CORN KING CHRISTIANITY
The Missing Option in the Neo-Pagan Spectrum
Dedicated to 
        the memory of Sir James Frazer on the centennial of the 
publication of The Golden Bough, 1890.
publication of The Golden Bough, 1890.
The Christian-Pagan Impasse
What few discussions I have 
        seen dealing with the relationship of Christianity and Neo-Paganism have 
        presupposed that the two entities are mutually exclusive, that friendly 
        coexistence, a gentlemen's disagreement, was the best one could do. Even 
        Evangelical Christians attracted to certain elements of esotericism 
        (e.g., John Warwick Montgomery, Principalities and Powers) 
        would only assimilate such occult data into an orthodox Christian 
        framework The reason for the aloofness between Christianity and 
        Neo-Paganism is occasioned simply by the definition of the latter: 
        Neo-Paganism exists only for the purpose of rejecting Christianity. That 
        is, Neo-Pagans seek to revive various pre-Christian forms of 
        nature-worship or Goddess-worship. Neo-Pagan groups are making a 
        conscious about-face from the Christian tradition which is oriented 
        toward history, not nature, and seeks God beyond nature, not within it. 
        Men and women, too, are seen as standing above nature. Neo-Pagans want 
        instead to reaffirm human continuity and solidarity with Mother Earth, 
        and they see divinity revealed there, in the seasons and the fields. It 
        is not that Pagans hate Christianity (though occasionally their rhetoric 
        implies this, blaming today's Christian religion for the Inquisition and 
        the Crusades); they simply choose to go another way. You would not 
        become a Pagan if you wanted anything to do with Christianity, and vice 
        versa. Some are so excited about the new perspective on life they 
        receive upon joining Wicca or some Egyptian or Odinist group that they 
        sport mischievous buttons emblazoned with the label BORN AGAIN PAGAN. In 
        what follows, I hope to suggest a surprising new meaning for that 
        slogan, and I will argue that there just may be a way to go beyond the 
        Christian-Pagan impasse if one wants to. Having made that 
        Mephistophelean promise, I will proceed.
Christianity & the Mystery Cults
Earlier in this century there was some scholarly 
        controversy over the "Christ-Myth Theory" proposed in the 19th century 
        by Arthur Drews and Bruno Bauer. It was argued that, lacking any 
        independent confirmation from extra-biblical sources, the historian 
        could not be sure there was a historical Jesus. The New Testament 
        epistles, written earlier than the gospels, do not concern themselves 
        with any biographical data about a historical Jesus but rather speak of 
        him as a spiritual presence, a dying and rising deity with whom one 
        joins in mystical, sacramental rites (baptism and the eucharist). 
        Religious historian Gilbert Murray (Five Stages of Greek Religion) 
        proposed that given the similarity between Christianity and the 
        Greco-Roman Mystery Cults (the religious societies of Mithras, Serapis, 
        Isis, and Orpheus, etc.), which also involved resurrected gods and their 
        sacraments, the Christian Jesus might have been one more mythical deity 
        whose death and resurrection symbolized the withering of vegetation in 
        the fall and its return in the spring. As C.S. Lewis summarized it, this 
        theory asked, "is not Christ simply another corn-king?" .
This theory had 
        some real strengths. For example, once one becomes aware of the 
        possibility that Jesus' death and resurrection was another version of 
        the myths whereby Adonis, Persephone, Tammuz, Attis, Osiris, and 
        Hercules Sandan died and rose to symbolize the death and resurrection of 
        vegetation, certain New Testament passages suddenly seem to glow with a 
        new light. For instance, the words of institution at the Last Supper: 
        "This is my body." What is "this"? Bread. "This is my blood," "this" 
        referring to wine. Are not those the words of a vegetation god? He 
        sacrifices his body of grain, his blood of the grape, for humanity. Is 
        this Jesus talking, or John Barleycorn? 1 
The death and 
        resurrection imagery might stand also for the burial and sprouting of 
        the seed. Persephone's yearly journeys to Hades and back were compared 
        to the burial of the seed and the sprouting of the crop, which of course 
        it symbolized. It is striking to find in John's gospel these words in 
        which Jesus reflects on his own impending death: "Truly, truly, I say to 
        you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains 
        alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (12:24). 
        Paul uses the same metaphor for the general resurrection of the 
        righteous in 1 Corinthians 15:35ff ("What you sow does not come to life 
        unless it dies," etc.) Admittedly, the image is a natural, even 
        inevitable analogy for resurrection; one cannot prove that it is the 
        origin or original meaning of the idea of resurrection.
Ritual 
        resemblances, too, tempted scholars to declare Christ another corn king. 
        For instance, the ritual mourning for Attis began with the chopping down 
        of a tree. To it was affixed an image of Attis, a crucifix, in short. 
        (Compare 1 Peter 2:24, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the 
        tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." The "tree" 
        here is probably just a metaphor for the wooden cross. However one 
        occasionally sees Christian crucifixes depicting Jesus on an actual tree 
        trunk.2 After the ceremony depicting his death, the faithful waited 
        three days and then rejoiced in Attis' resurrection. "Be of good cheer, 
        you of the mystery! Your god is saved; for us also there shall be 
        salvation from ills!" Various rituals (some unspeakably bloody, unlike 
        anything we know of in early Christianity) joined the worshipper with 
        the resurrected god, as did Christian baptism. Attis' worshippers, too, 
        partook of a holy meal, a sacrament not open to outsiders, consisting 
        probably of corn and wine. Osiris' eucharist was bread and beer.
Most scholars 
        were quick to reject this theory. I will not take the time here to 
        detail their arguments that the gospels cannot be discounted as evidence 
        at least for some sort of historical Jesus, that the silence of 
        extra-biblical sources actually does not mean much, that the New 
        Testament epistles do contain some (admittedly few) references to a 
        historical Jesus. As for the parallels between Jesus and Attis, Osiris, 
        Adonis, Tammuz, et al., scholars pointed out that, first, the belief in 
        Jesus' resurrection can be traced back to the earliest days of the 
        Christian movement, among the first disciples, who were unlikely to have 
        been influenced by Hellenistic Mystery religions and may never even have 
        heard of them. Second, the death and resurrection of Jesus was a 
        one-time event in the past, not a repeating, cyclical event, magically 
        occurring again and again with every harvest. Third, our evidence for 
        the Mystery cults' beliefs is fragmentary and late. We have no clear 
        evidence that resurrection was predicated of these deities until the 
        third century. It may be that these religions borrowed the whole notion 
        from Christianity! Fourth, the idea of initiation sacraments by which 
        one was joined with a god is quite old and widespread; Christians may 
        just as easily have derived this feature from apocalyptic Judaism.
The theory would 
        seem to have been quite effectively vanquished. Mainstream scholars now 
        consider the corn king theory merely a curiosity in the history of 
        research. In a somewhat different form, the theory had a resurrection of 
        its own in 1970 when John Allegro (The Sacred Mushroom and the 
        Cross) proposed that there had never been a historical Jesus; 
        rather "Jesus" was a symbolic personification of Amanita Muscaria, 
        the hallucinogenic mushroom used sacramentally by the ancient-Vedic 
        priests. (They called it Soma and did personify it as a god. Many 
        hymns in the Rig Veda are addressed to Soma. (See R. Gordon Wasson, 
        Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality.) Allegro's theory was 
        immediately repudiated by all other scholars. 
It seems to me, 
        however, that the corn king theory cannot be dismissed quite so easily. 
        Let us take a second look at the arguments against it. To take the first 
        and third objections together, it turns out that the earliest Christians 
        might have been very familiar indeed with myths of dying and rising 
        gods, and needn't have sought them far from home. The discovery of the 
        Ras Shamra texts in 1929 opened up our knowledge of ancient Canaanite 
        religion. These were tablets detailing the myths of Baal, Anath, and 
        other Canaanite deities often mentioned in the Bible. For the first 
        time, we were, so to speak, able to read Baal's Bible as well as 
        Yahweh's. We are in a position to understand just what myths and rituals 
        the Israelite prophets were warning their people to reject. You know, of 
        course, that for most of their history ancient Israelites adopted the 
        worship of the native Canaanite divinities, against the strident 
        protests of Elijah, Hosea, Isaiah, and others. What is crucial for our 
        purposes is that already in Old Testament times, as the Ras Shamra texts 
        reveal, Baal was worshipped as a dying and resurrected god! Of course 
        this shouldn't have been too surprising since the Bible itself refers to 
        such worship in ancient Israel. Ezekiel condemns the ritual mourning for 
        Tammuz in the Jerusalem temple itself! "Then 
        he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of 
        Yahweh; and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8:14). 
        Zechariah 12:11 refers to the ceremonial wailing for Baal under another 
        of his titles: "On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great 
        as the mourning for Hadad-Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo." Hosea 
        mentions the mourning and self-flagellation that anticipated the 
        resurrection of Baal, and he said God rebuked Israelites for practicing 
        it: "They do not cry to me from the heart but they wail upon their beds; 
        for grain and wine they gash themselves. They rebel against me. They 
        turn to Baal." (7:14, 16).
His myths told 
        how Baal had been killed by the death monster Mot. Then he rose from the 
        dead and vanquished Mot and took the throne, proclaimed a king of gods. 
        All this was, then, quite familiar to ancient Israelites, and there is 
        no reason to believe knowledge of these things had vanished by the time 
        of Jesus. For instance, the Revelation of John still knows the myth of 
        the seven-headed dragon Leviathan (“Lotan” in the Ras Shamra texts) 
        rising from the ocean of chaos to be vanquished by God (Revelation 
        13:1-4).
The second 
        objection, that Jesus' death and resurrection was uniquely historical, 
        not cyclical and nature-based, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it 
        seems the ancient pagan myths drew the distinction that their deities, 
        too, had once died and risen in the remote past, but that these events 
        were magically recalled each year to celebrate (or even to facilitate) 
        the resurrection of vegetation. Mircea Eliade's research (The Sacred 
        and the Profane, Cosmos and History, etc.) has made ancient 
        thinking clearer on this point. The yearly celebrations did not imply a 
        lack of historicity. The gods had died and risen at some particular time 
        in the past (they could even show you the grave of Zeus in Crete!), but 
        this sacred time of origins is mystically recalled each year to impart 
        creative reality anew. The idea, in fact, is just like that of the 
        Christian eucharist, as far as I can see: Jesus Christ died once for 
        all; he will never die again. Yet his death is recalled, made present 
        again, at every eucharistic celebration. Incidentally, it is worth 
        noting that the similarity between Jesus' resurrection and those of the 
        "corn kings" is not purely the product of ivory-tower scholars comparing 
        ancient texts. John Cuthbert Lawson, in his Modern Greek Folklore and 
        Ancient Greek Religion, recalls how once he chanced to be present in 
        a remote Greek peasant village for their Good Friday and Easter dramas. 
        As the actor playing Jesus was ritually interred, Lawson noticed how an 
        old woman standing beside him seemed greatly agitated: Lawson asked what 
        worried her so. Her response: "If Christ does not rise tomorrow we shall 
        have no harvest this year" (p. 573). It is safe to say this old lady had 
        never read The Golden Bough, but then one might say she didn't 
        need to. 
As for the 
        fourth objection, that one needn't have gone all the way to the Mystery 
        Cults for sacraments of mystical incorporation, that is manifestly true. 
        But sacred meals and regenerating baptisms are not the heart of the 
        matter. Where would one have derived a ritual of mourning a death and 
        rejoicing in a resurrection? Of course, if you knew your savior died and 
        rose, you might want to commemorate it. That would be enough. But it no 
        longer looks quite so implausible to suggest that the Christian ritual 
        was borrowed from-those of pagan cults since these had already been 
        practiced by Jews in Jerusalem itself. And by Jews who, like the 
        disciples of Jesus, would have considered themselves Yahweh-worshippers, 
        too. It wasn't an either-or proposition. Ancient Israelites worshipped 
        Yahweh and Anath, Yahweh and Tammuz. One could do this because Yahweh 
        was for most of Israelite history considered the head of a pantheon, not 
        the only God (see Psalms 29, 82, 95).
I wonder, in 
        fact, if the mythology of Baal might not be more important for 
        understanding the New Testament than the Old. Here is Sigmund 
        Mowinckel's summary of the Baal myth: "In the religious texts from the 
        town of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in Phoenicia, the feast of rains - the 
        harvest and new year festival - signifies the revival and resurrection 
        of the god Baal or Aleyan Baal, who having conquered death (Mot), seats 
        himself on the throne and is proclaimed king of gods and men" (The 
        Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol. 2, p. 132). Especially when one 
        recalls that in the Canaanite pantheon, Baal was the son of EI (= "God," 
        just as in the Hebrew Bible), Baal's resurrection victory sounds 
        amazingly like that attributed to Jesus in the early Christian 
        preaching. For example, the hymn quoted by Paul in Philippians 2:6-11: 
        "he humbled himself and became obedient unto death. Therefore God has 
        highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every 
        name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on 
        earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is 
        Lord." Or Acts 2:32-33, "This Jesus God raised up ... (he is) therefore 
        exalted at the right hand of God." The Christian preaching was that 
        God's son Jesus by his death and resurrection had defeated Death and 
        been enthroned as Lord. I cannot help but wonder if the early Christians 
        appropriated the old resurrection theology of Baal to explain what 
        happened to Jesus.
To say this, by 
        the way, does not imply that there was no historical Jesus, nor even 
        that this Jesus did not rise from the dead. The point is, what set of 
        images, what conceptuality lay ready to hand for use to interpret Jesus 
        and his fate? Along similar lines, scholars commonly suggest that the 
        New Testament writers borrowed the notion of Jesus' preexistence from 
        the Jewish philosophical speculation about Sophia, the divine Wisdom 
        through whose agency God created the world. If Baal-mythology supplied 
        the category of a son of God's resurrection triumph and enthronement as 
        Lord, we must raise the question of the nature- and 
        vegetation-associations. Originally the Baal myth symbolized the 
        flowering of nature. Was all this stripped away in the Christian 
        appropriation of the myth? Perhaps not. Paul sees the resurrection of 
        Jesus not only as the "first fruits" of the harvest of the dead (the 
        general resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:22-23) but as the agent of 
        nature's resurrection, too: "For the creation waits with eager longing 
        for the revealing of the sons of God ... because the creation itself 
        will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the liberty of the 
        children of God" (Romans 8:19-22).
