HOW THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WAS BORN Christianity was formed in two stages: what happened when Jesus was alive, and what happened after his death. The Christian faith takes for granted that there was a harmonious continuity between the two stages. This belief was challenged by many gospel scholars, who have stressed the conflicting nature of those two stages. But, so far, this question has remained debatable. We do not know to what extent the Easter revelation had a retroactive effect on the way the disciples told what happened during the life of Jesus. In other words, the quest for the historical Jesus has remained, to a great extent, inconclusive. This prompted a Gospel scholar like Dale Allison Jr. to write as recently as 2009: "After years of being in the quest business, I have reluctantly concluded that most of the Gospel materials are not subject to historical proof or disproof." The quest for the historical Jesus was conducted, so far, by scholars who followed the methodology that is used by historians. This methodology is good for the study of ordinary events. It is highly inadequate for the study of extraordinary events, such as the birth of a new religion. The most important point that is missed, in this case, is the role that is played by the mystical experience, and the way it can affect the mind of the mystics. As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that Jesus was a great mystic. After his death, his disciples had compelling mystical experiences, in which they had a new insight about who Jesus really was: the Christ and the Son of God. The great specialist of the mystical experience is Michel de Certeau, who wrote a book entitled The Mystic Fable (Paris, 1982). This Jesuit priest and historian was familiar with Freud's psychoanalysis. In order to study the mystical phenomenon, he did not hesitate to use not only his skills as historian, but also the special insight provided by psychoanalysis. In my book, I follow his guidance.
About the Author: A WORD ABOUT MYSELF I spent eighteen years in the Jesuit Order. What precipitated my decision to leave the Order was a deep reluctance to take the special vow of obedience to the Pope. My Middle Eastern roots were a factor here. Celibacy became a problem as well. But perhaps the most important point was that my thinking had started to change. Knowledge can be disturbing, especially when it is associated with critical thinking. Throughout history the traditional faith was challenged from within and from without the Church. Outsiders did not fail to express their criticism. But we should not underestimate the importance of the insiders who were branded as heretical. They were clerics, theologians or scholars. They dared to think outside the box. I am an insider who has become an outsider, but an outsider who understands the insiders' needs and their legitimate aspirations. My purpose is not to disparage two thousand years of Christianity, but to understand the conditions under which this great religion was formed. One point is now agreed upon among knowledgeable people. Christianity was formed in two stages, and consists therefore of two layers, which correspond to what Jesus had in mind and what his disciples made of him after his death. What is debatable is what should be attributed to each stage, and how the Easter experience of the resurrected Christ retroactively influenced the way the memory of what happened during the life of Jesus was transformed. My book advances our knowledge of this question.