The Divine Origin of Revelation

3. The Moral Teaching of Christianity

Buddhism is compared with Christianity also in its ethical teaching, which is said to equal, nay to surpass, that of the Catholic Church. The essence of Buddhist ethics is contained in the fourth of the “Noble Truths” mentioned above, to wit: “The life of true holiness is that of the monk; life in the world is imperfect and necessarily unsatisfactory,—the preparatory stage of the weak.” The fundamental precept of the Buddhist monk reads: “Thou shalt separate thyself from this world.”⁷⁵⁵755Oldenberg, op. cit., pp. 338 sq.

The Buddhist norm of morality is not the will of a supreme lawgiver, but the effect of one’s actions, the reward or punishment which they entail. Moral goodness is merely a means to attain the ultimate goal of life, namely, relief from pain.

Among the “five orders” the observation of which constitutes the “fivefold righteousness” of the Buddhist, the most remarkable is the first, which forbids him to slay any living creature. Buddha himself explains this command as follows: “A monk will refrain from killing living creatures …. He lays down the staff and the weapon. He is sympathetic and merciful; with kindness he aims to promote the welfare of all living beings. That is a part of his righteousness.”⁷⁵⁶756Op. cit., p. 342. On the strength of this declaration it has become customary to designate “merciful love for all creatures” as the essence of Buddhistic morality, in order to show how closely related that religion is to Christianity. Another resemblance between the two religions, according to certain writers, is the strict life led by the Buddhist monks, their practice of perfect poverty and chastity, and their habit of confessing their transgressions at stated periods.

a) The ethical teaching of Buddhism, taken as a whole, differs essentially from that of Christianity in two respects. Buddhistic morality, in consequence of its atheistic foundation, lacks the concept of absolute duty, and its negative goal, relief from pain, has nothing whatever in common with the positive supernatural aim of Christian morality, namely, eternal beatitude in the possession of God. Add to this the consideration that the Buddhist ascete, in opposition to the Christian, who is assisted by divine grace, has to rely entirely upon himself and his natural powers.

b) While the “merciful love” of Buddhism bears some external resemblance to Christian charity, the two differ fundamentally in their aims and motives. “The language of Buddhism has no words for the poetry of Christian charity, which St. Paul exalted so highly,—that love which is greater than faith and hope, and without which even he who could speak with the tongues of men and angels would be as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals, and thus the realities in which that poetry assumed flesh and blood within the Christian world, have no counterpart in the history of Buddhism …. Buddhism does not command a man to love his enemy, but simply not to hate him; it awakens and nourishes the feeling of amicable benevolence and mercy toward all creatures, without ever forgetting that if the heart adheres to creatures, it will be immersed in pleasure, and consequently in the suffering of this perishable life.”⁷⁵⁷757Oldenberg, op. cit., pp. 343 sq.

c) In its external features the ordinary life of Buddhist monks and nuns has many points of similarity with the life led by Catholic religious. But one must not overlook the far-reaching differences between the two states. These differences are mainly the following: (1) The rule of life laid down by Buddha binds all his followers, whereas in the Christian Church the religious life is merely a matter of counsel; (2) the “Order” established by Buddha possesses neither vows nor an authoritative government; (3) the spirit and aim of religious life among the Buddhists is closely adapted to the peculiar philosophy of Sākyamuni and therefore differs substantially from that which inspires our Catholic religious Orders.

As to confession of sins among the Buddhists, it is not a means of obtaining forgiveness, but a disciplinary method of strengthening the will and preserving the penitent from fresh faults and delivering him more and more from the power of desire, which is the cause of all suffering.

No one has thus far been able to show that the religious life, as led in the Catholic Church, depends in any of its essential features on a Buddhistic doctrine or model. But even if such a dependence could be established in regard to outward practices, it would in no wise run counter to Christian principles, for since Jesus Christ left no positive instructions concerning the manner of the religious life, His followers were free to borrow it elsewhere if they preferred.

The case is different with confession, which, in connection with the institution of the Sacrament of Penance,⁷⁵⁸758John XX, 22 sq. is governed by a positive command of Christ and consequently could not have been borrowed from Buddhism.

More closely related to Christianity than Buddhism, from the ethical point of view, is the later Stoicism represented chiefly by Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. These philosophers both in theory and practice betray an earnest striving after virtue, which is inspired by love of moral purity and, generally speaking, dictated by a sound practical judgment. All their efforts are bent upon delivering themselves from the external goods and the evils of this world in order to find true happiness in self-denial. The height of perfection was reached by the younger Stoa in its doctrine of universal love, which embraces all men, even the poorest slave.

