OED4/OED4WC
Jessica Williams
Hicks
Final Paper
1 May 2007
Oedipus: an Anti-Christ
If one breaks down the word “Antichrist” the result is antí+khristos (Greek αντί+χριστος): anti, “opposite,” and khristos, “messiah.” From a linguistic standpoint, the literary anti-Christ figure would be one that is, or possesses qualities that are, opposite of the literary Christ-figure. Using this working definition of the word anti-Christ, a comparison-contrast relationship can be drawn from the Christ-figure to another mythical character: Oedipus Rex (the Greek Oἰδίπoυς τύραννoς, or Oedipus Tyrannos), in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King (c. 420 BCE). Although Sophocles created his Oedipus far before there was a Christ-figure, parallels can still be drawn between the two as literary characters. “[M]any of our myths follow a common structure that makes them very similar to each other” (Blumenfeld). Joseph Campbell codified these myth elements:
The Mythological hero, setting forth from his commonday hut or castle, is lured, carried away, or else voluntarily proceeds, to the threshold of adventure. There he encounters a shadow presence that guards the passage. The hero may defeat or conciliate this power and go alive into the kingdom of the dark (brother-battle, dragon-battle; offering, charm), or be slain by the opponent and descend in death (dismemberment, crucifixion). Beyond the threshold, then, the hero journeys through a world of unfamiliar yet strangely intimate forces, some of which severely threaten him (tests), some of which give magical aid (helpers). When he arrives at the nadir of the mythological round, he undergoes a supreme ordeal and gains his reward. The triumph may be represented as the hero’s sexual union with the goddess-mother of the world (sacred marriage), his recognition by the father-creator (father atonement), his own divinization (apotheosis), or again - if the powers have remained unfriendly to him - his theft of the boon he came to gain (bride-theft, fire-theft); intrinsically it is an expansion of consciousness and therewith of being (illumination, transfiguration, freedom). The final work is that of the return. If the powers have blessed the hero, he now sets forth under their protection (emissary); if not, he flees and is pursued (transformation flight, obstacle flight). At the return threshold the transcendental powers must remain behind; the hero re-emerges from the kingdom of dread (return, resurrection). The boon that he brings restores the world (elixir) (Blumenfeld).
However, “Campbell acknowledges that not all myths follow this structure exactly. Many of them emphasize one or two of the major elements, [and] some of them have become distorted or obscured over the years” (Blumenfeld). This is true for the Christ-story as well as Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannos: they both use a few of these codified elements (for the Christ, voluntarily proceeding, crucifixion, resurrection, elixir; for Oedipus, voluntarily proceeding, dragon-battle, bride-theft [in a way], and illumination.) While both Oedipus and Christ were protagonists in their respective stories, this is the only similarity that they share identically. While both follow a part of Campbell’s structure and are heroes (Greek ἣρως), Oedipus is a tragic hero, with the requisite tragic flaw (Greek hamartia; also, hubris [Greek ὕβρις].) The Christ-figure and Oedipus share surface similarities, but upon deeper inspection, Oedipus’ characteristics are skewed to have the opposite effect than those of the Christ-therefore Oedipus is an opposite (anti) Christ-figure.
The way that both Oedipus and the Christ-figure react to the gods (or God, fate) varies considerably, and is one of the main differences between the two characters. The Christ-figure followed God’s will implicitly. Jesus consciously knew God’s plan for Him: to die (“knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father,” [John 13:1]). He knew what His ministry would entail, and despite that, unselfishly followed His Father’s plan to the letter “so that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). While He was alive, he did “nothing on [His] own initiative” (John 5:30), because He sought the Father’s will instead of His own (v. 30). Because of this, Jesus is considered to be a hero-figure: He came, followed the fate laid upon Him by a higher power, even unto death, and (according to Christian tradition) saved the world. “Typically, the willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good is seen as the most important defining characteristic of a hero” (Wikipedia).
Oedipus, on the other hand, possessed a fatal flaw (which is why he is considered a tragic hero, instead of just a heroic figure): his hubris was that he tried to outwit his fate (and the god-in this case, Apollo). Pride is Oedipus’ hamartia, and this hamartia is what begins his downward spiral into eventual blindness, loss and shame.
Oedipus's pride sets it all off; when a drunken man tells him that he is a bastard, his pride is so wounded that he will not let the subject rest, eventually going to the oracle of Apollo to ask it the truth. The oracle's words are the reason why he leaves Corinth, and in leaving Corinth and traveling to Thebes, he fulfills the oracle's prophecy. A less proud man may not have needed to visit the oracle, giving him no reason to leave Corinth in the first place (GS).
Defying what the oracle at Delphi told him, Oedipus fled home “lest the god's word be fulfilled” (Sophocles). However, with every step he took to protect himself from the prophecy, Oedipus was in fact brought closer to fulfilling it. “The more he tries to avoid or make amends for wrong, the tighter the slipknot around his neck” (Gill). Fleeing home and his adopted parents (and killing his true father on the journey), he settled where he believed himself to be safe-ironically, into a marriage (and incestuous relationship) with his real mother, Jocasta. Oedipus, then thinking he was safe through his own action in fleeing Corinth, ignored the oracle’s warning until it was too late. This type of pride characterized his life. Oedipus was always tempting fate, and always trying to outwit the destiny placed on him by a higher power. (Even Jocasta counseled him thus: “Behold the fruits of prophecy! / Which heed not thou!” [Sophocles].) When Tieresias warned him not to investigate further the matter of Laius’ murder and his own ascension to the throne, Oedipus ignored the prophet.
In the immediate events of the play, Oedipus's pride continues to be a flaw that leads to the story's tragic ending. He is too proud to consider the words of the prophet Teiresias, choosing, instead to rely on his own sleuthing powers. Teiresias warns him not to pry into these matters, but pride in his intelligence leads Oedipus to continue his search. He values truth attained through scientific enquiry over words and warnings from the gods; this is the result of his overweening pride (GS).
Furthermore, when Teiresias comes to warn him, Oedipus mocks the blind prophet, showing complete disregard for Teiresias’ office and the divination of his own fate. Enraged by what Teiresias says to him, he declares, “’Tis weak to none save thee. Thou hast no part / In truth, thou blind man, blind eyes, ears and heart” (Sophocles). Teiresias retorts that, while he is physically blind, Oedipus is more so because his pride does not allow him to see what it is that he does: “More blind, more sad thy words of scorn, which none / Who hears but shall cast back on thee: soon, soon” (Sophocles). Ironically, at the end of the play, it is only Oedipus’ pride that leads to his own physical blindness and shame.
Furthering the idea that both were heroes of a sort, both the Christ-figure and Oedipus were labeled as saviors, following Campbell’s summary. The Christ is referred to as the Savior numerous times in the Bible and in Biblical literature. “The New Testament contains 138 verses that, in English translation, use the words “salvation” (45 times), “save” (41 times) or “saved” (52 times)” (Wikipedia). It is the cornerstone of Christian faith that Jesus, the Son of God, came to save humankind: “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11). Also, “[i]t is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). According to Christian teaching, humankind is separated from God by sin (“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” [Romans 3:23]; “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” [Romans 5:12]). Jesus, being perfect, was sent to be sacrificed for this sin (“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” [Romans 5:8]). He was resurrected on the third day after His death (“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” [Romans 10:9]). The Christ-figure followed the god (God)’s plan, and therefore saved the world.
Even though he was considered a savior to the people of Thebes (“All our land doth hold / Thee still our saviour, for that help of old” [Sophocles]), Oedipus eventually caused more harm than good (furthering the idea that Oedipus is opposite to the Christ). “In killing the Sphinx, Oedipus is the city's savior, but in killing Laius (and marrying Jocasta), he is its scourge, the cause of the blight that has struck the city at the play's opening” (GS). As the priest says to Oedipus:
For, as thou seest thyself, our ship of State,
Sore buffeted, can no more lift her head,
Foundered beneath a weltering surge of blood.
A blight is on our harvest in the ear,
A blight upon the grazing flocks and herds,
A blight on wives in travail; and withal
Armed with his blazing torch the God of Plague
Hath swooped upon our city emptying
The house of Cadmus, and the murky realm
Of Pluto is full fed with groans and tears (Sophocles).
Through Creon and Phoebus (another seer), Oedipus finds out that Apollo is angry, because “An unclean thing there is, hid in our land, / Eating the soil thereof” (Sophocles). This “unclean thing” turns out to be Laius’ murderer. Oedipus, not realizing that he himself is the murderer, thinks that whomever slew Laius might eventually turn his hand to Oedipus himself (“Whoe’er it was that slew / Laïus, the same wild hand may seek me too: / And caring thus for Laïus, is but care / For mine own blood” [Sophocles]). Therefore, from purely selfish motives, he agrees with Creon: “And with you for the right I also stand, / To obey the God and succour this dear land” (Sophocles). Oedipus then asks the Thebans to bring forth the murderer, under the penalty of banishment from Thebes. When no one steps forth immediately, he curses the still unknown murderer: “[E]ven as his soul / Is foul within him let his days be foul, / And life unfriended grind him / till he die” (Sophocles). Ironically, he also adds this to the end of his curse: “More: if he ever tread my hearth and I / Know it, be every curse upon my head / That I have spoke this day” (Sophocles). This search for Laius’ murderer started the chain of events that eventually led to Oedipus’ downfall. Even though he was a savior to the people of Thebes, he was also the murderer, and therefore the cause of the blight and plagues sent by Apollo (Sophocles).
Another key difference between the Christ-figure and Oedipus is that, while the innocent Christ died (and then was resurrected), the guilty and sinful Oedipus lived. A central facet to the Christ-myth is that the savior had to be blameless, and yet die anyway. This is illustrated in 2 Corinthians: “God made Him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Also, 1 Peter says that “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). The Christ therefore took on the world’s sins, and following in Campbell’s theory, voluntarily descended into death. According to John Wesley, “that [faith] acknowledges the necessity and merit of [Christ’s] death, and the power of his resurrection. It acknowledges his death as the only sufficient means of redeeming man from death eternal” (Wesley). Because Jesus was resurrected again on the third day after His death, He became the “restoration of us all to life and immortality; inasmuch as he ‘was delivered for our sins, and rose again for our justification.’ Christian faith is then, not only an assent to the whole gospel of Christ, but also a full reliance on the blood of Christ; a trust in the merits of his life, death, and resurrection” (Wesley).
Oedipus, because of his initial pride, committed fratricide, patricide, and incest. He slowly becomes aware of this fact, after he has cursed the unknown murderer. This revelation is sparked by something Jocasta said to him to comfort him: her husband, “at the crossing of three ways / Was slain by robbers, strangers” (Sophocles). Oedipus had killed a man at a crossroads, long before. The seeming coincidence piques his curiosity, and-despite Teiresias’ warnings-he investigates further. Shortly thereafter, a messenger comes to Thebes with news: Oedipus’ father-figure is dead, and he will be king. Oedipus mentions in passing that he can never return to his home, for fear of his mother. The messenger, thinking that he will ease Oedipus’ mind, informs him that he was no blood-kin to Merope; in fact, he was adopted as a baby. This starts the series of events that will eventually lead to Oedipus’ revelation-Laius was indeed his father, and was also the man that he murdered at the crossroads. Furthermore, Jocasta-the mother of his four children-was both his wife and his mother. Interestingly enough, while Oedipus would be considered innocent of any crime by most English or Roman standards, by Greek law he was guilty (Wilson). The precept in question stated, “Non est actus reus nisi mens sit rea” (“there is no guilty act without a guilty mind” [Wilson].) To the Greeks, it was the act that counted, instead of the intent (Wilson). Although he did it unknowingly, Oedipus did in fact murder his father and sleep with his mother. Furthermore, in Greek culture, the family unit was of the utmost importance: “[T]he worst conceivable crime was to kill one's father; the second worst was to sleep with one's mother. (More than just an incest taboo is involved here)” (Wilson). The shock of this revelation gives way to shame. “Oh, on these eyes / Shed light no more, ye everlasting skies / That know my sin! I have sinned in birth and breath. / I have sinned with Woman. I have sinned with Death” (Sophocles). Oedipus then rushes through the palace, intent on killing Jocasta as well. However, she realized the truth long before her husband; when Oedipus found her, she had killed herself: “[h]anged, swinging from a noose, like a dead bird” (Sophocles). He then took a pin from her dress and gouged out his own eyes (“The pin of gold, broad- beaten like a flame, / He tore from off her breast, and, left and right, / Down on the shuddering orbits of his sight / Dashed it” [Sophocles]). This fulfilled Teiresias’ prophecy about his own blindness. Oedipus Rex ends with the man, after bidding goodbye to his daughters, being led into the palace by Creon.
While Oedipus and the Christ-figure share several surface similarities, Oedipus would make a poor Christ. His hamartia would not let him have the qualities that a Christ-figure requires: selflessness, obedience, innocence, sinlessness. Oedipus’ fatal flaw was that of pride. While pride in and of itself is not necessarily an evil quality, it was the one characteristic that led to his downfall. It also placed him in the opposite category than the Christ-figure, the savior of the Christian mythos. While Christ revered His mother and obeyed His Father (fate; the god; God in the Christian myth) unto death and resurrection, becoming a true savior, Oedipus-due wholly to his pride-killed his father and married his mother, while trying to outwit the god and avoid his fate. Therefore, Sophocles’ Oedipus became opposite (anti) to the Christ (khristos): or, anti-Christ.
Oedipus: an Anti-Christ - Works Cited
Blumenfeld, Jon. The Hero Myth, Transcendence, and Joseph Campbell. April 1, 2001. http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=73
GS, “Full Summary and Analysis of Oedipus Rex.” http://www.gradesaver.com/classic notes/titles/oedipus/fullsumm.html
Sophocles, Oedipus Rex. 420 BCE.
Gill, N.S. “Oedipus Rex, by Sophocles-The King Misbehaves.” http://ancienthistory. about.com/od/sophocles/a/OedipusRex.htm
Holy Bible, The. New American Standard. Books: Matthew, John, Romans, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter. Assorted chapters, verses, and verse footnotes, as notated in the text.
Wesley, John. Sermon: Salvation by Faith. June 18, 1738. http://new.gbgm-umc.org/ umhistory/wesley/sermons/1/
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation#Salvation_Related_ Passages_in_Christian_Scriptures
Wilson, Andrew. “The Classics Pages - Oedipus Tyrannos by Sophocles.” http://www. users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/myth.htm