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

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Giuseppe »

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

Good question. The ''Galileans'' are precisely the Judaizers who invaded the Gentile communities after the 70 CE. They didn't reject the gentile story that wanted Christ crucified by the Jews. They did expand it and convert it in a Jewish Christian propaganda. So Julian could well say that the entire Jesus legend was a Galilean invention. What escaped to him, and to the same Jewish Christians, was that a gentile Christian introduced the idea that the Jews crucified the Christ.
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 »

DCHindley wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 7:12 am 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.
Since the ''Galileans'' are the same Judaizers fled from Jerusalem just conquered by the Romans in 70 CE. Some of them were ex-Zealots. Some of them identified the Christ with some obscure failed messianist of the past (John the Baptist?). So Julian had any reason to have suspects of sedition by them.

To receive as accusation by the Earliest Gentile Evangelist the (invented) accusation of having killed the same Christ, these Judaizers had to be real fanatic preachers.
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. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 7:09 am

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
I didn't respond because I see no reason to. Stick to the subject at present.
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''
.

Having a "Pontus Pilate" issue the death warrant for Jesus is as crucial to the Jews demanding his execution. Pontus Pilate represented Marcion, man of Pontus, in his role of decreeing the Jews be the one's to kill Jesus, while later having a revelation that Jesus was who he said he was.

Jews killing Jesus is entirely in line with how the Old Testament presents Jews as easily misled and at times foolish.

And, once again, the Talmud presents ben Stada as a messianic figure, being crucified by Jews, without a hint of irony to the tale. Why would Jews feel the need to insert Pilate as a scapegoat in their Gospel, and not in their oral history?
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.


Paul is second century. So anything about 70 ad is meaningless. What's more, you seem to take Paul at his word about the men from James, while ignoring his insistance that he was predominantly Jewish. You don't make any sense.
I am not arguing a gentile first sect. You are giving a false description of the my view.
I'll be honest, Giuseppe, half the time I can't make out what you're even on about, and the other half you're just reiterating someone else's idea, peddling their books as if this gives you more credibilty to your argument. I've tried giving you the benefit of the doubt in the past, but that time is over. You just say the same thing over and over again.

But one thing that I have noticed is you're inability to properly give a consistant overall point, and yes, you have implied in the past that Christianity started out as a gentile oriented religion, later taken over by Jews.

Or if you want to say, first it was Jewish, then gentile, then Jews reacting to gentiles, then gentiles rereacting to Jews, then Jews reacting to other Jews, and so on and so forth, all I can say is, you're wrong about everything.
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.


Which I don't care if I'm Detering (whom I've never read proper, save for a few blogs of his), and I really don't care what you think, to be blunt. Paul clearly represnts an idea not present until Hadrain, is associate with texts that didn't come about until Kitos and bar Kochba, and the earliest evidence of Paul and Marcion come late in the second century.
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.


You're a fool. There is no issue for Paul, even in his Jewishness, to be post-70 ad, or even post-Kitos, especially if he represented a sectarian form of Judaism which existed in the second century, i.e. the Naassenes. It seems you think Judaism can only be one thing and one thing only. Never mind that even the Talmud, Philo, Josephus, and the early church fathers, describe a whole array of Jewish sects and ideas.
If Jerusalem was not destroyed, the Jewish Christians would have not invaded the Gentile Christian communities of the Diaspora.
... which they didn't...
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.
... even though Jews killing Jesus was present in Jewish Gospels, and Pilate in Gentile Gospels...
Only so I can reply to Ehrman's argument that no Jew could have invented a Christ crucified by the Jews.
And both you and Ehrman are fools.
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 »

Ok, I don't claim a perfect view of the things. My point in this thread is simply that the first guy who introduced the idea, after the 70 CE, that Jesus was crucified by ''the Jews'' as a collective Group was a Gentile.

He did so against the aggressive Judaizers.

Especially if you place Galatians in the 2° century CE, my argument (that has only need of assuming an aggressive Judaizing proselytism after the 70, just as you see a clue in Gal 1-2 about the ''false brothers'') becomes even more strong.


For the same reason of Ehrman: no Jew could invent a Messiah crucified by the same Jews. So a gentile Christian invented that idea.

Now you can easily identify who is more fool between me and him. ;)
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 »

Let us take a close look at what Cyril if Alexandria claims Julian had said.

Text as reconstructed by K J Neumann (1880) from Spanheim's edition of Cyril of Alexandria's Pro Christiana religione (1696).
My inferior crib translation of same, using Perseus.org morphological tools.
As translated by Wilmer Cave Wright (1923)
As translated by R Joseph Hoffmann (2004)
Καλῶς ἔχειν ἔμοιγε φαίνεται τὰς αἰτίας ἐκθέσθαι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, Καλῶς (good) ἔχειν (being) ἔμοιγε (for my part) φαίνεται (I bring to light) τὰς (the) αἰτίας (responsibility) ἐκθέσθαι (I have set out) πᾶσιν (all) ἀνθρώποις (mankind), It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind, The time has come for me to say for the benefit of all
ὑφ̓ ὧν ἐπείσθην ὅτι τῶν Γαλιλαίων ἡ σκευωρία πλάσμα ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπων ὑπὸ κακουργίας συντεθέν. ὑφ̓ (from) ὧν (what) ἐπείσθην (I was persuaded) ὅτι (that) τῶν (the) Γαλιλαίων (Galileans) ἡ (had) σκευωρία (very carefully) πλάσμα (a fraud) ἐστὶν (it is) ἀνθρώπων (of men) ὑπὸ (from) κακουργίας (wickedness) συντεθέν (fabricated). the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. how I discovered beyond any doubt that the stories of the Galileans are the inventions (σκευωρία) of deceivers and tricksters.
ἔχουσα μὲν οὐδὲν θεῖον, ἔχουσα (bearing) μὲν (on the one hand) οὐδὲν (nothing) θεῖον (divinely sanctioned), Though it has in it nothing divine,
ἀποχρησαμένη δὲ τῷ φιλομύθῳ καὶ παιδαριώδει καὶ ἀνοήτῳ τῆς ψυχῆς μορίῳ, ἀποχρησαμένη (to misuse) δὲ (on the other hand) τῷ (the) φιλομύθῳ (fondness for fables) καὶ (and) παιδαριώδει (childish) καὶ (and ) ἀνοήτῳ (unintelligent) τῆς (of the) ψυχῆς (soul) μορίῳ (portion), by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, by appealing to the part of the soul that loves what is simple and childish.
τὴν τερατολογίαν εἰς πίστιν ἤγαγεν ἀληθείας. τὴν (the ) τερατολογίαν (marvelous tale) εἰς (into) πίστιν (belief) ἤγαγεν (brings about) ἀληθείας (truth). it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth. [For these men seduce people into thinking that <their> gruesome story is the truth]

