Georges Ory's Jesus Hypothesis

[Tenorikuma]

So I finished translating Ory's Analyse des origines chrétiennes (1963) and will make it available online in due time.

A few thoughts: it is interesting to see a different perspective on the matter — a French scholar writing to address the state of historical Jesus research in 1960s Europe.

Strictly speaking, Ory does not endorse a purely mythical view of Jesus, even if he is categorized with mythicist scholars today. His hypothesis attempts to incorporate the strengths of the three trends he identifies in then-current critical research — Jesus the myth (e.g. Couchoud), Jesus the obscure historical figure (e.g. Guignebert), and Jesus the revolutionary. However, Ory does do what many accuse mythicists of not doing, which is to provide a comprehensive, realistic scenario for Christianity’s origins.

His thesis essentially reverses the traditional view that Christianity began in Jerusalem, spread to Galilee and Samaria, and eventually found lasting success among the Gentiles through the work of the apostles. After demonstrating that the church could not have originated in Jerusalem, he shows that the veneration of a heavenly Christ figure under various names (Jesus/Joshua, the Red Heifer, the Angel of the Presence, the Logos, the Metatron, the archangel Michael, etc.) preceded Christianity proper and already incorporated cruciform symbolism as well as pagan dying-and-rising myths (à la Osiris and Tammuz).

If I understand him correctly, Ory concludes that Christianity began as a Hellenistic mystery religion based on this strain of Jewish mysticism, practiced by Gentiles and Diaspora Jews. After the Jewish War, the religion took on a significant Judaizing element as a flood of displaced Jewish partisans from Galilee and other Jewish sectarians adopted the religion. Many Jewish leaders in the preceding two centuries had gone by the name “Jesus”, and their followers naturally assumed that this new religion, which taught a dying and rising “Jesus” figure, must have been talking about their own dear leader. Eventually, these stories were used (along with material from the Old Testament, Mandaeanism, Josephus, and other sources) to write the Gospels, which successfully merged these historical Jesuses into a single composite character but failed to harmonize all the inherent contradictions. Lastly, with texts like Luke-Acts and various patristic writings, the religion retroactively associated itself with earlier messianic movements and created a fictional basis in Jerusalem (which contradicts the purported Galilean origins of the movement in the other Gospels).

[Peter Kirby]

Fantastic work. Thank you for this. Much appreciated.

[ficino]

Yes, thanks for the summary. It sounds as though Ory's is at least a replacement hypothesis.

[outhouse]

Thank You

Good read, I think much of his work holds water.

Some, he was off on a goose chase by his unsupported hypothesis im guessing are based on older outdated sources.

.His thesis essentially reverses the traditional view that Christianity began in Jerusalem,

Agreed whole hearted. But I think modern scholarship already follows multiple origins in the Diaspora.

he shows that the veneration of a heavenly Christ figure under various names

Don't think it can be supported, but id be curious of his sources.

preceded Christianity proper and already incorporated cruciform symbolism as well as pagan dying-and-rising myths (à la Osiris and Tammuz).

Don't buy it at all.

There is plenty within Judaism and there text. There was no need to pull from outside mythology when the monotheistic god through Jesus was the most popular theme

The movement started as a Hellenistic Proselytes divorce from cultural Judaism, with Judaism as its foundation.

Jesus the myth

Jesus the obscure historical figure

Jesus the revolutionary.

Agreed whole hearted.

Ory concludes that Christianity began as a Hellenistic mystery religion

Close but no.

It started as a Hellenistic form of Judaism first and foremost. There was no mystery in all this.

based on this strain of Jewish mysticism

We don't see that, other then minor aspect, nothing that would be core or primary.

Jewish core and Jewish mysticism are 4 different things.

Many Jewish leaders in the preceding two centuries had gone by the name “Jesus”,

Need sources.

reated a fictional basis in Jerusalem

I think he has something here. I think there would have been a pater familias there that followed such that held on to Judaism tighter then Diaspora Proselytes and Jews, yet Paul rhetorically exaggerated who they were to give himself more authority in the Diaspora.

[Peter Kirby]

Thank You

Good read, I think much of his work holds water.

Some, he was off on a goose chase by his unsupported hypothesis im guessing are based on older outdated sources.

Perhaps hold off on an evaluation (positive or negative) until you have seen "his work" and "support" and "sources" outside of such gratuitous "guessing" (and the barest outline of a summary by Tenorikuma).

So I finished translating Ory's Analyse des origines chrétiennes (1963) and will make it available online in due time.

(Yes, a book written in 1963 can't refer to more recent secondary literature, but it's not like this is biomolecular science or something. The pace is glacial overall, due to the rarity of finding new important primary sources, and much of what was written even in the nineteenth century can remain relevant.)

[MrMacSon]

So I finished translating Ory's Analyse des origines chrétiennes (1963) and will make it available online in due time.

Is this a similar book to

• An analysis of Christian origins
  
  Author: Georges Ory
  Publisher: London : Secular Society, [1961] ??
  
  http://www.worldcat.org/title/analysis- ... ef_results

[MrMacSon]

So I finished translating Ory's Analyse des origines chrétiennes (1963) and will make it available online in due time.

.... Many Jewish leaders in the preceding two centuries [ BC/BCE ] had gone by the name “Jesus”, and their followers naturally assumed that this new religion, which taught a dying and rising “Jesus” figure, must have been talking about their own dear leader. Eventually, these stories were used (along with material from the Old Testament, Mandaeanism, Josephus, and other sources) to write the Gospels, which successfully merged these historical Jesuses into a single composite character but failed to harmonize all the inherent contradictions. Lastly, with texts like Luke-Acts and various patristic writings, the religion retroactively associated itself with earlier messianic movements and created a fictional basis in Jerusalem (which contradicts the purported Galilean origins of the movement in the other Gospels).

The proposition of merging Jesuses into a single composite figure might fit with or parallel AD Loman's proposition that a Jewish-Messianic sect's Simon/Peter was merged with a Gnostic-Messianic sect's Saul/Paul.

[Tenorikuma]

@MrMacSon: Yes, there was an English translation of the first edition of Ory's book, which was printed in the journal Cahier rationalist 1961. However, the English edition is not available by any means that I could find, and the 1963 French edition has additional material.

@Outhouse: Thanks for the comments. Some of your criticisms may simply be due to my clumsy summarization. For example, Ory does not say Christianity was directly based on the Osiris or Tammuz cults, but that they are parallel mystery religions with a dying-and-rising god, burial preparation rituals, and (in the case of Osiris) a wine-drinking ritual as well as cruciform symbology, so these ideas were "in the air" when Christianity was born. And regardless of how you want to word the description of nascent Christianity as a "Hellenistic Jewish sect", Ory's point is that early belief in the celestial god-man Jesus/Christ did not develop from an earthly messiah preached by the founders of an imaginary Jerusalem church, but was present in the very earliest form of Christianity — and pre-Christian Jewish sects.

[jayraskin]

Thanks Tenorikuma,

This sounds like a very reasonable hypothesis.
I remember being a fan of the comic book "the Fly" which started in 1959." When I first saw "Spider-man" in 1962 in an issue of Amazing Fantasy, on the candy-store comic book shelf, I thought that it was an issue of "the Fly". I wasn't sure if "the Fly" had been renamed "Spider-man," or if he was a relative/spin-off from "the Fly," or if this was a different superhero. I had to skim the first few pages to realize that it was something different. Today, only very early 1960's comic book fans remember "the Fly," while "Spider-man" is more famous than Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[neilgodfrey]

So I finished translating Ory's Analyse des origines chrétiennes (1963) and will make it available online in due time.

Rene Salm has translated some of Ory's work (at mythicistpapers). Your work is additional to that, yes?