| Subject: |
Re: [OT] Jesus, man or myth? |
| Author: |
Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh |
| Posted: |
2008/03/31 14:08:28 |
|
|
|
|
Just back from vacation. I want to weigh in on this:
__stephen's original question: Jesus, man or myth? I believe that the
answer is "Yes." Remember, "myth" doesn't mean something that is made
up. Marion-Webster: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly
historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a
people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." George
Washington, in our current cultural context is a myth.
To the extent that one can prove the existence of any common person
in the first century, historical references make it reasonably
certain that Jesus lived. On one hand, there are *no* contemporary
references to him and he left no writings. The only first century
references to him are from his followers. (Bart Ehrman; From Jesus to
Constantine: the History of Early Christianity). Josephus and others
may well be reporting the oral history as fact. On the other hand,
there was no reason to make him up. His disciples followed him, just
like other itinerant preachers of the time (of which there were many)
had their followers, too.
The Jesus that emerges from my studies was a rebel and a
apocalypticist. He rebelled against the corrupt power structure of
the Jewish church, much as Luther did against corrupt Catholicism
later. Again according to Ehrman (The Historical Jesus), he preached
that the end of time was coming and that God would save that souls of
those who affirmed his version of god. There was no "christianity" in
the way we understand it now in his preaching. He was a Jew and
wanted people to be better Jews, much like the Essenes, keepers of
the Dead Sea scrolls.
The myth began with his death. His followers needed some
justification for their faith, so they started us moving toward the
thing we now call Christianity. The Disciples and Paul/Saul were good
salesmen. The latter, who never actually met Jesus, was the best and
really invented the core of the "redemption" belief system. Why he
did is a very interesting question. I believe he was ambitious and
power hungry, but I don't have any citations for that, but if you
read his letters, most of the text is not made up of the definitions
of the beliefs that we all know. The preponderance of the text is
defensive, denouncing other Jesus evangelists and their versions of
the stories and beliefs. How did they convert the ignorant masses?
They used magic tricks, couched as miracles (again, Ehrman). They co-
opted the Jewish bible, proclaiming that it was all a prologue to
Jesus, and invented the "proof" that Jesus fulfilled biblical
prophesies. They co-opted other religions' myths and rituals,
including Zoroasterism,if it helped them convert more followers.
There was nothing new about this, the OT is replete with stories
adapted from earlier traditions. For example there are many stories
of great leaders or gods being saved by floating them as a baby down
a river that predate the Moses story. (Campbell: The Power of Myth).
It makes sense, for example, that they said that Jesus was crucified.
According to J. D. Crosson, crucifixion (as well as burning and
throwing "criminals" to wild animals) was a way for Roman leaders to
deny or even negate the person-hood of the offender. To be a true
martyr, the oppressors have to deny the martyr fully.
The faith grew because of social changes. For many people this time
was the beginning of living in community. People before this time
worshipped gods as a way to survive the day. Jews, still. For people
other than Jews, gods were freely added to or removed from the roster
to appease the current rulers. The Jews were the first successful
faith to preach singularity. With social structures, there was the
beginning of specialization and commerce. IOW, people had an easier
time making it through the day, got more rudimentary social
education, and had the convenience of thinking about deeper, more
philosophical issues. The Jesus followers filled that void.
The problem lay in that these pre-Christian movements were the first
(other than Judaism) to demand that followers disavow other gods.
Rulers, who promoted these gods (or were these gods) naturally didn't
like that. So, persecuting Jews and pre-Christians was purely a
political move to hold power. Constantine was the first major leader
to realize that this was no longer possible, so he "converted" and
created the beginnings of Christianity as we know it today. He based
it in Rome and controlled it completely. He built churches and
installed the dead of the church (now "Pope"). He constituted the
first "business meetings" that resolved the many versions of the pre-
Christian beliefs, decided which writings made up the official book
-- our Bible, and other organizational messiness. Then, he enforced
this version brutally. After some backsliding, future emperors
completed the transition and made the official religion of the Empire.
So what does all of this matter? As others have said, if you are a
Christian, it shouldn't. You have your Faith, and it doesn't matter
if Jesus actually existed. Personally, I have always been interested
in mass movements, and there is no more interesting one to study that
this one.
Ken
©2008 Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh |
|
|
|
