MAORI MYTHOLOGY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 847, 20 June 1910, Page 6

MAORI MYTHOLOGY.

"STRIKINC THEORY" EXAMINED. "PARALLELS" THAT ARE NOT PARALLEL. [By Curnc] ■ (Concluded.) In my first article in criticism of Mr. Haro Hougi's contention that tho Maori legend of Tawhaki and tho Gospel story havo a common origin, I endeavoured to show that tho two arc, taken as a whole, so utterly dissimilar that comparison is almost impossible, although there may bo all occasional superficial rosomblanco in a word, a sentence, or an incident: I also pointed, out that the endeavour to make tho origin of the Tawhaki legend coiucido with -the beginning of the Christian era by means of calculations based on Maori generation measurements is is quite unconvincing. I now propose vory briefly to examine some of tho so-called parallels winch Mr. Haro Hongi has placed on record. (1) The Virgin Birth: There was nothing wonderful about tho birth of Tawhaki. Ho was merely tho son of Homa and TJrutonga. It is true, as is tho caso in the myths of so many primitive races, his descent is traced back to a divine or semi-divino ancestor. Theso stories' of wonderful births are so widely diffused among races in all parts of the world that as regards tho Maori legend it is quito unnecessary to look for a knowledge of tho Gospel story in- order to provide an explanation. • (2) Brothers and sisters: Tawhaki had brothers and sisters; in tho Now Testament wo read of "the brethren of tho Lord." As it is tho fate of most people to brothers and sisters, this "parallel" is not a very imprcssivo one. (3). Wisdom and mighty. works: Tho "wisdom and mighty works" ascribed to Tawhaki, when compared with tho dignified reserve and simplicity of tho Gospel story, provide a contrast rather than a parallel. To estimate the position fairly, ono must take the Tawhaki wondoTS as a whole, and compa-ro them with tho Gospel miracles. (4) Fishers of . mon: The story quoted by Mr. Hare Hongi has nothing to do with Tawhaki, but refers to his ancestors, Kai-tangata' and Whaitiri. . (5) The sheet let down.from heaven: The _ "parallel" between Tawhaki's little joke 'with tho blind woman over tho baskets' or taro roots and one of the Gospel miracles seems to be very far fetched. To' say that tho Maori story presupposes an acquaintance with the Gospels is ludicrous. ■ (6) Walking on the sea: There are certainly .some curious points of similarity with the Gospel 6tory in this incident; but mythologies are full of miracles of all kinds on sea and land. In' any case the setting of the two stories is entirely different. {!) Dovils and tho sea: Generally speaking tho samo remarks apply to .this "parallel." ... (8) Miraculous draught of fishes: Tawh?lri has nothing to do with this incident, the hero being Whaitiri. (9) The cloud and tho voice': This is an interesting "parallel." But here, again, it must bo remembered that mysterious voices from sky or cloud are common in ancient mythologies. . (10) The carpenter: All that this signifies is that Tawhaki was a good boat-, builder. (11) Calming wind and ivaves: Hero wo havo some peculiar coincidences: but, as I have said before, when these incidents are compared with the Gospel narrative one is left with the impression of a contrast rather than a parallel. (12) The vine: When ono thinks of all the wonderful meaning in Christ's words,, "I.am the true vine," and then turns to the story of Tawhaki climbing up to Heaven after his runaway wife, one feels 'that tho only similarity is tho'-usO' of tlie word" vine oi' tendril. Two entirely different worlds of thought aro disclosed.

: (13) Tho sanie remark largely applies to the- incident of plucking out an eye. There is no real parallel at all. (14) Healing tie blind: This is perhaps the most effective point in Mr. Ha,ro Hongi's collection. (15) Tho issue of blood:. This might also bo claimed as a curious likeness to .'a Gospel incident. • (16) I am tho door:,lfc'is TJrutonga, and not Tawhaki, • who is tho door in this story. It is not in any 'way a true "parallel." (17) Lighting Glory: This so-called "parallel" is absurd.' (18) Transfiguration: The story cer-. tarnly shows points of similarity with the Gospel account of 'tho Transfiguration.

(19) Baptism with fire: The only parallel is tho Maori rito of baptism; but this ceremony has. been practised in various heathen religions. (20)' Hated by the world: This is tho fate of most men' who live in advance of'their age.

(21) Bearing the cross: Thoro is no similarity between the Christian story of the cross .and Tawhaki's playfulness in pulling up huge trees by the roots, and throwing them up in the air and catching them again, as if they wore small crabs.

(22) Reviled and mocked: This has been the fate of hundreds of men in different ages and countries. (23) Crucifixion and murder: Tawhaki was not crucified. Considering tlio central place of the Crucifixion in Christian history, if there had been any connection between the Gospel story and. the legend of Tawhaki, this form of death might well have been expected to have been mentioned in tho legend.

(26, 27, and 28) Descent into ' tho under-world, resurrection, and a'Scension aro recorded in various ancient mythologies. They aro not distinctive parallels. I am. afraid that the above "parallels," taken as a whole, aro not likely to . convince any serious student that Christ and Tawhaki aro one and the same, or that' the two stories have a common origin. Pagan Counterparts and Their Meaning. It will be noticed that the applica-. tion of a little criticism has reduced tho points of similarity between tho Gospel story and the legend of Tawhaki to very.small proportions; but if' all the "parallels" had been, admitted without criticism they would have been entirely inadequate ■ to support .tho extraordinary theory which Mr. Hare Hougi set out to prove. Even if tho resemblances were far moro .numerous and far moro striking, they would not have been convincing,' because, as. students, of comparative religion know, there aro wonderfully closo likenesses between different religions in different ages and countries which could havo had no possiblo connection with ono another. These resemblances are often marvellously close. Nearly ■every Christian doctrine, oeremouy, and sacrament have had their parallek in ancient religions. Comparative theology tolls us of pagan trinities, baptisms, eucharists, incarnations, and miraculous births; pagan religions givo us glimpses of tho Christian doctrine of atonement and sacrifice, a suffering Saviour, tlio Church, tho communion of saints, inspiration and sacred books, and a future life. So wonderful were some of thoso parallels in circumstances' where borrowing was quite out of tlio question that somo of tho -early missionaries really belioved that tho devil had been parodying tho true faith in order to frustrate their labours. Iu view of these facts Mr. Haro Hongi's curious' collection, of "parallels" .will

