I will be taking a break from regular blogging once again, the last time having been a little over two years ago. I hope to return to blogging in the future, but the essentials of my case regarding Yeshu haNotsri have been pretty much set out in the many posts on this site, together with chapter 14 of NazarethGate.

Essentially, I am proposing not only a new (i.e. ‘virtually unknown’) figure at the incipience of Christianity, but also an entirely new chronology, one that moves the chronological goal posts back a whole century. I propose also that intimate connections existed between original (gnostic) Christianity and Buddhism. These novel theories will take time to be heard, understood, and digested. The radical change in point of view that I am proposing will probably not take place during either my lifetime or yours but, as other options slowly disappear, I am confident that it will come sooner or later.

A number of loose ends still exist on this website, perhaps to be completed in future:

• The series on the lengthy Gospel of Barnabas is only half-complete. This “medieval”—but, in my opinion and that of a few other scholars—actually very ancient Jewish Christian gospel treats Jesus as a non-divine human being. GBar contains numerous sayings and parables that go back to Yeshu haNotsri and are unknown in the canonical tradition. Like the Gospel of Thomas, GBar contains a treasure trove of “heretical” material from Yeshu/Jesus that awaits critical study.

• I have not secured a translator for the bulk of the Greek Acts of Mark, first broached on this website. Those who have read the recent series on “The First Christians” will have a deeper appreciation of AM’s unusual portrayal of Mark as (a) a disciple of John the Baptist and (b) a Levite. We have seen (here [#15] and here) that “John the Baptist” was an early, pre-Pauline euphemism for Yeshu haNotsri, whose given name was “John” and who “baptized” his followers in the metaphorical water of gnosis. In this sense, Mark as a disciple of the Baptist gains cogency. We have also seen that Yeshu was a Levite of Hasmonean lineage, and that his fellow Levites were a long-suppressed order of priests who rallied to him, forming a significant cadre of Yeshu’s early support, especially in the northern province of the Galilee.

• Unadressed thus far on this site are two of the most important Naṣarene works to survive: the Gospel of Thomas and the Odes of Solomon. GosThom probably dates to mid-I CE (Crossan)—earlier than the consensus dating of the 4G. A mass of publications deal with the work. None of them, of course, considers GosThom’s connection to the Naṣarenes. That is a worthy future investigation.
     Much less has been written about the Odes of Solomon. Unfortunately, the principal scholar to publish and edit this work is J. Charlesworth. IMO, his views and editions are to be avoided, for he engages in eisegesis instead of exegesis. Though the name “Jesus” occurs not once in this text, Charlesworth insists upon introducing the Christian Jesus in textual quotes, brackets, and in his notes. He sees the work through normative, modern Christian eyes and does not consider OdesSol a gnostic text. He has completely missed the boat.

So, there is much work to be done, whether by myself or others. Being now 72 years old and in fairly good health, I hope to continue contributing to this worthy endeavor in the future. However, it is also time that others begin to carry the torch regarding the unfamiliar and exciting theories broached on this site.

My research has led to a novel view of the first Christians. They were first century BCE followers of a renegade member of the Hasmonean royal family, John the son of Absalom—later dubbed “John the Baptist” and finally referred to as Yeshu haNotsri (“The Preserver-Savior”). Yeshu taught a Buddhist-inspired gnosticism fundamentally incompatible with his Jewish heritage and also with the regnant secular mores of Hellenism. His severe, world-denying teachings did not—and could not—fit in anywhere.

The Naṣarenes were a small, unworldly group of Hebrews. They were tolerated while John/Yeshu was alive and preaching (ca. 76–64 BCE) primarily because of his powerful family ties and because the Queen herself (Salome Alexandra) was sympathetic to him and his teachings. During this time the Dead Sea Sect appears to have had negative interactions with the Naṣarenes (“family of Absalom”), as recorded for example in the pesher Habakkuk. There was probably also some exchange of disciples between the two groups.

Not long after Queen Salome died (67 BCE), the Sanhedrin executed Yeshu (64 BCE). Within months the Romans conquered Palestine (63 BCE) and put an end to the independent Hasmonean dynasty. The Naṣarenes, no longer Jews by religion and without their mentor, were completely adrift. A split in the fellowship occurred between “Hellenists” and “Hebrews,” the former being less rigorous and more accommodating to society’s demands. No doubt experiencing persecution from those who had murdered Yeshu, the Naṣarenes were hounded out of Israel and eventually migrated across the Jordan River. The “Hebrews” went to Pella and then eastwards, while the “Hellenists” migrated northwards to the Greek-speaking metropolis’ of Antioch, of Asia Minor, and then further west.

The western branch of the fellowship eventually gave birth to Christianity as we know it. Its rejection of the more demanding teachings of Yeshu was but the first step in a long devolution away from the prophet’s teachings. Along the way this western branch repudiated gnosticism, came to view the eastern branch (Naṣarenes) as heretics, and eventually repressed all memory of Yeshu haNotsri, inventing their own savior—Jesus of Nazareth—in mid-II CE. That was a full two centuries after the prophet had died. The Church that the Hellenists created had little in common with the original teachings. It espoused the familiar doctrines of the divinity of Jesus, the redemption by the cross, the resurrection of the body, and the Second Coming.

Meanwhile, the eastern branch preserved the gnostic roots of the prophet’s teaching in a number of works, most of which have been sought out and destroyed over many centuries. The gnostic-leaning texts that have managed to survive this intense gauntlet of censorship (the Nag Hammadi writings, Gospel of Barnabas, Mandean and Manichaean writings, etc) have often been edited and adulterated through time. Two stellar examples, however, that fortunately survive from the early days of the Naṣarenes and come to us complete are the Gospel of Thomas and the Odes of Solomon.

That, in a nutshell, is my account of Christian origins.

—René Salm