freeinfidel

After the death of Jesus, any number of sects emerged with him as their figurehead. So why did all but one fail and only Paul’s church succeed? The answer is, good marketing.

First, it’s important to understand that there’s a problem with the whole ‘Jesus as messiah’ story. And that’s that he went and got himself killed.

Much of the New Testament, especially the gospels, is about fulfilment of prophecy. Time after time, the gospels relate a story (the birth in Bethlehem, Jesus riding the donkey, raising the dead and what have you) and then tell you how this event was predicted in the Old Testament, usually with a cross reference (which is occasionally wrong, but selah). Basically, what they’re saying is: “Such-and-such was foretold of the messiah and, bless me, it actually happened!”.

Some of us find this a tad suspicious. After all, the gospels are the only source we have that these events happened at all. There is not one shred of corroboration from archaeological evidence or contemporary documentation. But leaving that aside, the important point to bear in mind is that the gospels are basically affidavits attesting to how Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophecies of the messiah.

Except that he didn’t. He was executed, and that wasn’t in the script. The arrival of the messiah was meant to herald the coming of god’s kingdom on earth. He wasn’t supposed to come down, talk about god’s kingdom, get killed, and then bugger off back to heaven saying “it’ll be along sometime”.

Not even Jesus believed that. He says quite clearly, right there in the gospels, that god’s kingdom would be delivered within the lifetimes of his audience.

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

(KJV, Luke 21:31-32)

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, which is why you will search the gospels in vain for any sign that Jesus was interested in establishing a church, a doctrine or even a coherent body of teachings. He sent his disciples out to spread the word, but impressed on them that time was limited and that they shouldn’t waste any effort on people who didn’t want to hear the message. This from Matthew, Ch.10:

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (7)
… And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (14)
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (15)

… But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (23)

Verses 7 and 23 both make it clear that time was running out, that the storm clouds of apocalypse were already forming in Jesus’ mind. So there’s a problem, and Christians have had to fudge around this ever since. The apocalypse, the kingdom of heaven, never arrived. Jesus was killed and, if you believe in that kind of thing, was taken back to heaven. He returned home a failure, if you judge him by the requirements of prophecy. Instead of Jesus having fulfilled the prophecies by his first performance, he’s going to have to come back and try again at some point in the future. Well, if at first you don’t succeed…

This also plays into the whole dispute over whether Jesus was divine. There is no consensus on this even among Christians. Some think he was part of the godhead. Some think he was human. Others think he was both divine and human. Some think he was first human and then divine. And yet others think he was two beings in one skin.

The problems these issues caused were immediate. Most of the sects that developed around Jesus were Jewish, and they were targeted at a Jewish audience. Some of them were not promoting Jesus as divine, and these sects included Jesus’ own family. Others were. They had a real problem: they were trying to convince Jews that Jesus was the messiah even though he clearly did not fit the image portrayed by the Torah’s prophecies, not did the events at the time suggest the coming of god’s kingdom. So ‘Christian’ cults trying to evangelise their message to Jewish audiences had a hard sell. And they failed.

Saul/Paul was more canny. It’s clear from his epistles, and even from the versions of the gospels that remain (bearing in mind they may have been cleaned up by his church to ensure they were ‘on message’) that Saul/Paul was selling not to a Jewish audience but a gentile one.

What was his marketing message? “We’ve got this guy who did all these amazing things, said some great things and, by the way, turns out he’s a god.”

How would a Roman or Greek respond to this? “Oh right, yeah, we’ve got a lot of those - gods who come to earth as mortals, mortals who become gods, gods who have mortal offspring, characters who are part-divine. Ten a penny in our culture.”

All the various ideas about divinity that cause schisms in the Christian church could be accommodated by the Hellenized world without any trouble.

Straight away, Saul/Paul finds himself past two of the barriers that would face those churches preaching to Jews: his Hellenized audience would have had no problem with the idea of a man being revealed as divine, and the son of god. And they would have had no problem accepting another divine creature into their pantheon.

But that’s not to say that Saul/Paul was going to have an easy time. Another part of his message was problematic. “You’re going to have to give up all your current gods - yea, even Jeff, the God of Biscuits* - because our god is the only one, even if he does come in three instalments.”

The Romans were actually quite pragmatic about their religious beliefs. They adopted new gods with surprising ease. Telling them to give up all but one, however, wasn’t going to be a popular message. And we know that the early history of the Christian church was one of wailing, gnashing of teeth and well-fed lions. But how much of that was political? The Romans valued order above all else. Religious evangelists were seen as dangerous less for their theological ideas (most Romans couldn’t have given a stuff) but because they shook up society, caused dissent and disruption. They were insurgents to be crushed.

The gospels played a duel role. They were a manual for those promoting Christianity, laying down the approved messages, and providing the documentary support - a manifesto, if you like. This was already somewhat radical. At that time, Judaism was the only religion to have been based on a sacred text in this way. But it’s not just about fixing the message and giving priests and evangelists something to work with. The gospels were also sales brochures. They were written in Greek, the language of the Hellenised world, not the language of Judea. They made the sales message available to all who could read - still a minority, but a wealthy, enfranchised and powerful minority, much like the religious right in the US today.

This was smart. Saul/Paul took his message to the people who mattered in the world, and he took it in a form that they could understand. So does the power of the Christian church lie in Jesus’ message or the way it was marketed?

* We owe this one to Eddie Izzard.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.