Jesus Christ as an Atheist:

Transcription

1 Jesus Christ as an Atheist: A Hypothetical Reconstruction of the Original Message of Jesus By W. J. Whitman He who is not wanted to make the world. I use the word wanted to make myself intelligible, but in fact there was no thought, no desire, no feeling. And the God who is not made the world of that which is not. Basilides (ca. 117AD) It has been roughly 2,000 years since the time of Christ. Obviously we are not in a position to objectively determine what Jesus taught. For one thing, the Christ left us with no first-hand accounts. He did not write anything to tell us what he actually thought. As far as we can tell, there are not even any second-hand accounts of the teachings of Christ. There are no known records of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ written by his original disciples or by people that knew him personally. The Gospels are known to be records of oral tradition, rather than accounts written directly by his disciples. The names associated with the Gospels are a latter addition. The original texts of the canonical Gospels bore no titles, nor did they specify their authors names. Furthermore, we know that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are both forgeries. The author of Acts was writing revisionist history. In reality, we know from the authentic letters of St. Paul that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul did not agree about the nature of Christian dogma. We know that there was a conflict between Peter and Paul. The Book of Acts was written as an attempt to reconcile the views of Peter to those of Paul. Furthermore, the author of Acts used his revisionist historical account in order to paint Simon Magus as being in opposition to the teachings of Peter and Paul. In Forged, Bart Ehrman explains why the majority of the New Testament texts should be regarded as forgeries. 1 Regardless of the nebulousness of Christ s message in the absence of any first-hand accounts, we do have sufficient evidence to postulate a probable reconstruction of the core of his teachings. For instance, we do know quite a lot about what was being taught by Christians in the 1 Bart Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God Why the Bible s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

2 first century. Firstly, there are some first-hand accounts, like the writings of St. Paul, the canonical Gospels, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. We know from these texts, and from the writings of second and third generation Christians in the early Church, that there were two strands of thought in the first century Church. 2 There were the proto-orthodox and the proto-gnostics. The most important figures in the early proto-orthodox movement were Paul, Peter, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Papias, Clement of Rome, and Hermas. The most important figures in the proto-gnostic movement were Simon Magus, Mariamne, Cerdo, Monoimus, Cerinthus, Menander, Elchasai, Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Basilides, Valentinus, Ptolemy, Marcus, Colarbasus, and Marcion. The proto-orthodox faction and the proto-gnostic faction taught quite different things about the nature of God and the message of Christ. The standard view has been to assume that one of these factions was teaching the authentic message of Christ and the other faction was teaching a heresy or false gospel. Personally, I think that this view is false. I think that both factions were likely entirely Christian. Both factions, I believe, were likely teaching exactly what they had learned directly from Christ himself. For one thing, we have the writings of St. Paul (seven letters), the canonical Gospels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (roughly fifteen separate works), and the pseudo-pauline letters (seven in number), along with the rest of the New Testament texts. 3 In all of these proto-orthodox texts, there is no clear condemnation of any of the teachings of the proto-gnostics. We do know that proto-gnosticism was wide-spread at the time and that the proto-orthodox were preaching their doctrines to a lot of the same people. It is hard to believe that the proto-orthodox would have neglected to write any damning condemnations of the proto-gnostic heresy if they really viewed it as an absolute negation of the teachings of Christ. I do not think that the two factions were really as antagonistic in the first century as latter historians make them out to have been. For instance, we know that Monoimus, a gnostic, was a disciple of Tatian, who was orthodox. Valentinus, although he was a gnostic leader, was at one time so respected by the orthodox that he was actually a candidate for the office of the Bishop of Rome. Marcion and the other proto-gnostic leaders were actually prominent figures in the orthodox churches. In the earliest times, there were not two 2 Among the 2 nd and 3 rd generation of Christians who recorded a great deal of historical information for us are such people as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. 3 Even though the letters of James and Peter were forgeries, the Book of Revelation is either a forgery or a book by a different John that was misattributed to the Apostle himself, and the letters of John are not authentic, these are still first-century works that do shed light on what Christians in the first century thought.

