Jesus And The Paraclete Walk Into A Bar

The most compelling reason to assume Jesus Christ existed is because so many people believe he did, and apparently did so by the mid-2nd century; however, to paraphrase part of Frank Zindler‘s question to Bart Ehrman at the Ehrman/Price Mythicist Milwaukee debate, “if the Docetists had won the wars of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, we might be debating something else, such as whether there was a historical tooth fairy”.

Zindler’s point was more loaded than the casual observer might appreciate, as the Docetists believed Jesus Christ did not actually appear on earth in the flesh; rather, they believed he was an apparition.  More bluntly, if secular historians were trying to discern the probability that someone (who was not Jesus Christ) existed, and whose historical attributes included those the Docetists gave to Jesus Christ, it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that person did not exist.

A careful historian would not rule out the apparition legend’s existence simply because of this strange attribute, but if this character were not the God and savior in the minds of billions of people worldwide, there would be much less hostility surrounding the debate, particularly towards those who have the audacity to reject this character’s historicity.

My conclusion about Jesus Christ’s historicity is similar to others who reject it, although the strategy I use is probably different.  I assume Jesus Christ was a composite of many historical and non-historical figures.

My particular interest as of late has been to elaborate and speculate on the religious and political underpinnings of the group which gave rise to Christianity: the Nasarenes.  My assumptions are largely based on the works of Margaret Barker, who makes the case that Christianity emerged from a version of Judaism which was less concerned about Mosaic law, and more concerned with Wisdom as spiritually propagated by a feminine angel and the wife of the most high, known to her incense-burning worshipers as the Queen of Heaven.

The speculation of this detail provides remarkable explanatory power.  For instance, the story in Revelation 12, where a woman, clothed in the sun with the moon at her feet bounces back and forth between heaven and earth, escapes the clutches of a celestial dragon who previously ignited a war in heaven, and gave birth to a son who was taken up to heaven by God.  Revelation 12 closes by assuring its readers that those who revere the woman and her son are the true keepers of the law (Rev 12:17); this is a clear allusion to the Nasarenes – the Hebrew term for keep, guard, or preserve is Nasar.  In this context, it is no wonder Christianity and Judaism’s primary schism (aside from the obvious) related to their propping up of Moses.  If Moses’ law was not the centerpiece of Judaism, then what was their ethical and spiritual center?  For the Nasar, it was a spiritually derived wisdom sent from another realm by the Queen.

Church father Epiphanius of Salamis gives insight into the Nasar in his Panarion, where he describes them as a Jewish mystery cult (in other words), living amongst the Jews, practicing their customs, but rejecting the Pentateuch, and believing they have the true teachings of Moses.  Put another way, to the Nasar, Moses’ teachings were inferior to the spiritual wisdom of the Queen, whose days as a centerpiece of Orthodox Judaism, according to 2 Kings, ended with Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 7th century BCE.

The Nasar show up again elsewhere in Epiphanius’s writings, when he describes an Elxai, who lead a collection of Essenes, Ebionites, Nazarenes, and Nasarenes, and whose chief concern appears to be 96-mile tall masculine and feminine Spirits in the sky – the male Spirit was the Christ.

It is my contention that Elxai has much explanatory power when parsing the curiosities of several Christian sects that early church father Irenaeus first described around 185CE, notably the Ebionites.  Many Christian scholars have no trouble presuming that it was the Ebionites who preceded Pauline Christianity, and had in their ranks, among others, James, and those men from Galatians 2, who convinced Cephas to stop eating with the uncircumcised.

Put generically, these Ebionites saw Jesus Christ as less supernatural than Paul did.  But it is in the specifics where the dots begin to align.  Like a similar group of early Christians known as the Cerinthians, the Ebionites believed that a Spirit from heaven descended upon Jesus like a dove after his baptism.  This is detectable in the Synoptic Gospels, which is no surprise, considering that the Cerinthians and Ebionites are both associated with various (perhaps proto) versions of the sans virgin birth Gospel of Matthew; my suspicion is that it was some symbiosis between these groups which resulted in the proto-Synoptic Gospel’s creation.

jesus-baptism

An obvious link between Elxai and the Ebionites already exists via Epiphanius, who wrote that Elxai’s followers included some Ebionites.  But consider the parallels between Elxai’s view, which had 96 mile tall Spirits in the sky, and the Ebionite view, which had the Christ Spirit descending onto the ordinary man Jesus.  The two views are entirely compatible.  In other words, Elxai’s Spirits were sending out signals of themselves to the elect, which we might presume, given the immediately preceding event in the Gospels, were the people who received baptism.

Since we already concede that the Ebionites preceded Paul (he even admits this – Galatians 1:17), and were therefore the earlier Christians, it strikes me that the Gospel story of Jesus was nothing more than an allegory to explain what could happen to those Nasarenes who received proper spiritual initiation:  they would gain magical abilities, their spiritual senses would increase to the point of being able to detect and purge demons within the temple and the synagogues, and they would have deeper insight into the realm of the unknown God.  They would become the Christ.

A reason the specific timeframe was selected for the Gospel story, 40 years prior to the temple’s destruction, was to indicate that the Christ Spirit, which should substitute for the temple, and which would be encapsulated by a human being, had been on earth prior to the temple being destroyed.  This could explain why Jesus cursed the fig tree, even though it was entirely expected that it would not bear fruit during that time of year – this was an allusion to the temple’s spiritual deficiency:  the temple no longer housed the Christ – that job was now assumed by the carrier of the Christ Spirit: Jesus.  Given the fact that the Gospel of Mark generally dates to around 70CE, perhaps one reason for this timeframe would be to give “spiritual proof” that the writers of Mark had received this Spirit after Jesus died, and were therefore, the true inheritors of the Spirit, which later became known as the Paraclete.

The temple’s spiritual deficiency is detectable in Paul’s writings, as well.  For instance, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:16 “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?”  He also said that he was “once again in the pains of his childbirth until the Christ is formed within” his followers (Galatians 4:19).  I think it clear that, to Paul, the Christ was likewise the Spirit of the temple, and therefore, the physical temple was not necessary (although it is nearly universally assumed, I do not believe it is clear whether Paul was writing before the temple was destroyed).  This Pauline trope of recalling his own childbirth is remarkably similar to a notion which existed in a sect, very similar to the Ebionites and Cerinthians, which Irenaeus described as the Carpocratians in Against Heresies i.25:

They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was steadfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God. On this account, a power descended upon him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world

In the next sentence about the Carpocratians, Irenaeus explains

They further declare, that the soul of Jesus, although educated in the practices of the Jews, regarded these with contempt, and that for this reason he was endowed with faculties, by means of which he destroyed those passions which dwelt in men as a punishment [for their sins].

If we reconsider the lens through which we look at these claims, consider an intriguing speculation:  Paul (or whoever wrote Paul) saw himself as Jesus Christ.  These attributes the Carpocratians assigned to Jesus Christ are just as much a match to Paul as they are to Jesus!  Irenaeus even makes allusion to the Carpocratians using Paul’s epistle to the Romans.

One common Pauline passage used to support Jesus Christ’s historicity (and that Paul must have considered Jesus a human, as well) is Galatians 4:4-5:

But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons.…

Does this passage really reflect Paul’s views on a human Jesus?  Or is this passage a reference to Paul himself receiving ownership of the Spirit?  Paul was genomenon (manifested/born) from a woman, as is evidenced by his miscarried birth (1 Corin 15:8)  He was also born under the law, in the tribe of Benjamin, as he writes in his letters.  Indeed, this passage reads equivalently when the reader assumes that Paul is talking about himself.

The flip side of this story comes in 1 Corinthians 15 7-8

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one born from a miscarriage (ektroma)

Once again, Paul’s insight into his own abnormal birth (a miscarriage) is directly linked to the Carpocratians, who believed the Spirit-encapsulator would remember details prior to their birth.  The Carpocratians also believed in reincarnation and in the transmigration of souls.  In my estimation, the odds are that Paul’s stories were contributed to by multiple members of the community who saw themselves simultaneously as reincarnations of Paul and the encapsulators of the Christ-Spirit.  I have made the case in another post that a character who shows up in Mark’s Gospel (a gospel which is sympathetic to Paul), named Simon of Cyrene, that character plucked from the field in Mark 15 (the field was synonymous with the New Jerusalem where the Queen of Heaven’s spirit would reside), was one such iteration of Paul (who was the Paraclete – the heretical sect known as the Basilideans believed Simon of Cyrene was the Paraclete).  The Gospel of Matthew, which is explicitly hostile to Paul’s theological system, omits the reference to Simon coming from the field, but leaves him in the story.  As I have argued, the whole point of Simon of Cyrene showing up late in Mark’s Gospel was to close up the loose end Mark put into 9:38-40, where an unnamed demon-caster was doing Jesus’s work for him.  In contrast, Matthew writes that demon-casting will not get anyone priority in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:22), particularly if that person instructs his followers not to follow Moses’s law (Matthew 5:19).

Recall my reference to Frank Zindler’s question at the Price-Ehrman debate.  Zindler referenced the Docetists.  Right or not, the name we tend to associate with Docetism was Marcion, that ship merchant who preserved Paul’s corpus, but rejected other apostolic traditions, such as those of Peter, James, and John.  Marcion was also evidently responsible for the first multi-text canon, which was composed entirely of Paul’s letters.

One rightly wonders:  why would Marcion do that?  What could possibly trigger an early Christian to accept Paul at the expense of apostles who supposedly accompanied Jesus?!?

One solution to this oddity is that Marcion knew the other apostolic traditions were fake, and that the Gospels were allegory.  Perhaps this was part of it.  But how does Marcion fit into the model I have described so far?

In my model, Marcion must have believed Paul was the Paraclete who received the Christ Spirit.  In that sense, the Christ was an apparition: it was not material.  The man who encapsulated it was material, just like in the Cerinthian and Ebionite systems.  Though this assumption deviates from Irenaeus’s and Tertullian’s characterization of Marcion, it strikes me as more economical.

The recipient of the Christ spirit was only half the story.  Recall that Elxai had 2 spirits:  the masculine and the feminine.  One theme that emerges in many of the heretical sects described by early church fathers, is that there was often a prominent female.  For instance, the Carpocratians, whose theology match Paul’s views in not inconsequential ways, had a Marcellina.  The supposed “father of all heretics”, Simon Magus, had a female companion named Helen, who was supposedly a reincarnation of Helen of Troy.  The Montanists, that sect which was obsessed with the “New Jerusalem”, which was located in Central Turkey, had Prisca.  Even Jesus had Mary Magdelaine!  In Against Heresies i.13, Irenaeus notes that Marcus the Magician, who had a penchant to turn water into wine, also had a female companion who was originally the wife of an Asian deacon.

Among other things, this Marcus declared:

…the infinitely exalted Tetrad descended upon him from the invisible and indescribable places in the form of a woman (for the world could not have been borne it coming in its male form), and expounded to him alone its own nature, and the origin of all things…

Irenaeus rejected Marcus, and deemed him a heretic.  My assumption is that Marcus represented the earlier version of Christianity.  The woman who descended was the Queen of Heaven, and along with the Christ, acted as a proxy between the highest heaven/God and the Earth, and (as in the Gospel of Mark and Matthew), the spirit descends on the elect.

Even Paul’s adversary in the earliest days of Christianity, James, seems linked to these more mystical concerns, including the inclusion of the female Paraclete.  Consider the Naassenes, an early Christian group, described by Hippolytus.  The Naassenes revered James, but (unlike the Ebionites) had a tremendous amount of Gnostic influence; in fact, Hippolytus referred to them as the first so-called Gnostics.

According to Hippolytus, the Naassenes claimed to be disciples of Mariamne, who was a disciple of James.  Consider an alternate reading:  The Naassenes were followers of James who saw Mariamne as the Earthly encapsulator of the Queen’s spirit.  Another way of looking at this is that, according to the Gospels, Mary was the name of Jesus’s mother and companion.  Did Mary Magdelaine become James’ follower after Jesus died?  Or was Mary Magdelaine James’ companion the whole time, and the Gospel story assigns to Jesus Christ a collection of attributes from various Paracletes throughout Nasarene history, including James and Paul?  In this light, it is interesting that no such explicit link to a Mary exists in the Paul sects.  In my model, this is because the story of Mary receiving the feminine Spirit came from the Jamesian side of Christianity, not the Pauline side.  And the name of the earliest Jamesian Christians who believed in the virgin birth:  the Nazarenes.

A fragment from the Naassene sermon is below.  One of the details I have noticed since drawing this connection between the Queen of Heaven and early Christianity is how many of these pre-Orthodox references to the mother there are – something which decreased post-Orthodoxy.

From thee, father, through thee, mother, the two immortal names.

Recall my earlier speculation that Paul saw himself, rather than some Judean minister, as the (current) vehicle of the Christ.  Perhaps what we have with the Naassenes is a sect who saw James as Jesus the Christ.  That would explain Paul’s strange statement in 2 Corinthians 11:4

For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough

This notion reemerges in several early Christian texts, not just Paul’s writings, which has the Christ appearing to James prior to appearing to Paul (1 Corin 15:7-8), but also in the Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus tells his followers to go first to James, but to be on the lookout for a potential leader who was “not born of a woman” – this tradition, in my view, was Paul’s motivation to claim he was born from a miscarriage, and also explains references to his recalled child birth pains.  The similar naming between the Naassenes and Nasarenes might be explained by the Hebrew translation into Syriac (although the traditional assumption is that it comes from the Hebrew naas, which means snake).

Advertisements

Author: Tim...Stepping Out

Tim Stepping Out

12 thoughts on “Jesus And The Paraclete Walk Into A Bar”

  1. As always, fascinating. I tend to agree with you, that Christian scripture is such a mess and why so many names in those scripture get reused for any characters, is to bring different believers into the fold, much as the Romans incorporated the gods of their conquered peoples. So, the “Christ” that comes to down to us is a mishmosh of various people’s beliefs based up various and sundry stories.

    Like

    1. Exactly. I think the diversity in Christianity is explained by diversity within the Nasarene community. Elxai had Ebionites, Essenes, Nazarenes, and Nasarenes following him. People fight wars over the differences that must have existed within these groups, yet they all joined together with some transcendent concern in mind…

      Like

  2. Tim – you write that Marcion may have regarded Paul as the Paraclete. If Robert Price is correct that Marcion wrote some of the Pauline epistles – then perhaps Marcion believed that he himself had been “christed” (if such a word exists) and that he was the true paraclete. To this end he invented ‘Paul’ and pushed him back to a perceived apostolic time (with identical controversies) in order to lend weight to his own authority.
    I’ve always been struck by Theophilus of Antioch’s assertion that he is a Christian because he had been “anointed” (christed?)

    What a mess!

    Like

    1. If you read Against Heresies i.25, the Carpocratian view strikes me as very compatible with Marcion and Paul (I stole that idea from Stephan Huller, who has in the past claimed that the Carpocratian Marcellina was the person at the root of the person Marcion).

      But one of the things about the Carpocratians is that they believed in reincarnation and transmigration of souls. Perhaps Marcion imagined himself as a reincarnation of Paul, and added to his corpus. Galatians and 2 Corinthians seem to be the most likely candidates if this is the case (at least in my mind).

      I follow Margaret Barker on the anointing thing. I think it had to do with anointing using oil from the tree of life…probably some ritual one received once they came to a certain level within the mystery.

      Like

  3. Here’s what I’ve managed so far, and feel free to offer any critiques as you deem necessary.

    The historical backbone of the Jesus figure was the man who appears as the Egyptian in Josephus. This man professed himself to be Stadios, the second Moses. This reveals the name ‘Yeshua ben Stada’ as a mocking aside of Joshua, son of Moses. It is also my view that the implementation of crucifixion is likewise indicative of the Stadios concept, as Jesus would be erected upon a stauros above others. Indeed the Egyptian may never have been crucified and the crucifixion account was a symbolic expression. Indeed just look at the words Stada/Stara, Stadios and stauros.

    But one of the proclamations of this figure was that of the Paraclete as pronounced in John and G-Thomas. Well, the eclipse of 118 occurs in the sign of Virgo, right in the vicinity Parium, where Lucian’s Stranger hailed from. I think he saw this eclipse and was aware of this group awaiting for one “not born of from a woman” and claimed himself to be the Paraclete. He is rebuked by Jacob/James but takes on students like Cerinthus, Demas, Lucan, Florinus, a young Irenaeus, and maybe even Apelles/Apollos. He is later rejected by his own followers and kills himself in a public spectacle.

    I think the various names the Stranger was known by was Marcion, Paul, Valentinus, maybe Apelles, Carpocretes, Ignatius and Polycarp. I also think that elements of his own acts managed their way into the Jesus figure, particularly the Synoptics and the redacted John.

    Just take a look at the Martyrdom of Polycarp. His execution is almost identical to Christ’s death in John: paraded about by his executioners, put to death before an assembly of his enemies and followers, bound to a stauros, pierced by a dagger, and a liquid issuing from the wound. But the key detail is the dove that flies away. This was the spirit which descended upon Christ at his baptism, and which was believed to have left him prior to his crucifixion. The Martyrdom of Polycarp makes it clear that Polycarp was believed to have inherited the Christ spirit; that Polycarp was indeed the Paraclete.

    So in summation:

    Judah
    |
    Theudas/John the Baptist
    |
    The Egyptian/John Mark
    |
    Jacob/James
    |
    Peregrines/Paul———————-
    |. |
    Cerinthus/Cephas. |
    |. |
    Papias/Hegesippus. |
    |. Florinus
    Justin. |
    |. |
    Tatian/Theophilus. |
    |. |
    Irenaeus——————————-

    Like

      1. Yes, maybe up until around 110-ish. The Talmud records a student of ben Stada named Jacob having been active during the time of R. Eliezer.

        One clue I think that reveals what’s happening is when Jesus bestows upon James and John the title of boanerges in Mark. This references the myth of Castor and Pollux, the twin sons of Zeus. In the myth Pollux is immortal while Castor is mortal. My speculation is that ben Stada/The Egyptian was John, who was the Stadios, and James was his beloved disciple. The Thunder they are the children of is Logos/Moses.

        Something that has bothered me for a long time is why Paul would chastise Cephas for being influenced by the men from James if they all had been witnesses to the Christ? I believe that having Cephas/Peter before Paul was the result of later Catholic propaganda. The same propaganda that put Simon Magus after Peter. But Cerinthus/Cephas/Peter was a disciple of Paul/Simon/Polycarp/Peregrinus who was trying to set himself up as the Paraclete. But eventually his own students abandon him and begin their own schools. Everyone except Irenaeus, who in turn reviles them as heretics.

        This also explains the sharp contrast between John and the Synoptics. They are talking about two different Jesus’s. The one John, the Egyptian, and the other, Paul/Peregrinus.

        Like

      2. Responding to Daniel’s comment
        QUOTE:
        “Something that has bothered me for a long time is why Paul would chastise Cephas for being influenced by the men from James if they all had been witnesses to the Christ? ”

        ……” Paul/Simon/Polycarp/Peregrinus who was trying to set himself up as the Paraclete.”……

        Good observations!

        Jesus was asked twice which Commandment is the greatest or most important one, (Matthew 22 and Mark 12)
        Both times Jesus answered quoting the same two commandments, from the Law of Moses.

        Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?

        “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12:29-30, Deuteronomy 6:4-5]

        Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.” [Matthew 22:37-38, Deuteronomy 6:5]

        Poem – What is love?

        Two men came to Jesus
        With different motivations.
        They asked Him the same question
        Relevant to all the nations:

        Which is the Most Important?
        The answer was the same.
        Jesus did not manipulate
        He was not there to play a game.

        “Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
        as He quoted from The Law –
        to fulfill and not abolish
        was His purpose, full of awe.

        Jesus did not make all Scripture
        Into one new great commandment.
        He summarized The Law and Prophets
        “First and Greatest” and “The Second.”

        The Love of God is higher
        Than the love of any man.
        Receive from God, give back to God-
        Then to others, that’s His plan.

        The Love of God involves much more
        Than simply “love your fellow man.”
        Worship, trust, and pray to God,
        and obey Him – that’s His plan

        To worship and pray to neighbors,
        Whoever they may be,
        Or trust and obey our enemies
        Would be idolatry.

        The love of God is first and greatest,
        And the love of man is second.
        “All we need is love” are words
        of dead Beetles on the pavement.

        “The entire law is summed up in a single command”
        are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
        It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
        an “accuser of our brethren.”

        “Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
        in his chapter to the Corinthians.
        “I will show you the most excellent way”
        is the road to eternal perdition.

        Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
        Nowhere in view of the eye.
        Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
        “I, I, I, I.”

        Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
        Not the words of a Pharisee.
        The words of Jesus are very clear.
        Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”

        Like

  4. My conclusion about Jesus Christ’s historicity is similar to others who reject it, although the strategy I use is probably different. I assume Jesus Christ was a composite of many historical and non-historical figures.

    I once read in an encyclopedia that Martin Noth held a similar belief regarding Moses.

    Like

      1. As far as I am aware, no one who is anyone in the scholarly or archaeological field believes Moses was a real historical figure anymore than Adam or Abraham
        I only raised the issue of Noth because of his belief that Moses was a composite was a similar idea to your idea about Jesus being a composite.
        I wouldn’t bet that Noth believes Moses was a composite these days.
        I checked on Wiki bit could find nothing about his views there.

        Like

      2. “Did Moses Exist” is her best book. She even made an excellent case as to why the Pentateuch is dated late at around the middle of the first millennium BCE which is a tall red flag for the non-historicity of Moses. Few of her sources is the works of Russel Gmirkin, Michael Coogan, Jan Assman, Donald Redford as well as “Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, et.al.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s