jgreen44

Yet, until very recently, the presence of the second leader has gone unnoticed or, at least, unremarked. The first explicit recognition of this pairing in the literature appeared in October 1970, when Donald McIntosh noted that it was striking "how often the charismatic leader leaves the task of building the new order to his successor, as with Jesus and Peter (and Paul), Caesar and Augustus, Robespierre and Napoleon, Lenin and Stalin, Gandhi and Nehru."

A cursory review of the histories of some of these successful social movements suggests that the following components and sequence comprise a first approximation to an ideal-type of the theory of the double charisma:

1. the sudden appearance of a dramatic, unconventional charismatic leader with his "gift of grace," issuing an irresistible call to a growing band of followers;

2. the gathering about him of an inner circle of disciples, persons who themselves are charismatic or who are able to borrow or share the charisma of the leader;

3. the equally sudden, dramatic, and unexpected martyrdom of the charismatic leader, leaving an initial, temporary void of leadership only partially filled by the inner circle of disciples as a collective body;

4. the rise, from within the discipleship, of a new leader, also charismatic, predominant over the others, and issuing a new call�a call to consolidation and organization, distinct from the earlier call to the initial gathering;

5. the institutionalization, in some concrete and/or symbolic form, of the martyred, original charismatic leader and the treatment of this by the second charismatic leader and the followers as the basic legitimating totem.

TOWARD A THEORY OF THE ROUTINIZATION OF CHARISMA
Michael A. Toth

Huon

Napoleon was not the successor of Robespierre, at any point of view.
The death of Lenin was not a martyrdom. Stalin purged the bolshevik party of the most important leaders (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Trotsky) of the revolution.

Perhaps Michael A. Toth would suggest that the christian leaders who appeared after the death of JC betrayed the ideas of their crucified leader ?

mountainman

I'd be inclined to also examine the issue of "pairing" between Jesus and Constantine (and Eusebius). From a number of different perspectives it might be successfully argued that Constantine and Eusebius were of more service to the charisma of Jesus and to the task of building the new order than were Peter and Paul.

ApostateAbe

This is much like the model that I have in mind when I think about Christianity after the death of Jesus. The model doesn't seem to emphasize that there is typically a power struggle, a competition for leadership, among the followers after the death of the initial cult founder, though one successor may certainly predominate if he has much greater charisma and the circumstances are in his favor. The successor may even transform the group into something much more cult-like and unified, such as what happened from Charles Taze Russell to Joseph Rutherford of the Watchtower Society. I would like to see Toth's theory adopted and further developed. I don't think the pattern fits Robespierre and Napoleon, because Robespierre was hated upon his death, and Napoleon had little to do with him. But, the pattern seems to fit Lenin and Stalin elegantly.

1924: Death of Lenin
Lenin's Death and the Birth of the Lenin Cult
Subject essay: James von Geldern

On January 21, 1924 Vladimir Il'ich Lenin, the architect of the October Revolution and the "leader of the world's proletariat," died, having succumbed to complications from the three strokes that progressively robbed him of his faculties. He was not quite fifty-four. For more than a year before his death, the Communist Party and the Soviet government had soldiered on without him. Now the question was what purposes could the deceased leader serve.

The cult of Lenin, a fusion of political and religious ritual, was the answer. Inspired by both genuine reverence and a political desire to mobilize the masses around a potent symbol, the Politbiuro decided -- against Lenin's own wishes and those of his family -- to embalm his body and place it in a sarcophagus inside a mausoleum for public viewing. The mausoleum, designed by A. V. Shchusev as a cube-like structure of gleaming red granite, was built on Red Square abutting onto the Kremlin wall. Here, the most prominent party, military and government leaders would stand to view parades passing by on the anniversary of the October Revolution, May Day and other special occasions. Images of Lenin's stern visage soon appeared everywhere throughout the Soviet Union in stone and metal, on canvas, and in print. Lenin Corners, analogous to the icon corners of Orthodoxy, became a fixture of nearly every Soviet institution, and Lenin's name graced thousands of collective and state farms, libraries, newspapers, streets and cities. Among the latter was the birthplace of the October Revolution which assumed the name of Leningrad on January 26, 1924.

Within the party itself, Lenin was revered almost as a Christ-like figure. The slogan "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live" typified the discourse of revolutionary immortality. In the struggle to assume Lenin's mantle, Zinoviev, Stalin and Trotsky sought to enhance their own credentials and cast aspersions on their rivals by quoting selectively from Lenin's massive oeuvres even while they invoked "Leninism" as a coherent body of doctrine. Thus, Stalin promoted "socialism in one country" as consistent with Lenin's outlook, contrasting it with Trotsky's pre-revolutionary theory of "permanent revolution." For his part, Trotsky sought to prove his loyalty to Lenin as well as his own historic role as leader of the October Revolution. Each, in effect, invented his own Lenin to suit his purposes.

