The Journey Towards Christianity: Identifying some Way Points

The Journey Towards Christianity: Identifying some Way Points by and © Adrian C Grant 9th April 2023 (Easter Day!) Abstract Not unreasonably, apparently, discussions of the origins of Christianity have tended to focus on religion and philosophy, but actually religion and philosophy are reactions to geography, economics and, especially, politics. This paper seeks to redress this balance. In doing so some remarkable new insights are offered. There is much detail of which I am certainly no master, but it seems that the very act of studying in sufficient detail means that there is not enough mental room left to consider the wider aspects easily – and so I hope that this paper will provide an opportunity for those with their own specific areas of expertise to articulate with each other indirectly – and ultimately constructively. Preface I hope that the reader will observe that at all stages in what follows I have eschewed the matter of “Higher Forces”, “Divine Intervention” etc. The believer is free to impute such influences, while the non-believer should find the narrative just as strong without them. Introduction In the life of St Serf it is claimed that he went to Dysart to argue with “The Devil”. In fact St Serf was a Catholic proselytiser and “The Devil” was a group of Culdee ascetics who had established a base in what is now a suburb of Kirkcaldy. [“Dysart” is a rendition of “desert”.] St Serf may or may not have won the argument (probably he lost), but he did win in the battle of power politics, for although he died before the event, within a decade or so of this encounter the Culdees along with all the other Columban Christians were expelled from Pictland (see my book “Arthur…”). So too, I realised, that when Jesus went into the Wilderness and was tempted by “The Devil”, the wilderness was figurative and the Devil a real person or persons. The earliest text about “Jesus” to which we have access is the Gospel of Thomas (in which he is referred to as “IS”) – which is not a gospel as we might understand it, but rather a collection of sayings. Martijn Linssen has done a fantastic job of translating this gospel from the earliest extant version we have (in Coptic) and Joseph Gebhardt-Klein has shown – to my satisfaction at least – that this is actually a translation from an Aramaic original. Seth Clark identifies three separate strands in the work. I had long been troubled by the different – close to contradictory – tone adopted both here and indeed in the Bible itself. I am grateful to Mike Ferguson for drawing my attention to an excellent talk by Dr Steve Mason in which, inter alia, he explores one particular section in St Mark’s gospel where the nuance is entirely lost in most translations (see below). He succeeds in making an obscure event a very down-to-earth practical experience. So in order to understand what happened the key lies in demystification. This paper will not be replete in references because references imply that the person or paper being referenced is to be relied upon. In this field there are very few such people. 1. The Beginning: The Chi-Rho a Chrestian Symbol For a very long time there have been those who have surmised that in the “lost” youth of “Jesus” (between 12 and 30), he spent some time in India/Tibet. I do not regard this as impossible, but there is no need for such speculation as we may usefully start our exploration of the deep origins of Christianity around 250BC when Pharaoh Ptolemy II invited a group of Buddhist monks to Egypt. Michael Lockwood has devoted much time to setting out the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity. For a long time I had queried in my own mind the relationship of the Chi-Rho symbol to Christianity. It has been claimed that it stands for “Chr-istos”, but it had occurred to me that it could equally apply to “Horus”. On the one hand the symbol is clearly NOT Christian as it is attested back to the 240BC in Egypt; on the other hand the letters are Greek and so could not pre-date Alexander the Great. And so it is that I am now sure that the symbol refers to the community of Buddhists in Egypt who were known as “Chrestian”. “Chrestos” means “Good Man”. I am now sure that the head of the sect/cult/community bore the title “Chrestos”, but I am not sure as to how many others also bore it as a title (in the same way that Sikhs bear “Singh” meaning “lion” to attest to their being ‘above’ the Hindu caste system). There are three principal characters who feature in the foundation story of Buddhism – apart from Gautama, The Buddha himself, of course. Śāriputra was his principal disciple who sat on his right hand side. Maudgalyāyana was his second principal disciple who sat on his left hand side. He was black skinned. Also crucial was Amrapali a prostitute also associated with the kingdom of Magadha. It appears that the Chrestians found themselves in a difficult position. They were unwilling to fit in to Ancient Egypt and its religion and at the same time they were too small to function on their own. This led them to hitch their wagon to the Jewish community in Egypt. Inevitably this led to a bleeding of cultures and over time they ended up as a sort of mystical cult within Judaism. I