It cannot be denied that the later form of Stoicism in its noblest representatives comes very near to Christianity. But it had certain radical defects, which must not be overlooked when there is question of drawing a comparison between the two religious systems. The fact that Seneca⁷⁵⁹759Cfr. F. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, Vol. III, 1, 5th ed., Leipsic, 1923, pp. 305 sq., 727; L. F. Miller, A History of Philosophy, New York, 1927, p. 63. justifies suicide and Epictetus⁷⁶⁰760Zeller, op. cit., pp. 746 sq.; Miller, op. cit., p. 63. seems to have denied free will and the immortality of the soul, forbids us to put Stoicism and Christianity on the same level. Moreover, the Stoa was not able to give men the strength necessary to comply with its exalted ethical demands and for this reason its influence never went beyond a narrow circle of philosophers, whereas Christianity transformed whole nations and raised them to the highest plane of moral perfection.

4. The Incarnation of the Son of God

That the gods assume human form and associate with men and women here on earth, is a belief that frequently recurs in the religions of pagan antiquity. This belief is most plainly exemplified in the avatars (incarnations) of the Hindu god Vishnu, the eighth of which is regarded by many as a parallel to the Incarnation of the Divine Logos. Vishnu here appears as identical with the god Krishna, whose terrestrial adventures are recounted in detail in Hindu mythology. Krishna, we are told, was the son of Vāsudeva and Devaki. When he was a child, his uncle strove to take his life, and Krishna was compelled to flee to a foreign country (Gokula), where he was kindly received by shepherds and wrought many astonishing miracles, even before he grew up. As a young man Krishna led a profligate life and, after defeating his uncle, became king of the Yadava, performed many heroic feats, and finally was killed by an arrow shot into his heel.⁷⁶¹761Cfr. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Vol. III, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905, pp. 138 sq.

While it may be readily admitted that the avatara (i.e., descent) of Krishna shows some resemblances with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, no one can fail to see that these resemblances are purely external. There is no inner relationship between the two doctrines.

a) The accounts that have come down to us concerning the apparitions and incarnations of pagan deities are mythological poems based on a belief in providence and inspired by a desire for help from higher quarters. The account of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, comes to us from historically reliable sources, and the mystery itself, as revelation tells us, has its ultimate cause in a supernatural, divine decree.⁷⁶²762Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 5th ed., St. Louis, 1925.

b) The manner in which Christ becomes man differs toto caelo from that in which the Hindu god assumes flesh. Krishna is the natural son of human parents, whereas Christ enters this world through the supernatural operation of the Holy Ghost.

c) The object of the Incarnation of Christ, according to the express testimony of the Gospels, is the redemption of mankind from sin, whereas no definite object can be assigned to the avatars of Krishna.

d) The career of Krishna is characterized by an objectionable eroticism, which stands in the sharpest possible contrast to the purity and holiness of Christ.

In view of these fundamental differences the Gospel narrative cannot possibly have been inspired by the Krishna myth.

5. The Earthly Life of the Son of God

Some events in the life of Buddha exhibit remarkable analogies with corresponding facts in the life of Christ. Among them are the miraculous conception and birth of the Saviour, His meeting with Simeon in the Temple, the forty days’ fast, His temptation by Satan, and His transfiguration on the Mountain. These resemblances have led some Rationalist critics to assert that the New Testament derives from Buddhistic sources. In order to enable us to make a fair comparison, let us first survey the respective events in the life of Buddha.

The Miraculous Conception and Birth of Buddha.—Buddha resided in heaven before he began his life as a penitent on earth. When he left, he called together the gods and instructed them concerning the 108 “light-giving gates of the law.” In vain the sons of the gods begged him not to darken heaven by his departure. Meanwhile, on earth, Queen Maya was preparing herself by a fast to become the mother of Buddha. Buddha entered her body as a ray of light or, according to another tradition, as a small white elephant. After ten months, when the child was to be born, the Queen asked her husband for permission to visit the beautiful garden Loumbini in Kapilavastu. She set out with a large retinue of attendants, and upon her arrival sat down under the most beautiful of all the trees in the garden, where Buddha emerged from her womb, was received by the gods of the four winds and given his first bath by a hundred thousand sons of gods. Sitting upon a lotus blossom, he looked about with the mien of a mighty lion, loudly proclaimed his superiority to all the gods, and announced that redemption was nigh.⁷⁶³763K. von Hase, Neutestamentliche Parallelen zu buddhistischen Quellen (Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen, 1. Serie, Heft 12), Berlin, 1905, pp. 12 sq.

