Who is Jesus (Yeshua or Joshua) son of Joseph? This question has invited commentary for centuries along with psychological projections. The one projection that really got traction was the "Christ" achetype that was championed by Paul of Tarsus. Once that projection crowded out all others did we lose the historical Jesus in exchange for an supernatural entity? I believe we did and it left in its wake a trail of theological backtracking to cover tracks for the first four centuries (i.e. original sin begat immaculate conception).
But who was Jesus? The historical person. After many years of research and growing tired of the circular references provided by scripture I decided to approach Jesus with a different methodology: through his family. Hegisippus, through Eusibius, the Gospels, Acts, The Gospel of Thomas, The Recollections of Clement, among other ancient texts refer to at least four brothers of Jesus: James, Symeon, Judas, and Thomas. James was the leader of the nascent group that came to be recognized as the Way in Jerusalem immediately after his brother’s death. After James was martyred in the 60’s Symeon took over the reigns of the Jerusalem community and moved them to the Transjordan, to Petra, after the cataclysm of 70 CE.
James was a Nazarite Jew. A man who took vows to not eat meat (hence Paul’s put down of vegetarians in his letters), not cut his hair, not drink alcoholic beverages, and to abstain from sexual relations. The question I come up with is if Jesus passed the leadership of that nascent community on to James wouldn’t he have shared a common goal with James? Would he, too, not be a Nazarite? If that is the case then Jesus, far from the picture portrayed of him in the gospels, would have been a very orthodox Jew.
I am inclined to think that this may have been the historical case. The Maccabean revolt was still fresh in the memories of the people of Jesus’s day. They knew that the Greek masters had been thrown off by cleansing the Temple of the polluting Helenistic influences. Why not do the same with Herod and the Romans. Herod had stacked the Temple with his own lackeys and had murdered the last Maccabean (his own son). Once he reached the age of majority and put on the high priest’s robes and the crowds went wild and Herod would not allow such a threat to grow. I believe that Jesus and his brothers represented a movement that sought to, by non-violent means, retake the Temple and cleanse the priesthood. This would mean that his movement was associated with ‘Damascus’ where the Essenes were located (modern day Qumran).
I realize that my point of view is held by a very small minority. Still it makes sense from a historical perspective and it does have broad implications for the ensuing theological developments over the next four to five centuries. It is important, therefore, to remember that there is a historical reality and a mythological reality. Is one more or less valid than the other? Not really. Our mythology captures our projections and allows human beings to recognize unconscious content thus moving to a higher level of awareness. The mythological Jesus has performed admirably in this regard.
Jesus is the supercollector of our projections. In him there is no east or west as the old hymn goes. By collecting our personal and collective projections he carries us to greater understanding, awareness, and consciousness.
Peace.
Joel+
Another projection?
How do I know that this reconstruction isn’t just another mythological projection - representing your ambition to disprove traditional ‘projections’ and replace it with one of your own?
But this probably seems too curmudgeonly a response. My main reason for mailing this comment is that I’ve just been reading Jeffrey John’s ‘The meaning in the miracles’ - the main thrust of which is to illustrate that each of the miracles of Jesus had a point to make, and that especially he demonstrated the inclusion in the kingdom of God those who, under the old dispensation, had been excluded for religious, social and moral reasons - menstruating women, lepers, Samaritans, Gentiles, homosexuals, prostitutes, adulteresses, women in general, children, people with withered limbs, the deaf, the dumb, the blind, the lame and the dead.
So if we are to talk about a Jesus who sought to take Israel back to the purity envisaged by the Maccabees, we need to bear in mind Jesus’s very radical reinterpretation of what it mean to be a Jew - which would probably not have been accepted at all by the Maccabees.
I probably am just an old curmudgeoun - but if there is to be an emergent theology, it will need to stand up to scrutiny. I haven’t seen any that does yet - but I am excited by an emergent view of Jesus which shows there is still plenty of radical material to be discovered in the traditional paths.
By the way, John suggests that the homosexual was the centurion’s servant. But you’ll have to read the book to find out why - which is to do with the behaviour of Roman conquerors in the fields of their conquests.
(For US readers, Jeffrey John is to the UK as Bishop Gene (Jean?) Robinson is to the US - except that in our case, John didn’t quite make it to becoming a bishop)
Whose is to say it isn't?
I was in Wales when Jeffrey John was put forward for bishop and the evangelicals strong-armed Rowan Williams into backing down. A really sad day for the Anglican Communion that contributed to the fix we are in today. Anyway, I digress.
I am very cognisant that my perception of the historical Jesus places him in a very narrow camp. However, it could very well be the historical reality. In that understanding of history I believe that Jesus probably didn’t live past Tuesday afternoon. Once he upset the proceedings in the Temple he was handed over to the Roman authorities and dispatched with haste.
Now as to the mythological Jesus this was a boon as it presented a clean slate upon which humans could project material. This is extremely gratifying in that it would mean that at the core of collective humanity is a desire for women to be equal to men, discrimination of all kinds to be eliminated, and poverty overcome. How powerful! The mythological Jesus is an expression of our deepest desire and reveals our true understanding of what it means to be human.
As for the miracles of Jesus I always take care not to read the gospels as a collage. Each story in each gospel speaks to a unique situation as experienced by that community whether it was the Jewish community of Matthew or the gentile, evangelical community of Luke. I haven’t read John’s book but will give it a look. Thanks for pointing it out.
peace
Joel+
Who is Christ to you?
So who do you say Christ is? Is he the Son of God? Is he a son of God? Is he (as purported to be his teaching) the one true path to God - the Way the Truth and the Life? Do you believe in the physical resurrection? Do you believe in His return as judge and conquerer?
It seems to me that the "historical Jesus" is harder to find now that 2000 years ago. Yet so many supposed experts are throwing out the classic works of the faith and discounting ages of church history to make Jesus more palletable. Must ALL of the foundations of our faith be wrong?
Who is Christ
First of all for a foundation of faith to be true must it be located in historical certainty - i.e. Jesus walked upon the earth and actually said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"? Biblical scholarship has already given ample evidence through redaction and textual criticism to show that was a statement of the Johannine community and not Yeshua son of Joseph. So the interesting question is how did the Johannine community come to that understanding of Jesus? What yearning or seeking led them there?
I believe that the historical Jesus is much easier to know in 2005 than he was in 1940 or 1849 or 1500. Primarily because we have the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us invaluable insight into the religious and political intrigue that was going on during the time of Jesus up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Read the Commentary on Habakkuk and you could be reading a first hand report on the murder of James the Just and the role Paul of Tarsus and Annas the High Priest played in that crime. Nag Hammadi gave us a sayings gospel, The Gospel of Thomas, which moved "Q" from theory to fact. The material sayings gospels contain, without a narrative framework, is very important since they could be the earliest recollections of the actual sayings of Jesus from a time when what Jesus said was of more importance than who Jesus was.
But who is Christ, you ask? Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew messiah. Messiah usually meant God’s agent as in the kings of Israel or the prophets. Messiah also means "God’s annointed." The early followers of Jesus and his brothers (called "the Way" in Acts and known later as Ebion in history) had this perception of Jesus. They felt that he was God’s agent and went only so far to say that he was "adopted" as God’s son. Hence, when Orthodoxy came to power, they were declared heretics.
The other aspect of Christ that is very important is from the philosophical principle of Logos which John picks up in his gospel - "In the beginning was the word (logos)…" This interjects an otherworldly aspect into the original meaning of messiah and transforms Christ from a this worldly figure to a supernatural character.
You ask me if I believe in the physcial resurrection as well as Jesus’ or Christ’s return as judge and conquerer. I believe that Jesus was an extremely religious and devout Jew who loved his traditions. He was eager to see the Temple purified and restored and the Herods and Romans expelled from Judea as well as the Galilee. As for the eschatalogical emphasis on Jesus – I do not find a compelling case for it in "Q" or Thomas. Therefore, I believe the eschatalogical focus on Jesus returning as judge and conquerer are the result of later projections by followers who did not know him personally but did expand on some of the statements made by Paul who was eager for the parousia.
Throw out the classic works of the faith? I’m not sure what you mean by that. There are many classic works that are valuable for spiritual formation. Spiritual formation takes place in the context of sharing the journey and the classics of faith are wonderful reservoirs of testimony that should be drawn from.
As for my own personal spiritual understanding of Christ I think Carl Jung sums it up best: The self or Christ is prsent in everybody a priori, but as a rule in an unconscious condition to begin with. But it is a definite experience of later life, when this fact becomes conscious. It is not really understood by teaching or suggestion. It is only real when it happens, and it can happen only when you withdraw your projections from an outward historical or metaphysical Christ and thus wake up Christ within. (Jung and Religious Belief, Psychology and Western Religion) So I do believe that the Johannine community is onto something with its emphasis on Jesus and the Father are one and Jesus and his followers are one. That means that Christ and I are one - the basic statement of Christian baptism. Would that Christians become bold enough to wake up the Christ within!