suspect that the names Sariputra and Maudgalyayana may have come to be used as titles for Chrestos’ #2 and #3. Again I am still entirely unclear about the relationship between various cults or sub-cults. Besides the Chrestians we know of the Essenes, the Nazirites and the Mandaeans. But what were the relationships between them? What were the differences of doctrine? Again “The Life of Brian” springs to mind – in this case ‘The Peoples’ Front for Judea’ and ‘The Judean Peoples’ Front’ as well as the interminable factionalism of the neo-Marxist left – but hopefully there will be readers of this paper who can share what they think they know! Another key issue is whether the membership of one group precluded membership of another group. As we shall see, I think that the answer to this last question is “Not necessarily.” What is clear is that whether one or all of these factions started in Egypt they spread into Israel generally in reasonably short order. 2. Roman Conquest Pompey conquered Palestine in 63BC, making it part of the Roman Empire, but the situation was far from stable. Roman control was re-established in 37BC when the Romans installed Herod the Great (an Edomite – they were traditionally hostile to the Jews) as a puppet king. This then provided a focus for Jewish rebellion. There was “an” oppressor to militate against. It would appear that many of the firebrands. But how should the rebels organise themselves? The Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome (probably some time around 50 CE) – their restiveness stirred up by Chrestians (according to Suetonius). The Emperor Nero offloaded the blame for the Fire of Rome (64 CE) onto Chrestians and took great pleasure in persecuting them thereafter – crucifying them, feeding them to the lions, using them as human torches etc. (according to Tacitus). Key idea: The revolutionary mindset and activities of the Chrestians in Rome are completely incompatible with the Buddhist philosophy they came to Egypt to share. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that there had been massive entryism by rebellion-oriented zealots into the Chrestian organisation. Because it was so deeply embedded so early in the Common Era, we have no choice but to suppose that this was already substantially the case during Jesus’ lifetime if not before. 3. “Jesus”: the Revolutionary who changed his mind Unlike Linssen, I take the view that there was a real person behind the stories we have about “Jesus”. I see that many people take the view that his ‘real’ name was Yeshua. I will not rehearse here the bulk of my paper on “Jesus – the Pre-teen years”. This v3 has benefitted from the discussion of earlier versions. Suffice it to say that Luke’s genealogy supports the idea of his descent from David and hence his claim to the throne of Israel – and Herod had form for the ‘slaughter of the innocents’ incident making it and the flight to Egypt plausible. If only logically Jesus was a threat to his rule. The ‘no room at the inn’ incident occurred when Jesus was 12. Given his background and upbringing it should come as no surprise that he was highly knowledgeable about Jewish teachings. While his father may have been a structural engineer as a sideline, his ‘day job’ was clerical. Precisely on the same basis that we do not know what Jesus did before what is reported of his mission in the Bible, so too we cannot say what he did NOT do – leaving me to speculate and the reader free to decide how reasonable – or not – my speculation may be. The second point to make is that while the gospels read as narrative, Steve Mason points out just what their structure really is – and so we should not get sucked in to the narrative as presented, but rather keep an open mind as to what happened when. Key idea: Some of the stories in the Bible may refer to a time BEFORE the ‘official’ start of his ministry as normally presented. (a) Jesus the Revolutionary Here I suggest that Jesus was originally sucked in by the revolutionary perspective. Mark 3 (Youtube at 1:15 – 1:25 by the way I am not agreeing with all of Steve Mason’s interpretation) (21) When his family heard it they went out to restrain him for they [ie the family] were saying “He’s lost his mind” (22) And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said “He has Beelzebub, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons” …. (28) “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter (29) but whomever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” (30) for they [ie the scribes] had said “He has an unclean spirit”. (31) Then his mother and brothers came, and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. (32) A crowd was sitting around him; they said to him “Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.” (33) And looking at those who sat around him he said “Here are my mother and my brothers; (34) Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark does not actually tell us what it was that Jesus was saying which drew the crowds. I think it was rabble rousing revolutionary demagoguery – so his family panicked. A scene in ‘Life of Brian’ springs to mind in which Brian’s mother tells the crowd “He’s NOT the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!” It is bizarre that Jesus is showing no love for his family. Jesus here is being really mean to them – after all what had they done to deserve this disdain? This is very much NOT the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount and his advice for people to “love one another” or to “honour your mother and your father”. Gospel of Thomas Consider next these logia: (10) IS/Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes." (55) IS/Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me." (71) IS/Jesus said, "I shall destroy this house, and no one will be able to build it [...]." (99) The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of my father are my brothers and my mother. It is they who will enter the kingdom of my father." (101) <IS/Jesus said,> "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother [...], but my true mother gave me life." These are not about love; these are not even “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s....” Why is Jesus hating people? Overturning the tables The story of the overturning of the tables in the Temple (Matthew 21: 12-13 and Mark 11: 15-18) is a reversion to this mode of thinking and action on Jesus’ part. In both versions this is followed by Jesus cursing a fig tree – this is not a kind thing to do. In the Bible this is placed immediately before the crucifixion – but I wonder whether it should really belong some years earlier. Analysis: Between his erudition, his pedigree and his crowd drawing capacity, I suspect that Jesus became the leader of the Chrestians, with the title “Chrestos”. As such he will have had to have had his side kicks. I suggest that “Sariputra” had transformed (albeit also garbled) in the Bible into “SimonPeter” (Matthew 16: 16-19). So too Maudgalyayana has transformed into Mary Magdalene, coincidentally introducing the idea of the Black Madonna, while from Amrapali (with her confusing association with Magadha) comes the basis for the story which transformed into Mary Magdalene having been a prostitute. This would also be the occasion of an anointing confirming his kingship – at least in the eyes of those who were by now his followers. It should be noted that for a variety of reasons these transformations do not presume a linear Aramaic => Greek => Latin evolution. This is a complexity I have not got to grips with thoroughly. (b) Jesus the Peacemaker So we have Jesus thoroughly versed in Jewish lore and scripture and with a credible claim to the throne acting as a rabble-rousing revolutionary – even disowning his family. He was ideal leadership material and so he was interviewed by the key players. He had a big decision to make; only he could make this decision and he could only make it for himself. He needed some alone time. On the one hand if he agreed to lead the revolt and if that revolt was successful he would be king – with enormous power and wealth. But at what cost? And was this what he really really wanted? This process of deliberation I suggest is represented by the 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness. I will not attempt to offer what his real rationale was, beyond being sure that carnage would follow and that the chances of success against however many legions Rome might send against him would be slim to vanishingly small. Whatever the contemplation process the final decision was “no” and this was formalised in public by Jesus gaining admission to the Mandaeans through baptism by John the Baptist. Indeed we may infer that John was responsible for Jesus changing his mind (Matthew 11:7 has Jesus saying “Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist…”). There would be much further study of esoterica, but this did not prevent teaching to the crowds. So this was a case of family rallying round and dissuading Jesus from a suicidal path. At this point Jesus was actually harmless. He was recognised by everyone, he went about amongst ordinary people encouraging passivity, but unlike King James V of Scotland there was no need to adopt a persona (James was the “Gudeman of Ballengeich”). But others did not see it that way. The Zealots would bide their time, briefly, in the hope that Jesus was just ‘going through a phase’, but when it became clear that he was not for changing his mind again he became an inconvenience – to everyone: 1. For Herod Antipas every time Jesus went out in public it was a reminder to everyone that he was the representative of a line of usurpers who were not even Jewish 2. For the Pharisees and Sadducees so often when he opened his mouth it was to berate their shortcomings 3. For the Zealots his continuing life not only sapped potential support from them, it prevented them finding an alternative king-in-waiting because any nominee would obviously be #2. The Cross The cross is something which exercises many people. It is argued that Jesus would not have been crucified on a cross of the shape we normally see. And even before his crucifixion Jesus is quoted as talking about people “taking up their cross” to follow him. Both these problems are resolved if Jesus had been admitted to the Mandaeans – for a cross of the relevant shape – called a Drabsha – is a key adornment of any Mandaean place of worship. It is normally referred to as a “banner” – clearly something one can “take up”. His admission into the Mandaeans was formalised by his baptism by John in the River Jordan. The Crucifixion Given the reference to the cross above there is far less need to suppose that Jesus was crucified – so I recognise the tenability of the argument that he was not. A swift exit, stage left, is all that is necessary. The counterargument is that fabricating the story of crucifixion would be a pretty extreme measure – so the problem would become: who would make something like that up and for what purpose? If there was a crucifixion then there are serious questions to be asked. The various stories suggest that his legs were not broken (as was the norm to bring on death by suffocation) and that he “gave up the spirit” more or less immediately upon being given a draught of some sort on a sponge. Worse still three days becomes no more than a day and a half. This last problem can be resolved if the event took place in 27 CE – for that year Passover was on a Monday – which would, therefore be an extra Sabbath. Thus Jesus taken down from the cross before sunset on the Friday and the ‘tomb’ discovered empty first thing TUESDAY morning. We have an interesting dichotomy with the story of the Raising of Lazarus. Most Christians would tell you that this was a case of Jesus causing Lazarus to live again after he was dead – but this would be to call Jesus a liar as he is reported as denying that Lazarus was dead, but only ‘sleeping’. Was this a drug-induced coma which gave the appearance of death to anyone who did not look too carefully? And if so was there an antidote? And, if so, then, if it worked for Lazarus, why not for Jesus? My preferred scenario here is that Jesus was crucified (without nails) in a very elaborate pantomime to provide a pretext for his leaving the scene because the politics of the day meant that he was on a hiding to nothing. But other narratives are defensible. 4. The Continuing Chrestians Simon Peter is recorded in the Bible as denying he was a follower of Jesus. In the light of our new analysis what are we to make of this? If Simon were an unreconstructed revolutionary Chrestian then arguably fair enough. And once Jesus was off the scene perhaps it would make sense for him to go to take charge of the Chrestians in Rome and even to be crucified by Nero for his pains. It would also make sense for Jesus’ brother James to take charge of the Chrestians in Jerusalem. Many will recall the story of the Oracle at Delphi telling Croesus that if he went to war against Cyrus “a great empire will fall”. Croesus took this as signifying impending victory – but the opposite eventuated. So too many Chrestians expected the apocalypse within their own lifetime – and indeed it came in the form of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus on the orders of Vespasian in 70 CE. At this point, 70 CE, the Chrestians had to reconstruct themselves and their thinking. They realised that Jesus had been right all along. He had been their leader but they had refused to listen to him. So now they had to follow him even if he was not there to lead them. And so it was that Jesus was mythologised. His anointing as the rightful king of the Jews was reimagined as his becoming “The” ‘Anointed One’ of the World. At this point the Mandaean Drabsha assumed an importance even for Chrestians who had not followed Jesus into Mandaean ways and thinking. • • The Deification of King Jesus was a precise parallel to the deification of Roman emperors which was the fashion of the day – a classic case of “Me Too”-ery – but reinvented in a monotheistic context. In the first instance the death and resurrection story was a parable designed to fortify Jews who had been “killed” as a nation by the fall of Jerusalem – it was a promise that they would ‘rise again’ as a nation. In these circumstances it was only natural that factionalism would break out as different people mounted different arguments about “What Would Jesus Do?” - answering instead the question “What would I like Jesus to have done?” 5. Conclusions • Chrestianity predates Jesus by more than 200 years. • Chrestianity had weakened its connection with its roots through entryism by revolutionaries. • Jesus was a Chrestian, perhaps even the leader of the movement. • Jesus harboured revolutionary ideas for quite a while and during this time he was really quite obnoxious, especially to his family. • Eventually his family, mainly though ‘an intervention’ from his cousin John The Baptist, prevailed upon him to renounce the revolution. • In recognition of John’s persuasiveness Jesus became a Mandaean to reinforce his new peacemaking perspective. • A revolutionary caucus remained within Chrestianity even after Jesus changed his mind. • Following the fall of Jerusalem, Chrestianity had no option but radical reform – as a result of which the understanding of Jesus’ life and purpose was reinvented. • Part of this reinvention saw Christianity emerge from many of the sects which all held Jesus as their teacher and role model. • Christianity as a religion rather than a disparate group of factional sects was only solidified by the Council of Nicea (325). • Following Nicea there was much fabrication and redaction in an attempt to create a cohesive narrative consistent with the new objectives necessitated by becoming “a religion”. 

The Journey Towards Christianity: Identifying some Way Points by and © Adrian C Grant 9th April 2023 (Easter Day!) Abstract Not unreasonably, apparently, discussions of the origins of Christianity have tended to focus on religion and philosophy, but actually religion and philosophy are reactions to geography, economics and, especially, politics. This paper seeks to redress this balance. In doing so some remarkable new insights are offered. There is much detail of which I am certainly no master, but it seems that the very act of studying in sufficient detail means that there is not enough mental room left to consider the wider aspects easily – and so I hope that this paper will provide an opportunity for those with their own specific areas of expertise to articulate with each other indirectly – and ultimately constructively. Preface I hope that the reader will observe that at all stages in what follows I have eschewed the matter of “Higher Forces”, “Divine Intervention” etc. The believer is free to impute such influences, while the non-believer should find the narrative just as strong without them. Introduction In the life of St Serf it is claimed that he went to Dysart to argue with “The Devil”. In fact St Serf was a Catholic proselytiser and “The Devil” was a group of Culdee ascetics who had established a base in what is now a suburb of Kirkcaldy. [“Dysart” is a rendition of “desert”.] St Serf may or may not have won the argument (probably he lost), but he did win in the battle of power politics, for although he died before the event, within a decade or so of this encounter the Culdees along with all the other Columban Christians were expelled from Pictland (see my book “Arthur…”). So too, I realised, that when Jesus went into the Wilderness and was tempted by “The Devil”, the wilderness was figurative and the Devil a real person or persons. The earliest text about “Jesus” to which we have access is the Gospel of Thomas (in which he is referred to as “IS”) – which is not a gospel as we might understand it, but rather a collection of sayings. Martijn Linssen has done a fantastic job of translating this gospel from the earliest extant version we have (in Coptic) and Joseph Gebhardt-Klein has shown – to my satisfaction at least – that this is actually a translation from an Aramaic original. Seth Clark identifies three separate strands in the work. I had long been troubled by the different – close to contradictory – tone adopted both here and indeed in the Bible itself. I am grateful to Mike Ferguson for drawing my attention to an excellent talk by Dr Steve Mason in which, inter alia, he explores one particular section in St Mark’s gospel where the nuance is entirely lost in most translations (see below). He succeeds in making an obscure event a very down-to-earth practical experience. So in order to understand what happened the key lies in demystification. This paper will not be replete in references because references imply that the person or paper being referenced is to be relied upon. In this field there are very few such people. 1. The Beginning: The Chi-Rho a Chrestian Symbol For a very long time there have been those who have surmised that in the “lost” youth of “Jesus” (between 12 and 30), he spent some time in India/Tibet. I do not regard this as impossible, but there is no need for such speculation as we may usefully start our exploration of the deep origins of Christianity around 250BC when Pharaoh Ptolemy II invited a group of Buddhist monks to Egypt. Michael Lockwood has devoted much time to setting out the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity. For a long time I had queried in my own mind the relationship of the Chi-Rho symbol to Christianity. It has been claimed that it stands for “Chr-istos”, but it had occurred to me that it could equally apply to “Horus”. On the one hand the symbol is clearly NOT Christian as it is attested back to the 240BC in Egypt; on the other hand the letters are Greek and so could not pre-date Alexander the Great. And so it is that I am now sure that the symbol refers to the community of Buddhists in Egypt who were known as “Chrestian”. “Chrestos” means “Good Man”. I am now sure that the head of the sect/cult/community bore the title “Chrestos”, but I am not sure as to how many others also bore it as a title (in the same way that Sikhs bear “Singh” meaning “lion” to attest to their being ‘above’ the Hindu caste system). There are three principal characters who feature in the foundation story of Buddhism – apart from Gautama, The Buddha himself, of course. Śāriputra was his principal disciple who sat on his right hand side. Maudgalyāyana was his second principal disciple who sat on his left hand side. He was black skinned. Also crucial was Amrapali a prostitute also associated with the kingdom of Magadha. It appears that the Chrestians found themselves in a difficult position. They were unwilling to fit in to Ancient Egypt and its religion and at the same time they were too small to function on their own. This led them to hitch their wagon to the Jewish community in Egypt. Inevitably this led to a bleeding of cultures and over time they ended up as a sort of mystical cult within Judaism. I suspect that the names Sariputra