The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

While I disagree with Ehrman about his claim that the Jews couldn't invent an angelic messiah crucified by demons, I agree fully with him about the claim that the Jews couldn't invent an earthly messiah crucified by the Jews.

So only a gentile Christian could, after the 70, invent a rumor that proclaimed the Jewish crime against the Christ.

And he did so probably as reaction against the aggressive return of the Judaizers in the Gentile communities of the Diaspora, a return provoked by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, meaning a real re-judaizing of a religion otherwise destined to gentilize itself more and more.

Only this theory is able to explain:

1) why the Talmudists know only of a Jesus killed by the Jews.

2) why the Talmudist answer was: "ok, we killed your Jesus, but we did so with any reason".

3) why some Jewish Christians introduced the idea that Christ wasn't killed while another man was killed in the his place. Pure APOLOGY to exorcize the dramatic reality.

4) why the Jewish Christians introduced a so naive use of the prophecies from the OT. Pure APOLOGY to exorcize the dramatic reality.

5) why Pilate was introduced: the gentiles had to share half of the responsability of the crime. Pure APOLOGY to exorcize the dramatic reality.

6) why John the Baptist was introduced: he had to remember that the death of Jesus by the Jews was along the same lines of the death of the OT prophets by Jewish hands. Pure APOLOGY to exorcize the dramatic reality.

7) why Herod was introduced: to explain the death of John.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Joseph D. L. »

You seem to alternate between arguments that only work if you presuppose historicity, and arguments presuming mythicism. Which is it?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

In my threads I assume always mythicism. It's strange and unexpected your comment.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I say it because of this point:
why some Jewish Christians introduced the idea that Christ wasn't killed while another man was killed in the his place. Pure APOLOGY to exorcize the dramatic reality.
No, that was the original mystery, that Jesus had been killed while another was freed, or escaped.

But your comment implies historicity, because it implies a historical Jesus which which to be killed in the first place. You call it an "apology", but it is historicity,

It also implies a Jewish priority. Why would gentiles even bother with Jews, if their cult was strictly gentile focused? You yourself said that Jesus being crucified by demons was Jewish, but then say that being crucified by other Jews was a Jewish apology. So which is it?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 12:05 am

No, that was the original mystery, that Jesus had been killed while another was freed, or escaped.
Also Eve was not raped by the Archons in a gnostic myth, but surely for the same reason as with Jesus we may imagine a more old myth where Eve was really raped by the Archons. It is called APOLOGY.

But your comment implies historicity, because it implies a historical Jesus which which to be killed in the first place. You call it an "apology", but it is historicity,
the Gospel of Peter is based on a source that is in my view more old than Mark: a post-70 story of Christian gentile origin where the Christ is killed "by the Jews".
It also implies a Jewish priority. Why would gentiles even bother with Jews, if their cult was strictly gentile focused? You yourself said that Jesus being crucified by demons was Jewish, but then say that being crucified by other Jews was a Jewish apology. So which is it?
I say that the gentile Christians were disturbed by the Judaizers so much after the 70 (given the fact that the Judaizers after the 70 attacked the gentile communities of the Diaspora, as per Ludemann:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8012.shtml
Here we find a development which is by no means rare in history, namely that a concern for unity at almost any price (and therefore really of no use) revives the opposed forces which had first sparked off the conflict. This obviously became true in the Pauline communities, which were invaded by Jewish Christian missionaries after the Conference
)

...that we can talk about a second re-judaizing of the entire movement (the first "judaizing" being obviously the natural Jewish origin of it). As reaction against these aggressive Judaizers, a gentile Christian invented the story that the Jews killed the Christ.

So the Jewish Christians had now only two alternatives: or to reject Christ as a false Christ (the way taken also later by the Talmudists and by the Celsus's Jew) or to apologize the Jewish crime against Christ by introducing a lot of naive OT prophecies, John the Baptist, another guy killed in the place of Christ, etc... All mere APOLOGY.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

So Prof R. M.Price:


All these features occur also in The Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World, but it is the "passion narrative" of Eve in which they occur. In these texts she, too, is seized by an evil multitude who mean to treat her shamefully. She, too, is somehow identified with a tree in her concealment. She, too, laughs in derision of her blind and witless enemies. It is hard not to conclude that the Gnostic exegete is docetizing the shameful fate of Eve just as Gnostics had docetized the shameful fate of Jesus Christ. Such a fate for their heroine Eve would be just as offensive to Gnostics as the fate of Christ was, so, like the latter, the former might be explained away and in precisely the same manner. All this implies the Gnostic interpreters were retelling a preexistent version of the Eden story in which Eve was raped by the lustful angels, just as the docetic crucifixion scenes presuppose passion narratives in which Jesus truly died.

Do we have evidence for such a variant of the Eve story? We do not, of course, have any actual telling of this tale. But we do have highly suggestive circumstantial evidence. There are at least two striking parallels. .... If the story of Eve's near-violation as we read it in The Hypostasis of the Archons preserves an original tale in which she was never actual raped, why does it not read more like the story of Istahar--a simple escape? The doubling motif tells the tale: originally Eve was raped.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_amorous1.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by arnoldo »

Maybe the following writing should be changed to "Against the Gentiles", no?
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 12:50 am Also Eve was not raped by the Archons in a gnostic myth, but surely for the same reason as with Jesus we may imagine a more old myth where Eve was really raped by the Archons. It is called APOLOGY.
What does this have to do with anything?

the Gospel of Peter is based on a source that is in my view more old than Mark: a post-70 story of Christian gentile origin where the Christ is killed "by the Jews".
Gospel of Peter is likely based on the same source that Mark and John are.

You're fooling yourself thinking there was a proto-gentile Christianity before it was "Judaized" Why, then, do John and Matthew, the most Jewish Gospels, still endorse such a belief, if it was inherently gentile? It wasn't. And Pilate still serves as the big bad in pseudo-Marcion, and 1 Timothy.
I say that the gentile Christians were disturbed by the Judaizers so much after the 70 (given the fact that the Judaizers after the 70 attacked the gentile communities of the Diaspora, as per Ludemann:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8012.shtml
Guy, you haven't any idea what you're talking about. First, throwing up 70 ad is meaningless, because Christianity didn't exist until ca. 190, and Paul was active from ca. 120-157 ad. Next, Paul makes it clear that he comes from Judaism, and that his mission is to encapsulate all races, Jew and gentile. But Judaism is the source for his beliefs. Lastly, if there was a gentile first sect, then who were they? Where were they? And why did Jews feel the need to adopt their beliefs?
Here we find a development which is by no means rare in history, namely that a concern for unity at almost any price (and therefore really of no use) revives the opposed forces which had first sparked off the conflict. This obviously became true in the Pauline communities, which were invaded by Jewish Christian missionaries after the Conference

So a loaded statement, predicted on a mythical event.
...that we can talk about a second re-judaizing of the entire movement (the first "judaizing" being obviously the natural Jewish origin of it). As reaction against these aggressive Judaizers, a gentile Christian invented the story that the Jews killed the Christ.
That's completely asinine.
So the Jewish Christians had now only two alternatives: or to reject Christ as a false Christ (the way taken also later by the Talmudists and by the Celsus's Jew) or to apologize the Jewish crime against Christ by introducing a lot of naive OT prophecies, John the Baptist, another guy killed in the place of Christ, etc... All mere APOLOGY.
Jews had bar Kochba, which the proto-synoptic Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites endorsed as the Christ. Is "apology" your new catchphrase? until you make another "discovery". (Read, until you parrot someone else's ideas).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 6:49 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 12:50 am Also Eve was not raped by the Archons in a gnostic myth, but surely for the same reason as with Jesus we may imagine a more old myth where Eve was really raped by the Archons. It is called APOLOGY.
What does this have to do with anything?
Evidently you don't have read the previous post. I publish it again:
So Prof R. M.Price:


All these features occur also in The Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World, but it is the "passion narrative" of Eve in which they occur. In these texts she, too, is seized by an evil multitude who mean to treat her shamefully. She, too, is somehow identified with a tree in her concealment. She, too, laughs in derision of her blind and witless enemies. It is hard not to conclude that the Gnostic exegete is docetizing the shameful fate of Eve just as Gnostics had docetized the shameful fate of Jesus Christ. Such a fate for their heroine Eve would be just as offensive to Gnostics as the fate of Christ was, so, like the latter, the former might be explained away and in precisely the same manner. All this implies the Gnostic interpreters were retelling a preexistent version of the Eden story in which Eve was raped by the lustful angels, just as the docetic crucifixion scenes presuppose passion narratives in which Jesus truly died.