a) Buddha’s Meeting with Asita.—A wise man by name of Asita ascends into the Tusita-heaven during his meditations and there learns that a great Buddha has been born on earth. Scanning the world with divine vision, he beholds the child in the palace of King Suddhodana at Kapilavastu, where he is adored by the whole world and extolled by an army of heavenly spirits. Asita descends from heaven, goes to the palace of the king, and says to him: “Rajah, a son has been born to thee; I wish to see him.” The king orders the child to be brought in to pay homage to the noble Brahman visitor. But Asita arises from the throne upon which he has been placed, bows low before the child, and exclaims: “Incomparable is this boy, the best of men.” Then he suddenly begins to weep, and when he is asked for the reason, replies: “Because I am old and feeble, and therefore shall not see the magnificence of the Buddha into whom this child will develop.”⁷⁶⁴764Op. cit., pp. 14 sq. For different other versions of the Asita story see E. J. Thomas, The Life of Buddha as Legend and History, London and New York, 1927, pp. 28 sqq. Oldenberg rejects the legend as highly colored poetry, and for the “canonical” accounts, based upon the poem, only claims that they are “unadorned fragments of the little that an older generation knew, or thought it knew, of those things.” (Thomas, op. cit., p. 59.)

b) The Temptation and the Fast.—The temptation of Buddha is differently reported in the various sources available to us. One authority says that Māra (the wicked one), dreaming that his kingdom was in danger, summons his army against Buddha, who sits alone under a tree, and tries to scare him by the aid of innumerable monsters which he has gathered. Buddha merely shakes his head, which is enough to make Māra take to his heels, and the projectiles which the soldiers send after him are changed into flowers. But Māra refuses to desist from his purpose and says to his daughters: “Go and see whether Buddha is susceptible to the charms of love.” But their seductive advances are repulsed. The deities of the Bodhi tree praise Buddha and revile Māra. The wicked one makes a third attempt; but Buddha touches the earth with his hand, and it gives forth a mighty roar, which chases Māra away.

According to another version, Māra appeared to Buddha in the air and cried: “Do not lead the life of a penitent! In seven days thou shalt be lord of the universe.” But Buddha refused to listen; sitting immovably with crossed feet for six years, he endeavored to obtain visions and magic powers. After he had fasted forty-seven days and nights, Māra again appeared to tempt him and said: “Sweet creature, your end is near; offer sacrifice and eat a portion of the meat to save your life.” Buddha answered: “Death is the inevitable termination of life. Why should I try to avoid it? He who falls in battle is a noble hero. He who is defeated is as good as dead. Demon, I will soon triumph over thee!”⁷⁶⁵765Hase, op. cit., pp. 19 sq.; for the Pāli version of the temptation of Buddha see Thomas, op. cit., pp. 71 sq.

c) The Transfiguration.—Towards the end of his life Buddha was presented with a golden robe. When his favorite disciple Ānanda invested him with the garment, suddenly his body became so bright that the garment seemed to have lost its lustre. Thereupon Buddha said to Ānanda: “This takes place on two occasions—on the night when the perfect man reaches his enlightenment, and when he attains final Nirvāna.”⁷⁶⁶766E. Hardy, Der Buddhismus, new ed. by R. Schmidt, Münster, 1919, pp. 41 sq. Thomas (The Life of Buddha, 245 sq.) notes that “this is the whole of the evidence” on Buddha’s alleged transfiguration and that the story quoted by Van den Bergh van Eysinga (Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen, Göttingen, 1904) from Bigandet’s Life of Gautama is a mere Burmese elaboration of this passage.

a) If it were true, as has been claimed, that important events in the life of Christ were borrowed from Buddhist sources, and consequently were nothing but pure poetry, the Gospels could no longer be accepted as history. But they are history, as we have demonstrated, genuine and reliable history, and therefore their contents cannot have been taken from Buddhist mythology.

b) If we compare the Buddhistic tales with the Gospel reports, we find a remarkable resemblance in some points, but we also find so many important differences that the two sources cannot possibly be accepted as of equal worth. Christ and Buddha are both miraculously conceived; but the circumstances under which they are conceived and born into the world have nothing whatever in common. The baroque character of the Buddhist sources, when compared with the plain unvarnished story of the Gospels, shows that they are not history, but pure legend. Simeon and Asita both pay homage to a newborn infant and enthusiastically proclaim his mission; but the manner of their appearance, their personal attitude towards the child, and the nature of their paeans, differ toto caelo from one another. Both Buddha and Christ prepare themselves by long-continued fasting for their career as founders of a new religion; both are tempted by the devil, who promises them the dominion of the world; both emerge triumphantly from the temptation. But the history of the respective temptations shows important variations. The temptation of Christ on the roof of the Temple has no counterpart in the life of Buddha. Māra only tries to persuade Buddha to eat, in order to rekindle his will to live, whereas the devil attempts to seduce Christ in order to work miracles for a purely selfish purpose. Māra promises Buddha that he will make him ruler of the world if he will give up his penitential practices, while the devil promises Christ universal dominion if He will fall down and adore him.

