"In the beginning..." (Christology and Randology)


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Ninth,

I'm not following what your schtick is. Best I can tell, it's the idea that the development was thoroughly irrational. If so, I disagree (and with Brant's quip in #71).

In terms of which doctrines ultimately prevailed, I think that one factor, though far from the only one, was who had the political power.

In terms of preferences for direct revelation versus textual authority (it's written) versus intellectual defense (employing reason to support belief), there are different preferences to this day and I'd suppose there always have been.

Matthew, for instance, was keen on fulfillment-of-scripture grounding for his narrative. The Ebionites, according to Ehrman's discussion, insisted on the Jewishness of Jesus, on following Jewish scripture, and on the requirement of circumcision. Ehrman says (pg. 192, Jesus, Interrupted), "Some scholars have thought that the Ebionites may have held views very much like those of the first followers of Jesus, such as his brother James or his disciple Peter [...]."

In any event, I see lots of evidence contra the idea that revelation was the primary preferred path, even among subsequent generations deriving from Paul. A number of the letters attributed to Paul in the eventual canon aren't by him, and there were lots of forgeries. Why would someone make an attempt to pass his work off as written by Paul if not a desire for authoritative sanction?

Regarding how various doctrines developed, Bob Kolker, G-D bless him, has provided a missing step I was looking for in contemplating the disjunct between the prophesied Messiah of Matthew and Luke and the divine incarnation of John. That step is provided by the intermediary melding the idea of the Jewish God with the Greek idea logos.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not following what your schtick is. Best I can tell, it's the idea that the development was thoroughly irrational.

No, I wouldn't say that, but it was 'evolutionary', with 'random' variations that either stuck or fell by the wayside. Exploring the how and why is what's interesting.

In terms of which doctrines ultimately prevailed, I think that one factor, though far from the only one, was who had the political power.

That wouldn't at all explain the evolution pre-Constantine, since none had political power yet. Then, immediately following Constantine, what happened? His sons were Arians, tried to impose Arianism, but failed. Hilary of Poitiers piece Against Constantius is a great relic of this period. What we now call Orthodoxy didn't really gain political power until after Julian. Then we got Ambrose and Augustine, who had ideas that would have gone nowhere without political power to back them up.

In any event, I see lots of evidence contra the idea that revelation was the primary preferred path, even among subsequent generations deriving from Paul.

Remember that I used revelation/prophesying only as an example. I certainly wouldn't say it was the 'primary preferred path' for all of Christian history, it obviously wasn't, and note that I brought up Montanus, whose sect was suppressed for trying to revive it.

A number of the letters attributed to Paul in the eventual canon aren't by him, and there were lots of forgeries. Why would someone make an attempt to pass his work off as written by Paul if not a desire for authoritative sanction?

Indeed, since there were many doctrinal variations and no (rational) means to decide among them, authority was very important. And authority could be faked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following what your schtick is. Best I can tell, it's the idea that the development was thoroughly irrational.

No, I wouldn't say that, but it was 'evolutionary', with 'random' variations that either stuck or fell by the wayside. Exploring the how and why is what's interesting.

I'm not familiar with the Gospel variants which didn't make the final cut, but from such reading as I've done about those I don't get the impression that there were tales of, for instance, Jesus coming from Mars, from Venus, from India, from China, his being a Persian prince in disguise, a black African, his riding into Jerusalem on an elephant, a tiger, a camel, or walking there, or crawling, or not going there at all. Were there such variants?

The only sorts of features in the ultimate canonical Gospels which seem to me to have what might be a "randomness" are details such as shepherds at the nativity in one story, wise men in another, the family's going straight back to Nazareth in one account but going to Egypt in another, etc.

The various interpretations of who Jesus was in relationship to God or Gods, on the other hand, give me an impression of a kind of logical set of possibilities. See the next comment.

In terms of which doctrines ultimately prevailed, I think that one factor, though far from the only one, was who had the political power.

That wouldn't at all explain the evolution pre-Constantine, since none had political power yet. [....]

Agreed about the evolution pre-Constantine, which is why I said "ultimately." (A question which I suppose has been extensively debated is whether Christianity would have become the dominant Western religion if not for its being adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire.)

Regarding the pre-Constantine variants, what I get is an impression of a kind of logical set of possibilities pertaining to who Jesus was in relation to God or Gods, with development in the types of story as a result of (1) influence from non-Jewish traditions, especially from Greek thought, and (2) adjustments due to failed apocalyptic expectations.

The story types are one of the respects in which I see parallels to Randology.

I'll describe the types I mean in a later post - which I might not have time to write for several days.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with the Gospel variants which didn't make the final cut, but from such reading as I've done about those I don't get the impression that there were tales of, for instance, Jesus coming from Mars, from Venus, from India, from China, his being a Persian prince in disguise, a black African, his riding into Jerusalem on an elephant, a tiger, a camel, or walking there, or crawling, or not going there at all. Were there such variants?

There is a variant that has him emerge from the tomb sky high, with a walking talking cross following him, how's that? Gospel of Peter. What kind of animal he rode into Jerusalem on doesn't strike me as something important enough to vary, having him on a donkey fulfilled some Old Testament prophecy or other, and I'm not aware of other prophecies that might have been fulfilled via substitution of Lions or Tigers or Bears (oh my!). I think you've overread into my claim that any variation that 'can arise, will arise', and this is a reductio ad absurdum. Why not ask if there's a variant that specifies he rode in on a Hippogriff, or a fire-breathing Dragon?

FWIW there is the claim that he went to India and learned his wisdom there, but this was a 20th century hoax.

Regarding the pre-Constantine variants, what I get is an impression of a kind of logical set of possibilities pertaining to who Jesus was in relation to God or Gods, with development in the types of story as a result of (1) influence from non-Jewish traditions, especially from Greek thought, and (2) adjustments due to failed apocalyptic expectations.

The variants in interpretation have him wholly man and wholly God (the Orthodox interpretation), wholly man who became God (the adoptionist type of Arian view) and wholly God and thus never human at all (Docetism). There are others, but this pretty well sets out the categories. You can pick and choose passages from the New Testament books that support each view, these texts are hardly models of clarity and consistency. BTW these particular issues are mainly post-Constantine, though Arius was of course his contemporary.

The story types are one of the respects in which I see parallels to Randology.

I haven't figured out the "Randology" aspect of this thread. Was that something you were planning to write about, but haven't gotten to yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points:

1. There are mainstream scholars such as Ben Witherington and Luke Johnson who believe that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him. Even if he didn't they might still have common from a Pauline school. Also, if he didn't write them it doesn't necessarily make them forgeries. In ancient times they had somewhat different standards. Witherngton also reviewed Ehrman's book Forged:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/09/forged-chapter-six%E2%80%94forgeries-in-conflicts-with-false-teachers/

2. The non-canonical gospels are probably later than the 4 in the NT, sensational claims notwithstanding. Charles Hill's Who Chose the Gospels presents a good defense of the idea of 4 gospels going to back to the early church.

3. Larry Hurtado's book Lord Jesus Christ as well as his other books are good at showing that a high view of Christ was common in early Christianity and not just a sectarian belief. Paul's disputes with the more Jewish Christians did not appear to have anything to do with Christology. Christ worship was not the result of Greek thought, Hurtado concludes.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/lord-jesus-christ/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Pet Theory: any variation on a mystic doctrine that can arise, will arise.

who are you to say they weren't 'inspired'? :tongue:

To communicate a little better how my Pet Theory works, mystic doctrines are not derived by reason based on observed, demonstrable facts. Read up on what early Christian services consisted of: people speaking in tongues and prophesying. They may as well have been hippies on acid. One couldn't debate rationally about what came out of their mouths, hence, a multitude of variations arose. The suppression (see Montanus) of this early form of Christian service didn't put an end to the process, so I'm only offering it as an effective example.

I feel like I might be making the most banal point ever, so I'm going to stop here.

Deleted. (Because I finished reading your discussion with Ellen on this topic and better understand your point now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with the Gospel variants which didn't make the final cut, but from such reading as I've done about those I don't get the impression that there were tales of, for instance, Jesus coming from Mars, from Venus, from India, from China, his being a Persian prince in disguise, a black African, his riding into Jerusalem on an elephant, a tiger, a camel, or walking there, or crawling, or not going there at all. Were there such variants?

There is a variant that has him emerge from the tomb sky high, with a walking talking cross following him, how's that? Gospel of Peter. What kind of animal he rode into Jerusalem on doesn't strike me as something important enough to vary, having him on a donkey fulfilled some Old Testament prophecy or other, and I'm not aware of other prophecies that might have been fulfilled via substitution of Lions or Tigers or Bears (oh my!). I think you've overread into my claim that any variation that 'can arise, will arise', and this is a reductio ad absurdum. Why not ask if there's a variant that specifies he rode in on a Hippogriff, or a fire-breathing Dragon?

FWIW there is the claim that he went to India and learned his wisdom there, but this was a 20th century hoax.

You mean you overwrote? :laugh:

Yes, I was doing a reductio ad absurdum of what you said, and note that you now speak of "something important enough to vary" and of a rationale for having him ride a donkey (fulfilling prophecy). As to a Hippogriff or a fire-breathing Dragon, why not if any variation that could arise would? And note, the alternatives I mentioned were "for instance."

I'll have to wait on the rest till I have a good chunk of time for posting.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean you overwrote? :laugh:

Yes and no. There's an implication you're picking up on (and mocking) that there ought to be unlimited surviving texts from early times with every conceivable variation in place. I didn't say that, and that would of course be absurd, if for no other reason than the fact that there are a finite number of texts. Note however that I wasn't limiting myself to early times, and if you count the future I have the proverbial monkeys at the typewriter (talk about reductio ad absurdum!) to take my Pet Theory beyond the possibility of falsification, so Q.E.D., eh?

Anyway, I do conclude from your reaction that the wording of my original statement needs tweaking. Any variation of a mystic doctrine might arise, so don't be surprised when they do. Blech. Next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean you overwrote? :laugh:

Yes and no. There's an implication you're picking up on (and mocking) that there ought to be unlimited surviving texts from early times with every conceivable variation in place.

I wasn't taking you to imply that.

I didn't say that, and that would of course be absurd, if for no other reason than the fact that there are a finite number of texts. Note however that I wasn't limiting myself to early times, and if you count the future I have the proverbial monkeys at the typewriter (talk about reductio ad absurdum!) to take my Pet Theory beyond the possibility of falsification, so Q.E.D., eh?

It started out beyond the possibility of falsification, which was one of the problems I had with it.

Anyway, I do conclude from your reaction that the wording of my original statement needs tweaking. Any variation of a mystic doctrine might arise, so don't be surprised when they do. Blech. Next!

Definitely better, imo. And equally applicable to any other sort of idea, story, theory, very much including scientific theory. The statement becomes merely a truism about thought processes, not a differentiator of specifically "mystical" notions.

Next...in a while.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject of "who Jesus was in relation to God or Gods," which I mentioned in #78, will need some compiling and quoting which I haven't time for just now.

Meanwhile, Ninth commented:

I haven't figured out the "Randology" aspect of this thread. Was that something you were planning to write about, but haven't gotten to yet?

I'll say a bit about the Randology aspect.

First, something about the different evaluative meanings I use for "myth" or "mythology."

On another current thread I said of Atlas Shrugged

When I was partway into reading Atlas the first time, I started to think that it resembled a Medieval morality play. Then I started to think that it was an allegory similar to The Pilgrim's Progress, which tale Delingpole refers to in his article. By the time I finished Atlas, I'd come to think of it as a deliberate attempt at a new mythology.

In that context, I meant the categorization as a high compliment. By "mythology," I meant an ethos - a view of how to live - fleshed out in the form of a story featuring moral exemplars. The stories we have of Jesus' life, ministry, and death are an example. Also the Greek epic The Odyssey and the old Northern saga of "Beowulf." These were all "mythologies" with which I had familiarity when I first read Atlas. None of them was a deliberate construction of a story by a single person with a worked-out ethics in mind which she wanted to show in living form in her tale. I was exteremly impressed by what Rand had accomplished, and I remain extremely impressed to this day.

There's a different meaning with which I use "myth" or "mythology," however, the meaning in statements such as, "That's a myth," i.e., a false claim or story. There's "myth" in this sense about Rand.

What I started this thread to talk about was some parallels I see between myth-making regarding the New Testament and myth-making regarding Rand as person and thinker. The subject is amorphous, without clear organization and boundaries, just a variety of parallels which occur to me between "Christology" and "Randology."

I'll stop there for an eye break - I can't work long at a computer screen.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excerpt from a post on the thread "'Romanticist Art' Is Not The Essence Of The Objectivist Esthetics":

[....] I think that there are probably a lot of Objectivists who have convinced themselves that their having achieved the proper "being of volitional consciousness" status of Man makes them purely objective and infallible in their aesthetic tastes, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise.

[....]

Their snootiness apparently works pretty well for them. They seem to be used to intimidating others into silence with it, and they seem to be shocked and to not know what to do don't know when it doesn't work. Well, other than whine and play victim and take their marbles and go home.

J

Partly, it works well, depending on how secure the person feels in his/her rational-being status.

But it's a two-edged sword which can also work the other direction, producing a fear of not having the right responses and of what having the wrong ones would mean about one's present or past rationality.

"The esthetic response as a morals exam," is how I aphorized the problem in an outline I wrote years ago for a book idea I titled The Woman Who Became God. I didn't get past an extended sketch for the book, since a bit later I started studying Jungian theory and pretty much lost interest in the Objectivist world for almost a decade. [emphasis added]

Reading Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted started me percolating with reconnections to and extensions of that discarded book idea.

I wrote the sketch during a "white heat" inspiration fit in 1979 or 1980. Ayn Rand was still alive. The idea came upon me because of some conversations I'd had with Allan Blumenthal, who had broken with Rand in 1977.

The immediate reason why I set it aside for awhile was because I didn't feel right about publishing such a thing while Rand was around to hear of it.

She had an abundance of hassles and woes without my adding more, I thought. Actually, that probably dates the idea as coming in 1979, since I seem to recall that one of the "hassles and woes" I was thinking of was Frank's ill health.

In mid-1981, I started studying Jung's work, and by the time Rand died I was so immersed in an exciting voyage, I'd lost interest in the Objectivist world.

At this point, with many years of familiarity with Jungian thought, plus with the intervening more than three decades of developments pertaining to Objectivism as background, I'm seeing much more to compare to Christianity's history than I could have expected to see in the late 1970s.

I'd like to find that old sketch before I go on. I've searched for it in the interim since my last post. So far the sketch is AWOL, but it's around here somewhere. I re-read it in 2006 and put it in one of my boxes of papers. Question is, which box? I'll look in the basement repositories tomorrow.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to find that old sketch before I go on. I've searched for it in the interim since my last post. So far the sketch is AWOL, but it's around here somewhere. I re-read it in 2006 and put it in one of my boxes of papers. Question is, which box? I'll look in the basement repositories tomorrow.

Please do keep looking. I'm very interested.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to find that old sketch before I go on. I've searched for it in the interim since my last post. So far the sketch is AWOL, but it's around here somewhere. I re-read it in 2006 and put it in one of my boxes of papers. Question is, which box? I'll look in the basement repositories tomorrow.

Please do keep looking. I'm very interested.

I hope she goes "with a powerful guide."

--Brant

oh, ditto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The esthetic response as a morals exam," is how I aphorized the problem in an outline I wrote years ago for a book idea I titled The Woman Who Became God. I didn't get past an extended sketch for the book, since a bit later I started studying Jungian theory and pretty much lost interest in the Objectivist world for almost a decade. [emphasis added]

Reading Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted started me percolating with reconnections to and extensions of that discarded book idea.

I wrote the sketch during a "white heat" inspiration fit in 1979 or 1980. Ayn Rand was still alive. The idea came upon me because of some conversations I'd had with Allan Blumenthal, who had broken with Rand in 1977.

...

I'd like to find that old sketch before I go on. I've searched for it in the interim since my last post. So far the sketch is AWOL, but it's around here somewhere. I re-read it in 2006 and put it in one of my boxes of papers. Question is, which box? I'll look in the basement repositories tomorrow.

Ellen

If nothing else, I love the title.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it.

I was nearly despairing when it kept not turning up in the boxes labeled "Old Objectivism Stuff." Then I thought to wonder, Could I have put it in a proper folder in the big file cabinet?

Yes.

Today's Larry's and my violin-and-piano duet playing, then dinner out, day. And tomorrow I have an eye exam and won't be able to read for some hours afterward, but I'll try to get about typing excerpts tomorrow evening.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, just when he was going to get laid.

--Brant

Well, it must have been hell on Mary and the matchmakers to find a nice Jewish girl who would put up with his lifestyle.

Walking from town to town with a lot of men. That is a strange life style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] If I had such a doc it would probably be stuffed in an old envelope "Toronto Hydro final notice" or "NHL All-Star Calendar 1983|".

I was becoming afraid that I'd put the sketch in one of the non-Objectivism-related boxes of journal articles. I'd be futilely looking through those if I hadn't thought of the file cabinet. The cabinet was acquired after I re-read the sketch in 2006 and put it in one of my catch-all boxes, and I have no recollection of subsequently filing the sketch where it would be easy to hand.

The good thing about the misadventure is that I found other relevant old material in the O'ism boxes. I also found an item which I've posted in "Humor" - link.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the Table of Contents.

The paragraph at the bottom was on the contents page in the material I showed to Allan Blumenthal, and was addressed to him.

The number of chapters - 7 - was meant to allude to "the seven days of creation."

The Woman Who Became God

[subtitle pending]. [[i needed a subtitle identifying Rand as "the woman."]]

1. The Woman Who Became God

2. The Burning Bush, the Promised Land, the Tablets of Stone

3. The Chosen People

4. Sanctity and the Life Force

5. Heaven and Earth

6. "In the Beginning Was the Word"

7. Is Objectivism a Religion?

The implication is that I'll answer the "religion" question in the affirmative (I want to sell the book to non-Objectivists). In fact my answer will be yes and no: it became "a religion," it doesn't have to be that - it started as one of the greatest and most important ideas ever, which is what it can be, viewed right way about, and what I think it will be in its impact on future history. We, the "chosen people," were the experimental generation. And now that the pitfalls are becoming known, and revisioning has started, the central worth of the ideas will shine forth even more clearly than before. Or that's what I think will happen.

====

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the Table of Contents.

The paragraph at the bottom was on the contents page in the material I showed to Allan Blumenthal, and was addressed to him.

The number of chapters - 7 - was meant to allude to "the seven days of creation."

The Woman Who Became God

[subtitle pending]. [[i needed a subtitle identifying Rand as "the woman."]]

1. The Woman Who Became God

2. The Burning Bush, the Promised Land, the Tablets of Stone

3. The Chosen People

4. Sanctity and the Life Force

5. Heaven and Earth

6. "In the Beginning Was the Word"

7. Is Objectivism a Religion?

The implication is that I'll answer the "religion" question in the affirmative (I want to sell the book to non-Objectivists). In fact my answer will be yes and no: it became "a religion," it doesn't have to be that - it started as one of the greatest and most important ideas ever, which is what it can be, viewed right way about, and what I think it will be in its impact on future history. We, the "chosen people," were the experimental generation. And now that the pitfalls are becoming known, and revisioning has started, the central worth of the ideas will shine forth even more clearly than before. Or that's what I think will happen.

====

Ellen

As Reason magazine wasn't about reason, Objectivism has never been about critical thinking but so-called critical thinking having been done (by Rand). That's why it doesn't go anywhere. She and Branden were the only ones with wheels--her wheels. After the break in '68 he got another set.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Reason magazine wasn't about reason, Objectivism has never been about critical thinking but so-called critical thinking having been done (by Rand). That's why it doesn't go anywhere. She and Branden were the only ones with wheels--her wheels. After the break in '68 he got another set. --Brant

That touches on a major myth about Rand - that she was an empirical thinker. "Objectivism through Induction," Peikoff titled a course he gave after Rand's death. More like, "Objectivism through Assertion," her assertion and partly Nathaniel Branden's.

Ellen

PS: I probably won't have time till Thursday to type in some more from the sketch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now