In Chapter 6, “Pauline Origin of the Gospels in the Wake of the First Jewish-Roman War,” by R.G. Price (not to be confused with R.M. Price, who is one of the editors and contributors to this compilation), the author puts forward his take on how Christianity got started.
I will put forward here what I believe is an account of Christian origins that is supported by the evidence. Certainly, there will be details here that merit debate, but I believe this outline is one that deserves serious consideration.
In the early first century, there were widespread beliefs among Greeks, Romans, and Jews that a “new age” was dawning in which the so-called Roman age would come to an end and a new race of man would rule the world. We see speculation about this new age in the writings at Qumran, in which the Qumranic writers put forward prophecies about how Jews would become the new dominant race of man, aided by both a priestly messiah and a military messiah, who would call down the armies of heaven to aid them in a final battle to overthrow Roman rule as described in the famous Qumranic War Scroll. We see that the teachings of these Qumranic writers relied heavily on scriptural divination, the supposed finding of hidden prophecies in the Jewish scriptures, and the reinterpretation of ancient Jewish texts to find new meaning in them and to “discover” the “true nature” of various figures from the Jewish scriptures.
It is from these types of practices that many of the apocalyptic works of the second century BCE through first century CE are derived. We find stories from figures such as Enoch, an obscure individual from Genesis, who was reinterpreted in this period as a semi-godly figure who travelled up to the heavens and recorded the mysteries of the heavenly powers. Enoch was eventually revealed as the savior himself—the “Son of Man.” We find at Qumran a description of Melchizedek, another person from the Jewish scriptures, who was now being interpreted as an eternal heavenly high priest, whose real identity had been kept hidden and secret, only now to be revealed by the prophets. Melchizedek is called Elohim, God. It is said that he would judge the world, atone for the sins of the world, and that he would bring about the final defeat of Belial–Satan. Melchizedek combines the features of God, the priestly messiah and the war messiah all into one.
It is from these types of practices and scriptural interpretations that a cult worshiping a Melchizedek-like interpretation of Joshua emerged. Joshua is the one who led the Jews into the promised land. Yehoshu’a, the one whose name means “YAHWEH is salvation.” It was this new Yehoshu’a, revealed by prophets through the scriptures, who was going to be the heavenly messiah who would bring about salvation for the Jewish people at the end of their present age, according to this small millenarian cult.
Paul became a part of this cult, but Paul was a Hellenized Jew. Paul’s vision was not one of a new Jewish dominance, but rather of a new savior who would bring about salvation for all people, not just Jews. Paul developed his particular theology. We do not know how much of Paul’s theology was unique to him and how much came from the pre-existing cult of Yehoshu’a, but certainly some aspects of Paul’s teaching were unique to him. Paul taught that Yehoshu’a, now Iesous in Greek, delivered himself as the ultimate final sacrifice, thereby overcoming death and leading the way into the new promised land of heaven itself. Iesous had set in motion the coming destruction of the corrupt material world and the raising of the souls of the dead. The souls of the righteous who had faith in him would then join Iesous in the new heavenly Jerusalem once the material world had been destroyed.
Paul promoted this cult through mystery practices that involved the use of images of the Crucifixion of Iesous and teachings about the death and resurrection of Iesous that were familiar to Greeks who had worshiped the mysteries of the death and rebirth of Dionysus. Paul presented sometimes strained interpretations of the supposedly prophetic Jewish scriptures to his Greek audience in support of his teachings.
During a time of growing tensions between Jews and Gentiles, Paul taught a message of reconciliation and peace. Paul promoted the Jewish messiah as a universal savior for all people. Paul presented Christ Jesus as a mystery—a mystery to be grasped only through faith. It was Paul who taught the primacy of faith over the law. It was Paul who was in conflict with the Jewish authorities. It was Paul who suffered arrest and abuse. It was Paul whose message was not understood by the pillars of the Jesus cult.
Paul died shortly before the outbreak of the First Jewish-Roman War, or perhaps even during the war. Paul’s message of peace and reconciliation had not been heeded. The result was not a glorious new age for Jews—it was the decimation of the Jewish people and the destruction of the Temple.
In the wake of these events, one of Paul’s companions produced the story that we now call the “Gospel of Mark.” This story makes extensive use of the Jewish scriptures and letters of Paul to construct an allegorical narrative filled with hidden meaning. Virtually every scene is constructed from references to the Jewish scriptures. Virtually every teaching of Jesus comes from the letters of Paul. The Gospel of Mark is written by a master of both Jewish and Greek prophetic literature, following in the footsteps of the Jewish authors of pseudo-Orphic and pseudo-Sibylline works such as Testament of Orpheus and the Sibylline Oracles.
It is unknown how this story circulated or came into the hands of the writer called Matthew. But when the writer called Matthew read the story, he recognized some of “Mark’s” references to the Jewish scriptures. Matthew, for unknown reasons, expanded the story and built upon the scriptural references used by Mark. When Matthew recognized Mark’s references, he called them out, stating to his readers that such events, “fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophets.” Matthew also created his own new narratives using scriptural references like Mark had, but calling his references out again with the claim that such events “fulfilled” the words of the prophets. Matthew changed Mark’s narrative to be less hostile to Peter, James, John, and the other disciples. Matthew’s Jesus was no longer a mystery, but now a clear teacher. Matthew’s narrative points out the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish scriptures, and in Matthew’s narrative Jesus’ teachings are expanded upon and explained. It is unclear whether the writer of Matthew thought that Jesus was a real person or not, but the writer of Matthew certainly knew that he was fabricating his own narrative.
It was Matthew’s expanded and clearer narrative that gained prominence and broader circulation. It was Matthew’s narrative that seemed far more realistic.
Some wealthy Greek named Theophilus heard some of the stories about Jesus and sought out further confirmation of the claims. This Theophilus consulted the person now known as Luke, likely sometime around the end of the first century. This “Luke” likely believed that Jesus was a real person. Luke worked from the Gospels of Mark and Matthew as well as the letters of Paul, and likely other historical sources such as the works of Josephus, to produce what he believed was a historically credible account. Luke understood that the writer of Matthew had used the account we now attribute to Mark and that Mark had used the writings of Paul. Luke viewed the writings of Paul as more authoritative than the writings of Mark and the writings of Mark as more authoritative than the writings of Matthew. Thus, when the writer of Luke saw overlap between these sources, he often followed the source that he deemed most authoritative. Luke cut out some of the elements that seemed most unlikely, such as Jesus cursing the fig tree and walking on water. Because Luke viewed Matthew’s work as the least credible, he was not compelled to closely follow the material unique to Matthew, but did structure it as best he could into a more believable narrative that more closely followed Mark’s original flow. Luke then likely sold his story, along with Acts of the Apostles, to Theophilus, knowing that he was wealthy and would be able to pay for it. The type of work that Luke had done in producing his “well researched account” would have been laborious and certainly warranted payment. Works such as this could command around a year’s income for an average Roman at this time. After having paid for these writings, Theophilus may well have sold copies of them in the Roman book market to offset his costs, thus bringing them into wider circulation.
At this point, the Gospel narratives had likely started to circulate in the Roman book market. Some opportunistic writer, now known as John, sought to render his version of the story, perhaps to turn a profit in the Roman market. When “John” wrote his story, he followed Matthew’s cue of calling out cases of prophecy fulfillment. This writer also made the effort to convince his readers of the reliability of the narrative, repeatedly assuring his readers that his version of the story was supported by eyewitness testimony. This writer, knowing that multiple similar copies of the story were already in circulation, intentionally changed his up and invented the mysterious “beloved disciple” whose role was to vouch for the truth of his altered account. Unlike the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which he had likely all read, he decided not to copy everything word for word. He reordered events. He invented his own narrative elements to put his unique stamp on the account. John’s story, now written during the height of Jewish pogroms in Rome, was, like many other Christian writings at this time, viscerally anti-Jewish. Thus, “John” eliminates the Jewish leaders James and John from his story altogether and portrays Peter even more poorly than in Mark. The writer builds on the line from the Gospel of Mark about Jesus not giving Jews the “miraculous signs” they called for. The writer invents his own new “miraculous signs” narrative showing that Jesus did perform the “miraculous signs” Jews demanded of him, but yet, “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37). Thus the Jews could not be absolved of blame for killing the Son of God. This “miraculous signs” narrative is clearly not an early narrative, as the primary function of the narrative is to implicate the Jews in a way that would have been entirely inappropriate to the origins of the original Jewish cult. The “miraculous signs” narrative only makes sense in light of the fate of the Jews after the First Jewish-Roman War, once the religion had become firmly Gentile in orientation.
The belief that Jesus was a real person stemmed entirely from the Gospel stories themselves. The original cult that worshiped the heavenly messiah Joshua was now long gone. That tiny cult was likely wiped from existence in the wake of the First Jewish-Roman War. By the time that the Gospel of Mark was written, Peter, James, and John, like Paul, were likely dead and gone. Vague ideas about the spiritual heavenly Jesus of the original cult persisted in various communities, known generally as Gnostics, but even these communities, likely primarily Pauline in orientation, had only fragmentary and confused knowledge about the mystical beliefs of the original cult. Once the Gospels came on the scene, their stories quickly took precedence over any vague remnants of the original cult. Roman readers of the Gospels took them literally and declared beliefs in a spiritual Jesus heresy. It is likely that, at the very least, the Gospels of Luke and John were intended to be taken literally. Though determining the intent of Matthew may be impossible, Matthew’s account certainly lends itself to literal interpretation. In all of this, Mark’s allegory received little attention. The complexity of Mark’s writing, its brevity, its obviously enigmatic nature, its somewhat unpleasant Jesus, its poor portrayal of the disciples, all led to Mark being virtually ignored. Mark was clearly similar enough to the other accounts to be included among the canonical Gospels, but it wasn’t considered worthy of serious study. It was widely believed that there was little to be learned from Mark that wasn’t better and more clearly represented in the other Gospels. Thus, the allegorical nature of Mark was not recognized. Mark, when it was read, was read through the lens of the other more historicized Gospels.
What caught the attention of Roman scholars were all of the so-called instances of prophecy fulfillment laced throughout the Gospels. Matthew of course had led the way, pointing out Mark’s literary references and describing them as instances of prophecy fulfillment. The Gospels, while all essentially being copies of Mark, were just different enough from one another that Roman scholars believed them to be independent accounts. Likewise, they were just similar enough to one another that they appeared to corroborate each other’s narratives. Thus, for Roman scholars, these four separate works became powerful proof of prophecy fulfillment, the likes of which they had never seen before. Here they had what they believed to be four independent witnesses who had all recorded narratives that contained dozens, if not hundreds, of parallels between the events of Jesus’ life and the Jewish scriptures. As the emperor Constantine’s spiritual advisor Lactantius wrote of Jesus in Divine Institutes, “we believe Him to be God, not because He performed miracles, but because we have seen that He fulfilled all the things that were foretold to us by the preaching of the prophets.” So this, essentially, is how I believe Christianity originated and developed.
Okay, if you put this speculation on one pan of a scale and the orthodox version of how Christianity got started on the other, which seems more reasonable?
Now, in court, if the prosecution makes a circumstantial case for conviction, the defense can offer a counter scenario in opposition. If the prosecution’s case doesn’t seem way more credible than the defense’s, then a guilty verdict will not be forthcoming (at least in a fair court). Explaining the “facts” through realistic scenarios counters the “narrative” that the defendant had to have done it.
And this is not the only such account that explains the facts without the orthodox claptrap (magic, gods, angels, etc.). Richard Carrier has another one and I have read a few others, too. All of them are far more likely than the orthodox explanation of events.
I am only part way through this one but it seems too good to keep to myself. If you, like me, are an atheist, then I think this is a must read book. The reason: well, the author says things exactly as I have been thinking them for quite some time, but almost never am I that blunt.
I have been reading Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist? (by Various Authors). And I was struck by one of the chapters that lays out a perfectly acceptable scenario for the creation of Christianity that doesn’t involve gods, magic, or even a human Jesus. Since the orthodox case for the creation of Christianity basically claims “How could it have occurred otherwise?” a reasonable approach is to explain how it could have. (There are thousands of religions based upon “beings” that do not exist (according to Christians) so one cannot claim we are not capable of such syntheses.) Here is the segment from this book.
Uncommon Sense 