The transfiguration of Buddha resembles the transfiguration of Christ in this respect that both bodies are described as shining with overwhelming brightness. But of the other circumstances of the transfiguration of Christ not one has an analogue in the life of Buddha.

c) After deducting the numerous and important differences, how are we to explain the resemblances that still remain between the life of Christ and that of Buddha? Some of them, as, e.g., the tale of Buddha’s miraculous conception and birth, and his victory over the demons, can no doubt be deduced from the analogous mission and conditions of life of the two personages. But quite a number of them for the present remain inexplicable. This much, however, can be said with assurance: The similarity between Buddha and Christ is not so great as to permit us to assume that the Gospels were derived from Buddhistic sources.⁷⁶⁷767E. J. Thomas, one of the best recent writers on the subject of Buddhism, says (op. cit., p. 238): “Although in the earliest legends there is no mention of this miraculous birth, yet the belief may be pre-Christian. Even so the question whether it has influenced Christian dogma does not deserve further discussion.” The Annunciation has been compared by A. J. Edmunds with the interpretation of Māhāmāya’s dream by the Brahmins; his theories are discussed and refuted by L. de la Vallée Poussin in La Revue Biblique, 1906, pp. 353 sqq. All the important passages for determining the question of the relation of the Gospel accounts to Buddhism have been collected by R. Seydel in Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zur Buddhasaga und Buddha-Lehre mit fortlaufender Rücksicht auf andere Religionskreise untersucht, Leipsic, 1822, and by G. A. Van den Bergh van Eysinga in Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen, Göttingen, 1904. The last-mentioned writer, who canvasses the field very thoroughly, finds only fifteen instances of parallels to incidents in the Gospels that are important enough for discussion (cfr. Thomas, op. cit., p. 238).

Nor is there any historical evidence that our Gospels have been influenced by Buddhism. True, in the early days of Christianity, there was a lively commerce between Rome and Greece on the one side, and India and China (via Syria) on the other; but we have no historic warrant for believing that Buddhistic doctrines and legends were brought to the Occident at this period. The very name Buddha is unknown in Europe before the close of the second century A.D.⁷⁶⁸768It first occurs in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, l. I, c. xv (Migne, P. G., VIII, 780).

d) On the other hand, it is not impossible that Buddhism may have been influenced by Christianity. True, Buddha himself lived about 500 years before the Founder of the Christian religion; but in the course of centuries Buddhism came in contact with many other philosophies and religions and, by borrowing from them elements which were originally foreign to it, underwent many important changes. This statement applies particularly to the accounts that have come down to us of the life of Sākyamuni. The Buddha legend attained its definitive form only after the beginning of the Christian era. There is reason to suppose that Christianity was introduced into India at an early date. The ancient legend that St. Thomas the Apostle preached the Gospel in that far-off country and visited the court of King Gundaforus, seem to be based on reliable evidence. The description of the relations existing between the near East and India, as contained in the legend of St. Thomas, agrees with the historical facts so far as they are known to us, and ancient coins, recently discovered, prove that a king by name of Gundaforus (Gundapharna) actually ruled about the year 50 A.D., in Northwestern India. Hence, it is not at all impossible that Christian doctrines may have influenced Buddhism in the Apostolic age.

e) There are facts which seem to indicate that Buddhism did come into direct contact with Christianity in the first and second centuries, and was essentially transformed by the latter, and that this is the real source of the resemblances which exist between the two religions. Joseph Dahlmann, S.J., has called attention to the fact that in the second century of the Christian era a peculiar change took place in the Buddhistic religion. Up to that time Buddha was represented by the fine arts impersonally, as an abstract figure, e.g., the wheel of doctrine. In the second century he begins to occupy a dominating position as god and redeemer in worship and art. His figure is not clothed according to Hindu custom, but he wears a garment that was common in Greece and Rome at that time. It is evident that this garment is borrowed from the West. Since Buddha suddenly appears in Hindu works of art clad in Occidental garb just about the time when the Christian religion was first introduced into India, it is reasonable to suppose, with Father Dahlmann, that Buddhism derived the figure of Buddha as redeemer from the Christian Church. “Two facts are certain: (1) that under King Gundapharna Christianity penetrated to the regions along the Indus and Kabul rivers, which that Hindu-Parthian monarch had partly inherited and partly conquered; (2) that at the time when Christianity was brought to the Kabul valley, the afore-mentioned change in worship and art began to take place in Gandhāra. The same Buddha, whose figure had been carefully concealed, suddenly appears in the monuments of Buddhist art, not as a simple messenger of redemption, as in the ancient Buddhist legend, but as god and redeemer of the world, not in ordinary Hindu apparel, but in a garment similar to that worn by the higher classes during the first centuries of the Roman Empire in Antioch and Rome. … No one will deny that there must be some intrinsic connection between these facts. Only by the fact that Christianity began to spread in the valley of the Indus can we explain the change that suddenly came over the very essence of Buddhism.” In view of these considerations the same writer says on the subject of the resemblances between Buddhism and Christianity: “If the agreement is really so striking that it can be explained only by the assumption that one party borrowed from the other, then the religious worship and art of Buddhism have borrowed from Christianity, not vice versa. Together with the idea of the redeemer, which was taken over from the Christian religion, a number of tales connected with the life of Christ have found their way from the Gospels into the legend of Buddha, and through this into the worship and art of Gandhāra.”⁷⁶⁹769Dahlmann, Indische Fahrten, Vol. II, Freiburg i. B., 1908, pp. 99–157. Thomas says on the subject of the Gandhāra sculptures (op. cit., pp. 221 sq.): “It is in the sculptures of the Gandhāra school in the first century B.C. that the earliest figures of Buddha are found. With new believers in the foreign invaders, new sculptors introducing the ideals of Hellenic art, and no doubt a newer and different school of Buddhism, there was a break in the tradition. A type of the figure of Buddha modelled on that of Apollo was created, from which the Indian and all others are derived. In the Gandhāra type the hair is long and gathered up with a band into a bunch forming a prominence on the top of the head. It is this feature which, as M. Foucher shows, explains the peculiar shape of the head on the later Indian form. On this the prominence remains, but it becomes a part of the skull, and the sculptor being unable to reproduce the flowing lines of hair, covered the head with small circular knobs, which are sometimes elaborated into curls turning to the right.” A. Foucher discusses these problems at length in Les Scènes Figurées de la Légende de Bouddha, Paris, 1896; Étude sur l’Iconographie Bouddhique de l’Inde, Paris, 1900; Étude sur l’Iconographie Bouddhique de l’Inde d’après des Textes Inédites, Paris, 1905; L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhāra, 2 vols., Paris, 1905–08; The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays, Paris and London, 1917.

Dahlmann’s theory is not absolutely certain. O. Wecker has tried to show⁷⁷⁰770“Christlicher Einfluss auf den Buddhismus” in the Theologische Quartalschrift of Tübingen, 1910, pp. 417–457; 538–565. that Buddhism may have been led by an independent process of thought to worship its founder as god and redeemer, and it is, therefore, possible that only the manner of representing Buddha is to be attributed to Occidental influence. Nevertheless it is plain that the opinion of those who attempt to trace Christianity to Buddhist sources is untenable.⁷⁷¹771After reviewing the above-quoted “parallels” between Buddhism and Christianity, and a few others for which we have not the space, Dr. Edward J. Thomas, sub-librarian of the Cambridge University Library, whose competency in the matter is undisputed and whose “freedom from bias” is highly praised by The Month (London, 1917, p. 565), concludes a careful comparison of Buddhism and Christianity as follows: “The Gospel stories all belong to the first century A.D. They were all written down at a time when a living tradition and memory of the events may have existed. For one school this tradition did exist. The story of the Samaritan woman or the choosing of the disciples was told because there really was a Samaritan woman and disciples who had been fishermen. In this case we are dealing with historical events, so that any resemblances to the legend of Buddha are merely accidental curiosities. For others the Gospels even in their earliest form are not a collection of actual memories, but only the attempts of the early Christians to imagine a historic setting for their peculiar beliefs. Even in this case the question whether Indian legends contributed to the resulting structure is a question of literary history that has never been convincingly decided, and in many cases never seriously considered. If scholars could come to an agreement on what instances are ‘cogent parallels’ or cases of actual borrowing, we should then have the data of a problem for the historians to decide. But so far this hope is illusory. Seydel’s fifty instances are reduced by Van den Bergh to nine. In proportion to the investigator’s direct knowledge of the Buddhist sources the number seems to decrease. E. W. Hopkins discusses five ‘cogent parallels,’ but does not consider any of them very probable (India Old and New, pp. 125, 144). Garbe assumes direct borrowing in four cases, Simeon, the temptation, Peter walking on the sea, and the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Charpentier considers Simeon the only unobjectionable example (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1915, 442, reviewing Garbe’s Indien und das Christentum). Other scholars reject all connection. In any case the chief events of the life—birth, renunciation, enlightenment, and death, the very items which might give strength to the comparison—disappear from the question. Van den Bergh van Eysinga also discusses instances of parallels in the Apocryphal Gospels. Some of these works show a knowledge of names connected with North West India, and the relationship depends here upon the contact between Indian culture and early Christian missions in the East. This is a quite different question from that of the presence of Indian legends in Palestine, and lends no additional support to a theory concerning the canonical Gospels that breaks down in every one of its supposed proofs.” (The Life of Buddha as Legend and History, London and New York, 1927, pp. 247 sq.)