Do we have evidence for such a variant of the Eve story? We do not, of course, have any actual telling of this tale. But we do have highly suggestive circumstantial evidence. There are at least two striking parallels. .... If the story of Eve's near-violation as we read it in The Hypostasis of the Archons preserves an original tale in which she was never actual raped, why does it not read more like the story of Istahar--a simple escape? The doubling motif tells the tale: originally Eve was raped.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_amorous1.htm
[/quote]




the Gospel of Peter is based on a source that is in my view more old than Mark: a post-70 story of Christian gentile origin where the Christ is killed "by the Jews".
Gospel of Peter is likely based on the same source that Mark and John are.
I think that the more essential idea is the more older. The proposition ''the Jews crucified Jesus'' is more simple and therefore more old than the idea ''Pilate was moved by the leaders of the Jews to kill Jesus''.
You're fooling yourself thinking there was a proto-gentile Christianity before it was "Judaized" Why, then, do John and Matthew, the most Jewish Gospels, still endorse such a belief, if it was inherently gentile? It wasn't. And Pilate still serves as the big bad in pseudo-Marcion, and 1 Timothy.
I dont' think that there was a proto-gentile Christianity. I think that the Christianity (even if jewish in origin) was rapidly gentilizing itself already before the 70 CE, but towards the 70 already Paul was losing the Galatians once that community was invaded by the Judaizers, who had to come more and more to disturb gentile Christians after the destruction of Jerusalem.



Guy, you haven't any idea what you're talking about. First, throwing up 70 ad is meaningless, because Christianity didn't exist until ca. 190, and Paul was active from ca. 120-157 ad. Next, Paul makes it clear that he comes from Judaism, and that his mission is to encapsulate all races, Jew and gentile. But Judaism is the source for his beliefs. Lastly, if there was a gentile first sect, then who were they? Where were they? And why did Jews feel the need to adopt their beliefs?
I am not arguing a gentile first sect. You are giving a false description of the my view. I am arguing that a Jewish movement was rapidly gentilizing itself already before the 70, but was re-judaized strongly because of the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, I think that the only strong argument supporting a Paul of the 2° century CE is made by dr. Detering. And you, dear Joseph D. L., are not him. I say so because between two Pauls who are both Jews, I can at any rate put them before the 70 in virtue simply of their Jewishness, while a gentile Paul (aka Marcion from Sinope) is very a strong evidence of the his being from 2° CE. As you see, I presume that before the 70 the movement was formed by Jews, even if already then the Gentiles were joining the movement.

...that we can talk about a second re-judaizing of the entire movement (the first "judaizing" being obviously the natural Jewish origin of it). As reaction against these aggressive Judaizers, a gentile Christian invented the story that the Jews killed the Christ.
That's completely asinine.
If Jerusalem was not destroyed, the Jewish Christians would have not invaded the Gentile Christian communities of the Diaspora. There would be no need by the Gentile side of a Gospel accusing them ('the Jews'') of having killed the Christ. And no need of a counter-reaction.

Only so I can reply to Ehrman's argument that no Jew could have invented a Christ crucified by the Jews.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by DCHindley »

arnoldo wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 4:56 am Maybe the following writing should be changed to "Against the Gentiles", no?
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

What exactly was the "Fabrication of the Galileans" that Julian was speaking of?

Giuseppe and occasionally others seen to take this to mean the very existence of a human Jesus.

I think that the next phrase explains that what the "Galileans" propound is actually "a fiction of men composed by wickedness."

IMHO, what he seems to object to is the myth of a divine entity that takes flesh and blood to die a vicarious sacrifice for mankind, but is only effective if one believes as they do and no other way. He clearly thinks that the Galilean Christ myth was intentionally fabricated to trick men into becoming one of them. That means he suspects that they had, and still have, subversive intentions, and consequently deserve to be marginalized. He did not feel this way about Judaism or the Pagan faiths, established in antiquity and not tainted with subversive motives.

DCH
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
>the fabrication of the Galilaeans is
>> a fiction of men
>>> composed by wickedness.
[How is it wicked?]
> Though it has in it nothing divine,
>> by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
>>> it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
Post Reply