and Maudgalyayana may have come to be used as titles for Chrestos’ #2 and #3. Again I am still entirely unclear about the relationship between various cults or sub-cults. Besides the Chrestians we know of the Essenes, the Nazirites and the Mandaeans. But what were the relationships between them? What were the differences of doctrine? Again “The Life of Brian” springs to mind – in this case ‘The Peoples’ Front for Judea’ and ‘The Judean Peoples’ Front’ as well as the interminable factionalism of the neo-Marxist left – but hopefully there will be readers of this paper who can share what they think they know! Another key issue is whether the membership of one group precluded membership of another group. As we shall see, I think that the answer to this last question is “Not necessarily.” What is clear is that whether one or all of these factions started in Egypt they spread into Israel generally in reasonably short order. 2. Roman Conquest Pompey conquered Palestine in 63BC, making it part of the Roman Empire, but the situation was far from stable. Roman control was re-established in 37BC when the Romans installed Herod the Great (an Edomite – they were traditionally hostile to the Jews) as a puppet king. This then provided a focus for Jewish rebellion. There was “an” oppressor to militate against. It would appear that many of the firebrands. But how should the rebels organise themselves? The Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome (probably some time around 50 CE) – their restiveness stirred up by Chrestians (according to Suetonius). The Emperor Nero offloaded the blame for the Fire of Rome (64 CE) onto Chrestians and took great pleasure in persecuting them thereafter – crucifying them, feeding them to the lions, using them as human torches etc. (according to Tacitus). Key idea: The revolutionary mindset and activities of the Chrestians in Rome are completely incompatible with the Buddhist philosophy they came to Egypt to share. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that there had been massive entryism by rebellion-oriented zealots into the Chrestian organisation. Because it was so deeply embedded so early in the Common Era, we have no choice but to suppose that this was already substantially the case during Jesus’ lifetime if not before. 3. “Jesus”: the Revolutionary who changed his mind Unlike Linssen, I take the view that there was a real person behind the stories we have about “Jesus”. I see that many people take the view that his ‘real’ name was Yeshua. I will not rehearse here the bulk of my paper on “Jesus – the Pre-teen years”. This v3 has benefitted from the discussion of earlier versions. Suffice it to say that Luke’s genealogy supports the idea of his descent from David and hence his claim to the throne of Israel – and Herod had form for the ‘slaughter of the innocents’ incident making it and the flight to Egypt plausible. If only logically Jesus was a threat to his rule. The ‘no room at the inn’ incident occurred when Jesus was 12. Given his background and upbringing it should come as no surprise that he was highly knowledgeable about Jewish teachings. While his father may have been a structural engineer as a sideline, his ‘day job’ was clerical. Precisely on the same basis that we do not know what Jesus did before what is reported of his mission in the Bible, so too we cannot say what he did NOT do – leaving me to speculate and the reader free to decide how reasonable – or not – my speculation may be. The second point to make is that while the gospels read as narrative, Paul Mason points out just what their structure really is – and so we should not get sucked in to the narrative as presented, but rather keep an open mind as to what happened when. Key idea: Some of the stories in the Bible may refer to a time BEFORE the ‘official’ start of his ministry as normally presented. (a) Jesus the Revolutionary Here I suggest that Jesus was originally sucked in by the revolutionary perspective. Mark 3 (Youtube at 1:15 – 1:25 by the way I am not agreeing with all of Steve Mason’s interpretation) (21) When his family heard it they went out to restrain him for they [ie the family] were saying “He’s lost his mind” (22) And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said “He has Beelzebub, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons” …. (28) “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter (29) but whomever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” (30) for they [ie the scribes] had said “He has an unclean spirit”. (31) Then his mother and brothers came, and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. (32) A crowd was sitting around him; they said to him “Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.” (33) And looking at those who sat around him he said “Here are my mother and my brothers; (34) Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark does not actually tell us what it was that Jesus was saying which drew the crowds. I think it was rabble rousing revolutionary demagoguery – so his family panicked. A scene in ‘Life of Brian’ springs to mind in which Brian’s mother tells the crowd “He’s NOT the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!” It is bizarre that Jesus is showing no love for his family. Jesus here is being really mean to them – after all what had they done to deserve this disdain? This is very much NOT the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount and his advice for people to “love one another” or to “honour your mother and your father”. Gospel of Thomas Consider next these logia: (10) IS/Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes." (55) IS/Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me." (71) IS/Jesus said, "I shall destroy this house, and no one will be able to build it [...]." (99) The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of my father are my brothers and my mother. It is they who will enter the kingdom of my father." (101) <IS/Jesus said,> "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother [...], but my true mother gave me life." These are not about love; these are not even “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s....” Why is Jesus hating people? Overturning the tables The story of the overturning of the tables in the Temple (Matthew 21: 12-13 and Mark 11: 15-18) is a reversion to this mode of thinking and action on Jesus’ part. In both versions this is followed by Jesus cursing a fig tree – this is not a kind thing to do. In the Bible this is placed immediately before the crucifixion – but I wonder whether it should really belong some years earlier. Analysis: Between his erudition, his pedigree and his crowd drawing capacity, I suspect that Jesus became the leader of the Chrestians, with the title “Chrestos”. As such he will have had to have had his side kicks. I suggest that “Sariputra” had transformed (albeit also garbled) in the Bible into “SimonPeter” (Matthew 16: 16-19). So too Maudgalyayana has transformed into Mary Magdalene, coincidentally introducing the idea of the Black Madonna, while from Amrapali (with her confusing association with Magadha) comes the basis for the story which transformed into Mary Magdalene having been a prostitute. This would also be the occasion of an anointing confirming his kingship – at least in the eyes of those who were by now his followers. It should be noted that for a variety of reasons these transformations do not presume a linear Aramaic => Greek => Latin evolution. This is a complexity I have not got to grips with thoroughly. (b) Jesus the Peacemaker So we have Jesus thoroughly versed in Jewish lore and scripture and with a credible claim to the throne acting as a rabble-rousing revolutionary – even disowning his family. He was ideal leadership material and so he was interviewed by the key players. He had a big decision to make; only he could make this decision and he could only make it for himself. He needed some alone time. On the one hand if he agreed to lead the revolt and if that revolt was successful he would be king – with enormous power and wealth. But at what cost? And was this what he really really wanted? This process of deliberation I suggest is represented by the 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness. I will not attempt to offer what his real rationale was, beyond being sure that carnage would follow and that the chances of success against however many legions Rome might send against him would be slim to vanishingly small. Whatever the contemplation process the final decision was “no” and this was formalised in public by Jesus gaining admission to the Mandaeans through baptism by John the Baptist. Indeed we may infer that John was responsible for Jesus changing his mind (Matthew 11:7 has Jesus saying “Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist…”). There would be much further study of esoterica, but this did not prevent teaching to the crowds. So this was a case of family rallying round and dissuading Jesus from a suicidal path. At this point Jesus was actually harmless. He was recognised by everyone, he went about amongst ordinary people encouraging passivity, but unlike King James V of Scotland there was no need to adopt a persona (James was the “Gudeman of Ballengeich”). But others did not see it that way. The Zealots would bide their time, briefly, in the hope that Jesus was just ‘going through a phase’, but when it became clear that he was not for changing his mind again he became an inconvenience – to everyone: 1. For Herod Antipas every time Jesus went out in public it was a reminder to everyone that he was the representative of a line of usurpers who were not even Jewish 2. For the Pharisees and Sadducees so often when he opened his mouth it was to berate their shortcomings 3. For the Zealots his continuing life not only sapped potential support from them, it prevented them finding an alternative king-in-waiting because any nominee would obviously be #2. The Cross The cross is something which exercises many people. It is argued that Jesus would not have been crucified on a cross of the shape we normally see. And even before his crucifixion Jesus is quoted as talking about people “taking up their cross” to follow him. Both these problems are resolved if Jesus had been admitted to the Mandaeans – for a cross of the relevant shape – called a Drabsha – is a key adornment of any Mandaean place of worship. It is normally referred to as a “banner” – clearly something one can “take up”. His admission into the Mandaeans was formalised by his baptism by John in the River Jordan. The Crucifixion Given the reference to the cross above there is far less need to suppose that Jesus was crucified – so I recognise the tenability of the argument that he was not. A swift exit, stage left, is all that is necessary. The counterargument is that fabricating the story of crucifixion would be a pretty extreme measure – so the problem would become: who would make something like that up and for what purpose? If there was a crucifixion then there are serious questions to be asked. The various stories suggest that his legs were not broken (as was the norm to bring on death by suffocation) and that he “gave up the spirit” more or less immediately upon being given a draught of some sort on a sponge. Worse still three days becomes no more than a day and a half. This last problem can be resolved if the event took place in 27 CE – for that year Passover was on a Monday – which would, therefore be an extra Sabbath. Thus Jesus taken down from the cross before sunset on the Friday and the ‘tomb’ discovered empty first thing TUESDAY morning. We have an interesting dichotomy with the story of the Raising of Lazarus. Most Christians would tell you that this was a case of Jesus causing Lazarus to live again after he was dead – but this would be to call Jesus a liar as he is reported as denying that Lazarus was dead, but only ‘sleeping’. Was this a drug-induced coma which gave the appearance of death to anyone who did not look too carefully? And if so was there an antidote? And, if so, then, if it worked for Lazarus, why not for Jesus? My preferred scenario here is that Jesus was crucified (without nails) in a very elaborate pantomime to provide a pretext for his leaving the scene because the politics of the day meant that he was on a hiding to nothing. But other narratives are defensible. 4. The Continuing Chrestians Simon Peter is recorded in the Bible as denying he was a follower of Jesus. In the light of our new analysis what are we to make of this? If Simon were an unreconstructed revolutionary Chrestian then arguably fair enough. And once Jesus was off the scene perhaps it would make sense for him to go to take charge of the Chrestians in Rome and even to be crucified by Nero for his pains. It would also make sense for Jesus’ brother James to take charge of the Chrestians in Jerusalem. Many will recall the story of the Oracle at Delphi telling Croesus that if he went to war against Cyrus “a great empire will fall”. Croesus took this as signifying impending victory – but the opposite eventuated. So too many Chrestians expected the apocalypse within their own lifetime – and indeed it came in the form of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus on the orders of Vespasian in 70 CE. At this point, 70 CE, the Chrestians had to reconstruct themselves and their thinking. They realised that Jesus had been right all along. He had been their leader but they had refused to listen to him. So now they had to follow him even if he was not there to lead them. And so it was that Jesus was mythologised. His anointing as the rightful king of the Jews was reimagined as his becoming “The” ‘Anointed One’ of the World. At this point the Mandaean Drabsha assumed an importance even for Chrestians who had not followed Jesus into Mandaean ways and thinking. • • The Deification of King Jesus was a precise parallel to the deification of Roman emperors which was the fashion of the day – a classic case of “Me Too”-ery – but reinvented in a monotheistic context. In the first instance the death and resurrection story was a parable designed to fortify Jews who had been “killed” as a nation by the fall of Jerusalem – it was a promise that they would ‘rise again’ as a nation. In these circumstances it was only natural that factionalism would break out as different people mounted different arguments about “What Would Jesus Do?” - answering instead the question “What would I like Jesus to have done?” 5. Conclusions • Chrestianity predates Jesus by more than 200 years. • Chrestianity had weakened its connection with its roots through entryism by revolutionaries. • Jesus was a Chrestian, perhaps even the leader of the movement. • Jesus harboured revolutionary ideas for quite a while and during this time he was really quite obnoxious, especially to his family. • Eventually his family, mainly though ‘an intervention’ from his cousin John The Baptist, prevailed upon him to renounce the revolution. • In recognition of John’s persuasiveness Jesus became a Mandaean to reinforce his new peacemaking perspective. • A revolutionary caucus remained within Chrestianity even after Jesus changed his mind. • Following the fall of Jerusalem, Chrestianity had no option but radical reform – as a result of which the understanding of Jesus’ life and purpose was reinvented. • Part of this reinvention saw Christianity emerge from many of the sects which all held Jesus as their teacher and role model. • Christianity as a religion rather than a disparate group of factional sects was only solidified by the Council of Nicea (325). • Following Nicea there was much fabrication and redaction in an attempt to create a cohesive narrative consistent with the new objectives necessitated by becoming “a religion”.