6. The Death and Resurrection of Christ

The death and Resurrection of Christ have their parallel in the dying and resurgent god of certain other religions. This idea occurs in Western Asia and found its symbolic representation in the so-called mystery-religions of pagan antiquity. With the possible exception of Mithraism, the death and revival of a god, and the love of a goddess for a god, whom she loses, recovers, and reawakens to life, is common to all the Oriental mystery-religions known to us. With the Egyptians it is Osiris and Isis; with the Phœnicians and Syrians, Adonis and Astarte; with the Phrygians, Attis and Cybele. The Hellenic parallels do not fit very well into this scheme, but in them, too, the death of a hero and his survival as a god play an important rôle.⁷⁷²772J. Blötzer, S.J., “Das heidnische Mysterienwesen zur Zeit der Entstehung des Christentums,” in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 1906, pp. 390 sq. These parallels are worked out in detail, and not without frequent exaggeration, by S. Angus in his work, The Mystery-Religions and Christianity: A Study in the Religious Background of Early Christianity, London, 1925; new ed., London and New York, 1928.

The mystery-religions are based partly upon the mundane phenomena of the annual decay and reawakening of nature, partly upon analogous events observed in the sky, such as the daily rising and setting of the sun, the annual solstices, the disparition and reappearance of the moon, the phases of some of the constellations,—which phenomena were interpreted as the death and resurrection of certain deities.

The mystery-religions of antiquity are, of course, far more ancient than Christianity, and as not only the Christian belief in the death and Resurrection of the Godman is substantially connected with the ideas underlying the pagan mysteries, but some of the Christian festivals coincide with the celebration of the corresponding pagan mysteries, some scholars regard the belief in the death and Resurrection of Christ as a remnant of the pagan mystery-cults.⁷⁷³773Cfr. S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions and Christianity, pp. 60, 97 sq.

a) In carefully considering the resemblances that exist between the pagan and Christian beliefs here under examination, we must not lose sight of the important differences between them. The mysteries symbolize the death and resurrection of nature, whereas Christianity believes in the real death and genuine Resurrection of a historical person, namely, Jesus Christ. The pagan conception has for its object the death and resurrection of a god, whereas Christianity attributes both, not to the deity as such, but to the human nature of Christ hypostatically united with the Godhead. The pagan god dies because fate condemns him to death, whereas Jesus Christ offers Himself voluntarily as a victim for the sins of mankind.

b) The hypothesis under consideration has the further defect that it lacks a historical basis and flatly contradicts such well authenticated documents as the four Gospels, which report the death and Resurrection of the Godman as absolutely certain historical facts, and leave no room for the suspicion that these facts may be poetical fancies or myths. Therefore, as long as the historical credibility of the Gospels is not conclusively refuted, there is no reason for assuming that the idea of the dying and re-arising Godman is borrowed from the mystery-religions of pagan antiquity.

c) However, we do not mean to deny that there is a certain interdependence between Christianity and the pagan mysteries. Though the Christian religion was not objectively altered by the adoption of pagan notions from the mystery cults, there may possibly have been some borrowing from the latter in regard to the celebration of certain ecclesiastical festivals. Thus some writers believe that the twenty-fifth of December as the birthday of Jesus is a Christian pendant of the pagan “dies solis invicti,” which was celebrated on that same day because it was the day on which the sun began to grow stronger and to overcome the night. Christmas is first mentioned by a chronographer of the year 354 and, if we understand that writer correctly, was first celebrated at Rome in the year 335,⁷⁷⁴774“VIII kal. Ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae.” (Mon. Germ. Hist., IX, Chronica Minora, I, ed. Th. Mommsen, Berlin, 1892, p. 71.) and the appearance of Christ as the Light of the world is paralleled with the “dies solis invicti” of the Romans by several ancient Christian writers, e.g., St. Augustine, Pseudo-Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. We may, therefore, admit with Duchesne (who, however, determines the 25th of December differently)⁷⁷⁵775Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 254. that the connection between the festival of Christmas and that of the “dies solis invicti” was established under the influence of the pagan mystery cults,⁷⁷⁶776Kirchl. Handlexikon, II, 2674. i.e., to displace them for the converts from paganism.

The case is different with Easter. This festival, it is true, occurs in spring, which fact establishes a parallel between the Resurrection of Christ and the reawakening of nature after the long sleep of winter. But we have no reason to assume a real dependence of the former festival on the latter. The Christian feast of Easter as a memorial of the Resurrection of Christ simply took the place of the Jewish Passah, which in turn did not originate in the pagan mystery cults, but was established to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from the yoke of the Egyptians.⁷⁷⁷777Cfr. H. Thurston, S.J., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 512 sqq.

Nor can we admit that Easter was borrowed indirectly through the Old Testament, which is said to have derived the idea of a suffering and subsequently glorified redeemer-god from the pagan mystery-religions. The idea of a suffering Messias was foreign to Jewish theology, and there is no evidence whatever to indicate that the Hebrew prophets hark back to the pagan mysteries when they speak of the suffering and glorified Messias.

7. Baptism and the Eucharist

Not only the life of Christ and some of His doctrines, but also certain features of Christian worship are said to be derived from ancient paganism. Chief among these are Baptism and the Eucharist. That these Sacraments have striking parallels in the mystery-religions of pagan antiquity was noticed by the early Christian apologists. Thus Tertullian says: “He [the devil] also baptizes some—that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a laver [of his own]; and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there [in the kingdom of Satan] sets his mark on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of the Resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.”⁷⁷⁸778De Praescript. Haeret., c. 40 (Migne, P.L., II, 54 sq.): “Tingit et ipse [diabolus] quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit; et si adhuc memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites suos; celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit, et sub gladio redimit coronam.” The last sentence is obscure; P. Holmes (The Writings of Tertullianus, Vol. II, Edinburgh, 1870, p. 48, n. 7) thinks the allusion is to a pretended martyrdom. Cfr. Cumont, Les Mystères de Mithra, Paris, 1902, p. 130.

What is the relationship between the afore-mentioned Christian Sacraments and the pagan mysteries?

a) Baptism.—The rite by which neophytes were received into the mysteries of Isis and Mithra shows a marked resemblance to Christian Baptism, not only in the external ablutions which formed part of the ceremony, but likewise in the underlying idea of the figurative death and rebirth of the baptizandus in connection with the death and resurrection of a god. “We shall have to regard it as a well authenticated historical fact,” says Blötzer, “that the idea of a mystic death and a mystic rebirth occupied the very centre of the rite of initiation in the mystery-religions with which we are best acquainted. Through this rite the candidate becomes in a special manner the protégé of the respective deity and a member of his or her group of worshippers. It was believed that before this mystic death man was unholy, but after his spiritual rebirth he became a new creature, pleasing to the deity.”⁷⁷⁹779J. Blötzer, S.J., “Das heidnische Mysterienwesen und die Hellenisierung des Christentums,” in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LXXII (1907), pp. 186 sq. Cfr. Angus, The Mystery-Religions and Christianity, pp. 81–83.

The resemblances between the pagan mysteries and Christian Baptism are offset by several important differences.

α) The pagans expected moral purification from the mystical death and resurrection of the deity, whereas in the Christian Church these effects are ascribed to the real death and resurrection of a historical personage.

β) Pace Tertullian,⁷⁸⁰780De Bapt., 5; cfr. De Praescript. Haeret., 40. it is not certain that the ancient pagans attributed to their mysteries the power of forgiving sins. One of the leading Protestant authorities on the subject, Dr. C. Clemen, says: “It is not likely that the forgiveness of sins, which in the Acts of the Apostles is represented as the result of Baptism, was expected from the [pagan] mysteries.”⁷⁸¹781C. Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments, Giessen, 1909, p. 180.

γ) Some assume that the effects of baptism, as originally practiced in the pagan mystery-religions, were not regarded as moral, but merely as indicative of lustral purification, and that the later character of the rite as a means of atonement and consecration was derived from the Christian Church. The fact that the kriobolia and taurobolia of the ancient Phrygians still appear in documents of the second and third century after Christ as mere sacrifices of rams and bulls, without any consecratory effects, and that the Neo-Platonists notoriously strove to elevate the religious beliefs of paganism by incorporating Jewish and Christian elements with them, seems to confirm the theory in question.⁷⁸²782Blötzer, l. c., pp. 190 sqq.

Are we, therefore, constrained to admit that Christian Baptism was derived from a kindred pagan rite?

