by shriven leper

In May 2007, a practitioner posting as "shriven leper" wrote a short reflective essay to alt.religion.gnostic, asking a question that cuts to the heart of docetic Christology. The post has the form of a personal inquiry — "ideas, anyone?" — but contains a genuine philosophical argument. If Jesus was purely a transcosmic being whose crucifixion and resurrection happened in a spiritual realm unconnected to human history, then Paul's complaint that the crucifixion was a "stumbling block" to Jews and an "absurdity" to Gentiles would make no sense: a mythic divine being dying and rising again was nothing new. The scandal, shriven leper argues, only makes sense if something flesh-and-blood was being claimed.

The post frames three positions and declines all three, leaving the question open. It is a rare instance of Gnostic reflection written in the interrogative mode — theology as honest inquiry rather than assertion.

I guess this is a personal problem, but it would be nice if anyone would care to throw some light on it.

For years I've read about the "Quest" for the historical Jesus, and though I think of myself as reasonably informed on the theories and issues, I am unable to conclude anything solid.

Currently the problem for me is Jesus' historicity. If the "Dutch Radicals," Robert Price, Earl Dougherty, et al, are correct, the Gospel Jesus is a mere mythogenic fleshing out of a transcosmic character whose "life" and "death" happened in a spiritual realm unconnected to the space-time universe and human history. Various communities added their own brush strokes to the Crucified/Risen Mythic Christ: one community attached parabolic sayings to him; another literalized his death and resurrection; another fitted him with the mask of a new Moses, etc.

For most of these critics, to say that Jesus had no historical existence is to say that he had no existence, for the simple reason that most of them are rationalist/reductionist/materialists for whom "the Other Realm" is purely imaginary and tinged with superstition. Jesus was spiritually (mythically) "killed" and "resurrected," they say — and so what? He's only a figment of the myth-making imagination.

On the other hand, for some believers, such as alt.religion.gnostic contributor Klaus Schilling, it is good news that Jesus did not exist as "such a paltry thing as a human being." They believe in the Other Realm, which for them is the Really Real, and to hell with this junky spacetime realm and its fleshy human history. Jesus, they say, never existed, AND he is the Really Real (or at least partakes in it).

I have no problem with a docetic Buddha, so why this issue with a docetic Christ? Mostly because of Paul's claim, within twenty or so years of the crucifixion, to have personally known Jesus' own brother James and his intimate disciples Peter and John — and his awareness that Jesus was "handed over" and crucified. The issue seems to hinge on the authenticity of these portions of Paul's writings.

Of course, if Paul's writings on this subject are bogus, then Paul's "testimony" is not testimony at all and is without value. From what I can tell, the jury is still out on this.

However, some of the "Radical" critics do accept Paul's claims, but insist that he's talking not about the crucified carpenter's son, but rather the celestial Christ's adventures in the transcosmic realm. But I find this unconvincing because — if they are correct that Paul's writings here are valid — it vitiates the plain sense of Paul's crucifixion soteriology, namely, Paul's complaint that Jesus' crucifixion was a stumbling block for Jews and an absurdity to Gentiles.

If Paul had been promoting the transcosmic adventures of a nonmaterial archetypal being, I don't see how the crucifixion would carry with it a scandal. Jews would probably dismiss it outright as a Gentile superstition. Romans and Hellenized Gentiles would not find the notion absurd. They'd probably shrug, saying either, "Not another one of those crucified-rising god stories again," or "How exciting — now we have a new crucified-rising god to add to our pantheon!" In neither case is there any cause for Roman alarm or suspicion — a mythic being has once again died and risen in the transcosmic realm: so what?

Anyway, I'm rambling, trying to get my thoughts together by typing them out. I seem to be fragmented amidst the options:

1. Jesus never existed historically, and spacetime-based history is all there is. Therefore, forget about the Quest.

2. Jesus existed historically and was one of any number of those many figures whom scholars claim to delineate. Therefore, speculate confusedly.

3. Jesus never existed historically, but since the Other Realm is real, be happy that the True Father projected Jesus in various ways and images into the Demiurge's world for our edification and salvation.

Ideas, anyone?

Colophon

Written by shriven leper and posted to alt.religion.gnostic, May 2007. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

"Shriven leper" was a longstanding presence on alt.religion.gnostic. The post is framed as a personal inquiry and ends with a genuine question, but contains a pointed argument: the very scandal of Paul's crucifixion message — that it was a stumbling block and an absurdity — implies a fleshly, historical claim. A purely transcosmic crucifixion, shriven leper argues, would have raised no Roman eyebrows and scandalized no Jewish monotheism. The argument is not conclusive — the author declines all three options he sketches — but it stands as a rare piece of Gnostic thinking written in the interrogative mode, theology as honest inquiry rather than assertion. The three-option framework at the close anticipates the classic categories still used in contemporary historical Jesus scholarship.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