Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

[neilgodfrey]

... A Jesus that was conceptualized like Paul's was taken up to be made a symbolic tale -- the Jesus who lived out a life of a "new Israel".

My point in my previous post is that it's very likely that Paul's Jesus reflects to some degree the gospel Jesus, even if just by more use of the name Jesus with Christ

(and i like the idea -- rg price's, iirc (and maybe also Fran J Vermeiren's) -- that the gospel Jesus is significantly based on Paul)

I see no reason to think that Paul's Jesus was anything more than what we read in his letters. The gospel is not a narrative about a life of Jesus. It is a declaration of death and resurrection, and believers living "in" him. That's all.

[neilgodfrey]

So, and while I agree with it, if you state that the gospels tell us little more than a Palestinian Jesus who was put to death, leaving everything else open, then perhaps it was the goal to do just that. Mark for one uses a grand and elaborate framework with chiastic structure and he certainly was very, very literate

By leaving "everything else open" I was referring to questions about the nature of Jesus, the relationship between flesh and spirit, etc, and all that that involves re birth, ascension, blood, suffering, etc etc. That's all -- the questions that seem to have preoccupied the likes of "1 John", Ignatius, and the rest. The "nature of Jesus" was a question that never arose with the Jewish creation of the earliest gospels because Jesus was only a symbolic character in a symbolic narrative.

Centuries between the first message of Christianity and the concept of a Christ crucified?

Yes, I think so. Even if you put that first message in 150 CE in stead of 30 CE, my current findings (and I'm just into this) are that the use of a cross didn't appear before the 4th century. Stauros yes, tau yes, but the very cross that we all know of so well? I'm still looking (and I might find it, but haven't as of yet)

Does anything change whether Christ was crucified on a crucifix or impaled on a stake?
Sure, impaling would explain how he could have been conscious and lucid until the very last moment; it would explain him uttering a loud cry, both events which aren't consistent with dieing from blood loss

Have you checked out

• Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

• Also by Cook but easier to access: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8003.shtml

• Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

• Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Crucifixion (on a cross) did not normally mean death by blood loss. Some commentators point out that they think the only reason Jesus died so quickly was because he lost a lot of blood during the flogging before he was crucified. We have stories from the time of people talking from their crosses while they waited to die, sometimes days later.

[Giuseppe]

The "nature of Jesus" was a question that never arose with the Jewish creation of the earliest gospels because Jesus was only a symbolic character in a symbolic narrative.

what do you do about the traces of separationism in Mark, in the light of your recent conclusion ?

https://vridar.org/2009/11/27/when-a-no ... possessed/

[MrMacSon]

I see no reason to think that Paul's Jesus was anything more than what we read in his letters.

I spoke of an overlap between Paul's and the gospels' Jesus, but I don't mean to suggest that Paul had any notion of the Jesus of the gospel narratives. Not at all.

I accept and get those points. What I'm saying is that the fact there's mention of and perhaps even a notion of Jesus in Paul's letters is because the name Jesus' may well have been inserted in them.

He's what Frans J Vermeiren says about this -

.
Christ, Jesus, and Jesus Christ

The Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament exhibits a different sort of interpolation that offers strong support for our thesis. After having compared the numerous old copies of Paul’s letters, Nestle-Aland arrives at the conclusion that some words are of doubtful authenticity. In Paul’s letters, Nestle-Aland marks the word ‘Jesus’ – each time used in combination with the word ‘Christ’ – seven times as probably interpolated. ‘Christ without ‘Jesus’ of course results in an entirely different reading because then these fragments only discuss an anonymous Christ. In combination with Paul’s general disposition towards the future, this anonymous Christ furthermore becomes a future Christ. Even though this ‘Jesus’ addition is only demonstrable in seven instances, it is reasonable to believe that these instances are tell-tale for a general ‘Jesus’ interpolation problem in the Pauline letters.

Furthermore, in addition to these seven unmistakable additions, there are various other instances that indicate a problem with naming. For instance, some manuscripts have added ‘Jesus’ to ‘Christ’ in Romans chapter 9 verse 1, ‘I am speaking the truth in Christ’. Also, Romans chapter 13 verse 14 usually says ‘But put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ but there are several variations on Jesus and his title(s): ‘Christ Jesus’ in some manuscripts, ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ in other[s]. Galatians chapter 6 verse 17 offers a similar picture. Usually, it says ‘Jesus’, but sometimes it is ‘Christ’, ‘Lord Jesus’ or ‘our Lord’. The best example of this combination of naming problems appears in 2 Corinthians: For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine in the darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of [Jesus] Christ.[154]

The Jesus at the end of the fragment is one of the seven instances where the word ‘Jesus’ was added. The Jesus in the second line (for Jesus’ sake) is not always mentioned in the same wording. In some manuscripts it reads ‘Christ’, in other ones ‘Jesus Christ’. The Jesus Christ in the first line appears to be a constant, although some manuscripts have it in reverse order which is also indicative of revision. If we were to remove the word ‘Jesus’ entirely from this fragment, it makes much more sense: For what we preach is not ourselves, but Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Christ’s sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine in the darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Vermeiren, Frans J. A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity (pp. 102-103). Kindle Edn

---

Our canonical Luke seems to have been a redacted version of Marcion's gospel. The author "Luke" turned Marcion's gospel against Marcion by introducing Old Testament motifs (Marcion not having much time for the Jewish Scriptures), presumably guided by the Gospel of Mark or its predecessor. So yes, the main gospel narrative appears to have been prior to Marcion but was certainly developed more fully in response to Marcion.

