The origin of the name 'Jesus CALLED Christ''

[Giuseppe]

If John was never in the Earliest Gospel (Mcn), then the following part in red is an interpolation:

Luke 9:7-9

7 Herod, the governor, heard about all the things that were happening and was confused, because some people said, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead.” 8 Others said, “Elijah has come to us.” And still others said, “One of the prophets who lived long ago has risen from the dead.” 9 Herod said, “I cut off John’s head, so who is this man I hear such things about?” And Herod kept trying to see Jesus.

This means that, in the eyes of all the people and also of Herod, Jesus was known to be simply ''Jesus Christ''. This would be the origin of the his complete name among the hoi polloi: Jesus called Christ.

It is implicit the skeptical-deceptive sense in that ''so-called'', everywhere it is applied to Jesus.

It is curious that Origen is the first guy who quoted Josephus both for the his presumed paternity of ''Jesus called Christ'' and the presumed historical death of John the Baptist.

[Giuseppe]

Now I can well say that the part in red is an anti-marcionite interpolation in Mark:


Mark 8:37-30 :

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”

30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Originally, in the Earliest Gospel, the people called Jesus "the Christ", neither John nor "one of the prophets". Their view became the view only of Peter in Mark 9:29., in order to introduce the dychotomy "people's view versus Peter's view" (so now in Mark at least a person - Peter - is shown as a witness of the real identity of Jesus, against the ignorance of the hoi polloi about the identity of true God Father of the one called "Christ" by them).. But in this way it is not more clear why Jesus had to be known as "Jesus CALLED Christ".

[Giuseppe]

Hence it is surely true that in the Earliest Gospel:

1) all - but just all! - the people said that Jesus was "the Christ".

2) but Jesus was not really the Christ of the Creator God.

3) there was no mention of John the Baprist and of Elijah and of Moses.

[Giuseppe]

I wonder now about the Barabbas episode and the Simon of Cyrene episode: were they introduced in the Earliest Gospel to make the "Jesus called Christ" even more so a real Christ (of the Creator) than he was really a such one in the Earliest Gospel?

Insofar there are apparent reasons to doubt about the identity of "Jesus called Christ" in the episodes of Caesarea Philippi ("was he John or Elijiah redivivus?"), of
(Jesus) Bar-abbas ("was he the true Jesus?") and of the Cyrenaic bearer of the cross ("was he the true crucified?") the reader of Mark is moved to believe even more that "Jesus called Christ" IS really the real Christ (of the Creator).

Something as: dubita fortiter sed crede fortius (that Jesus is the same Christ of the Creator).

In other terms, the original dichotomy in the Earliest Gospel between what "the people" said (i.e., that Jesus was "the Christ" of the Creator) and the true reality (that Jesus was not the Christ of the Creator), was replaced in Mark by another dichotomy between what the people saw (a man Jesus so different from the expected Christ, the latter being confused with Elijiah, with John and even with Jesus Barabbas or Simon of Cyrene) and what the proto-catholic Peter indeed recognized (the real Messianic identity of Jesus son of YHWH).

[Giuseppe]

Now, the interpolators of Josephus wrote that Jesus "was the Christ"/ was "called the Christ" (by all the people). All this obsessive insistence was not a mere banal apology against Jews denying that Jesus was the Christ (at least for the interpolator of "called Christ" in Antiq. 20:200). It was an apology against the Gnostics who claimed the contrary: Jesus was really not the Christ (of the Creator). The theme of the "enigma Jesus" - the "Christ who was not Christ" - was the cause of the success of the Earliest Gospel, in terms of Gnostic propaganda that provoked a rather natural anti-Gnostic reaction by late Judaizers who saw in it a real blasphemy.

The historical kernel behind this propaganda were two:

1) the Jewish anxiety to see potential military Messianists everywhere, became an anti-Jewish tropos in all the Empire even among Pagan writers (see Tacitus and Philostratus),
2) the rapid de-ethnicization of the Jewish God by Gnostic apostles, even before the 70 CE.

I wonder: was Christ euhemerized even before the 70 CE? After all, for one of the strange paradoxes of the History, the Fall of the Temple triggered an invasion of Judaizers in all the Christian communities of the Diaspora, by that time already fully gnosticized.

[Giuseppe]

The fact that Mark 4:28-29 is a probable anti-marcionite interpolation shows that an angel was called "Christ" (since so the opinion of the "people" was as reported by Peter in the original answer of Mark 4:30) and only after was called "Jesus" (obviously per the hymn to Philippians).

How was the angel called before that he received the titles of "Christ" and "Jesus"?

[MrMacSon]

Now, the interpolators of Josephus wrote that Jesus "was the Christ"/ was "called the Christ" ... [Antiq. 20:200].

All this obsessive insistence was not a mere banal apology against 'Jews denying that Jesus was the Christ' (at least for the interpolator of "called Christ" in Antiq. 20:200).

It was an apology against the Gnostics who claimed the contrary: Jesus was not the Christ [their Christ] (of the Creator).
.

Good points, I think.

The theme of .."Jesus" - the "Christ who was not Christ" - was the cause of the success of the Earliest Gospel ...
.

[Giuseppe]

Surely the reader knows already the Couchoud's view about the Hymn to Philippians (the fact that the angelic being was named Jesus only after the his death), but note that prof Price goes beyond Couchoud when he wrote:

Couchoud's insight, if we accept it, might enable us to make a whole new sense out of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts that feature a beloved savior, whether Mechizedek, Seth, Derdekas, or Zoroaster, who is only late in the day identified with Jesus. We need some sort of new key to unlock the meaning of these enigmatic texts and the mystery of where and how they fit into the evolution of early Christianity. Couchoud's theory might provide it. What did the unquoted portion of the Philippians hymn call its Christ figure before his exaltation and possession of the throne-name "Jesus"? Could it perhaps have been one of these names? It would imply that the Christian Jesus was merely a more recent stage in the development of a much more ancient mythic character, just like Seth, Enosh, and the other ancient figures venerated by the Gnostics despite an utter lack, in the nature of the case, of any biographical or historical data about them.
Couchoud has indicated the final door we must pass through if we are to be consistent with the methodology that has served us so well thus far.

(from The Incredible Shrinking of Son of Man, my bold)

The importance of seeing Mark 4:28-29 as an anti-marcionite interpolation may be compared to the Couchoud's insight about the Hymn to Philippians. Not only this angelic being was named ''Jesus'' only later, but also the name ''Christ'' was a relatively later addition.

If the name ''Christ'' was a late addition, then also the messianic apocalypticism was a late addition.

[Giuseppe]

In another thread haakem writes:

The simpler way to explain why essentially "Mark" treated Peter (& disciples) as a hostile witness is because, for a variety of reasons (most invented by the author), Peter did not declare, see or understand the extraordinary, supernatural stuff which support the Christian faith....

The so-called Peter could not have declared, seen or understood supernatural stuff which never happened.

gMark is not history but propaganda against the Jews to explain the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The story of gMark is that God sent his Son to the Jews but he was rejected and killed by them and abandoned by his handpicked disciples and Peter who denied even knowing Jesus.

The parable in Mark 12.1-11 represents the propaganda of gMark

1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'

8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner

11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets were fulfilled-- the Jews killed the Son of God so Jerusalem, the Jewish Temple were destroyed and non-Jews accepted the story of Jesus as the son of God.

Mark 13:14

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.

The problem with this view is that Jesus was "called Christ" by the people in the original answer of Mark 8:27-30. Hence, how could God punish the same people who recognized the messianic identity of Jesus, IF Jesus was really the Jewish Messiah in the Earliest Gospel?

Therefore the point of the Earliest Gospel is that the Fall of Jerusalem happened precisely because the Jews thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

[hakeem]

In another thread haakem writes:

The simpler way to explain why essentially "Mark" treated Peter (& disciples) as a hostile witness is because, for a variety of reasons (most invented by the author), Peter did not declare, see or understand the extraordinary, supernatural stuff which support the Christian faith....

The so-called Peter could not have declared, seen or understood supernatural stuff which never happened.

gMark is not history but propaganda against the Jews to explain the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The story of gMark is that God sent his Son to the Jews but he was rejected and killed by them and abandoned by his handpicked disciples and Peter who denied even knowing Jesus.

The parable in Mark 12.1-11 represents the propaganda of gMark

1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'

8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner

11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets were fulfilled-- the Jews killed the Son of God so Jerusalem, the Jewish Temple were destroyed and non-Jews accepted the story of Jesus as the son of God.

Mark 13:14

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.

The problem with this view is that Jesus was "called Christ" by the people in the original answer of Mark 8:27-30. Hence, how could God punish the same people who recognized the messianic identity of Jesus, IF Jesus was really the Jewish Messiah in the Earliest Gospel?

Therefore the point of the Earliest Gospel is that the Fall of Jerusalem happened precisely because the Jews thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

What you say makes very little or no sense. In the story of Mark 8.27-30 the people thought Jesus was a prophet and he did not even tell his supposed disciples he was Christ, the people did not know he was the Christ. Only Peter claimed Jesus was the Christ and immediately they were told not to tell anyone.

Mark 8

27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Look at Mark 15.

Mark 15.61-64

.....Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death....

The Jews have rejected Jesus as the Christ and find him guilty of death.

The very last we hear of Peter in gMark is when he denied ever knowing Jesus and the last action of the disciples is to run away from Jesus when he was arrested.

Mark 14

71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

Mark 14:50

And they all forsook him, and fled.'

The Jesus story in gMark is not about a new cult but propaganda to explain the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple,