Solo

In the light of some recent remarks accusing me of drawing unwarranted conclusions about Paul, whom I wish to confirm I have not met personally, let me say the following:

Hans Conzelmann lamented in his ‘Outline of the Theology of the NT’ back in 1968: Attempts have been continually made to derive Paul’s theology from his experience. He himself declares that his gospel has been revealed to him. But in what sense is that to be understood ? We can get an answer only when we put the question in terms of the history of religions, not in psychological terms. For ‘inner experience’ explains nothing, it is an ‘x’ which itself needs to be explained. Attempted reconstructions of the experience are useless, as the sources are simply not there. Just as Paul has visions without making personal use of them (2 Cor 12), so he never speaks of the inner event of his conversion, but only of its theological content: his commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

The quote has puzzled me for over a decade. On one level, of
course I can understand it. Theology and psychology are rivals. The theologian instinctively disdains attempts to explain away the mystery that is life and its purposes. He or she senses that people who think that way, either do not think very deeply about what they say or do not really know how to correlate feelings to their ideas. One very wise pastor said to me when we discussed my project: I trust that you mean well. The thing that worries me is not much a world without God, but a world with the wrong replacement for God. For myself, who grew up in a communist country, that rang a big bell. Still does.

On the other hand, I hope the problems with a theological attitude that Conzelmann’s view illustrates, are immediately visible, and hopefully not only to un-faith. Does Paul’s experience really explain nothing ? Are the reconstructions of it really useless ? Does he mean that the secular (,or religiously not-committed,) view of Paul, or classing Paul’s visitations with known mental phenomena observed medically and psychologically, automatically derogates to Christianity ? I don’t think so. For one I know that Conzelmann’s theological mentor, Rudolph Bultmann, openly discussed the delusional nature of some of the beliefs of Jesus if there were held by a real human. So, Conzelmann knew there are issues with the historical person of Jesus, and to push theology out of harm’s way, he declared himself for the view that we can know nothing about Jesus, historically speaking. He could not say the same with Paul, since he had Paul in his face, historically speaking, so he declared himself for the view that we cannot know anything about Paul, psychologically speaking. The sources are simply not there.

This sort of approach greatly distressed Paul Tillich who warned its cumulative effect would be empty theism. As theology locks itself inside its own little world, it loses touch and relevance. The attitude reminds one so much of the wife of the bishop of Oxford, who on learning of the Darwin’s theory exclaimed: Let us pray it is not true, or if it is, that it does not become generally known.

But the reality is that we have Paul’s letters and they reveal quite a bit about Paul, not the theologian, not the saint, but the human who through creative genius that dissociated a part of his person into a mythical personna, laid the groundwork for the world’s most successful religion. There are direct and oblique references in Paul’s letters to his health and with the cognitive patterns in his theology which – read together – may create a psychological profile which is reasonably close to what we may know of him, a profile which optimally would be candid but respectful, and therefore perhaps theologically useful, to some. As for the rest of the New Testament, the texts, contrary to conservative belief , present an interesting window on the social psychological makeup of the first Christians and may yet shed unexpected insights on the first communities and the development of their beliefs.

Can psychology or the study of cognitive patterns of NT (outside their theological content) establish or vouch for the historical Jesus ? No, I am afraid it cannot. It will probably present a new weapon for the MJ’ers, in that it may identify possible social-psychological origins for the much derogated-to deity, and thus undermine the embarrassment arguments for historicity. On the other hand, the cognitive reconstruction of some of the gospel events, as theologically handled older narratives with a demonstrably different meaning, and the reading of most of the miracles as originally a set of secret handshakes among those unto whom it was given to know the kingdom, may bolster the case for historicity, in establishing if not the time line, then a pattern of logical sequencing of forms in complex religious symbology, such as the resurrection.

Jiri

Rick Sumner

I think Isaac Asimov already has claim to the term "psychohistory." Which doens't have much to do with this. . .

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

I do wonder if, possibly in reaction to the blasphemy that Jesus is classically mythological, a reaction has been, how dare you compare Christ to nursery tales.

But that completely misses the purpose of myth - it is all about struggle, psychology, defining the meaning of life, love, death, war, grief.

I see saying Jesus is a mythological character as in fact enabling xianised cultures to reclaim a central part of their meaning that has got lost in religiosity. I wonder if many problems of the twentiethand twenty first centuries - our basic clumsiness that leads to poor design, pollution, mess and lack of appreciation of excellence, is down to tawdry xians completely misunderstanding and literalising myth, resulting in terrible psychologies and societies.

The replacement you mention is in fact authenticity and the ability to appreciate the power and splendour of some of these stories, that have inspired cathedrals and singing and abolition of slavery. Note carefully - the institution xianity did none of this - people working with these myths did.

I recommend Cristopher Hill English Bible in 17th Century.

The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Solo

I am not making a claim to the term. As far as I know, Julian Jaynes (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) was the first one who was using psychohistory to describe the inter-disciplinary nature of his own writing. However, though I knew Julian personally, have a great admiration for his pioneering work, and refer to neuroscience, and tools of cognitive psychology as he did, I do not mean to imply that I am following in his footsteps, or that he is in any way responsible for my ideas on Christianity.

