Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions / Being a Comparison of the Old and New Testament Myths and Miracles with those of the Heathen Nations of Antiquity Considering also their Origin and Meaning

by T. W. Doane

The most characteristic Easter rite, and the one most widely diffused, is the use of Easter eggs. They are usually stained of various colors with dye-woods or herbs, and people mutually make presents of them; sometimes they are kept as amulets, sometimes eaten. Now, "dyed eggs were sacred Easter offerings in Egypt;"[228:1] the ancient Persians, "when they kept the festival of the solar new year (in March), mutually presented each other with colored eggs;"[228:2] "the Jews used eggs in the feast of the Passover;" and the custom prevailed in Western countries.[228:3]

The stories of the resurrection written by the Gospel narrators are altogether different. This is owing to the fact that the story, as related by one, was written to correct the mistakes and to endeavor to reconcile with common sense the absurdities of the other. For instance, the "Matthew" narrator says: "And when they saw him (after he had risen from the dead) they worshiped him; but some doubted."[228:4]

To leave the question where this writer leaves it would be fatal. In such a case there must be no doubt. Therefore, the "Mark" narrator makes Jesus appear three times, under such circumstances as to render a mistake next to impossible, and to silence the most obstinate skepticism. He is first made to appear to Mary Magdalene, who was convinced that it was Jesus, because she went and told the disciples that he had risen, and that she had seen him. They—notwithstanding that Jesus had foretold them of his resurrection[228:5]—disbelieved, nor could they be convinced until he appeared to them. They in turn told it to the other disciples, who were also skeptical; and, that they might be convinced, Jesus also appeared to them as they sat at meat, when he upbraided them for their unbelief.

This story is much improved in the hands of the "Mark" narrator, but, in the anxiety to make a clear case, it is overdone, as often happens when the object is to remedy or correct an oversight or mistake previously made. In relating that the disciples doubted the words of Mary Magdalene, he had probably forgotten Jesus had promised them that he should rise, for, if he had told them this, why did they doubt?

Neither the "Matthew" nor the "Mark" narrator says in what way Jesus made his appearance—whether it was in the body or only in the spirit. If in the latter, it would be fatal to the whole theory of the resurrection, as it is a material resurrection that Christianity taught—just like their neighbors the Persians—and not a spiritual.[229:1]

To put this disputed question in its true light, and to silence the objections which must naturally have arisen against it, was the object which the "Luke" narrator had in view. He says that when Jesus appeared and spoke to the disciples they were afraid: "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed they had seen a spirit."[229:2] Jesus then—to show that he was not a spirit—showed the wounds in his hands and feet. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."[229:3] After this, who is there that can doubt? but, if the fish and honeycomb story was true, why did the "Matthew" and "Mark" narrators fail to mention it?

The "Luke" narrator, like his predecessors, had also overdone the matter, and instead of convincing the skeptical, he only excited their ridicule.

The "John" narrator now comes, and endeavors to set matters right. He does not omit entirely the story of Jesus eating fish, for that would not do, after there had been so much said about it. He might leave it to be inferred that the "Luke" narrator made a mistake, so he modifies the story and omits the ridiculous part. The scene is laid on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. Under the direction of Jesus, Peter drew his net to land, full of fish. "Jesus said unto them: Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise."[229:4]

It does not appear from this account that Jesus ate the fish at all. He took the fish and gave to the disciples; the inference is that they were the ones that ate. In the "Luke" narrator's account the statement is reversed; the disciples gave the fish to Jesus, and he ate. The "John" narrator has taken out of the story that which was absurd, but he leaves us to infer that the "Luke" narrator was careless in stating the account of what took place. If we leave out of the "Luke" narrator's account the part that relates to the fish and honeycomb, he fails to prove what it really was which appeared to the disciples, as it seems from this that the disciples could not be convinced that Jesus was not a spirit until he had actually eaten something.