CHAPTER VII

PAULINISM AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION

146 Hermann Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen: “Das Weihnachtsfest”_ (1889, 337 pp.); _“Die Sintflutsagen”_ (1899, 276 pp.) (“Studies in Comparative Religion, ‘Christmas,’ 1889. ‘The Flood-legends,’ 1899”). Other works which played an important part in creating the new horizon were Albrecht Dieterich’s works on Comparative Religion, _Abraxas_ (1891, 221 pp. On a Hellenistic myth of the Creation, and Judaeo-Orphico-Gnostic cults) and _Nekyia,_ contributions to the explanation of the “Apocalypse of Peter” (1893, 238 pp.). The description of the torments of hell in the Akhmim fragment is based, he thinks, not on Jewish eschatology, but on conceptions which are found in the Orphic literature.

147 _Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain,_ 1st ed., 1906; 2nd ed., 1909, 427 pp. Based on Lectures delivered in the year 1905 in the Collège de France.

We may note also some of the essays in Salomon Reinach’s _Cultes, mythes et religions,_ 3 vols., 1905-1906-1908 (466, 466, and 537 pp.).

Otto Gruppe, _Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihrer Beziehung zu den orientalischen Religionen_ (“Greek cults and Myths in their relation to the Oriental Religions”), vol. i., 1887, 706 pp.; and _Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (“Greek Mythology and the History of Greek Religions”). In Iwan Müller’s _Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_ (“Handbook of Classical Antiquities”), 1906, 2 vols., embracing 1923 pp.

Georg Mau. _Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden auf König Helios und die Göttermutter_ (“The Emperor Julian’s Philosophy of Religion in his Orations on King Helios and the Dea Mater”), 1908, 169 pp. In the appendix there is a German translation of both discourses.

Of a popular and unscientific character is H. E. de Jong’s _Das antike Mysterienwesen in religionsgeschichtlicher, ethnologischer und psychologischer Beleuchtung_ (“The Ancient Mystery-religions in the Light of Comparative Religion, Ethnology, and Psychology”), 1909. 362 pp. The author is disposed to cite the modern occult “manifestations” in relation to the astral body in order to explain certain “appearances” in the ceremonies of initiation to the mysteries.

148 On what follows see Hugo Hepding, _Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult,_ 1903, 224 pp. First volume of the series of “Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,” edited by Dieterich and Wünsch. Cf. also Ernst Schmidt, _Kultübertragungen_ (Cultus-Transferences: “Magna Mater,” “Asklepios,” “Sarapis”). In the same series vol. viii., 1909.

149 On the original significance of the Taurobolium see Cumont, _Les Religions orientales,_ pp. 101-103.

150 Note the admission of Hugo Hepding at the close of his chapter on the Mysteries (p. 199):—“I am well aware that this account of the Phrygian Mysteries is in its details mainly hypothetical. In view of the paucity of the information which has come down to us, nothing else is possible. In particular the association of the blood baptism with the March festival cannot be shown from our documentary material.....” He wants to distinguish between an earlier and a later form of the taurobolium. The earlier form is not a ceremony of initiation but a sacrifice. It was only the later which had in view the initiation of the individual. “The first person whom we know by literary evidence to have undergone the ceremony of the taurobolium is Heliogabalus.”

151 On the Eleusinian Mysteries see Rohde, _Psyche_ (3rd ed., 1909) pp. 278-300. From his account it clearly appears how little we know about these ceremonies of initiation. In any case they were quite different from those of the later Mystery-religions. They belong to early Greek religion.

152 Franz Cumont, _Les Mystères de Mithra_ (1st ed., 1899; 2nd ed., 1902).

153 Albrecht Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie,_ 1st ed., 1903; 2nd ed., 1910 (edited after the author’s death by Richard Wünsch), 248 pp. The excursuses, pp. 92-212, really give a sketch of the fundamental ideas of the Mystery-religions in general. Cumont refuses to regard the document as a fragment belonging to a Mithras-liturgy because he cannot find in it the specific characteristics of the Persian eschatology and conception of heaven. On this controversy see the 2nd edition of the Mithras-liturgy, pp. 225-228. It would certainly have been better if Dieterich had not given the book the unnecessary and contentious title.

154 From Dieterich, p. 15.

155 Richard Reitzenstein, _Poimandres._ Studies in Graeco-Egyptian and Early Christian literature, 1904, 382 pp. The Poimandres “community” [_Gemeinde,_ the word is in quotation marks in the German, perhaps to recall its frequent use in speaking of the Early Christian Church] is supposed to have been founded in Egypt about the time of the birth of Christ. Its main characteristic is the mystical basis of the doctrine. Later on, in the course of the third century (?) the Poimandres community was gradually merged in the general Hermetic communities.

