(Continued) 3. We owe to Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann the insight that reality is always
“socially constructed”, in other words, embedded in society. This also applies to the Bible’s authors, of course. The religious reality they describe follows contemporary social conventions that we are no longer familiar with, so we need to research them.
The difference between oral and written tradition must also be taken into account. As long as traditions are passed on orally, the wording can change. As soon as they are written down, a change of meaning can only take place through an interpretation of the tradition.
Because the written versions of the Gospels and Acts were preceded by a long period of oral tradition, we must assume that they were adapted to the changing early Christian consciousness before being written down.
The dominant master narrative about the origins of the New Testament canon states that in the first half of the 2nd century AD,
there were so many Gospels and Apostolic letters circulating among the communities that the churches had to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The only texts they adopted into the canon of significant texts for the Christian religion were those that they considered were written by one of the twelve Apostles or the Apostle Paul, or that were authorised by one of the Apostles; e.g. Luke’s Gospel, written by Paul’s companion Luke (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philemon 24), was authorised by Paul.
The new theses about the origin of the New Testament canon:
The New Testament canon was formed from writings from the three Palestinian Apostolic churches of James, John and Peter and the Gentile Christian church of Paul.
The criterion for the acceptance into the canon was the balance between the origins in the individual churches and the extent to which the writings supported the church’s unity.
The Marys in the New Testament are prosperous women, in particular merchants, who had the reputation
of possessing skills in alchemy and who supported the Christians materially and financially.
The Messiah’s conception was understood as an (alchemical) act of creation, and only an entirely upright, i.e. pure alchemist could achieve the conception of the Messiah with God’s help (God’s Spirit).
This is why the Messiah’s mother was named after the famous alchemist Mary. She is called a virgin to indicate her purity; therefore in the legend, Jesus must be her first-born son.
The resurrection was also viewed as an alchemical act of creation. It was prepared by the women called Mary.
When the women arrived at the grave to prepare Jesus’ body for the resurrection, the Creator God, Lord of alchemical powers and mysteries, had already carried out the act of new creation and had raised Jesus from the dead.
The dominant master narrative about Jesus’ parents states
that Mary, a housewife, and Joseph, a building worker, were Jesus’ biological parents.
The new basic narrative about Jesus’ parents states:
Mary was not the name of Jesus’ mother. His mother’s name, like her virginity, are part of the Christian legend about the Messiah’s origin.
Mary was not the name of the women called Mary in the New Testament; at most it was their nickname.
Mary was a well-known Jewish alchemist in classical times.
Literature: Patai, Raphael: The Jewish Alchemists. A History and Source Book, Princeton, New Jersey 1994, p. 60-91; Schütt, Hans-Werner: Auf der Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen. Die Geschichte der Alchemie, Munich 2000, p. 117-126,
Cephas, the later leader of Peter’s church, is not identical with Simon Peter. It was Cephas, not Peter,
who attended the Apostolic Council. Paul never met Peter personally; he only met Cephas. Paul differentiates in Gal. 1f precisely between the Jewish Apostle Peter and Cephas, one of the three pillars (Gal. 2:9) whom he personally met.
The international language of astrology: a legend quoted by Luke in Acts states that when the Holy Spirit was
poured out at Pentecost, all Jews from the diaspora could understand the Apostles speaking in their various languages.
Nowadays the phrase “international language” makes us think of art or music. In classical times, we should first think of astrology, a “language” that was understood by all nations.
The Gnostic’s statements about the astrological Age of Aries that was ending and the new Age of Pisces that had just begun were statements that everyone understood in their mother tongue.
The linguistic miracle at Pentecost, a sign of the last days, was interpreted according to contemporary understanding as annulling the Babylonian confusion of languages from the ancient Biblical story in Gen. 11:7f.
The Armenian crisis in 35 – 36 AD, a conflict between Rome
and the Parthians about the kingdom of Armenia, meant that Jesus was back in the race for political power in the Jewish territories.
The Armenian king Artaxias, linked to Rome by a friendship agreement, died in 35 AD. The Parthian king Artabanus III, anticipating the decline of Rome under the ageing emperor Tiberius, conquered the Armenian capital city Artaxata and established his eldest son Arsaces as king there.
The Armenian crisis in 35 – 36 AD led to a brief phase of weakness in Roman power in the east and fuelled hopes of independence from Rome in the Jewish provinces: Tacitus, Annals, 6.31ff; Ant. 18.4.4; Karl Christ, Das römische Kaiserreich, Munich, 3rd ed. 1995, p. 205f.