
Last time we got up to Colossians and Ephesians in our quest to put the New Testament’s books in chronological order. Let’s press on.
Next we come to two curios: the book of Hebrews and the letter of James. The former is a treatise of the Messiah’s activities and ultimate sacrifice in the heavenly realm that draws heavily on Jewish scriptures. Yet again, the authors of this book seem not to know anything about an earthly Jesus. James’ letter is a refutation of Paul’s justification by faith alone, asserting that ‘good works’ are essential for salvation. James could be anybody; it is unlikely he was Jesus’ brother or the early leader of the Jesus cult. Whoever he was he makes no reference to anything the earthly Jesus said or did.
Another gospel makes itself known. The writers of the fourth gospel evidently felt that Jesus needed a complete makeover. Taking the basic outline of its predecessors, the gospel according to John reimagines Jesus as an ethereal super-being who bears no relation to the earlier versions of the character. There is nothing historical about this Jesus. Or, if there is, there can be nothing historical about his previous incarnations. While it’s possible the community who concocted this gospel were devotees of John, one of the original pillars, it’s unlikely the man himself had a hand in creating it.
The fourth gospel introduces a character absent from the previous three: ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. It suggests this fictional and hitherto unknown character is witness to the events the gospel describes. It stands to reason that a fictional character is not a reliable source of evidence. Gone are all references to the Messiah coming to Earth imminently to initiate the kingdom, replaced by the first intimations of eternal life in heaven. After the Messiah’s failure to appear, the cultists that the fourth gospel was created for needed to hear a different promise.
Our new New Testament rounds off with the Book of Revelation (circa 96 CE), the Johannine letters (circa 100) and another batch of forgeries. Revelation, written around 96 CE, is revenge porn designed to show what would happen when The Christ descended from the heavens to wreak havoc on those who failed to believe in him. Apart from exposing the disturbed mind of its author there is nothing historical about the book. Like those that precede it, it depicts a made-up Jesus, this time in the guise of an avenging angel. Revelation was very nearly omitted from the existing New Testament but serves as testimony to the venomous nature of some early Christian thought.
The Johannine letters were almost certainly not written by the disciple John, nor by the author(s) of the fourth gospel. They deal with a rift in one of the cult’s communities caused by some of its members denying that Jesus appeared in the flesh. The epistles tells us nothing about any earthly Jesus but do indicate that there were still those in the late first century who believed he was entirely a supernatural being.
Finally, the remaining forgeries. These are interesting insofar as they indicate the state of the church towards the end of the first century and beginning of the second. They tell us nothing about Jesus other than he is a heavenly figure. 1 Timothy warns Christians not to be deceived by the ‘myth and endless geneaologies’ that were then in circulation, a description that sounds suspiciously like Matthew and Luke’s gospels. 2 Timothy includes the famous assertion that ‘all scripture is God-breathed’. This can only be referring to the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament) because of their supposed prophecies of the Messiah. There was at this point no Christian scriptures and no evidence that the letters of Paul, the four gospels or any other Christian literature had acquired such elevated status.
So there we have it: the New Testament in the right order. What this tells us about the emergence of Christianity, the beliefs of the early cultists and whether their beliefs included a Jesus who had visited Earth, we’ll consider next time. Bet you can’t wait.
Once again, top notch, Neil.
Nice that you alluded to multiple authors for gJohn.
I once read ( can’t remember where) it was postulated gJohn was written by a woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an interesting theory. Given that the authors of the fourth gospel refer to themselves in the plural, there’s every chance at least one of them was a woman. I doubt though we’ll ever know for sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I admire your dedication to setting the record straight. Unfortunately, few will agree … or even consider such a reworking of the stories in their precious book. I mean, after all, make-believe is so much more entertaining.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When I started blogging 12 years ago, it was to try to sort out for myself what Christianity was really all about. It had after all taken up so much of my life.
Having done that, I now can’t stop myself from writing about the Faith. I’m grateful for those like yourself who take the time to read my musings. Whether they change anyone’s mind is another matter, though a couple of commenters have in the past told me my posts were instrumental in their breaking away from religious belief. It’s a nice bonus!
LikeLiked by 2 people
One never knows the effect their words are going to have on others. All you can do is put them out there and hope for the best.
LikeLiked by 1 person