156 From the literature we may note: Hermann Gunkel, _Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments_ (“Contributions to the Understanding of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative Religion”), 1903, 96 pp.

Paul Wendland, _Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum_ (“The Hellenistic-Roman Civilisation in Relation to Judaism and Christianity”), 1907, 190 pp.

Adolf Deissmann, _Licht vom Osten_ (“Light from the Ancient East”), 1908, 364 pp. This book, which is rather rhetorically written, treats mainly the general literary side of the matter without entering specially into the religious problems and the ideas of the Mystery-religions. The same author has published a lecture, _Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung_ (“The History of Primitive Christianity in the Light of Linguistic Research”), 1910, 48 pp.

Karl Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments_ (“Interpretation of the New Testament on the Basis of Comparative Religion”), 1909, 301 pp.

Works which to a large extent deal with the same class of subject are: Wilhelm Soltau, _Das Fortleben des Heidentums in der altchristlichen Kirche_ (“The Survival of Paganism within the Early Christian Church”), 1906, 307 pp. Adolf Harnack, _Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten_ (“Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the first three Centuries”), vol. i., 1906, 421 pp.

157 Gustav Anrich, _Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum,_ 1894, 237 pp. From the same stand-point, and in some respects supplementing Anrich’s work, is Georg Wobbermin’s _Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen_ (“Studies from the Point of View of Comparative Religion on the Question of the Influence of the ancient Mysteries upon Christianity”), 1896, 190 pp.

Johannes Geffken in his popular work, _Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums,_ 2nd ed., 1909, 126 pp. (“From the Formative Period of Christianity”), does not hold that any very deep influence was exercised by the Graeco-Roman Syncretism on early Christianity. He is, however, of opinion that Paul “adopted all kinds of oriental views.”

158 See _e.g._ Dieterich, _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed., p. 110. Typical also are pp. 176, 177, where he continually speaks of the “death and re-birth” of believers as taught by Paul.

[_Wiedergeburt_ has been translated “re-birth” when the general sense implied in the comparison with other religions is in view; “regeneration” when the reference is primarily to the specific Christian doctrine as such.]

159 P. Gennrich in his book, _Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt . . in dogmengeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung_ (“The Doctrine of Regeneration ... in the Light of the History of Dogma, and of Comparative Religion”), 1907, 363 pp., notes that Paul speaks only of the “new creature” and not of regeneration; but he does not investigate the cause of this peculiarity, but hastens to give a psychological explanation of his utterances as a “precipitate from his personal experience.”

160 See the introduction to _Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain,_ 2nd ed., 1909.

161 Typical in this respect is the work of Martin Brückner, _Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhältnis zum Christentum_ (“The divine Saviour who dies and rises again in the Oriental Religions; and their Relation to Christianity”). In the series of _Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher,_ 1908, 48 pp. “As in Christianity, so in many Oriental religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God, who was subordinated to the Supreme God (sometimes as His Son) occupied a central place in the worship and cultus.” What manipulation the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone before this general statement could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra? It is instructive to see how the author on p. 30 argues away the effect of this admission!

A popular treatment which is kept within due bounds is Adolf Jacoby’s work, _Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum_ (“The ancient Mystery-religions and Christianity”), 1910, 44 pp., in the series of _Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher._ The author deserves special credit for offering his readers typical texts from which they can form their own impression.

Dieterich remarks with great justice in the _Mithrasliturgie_ (2nd ed., 207) how necessary it is to get beyond the catchword “Syncretistic,” and point out in every case the source of particular mythological statements and ideas.

162 O. Gruppe, too, is obliged to admit that the late Greek religious thought never really had the conception of a “world-redeemer” _(Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte),_ vol. ii., pp. 1488-1489. It cannot, in fact, be otherwise. The “world-redeemer” of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought corresponds to the “new world” which he is in some supernatural fashion to bring in, in order to reign in it along with the elect. Graeco-oriental religions did not look for a kingdom of that kind, and therefore the idea of the ruler of such a kingdom was also undiscoverable and unattainable for them. The Messiah is the World-redeemer or Lord of the coming age. He does not make atonement for the guilt of mankind nor for that of individuals, but suffers and dies vicariously for the elect, and in order to set the events of the End in motion. His earthly fate is nothing in itself, but falls wholly under the conception of the “Messianic woes” which are thought of as the tribulation of the Times of the End. How can it be proposed to find an analogue to a figure of this kind in myths, the scene of which is laid in the dawn of the world, and which have no sort of relation to its ultimate fate.

163 P. 102 ff. He has at this point a detailed discussion of the relations between the cultus-meal in Paul and that of the Mystery-religions.

On the sacraments see also K. Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments,_ 1909, 301 pp. Baptism and the Supper, 165-207.

164 _Mithrasliturgie,_ 2nd ed. pp. 107, 108.

165 Therefore the statement that Jesus baptized in the Judaean country (Jn iii. 22) is corrected to the effect that He Himself did not baptize, but only the disciples (Jn iv. 2).

166 _Der wissenschaftliche Predigerverein._

167 W. Heitmüller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus_ (“Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in Paul’s teaching”). A description and an investigation in the light of Comparative Religion, 1903, 56 pp. These journeyings on pp. 40-42.

168 _i.e._ Materialist in his explanation, in contrast, as appears later, with Reitzenstein, who is described as the “Pneumatic” of the science.

169 Albert Eichhorn, _Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament_ (“The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament,” 1898, 31 pp.), similarly holds that in Paul we have before us a sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ which can only be explained as based on Oriental Gnostic presuppositions. He is, however, constrained to admit that we have no knowledge of a “sacramental meal which could have served as the model for the Lord’s Supper.” But this does not shake his faith in his theory. He thinks that proof is only wanting because there is here a gap in our historical knowledge. He has calculated out the position of the planet; the mere fact that it cannot be discovered with the telescope is wholly due to the inadequacy of the instrument.

170 See on this R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_ (“The Hellenistic Mystery Religions”), p. 38.

171 Tit. iii. 5 (R. V. _marg._: laver of regeneration).

172 Wilhelm Heitmüller, _Im Namen Jesu. Eine Sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speciell zur altchristlichen Taufe_ (“In the Name of Jesus. A New Testament Study based on Linguistics and Comparative Religion, with special Reference to Early Christian baptism”), 1903, 347 pp. In this thorough and extremely interesting study the author arrives at the result that in the employment of the name of Jesus it is taken for granted that the name in some way or other represents a power. The Christian “belief in the name,” he holds, stands on the same footing as Jewish and heathen beliefs. “The solemn pronouncement of the name of Jesus at baptism is not a merely symbolic form, having to do, for example, with the confession of the Messiahship of Jesus, but is thought of as associated with real mystical, mysterious effects; the effects must, however, be similar, _mutatis mutandis,_ to those which are ascribed to the use of the name in other cases: a being actually taken possession of by the power which is designated by the ‘name’ of Jesus, the expulsion of all hostile powers, consecration and inspiration.” “Baptism in the name of Jesus represents, therefore, the combination of two sacramental factors—water and the name.”

Unfortunately, Heitmüller has not emphasised the fact that the Mystery-religions offer no typical analogies to this double sacrament.

It is also open to question whether the power of the name and of water suffice, as he thinks, to explain the Pauline view of baptism.

173 Paul Wernle, _Die Anfänge unserer Religion,_ 1901, p. 129.

174 In order to preclude this misuse of it the passage may be quoted here in full:—

_πείθοντες οὐ μόνον ίδιώτας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ καθαρμοὶ άδικημάτων διὰ θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν εἰσὶ μέν ἔτι ζῶσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τετελευτήκασιν, ἃς δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν, αἳ τῶ ἐκεῖ κακῶν ἀπολύουσιν ὴμᾶς, μὴ θύσαντας δὲ δεινὰ περιμένει_.

. . . “And they persuade, not only individuals, but whole cities that sacrifices and pleasureable amusements afford absolution and purification from crimes committed, both for the living and also for the dead; these they call Mysteries (initiations), and they free us from the torments of the other world, whereas terrible things await those who neglect to offer sacrifice.” On expiation see Rohde, _Psyche,_ i. (1903), 259 ff.

175 Regarding the evidence which has a more remote bearing on the question, see Hollmann, _Urchristentum in Korinth_ (“Primitive Christianity in Corinth”), 1903, 32 pp., pp. 22-24.

176 R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,_ p. 84. The dead man is, according to Spiegelberg, represented as standing between two gods, who sprinkle the sacred fluid upon his head.

177 In I Cor. vi. 11, after saying that thieves, adulterers, slanderers, and robbers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the Apostle proceeds, “And such were some of you. But ye were cleansed, ye were consecrated, ye were justified.” The passage is no doubt intended sarcastically, ironically, with reference to the fact that, in spite of their baptism, according to present appearances they have not changed much. In regard to self-delusion on the ground of baptism see also I Cor. x.

178 I Cor. i. 14-16.

179 See Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_ (1910), pp. 99, 100.

180 See above, p. 162, note 3.

181 In contrast with Heitmüller, who was described above as the “hylic,” materialist (see p. 205).

R. Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Ihre Grundgedanken und Wirkungen_ (“The Hellenistic Mystery-religions. Their fundamental Ideas and Influence”), 1910, 217 pp. The work is composed out of a lecture delivered in the Clerical Theological Society of Alsace-Lorraine (pp. 1-60), along with extensive notes and excursuses (pp. 63-214).

182 Especially impressive are the investigations regarding the _pneuma._ Reitzenstein believes himself to be able to show that all the passages in Paul’s writings which refer to this subject “are explicable from Hellenistic usage,” and leaves open the question whether they “are all equally easy to understand on the basis of the Hebraic use of _ruach_ or _nephesh,_ or the LXX. use of _πνεῦμα_.”

A detailed discussion is given of the following passages, Rom. vi. 1-14, xii. I ff.; I Cor. ii., xiii., xv. 34 ff.; 2 Cor. iii. 18, v.1 ff., v. 6 ff., x.-xiii., and some interesting light is thrown on the Epistle to Philemon (pp. 81, 82).

It may also be mentioned that Eduard Schwartz in his essay “Paulus” _(Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatur,_ 1910, 136 pp. pp. 107-136) estimates very highly the indirect influence of the Hellenistic surroundings and language. In the second edition (1911, 142 pp.) he goes a little more fully into the individual problems of the doctrine.

183 Even Holtzmann shares this confusion. “The Pauline doctrine,” he pronounces in his New Testament Theology (ii. p. 56), “is not exactly Philonian, but doubtless, like the closely allied Philonian doctrines and the more widely divergent later views, grew out of the same stock of Jewish reflection on the Creation-narratives. . . .”

184 _Poimandres,_ p. 81 ff.

185 Reitzenstein takes much pains to render intelligible, by a series of examples from ancient and modern times, the “dual personality” which often seems to manifest itself in Paul (pp. 53-57. 207, 208). He overlooks the fact that in the form in which it occurs in Paul it is taken for granted by eschatology, and appears in Jesus and the disciples. It is much more primitive than anything found in Hellenistic mysticism or in any form of romanticism, since the distinction of outer appearance and inner being which occurs in Paul, depends upon the contrast of the two worlds which are struggling together for existence. The dual self-consciousness of Paul is, in contradistinction to all other cases, not subjectively but objectively conditioned. Besides, it depends on the temporal opposition of “then” and “now,” as naturally results from the ardent eschatological expectation. On the “doubling” of one’s own personality, such as is possible for Greek sensibility, see Rohde, _Psyche,_ vol. ii. (1909), pp. 413, 414.

186 See pp. 57, 58.

187 See _e.g._ Reitzenstein, p. 209.

188 That Greek “eschatology” and early Christian are mutually exclusive appears clearly in Albrecht Dieterich’s _Nekyia_ (1893, 238 pp.). The fantastic torments of hell as portrayed in the Apocalypse of Peter have nothing to do with the Jewish and primitive Christian eschatology, since the latter are concerned with the in-coming of the new world, and not with the special punishment of individuals. Dieterich is quite right when he explains this detailed description of torment as due to influences from the Orphic literature. Greek religious feeling was concerned with the fate of individuals after death. The thought of a coming world which dominates Jewish and primitive Christian eschatology is alien to it, because its “eschatology” was not created, like the former, by the historico-ethical conceptions and aspirations of successive generations of prophets.

189 Hermann Gunkel, _Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments,_ 1903, 96 pp.

190 Max Maurenbrecher, _Von Jerusalem nach Rom,_ 1910, 288 pp. This work is the continuation of _Von Nazareth nach Golgatha,_ 1909, 274 pp.

191 W. B. Smith, _Der vorchristliche Jesus, nebst weiteren Vorstudien zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums,_ 243 pp. It was issued in German in 1906 with a preface by P. W. Schmiedel. The author is Professor of Mathematics in Tulane University, New Orleans. The book consists of five somewhat disconnected essays: i. “The Pre-Christian Jesus”; ii. “The Significance of the Nick-name, The Nazarene”; iii. “Anastasis”; iv. “The Sower sows the Logos”; v. “Saeculi silentium.” (Behind this title masquerades a study of the external arguments for the historicity of the Pauline Epistles, in which Smith stammers out confusedly what Steck and van Manen had clearly expressed before him.)

192 Arthur Drews, _Die Christusmythe,_ 1909, 190 pp.

NOTES FOR