As if in 
        anticipation of this, and with a tip of the hat to the vegetation cults, 
        we Christians today celebrate Easter not only to commemorate Jesus' 
        historical resurrection, but also to celebrate the coming of spring, do 
        we not?
The Options Open to Us
So then, depending on how we evaluate the 
        evidence I have presented, we might come up with either of two possible 
        versions of a "corn king Christianity." The parallels to the myths and 
        rituals of Baal, Attis, Tammuz, et al., might incline one to embrace the 
        full Christ-Myth theory of Drews, Bauer, et. al. In this case one would 
        conclude that Jesus is "simply another corn-king." But one might decide 
        that there was a historical Jesus who and whose fate were interpreted at 
        least to a significant degree by borrowing the Baal myth. Bultmann 
        thought so. So did Joseph McCabe.
If you arrived 
        at the second possibility, I believe your Christian theology might have 
        more of a basis than you thought it did for ecological sensitivity. You 
        should start believing that Jesus died to save the world in a literal 
        sense. And your evangelism ought to include ecological activism.
But if you 
        decide for the Christ-Myth option, you would have the basis for a 
        new/old form of Christianity, a Paganism of Jesus, if you will. 
        
About the same 
        time scholars were leaguing Jesus with Attis, Adonis, and Osiris, 
        Margaret Murray was unwittingly laying the groundwork for today's Pagan 
        Wicca movement. She examined the records of the European witch trials, 
        including that of Joan of Arc, and hypothesized (in her book The 
        Witch-Cult in Western Europe, 1921) that witchcraft was not 
        some sort of Satanist Ladies Auxiliary, as had been traditionally 
        believed, but that rather it was the remnant of a pre-Christian 
        nature-religion. Christians encountered that religion's worship of the 
        Horned God, a fertility deity, and stigmatized him as Satan. (Note the 
        similarity in appearance between Baphomet, the Satanic goat-avatar, and 
        the Greek nature deity Pan, for instance). Originally the 
        nature-religion had nothing to do with Satan or evil. 
Gerald Gardner, 
        Isaac Bonewits, and others have taken Margaret Murray's theory, which is 
        quite dubious in the estimation of most historians, and, assuming its 
        truth, have decided to reconstruct the pre-Christian paganism as Murray 
        described it. They have made a living religion of it, and Wicca
is the result. What I mean to suggest is that if 
        one found the Christ-Myth theory convincing, one might as easily 
        reconstruct that hypothetical "pre-Christian Christianity," that "corn 
        king Christianity" in which the dying and rising Jesus was seen to be 
        the embodiment of Nature, or of vegetation. One might observe the 
        eucharist as the celebration of Jesus-nature's gifts of bread and wine. 
        The eucharist and baptism might be sacraments of union with the divine 
        power, along the lines of the spiritual initiation of the Mystery Cults. 
        The quarterly and cross-quarterly seasonal holidays, celebrated by 
        Pagans as Samhain, etc., etc., might be celebrated by Christo-pagans 
        under their Christian names, Hallowmas, Christmas, Candlemas, Easter, 
        Roodmas, St. John's Eve, Lammas, Michaelmas. We already celebrate Easter 
        as the "rite of spring," and we already celebrate Christmas as the Yule 
        Solstice, don't we? All our ivy and trees dragged indoors say we do.
Neo-Pagans have 
        revived just about every known form of pre-Christian paganism, real or 
        hypothetical. Then why not the pre-Christian religion of Jesus Adonis 
        (Adonis, like the Old Testament Adonai, means "Lord")? Corn King 
        Christianity is the missing option in the spectrum of today's Neo-Pagan 
        Revival. 
1.            
        
        Recently I had a dream in which my wife and I found ourselves in a 
        cathedral. We went forward to the communion rail, where the priest 
        offered a strange host that seemed to be a dollop of yellow custard with 
        a wisp of corn silk on top. Instead of the expected words "The body of 
        Christ," he said, "John Barleycorn.")
2.            
        I 
        have one of these. One shocking relic in a Scandinavian church shows 
        Jesus crucified on what is unmistakably a huge penis, underscoring 
        someone's attribution of fertility symbolism to the scene.
 By 
        Robert M. Price
========================
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου