ChristianityYou Say Good-bye, I Say Hello

Like many of us at Earthchangers College, we have grown up in a Christ-haunted culture. I say “haunted” because we are living in a post-Christian era – after the death of the Christian church. Mainstream Christianity long ago lost the war with the world. The death throes in the U.S. have been going on for decades. Say Good-bye to the old, distorted Christianity.

But, is this the end of Christianity? As the institution founded by Paul of Tarsus, based on his interpretations of the death, resurrection and second coming of the Christ, yes. But, as to the message of Jesus, no. To his message and its esoteric meaning, I say Hello.

There are groups of Christians (and have been for two thousand years) who understood the hidden meanings underlying his message and, when the tide turned in favor of institutional Christianity, they went underground to protect and preserve it.

[If you are thinking gnostic, there is some of what is labeled gnosticism (Greek for “knowledge”) inherent in Christ-ianity, but gnosticism, as what evolved as a belief system--wherein salvation resides only in knowledge--like everything else, went off track, too.]

So, there are two kinds of Christian churches. The extoteric (public) church, is the one that everyone is familiar with, and preaches the parables and stories. Then there is the esoteric (hidden) church, consisting of those who wanted to know more and were able to understand the hidden meanings. As you know, the history of the church shows how those who didn't toe the line with the mainstream church (Roman Catholic Church-RCC) were subjected to some very unloving actions—quite the opposite of what Jesus the Christ preached.

Ah, but the Reformation came about. That handled the abuses. Didn't it? To some extent and for a time. But still, there has been so much emphasis put on Paul's teachings, and scriptures that are rife with mis-copyings, missing text, added information, legends born from oral traditions, etc., as to make the scriptures informative, but not infallible.

It has been said that what became the RCC kept Christianity alive, because of its codification of scriptures and its cohesiveness. But, was it alive in the first place? The RCC propagated Paul's version of salvation by belief in the death and resurrection of the Christ, but Jesus never preached (as far as history allows us to know) that people had to rely on his death and resurrection to find salvation. And, it begs the question, salvation from what? It is said there is a hell and salvation is from its eternal damnation. But, that's not what Jesus preached. He preached love. L-O-V-E.

What Jesus did say to his followers was that we, too, could do the things he did, and even more. He also said the kingdom of God is within. So, what was he saying? That he was God? No, he was saying he was human, and that we can achieve what he had achieved.

While its a well-known New Age concept (that all answers lie within), it dates back to the Christ himself. Imagine if you will that Jesus was born a human, just like you and me, but a human far along on his spiritual path, so much so that he ascended that lifetime. Did he ascend by the same method he expected the rest of us to follow? To just believe that his death and resurrection would cause his own

1

ascension? How could he?

As you will see in the following summaries from one of my studies of early Christianity, his saying “believe on me” is not necessarily something he said. As you will learn from the summaries, his saying you can do this, and even more, and the kingdom of God lies within, are not sayings Christians would have made up, since it goes against the proto-orthodox grain. In case you are unfamiliar, the RCC was the Christian church up until the Protestant Reformation beginning in 1517.

I hope the summaries will give you a quick, but insightful, glimpse into why the Bible, as well as the belief systems that rely on it, isn't what it seems. And, there was a lot of it, much of which never made it into the Bible. There is no intent to proselytize. It's a work about the historical accuracy of Christianity and Jesus, history that can be proven, with a reasonable level of certainty. For the best understanding, I encourage you to pick up a used copy of the book on amazon.com and read it in full. For the best understanding, I encourage you to pick up a used copy of the book on amazon.com and read it in full.

In closing this introduction, I'd like to share how I ended up in these studies. Through a series of synchronicities, I ended up in a small, esoteric seminary wherein, through one of the initiatic rites, I had a most marvelous vision. It was of a giant cross arising out of a lily. The real message, as Jesus intended, is being resurrected.

2

My Chapter Summaries fromThe New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Fifth Edition, by Bart D. Ehrman,James A. Gray Professor of Religious Studies

at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Chapter 1: What is the New Testament?

In the beginning of Christianity there were different groups claiming to be Christian: Adoptionists (Ebionites), Marcionites, Gnostic Christians, Proto-Orthodox Christians, and others. It took centuries before the varying viewpoints of what made Christianity christian was formalized into a canon of scripture we call the New Testament.

The Adoptionists (aka Ebionites), who were Jewish-Christians, believed Jesus was the most righteous man in the Jewish Law, but remained a man. He was "adopted" at his baptism because the voice of heaven, at his baptism, said, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." At that point, Jesus received the power of God to perform miracles and to teach about the kingdom of God until the end of his life, where he willingly laid it down as a sacrifice that put an end to all sacrifices under the Jewish law. They did not believe he was born of a virgin, or that he existed prior to his birth, or that he was God. Pursuant to their understanding, if he was God then that would make two Gods, and Jewish law was clear that there was only one God. So, he simply could not be God. He was adopted by the one true God of Israel as his son and empowered to be the savior of the world.

The Marcionites were followers of a second-century scholar and evangelist named Marcion. He claimed that he uncovered the true teachings of Christianity in Paul's writings and insisted that Paul was the true apostle (though we know Paul was never one of the original twelve apostles, never knew Jesus, and based his claim on a vision he said he had). Marcion believed that Paul's writings showed that Christ's gospel was antipathetic to Jewish law, and that Paul urged Christians to abandon the Jewish law altogether. This was seen in Paul's efforts to dissuade Gentile converts from following the Jewish law, such as circumsion and keeping kosher. Marcion went on to say that Jesus had nothing to do with the angry god of Israel and that Jesus' mission was to free the Israelites from that god. He concluded that Jesus did not have a real fleshly body, he was never born, that he only seemed human. This is the opposite of what the Adoptionists believed.

Then there were the Gnostic Christians. These were people who called themselves Christians who believed that a special knowledge (gnosis) was necessary for salvation. The Gospel of Thomas is one such writing. It is said that there was much diversity amongst the Gnostics. Some agreed with Marcion, that Jesus was totally divine and that he was not connected with the Hebrew god. Others thought he was both, divine and human. These gnostics also agreed that something "divine" had happened at his baptism, though they disagree that Jesus was adopted by God. It was at that baptismal point where he

3

became a divine being, the Christ, which gave him the power to perform his earthly ministry. It was at the point close to death that the divine being left, causing Jesus to cry out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" For many gnostics, Jesus was just one of many deities that made up the celestial realm. They also felt alienated from the earthly realm, feeling like they didn't belong here. Salvation, to them, meant escaping the material world.

"Proto-Orthodox" Christians were those whose beliefs would become the canon of scripture in the ensuing centuries. There is much debate whether it was already in the majority, or whether it developed over time, that different forms were more popular in different areas. It seems that the Proto-Orthodox Christians agreed in part with the Jewish Christians, and in part with the Marcionites, and also with the Gnostics, but disagreed in part. As the group who won the day, they advanced beliefs that fit with theirs, but rejected beliefs that didn't. Thus, certain writings were eventually labeled heretical and did not become a part of the canon of New Testament scripture.

There was precedent for the setting forth of scripture in writing, which was the Hebrew Bible (though at the time of Jesus, it is unknown if it was actually written down). The New Testament begins with the four gospels, thought to have been written by Apostles, but only two have that distinction, the other two (Mark and Luke) are supposed to have been written by assistants to Peter (Mark) and Paul (Luke).

The gospels are followed by the Acts of the Apostles, supposed to have been written by Luke, and focuses on Peter and Paul. Then there are epistles, many ascribed to Paul, but some not passing the historical critical standard, ending with the apocalypse of Revelation, ascribed to someone named John (but unknown if it is the disciple John).

Then flowing from those are the writings of the early church fathers, known as the Apostolic Fathers.

Discuss all the ways that early Christians (and Christian groups) differed from one another. In your opinion, is there any belief or practice that all the groups held in common? That is to say, is there some one thing (or more than one thing) that made all the groups that called themselves Christian Christian? Or not?

On the issue of Jesus being human or divine:

Adoptionists/Ebionites believed he was totally human, but empowered with supernatural gifts for his mission.

Marcionities believed he was totally divine. Some gnostics believed he was divine, but just another deity from the celestial realms, some

believed he was both human and divine.

On the issue of Paul's letters being the true teachings of Christianity, just the Marcionites believed that.

4

Ehrman states, "In sharp contrast to the Jewish Christians east of the Jordan, Marcion maintained that Paul was the true apostle, to whom Christ had especially appeared after his resurrection to impart the truth of the gospel."

On the issue of the Hebrew God and Jewish Law, the Adoptionist/Ebionites saw him as the most righteous man under the Law, but just a man, not

a god. They maintained their belief in the god of Israel, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. They believed the law should be followed. They rejected Paul as a heretic.

The Marcionites believed Jesus came to save the Israelites from the angry Hebrew god, and pursuant to Paul's writings, that the Jewish law should be abandoned, as it played no part in salvation. Only Christ himself was the way of salvation. Marcionites, thus, believed in two gods, the Hebrew God and Jesus, as God, and embraced Paul's teachings as the greatest of the apostles.

The Gnostics that claimed Jesus consisted of two separate beings, the human and the divine, were in agreement with the Jewish-Christian Adoptionists that Jesus was the most righteous man on earth and that something divine (empowerment) happened at his baptism, but they did not believe Jesus was adopted as God's son. Gnostics believed in a multiplicity of gods. However, despite all these gods and gnostic beliefs, the true God was not the God of the Hebrews, corresponding with the Marcionites. But diverging that the Hebrew God was more than vengeful and righteous and had high standards, but that he was evil, as was the material world he created, and that gnostics were spiritual beings from the divine realm who were trapped in the material realm by this evil God. Salvation meant escaping it.

The lowest common denominator these groups had was Jesus. Whether he was human or divine, whether he came to fulfill the law or abolish it, whether he superseded the god of the Hebrews or was his son, however people viewed him, his life changed history. In him was seen salvation, and throughout incipient Christendom, the diversity of what that meant and how it was achieved was remarkable and diverse.

2. Pick one of the early Christian groups other than the proto-orthodox and suppose that it had won out to become the dominant form of Christianity. How would the world we live in today be different? Would it be a better place or worse, in your opinion? Why?

I think the gnostics were the most different, in that they believed there was a multitude of divine beings (gods, if you want to call them that). Their viewpoint of salvation was the most different. For the others mentioned, salvation was an individual saving of the human soul. For the gnostics, salvation meant ensnared divine beings could escape the material world.

If the Gnostic philosophy/beliefs had prevailed, western civilization would have definitely evolved

5

differently. Whether it would have made a better world, or a worse world would depend on whether the gnosis (knowledge) was used for good or evil. So, that is hard to say with any certainty. But assuming it was used for good, my instincts tell me that the true story of mankind's spiritual heritage would have become known because the superstitions and fear used by The Church to control the masses have not occurred. It's a radical thing for each person to be empowered with "divinity" (however you want to define it, in its basic form meaning having powers greater than the average human). In the other forms of Christianity, only Jesus (and a few others) were empowered. Even though Jesus did say that his followers would be able to do the miraculous things he did, and more, it was never an emphasis of The Church and not many people understood that they too were powerful divine beings. Why do God's people perish for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)? The priests weren't sharing the knowledge. Then Jesus is sent with a mission to get people on the right track. But the priests derail him. Then, to finish the process, Paul comes along and derails Jesus's message further* by distracting Jesus' followers from his message with the Pauline rubric of what it all meant and how to proceed. Jesus seemed to be leading people into reclamation of their personal power and Paul took that and turned it into the worship of Jesus' power and dependence on him to realize what they should have been able to do on their own, their own salvation (or transcendence of the material world). That's a viewpoint. Whether it's the right viewpoint, of course, remains to be seen.

*Paul never mentions that he stopped being a Pharisee and I have long suspected he was a deep mole sent into the post-Christ incipient Christian community to send Jesus' message down a rabbit hole. Most of the apostles were suspicious of him and Jewish-Christians thought his writings that Christ brought an end to the Jewish law were heretical. There is nothing in Christ's actions, much less his words, that ever gave that indication. He continued following the law during his lifetime. Paul was never an apostle during the lifetime of Christ, and his claim of a vision of Christ after his death was unverifiable, so there are good arguments against Paul's claim. Whether he was an agent of the Pharisees, or an opportunistic kind of guy who wanted to make a name for himself is, of course, unknown.

