In this book the author puts forward a number of unorthodox theories about Jesus and Paul. The author proposes that:
- Jesus was an anarchist who flouted religious and political conventions. "Jesus was living and promoting...anarchism: spiritual and political anarchism." (page 123)
- Jesus was a radical, refining down the ten commandments to principally two: loving one another and loving God. The author states that there is no need to be dependent on dubious supernatural Gospel stories such as the virgin birth or his miracles. Jesus' radical message should be enough to follow him.
- The first followers of Jesus (or "Jesuans") were communal-living anarchists. "There is little doubt that the earliest followers of Jesus, and all those who continued the monastic tradition into modern times, have adopted the anarchist principle of leading a simple, industrious, mutually self-supporting life." (pages 131-132)
- Jesus' brother, James, was vegetarian.
- Paul corrupted "Jesuanism" by making Jesus into a God, reducing salvation to a matter of belief in Jesus almost regardless of the Torah's demands and establishing a Church hierarchy to create and control the beliefs of its membership. "All that is good about Christianity stems from Jesus, and all that is bad about it stems from Paul." (page 199)
- Jesus may have travelled to Britain during his lost years to study with the Druids.
This book is a revised and retitled version of Jesus, Antichrist, Anarchist, Economist and a Theist (1998). Tom O'Golo may be a pen name for Gordon Strachan but this is unconfirmed. Strachan was a radical Church of Scotland minister who died in July 2010, aged 76.
Best Christian anarchist books:
By the way, for those who are interested I have put together a list of my favourite Christian anarchist books. For those in the US see here.
Best Christian anarchist books:
By the way, for those who are interested I have put together a list of my favourite Christian anarchist books. For those in the US see here.
I'd be interested to know how similar or different his understanding of Jesus and the gospels is to Tolstoy. Does he, for example, reject texts with supernatural elements and does he reject the tradition of jesus as the ultimate revelation of God?
ReplyDeleteAlso, how much has the author engage with contemporary debates about Paul as a radical Jewish Mystic? Does the author recognise that there are essentially four Paul's in the New Testament (Lukan, First, Second, and third Paul)?
That last question is vital because you can't lump all the Pauline epistles together as though they are by one author and then criticise that lump without throwing out the baby with the bath water.
What do you think Adam, having read the book?
Hi Keith,
ReplyDeleteThe author does not mention Tolstoy in the book but his rejection of the supernatural seems similar. He is against elevating Jesus to God status and the virgin birth story etc help to do this. I guess he also rejects the Trinity.
As far as I am aware he does not talk about Paul as a mystic, but he does talk about Jesus as one. He mentions the importance of both the Essenes and Ebionites. Also as far as I am aware he doesn't engage with the "four Paul's" theory.
The sources for his theories he mentions are Q, the Gospel of John and the Gnostic texts.
He claims Paul added the following key elements to Christian theology that weren't evident in Jesuanism:
1. Original sin
2. Making the Jews the villains
3. Making Jesus divine
4. Transubstantiation of bread and wine to actual flesh and blood
5. Jesus' death being seen as atonement for human sin
6. Making Jesus the Messiah
7. Shifting the emphasis from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom
8. Enlarging the chosen people to include anyone that accepted Jesus as Saviour
9. Making salvation a matter of belief of Jesus almost regardless of the demands of the Torah
10. Establishing a hierarchy (literally a holy order) to create and control a Church and more importantly to create and control the beliefs of its membership
Interesting that he relies on John's Gospel but says Paul makes Jews the villeins!
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like he has a lot of good stuff to teach us but he needs to Read Crossan and Borg's 'First Paul' or Neil Elliott's 'Liberating Paul' in order to get a more balanced view of the much maligned apostle to the gentiles.
I think the author's anti-Pauline sentiments stem from his analysis of the split between James and Paul. He understood James to be Jesus' brother and closest disciple. James was a peaceful vegetarian-anarchist hippy and Paul, well, the opposite.
ReplyDeleteYeah, those books on Paul look interesting. I am personally not a great Paul fan (comes across as too egotistical for me), but it is always good to have a balanced opinion. None of us are perfect after all.
Ludwig Wittgenstein sums up my views quite well:
The spring which flows quietly and transparently through the Gospels seems to have foam on it in Paul’s Epistles. Or, that is how it seems to me. Perhaps it is just my own impurity which sees cloudiness in it; for why shouldn’t this impurity be able to pollute what is clear? But to me it’s as if I saw human passion here, something like pride or anger, which does not agree with the humility of the Gospels. As if there were here an emphasis on his own person, and even as a religious act, which is foreign to the Gospel.
In the Gospels – so it seems to me – everything is less pretentious, humbler, simpler. There are huts; with Paul a church. There all men are equal and God himself is a man; with Paul there is already something like a hierarchy; honours and offices.
Perhaps Ludwig didn't know that all of Paul's canonical epistles were written before any of the gospels. So if we want a primitive Christianity, in all honesty, we have to start with Paul.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's plenty of pretention in the four gospels, particularly John's which is very 'them and us'.
I'm definitely intrigued enough to read the book, thanks.
It'd be interesting to see how he comes to the conclusion that Jesus visited Britain and which druids he studied with. Especial considering the period of history we are dealing with, and the limitations of a Jewish peasant living in the most geographically extreme province of the Roman Empire.
ReplyDeleteD'you know I completely missed that! That is proper random. Perhaps I won't read it after all - life is too short!
ReplyDeleteThe author only lists it as a possibility Jesus may have travelled to Britain, rather than stating it as fact. Ted Harrison, who based a TV documentary around Gordon Strachan's (aka Tom O'Golo's?) work, wrote the article Jesus in Britain. Perhaps it is not as crazy as it sounds...
ReplyDeleteOther than Jesus' staying at home doing carpentry during his lost years, the most commonly held theory has been India.
"Perhaps Ludwig didn't know that all of Paul's canonical epistles were written before any of the gospels. So if we want a primitive Christianity, in all honesty, we have to start with Paul."
ReplyDeleteI thought it was pretty much commonly accepted that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest?
Hi Keith,
ReplyDeletePlease ignore my last post, I now see what you mean. Gospel of Mark is estimated to have been written circa AD 65-70, and Paul's epistles circa AD 50-60.
Ignored. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI suppose it comes down to whether Christian primitivism or radicalism means:
ReplyDelete1) Studying the first texts about Jesus i.e. Paul's canonical epistles.
2) Studying texts of words spoken by the primary source i.e. Jesus' teachings, sermons and parables.
I think this shows that if you look at the right bits of the New Testament and ignore others you can make Jesus out to be whatever you want him to be.
ReplyDeleteThe Jesus Seminary, (Borg, Crossan, Spong et al) seem to have based their ideas on sound scholarship and meticulous research, whereas it looks as if O'Golo may have jumped to a few too many conclusions.
To me it doesn't really change much i.e. whether Jesus travelled outside his country of birth during his "lost years", the virgin birth or his miracles (I actually happen to believe in the superhuman element of Jesus). It is a long time ago and any conclusive evidence is dust.
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is our actions, not our beliefs. That is what we are really judged on.