not cause any surprise to anyone who lias read a modern work on comparative theology. It is hardly necessary to Kay that the modem Christian'scholar has ceased to regard these, pagan likenesses to Christianity as the work of the devil. They were r'orcglcams of tho better time coming. The first dim conceptions of a power outsido himself which stirred tho childlike imagination of our remotest ancestors woro inspired by tho Divino Spirit, and tho same Spirit has watched over, nurtured, and developed tho spiritual life of man ever since. All these gropings for light, these witnesses to tho higher needs and aspirations of tho race, crudely expressed in type and symbol, a.nd sacrament and sacrifice, woro in tho fullness of time given their complete realisation in Christ —tho Dcsiro of all nations, ill Whom all things arc summed up and perfected. "These pagan counterparts," writes Dr. MacCulloch, "taken in connection with similar beliefs and practices found everywhere throughout all religions, low and high, show that tho need of salvation and-the hope, of immortality arc instinct in man. Ho has everywhere sought thoir fulfilment, his soul is naturally Christian, In tho Christian verities we find the fulfilment of man's desires. They correspond to the elemental needs of ' human nature, and becauso they fulfil these iic-kls in a. way no other rites or myths have over done, wo have a mighty witness to their truth." Fundamental Differences. One cannot but admire Mr. Hare Hongi's courage and confidence when, in Slimming up tho position, ho declares that "tli© student can form but a singlo conclusion; which is that Christ and Tawhaki are one and tho same, or, should I say, that these stories have a common origin." If I understand Mr. Haro Hongi aright, his contention is that Christ and Tawhaki are to bo placed on tho same level, 'and that both aro to bo regarded as mythological personages'. This is a truly amazing statement. It is, of course, impossible te accept tho historicity of Tawhaki. All that wo know of him is derived from legends that were first committed to writing nearly two thousand years after tho events they profess to record; whereas, an tho other haaid, it must how be regarded a-s one of tho generally accepted results of the most- drastic criticism to which any documents have ever been submitted, that the New Testament,' practically as wo now have it," was written within eighty years of tho Ascension, and some of tho Paulino epistles were penned within thirty years of that event, while many of those, who had personal knowledge of the facts, wore still alive. From the historic point of view tho Gospel story and the Tawhaki legend simply cannot' bo compared. Mr. Hare Hongi's theory appears to involvo tho banishment of Christ to the regions of mythology. This is not a new idea; but, whilo the origins of Christianity have during tho last 50 years or so been discussed by the greatest minds of Europe and America from overy point of,view and with all the resources of modern criticism, the overwhelming majority of tho most advanced scholars ■ aro agreed that Jesus was a historical person. On this point critics of all schools of thought, such as Harnack, Zahn, Gardner, Bousset, Burkitt, James Drummond, Sunday, ArmitageEobinson, and a host of others aro agreed. It is, of course, inijxwsiblo to discuss tho question at length in a newspaper article, but tho position is well summed up by Bousset, ono of tho most advanced German, scholars. Ho states that' the Jowish Messianic hope, Greek philosophy, tho social relations .of the -l{oman Empire, tho longing of the destitute for air and light, tho organisation and the spirit of tho mystical societies of tho later Greek religion, could never have produced tho religion of Christ. "Can life," he asks, "come out of death? True, all these factors have" contributed to the rise of Christianity, but they do not account for it. You cannot make an uh.it out of a tow of noughts." ' Julicher is equally emphatic. Ho writes:—"The Jesus 'of the Primitive Church, as wo find Him in tho earliest Gospel sources, was not a mere creation of that Church. ' He was also its Creator." •■

Seeborg, another eminent German scholar, states was a Man, no empty abstraction of 'Manhood,' but an individual Man. richly endowed with a mighty personal life" Dr.- Percy Gardner writes:—"lt is the glory and strength of Christianity to bo able to point to'a historic origin, and to Have ever-open to it tho appeal to the Founder."

_ These are tho views, not of conservative scholars, but of critics of the most advanced modern school, and many moro to tho samo effect might easily bo quoted.-

Another weighty' argument against Mr. Hare Hongijs theory is tho fact that the /Tawhaki legend is merely an isolated idea. Nothing 'lias resulted from it, whereas the outcome of tho Gospel story was the foundation of the greatest society tho world has ever known, which has persisted for two thousand years, and which still exerts a far-reaching influence for good in the most progressive civilised nations. As a modern writer very sensibly' remarks, "a great historical institution must be allowed to possess some trustworthy knowledge of the cause and manner of its coming into being. To refuse this is- to descend to the very, bathos of criticism." The Church's explanation of its origin and history is, broadly speaking, that tho Gospel story is historic fact.

• Let mo conclude by giving Professor Goldwin Smith's estimate of tho Founder of Christianity:—"To tho personal influence," .ho writes, "oxerted by Jesus nineteen centuries after His death, and the devotion of which ho is stall tho there is absolutely no. parallel., This is, no doubt, to be- ascribed' largely to deification. 'But it is also duo in no small measure to spiritual impression. Iu tho Unitarian it has no other source. A figure less divine' could hardly have been deified, much less have continued to bo deified amd ho the object of adoring love, not only to pious hearts, but to high intellects down even to tho present day." Could such languago by any stretch of the imagination bo applied to Tawhaki ?