Peace
Joel+
Equal weight not justified
You seem to use questionable sources pretty freely. You give an aweful lot of weight to Q and Thomas. I wouldn’t give them that much authority as other scripture because of the lack of multiple manuscripts. With old/new testament books, you’ve got literally tens of thousands of 3rd/4th generation copies. These later, trendier texts lack that kind of historical weight.
Are Christ and I really one? I don’t think that’s the basic statement of baptism. Baptism is an indication and an outward announcement that we realize our need of the work of Christ to make us right with the Father - to bring us back into relationship with Him. It’s us identifying with Christ - not the other way around. Surely, you don’t propose that Christ is present in everyone - even those who reject Him. He’s available to all, but only enters when invited in. Surely, there may be some root of God present - as we were created in His image. But don’t statements like "Christ and I are one" set ourselves on the throne instead of the Lord?
The weight of Q and the closeness of Christ
The "Q" source is extracted from Matthew and Luke so I doubt that it would qualify as a 3rd/4th generation copy. Then again the canonical gospels were redacted up to the fourth century so I guess it could be. I’m not sure what other questionable sources you are referring to - Eusebius? Heggisippus? Again, given their antiquity, I wouldn’t consider them later or trendy, especially Heggisippus as he was writing around the time Luke wrote Luke/Acts.
Should I infer from your comment, "the work of Christ is to make us right with the Father," that there is something inherently wrong with human beings? Total depravity perhaps or original sin? This theological point of view certainly has kept Christ busy! Yet I abandoned that line of reasoning years ago.
Is Christ a ‘being’ in the sense that you or I are? Christ is a principle, an idea, an archetype. As an idea or archetype Christ does indeed exist within and is accessable by all conscious human beings. Does that mean that I think your spirituality is wrong if you believe Christ is a ‘being’? No, of course not. It simply means we share a different perspective on a theological point.
As for baptism it was Paul who said we "put on Christ" and "become a new creature" through the rite. Indeed, Paul says that we die in Christ that we might rise in Christ.
The throne imagery in my opinion is quaint. Perhaps this issue is best addressed by the mythology of the Ascension. If we are to seriously accept the Orthodox statement that Human and Divine are equally present in Christ then the Ascension means that Humanity has been taken up into the Godhead and is seated at the right hand of the Father. I didn’t set us on the throne - Orthodox theology and Christian mythology did. Let me define a term here - myth is human deepest longing to understand.
Peace
Joel+
This is gonna go nowhere fast
I can see that you and I should discontinue this conversation now. We don’t have any shared ground to work from. You’re stating as "fact" verses from "Q" or GTo and giving them more weight than the rest of scripture. You have reduced Christ to be merely a thought - a shared experience that exists only in the mind of humans. You have made humans god.
My would say my theology is "quaint" because I believe in the supernatural and the mystical. I would say you think far too highly of your own abilty to reason and philosophize. I think it’s time to stop now before one of both gets offended.
Peace.
Huh?
Back the bus up. Credible arguments attributing Jesus’ words to the Johanine community are based on other premises (perhaps arguing that if they were Jesus’ words they would have been included in the synoptics). Redaction criticism, when it provides "ample evidence" for anything, typically relates to the synoptic gospels rather than John. And the textual evidence is rather unanimous in support of the reading all our Bibles have.
Whoa. While probably the majority of New Testament scholars some theory of Q, very very few believe GThom is it. In fact, most believe that GThom depends on the canonical gospels rather than the other way around.
Right about now I’m feeling very uneasy about the foundations of your other arguments.
Thomas and Q
What I meant by my statement about Thomas moving Q from theory to fact is that a sayings gospel was recovered almost completely intact that proved that the genre did indeed exist. It was not a statement about the validity of Thomas as a source on par with the canonical gospels.
However, now that you bring that up…it is obvious that Thomas has been redacted by a gnostic community (three times I think) and was edited into at least the 2nd if not 3rd century. Again, the same is true of the canonical gospels as well (but you have to add another century or two of editing).
To throw Thomas out because it is "dependant upon the canonical gospels" I think is biased towards the Orthodox point of view. In fact scholars agree that there is a saying (maybe more) in Thomas that is highly probable to be original with Jesus that is not recorded in the canonicals. Thomas 98 says, "Jesus said, ‘The Kingdom of the Father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand cold carry through. Then he slew the powerful man.’" A rather grisly saying when taken literally which is why it didn’t make the cut into the canonicals. However it does call into question the assumption that Thomas was dependant on the canonicals for his material.
I believe that the original strata of Thomas was dependant upon the same sayings sources that Q was and therefore was probably composed around the same time but then they took very divergent paths given the faith communities in which each document evolved.
peace
Joel+