I have just read your column entitled, "Jesus for the
Non-Religious." I guess I am left wondering why if one can strip
away most if not all the gospel details of his life, he can
continue to exist in history. Why not take the view that
Canadian humanist historian Early Doherty takes that Christianity
grew in part out of the Greco-Roman world being impressed by the
Hebrew scriptures and later the movement demanded a leader and
midrash provided by the Hebrew cultish groups in Palestine
provided this. (I hope I am doing justice to Professor Doherty).
What you read was one column that arose out of a
two-year study that sought to penetrate the years between the
death of Jesus (about 30 C.E.) and the writing of the gospels
that occurred 40-70 years later (between 70 and 100 C.E.) In
those years the Jesus of history was wrapped inside the Hebrew
Scriptures, interpreted through the liturgy of the synagogue,
shaped by the messianic expectations of the Jewish people,
translated into the Greek language and finally transformed into
being the founder of a religion. Though these things make it
difficult to determine exactly who Jesus was, what he said and
what he did, they do not destroy the human being who inspired
this creedal and mythological development. I think it is clear
that Jesus of Nazareth was a person of history and your letter
gives me the opportunity to spell out my reasons for coming to
this conclusion.
Paul says in Galatians (written 51-52 C.E.) that he
has in fact spoken and had dealings with Cephas (Peter) and
James, the Lord's brother, early in his career as a Christian,
somewhere between four and nine years after the crucifixion. I
get to that range of years by taking the generally accepted dates
of Paul's conversion worked out in the 19th century by historian
Adolf Harnack of 1 to 6 years after the crucifixion. I then
couple that with Paul's autobiographical note in Galatians that
three years later he went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas,
or Peter. That gives us four to nine years as the date of this
consultation. Certainly Paul, who never claims that he saw or
knew the Jesus of history, believed that he knew those who did.
Unfortunately, the Christian Church has for most of
its history literalized its scriptures, claiming for them a
historicity they never possessed. Contemporary biblical
scholarship has helped us dismantle that literalism and that is
what causes people to think that by dismantling the myth, we have
destroyed the man. I think the opposite is true. By dismantling
the myth, we are recovering the man.
When the book I am now writing is published in the
spring of 2007, under the title, "Jesus for the Non-Religious," I
hope to make this clear.
John Shelby Spong
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments