In these strange and wondrous times, I thought a change from dreaded crony virus topics, which seem to assail every available orifice these days, would at least add a little intellectual variety.
The fact that Jesus
had several brothers, and at least one sister, is a fact attested to
several times in the New Testament. It is also recorded that his
family appeared to have little to do with him during his ministry.
Perhaps his mother was present at the crucifixion but there is no
mention of his siblings. Indeed during his ministry, Jesus made it
plain that he wanted little to do with his immediate family.
The mention of
Jesus’ siblings in the bible did not sit well with the early church
fathers as it contradicted a certain creed that Jesus was born of a
virgin and that Mary never relinquished ‘this treasure’, at least
not to a mortal man. The presence of Jesus's siblings was a major
embarrassment and Christian scholars, ancient and modern, have come
up with a host of contortions in order to explain away inconvenient
bible passages. Thus, perhaps the gospellers were referring to
Jesus’s cousins or maybe Joseph’s children from another mother.
The half-sibling scenario raises further problems: if Jesus had half
brothers and sisters they must share a father, that is Joseph. But
isn’t Joseph just a surrogate father as Jesus’ real father is
none other than God himself? Of course, Christian apologists, old and
new, were well aware of this conundrum and on the whole favoured the
cousin ‘hypothesis'. As for the cousin hypothesis, I would say this:
the New Testament was written in Greek and the Greek language
distinguishes between ‘cousins and brothers’ very well. If the
New Testament writers meant to write about Jesus’ cousins they
would have had the lexicon to say so. O what a tangled web we weave.
From the book of
Acts and from other sources, James, the brother of Jesus, becomes the leader of the early
Christian movement after Jesus’s death, at least in Jerusalem. James was a highly
observant Jew according to Jewish law (Torah) and was known as ‘James
the Just’ among, not just his Christian followers, but also
considered so by orthodox Jews. As far as we can piece together,
James became a Christian after the ‘appearance of the risen Lord’.
I’ll say no more about the resurrection stories as we stray from
the territory of history and enter the murky world/word of faith.
At this stage it is
important to mention, Saul of Tarsus (later, Paul): a most
interesting character and worthy of a separate post. Paul, a
Pharisee converted to Christianity soon after Jesus’s death. Paul
is a strange, passionate and driven man. He comes over, as mentioned
in the biblical literature, as a man on a mission to convert the
Roman world and Empire to Christianity. He travelled widely, sometimes alone, sometimes with others, across the Mediterranean. His followers
also preached throughout the Roman world as documented in the books of
Luke, Acts and in the epistles. Paul comes across as a quarrelsome
and prickly preacher. He differed from James’s mission in that he
was concerned to convert not only Jews but gentiles as well. In
contrast, just like his brother, James was mainly concerned with
the conversion of Jerusalem Jews where the leadership of the early
church was based.
The mission of James
is made clear in the epistle which bears his name (80-90 AD. The
epistle is thought by many scholars to be based on a sermon of James.
It is highly unlikely that James wrote this letter. James, like his
brother, Jesus, was an illiterate peasant. What comes across in the
letter is James’s piety; his concern for the poor and the
condemnation of the rich. Therefore, we see James advocating and
disseminating Jesus’s core message. It was a message unlikely to
endear him to the wealthy Jewish priestly elite and to the high
priest of the time, Ananus.
While James
remained within Jewish law and expected his Jewish converts to continue
to observe the law, in its entirety, Paul appears not to be concerned with the trappings of Judaism. Thus his gentile converts
did not have to undergo the painful indignation of circumcision or
adhere to the strange dietary rules. In this way, Paul’s form of
Christianity thrived among the gentiles of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, he
could make little headway among the Greek-speaking Jews of the
diaspora. This is an interesting point: diaspora Jews appeared to be
more literate and sophisticated than their Jewish brethren at home in
Jerusalem. To cosmopolitan Jews, Paul’s teaching advocating Jesus as the chosen messiah did not jibe well and did not conform to the
Jewish concept of the messiah as related in the bible. More
importantly, the notion that Jesus was a manifestation of God would
have been deeply shocking, and a complete anathaema to a devout Jew.
It would come as no surprise, therefore, that James and Paul clashed
heads when it came to teachings and conversions. James’s
Christianity was Judaism with a gentle twist and he had no ambition to found a
new religious movement. For Paul, Judaism was a base and prelude to
the foundation of the new breakaway religion of Christianity.
The bible recounts
several terse encounters between Paul and James in Jerusalem. Under
pressure and coercion from the primary church leaders, Paul was made
to recant and undergo purification in the Temple (57AD). But as
we know, Paul soon reverted to his wicked and heretical ways once he
left Jerusalem and the orthodox Christian leadership.
It seems that it was
Pauls’s brand/blend of Christianity that won out in the end mainly due to a
twist of fickle fate. In 62 AD James was executed by order of the
High Priest and the leadership of the nascent Christian church passed to
Jesus’s cousin, Simeon. Shortly after, Judea descended into chaos
and war with Rome. The result: inevitable Roman devastation of the land, the
sacking of Jerusalem and the total destruction of the Temple. Under
these circumstances Jesus’ followers and Jesus’ conception of
Christianity disappeared. Pauls’ brand of Christianity survived and
spread due to its simple message of salvation and its focus on the
numerous poor. Although persecuted throughout the next couple of
hundred of years, Christianity's growing popularity in the Roman
Empire led to it eventually being adopted as the state religion in
380AD. The rest is history....
Fascinating stuff!
ReplyDeleteBut what about the Romans' Mithras and the similarities in their myths (Miths)? Was there much overlap in the two belief systems?
I suspect modern speculation about the similarities of the two religions has been over done. Other religions also held similar core beliefs. Obviously learned Greek Christians assimilated other belief systems into their core beliefs- perhaps knowingly, perhaps by a process of intellectual osmosis. Tis a fertile area of speculation but without delving into deeper I am unqualified to comment further.
ReplyDelete