That term "monstrous tale" - which rubbed me the wrong way - is really "marvelous tale" with perhaps the meaning that it is *so* marvelous or bizarre that it is effectively unbelievable. Wright uses "monstrous," I think, to make it seem Julian was grossly exaggerating the Christians' belief system, but I think Julian had struck the nail square on the head. It *is* bizarre! The Christ story is a complex Rube Goldberg contraption to explain how God set out to save mankind from itself when He could have done so in a much simpler manner. Christian theology is quite convoluted and seemingly contradictory. That doesn't make it *wrong*, but it does make it as unlikely as a Rube Goldberg contraption actually working in real life.*

DCH

* The game "Mousetrap" notwithstanding.
Last edited by DCHindley on Mon May 21, 2018 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 7:40 am
DCHindley wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 7:12 am 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.
Since the ''Galileans'' are the same Judaizers fled from Jerusalem just conquered by the Romans in 70 CE. Some of them were ex-Zealots. Some of them identified the Christ with some obscure failed messianist of the past (John the Baptist?). So Julian had any reason to have suspects of sedition by them.

To receive as accusation by the Earliest Gentile Evangelist the (invented) accusation of having killed the same Christ, these Judaizers had to be real fanatic preachers.
We may be talking at cross purposes. I was replying to what arnoldo was saying about what Julian the apostate said about the Christ story/myth. That Julian calls Christians "Galileans" has nothing to do with historical reality, but merely a way to marginalize their founder as a back-country nobody, and may be a twist on John 1:46 "can anything good come out of Galilee?"

Your reconstruction, for its part, is just as "marvelous" as the Christian one, and consequently just as unlikely. Julian distrusts the motives of the Christians for constructing their Christ myth, as if it sniffed of "hatred for mankind" or something, although I think you are just enamored with myth making and not trying to deceive anyone (well, except yourself).

DCH
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

Post by Blood »

The whole point of the New Testament is that salvation has come to the Gentiles because "the Jews killed Lord Jesus." During Passover.

I'm not sure why any Jew would care if salvation came to the Gentiles for any reason, but for the reason to be that they -- collectively -- killed the Son of God is simply beyond the pale. A black Klansman would be more historically plausible.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
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 »

DCHindley wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 5:50 pm

We may be talking at cross purposes. I was replying to what arnoldo was saying about what Julian the apostate said about the Christ story/myth. That Julian calls Christians "Galileans" has nothing to do with historical reality, but merely a way to marginalize their founder as a back-country nobody, and may be a twist on John 1:46 "can anything good come out of Galilee?"
No, the Galileans were another name for the Zealots or Zealot-like people. So there was a nucleus of truth behind the Julian's claim, even if it was not what precisely Julian meant (that a Galilean Jew - or even a Zealot - euhemerized Jesus Christ). After the 70 the more aggressive and fanatic preachers of the Christ were the Judaizers (the ebionites) and some of them were ex-Zealots who joined the Christ myth only after the 70 and contributed to the post-70 ''re-Judaizing'' of the movement I talk about above.


Your reconstruction, for its part, is just as "marvelous" as the Christian one, and consequently just as unlikely. Julian distrusts the motives of the Christians for constructing their Christ myth, as if it sniffed of "hatred for mankind" or something,
Insofar the Zealot-like Galileans were survivors from their seditious past, they sniffed of ''hatred for mankind'' in the eyes of Julian (and partially and embrionally in the eyes of Paul insofar Paul called them ''false brothers''). But the idea that the Jews killed Jesus was born in the mind of a Gentile Christian just against these
fanatic Judaizers.
although I think you are just enamored with myth making and not trying to deceive anyone (well, except yourself).
I also see you as highly enamored of the possibility of a historical Jesus.
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 »

Evidence of ex-Zealots identifying Jesus with their leaders is in Mark 13:21 , obviously. These people gave really a very bad image to Christians.

And if Pliny persecuted them despite their pacifism, it is because the riotous Chrestiani burned Rome.
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. »

There is no evidence that Christians or Chrestians burned down Rome. That's a medieval legend. Indeed, there's no evidence that such a group fitting the description of later Christians existed in the first century.

What Pliny describes may be correctly identified as a Phrygian Jewish community (this was in Pontus, the supposed birthplace of Marcion, after all) that had zero affiliation with the zealots or the a Galilean community far to the south. The Naassenes are a good primar for this group.
Post Reply