3 churches side-by-side. On the contrary, the proto-orthodox and the proto-gnostics worshipped together and took communion together as part of the same Christian community, united within a single ecclesiastical body. The schism that divided them developed over time, as the two groups became more antagonistic towards one another. My hypothesis is that Christ s teachings had two aspects an exoteric doctrine that he taught openly to everyone and an esoteric doctrine that he taught only to those initiated into the higher mysteries. We know from the writings of the Church Fathers in general that there was an esoteric aspect to early Christianity. For instance, sacraments or mysteries were reserved for baptized initiates. Even today in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy there is a point where the priest shouts The doors! The doors! This is the point, at least historically, where the non-initiates and outsiders were required to leave the sanctuary of the church building and wait outside or in the narthex until the secret rituals and teachings were concluded. Christ taught in parables, meaning that much of what he taught openly still had to be interpreted and explained by initiates. I believe that Christ taught an exoteric (outward) message to non-initiates and an esoteric (inner) or secret doctrine to initiates. It even seems likely to me that he taught different levels of secret doctrines to initiates of different ranks. It seems to me that there were probably four levels of doctrine taught by Christ. The first level would have consisted of the absolutely exoteric. This probably consisted of plain ethical teachings like those found in the Sermon on the Mount and the somewhat obscure parables that he taught in public. The second level would have consisted of the explanations of those parables which he gave to his disciples in private. The third level would have consisted of the esoteric myths and parables that would be described as gnostic. The fourth level would have consisted of the explanation of the meanings of the gnostic myths and parables. This fourth level would have been very secret and only revealed to those in his innermost circle. It is my belief that protoorthodoxy was teaching exoteric Christianity, espousing the first and second level doctrines, while the proto-gnostics were openly espousing the esoteric/secret third and fourth level doctrines. After the time of Christ, the proto-gnostic leaders began to openly teach the esoteric secrets. This resulted in a misunderstanding between the lower level initiates (proto-orthodox) and the higher level initiates (proto-gnostics); and the two factions eventually split and began to view their two perspectives as mutually exclusive and antagonistic.

4 By looking at the teachings of Christ as espoused by the proto-orthodox and the protognostics, I believe it is possible to recreate a rough outline of the authentic teachings of Christ and reconstruct the nucleus of the dogmas that constituted each of these four levels of ancient Christian doctrine. Exoteric Christianity: The First & Second Level Doctrines There is not much need for us to dwell extensively on the exoteric message of Christianity. The first and second level doctrines are pretty well represented by the teachings of mainstream Christianity today. By reading the New Testament, the works of Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, or attending an Orthodox or other mainstream church, you can easily become familiar with this aspect of the Christian teachings. The esoteric or secret aspect of the gospel is, however, largely lost today. None of the mainstream denominations or churches teach Gnosticism. They are leaving out half and, I believe, the most important half of Christ s teachings. Esoteric Christianity: The Third Level Doctrines The third level doctrines would consist of the general mythos espoused by the Gnostics. The Gnostic myth is quite literally the mainstream Christian doctrine, the exoteric teachings about the nature of God, turned upside down. Now, in the Gnostic mythos, the story remains the same but becomes totally different too. According to Gnosticism, the ultimate reality is called Bythos (the Abyss). The Gnostic teachers tell us virtually nothing about the Abyss. The ultimate reality is not God in the conventional sense. It is neither good nor evil, neither rational nor irrational; it is not described as being a personal being, nor is consciousness attributed to it. The Abyss is that primordial and primary thing (or non-thing) that exists (or doesn t exist) eternally. The Abyss is incomprehensible to the human mind. Since it is incomprehensible, the Gnostics do not dwell on the subject much. Out of the Abyss emerged the primordial lifeforms, called Aeons. Aeon literally means being or life or sometimes almost eternal thing. These primordial lifeforms emerged from the Abyss and reproduced and multiplied, creating the Pleroma. Pleroma means fullness and refers to the collective pantheon of the primordial lifeforms. Eventually, Sophia emanated from the Aeons. Sophia is Greek for wisdom. Sophia was imperfect. In her imperfection, Sophia decided to reproduce without her consort. As a consequence of this, Sophia is represented in two forms within Gnosticism: the lower Sophia and the higher Sophia. The lower Sophia is called Sophia Achamoth and she is regarded as being in a fallen state. The higher Sophia is regarded