Key Terms:Adoptionists – Jewish-Christians who believed Jesus was a righteous man, but not God, who was empowered by God to do his mission, as explained above.Ebionites – another name for Adoptionists.Marcion – a second century scholar who believed the true meaning of Christianity was found in Paul's writings. He compiled his own New Testament with a scaled down version of Luke (Paul's traveling companion) and ten of Paul's letters, as explained above.Proto-orthodox Christians – the forerunner of today's Christian beliefs.

6

Chapter 2: Do We Have The Original New Testament?

Nope. We don't even have a copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the original autograph.  There are over 5,700 manuscripts extant but most contain mistakes, from misspelled words to omissions and additions, accidental and intentional. I was mildly surprised to find out the story about the woman taken in adultery was a later add-on.

There are ways for textual critics to ascertain the meanings of passages, to wit, the older the manuscript, the more likely it is to be at least closest to the original, the distribution of the manuscript wherein a certain wording might be in distributed in one locale, but missing from manuscripts produced all over the ancient world, writing style, difficult renderings tend to be original (whereas easier renderings tend to be the "cleaned up" version), and the quality of the manuscripts.

Attestation is no test of trustworthiness. Because of the problems inherent in copying each individual manuscript, no one passage can be trusted as being written by the original author, or written in that way. Further, the original author (and I think of Paul in this case) could be writing per his own agenda, so nothing is for sure.

Take A Stand:

1. If someone were to say to you that we can know for certain what the apostles wrote because we have so many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, how would you respond?

That, yes, there are many NT manuscripts in existence, but, no, the writers of the manuscripts are unknown and some are even proven to be forging apostles' names. Further, it is known from comparisons of all ancient manuscripts, not just NT manuscripts, that many errors are introduced in the copying process.

2. A friend of yours tells you that the New Testament is more believable than any other book from the ancient world, because it is far better attested. How do you respond?

Attestation does not equal being trustworthy. Given the problems inherent in the copying process, whether unintentional or intentional, the trustworthiness of any given part is never known for certain.

Key Terms:

Amanuensis means a scribe, a copyist, a secretary.

Scripto continua means continuous writing.  I already knew there were no spaces, breaks, headings, etc. in ancient manuscripts, but did not know this was the word for it.

7

Chapter 3: The World of Early Christian Traditions

Context is important in interpreting scripture. Thus, understanding the world in which early Christian writings took place in is necessary. The religions in the Greco-Roman world were diverse and did not include many basics that 20-21st century church-goers would expect, like denominations, leadership, doctrines, ethics, written scriptures, beliefs in the afterlife, exclusive commitment to one religion, monotheism vs. polytheism, and so on. Most Greco-Roman religions were more concerned with what happened in this life than in an afterlife. This contrasted with the mystery schools, which had a focus on the afterlife. Cicero was an augur and on the Board of Augurs. He thought it was superstition. He was also an initiate of the Eleusinian Mystery School and spoke favorably about it.

There is a “divine pyramid” in the Greco-Roman religion which has “The One God” at the top, moving down from more powerful to less powerful gods, with humans at the bottom. This is the hierarchy of the polytheistic Greco-Roman religious landscape. Magic is considered the dark side of religion, that which isn't approved. However, there isn't much difference between the two.

While religions weren't jealous of each other and one could worship as many deities as one liked, the different philosophical schools were different. While they didn't get into the doctrines of gods, they did concern themselves with the meaning of life, happiness, ethical behavior. They did encourage people to take up one philosophical school of thought and stick with it. The major ones were the Stoics, Epicureans, and the Platonists. The shared similar goals in finding inner peace, but each group advocated different ways to achieve it. Stoics believed living in conformity with nature would do it. Epicureans thought the divine realm was irrelevant to this world and that the simple pleasures of daily living would do it.

1. Suppose Christianity had never been born and the Western world remained pagan. Would the world be a better place or worse, in your opinion?

My guess is it would be a worse place. I think of all the great art the was created around the church and its myths that wouldn't have been created. I also wonder if the Age of Enlightenment would have happened if people were stuck in the superstitious belief systems of first century A.D.

2. Pretend you're a pagan living in the Roman world and you want to show why Christianity is an inferior religion. Argue your case.

A pagan may have believed the exclusivity of Christianity (there is only one God and Jesus is his son) was limiting and put the individual, as well as the community, in danger by ignoring the local deities. Another argument could be that Jesus was just another “son of God,” and therefore was nothing special.

8

Key Words:

Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus who lived a remarkably similar life.Extispicy, the reading of a sacrificial animal's entrails.Haruspex, a specially trained priest who could read animal entrails.

While I knew of the acts of extispicy by a haruspex, I didn't know that was what they were called. I've read a lot about the life of Cicero, both fictionalized accounts (Taylor Caldwell's A Pillar of Iron) and biographies, so a lot of this chapter's words were already familiar to me.

9

Chapter 4: The Jewish Context of Jesus and His Followers

Judaism can be seen as just one of many Greco-Roman religions. Some of the similarities is that its adherents worshipped a deity, make sacrifices to it, praying to it, utilized a temple, and maintained a belief that there were divine beings of lesser (than God) power, but more powerful that humans. Some of the differences were requiring exclusivity in the worship of one god (monotheism), a covenant (agreement) between God and the people of Israel, and the Law which set forth Israel's covenantal obligations.

The lingua franca of the day was Greek. The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek and known as the Septuagint, which means seventy, named after the seventy Jewish translators who were sent to Egypt to translate the Torah for Ptolemy II (so the story goes). Because the Jewish people were in the diaspora and spread out across the Mediterranean and no longer were fluent in Hebrew, the Septuagint version were the scriptures that were quoted by authors of the New Testament.

