I realise that the book I'm writing is interfering with the frequency with which I've recently been posting to this blog, so I decided to post what follows: a 1st draft of a small section of one chapter . I'd be grateful for any feedback you might want send my way; just use the comment function at the bottom of the page. (Once again, the images here are just some I pulled down from the net, and are not part of the manuscript.)
On a sad note, I was distressed to hear that Christopher Hitchens just died. He had faced his death by cancer with his customary grace, wit, and courage. A very important voice has been silenced. Rest in peace, Hitch.
On a sad note, I was distressed to hear that Christopher Hitchens just died. He had faced his death by cancer with his customary grace, wit, and courage. A very important voice has been silenced. Rest in peace, Hitch.
Christianity’s origins
Patrick Guntensperger
It's important to note that the Christianity of the right
that dominates the politics of the western world and which proudly asserts its
"fundamentalism", is not only a fairly recent phenomenon, but it is far from
being a conceptually coherent or even homogenous set of doctrines. Christianity,
like most religions, is a grab-bag of often conflicting doctrines, arising from
myths, agreed-upon historical falsehoods, fairy tales, and hard-sell marketing.
In the case of Christianity, even its name is a misnomer; Paulism would be a
more accurate title for what guides the lives of the faithful today. But, of
course, accuracy was never the salient feature of the transmission of any
religious doctrine.
At the centre of Christianity is the figure of Jesus of
Nazareth. Little is known about the historical Jesus; virtually everything we
think we know about him comes down to us from texts written by members of his
fan club who were born long after his death. Nevertheless, it is possible to
extrapolate somewhat from the biblical accounts of his life. It is impossible
to say anything definite, however, as the gospels - the four written accounts
that are officially sanctioned and form the bulk of the New Testament, the
second section of the most commonly accepted version of the bible today - are
inconsistent and even contradictory; they are nearly useless as historical
references. We can however tease out some indications of the historical figure
of Jesus.
Jesus appears to have been a Jewish prophet and rabbi who
lived in Palestine, an outlying province on the eastern fringes of the Roman
Empire. He seems to have done most of his preaching during the reign of
Augustus, but neither the date of his birth nor his death is clear. There is
some suggestion in the gospels that he was born in Bethlehem, where his parents
had to travel to be counted in a census; there is no historical record,
however, of such a census that fits the bible story, and the notion of people
being required to return to a clan home or ancestral place of residence or
birth is historical nonsense. Although records exist of criminal proceedings
and judicial executions under Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Palestine
at the time, there is no historical record of Jesus' crucifixion outside of the
bible.
It is thought today that Jesus may have been a lapsed
Essene, a member of a cult of ascetic Jews who lived in the desert near
Jerusalem and were responsible for the writings that are known as the Dead Sea
Scrolls. If Jesus had been an Essene, the biblical stories clearly indicate
that by the time he began his itinerant “ministry” in the villages in the
Galilee region, he had rejected their monastic and ascetic lifestyle in favour
of one that included wine, large groups of friends and the company of
prostitutes.
The bible’s depiction of the three years during which Jesus
developed his cult following gives a picture of a steadily growing crowd of
followers and hangers on with a core group of disciples and a few family
members and prostitutes. There is, if one reads the accounts without
preconceptions, a gypsy carnival spirit about the charismatic preacher and his
fans, a sort of proto-hippy traveling circus, or, given the preacher’s
predilection for magic tricks, an early Magical Mystery Tour. The group camped
out, slept in friends’ homes and accepted the hospitality of locals as they
gradually made their way from the shores of the Sea of Galilee southward
towards Jerusalem. As the troupe travelled, Jesus preached abandonment of family
and employment, casting off of responsibility, and following him, as he went
from town to town, picking up more acolytes, telling stories, and performing
magic.
Jesus’ first biblical magic trick was the transformation of
water into wine at what appears to have been a rather well oiled wedding feast,
given that the guests managed to polish off all the wine initially provided by
the host, by the time the party was just getting started. It is suggested by a
number of biblical scholars and historians that this wedding, just some two
miles northeast of Nazareth, was in fact Jesus’ own. In support of this is the
observation that Mary – his mother – came to Jesus with the news of the
impending dry spell and had him do something about it; very much the behavior of
a Jewish mother at her son’s wedding. As a guest at the wedding that involvement
would have been presumptuous of Mary and none of Jesus’ business; as the mother
of the host and groom, however, the story makes some sort of cultural sense.
It seems clear that Jesus began to take his press seriously,
and like many other charismatic cult leaders, from Charles Manson to Jim Jones,
he began to succumb to the temptations that come with being worshipped by fanatic
idolaters. He may even have come to believe, as many of his followers
apparently did, that he was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. This,
however, is a far cry from believing he was divine; even at his most deranged,
it is extremely unlikely that he would have been so blasphemous as to believe
himself to be god.
It was incredible hubris for this young rabbi to consider
himself to be the Messiah…the Messiah is one of the most critical tenets of
Judaism, and Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. The word Messiah is a phonetic attempt
at the spelling of a Hebrew word, “Mashiach”; in Greek, the word is “Christos”.
Both words mean “the anointed one”, from the verb “mashach”, found in more than
100 different places in the Old Testament and meaning “to smear, spread, or
anoint”. Anointing was the ceremonial induction into positions of leadership in
the Jewish community, employed to formalise one’s elevation to the priesthood,
recognition as a prophet, or coronation as a king. Many were anointed, but only
one was given the title of “the Anointed One”, the Messiah. And that was the
long awaited and prophesied deliverer of the Jews and redeemer of their sins.
This in itself was sufficiently blasphemous for the more
conservative Jews to determine that their rabbi had contravened the dictates of
their bible and according to Mosaic Law should be put to death. Since the
Messiah was prophesied to set the Jews free, Jesus’ claim to be the Anointed
One was of interest to the Roman occupiers. But this being a time and place of
religious fanaticism, charismatic preachers were a dime a dozen, and Pilate
really didn’t take Jesus seriously. Nevertheless, the Pharisees, who were the
most powerful of the Jewish sects in Jerusalem at the time, insisted on his
execution and Pilate, to keep the peace, and justified by the implied intent to
foment revolution, complied. It should have ended there.
And it probably would have too, if it wasn’t for Saul of
Tarsus (Paul).
Born
in Tarsus, in what is now southern Turkey, but raised in Jerusalem, in fact,
Saul was working very hard to rid Palestine of the remnants of Jesus’ rag-tag
group of followers. As a free-born Roman citizen and a Pharisee, he prided
himself on putting what he later called “Christians” to death. The Sanhedrin
(Jerusalem’s council of 23 religious judges) had considered Jesus’ remaining
followers to be sufficiently inoffensive that they had discouraged, although
somewhat half-heartedly, their persecution; nevertheless, the self-righteous
Saul delighted in ferreting them out. He was, he later confessed, a participant
in the stoning death of the proto-martyr, Stephen.
However, Saul experienced what is probably the most famous
conversion in history. He claimed that one day while riding to the city of
Damascus he saw a vision of what he took to be the resurrected Jesus, although
how he recognised him, never having laid eyes on him, remains his secret. He
was temporarily blinded by this vision and three days later when he regained
his sight, he had come to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah and he
dedicated himself to preaching his version and interpretation of his words. He
even had a new name – Paul, perhaps initiating the tradition of changing Jewish
sounding names to more gentile ones when starting a career in show business.
For show business it was. Paul’s conversion was not a
simple reversal of persecutor to proselytiser; he converted the essence of what
Jesus had preached – kindness, tolerance, and love of life – to what Paul believed in – bigotry, punishment,
and self-denial. He invented much of the logical absurdity that is the
foundation to which “fundamentalism” refers.
After his conversion, Paul claimed to be a servant of the
person he now called Jesus Christ, having appended Messiah (rendered in Greek)
to the name of the crucified preacher he had never met. He further claimed that
at his conversion he had been called to be an “apostle” and that he had been
set apart to preach the “gospel of god”. An apostle, not to be confused with a
disciple; the word is derived from ancient Greek and means an emissary or messenger,
while “gospel” is derived from the Old English “godspel” meaning “good news”,
which in turn is a literal translation of the ancient Greek “eungelion”.
And what he had to preach was indeed news; it certainly
would have been news to the man Jesus. Among the things that the former Saul of
Tarsus now claimed about the dead rabbi was that, as Messiah, his coming had
been foretold by the biblical prophets; Jesus, after he had become more and
more convinced of his own significance might well have agreed with this. But it
would certainly have horrified the devout Jew to hear that Paul now also claimed
that Jesus was the “son of god” and divine, and that he had physically risen
from the dead to communicate some message that he had never preached during his
corporeal life. Jesus of Nazareth would also have been very surprised to hear
that all of this good news (which would have been news to him too) was not
delivered to Paul by any person but rather directly by the resurrected Jesus
Christ (a name which would have been unfamiliar to him).
Paul validated his claim of Jesus’ Messiah-hood by pointing
out that, according to some rather obscure prophesies (2 Samuel 7:16 and Jeremiah
23:5), the Messiah would be of the house of David, a claim that could be made
by Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus’ father Joseph was of David’s line. Paul tripped
up a bit, of course, when he also insisted that Jesus’ mother was a virgin at the
time of his birth. After all, Jesus could hardly claim to have descended from
David via Joseph if his mother was a virgin. Details, details.
If one reads without preconceptions what history of Paul is
available, what emerges is a none too savoury picture of a misogynist, a
homophobe, a shameless self-promoter, an ambitious control freak, a world class
exaggerator and embellisher, if not an outright liar, and a tireless talker; a
tradition that Paul established and that has remained unchanged among
evangelical Christian leaders to this day.

While I agree with you about certain modern-day Evangelicals, I still have an abiding faith, sans any dogma. Too many of these would-be spiritual leaders have ripped the fundamentals out of faith and construed them for their own piety.
ReplyDeleteHi! And thanks for the input!
ReplyDeleteIf this subject interests you, can i suggest that you look at some of the other pieces in the blog under the same label? I address these issues more thoroughly in some of the other things I've written; nevertheless, you deserve a reply.
Without, I hope, sounding too confrontational, I must respectfully say this: It's politically correct to express one's respect for all religious views. I'm sorry, but I can't.
By definition, faith is a belief in that for which there is no evidence, or in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. It violates every principle of logic and reason. I have no respect for religious belief.
Now, I could, I suppose, treat it like any other harmless eccentricity, like cross-dressing or being a Trekkie, or watching reality shows. That is, if it stopped there. The problem is that the faithful insist that their absurd beliefs be taught as science to other people's children, they use them to justify violence intended to curtail the human rights of others, and they fly planes into buildings because of their abiding faith. No, I have no respect for a belief in imaginary friends who tell us what to do. I don't respect David Berkowitz's belief system either, for example. And, frankly, I don't see it as qualitatively different.
And as for the evangelicals; I think those sociopaths have not "ripped the fundamentals out of faith", on the contrary, I think that the hatred, intolerance, and bigotry they preach ARE the fundamentals. In their own sick way, these guys are the genuine article.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it is my belief that religion is the most pernicious and dangerous force on earth today. That's not faith...that's a rational position for which I have a great deal of evidence and I'm happy to provide it...I don't simply state it because of a deep, inner feeling.
I hope I haven't hurt your feelings or anything, because I have a great deal of respect for you personally. And I do hope you have a great Sunday, despite my little lecture!
Best,
Pagun