I think that's reasonable.

[mlinssen]

Have you checked out

• Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

• Also by Cook but easier to access: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8003.shtml

• Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

• Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

No, but I will, thanks

Crucifixion (on a cross) did not normally mean death by blood loss.

You make it appear as if you have access to a (very!) interesting research paper on crucifixion on a cross around that time? If you're just tied to something and left there, I would imagine death would be due to dehydratation, or even hypothermia in November-February in Palestine when and where it gets down to 10-ish Celsius, so one to three days "seems reasonable". Although I have read up on Egyptian impaling (best not to do that before eating) and records mention as long as 6 to 8 days. I think a bit of a challenge there of course, making your victim last longer than that of your rival or mates. I am sure that money exchanged hands in bets on those "achievements" as well

Some commentators point out that they think the only reason Jesus died so quickly was because he lost a lot of blood during the flogging before he was crucified. We have stories from the time of people talking from their crosses while they waited to die, sometimes days later.

Be that as it may, talking from the cross - I think the most "fun" part of impaling was the fact that the victim was still very lucid for a very long time - but death on a cross or a stick / stake / pole would be from fatigue, with the body entering unconsciousness in the final hours if not day(s). Unless, of course, in the case of impalement, the body would sink that very last fragment of an inch, piercing a vital organ, which would likely result in an outcry followed by sudden death...

The one thing that is very impractical though, is that putting someone on a cross unattended in a populated area is as good as guaranteed to get him rescued. So I am quite sure that no one in his sane mind would put in the enormous extra and costly effort of adding a crossbean, fixating that to the pole, and then basically doing the same as which one could do with only one pole: nail his hands to it.
There isn't, to speak in modern terms, a business case for a cross beam to a stake. It simply is a waste of energy and resources and adds nothing but using two stakes for one person, thereby doubling the effort, and unless someone can come up with a convincing argument for the shape of a T or cross adding extra "fun" or symbolism, it becomes even more unlikely that Jesus was put on such

[neilgodfrey]

The "nature of Jesus" was a question that never arose with the Jewish creation of the earliest gospels because Jesus was only a symbolic character in a symbolic narrative.

what do you do about the traces of separationism in Mark, in the light of your recent conclusion ?

https://vridar.org/2009/11/27/when-a-no ... possessed/

I look at that page and think, So that's what I wrote eleven years ago. I've been learning lots since then. I might want to go back and express a few things differently. As then, I still see the evangelist combining two figures, a human and a divine, into the one person. That is part of the representation or personification of the new Israel. I have also read contradictory views on what Mark's Christology actually way since 2009, so maybe it's a question I will have to think through afresh.

[neilgodfrey]

He's what Frans J Vermeiren says about this -

I like the idea that the original letters of Paul did not mention Jesus but I have not yet studied the arguments. If Paul did not use the name Jesus then it would provide neat answers to some questions I have about gospel origins. But V is still on my "to read" list.

[MrMacSon]

I like the idea that the original letters of Paul did not mention Jesus but I have not yet studied the arguments. If Paul did not use the name Jesus then it would provide neat answers to some questions I have about gospel origins. But V is still on my "to read" list.

His reference to what the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament says is interesting, as is the implication of the chronology around Christ -

.
Christ, Jesus, and Jesus Christ

The Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament exhibits a different sort of interpolation that offers strong support for our thesis. After having compared the numerous old copies of Paul’s letters, Nestle-Aland arrives at the conclusion that some words are of doubtful authenticity. In Paul’s letters, Nestle-Aland marks the word ‘Jesus’ – each time used in combination with the word ‘Christ’ – seven times as probably interpolated. ‘Christ without ‘Jesus’ of course results in an entirely different reading because then these fragments only discuss an anonymous Christ. In combination with Paul’s general disposition towards the future, this anonymous Christ furthermore becomes a future Christ. Even though this ‘Jesus’ addition is only demonstrable in seven instances, it is reasonable to believe that these instances are tell-tale for a general ‘Jesus’ interpolation problem in the Pauline letters.

Vermeiren, Frans J. A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity (pp. 102-103). Kindle Edn

Vermeiren also provides in the appendices his versions of extracts of a few Pauline epistles only referring to Christ.

There are hints of this phenomenon in 1 John -

1 John 2:22

20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father ...

1 John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.
.

[davidmartin]

i've wondered if the name Jesus was a kind of hidden name only revealed once initiated into the movement at baptism
because 2 major early texts fail to mention his name (Shephard and the Odes)
i've no real evidence of any kind for this, just wondered if Paul indeed publicised a previously hidden name or something like that

[GakuseiDon]

i've wondered if the name Jesus was a kind of hidden name only revealed once initiated into the movement at baptism
because 2 major early texts fail to mention his name (Shephard and the Odes)

Other early texts that failed to use the names "Jesus" and "Christ":

1. Tatian: "To the Greeks" (160s CE)
2. Theophilus of Antioch: Book I (180 CE)
3. Theophilus of Antioch: Book II (180 CE)
4. Theophilus of Antioch: Book III (180 CE)
5. Athenagoras of Athens: "A Plea for the Christians" (180s CE)
6. "Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus" (130 / 200 CE)
7. Minucius Felix: "To Octavius" (160 / 250 CE)
8. Tertullian: "Ad nationes" (200 CE)

Also:
* "Ascension of Isaiah" includes the name "Jesus Christ", but a large section (possibly an older section) uses the name "Beloved".