1. There are no intrinsic reasons which compel us to admit such a dependency. For in spite of many resemblances, there always remains the possibility of an independent development of the baptismal rite in both Christianity and the pagan religions. The desire for deliverance from sin, which was so generally felt in pagan antiquity,⁷⁸³783Cfr. Angus, The Mystery-Religions, pp. 95 sq. favors the supposition that Baptism originated among the gentiles. The use of water as an external symbol of purification suggested itself naturally enough, and the simile of death and resurrection had a natural basis in the candidate’s conversion and his resolve to give up his former life and become a new man.

2. Extrinsic motives in the form of absolutely reliable historical documents forbid us to assume that Christian Baptism was directly borrowed from the pagan mystery-religions. For Baptism was in vogue as a rite of reception among the Christians of Palestine long before they came into more intimate contact with the pagan world, while, on the other hand, we know from the Gospels⁷⁸⁴784Cfr. Matth. XXVIII, 19. that Christ Himself instituted this Sacrament.

However, though it can be better explained from the Mosaic law (Lev. XV, 5),⁷⁸⁵785On the baptism of proselytes (“Proselytentaufe”) see Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. I, Munich, 1922, pp. 102–114. we need not deny the possibility that the baptismal rite may have been indirectly borrowed from paganism. As Christian Baptism succeeded the Jewish baptism of John, thus or in a similar manner the latter may have been derived from some pagan rite. If this assumption could be shown to be justified, we should have to regard Christian and Jewish Baptism after the analogy of certain precepts of the Mosaic law, which took gentile customs, imbued them with a new spirit, and thus consecrated and transformed them into means of supernatural grace.

b) The Eucharist.—In several of the pagan mystery-religions we meet with a sacred repast or banquet which in more than one respect resembles the Christian Eucharist, and for this reason is regarded by some learned scholars as the origin and exemplar of the latter. This is noticeable most of all in the cult of Mithra. St. Justin Martyr says: “Which [namely, the celebration of the Eucharist] the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of the initiation, you either know or can learn.”⁷⁸⁶786Apolog., I, 66 (Migne, P. G., VI, 429); Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. II, Edinburgh, 1867. Tertullian briefly mentions that bread was offered at the mystery rites.⁷⁸⁷787De Praescript. Haer., c. 40 (P.L., II, 55). F. Cumont describes the ceremony as follows: “In the Mazdaic mass the celebrant blessed bread and water, which he mixed with intoxicating Haoma juice prepared by himself, and consumed these foods in the course of his liturgical function. These ancient customs had survived in the Mithraic initiations. … Bread and a cup filled with water were placed before the priest, who pronounced the sacred formulas over it. This oblation of bread and water, to which no doubt at a later date wine was added, is compared by the Christian apologists to Communion. Like the latter, the former was granted only after a long novitiate. Probably only the initiates who had reached the degree of ‘lions’ were admitted to the ceremony, and it was presumably for this reason that they were called ‘participants.’ A recently published remarkable basrelief gives us a picture of such a meal. In front of two persons stretched upon a couch provided with cushions, stands a tripod with four small loaves of bread, all marked with the sign of the cross. Round about this tripod are grouped the mystagogues of different degrees, one of whom, a Persian, passes around a drinking-horn, while a second rhyton is held in the hand of one of the worshippers. These agapae are evidently the ritual commemorations of the banquet which Mithra took with Sol before he ascended to heaven. From this mystic meal, particularly from the consumption of the wine, supernatural effects were expected. The intoxicating drink not only bestowed strength of body and material prosperity, but also wisdom of the spirit; it steeled the neophyte for his struggle with the evil spirits, nay, more, it guaranteed him, as well as his god, a glorious immortality.”⁷⁸⁸788F. Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra; we translate from the German ed. by Gehrich, Leipsic, 1903, pp. 118 sq., as neither the French original nor the English translation is available. A summary of the latter is given by G. R. S. Mead in The Mysteries of Mithra, London and Benares, 1907.

The existing resemblances between the Mithraic banquet and the Christian Eucharist are limited mainly to the external rite. The underlying ideas differ radically. The pagan worshipper, in participating in the Mithraic banquet, does not believe that he is consuming the deity, as the Christian does in the Eucharist, but merely expects to be endowed with supernatural power. “It cannot be proved by historical evidence that anyone outside the Christian Church ever believed that he consumed a god at the sacred banquet.”⁷⁸⁹789Blötzer, l. c. (see note 779), p. 196; cfr. Clemen, op. cit. (see note 748), p. 206.

No causal connection between the mysteries of Mithra and the Christian Eucharist can be shown to exist. The Eucharistic rite was celebrated among the primitive Christians long before they came in contact with the pagans. It was introduced at the express command of Christ,⁷⁹⁰790Luke XXII, 19. who, in instituting this Sacrament, had in view the Jewish Pasch, not some pagan form of worship.

For further reading, see page 350.