An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 207: The Beloved Disciple and the Christ Myth Examined (a bit) (John 21)

John 21
The Beloved Disciple and the Christ Myth Examined (a bit).

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT
For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

John 21

“Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

There’s an odd, tacked-on, quality to this chapter. Jesus and the disciples go fishing, and after Jesus tells the disciples which side of the boat to fish, suddenly they catch hundreds of fish. A metaphor, one assumes, for them creating converts. Then they all have another fish and bread supper on the beach, which makes this chapter feel like a retread of the loaves and fishes story and hence why it feels oddly tacked on.

Jesus asks Peter three times if he love Him, and Peter says he does, so Jesus tells him to “feed my sheep”. This mirrors Peter denying Christ three times, so perhaps it’s a kind of redemptive arc, of sorts.

And then there’s the mysterious “beloved disciple”. Peter asks “Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” and “Lord, and what shall this man do?”. Both of these are odd statements. We’re led to assume that Judas was the betrayer, which surely Peter must know since in John’s gospel he’s there when Judas turns up with the soldiers in the garden over the brook Cedron. (There’s nothing in John about any subsequent fate of Judas; no suicide, exploding guts, or anything). So is the beloved disciple Judas? Or is Peter jealous of the beloved disciple? And why doesn’t Jesus answer that question? And then the second question – it’s implied that “this man” in Peter’s question is the beloved disciple, but Peter could equally be talking about himself in the third person.

Jesus’ reply is enigmatic (and we should be surprised by now?). “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me”. But surely all the disciples are going to wait until Jesus returns (within a generation, as He promises elsewhere)? Is this a final admonishment that Jesus’ directives should be obeyed without question? And tarry where? It makes no sense to me.

The chapter closes with the verse “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true”, which implies again that the “beloved disciple” is the gospel writer, John. Now that I recall, John in religious art is often depicted with long blonde hair and very feminine looks. One could read that as another suggestion that Jesus was gay, or perhaps an attempt by the artists to hint that this is supposed to be Mary Magdalene but they can’t directly say that because it would be too shocking. It’s all quite strange. One could also read that verse that “this is the disciple” isn’t referring to the beloved disciple at all, but merely that the gospel writer is identifying himself as a disciple. The last verse of all says that they all went on to have many adventures together and all the books in the world couldn’t contain the stories. Or words to that effect.

The Jesus Myth

Because this section was just one chapter long, and because this is the end of the gospels and therefore anything that purports to directly chronicle the life of Jesus, I thought I’d use the time to address some aspects of what I refer to as the Jesus Myth. I’m using “myth” here to mean a story that has meaning and resonance, rather than specifically trying to label it as untrue, because there are elements from lots of places that seem to be important in how the idea of Jesus has propagated so prolifically and lasted so long.

Jesus as Year King

There are many elements to the supernatural character of Jesus that match with many, widespread, myths about sun gods and fertility gods, linked to the cycle of the seasons and the well-being of the land and the people. There’s some excellent discourse on this topic in The Golden Bough, although it’s best to take James Gordon Frazer’s scholarship with a pinch of salt.

Many different cultures have myths of sun and/or harvest gods represented by earthly kings, with a range of different characteristics that can be found in the Jesus myth. A king who is sacrificed at around the spring equinox in order to usher out the old, dried-up sun/harvest god of the past year, and be reborn as the new, young virile sun/harvest god of the new year. Sometimes this role passes to a stranger, one who is both crowned as king and reviled as the lowest. Sometimes it is considered that the bad luck (the sins) of the community are also carried off by this sacrifice. Sometimes the new sun king is born as a spark in the depths of winter, at around the winter solstice. Sometimes the year king is crowned with vegetation and killed in such a way that they are suspended between heaven and earth. Sometimes they suffer ritual wounds. Sometimes they are buried in the earth and brought back alive. You can see the parallels, I hope. It’s absolutely no surprise that Christmas and Easter should have been overlaid onto older pagan mythological festivals. Symbols like Christmas trees, Yule logs, holly and mistletoe, and Easter eggs are still prevalent reminders of the pre-Christian roots of these festivals.

Jesus as Jewish Myth

Further to the more general Year-King mythologies with which the Jesus myth resonates, there are specific Jewish myths found in the Jesus story, often highlighted in the gospels with call-backs to the Old Testament. The concept of the scapegoat, for example; an animal that carries off the sins of the people. There are plenty of other animals offered up to remove a person’s sins as well; Leviticus and Deuteronomy have chapter after chapter of the right kind of animal and the right kind of ritual to use for different infractions. So the concept of dying to remove the sins of another is heavily rooted – how much more powerful, therefore, if it’s a human sacrifice? Or better yet, a human/divine hybrid sacrifice.

And human sacrifice is not unheard of. Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, to appease Yahweh. He doesn’t say “What? That’s not how we do things.” And I’ve noted before how many times Yahweh has to keep reminding the Israelites that burning your children is wrong, which presumably He wouldn’t need to do if they weren’t doing it.

Then there’s the concept of the Messiah, the return of the king as it were, and how aspects of Jesus’ story are made to match elements of prophecy. Does Jesus (or His followers) engineer this? Is this added retrospectively by the gospel writers like conspiracy theorists cherry-picking things that fit their preconceptions? Who knows.

Jesus the Theologian

Regardless of the supernatural aspects, the gospels attribute a range of sayings and attitudes to Jesus, which kinda sorta make a coherent whole, although I have to say I’m largely confused by what the take-home message of Jesus-ism actually is. There’s the sermon on the mount, whereby Jesus praises those who have little material wealth, or happiness, or luck in life. Given His ministry to the sick, perhaps it seems evident that Jesus is praising these people because they will be helped by God, or the godly. But He also preaches a form of extreme ascetism, a giving up of attachment to material possession and even family, that I have likened both to some Buddhist ideas and also to a cult leader.

Certainly it feels like Jesus gets a bit more cult-like towards the end of His life; my thoughts are that perhaps He really starts to buy the whole Messiah idea and truly believes that he needs to die and be reborn. Maybe, maybe not, but there are some egotistical elements about achieving “the Holy Spirit” or the “Kingdom of God” only through Him and no other route. What that actually means is unclear, and neither am I ever really clear on what Jesus means by the “Kingdom of God” or the “Holy Spirit”. They feel a little like the kind of thing that you’re only supposed to recognise when it happens to you, so a bit like Enlightenment, perhaps.

Throw into that some lines about loving each other, turning the other cheek and rendering unto Caesar – it’s a little hard sometimes to separate out what Jesus really believes and what are clever answers to confound the Pharisees that are trying to entrap him into committing blasphemy or treason. But then I think this mystique, this enigma about what His words really mean, are perhaps part of the draw for people, even though I’ve been inclined through a lot of this read to remember the words of the mice in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy –“Sounds good, but never actually gets down to meaning anything”.

If you combine all those elements, you’ve got quite an intriguing and compelling mix of mythological and philosophical elements, so I’m not surprised Christianity has perpetuated as much as it has. Oh, and the other element is the “man as god” part, which I haven’t even touched on. Greek heroes and demigods, solipsism of humanity, a theological conundrum; yet more grist for the mill.