PhilosopherJay

Hi jgreen,

A problem arises in that this theory assumes the existence of Jesus, Peter and Paul. The theory may be correct on a political level, but on a religious level, we have to be very careful about it.

We may note that the death of the planet Krypton allowed Superman to become Superman and the death of Batman's parents allowed Batman to become Batman.

The death of Captain America and Billy in the fictional movie Easy Rider in a sense allowed Peter Fonda to become Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper to become Dennis Hopper. Yet Captain America and Billy were not real people.

In the 1930's, the movie death of Frankenstein's Monster in the movie Frankenstein led to "The Bride of Frankenstein" and the death of King Kong in "King Kong" led to the "Son of Kong" sequel.

The transference of affection from a dead fictional character to a living fictional character in the sequel may parallel the transference of affection from a dead to a connected living person.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

From personal perspective, it seems that there is something to this idea, but not it's less about double charisma, as it is about separating the roles of true leadership from marketing. Many of these cases seem to be about a chief marketeer propped up by - or perhaps even created by - a leader behind the scenes, just like modern pop stars and presidents who tend to excel at PR but have no idea how to actually get things done.

maryhelena

Yes, the idea re a double charisma sounds well worth looking into re early, or pre-christian origins of christianity. Actually, in fact, the storyline does itself lead to this conclusion - i.e. the Jesus storyline followed by Paul who moved things along....

A mythicist who just runs with Paul and can see no historical relevant figure, prior to Paul, could be missing out here. Paul himself says there were others prior to his time. If, as mythicists, we put Jesus of Nazareth on the shelve, so to speak, there still remains the possibility, the plausibility, of a historical core, a historical individual, as the primary part of the double charisma idea.

I've long played with this idea - that there was a historical individual prior to Paul, a historical individual who, because of time and circumstances, played a role in the prophetic interpretations, understanding, of the early christian groupings.

Antiquites book 18. Ch.4.
Philip died in 33 ce - at Bethsaida Julias. It is in Philip's territory that the gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth is played out re questions about messiahship. It is from Bethsaida Julias that the gospel storyline has early disciples coming from.

Interesting question - what did the 'friends' of Philip do after his death in 33 ce? Probably things are quite for a while - until that second charismatic historical figure comes along and changes direction....Yes, Paul says he persecuted the 'church' - most likely finding the whole Philip scenario beyond belief - until that fateful day on the road to Damascus - a road that runs pretty close by Caesarea Philippi - Philip's home town. Paul had a vision, a new interpretation, a new take on things, a spiritual take on things. Whatever was there before - the new direction was not going to be looking back.

A double charisma is not suggestive of a historical Jesus - that figure can never be established as being historical. A double charisma does suggest a historical figure though - well, two historical figures actually.

bacht

Moses & Joshua
Elijah & Elisha
Isaiah & Hezekiah
Zerubbabel & Joshua
Ezra & Nehemiah
Judas the Galilean & Zadok the Pharisee
John the Baptist & Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus & Peter

jgreen44

Your points are well taken. And in that I am certain that what the NT says about the earthly Jesus of Nazareth is more fiction than fact, I have strong mythicist tendencies. But I find it striking how well the Jesus/Peter-Paul scenario fits the Routinization of Charisma template. You mentioned various fictional characters but none of your examples made the leap from fiction to fact in the minds of the people, as did Jesus of Nazareth. And none of your examples (Superman, Batman, Captain America, Frankenstein or King Kong) founded social movements, ideologies or religions that came to be interpreted (or re-interpreted) and furthered by a second charismatic figure.

I think the weakness of the Routinization of Charisma theory in relation to the historic Jesus theory lies in the possibility that, rather than Christianity conforming to the Routinization of Charisma template, many or all of these subsequent movements (Lenin-Stalin, for example) were unconsciously following the Christian template.

Several years ago I read a book by Gary North, Marx's Religion of Revolution, (free to read online) wherein he makes a good case for Marxism being an apocalyptic cult based on Christianity. Specifically, he argued convincingly that the final stage of Marxism, anarchy, is based upon the Judeo-Christian idea of the New Heaven and the New Earth. After all, what is the "law written upon their hearts" if not anarchy?

jgreen44

Someone's been watching Fox News.