Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote:
This all is not trying to argue against your ΙΣ idea. I find that one quite enticing, and it sounds logical in itself.
I know you find it enticing because I've read you reference my ideas in German on some other German sites. That's cool. I hope everyone kind of realizes what I am suggesting involves a Marcionite like 'ur-canon' which was significantly corrupted by Catholics in the mid-second century. I think I've identified who started the 'Jesus' myth - Polycarp (see the recent thread on this).
I used the Talmud example you posted here, yes. The reference on that site was mostly as an example of pseudetymology as it was commonly used in antiquity, as there isn't really anyone on that site who is interested in Christian origins (ask Kunigunde). I don't want to steal your ideas ;). I know that you suggest a Marcionite ur-canon (I'm still not convinced he was really first, but definitely an important step), and you are not the first to suggest Polycarp as the great meddler. So, good luck with your search.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

I certainly never accused you of stealing and was very flattered to have a German take my ideas seriously. My father never stopped referencing all of this as brotlose Kunst.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Clive »

You are giving us our daily bread :-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

7.
This He saith, because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on IC in the spirit (τὸν ΙΣ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι). And whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever; He meaneth this; whosoever, saith He, shall hear these things spoken and shall believe, shall live forever.
There is little warning for the concept of 'Jesus in the spirit' anywhere in Barnabas or elsewhere in Patristic literature. However the concept of 'man in the spirit' is everywhere in the Pauline letters. Paul, a man, speaks of serving "in my spirit in the gospel" Romans 1:9. Furthermore a very close parallel exists in 1 Corinthians 6:11 where we read - "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord XC and in the Spirit (ἐν τῷ πνεύματι) of our God." Similarly 1 Corinthians 6:20 "glorify, then, God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's." Stephen is said to speak ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, Acts 6:10; and Paul purposed ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, Acts 19. 21; and we are said to serve God ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, Gal. 5. 5; and to make supplication ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, Eph. 6. 18.

As one who loosely subscribes to 'mythicist' ideas, I don't see how identifying the Christian god as 'Jesus' makes 'more sense' that 'Man.' The idea clearly is that those being baptized want to become this 'perfect man.' Why is identifying him as a particular - rather than a generic - 'Man' (i.e. a man called Jesus) more sensible here?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Clive »

Is a change from a generic 'man' to a specific "man" evidenced by the individualisation of the Western world - I think therefore I am. Is the acceptance of Jesus because we in the West assume the individual, not the communal?

I am that I am. Let us.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

8.
In like manner again He defineth concerning the cross in another prophet, who saith; And when shall these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. Whenever a tree shall be bended and stand upright, and whensoever blood shall drop from a tree. Again thou art taught concerning the cross, and Him that was to be crucified.

And He saith again in Moses, when war was waged against Israel by men of another nation, and that He might remind them when the war was waged against them that for their sins they were delivered unto death; the Spirit saith to the heart of Moses, that he should make a type of the cross and of Him that was to suffer, that unless, saith He, they shall set their hope on Him, war shall be waged against them for ever. Moses therefore pileth arms one upon another in the midst of the encounter, and standing on higher ground than any he stretched out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious. Then, whenever he lowered them, they were slain with the sword.

Wherefore was this? That they might learn that they cannot be saved, unless they should set their hope on Him. And again in another prophet He saith; The whole day long have I stretched out My hands to a disobedient people that did gainsay My righteous way.

What again saith Moses unto Jesus the son of Nun, when he giveth him this name, as being a prophet, that all the people might give ear to him alone, because the Father revealeth all things concerning His Son IC? Moses therefore saith to Jesus the son of Nun, giving him this name, when he sent him as a spy on the land; Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith, how the Son of God shall cut up by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days.

Behold again it is IC, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure.
In what is a curiously repeated understanding (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) the early Church identified Exodus 17 as 'witnessing' the coming of IC. Interestingly even though Joshua appears in the narrative, he is not a type of Jesus but Moses standing in the background of the battle scene. In Barnabas, undoubtedly the source of the tradition, it is plain that 'Joshua' is not the name of IC. Indeed it is not difficult to see the manner in which the passage was subtly altered to make it possible (although by no means explicit) that Joshua could be IC - viz. the addition of "when he giveth him this name."

Indeed Barnabas is still specific, Joshua was not the one who will destroy Amalek. Rather it is IC. But his citation of Exodus 17:14 is downright bizarre. Instead of:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.”
We read:
when he sent him as a spy on the land; Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith, how the Son of God shall cut up by the roots all the house of Amalek in the last days.
Interesting also is the fact that the details here are incorporated into Numbers 14's sending out of Joshua into the land - "Moses therefore saith to Jesus the son of Nun, giving him this name, when he sent him as a spy on the land; Take a book in thy hands ..."

There is some logic to this reading (which again 'jumps' directly from Numbers 14 to Exodus 17). When the two passages in two different books are read back to back Moses sends out a number of spies and only Joshua comes back. The reason for his 'being saved' is clear - he believed that the 'Yahweh is with us' (וַיהוָה אִתָּנוּ). Why does Barnabas take this story as part of a narrative referring to the cross? The place of the slaughter of Amalek is Yahweh is my standard (i.e. standard = a labarum).

So Moses - not Joshua - is the type of IC making clear that he will make himself manifest on the cross. I am even beginning to wonder if Joshua does appear in a critical juncture of the gospel narrative. If we think about it, during the Passion narrative there are two people - IC and Joshua bar Abba.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

That is all the IC references in Barnabas. There are 9 in total. But from reading the document I wonder if we have to think in terms of 'either/or' for the Jesus v Ishu debate. What I am thinking about is the possibility that 'Jesus' is introduced at the Passion - i.e. that God Ishu and a man named Jesus - become interchanged (the rebel is freed). Think about this mystical subtext and how the Romans must have hated the idea (when they finally figured it out) that the revolution was effectively 'continued' by the escape:

Image
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

What I am saying is that if you imagine that IC = the angel Ishu up until the 'switch' (i.e. where the two figures stand side by side in front of Pilate and the Jews) then the 'resurrected IC' is just the escaped Jesus Bar Abba from Matthew 27:15-22, the text about Pilate offering a choice of Jesus or Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ:

The first of two instances was in verse 16, “And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.” The second was in Pilate’s address contained in verse 17, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”

In certain texts verse 16 was, “λεγόμενον [Ἰησοῦν] Βαραββᾶν”(called Jesus Barabbas) and in verse 17, “τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, [Ἰησοῦν τὸν] Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον χριστόν” (Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ).

Barabba in Aramaic would mean “son of father” and Jesus was [in]famously calling God his father. The “Jesus Barabbas” was the reading found most notably in Codex Theta (a 9th Century manuscript housed in Tbilisi), and miniscule 700* (an 11th Century manuscript).

My suggestion then would be that if the empty tomb was original in Mark then all this would signal would be the disappearance of the god. The continued existence of Jesus bar Abba would be the moment that Christianity was first headed by 'Jesus.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

Under this scenario then the youth who runs up to Jesus asking about eternal life in the Gospel of Mark was most likely 'Jesus' IMO:
And going forth into the way, one (εἷς) approached and kneeled, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? And IC saith, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, God (εἷς ὁ θεός). Thou knowest the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he answering saith to Him, All these have I observed. And IC, looking upon him, loved him, and said, One thing thou lackest. If thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me.

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was rich, having great possessions. And IC looked round about, and saith to His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at His words. But IC answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! More easily shall a camel enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, and said, Who then can be saved? bend He, looking upon them, said, What is impossible with men is possible with God. For with God all things are possible. Peter began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and followed Thee.

And IC answered and said, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and brethren, and possessions, for My sake and the Gospel's, shall receive an hundred-fold now in this world, lands, and possessions, and house, and brethren, with persecutions; and in the world to come is life everlasting. But many that are first shall be last, and the last first.

They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with IC leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid ... Three days later he will rise.

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And IC, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, IC rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for IC taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
It has long been discussed in discussions of Secret Mark that the youth who is resurrected sounds suspiciously like the youth who asks about eternal life earlier. The presumption has always been that he dies in the lacuna in the text (look at - "with IC leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid" - something is clearly missing from the text or taken out). Notice also that God who is one εἷς ὁ θεός is juxtaposed between the 'one' εἷς who approaches Jesus.

If Secret Mark is to be accepted there is an 'arising' and a crossing of the Jordan which may suggest that the beloved youth (who is unnamed) is really Jesus. Now I am starting to wonder if Paul's name was 'Jesus' before his transformation. The variant reading in Syriac gospels of 'my Son and my beloved' at the transfiguration implies two individuals who stand at each 'hand' of God. Paul is said by the Marcionites to sit at the left, IC at the right.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did the Church Fathers Really Take ΙΣ = Jesus?

Post by Secret Alias »

The neatness of this theory is that mythicism doesn't have to argue that there never was a historical Jesus and moreover it explains the curious nature of the betrayal sequence. If we think about, the gospel tells us that the Jews saw and debated with IC. They testify as to what he said and that it was blasphemous. Why then do the same Jews need Judas to 'betray' IC was a kiss? It's very curious. It's Judas's signaling which seals the fate of the crucified one. What if Judas was in on the plot and signaled the mortal man rather than the god? What if he really did acknowledge 'Jesus' but IC is another (as we hear over and over again in the writings of Irenaeus (i.e. Jesus vs Christ as two distinct entities according to those who use the gospel of Mark - "Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified." (Irenaeus Adv Haer 3:11.7) I think what is critical to the narrative is the idea that 'Jesus' becomes IC at his baptism, IC is 'in him' in a manner which curiously resembles things said by Paul.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply