THE JESUS PUZZLE
Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?
Book review by Anthony Campbell. Copyright © Anthony Campbell (2005).
Before reading this book I tended to think of theories about the non-existence of Jesus as being roughly on a par with those about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays: food for a little idle speculation but not substantial enough to be worth dwelling on for long. And reading The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy a little while ago didn't do much to alter this opinion.
I have to say I feel quite different about Doherty's book, however. After reading it, I still don't know for certain whether I think Jesus was a historical character or not, but at least I am convinced that the question is still open and is worth asking. And I've learned a lot about the origins of Christianity that I didn't know before.
I was of course aware that modern Biblical scholarship had shown conclusively that the Gospels cannot be taken at face value as historical documents, and I had also realized that much of what we now understand as Christianity emerged from Paul's writings. It was clear to me that considerable transformation in the original understanding of Jesus must have taken place, but it didn't occur to me to doubt that Paul had had a historical personage in mind when he referred to Christ. It is however Doherty's case that he did not.
Scholarly books about the origins of Christianity tend to be pretty baffling for the non-specialist and Doherty is to be congratulated for making his discussion so commendably clear. Whether you agree with him or not, he presents his facts and arguments in terms that can be understood by the layman, yet he does so without sacrificing the detailed evidence which is needed to support his case. At the start of the book he provides a convenient twelve-point summary which I draw on in part here to indicate the general scope of his argument.
One does not have to make up one's mind immediately about Doherty's main thesis in order to see that what he says can make sense of a number of obscurities. This applies particularly to the Epistles of Paul, which are remarkably difficult to understand. If you look at them from Doherty's standpoint they begin to make more sense (though difficulties in plenty remain). And Jesus's frequent references to himself as "Son of Man" also fall into place: the phrase derives from the Book of Daniel and was incorporated into the text via "midrash". (Paul and other New Testament letter writers do not use the expression.) Attempts to explain (or explain away) the Resurrection, of course, cease to be necessary.
That this is a radical reinterpretation of Christianity hardly needs stating; it could not be more revolutionary. As such, it is not about to obtain widespread acceptance overnight, even among the most open-minded of New Testament scholars. As a reader with no scholarly pretensions, however, I have to say that I found it thoroughly intriguing. It even made me inclined to look up the original texts—something I had not done for many a long year.
8 March 2005
%T The Jesus Puzzle