Best,
Jiri

Gamera

Great post Jiri.

Of course the psychohistory of early Christians has been used as an attack on the historicy of the gospels. I'm thinking of Crossan in particular, who interpreted the gospels in terms of a repression by the apostles of the trauma of seeing Jesus crucified (and in his alternate history) eaten by dogs.

But I think you adumbrate an interesting potential, especially as regards to Paul. He has been "analyzed" as a typical true believer, who switched sides, so to speak and brought the same fanatism to Christianity that he once brought to its persecution. But all this may suggest real underlying events relating to Christianity. If Paul's particular psychology is discernable in his writings, perhaps so are the historical events that put his remarkable energy into motion. It seems very unlikely that Paul's particular fanatism (and I use that in a neutral sense as something he brought to his writings) was responding to a mythic Jesus. He seems to be a type that was given to personal confrontation and action, not a philosophical personality that sat in a study speculating about theology. Indeed, his writings aren't theological in the traditional sense at all, in my opinion, but really are a handbook for christian living provided to a population that had no experience of what it meant to be a Christian.

In any case, sounds like the beginning of an interesting article to me.

Rick Sumner

I'm fairly confident Asimov has him beat (Asimov began the Foundation series in Astounding Science Fiction in 1942).

In either event, it was a jest. The Foundation series is a sci-fi series.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

This feels to misunderstand where we get our energy to act from. It is never in reaction to historical events, but always how we choose to react to what happens to us. And that is directly dependent on our psychological selves, our myths, our dreams, our resentments, our loves and hatreds.

Responding to a myth - especially this one - I come to give you life in all abundance, a new heaven and earth, death where is thy sting - is the source of the power and energy. No xians after Jesus is alleged to have lived can have tapped into the alleged historical source of energy of the event of Jesus death - no one has seen it! The energy xians have is mythic and psychological, They use language that confirms this - the Holy Spirit will give you power.

I do wonder if Paul's energy came from the eureka moment he describes on the road to damascus, combined with he thought he had discovered the philosophers stone - the alchemic reenactment of Christ's death through the Eucharist. Paul really believed he had ( through Christ Jesus) conquered death! No wonder he lost his sight if it all came together in his mind on a hot dusty road where the steady rhythms and noises, the heat and thirst were guaranteed to put him in an altered state of consciousness!

Solo

I would accept that some of the "distaste" to the MJ is a gut reaction that has very little to do with the factual issue of the contention. The issue however remains. The split of Jesus Christ into a historical figure vs. Christian myth, happened in the intellectual milieu of the Rationalism of the 18th. century. Atheists like D'Alembert completely dismissed Christ as unworthy of rational man's time, but the majority of the philosophes confined themselves to anti-clerical and anti-Catholic pamphleteering, embracing one form or other of rationalist deism. Among them, Voltaire ridiculed Christianity and Judaism. Voltaire used the historicism of his own time to savage Jesus as history (see Chrétienisme in Le Dictionnaire Philosophique) as part of the whole Biblical tradition which he despised intellectually. Voltaire anti-Christian crusade came bunched with a distinct anti-semitic undertones and outside of France won a few friends. After the French Revolution, the world-view that the philosophers represented associated inseparably with the term "Jacobin" and the mayhem of the French Revolution. The view of the MJ'ers as godless, reckless radicals, and a murderous gang hateful of sprituality was established. This view instantly marginalized Strauss and B.Bauer when they published their treatises. The same thing later repeated itself with the Dutch radicals. Rudolph Bultmann, a few generations later, was condemned and demonized (by his association with Martin Heidegger, a Nazi-symphatizing philosopher at Marburg) for his efforts to de-mythologize Christianity.

The conservative Christians would say exactly the opposite. The rapid decline of the West, with its attendant social problems is a direct consequence of apostasy from Christian faith, embrace of pagan life style and social experimentation for which humanity is internally ill-fitted.

The point to understand about religion is that it is not something relating to cognitive aspects of our interior. The hyper-rationalists believe religion is irrational humbug by definition and if we could get rid of it we would be on our way to happiness. Chesterton brilliantly dissects this mentality (e.g. in Man Who Was Thursday).

Religion's social appeal goes to human emotions, not intellect. That is why the orthodox X-ity won over gnosticism, that is why in it Paul would always walk in the shadow of Peter.


Thanks, Clive.

WishboneDawn

Holy friggin' Christ Clive!!!

I can't agree with you more.

Only don't let atheists off the hook. There are a LOT of christians AND atheists who think myth equals lie. There's a real inability to 'get' myth these days. If Jesus didn't really live or didn't really get crucified, they ask, what's the point in valueing those myths? But I just think if we could talk about the bible as a source of christian and cultural myths...The fun we'd have and the places we'd go.

No Robots

Here is Jaynes on Christianity:

A full discussion here would specify how the attempted reformation of Judaism by Jesus can be construed as a necessarily new religion for conscious men rather than bicameral men. Behavior now must be changed from within the new consciousness rather than from Mosaic laws carving behavior from without. Sin and penance are now within conscious desire and conscious contrition, rather than in the external behaviors of the decalogue and the penances of temple sacrifice and community punishment.

Julian Jaynes. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 318.