The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

After years of thinking about the gospel I will let you know what I find to be the oddest thing about the canonical gospel. The gospel, by it's Hebrew definition in Isaiah chapter 40 is a declaration or announcement. It's as plain as can be and all the Church Fathers appeal to Isaiah 40 to define the concept of 'gospel.' The orthodox tradition is willing to embrace a wholly 'mouthed' or 'announced' gospel for Paul. But strangely the gospel has Jesus avoid declaring anything when he first appears before men in what is now the synagogue of Capernaum. How can Jesus come down from heaven or Christ come down from heaven and then in the mise en scene of a Jewish religious gathering (whether at a synagogue in Galilee or the temple of Jerusalem - so John) fail to utter the gospel he came down from heaven for!

We must distinguish the 'gospel secret' (viz. the secret of who Jesus is) from the apparent secrecy or excision of his gospel announcement in the present gospel(s). This simply doesn't make sense and I think this is attributable to a secondary editorial decision of the second century Church Fathers spawned from their battles with Marcion and the heresies. Jesus was silenced. It is plain and simple. For it is not as if Jesus doesn't teach or distinguish what his gospel is elsewhere in the narrative or how it is distinguished from the Law. Rather we see in the synagogue 'his teaching is with authority' but there is no longer a reference to what that teaching was! It was removed from the initial appearance and scattered about the remaining narrative of the gospel.

Again we can be relatively certain of this given that the Marcionite movement did understand from their gospel that there was a centrally defining 'thesis' (an 'antithesis' is still a kind of thesis) or gospel message appeared right from the outset. It is implicit if not explicit throughout the intercourse with the Church Fathers. And it's not as if the orthodox gospel or the orthodox teachers admit 'hey Jesus didn't exclaim his gospel because it was secret' - they deny that vehemently too.

Instead what we find is an initial descent from heaven into a Jewish religious setting, Jesus being recognized to teach or declare with authority but the canonical gospel text plainly and simply doesn't allow people to hear what that 'authoritative teaching' (= the gospel of Jesus) was any longer. It's as plain as that.
“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: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Again Isaiah 40 - the text cited at the beginning of Mark and the others - is used to frame the 'start' of the gospel narrative. Jesus or Christ coming down from heaven is the end of the law. It is the end of the law because the gospel has been pronounced.

You who bring good news to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,[c]
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
10 See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and he rules with a mighty arm.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.
11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.

Isaiah has already said:

A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the Lord[a];
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

While this is identified by the gospels as we have them as pointing to the coming of John the Baptist (especially in John where the Baptist explicitly declares himself to be this messenger) the point is that Isaiah 40 opens the gospel the way Isaiah 53 closes the gospel. Then in what follows there is a general sense of the spirit coming down into a human being who becomes the announcer of things:

A voice says, “Cry out.”
And I said, “What shall I cry?”

“All people are like grass,
and all their faithfulness is like the flowers of the field.
7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the Lord blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”

9 You who bring good news to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,[c]
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
10 See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and he rules with a mighty arm.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.
11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?
13 Who can fathom the Spirit[d] of the Lord,
or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge,
or showed him the path of understanding?

The context clearly implies the coming of a man infused with the spirit who speaks 'the gospel' (to use the Christian terminology) on behalf of God. Jesus appearing in the Jewish gathering in Capernaum makes sense as long as there is an explicit declaration made against Jerusalem and Zion. This is the gospel is declared because 'the Jews' (Jerusalem and Zion) have been given punishment for their sins. To this end, I take this as confirming that the author has written the gospel after 70 CE when he and his contemporaries take the 'double punishment' as already having taken place and the story of the gospel explains why it all makes sense, why the gospel should take hold now (i.e. post 70 CE) because of what happened many years earlier (= the narrative).
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Giuseppe »

Jesus was silenced. It is plain and simple.
Are you (at least partially) plagiarizing me, by any chance? :whistling:



The god of the Jews said, Aure audietis et non audietis (Is. vi. 9). Jesus, on the other hand, wishes all ears to be opened (T. iv. 19). All should listen, since there is no longer anything hidden; everything is made clear.
(Couchoud, Creation of Christ, p. 399)

Again and again I have always the suspect that the your personal dilemma is to have succeed in the desperate enterprise of selling the marcionites as a kind of Judaizers (or people who read their ideas from the OT). At any rate thanks to make this your dilemma so vividly explicit in the your words:
The gospel, by it's Hebrew definition in Isaiah chapter 40 is a declaration or announcement. It's as plain as can be and all the Church Fathers appeal to Isaiah 40 to define the concept of 'gospel.'
Why can I be able to have your same ideas about it, but without all these references to OT and 'Church Fathers''?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by perseusomega9 »

Tom Dykstra in Mark: The Canonizer of Paul made a similar observation.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Why can I be able to have your same ideas about it, but without all these references to OT and 'Church Fathers''?
Because it's there and the argument was made in antiquity that the relationship meant and means something highly significant. You should be allowed to just 'shoo' them away! I can't believe that this new world we've entered into where facts don't matter. It doesn't matter that a political official lied as long as it's YOUR POLITICAL OFFICIAL. It doesn't matter that Isaiah 40 is used to frame the beginning of the gospel and Isaiah 53 the end of the gospel but because 'I am a Marcionite' or 'I am a mythicist' or 'I am against the Jews' I refuse to acknowledge these facts. Facts are not optional. Facts are not to be ignored. You should shape your opinions by exposure to 'facts' rather than shape your acceptance of what are the facts by your opinions.
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Giuseppe »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:49 am
Why can I be able to have your same ideas about it, but without all these references to OT and 'Church Fathers''?
Because it's there and the argument was made in antiquity that the relationship meant and means something highly significant. You should be allowed to just 'shoo' them away! I can't believe that this new world we've entered into where facts don't matter. It doesn't matter that a political official lied as long as it's YOUR POLITICAL OFFICIAL. It doesn't matter that Isaiah 40 is used to frame the beginning of the gospel and Isaiah 53 the end of the gospel but because 'I am a Marcionite' or 'I am a mythicist' or 'I am against the Jews' I refuse to acknowledge these facts. Facts are not optional. Facts are not to be ignored. You should shape your opinions by exposure to 'facts' rather than shape your acceptance of what are the facts by your opinions.
Please explain me, then, why you accept the FACT of Isaiah 53 etc but always you are the same person who ignores the FACT of Isaiah 6:9:
The god of the Jews said, Aure audietis et non audietis (Is. vi. 9). Jesus, on the other hand, wishes all ears to be opened (T. iv. 19). All should listen, since there is no longer anything hidden; everything is made clear.
(Couchoud, Creation of Christ, p. 399)

There would be a contradiction in the your view: the same god who wanted a Jesus proclaimer of news (per Isaiah 53 etc) is the same god who wants a Jesus silent about these news (per Isaiah 6:9).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by pavurcn »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:19 am But strangely the gospel has Jesus avoid declaring anything when he first appears before men in what is now the synagogue of Capernaum. How can Jesus come down from heaven or Christ come down from heaven and then in the mise en scene of a Jewish religious gathering (whether at a synagogue in Galilee or the temple of Jerusalem - so John) fail to utter the gospel he came down from heaven for!
Well one reading of an early passage allows for an answer:

Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news [that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near].”

At the point of this proclamation, what remains is the unfolding of events in the history of the Christ and the fuller revelation of his identity.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Giuseppe

How is what you cite a 'fact'? Do you even know what facts are? You are citing an interpretation by Couchoud. I really should put you on ignore. I have my limitation of patience for terminally irrational posters who can't distinguish between fact and interpretation.
“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: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Pav,

Yes this is almost right. The Church Fathers try to slip in John the Baptist to fix the problem. But is there any evidence that John the Baptist declared the gospel or knew the gospel? Or was his witness merely that Christ would appear? I tend to think in terms of the latter. Also "the law and the prophets were until John ..." There seems to be a sense that John was the end of the Law not the beginning of the gospel which was with Christ.
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Single Strangest Thing About the Gospel

Post by Giuseppe »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:34 am Giuseppe

How is what you cite a 'fact'? Do you even know what facts are? You are citing an interpretation by Couchoud. I really should put you on ignore. I have my limitation of patience for terminally irrational posters who can't distinguish between fact and interpretation.
Not correct. I am citing Couchoud who cites a pure and simple FACT: Isaiah 6:9 behind Mark 4:11-12. Isaiah 6:9 behind Mc 4:11-12 in contradiction with the your Isaiah 53 behind the incipit of the Gospel. All here. Can you explain it?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply