with himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus is totally
exclusive of other' gods' or 'idols'. They are not alternate avenues of worship
1987), p.27.
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
of the same God; they are nothing at all. Such an assertion written to a place
like Corinth, which contained many Graeco-Roman cults, is clear evidence
that early Christianity was not pluralistic, and so to argue that it was merely
another expression of widely held Graeco-Roman beliefs is to disregard the
clear, contrary evidence.
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 ofHistory (Leicester: Apollos, 1997), esp. pp.128
131.
The Reformed Theological Review 62:2 (August, 2003) 105
came to be known as Dionysus and Sarapis in other parts of the world shows
that there was not the same preaching of a single message believed to be
revelation from the one God within Graeco-Roman religions. There was
nothing within the Graeco-Roman mystery cults that necessitated the taking
of one message to all places, for all gods were worshipped in harmony. The
distinct belief which drove the Christian mission was that the one true God
had acted in history in the death and resurrection of the person of Jesus of
Nazareth. The Jesus Mysteries thesis does not adequately explain this aspect
of early Christianity as evinced by Paul's testimony in I Cor 15: 29-32, for it
fails to take Paul on his own terms, as he links his missionary endeavours to
an argument for the future resurrection of all believers that is based on the
bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Conclusion
The historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus remains a crucial tenet
of the Christian faith. It was true for the Apostle Paul, preaching to pluralistic
first century Corinth, and it is true today. Were the resurrection of Jesus
merely a mythical expression of an inner reality, as the Jesus Mysteries thesis
postulates, it would surely not have attracted so many vehement attacks over
the years! It would have been dismissed as belonging to the realm of
subjectivity, good for those who are interested, but having no universal claim
on the lives of others. I have tried to show in this and my previous article, that
the resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be explained away as part of a 'dying
and rising god mythology', typical of first century Graeco-Roman religion.
There are just too many points of Paul's way of talking about the resurrection
in 1 Corinthians where the Jesus Mysteries thesis does not fit. Instead, we
can be confident that the Lord is Risen, he is risen indeed, and that that historical
fact brings with it the guarantee of sins forgiven (l Cor 15:3), and the
vanquishing of the universal enemy of mankind. 'The sting of death is sin,
and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (l Cor 15:56-57).
KEITH BAKER
Macquarie Anglican Churches, Sydney