Against the Wind
The Christ cult was born in the highly visible historical context of first-century Judaism, but the precise manner of its birth remains hidden. Explanations for its sudden appearance—let alone its dramatic growth—are various, ranging from divine intervention to human conspiracy. All explanations must find a basis in our only available source, the writings of the New Testament, and must make sense both of continuity and discontinuity between the ministry of Jesus and the movement that arose in his name.
The Gospels describe Jesus as an itinerant teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine. The letters of Paul, written decades before the Gospels, speak of Christ as the center of urban cult associations across the empire. How do we get from one to the other? Is the shift from a preacher of the kingdom to an exalted Lord the creation of a repackaging conspiracy by the apostles, the work of a religious genius like Paul, or the result of exposure to Greek mystery cults? Such theories have been tried and found wanting.
The best explanation takes all the evidence into account and, in turn, provides the best explanation for the origin and shape of all the evidence. We seek a cause (or causes) commensurate to two inarguable effects: the birth and rapid spread of a religious movement in the name of Jesus, and the production of compositions within this movement that are all centered on the figure of Jesus. The most reasonable way to determine the cause (or causes) is through close attention to the claims of the compositions themselves, while testing for historical probability.
The Gospels do not support the explanation that during his ministry, Jesus founded the sort of movement that appeared in cities across the empire in the middle of the first century. His ministry lasted only from one to three years and ended with his violent death. His teaching was unsystematic and often indirect. I did not provide the blueprint for a community's life. His gathering of disciples and his choice of the twelve indicates a desire for followers, but those he chose proved unreliable: one betrayed him, another denied him, and the rest abandoned him before his shameful death by crucifixion.
The Gospels—above all the endings of Matthew and Luke and the beginning of Acts—make clear two things: something intervened between Jesus’ death and the start of the mission in his name, and the mission had a different character than Jesus’ own ministry because of what intervened. What intervened and what gave shape to the new movement was the claim that Jesus had risen to new life after his death and that his followers had been empowered by his spirit. The birth of the Christian movement is the resurrection experience.
The Gospels describe Jesus as an itinerant teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine. The letters of Paul, written decades before the Gospels, speak of Christ as the center of urban cult associations across the empire. How do we get from one to the other? Is the shift from a preacher of the kingdom to an exalted Lord the creation of a repackaging conspiracy by the apostles, the work of a religious genius like Paul, or the result of exposure to Greek mystery cults? Such theories have been tried and found wanting.
The best explanation takes all the evidence into account and, in turn, provides the best explanation for the origin and shape of all the evidence. We seek a cause (or causes) commensurate to two inarguable effects: the birth and rapid spread of a religious movement in the name of Jesus, and the production of compositions within this movement that are all centered on the figure of Jesus. The most reasonable way to determine the cause (or causes) is through close attention to the claims of the compositions themselves, while testing for historical probability.
The Gospels do not support the explanation that during his ministry, Jesus founded the sort of movement that appeared in cities across the empire in the middle of the first century. His ministry lasted only from one to three years and ended with his violent death. His teaching was unsystematic and often indirect. I did not provide the blueprint for a community's life. His gathering of disciples and his choice of the twelve indicates a desire for followers, but those he chose proved unreliable: one betrayed him, another denied him, and the rest abandoned him before his shameful death by crucifixion.
The Gospels—above all the endings of Matthew and Luke and the beginning of Acts—make clear two things: something intervened between Jesus’ death and the start of the mission in his name, and the mission had a different character than Jesus’ own ministry because of what intervened. What intervened and what gave shape to the new movement was the claim that Jesus had risen to new life after his death and that his followers had been empowered by his spirit. The birth of the Christian movement is the resurrection experience.
― Luke Timothy Johnson, "The New Testament: A Very Short Introduction"
*********
Dear Kate,
It is a thankless task to explain yourself. If you can, it means you're probably not worth any explaining at all.
Now read what I said just now again, before you get all worked up about what you think you've read, and let me--alas, explain.
What I was trying to say is not that you are not worthy, but that your explanation is not worthy of you. (Which means I meant the exact opposite of what you thought I meant.)
But why did I put my sentence that way, which clearly articulates your unworthiness, as deemed by yours truly?
Maybe I wanted to speak from the perspective of your self worth and have you hear your own self-pitying internal monologue, your cruelty against your own humanity?
The quote today is a long one, so long that I might get into trouble with the publisher Oxford University Press. I hope they will forgive me. I hope they know I think the book is one of the greatest little gems on the topic, and the above passage so invigorating that I must spread the good news. I hope they can see not explanation or justification or even defense of my possibly infringing the copyright, but that I was carried along by a certain wind that gives a certain shape to my decision.
Something happened between Jesus' death and his once followers, an unworthy bunch of ragtag, going apeshit. You have a good job and a nice house and a decent enough family; you don't get up one morning and go apeshit about stuffs. You get decent to match the decency around you. You stay nice to reciprocate the niceties people allowed you. You are well-adjusted to further adjust yourself daily, so that you don't have to explain anything to anyone, not even yourself.
In fact most of us can hardly get a hardon about the next sunrise, now that the once-glorious phenomenon has been exhaustively explained away by scientists. Whatever we can find in our textbooks and on the internet is game enough to pornographize our awareness.
Something happened, and the ragtag and bobtail once stinking up the streets with Jesus just went flying over the cuckoo's nest to claim they now had a worldwide mission (Matt 28:19; Acts 1:8), a cosmic vision to judge the world (1 Cor 6:2), that the world belonged to them (1 Cor 3:22-23) and their faith had triumphed over it (1 John 5:4). Lately you've been reading Ephesians: you know the kind of apeshit I am talking about, embarrassment we would rather let it fly over our nest?
An explanation is needed. Lock them up if they can't come up with a good reason why the indecency, stupidity, affront to human dignity and world harmony. Silence them, for good if needed.
You are a Christian, aren't you? I don't see you going apeshit though.
It's ok, you don't need to explain yourself.
Yours, Alex
Comments
Post a Comment