“Delving into pre-Christian sources for historical evidence is a difficult and dangerous game since the believers assert their right to censor and alter anything that doesn’t conform to the party line,” writes The gadfly columnist ROBERT MACKLIN.
My “Copilot” sounded quite testy. “No,” he said, “that is not the case.” It surprised me and I took a moment to recover.
Until then I’d regarded ChatGPT as gender “indeterminate”, whereas “masculine” was certainly the tone of the response to my unguarded question about Christmas.
Presuming that he and I were looking through Australian eyes, I had asked: “Is it true that Christmas was a celebration of the summer solstice of yesteryear; and since no one knew when Jesus was born, the Christians just incorporated it and eventually we all went along with the idea?”
He picked my mistake instantly.
“No,” he said. “However, it is deeply tied to the winter solstice.” He even offered “to trace how those solstice traditions evolved” into today’s religious customs. I declined.
At least we Australians were off the hook. The religious enthusiasts of the northern hemisphere were to blame.
I was unconcerned. During a busy year I had discovered a far more powerful authority concerning Jesus’ birth. The new (to me) volume was entitled Jesus: 100 years before Christ by the great Swedish historian, the late Dean Alvar Ellegard, at the University of Goteborg.
It is not widely known in church circles where, at best, it finds a role as “an interesting thought experiment in religious history”. And it must be said that delving into pre-Christian sources for historical evidence is a difficult and dangerous game since the believers assert their right to censor and alter anything that doesn’t conform to the party line.
However, Prof Ellegard was warmly regarded and as recorded in his “acknowledgements” both theological and historical scholars “provided material – editions of texts, translations and comments – which has furnished me with a starting point, has allowed me to push further, and helped me sharpen my argument”.
In calm, forensic detail he draws his references from Biblical and Essene sources that predated Christianity with their “Church of God”, which the Apostle Paul “persecuted” before his Damascene conversion. The other competing element in the Jewish diaspora was the “gnostic” view of a Jesus figure which opposed any “church” bureaucracy to lead the faithful to the same God.
To all but the rock-ribbed Christian, the thesis strikes home. During the Roman occupation of Palestine in the first century, the “pillars” of the Church of God in Jerusalem declared their “visions” of a returned leader (Jesus) as their Teacher of Righteousness from times past. They were galvanised by this “good news”. And the oppression of the Romans empowered these messianic Jews to spread the word.
In a well-resolved argument, Dean Ellegard leads his readers to the early “Bishop” Ignatius who, on his way to martyrdom in Rome not only invents the framework of the God/human figure of Christ but lets loose the four “canon” Gospel writers of the second century AD to fill in some family figures, the changeable list of disciples, the bizarre mission and the Roman crucifixion.
In competition with the gnostics, the “human” story triumphs. It was Ellegard’s finest – and final – project. Published in 2008, he died the following year.
I’m not too sure how this affects the way we celebrate Christmas in Canberra, which is a nice mix of hope and frolic.
Naturally, I asked Copilot how he rated Dean Ellegard’s work. I was not surprised that this time he/she reverted to the usual fawning friend. When pressed for the “verdict” he/she wrote: “Best read as an interesting thought experiment in religious history rather than a reliable reconstruction of early Christianity.” I couldn’t help but smile.
Leave a Reply