The history of Palestine showed a long line of occupations and foreign rule. Beginning with the sixth century Babylonia destruction of Jerusalem, destruction of the temple, and captivity, events followed that kept the land unsettled. Persia took over Palestine several decades later, and ruled for several centuries. Then in 333 BCE Alexander the Great conquered Palestine. Then it was ruled by the Ptolemies of Egypt for a little over a century, then the Seleucids of Syria took over for over fifty years. The Maccabean revolt occurred between 167 BCE and 142 BCE. Then the Hasmoneans became the rulers and put a non-Zadok priest, which caused various sects to form, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes from 142 BCE – 63 BCE. Then the Roman general, Pompey the Great conquered Palestine in 63 BCE. Herod was made king of the Jews by the Romans in 40 BCE. Jesus was born in 4 BCE. Herod's son, Antipas, ruled from 4BCE to 39 CE. From 6 CE to 41 CE Roman procurator Pontius Pilate was the government. The First Jewish Revolt was from 66 CE to 70 CE, ending in the second destruction of the Temple.

The Pharisees were, surprisingly, not the hypocrites that they are made out to be. They were just intent on keeping the entire will of God and, thus, separated themselves from the common folk who weren't so stringent as they were. The Sadducees were, suprisingly, the real power players at the time of Jesus. The Sanhedrin was made up principally of Sadducees, and many Sadducees were priests in the Temple. The Essenes were made up of people who believed they were the true people of God and needed to get away from the impurities of the world, including impurities in the Jewish Temple and people. There was a “Fourth Philosophy” that embraced violence to rid Palestine of foreign control. Two of the groups associated with it were the Sicarii and the Zealots.

1. Pretend you are a Jew in the Roman Empire, and you are trying to convince your pagan neighbor to give up his worship of the Roman and local gods to become a Jew. Make a convincing case.

10

First, this is non-sensical because you were born a Jew, not recruited (as far as I know). I could make a convincing case, but the circumcision bit would be a real deal killer.

Okay, so I'll make believe. Gee, Apollonius, your life would be so less complicated if you just worshiped the one true god. He takes care of everything, so worshiping all those different lesser deities actually costs you more in terms of time and money, and the annoyance of wine libations and burning grain. Instead, you could just give a tenth of your income to the Temple. Just think what you could do with that extra time and money, and the relief of having a less complicated life. You're in good hands with Our God. What's a little piece of foreskin, right?

2. Consider the different kinds of Judaism in the first century. Is it better to talk about ancient Judaism, or ancient Judaisms. Make your case!

It's better to talk about ancient Judaism. It was basically a cohesive unit that had differences of opinions regarding some interpretations, such as what makes a Sabbath holy, or what constitutes work, or let's throw off the yoke of our oppressors. Unlike Christianity, which was being blended with gnostic beliefs, various Greco-Roman religions, and what nots like Paul and his speculations.

Key Terms

Fourth philosophy, I had heard of the zealots but didn't know the term fourth philosophy.Hanina ben Dosa, a “son of God” who could do miracles, based on prayer.Honi, the “circle-drawer,” another “son of God”, this one known for drawing a circle around himself and refusing to leave it until it rained.Pesher, the interpretation found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that followed a verse of scripture.Sicarii, a Jewish group who assassinated Jewish leaders thought to be consorting with Romans. Another group of the “fourth philosophy.”

[I was remitted from doing the questions after this one.]

11

Chapter 5: The Traditions of Jesus in Their Greco-Roman Context

A case was made about oral traditions. Most of the world, up until the 20th century was mostly illiterate. Those who could read were usually upper class and male. Even in Athens at the time of Socrates, maybe fifteen to twenty percent were educated. Most people “read” by listening to someone read a written document. Thus, at the time of Jesus, stories about Jesus were conveyed by stories being told.

Accuracy, which is important to modern, literate people, was not something that people of the oral tradition worried about. As the story was passed on, it changed. What was important was the moral to the story, rather than the accuracy. The author gave an example of the time of Jesus' crucifixion. The synoptic gospels had it on the day after the Passover meal, where John placed it on the preparation day, before the Passover meal. The significance of this difference could be John making a theological point that Christ was the sacrificial lamb who died for mankind's sins, a once-and-for-all sacrifice that negated the need for any further Temple sacrifices.

One point brought up by the author was that John made no mention that Jesus had a Passover meal with his apostles, that he had a meal the night before, and there is no mention of him instituting the Lord's Supper (This is my body, this is my blood). But the other gospels do mention it, which may be their emphasis on this sacrament. Did it happen? Unknown, but the author speculates that if it didn't happen, it was probably put in for a good reason.

So, the gist of this chapter is that there are variations in the gospels. These are due as a result of oral traditions changing the story, as well as the writers of the gospels having particular theological points they wished to emphasize. Those who wrote the gospels, at least as confessed by the author of Luke, used oral traditions. Even though it was decades later, at least several of the writers could have been eyewitnesses or knew the oral traditions from youth and got them from parents or elders who were eyewitnesses.

My question becomes if Christ didn't institute the Lord's Supper, is there any reason to doing it? I can see making it a remembrance of him, but is there something deeper? The author concedes there are some historical facts that have been verified, but if the gospels and other NT writings are part fiction, does it make a legitimate religion?

For instance, Scientology borrowed from many philosophies and traditions, and added some of their own “discoveries.” Does that make them a legitimate religion? Or is a religion legitimatized if it benefits humanity, no matter its factuality… in other words, it becomes legitimate if it is a collection of knowledge that uplifts mankind, helps it become “civilized,” or at least tames man's natural inclination towards war and lower emotional states that make Earth hell.

12

Chapter 6: The Christian Gospels

This chapter discusses the gospels as literature and proposes that they are a sub subgenre of Greco-Roman biographies. The expectations of reading such a work would include expecting it to be about a religious figure, learning about the character traits of the person, learning what traits to emulate or avoid, etc., instead of learning about the persons deeds or political/military triumphs.

Plutarch said, in his opening of his biography of Alexander the Great, that he viewed his writing like an artist views the head and the eyes, seeking that which makes the person. He did not focus on deeds and exploits, but on small details that gave hints about who the person really was. I read Plutarch's biography on Cicero and, as an example, Plutarch opens the work with a description of Cicero's last name, which means chickpea, and how people urged him to change it. He replied he would make the humble chickpea name for illustrious than the old names of Rome. He had a sense of humor that weaves throughout Plutarch's biography.

Ancient biographies weren't as concerned with historical accuracy as they were with showing the character of the person. This was shown through words, deeds, relationships and such. Character development was not something that was focused upon. It was thought in ancient times that character was fixed and didn't change. Today, many works considered “literary” fiction have character development as a prime focus. The character is shown how s/he reacts to situations and, thus, how his or her character develops. So reading ancient biographies depends on a different set of assumptions about what you are reading.

13

Chapter 7: Jesus, the Suffering Son of God (The Gospel According to Mark)

Mark appears to be the first gospel written. It begins with Jesus' baptism and ends with reports of his resurrection. The ending was odd, like something was missing, and over time more was added.

Mark's Gospel has its basis in a Jewish worldview. It was pointed out that use of the "Christ" was a Jewish concept that wasn't recognized outside of the Jewish community. It states that the story is a fulfillment of prophecies in the Jewish scriptures. Jesus being proclaimed to be the "son of God" is a phrase recognizable to the gentiles. They would have taken it to mean he was a divinely inspired teacher who performed miraculous deeds that was of benefit to humanity. In the Jewish world, a similar concept was known. Two of these sons of God were Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the "circle-drawer."

Jesus had an authority that astonished people. He called people to follow him and they did, he taught in the synagogues, demons obey him. However, he is misunderstood by those closest to him, including his own disciples. The leaders of the Jewish community opposed him and eventually sought to have him killed.

When Jesus tells Peter he must suffer, Peter rejected the notion. It is theorized that Peter couldn't accept it because it didn't fit his belief of what a messiah was. But Jesus tells Peter he must suffer, and so must his followers. It was ironic that it was a pagan soldier who saw that Jesus was the son of God. And it was the gentiles who embraced him as such, not his own people, the Jews.

14

Chapter 8: The Synoptic Problem and its Significance for Interpretation

The "Synoptic Problem" is the similarities, as well as the differences, among the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It appears, through techniques such as redaction criticism, that Mark was used for some portions of Matthew and Luke. Where portions of Matthew and Luke are similar, but not Mark, the theory is that a (probably) written source existed that hasn't been found, called Q, short for the German word quelle, which means source.

Redaction criticism is a technique whereby editorial changes in Matthew and Luke were compared with what is considered their source, Mark, to garner information about the gospel authors' beliefs and emphases. Matthew and Luke used other sources that Mark did not use, and labeled them M for Matthew's special sources, and L for Luke's special sources. This constitutes the Four-Source Hypothesis consisting of the gospel of Mark, and the unknown sources of Q, M, and L.

This was a fascinating insight into how text detectives can figure out things that are missing. As an analogy, the existence of a 10th planet (or 12th in some texts) in our solar was found, not because of being able to see such planet, but because of its pull (pertubation) in the orbit of the planet Pluto.

15

Chapter 9: Jesus, the Jewish Messiah

This chapter is about the gospel according to Matthew. It is believed to have been written by an educated, but unknown person who lived outside of Palestine, due to the fact Matthew was written in Greek presumably for a Greek-speaking community, possible in Antioch of Syria. The focus is on the Jewishness of Jesus and the corruption of the Jewish leaders. It is pro-Torah and Jesus is seen to be the new Moses, who interprets the law of Moses in some new ways. Matthew's emphasis is on following the Jewish law.

Jesus is the Jewish messiah who came in fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures. A genealogy of Jesus is given, all the way back to Abraham. He emphasized there were fourteen generations between Abraham and David, fourteen between David and the exile to Babylon, and fourteen generations from Babylon to Jesus, which was to indicate that the history of Israel occurred by divine providence. However, there is a problem with the calculations, in that several generations around Joran and Uzziah were omitted, thus the genealogy was not historically correct, but rather to portray Jesus' relationship to Judaism.

Jesus' life is formatted in Matthew like the story of Moses, to show that his life fulfilled the stories of Moses, like Moses was a foreshadowing of the messiah to come. First century Jews had several expectations concerning their future messiah. Some hoped for another King David, some expected a savior "coming on the clouds," some looked forward to an authoritative priest who would interpret and guide the people in the Mosaic law, and some hoped that a Mosaic prophet would come, who would save the people from the tyranny of the rulers, but also bring the new Law, something that Moses predicted would happen.

Jesus was rejected by the Jewish leaders and Matthew has a emphasis on the corruptness of the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and priests, who encouraged the people to petition for Jesus' crucifixion. The line "be his blood on us and our children" was the basis of much anti-semitism in later times. Prof. Ehrman speculates that the author of Matthew perhaps was in a community that was still experiencing opposition from non-Christian Jews.

16

Chapter 10: Jesus, the Savior of the World (Gospel of Luke)

In this chapter, a new way to study the Gospels is introduced, the "comparative method,"a way to establish a text's meaning by comparing it to related texts. Luke is compared with Matthew and Mark to see the differences and similarities. The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as a prophet and explains how salvation moved from the Jews to the Gentiles.

Ehrman reiterates that all knowledge is relational (by which he means worldly knowledge, not intuitive knowledge). We can only know something in relation to something else we know. This reminds me of something I read about when the first big ships stopped at some south Pacific islands, the ships didn't exist in the islanders' minds because they had never seen anything like it before and, thus, had nothing to which to relate it.

He also discusses words and how there is a relational issue, too. Sometimes, we can understand a word by what it's not, rather than what it is. This reminds me of an undergraduate class in Literary Theory. We were using Terry Eagleton's text, Literary Theory, and it was impenetrable. No one could understand what he was saying. (The class nearly imploded it was so bad.) The problem turned out to be that he was explaining what was wrong with the different lit theories, but never managed to convey to the reader that was what he was doing. So, it made no sense, and it didn't stack up relationally with what was logical.