5 as Sophia in her redeemed state of being. As a consequence of her decision to reproduce without her consort, Sophia bears a son that is deformed and retarded. The child she bears is the Creator God of the traditional Judeo-Christian religions. In the Gnostic mythos, the Creator God is quite literally the bastard son of Sophia. Yahweh, the Creator God of the Old Testament, is referred to as Saklas ( the fool ) and Samael ( the blind god ) in Gnostic mythology. Yahweh is regarded as a demiurge or half-creator. He is not actually eternally existent, nor is he even the first lifeform. In reality, he is in error when he says, There are no other gods before me. In Gnostic mythology, the demiurge is said to have created a group of beings called archons. Archon means ruler. The archons are the rulers and powers of the celestial realm. The archons correspond to the angels in Christian mythology and the elohim/asuras/annunaki in Canaanite, Indian, and Mesopotamian mythology. These archons are synonymous with the national deities. Each archon is a national deity over some nation, a celestial being who acts like a demon that possesses the earthly rulers among mankind. The Gnostics regarded the archons as evil entities, tantamount to the demons in Christian mythology. Gnosticism saw the demiurge, the God of the Jews, as the chief archon and the rest of the archons or angels as his quasi-demonic servants. There are, of course, other Gnostic myths. The one I have addressed above is a universal Gnostic myth it was told by virtually all of the Gnostics everywhere. Gnostics also told myths that tell the story of Adam and Eve in a different light, they had detailed mythological genealogies of the Archons, etc. These myths, it appears, developed at a latter point in time. Gnostic mythology became more elaborate and complex over the centuries. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the universally espoused Gnostic myth described above might have originated with Christ himself, especially since it was recorded extremely early in Christian history. Typically, Gnosticism is perceived as an anti-judaic or anti-semitic version of Christianity, while proto-orthodoxy is perceived as being Judaic/Semitic. This view, however, is false. Gnosticism has Judaic/Semitic origins too. The early proto-gnostic writers were Semites and Jews. In fact, many of the terms and names used in Gnostic literature are of Hebrew origin, which reveals that the people among whom the doctrines originated were Hebrews. Gnosticism is not of Greek origin. Gnosticism is a Jewish phenomenon. Latter Gnostics incorporated Neo-Platonist ideas from Greek philosophy, but it incorporated these ideas into a greater Judeo-Gnostic framework.

6 Cerinthus, for instance, who was a proto-gnostic leader and identified Yahweh as the demiurge, was also a Judaizer who required his followers to keep the Jewish laws. And the Elcesaites were also Judeo-Gnostic in orientation. The divide between the Judaic and proto-gnostic factions, like the divide between the Judaic and proto-orthodox, was a gradual split that took place over time. In the earliest times, the lines between the Judaic, gnostic, and orthodox doctrines were blurred, so much so that it would have been impossible to distinguish them at times. Many of the early Christians were Judaic, gnostic, and orthodox all at once. It is my opinion that we ought not to look at the first and early second-century Church as representing various competing Christianities. On the contrary, it was one Christianity with a multifaceted belief system; and this single Christianity became polarized over time as certain aspects were emphasized to the neglect of other aspects, which ultimately led to a schism within the early Church. It is my opinion that accepting a Judaic, orthodox, or gnostic interpretation of Christianity does not necessarily preclude accepting the alternatives. The various perspectives are not mutually exclusive. I will elaborate on this point later. Esoteric Christianity Continued: The Fourth Level Doctrines Up to this point, I have been discussing things that are firmly established by early Christian literature. We do know what the proto-orthodox and proto-gnostics taught outwardly. We do know, as a simple matter of fact, that the gnostic mythos described above was taught by the Gnostics exactly the way that I have described it. At this point, I want to examine the secret meaning of the myth. This would be the meaning of the mythos as interpreted and explained by the priests and mystics to the inner circle of high ranking initiates in private. From evidence in ancient sources, and a general familiarity with Gnosticism, I believe that I can make a decent educated guess about what the proto-gnostic elders were teaching their closest disciples in secret. My interpretation of the Gnostic mythos is an atheistic one. The Gnostics asserted that the Aeons (ancient lifeforms) emerged from the Abyss. Those lifeforms multiplied and reproduced until, after many generations, Sophia (Wisdom) arose on the scene. As far as I can tell, this is an atheistic metaphor explaining how life first arose, apart from any Creator or Deity, from natural processes in the vast expanse that is the universe. The Abyss, as far as I can discern, is just the massive void that constitutes the bulk of outer space. The Aeons are quite simply, primordial lifeforms that emerged naturally. After a very long time, as these lifeforms reproduced and

7 evolved, eventually sentient and intelligent lifeforms arose (represented in the mythos by Sophia/Wisdom). The Creator God was conceived as the bastard son of wisdom. When Sophia (wisdom) procreated without her consort, Gnosis (science/knowledge), she conceived the Creator God. This can be interpreted atheistically as follows. Philosophers committing an error by speculating about the universe without regard to scientific methods and facts, and this led them to falsely conceive of the God-concept. So, Aristotle mistakenly introduced the concept of the prime mover or first cause, based entirely on abstract philosophical speculation rather than on concrete observable facts. Fallen human wisdom conceived of the notion of God by speculating about the world without the use of science. And so the Gnostic notion of God as the bastard son of wisdom can be explained in this atheistic fashion. There are a number of indicators that suggest that this interpretation might be correct. For instance, the early Christians were often accused by the Greeks of being atheists. In fact, the early Christian martyrs were executed for atheism. After the proto-orthodox and the protognostics split and began going their separate ways, the proto-orthodox fathers, like Justin Martyr, began to accuse the Gnostics of being atheists. Most mainstream scholars take this accusation as being mere slander from the opposition. However, it is my opinion that the accusation of atheism was actually an accurate representation of the views espoused by some Gnostic leaders. One 19 th century writer had this to say about Gnosticism: The gnostics were epicurean Jews, and the doctrine by which they artfully attempted to set aside the gospel, is really founded in atheism, the authors from interested motives having endeavored to conceal their real sentiments. Epicurus excluded the gods from all concern, not only in the formation, but in the government of the universe; and he represents them as indolent, impassive, and solitary beings, equally untouched with the joys and sorrows of men. Had the popular superstition rendered it safe or expedient, he doubtless would have

8 gone a step farther, and at once denied the existence of such beings. 4 Within Christian mysticism, even to this day, there is an atheistic element. In Eastern Orthodoxy, Christian mystics are pushed to the point in their ascetical and mystical journey that they must come to realize that God does not exist. The Christian mystic will assert God does not exist alongside his assertion God exists. This is, I believe, partially an atavism of Christianity s atheistic past. Apophatic theology, which has always been an important aspect of Christian theology, asserts that God is not good, God does not exist, etc. This mystic tradition, which is still alive in the monastic communities in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is the remnant of ancient Gnostic Christianity. In addition to being atheistic, I believe Gnosticism to be anarchistic. This proposal is not very controversial. Most scholars would agree that early Christianity in general was highly anarchistic and insubordinate to authority. This was especially the case with Gnosticism. The Gnostics looked at the archons (rulers) as evil. It is interesting that the term they used to refer to these demonic powers is identical to the term that they would have used to refer to earthly kings and political leaders. They were anti-hierarchy and anti-government. Gnosticism was, in my opinion, teaching something along the lines of the atheistic anarchism of Mikhail Bakunin. The Gnostics would have had no problem with Bakunin s famous slogan: No gods, no masters! I think this slogan could serve as a simple and brief summary of the entirety of the Gnostic Christian teachings. This does not mean that I reject the mystical and spiritual aspects of Christianity. I interpret those aspects of religious experience in the way that Robert Anton Wilson and Sam Harris would interpret them. The hallucinogenic effects of drugs, meditation, and ascetic disciplines are valid as far as they go. Just because some belief or revelation stems from a hallucination does not mean that it is a false belief. Perhaps the subconscious mind can communicate deep truths through hallucinations. Or perhaps there is even some other explanation for the phenomenon that is outside the mind. Rejecting the notion of God as a scientific/historical fact does not mean that we must reject the truth of religious experiences. 4 John Jones, Ecclesiastical Reseraches: Or, Philo and Josephus Proved to be Historians and Apologists of Christ, of His Followers, and of the Gospel (1812)