Anyway, Luke's Gospel has some interesting differences from Matthew and Mark, and doesn't indicate that Jesus' death was for atonement of sins, on which Paul had a heavy emphasis. Luke seems to play down (or is it he just didn't play it up?) Jesus' divinity, or his passion scene. He was a prophet on a mission, and Hebrew prophets came to warn Israel to repent, then were usually done in by those who should have been repenting. In this sense, Jesus was one in a line of prophets, unjustly crucified but not seen as "the son of god." Luke also zoomed in on Jesus' social agenda, i.e., his concern for the poor, and changed the beatitude "Blessed are the poor in spirit" to basically "Blessed are the poor."

The two different genealogies is puzzling, to say the least. At best, Jesus was the step-son of Joseph, but not a blood relative. Luke had a broader perspective that Jesus was the son of Adam (who was the son of God), making him related to the entire human race. And placing the genealogy after Jesus' baptism was clever, to show him as the Son of God.

17

Chapter 11: Luke's Second Volume (The Acts of the Apostles)

Acts is believed to be written by the same author of the gospel of Luke. It is unknown if the author is actually Luke the beloved physician, traveling companion of Paul, or not. While the gospel of Luke was written in the form of a Greco-Roman biography, Acts is written as a general history. The book of Acts is analyzed using the "thematic method," which isolates the various themes to be able to come to an understanding of the author's main emphases.

In the opening chapters, some of the themes given is the anticipation of an apocalyptic end, the spread of the church, which the mission to the Gentiles was a main thrust, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Themes within the speeches in Acts is considered. Speeches are different according to their audiences, they can be instructional for Christians, evangelical for potential converts, or apologies for legal or religious authorities. Themes in Peter's speech include the theme that the entire Christian movement is a fulfillment of Jewish scripture and that God himself is behind the Christian movement, and is considered the overarching theme of the entire narrative.

Ehrman asks a good question, why should the book be called the "Acts of the Apostles" and then only focus on two of them, one of whom was not an original apostle. He thinks it points to the notion of continuity in early Christianity. There was the continuity between Jesus and Judaism, and then between Judaism and Christianity, and also included a continuity between Jesus and the Church. The point is that the church did not begin with Jesus' death, it was begun with the apostles while Jesus was still alive and were the ones responsible for disseminating Christianity after his death.

18

Chapter 12: The Gospel of John

This gospel, like the others, is written by an unknown author, but given the appellation of “John.” This gospel was apparently derived from several sources. This study uses the prior four methods of studying early Christian literature, as well as a fifth one, a socio-economic reconstruction method. For instance, the recognition of “literary seams” is a useful tool to detect when other sources are inserted and “loose ends” are not caught and tied down.

The Gospel of John, while having similarities to the Synoptic gospels, is also quite different. The socio-economic method reveals some possibilities of why that is so. In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus is seen as human, with a divine mission from God, but not God himself. In John, Jesus is raised to the level of God. This understanding could have been the result of the socio-economic influences and experiences the Johannine community underwent.

I found one of Ehrmans's comments interesting: “… the group was eventually excluded from their local synagogue, leading them to develop serious antagonisms toward non-Christian Jews….” This behavior went against what Jesus preached, “love thy enemies,” so was puzzling as to why they weren't practicing what they were preaching.

After all these years of accepting stories like the Samaritan woman at the well, and the talk with Nicodemus, it suddenly occurs to me… who was there that was able to write down these stories? Are these more “myths” created to make a concept more memorable?

That so many things in John are not in the Synoptics seems a violation of the rule that there should be two or three witnesses to be able to decide the truth. [Later on, it is mentioned that only one witness is a problem for historians.]

19

Chapter 13: The Johannine Epistles and Beyond

This chapter continues from the gospel of John into the Johannine epistles and gnosticism. It uses a new study approach called the contextual method. As you know, when I found out about gnosticism early on, I did some research into it. While there are familiar text/beliefs, there are other beliefs that stand in opposition to the established canon (and others that are poorly understood). Three of the major divergent characteristics are (1) the god of the Hebrews is an evil god, and not the one True creator, (2) Jesus didn't have a real fleshly body, only the appearance of one, and (3) and salvation comes through gnosis (knowledge), not by belief in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus (though gnostics believed Jesus was a divine messenger).

They are called epistles for convenience sake, though 1 John diverges from the normal letter-writing conventions (being more of a type of persuasive essay) and the author is unidentified. 2 John is from an author identified as “the Elder” to “the Elect Lady” (believed to be a Christian church or community of believers) and the 3 John epistle is from the same author addressed to a private person. It is believed all three letters were written by the same author and, though there is still debate, it is generally believed the author of the epistles is not the same author as the author of the gospel of John. The bias of the author was that the departing group had taken their gnostic views too far.

The concern of the Johannine epistles has to do with a group of believers who split from the community, known today as the secessionists. It is theorized that the departing group were what is known as docetists, a Greek word that means “appear” or “seem,” which ties in with the gnostic view that Jesus was totally divine, and only appeared or seemed to be human.

Because the gnostics devalued the flesh, prior to the discoveries of Nag Hammadi and learning the other side of gnosticism (which had only been known through the eyes of its enemies such as Ireneaus and Ignatius), the early church Fathers drew some wild conclusions that gnostics engaged in wild orgies, were cannibals, and such. With the Nag Hammadi discoveries, it was learned that was not true at all, the gnostics led ascetic lives trying to condition the body to not be in harmony with what they considered the evil physical world.

The contextual method is considered the flip side of the socio-historical method, using the reconstructed social history underlying the text to establish the historical context on what the author says. As Ehrman said and demonstrated with his sketch of the word course, “Words have meaning,” and meanings are differentiated by the context to which they are related.

Regarding that very issue, some of the poorly understood Gnostic writings suddenly are understandable when put into the context of the body of knowledge called Yoga. I read a book entitled, The Yoga of Jesus, by Parmahansa Yogananda. It made sense and might be the light needed to make sense of gnostic beliefs (and a few puzzles in the established canon, as well).

20

This is from Erhman's blog (an emerging trend is to avoid the term Gnosticism altogether as descriptive): (all below is quotation):

Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, we were ill-informed concerning the beliefs and practices of early Christian Gnostics, since virtually all of our information came from attacks leveled against them by their proto-orthodox opponents. An enemy can scarcely be trusted to provide a fair or accurate portrayal of one’s views.

The discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts did not completely remedy the problem, however. For one thing, these texts do not themselves present a unified view of what Gnosticism was, but represent a remarkable range of perspective and belief. Even more problematic, these documents do not as a rule lay out what the Gnostics believed and practiced, but presuppose such matters as the backdrop for what they do want to discuss. That is to say, these books were written by Gnostics for Gnostics, and so do not go to any great lengths to explain what the authors and readers together assume to be true (any more than an article on the sports page about the first game of the World Series explains the rules and history of baseball). Modern readers who want to know what Gnosticism was about, then, are compelled to read between the lines to try to reconstruct the underlying assumptions about the divine realm, the world, and the place of humanity in it, as well as to see what ritual practices and ethical systems were found among such groups.

As a result, scholars devoted to uncovering such matters continue to dispute rather basic issues. These include the most fundamental question of all: whether it makes sense even to use the term “Gnosticism,” given the circumstance that it has been used to describe so many different ancient religious groups and phenomena. Most scholars continue to utilize the term, either to refer to only one such group (the Sethians, who will be discussed below) or as an umbrella term to cover a number of groups with many similarities among themselves. Those who use the term in this latter sense have heated debates over such matters as where Gnosticism came from, whether it was originally connected with Christianity, and what its various permutations were. It is often thought, in any event, that (a) a wide range of Gnostic groups, many of them Christian, thrived in the second century of the common era; (b) these groups agreed that this material world is not the creation of the one true God, but by lower divinities, often thought to be ignorant or inferior, and that the world is a place of imprisonment for elements of the divine who are trapped here in human bodies; (c) these groups stressed “knowledge” (= gnosis, hence the term “gnostic”) as a way of salvation from this awful world; and (d) this saving knowledge was brought from above, by Christ, and it is this revelation of truth, rather than his death and resurrection, that ultimately matter for salvation.

Several of the texts from Nag Hammadi represent explications of the Gnostic myths that convey these views; these are probably to be allowed poetic license rather than taken as propositional truths or historical sketches of what “really” happened in the mythic past. Many of these are interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, especially the opening chapters of Genesis, which provided fuel for the mythological imagination. Other texts are poetical reflections on the divine realm, the need for

21

liberating knowledge, and the nature of the world or of the human place in it; yet others contain attacks on literal-minded Christians who failed to recognize the truth (see Chapter 7). The few Gnostic texts that have survived in other places (i.e., outside of Nag Hammadi), also seem to share many of these basic perspectives.

We know of three major religious groups that subscribed to such views, to one degree or another: the Sethians, the Valentinians, and (possibly) the Thomasines. I will explain the characteristics of each of these groups, and introduce an undifferentiated set of fourth texts (different from the three, but not cohesive as a separate group) below.

22

Chapter 14: Jesus From Different Perspectives

This chapter explores some of the thirty-something gospels and other early Christian writings that did not make it into the canon.

In the category of Jewish-Christian Gospels, the Gospels of the Nazareans, Ebionites and Hebrews, as well as Maricon's Gospel are discussed. The Sayings gospels are then discussed, with much detail given to the Gospel of Thomas, and a nod at “Q” (as being a Sayings work). Other Sayings gospels include the Apocryphons of John and James, and the Epistle of the Apostles.

I had earlier read the Infancy Gospels and they did, indeed, sound like legend. It raises the question of how a divine being would act as a child… would the childish mind rule, or would the divine being be able to control it. Of course, we all would probably want Jesus to be the same wise, divine counselor in infancy/youth as he was in his adult life, but that's not necessarily realistic. But still, for a child to have that kind of power without the requisite maturity to handle it would be dangerous, indeed. A very interesting question, the answer to which will probably never be known. [However, later on, when discussing Jesus' baptism, one theory is the Christ consciousness entered Jesus at that time, and that before then, he was a normal human working on his ascension.]

The Passion Gospels include those of Peter and Judas Iscariot. Peter's sound like it had gnostic influence, and Judas' went so against what is commonly held in Christianity that it seemed ridiculous. But like how history is rewritten by the victors, who can say what Judas Iscariot's story really is.

The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter is included in the Passion Gospels because it depicts the Passion, but in this work Peter has a puzzling (to him) vision of Jesus being nailed to the cross, while also seeing him above, laughing at the scene. It was mentioned that the Jesus of the canon is never revealed laughing, only showing lower emotions (which is rather unbecoming of God, but perhaps was put in to show his humanity?). But, as history proves, Jesus did get the last laugh because the murder of that innocent man sparked a religious movement that last two thousand years.

23

Chapter 15: The Historical Jesus

In this chapter, we move from authors and their opinions as to the meaning and importance of Jesus to what the Gospels actually tell us about Jesus himself. The time period considered is about hundred years after his death, approximately 30 CE to 130 CE.

Not much is actually known about Jesus. From pagan sources, mentions of Jesus have been found in the writings of Pliny the Younger (a Roman governor of Bythnia-Pontus). What he said helped to further understanding of how far Christianity had spread and what it was like in the early years of the second century, but it had no practical value in revealing what Jesus said and did.

A Roman historian, Suetonius, mentioned riots among the Jews that were instigated by a person named “Chrestus,” which may be a misspelling of Christ. But, again, no details about Jesus himself.

Then Tacitus, another Roman historian, mentions Christians in one of his books and that “Christus” was executed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But, yet again, no details about Jesus himself.

Jewish sources weren't much help either, many having been written long after Jesus' death. Josephus, a Jewish historian, confirmed that Jesus had a brother (James) and that some people thought Jesus was the messiah. Another passage indicated that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and found a following among both Jews and non-Jews. But no mention of what Jesus said or did.

Christian sources outside the canon were written late and had the flavor of legends. Thus, things said about Jesus were not credible, for the most part.

Some of the methods used to help find the truth were (1) the earlier the better (meaning the closer in time a writer wrote made the writings more credible), (2) the more theology in the writing, the less the belief that it was historically valid, and (3) author bias.

Other techniques used were the criterion of independent attestation, in other words, the same event reported by people independent of each other has more weight than the report of just one author. Another is the criterion of dissimilarity. If the saying or deed did not seem to support a “Christian” cause, it was more likely to be true because later works showed additions to boost the Christian agenda.

The criterion of contextual credibility also helps the researcher determine if something fits contextually. For example, the use of a high Christology by someone claiming to be an illiterate Apostle does not fit the context of Palestine in the first century.

I was recently re-reading a book by Dolores Cannon entitled They Walked With Jesus. DC is a past-life regressionist who has published many books (which are mostly transcripts of her sessions). In this book, she focuses on two of her clients who had past-life memories of Jesus. She does everything she can to vet that the person is not just fantasizing. The first client met Jesus at the temple. The second client was his niece, according to the transcript, the daughter of Jesus' half-brother Joseph. Through this method, which DC calls recovering lost knowledge, information about Jesus was uncovered. In

24

passing, she quotes some interesting information:

“In Jesus and the Essense [another one of her books] I quoted from The Archko Volume, a little known book written by Drs. McIntoch and Twyman, printed in 1887. These men had discovered written reports in the Vatican Library dealing with Christ. One of these contained a description of Jesus that remarkably coincides with the descriptions given by the various subjects. After Jesus and the Essenes was printed, I came across another such letter which contained a similar description. This startling document was also discovered in the Vatican Library. It was supposedly written to the Roman Senate at the time of Christ by Publius Lentulus, then Roman proconsul in Judaea, a predecessor and friend of Pontius Pilate. The following is his description of Jesus:

This is a man of noble and well-proportioned stature, with a face full of kindness and firmness, so that the beholders both love him and fear him. His hair is the color of wine (probably tawny) and golden at the root – straight and without luster – but from the level of the ears curling and glossy, and divided down the center after the fashion of the Nazarenes.

His forehead is even and smooth. His face without blemish and enhanced by a tempered bloom; his countenance ingenuous and kind; his beard is full, of he same color as his hair, and forked in form; his eyes blue and extremely brilliant.

In reproof and rebuke he is formidable; in exhortation and teaching gentle and amiable of tongue. None have seen him to laugh, but many, of the contrary, to weep. His person is tall; his hand beautiful and straight. In speaking he is deliberate and grave and little given to loquacity; in beauty surpassing most men.”

“This was taken from the article, “What Did Christ Really Look Like,” by Jack Anderson, which appeared in Parade Magazine, April 18, 1965.”

The subject was a middle-aged Jewish woman, of the Reformed Judaism Temple, who knew next to nothing about Jesus, so her memories weren't influenced by the common bible stories that most Christians know.

25

Chapter 16: Excursus -- The Historian and the Problem of Miracles

In this short chapter, Prof. Ehrman discusses the problem historians have with being able to show whether miracles happened (as opposed to whether can miracles can happen, yes they can happen, but did they happen) due to the lack of evidence.

In the ancient world, miracles were accepted. Around the time of the Age of Enlightenment, the world changed; scientific methods began to predominate and the acceptance of miracles as a natural occurrence began to diminish. An historian's job is to indicate what could have probably happened, but miracles being something uncommon usually leave no evidence, except by personal testimony.

Asclepius was discussed because of the so-called miracles of healing for which he was renowned.

26

Chapter 17: Jesus in Context

This chapter describes the politics of first century Palestine, then goes on to examine apocalypticism and treats the notion that Jesus was an apocalypticist, and why he is best understood as an apocalyptic prophet.

The Syrian overlords were pushing Hellenization, which led to sects being formed who resisted their policies. Further, the Romans dominated the area and pushed their policies, as well. Jews, being a conquered people, were required to pay taxes, which was in addition to the approximate twenty percent temple tax.

There were silent protests and nonviolent uprisings. The week-long Passover celebration always incurred armed Roman troops, just in case. The Passover celebration is considered a silent protest, which could ignite and lead to violence. One of the non-violent uprisings involved Pontius Pilate bringing in Roman standards and placing them around Jerusalem. There was a form of "sit in" at Pilate's residence in Caesarea, which caused him to threaten to put the protesters to death. When the Jews responded with "go ahead, we'd rather die than to live with your transgressions against our laws," Pilate backed down. Prophets were a form of Jewish protest. They predicted the imminent arrival of God to rescue his people.

There were violent insurrections, which were put down with force. One was over Herod the Great being replaced with a Roman prefect, who imposed a census for tax purposes. This was led by a freedom fighter, Judas, and crushed. Others were "zealots" who fought the Romans, instigating a three-year siege of Jerusalem ending with the burning of the Temple.

Out of this climate, an idealogy of resistance was born: apocalypticism, wherein a time would could when time when end with the abolishment of oppression and the reign of God's kingdom. The oppression was not seen as punishment of God's people, but that evil had been given reign for a season before God's arrival.

So, Jesus lived in this time period of great oppression and apocalypticism to give the people hope. He began his ministry by being baptized by an apocalyptic preacher, John the Baptist, and ended with the rise of the Christian church, populated with Jews with apocalyptic viewpoints.

27

In conclusion, what basic facts have been historically established about Jesus with some degree of certainty?

1. He was baptized;

2. He associated with tax collectors and sinners;

3. He chose twelve disciples to be his closest companions;

4. He caused a disturbance in the Temple near the end of his life; this disturbance eventuated in his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate; and

5. In the wake of his death his followers established vibrant Christian communities.

Scholars have been unable to establish a solid consensus on what the historical Jesus said. They have been able to determine that the people believed he could work miracles, but cannot prove that he worked miracles. A number of his teachings are not independently attested (an important criteria in determining the validity of something), and most of them appear to conform to the perspectives on Jesus that developed within the communities that preserved them. The famous “I am” statements in the gospel of John have not been verified by other sources and all of them coincide with the Christology (study of the divinity of Jesus) that developed within the Johannine community.

So, you now see some of the major flaws and failings in the Christian scriptures. Read Ehrman's textbook and you will see much more. It's time to put aside the superstitious dread of other information and start looking at other sources. For by so doing, multiple attestations from independent sources can reveal what the truth of mankind's spiritual nature really is, and what can be done to improve it.

28