9 The Deceptive Aspect of this Gospel It would appear, at first glance, that the exoteric teachings of Christ were in complete contradiction to the esoteric teachings. However, I think that this would be an oversimplification. In reality, the two teachings are roughly functionally isomorphic. This means that the logical implications of the two teachings are so similar that one might act practically the same way regardless of which set of teachings they regarded as being true. The first level teachings would say that God created the world, designed the human body to function like a machine, designed the human brain to work like a computer so that it arrives at accurate perceptions and conceptions of reality, and that God infused mankind with an inherent sense of morality. The function of this myth is to serve as the basis for a belief in the accuracy of human sensory perceptions, cognitions, and moral sentiments. The function is the essential part of the doctrine. The general mythos, the story that establishes the function, is accidental (i.e. non-essential). The term accidental, in this context, is being used in the Aristotelian sense. It does not mean something unintentional but rather a nonessential characteristic of a thing. The most important part of a myth is not the general form of it but the function it serves or the truth that it establishes. A myth, like a parable, can be entirely false in terms of scientific and historical reality, yet also establish or explain an essential truth. In reality, it does not matter so much whether we believe that we were actually fashioned by an all-powerful God who infused us with innate moral sentiments and designed our brains in a rational way, so long as we believe in the validity of our innate moral sentiments and our cognitive and rational faculties. The exoteric myth serves its purpose: it establishes sanity and morality among men. The higher level initiates would see the myth as something like a parable, analogy, or allegory. They would see it for what it really is, rather than taking it as literal scientific and historical fact. This is why it makes no difference that this first level doctrine is completely the reverse of the third level doctrine. In reality, the typical exoteric account of God and the esoteric myth of God as a fallen, foolish, and imperfect demiurge are both functionally true. That is really all myths are supposed to be. Myths are supposed to be functionally true rather than factually true. As you go up, each level presents a higher level of truth, although each level is really nowhere near expressing reality as it really is. In fact, the human mind cannot really grasp reality as it really is (the noumenon or thing in itself ). All we can understand is reality as we perceive it (the phenomenon or thing as it appears ). The myths of religion are nothing more than maps and, to quote Robert Anton Wilson, the map is not the territory. If you point at a map of Canada and

10 say This is Canada, you are not lying, but you are mistaken if you take that truth to mean that the map itself is Canada. The map is really just a representation of Canada. The core of Christ s message had to do with basic ethical principles, the validity of our innate moral sentiments, the possibility of knowledge and enlightenment, etc. The parables, myths, religious stories, and such that he used to establish belief in these core elements of his message are accidental and peripheral. It is not quite correct to view the exoteric teachings as deceptive, just as it would not be quite correct to describe Newtonian physics as false (even though Newtonian physics is technically false when compared to higher levels of physics). In this way, I think the Christian teachings can be regarded as relative rather than absolute. It s not really a matter of truth or falsehood in the empirical/scientific sense. The myths are functionally true, just like Newtonian physics is functionally true, even though it is technically false.