The Earliest Gospel was not written by a Jew

[Ben C. Smith]

The negative portrait of the 12 Jewish apostles is something that only a gentile Christian could invent. For ''not Jew'' you can mean ''not more Jew'' or ''gentile''. There was no reason, for a Jewish Christian, to blame the Pillars.

Why? This is, again, just an assertion. What's the reasoning? The AT is full of Jews that get the blame for fundamental calamities. If we go with the usual dating that the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem, we have a big calamity to work on, and someone has to be blamed for it. As the Jewish people got the punishment, it's natural, especially for a Jew, to blame the Jews themselves, for the sole reason that they assumed their god was just. For gentiles, all of this doesn't really matter one way or the other.

Exactly. The Hebrew prophets were constantly blaming recent calamities on the people in general. It really was an extremely "Jewish" thing to do.

[Secret Alias]

But there is a surprising under-current of anti-Semitism that runs through mythicism. Not all mythicists of course. But it is noticeable in Giuseppe's thought. He almost treats 'the god of the Jews' as a real being, a kind of 'king' of the Jews who represent 'one side' of a historical formulation with the pagans of Europe on the other. It's all childish and simple but 'the Jews' are always presented in anti-Semitic literature as united and plotting against the Gentiles. The Gentiles and Jews in Giuseppe's mind have two different gods (hence the attraction to Marcion) and at least he envisions a proto-Christianity which had such a Lord - if only to demonize the Jews as evil or bad actors in this cosmic history. The details are not important to Giuseppe. His efforts at this forum are to arrange the material to suit this almost Manichaean view of history with the Jews and their god acting to subvert European culture and hegemony. Like many mythicists Giuseppe's interest in Christianity is not to understand its development but frame or reframe its rise as part of a plot of Jews to subvert European sovereignty. It is I believe a symptom of the new nationalism in Italy and Europe generally.

[Giuseppe]

An apology is needed:

1) I am indebted in this view about the Gnosticism only by

A) the Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, who recognized that ''Gnosticism presents a fully-developed antisemitic myth, in which the Jews are given an evil role not in a limited way, but in the central history of the cosmos'' (Paul and Hellenism, p. 1).

B) the views of the mythicists of the past, particularly L. G. Rylands, who argued for the Gnostic origin of the Earliest Gospel (post-70 Gospel is meant here). In particular, I have always found the following propositions by Ben:

The Hebrew prophets were constantly blaming recent calamities on the people in general

...in defense of a Jewish-Christian portrait of the Pillars (not of ''the Jews'' in general, but of the Pillars) in the Earliest Gospel as a mere apology. To say that the Pillars themselves were blind etc is a more ''anti-semitic'' thing to say then to say that ''the Jews are deicide'' et similia, I think. Because it is equivalent to say that Jesus couldn't have ''true'' Jewish disciples.


2) I have voted a pro-EU party in the last elections (even if not the same Matteo Renzi). I can't accept the pro-Russian sympathy of the our populists.

[Ben C. Smith]

In particular, I have always found the following propositions by Ben:

The Hebrew prophets were constantly blaming recent calamities on the people in general

...in defense of a Jewish-Christian portrait of the Pillars (not of ''the Jews'' in general, but of the Pillars) in the Earliest Gospel as a mere apology. To say that the Pillars themselves were blind etc is a more ''anti-semitic'' thing to say then to say that ''the Jews are deicide'' et similia, I think. Because it is equivalent to say that Jesus couldn't have ''true'' Jewish disciples.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

[Secret Alias]

I have voted a pro-EU party in the last elections (even if not the same Matteo Renzi). I can't accept the pro-Russian sympathy of the our populists.

Be that as it may your description of the 'god of the Jews' doesn't take into account that this figure is wholly fictitious and appeared in different ways to different people and groups. You speak of 'the Jews' and the 'god of the Jews' as if they were some monolithic block when in reality there were two gods of the Jews in the period, an old man and a young man (for lack of a better description) who later appear as 'the Father' and 'the Son' of early Christianity. The 'gnostics' (a term I hate because it has developed from Irenaeus in its modern sense) were so called because they came into acquaintance with one of these gods after the manner of Moses who is the original 'gnostic.' You can't understand these things as long as your terminology is rooted in gross errors and misunderstanding. Moses is the original gnostic, thus 'gnosticism' is necessarily a development from Judaism.

[Giuseppe]

In particular, I have always found the following propositions by Ben:

The Hebrew prophets were constantly blaming recent calamities on the people in general

...in defense of a Jewish-Christian portrait of the Pillars (not of ''the Jews'' in general, but of the Pillars) in the Earliest Gospel as a mere apology. To say that the Pillars themselves were blind etc is a more ''anti-semitic'' thing to say then to say that ''the Jews are deicide'' et similia, I think. Because it is equivalent to say that Jesus couldn't have ''true'' Jewish disciples.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that the idea that the Pillars are bad disciples of Jesus (as they are portrayed in Mark, for example) is an idea even more 'anti-Judaic' then the idea that ''the Jews'' en masse killed Jesus. The latter idea may be conceived without problems by a Jewish Christian like ''Matthew'', for example. What even a ''Matthew''' couldn't conceive is the idea that Jewish disciples of Jesus are doomed to fail only as jews.

Because basically that idea says that single individual people cannot be true good followers of Jesus insofar they are Jewish followers.

[Ben C. Smith]

In particular, I have always found the following propositions by Ben:

The Hebrew prophets were constantly blaming recent calamities on the people in general

...in defense of a Jewish-Christian portrait of the Pillars (not of ''the Jews'' in general, but of the Pillars) in the Earliest Gospel as a mere apology. To say that the Pillars themselves were blind etc is a more ''anti-semitic'' thing to say then to say that ''the Jews are deicide'' et similia, I think. Because it is equivalent to say that Jesus couldn't have ''true'' Jewish disciples.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that the idea that the Pillars are bad disciples of Jesus (as they are portrayed in Mark, for example) is an idea even more 'anti-Judaic' then the idea that ''the Jews'' en masse killed Jesus.

That makes no sense. (Furthermore, it has literally no impact on my comment, which stands no matter what Mark thought of the Pillars.)

You have added layer upon unnecessary layer of assumption and presupposition in order to arrive at such a non sequitur. You are on your own here.

[Giuseppe]

I am saying that the idea (in Mark) that the disciples of Jesus are ''programmed'' to fail only because they are Jewish Christians is surely an idea that can be germinated in the mind of a Gentile Christian, and not - absolutely not - of a Jewish Christian, since the latter would have always allowed that, if not all the entire Jewish people (see Matthew), at least a few of Jews (viz, Peter in primis) would be able to recognize the Christ.

So I don't follow your criticism. I have made the my case.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am saying that the idea (in Mark) that the disciples of Jesus are ''programmed'' to fail only because they are Jewish Christians is surely an idea that can be germinated in the mind of a Gentile Christian, and not - absolutely not - of a Jewish Christian, since the latter would have always allowed that, if not all the entire Jewish people (see Matthew), at least a few of Jews (viz, Peter in primis) would be able to recognize the Christ.

So I don't follow your criticism. I have made the my case.

Nonsense. My comment was that Hebrew prophets regularly chastised the entire Jewish/Israelite people after national disasters. Not one syllable of what you have written impacts that statement.

Moreover, I do not agree with any of the premises of what you are describing above: for example, that Mark excoriates the disciples because they are Jewish bears no relation to my own judgment on the issue.

[Ulan]

In particular, I have always found the following propositions by Ben:

The Hebrew prophets were constantly blaming recent calamities on the people in general

...in defense of a Jewish-Christian portrait of the Pillars (not of ''the Jews'' in general, but of the Pillars) in the Earliest Gospel as a mere apology. To say that the Pillars themselves were blind etc is a more ''anti-semitic'' thing to say then to say that ''the Jews are deicide'' et similia, I think. Because it is equivalent to say that Jesus couldn't have ''true'' Jewish disciples.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that the idea that the Pillars are bad disciples of Jesus (as they are portrayed in Mark, for example) is an idea even more 'anti-Judaic' then the idea that ''the Jews'' en masse killed Jesus. The latter idea may be conceived without problems by a Jewish Christian like ''Matthew'', for example. What even a ''Matthew''' couldn't conceive is the idea that Jewish disciples of Jesus are doomed to fail only as jews.

Because basically that idea says that single individual people cannot be true good followers of Jesus insofar they are Jewish followers.

I give you that, in the synoptic gospels, random gentile strangers are often painted in a better light than the immediate circle around Christ. However, while they fail in the beginning, they take up their difficult task in the end. It's a story of human failure and redemption. I think you should look at both themes together (the disciples and the "Jewish people" during the trial) in the context when this text was written.

My remark from further above seemed to have been missed, probably because I was rather short, as it seemed obvious to me. You look at the verses in Matthew with modern sensibilities, judged from a modern context. You can blame Matthew for writing these verses without considering how they would look to someone who lived a hundred years later than himself and who was not aware of the context when the text was written. In times when the Jewish Wars were mostly out of the reader's mind, the reader only sees the context of when the story line of this tale plays, and then - and only then - the verses may give rise to anti-Jewish thoughts. However, it's generally assumed that the gospels were written in the aftermath of the (first) Jewish War, with the city that provides the stage for this scene destroyed, the temple of God gone and - the most important point - most of the people from that city dead. When these people in the scene say the words “His blood be on us and on our children!”, Matthew writes this from the point of view of someone who has seen that those people and their children have paid the ultimate price: their utter and complete destruction. They have already paid for their sins. Their deed has been atoned for. An observation like this makes particularly sense for a Jew who wants to make sense of why God has forsaken his people in such a drastic manner.

Similarly, the disciples in Matthew are rehabilitated. Of course, the story may have been rewritten. However, that's a rabbit hole I don't want to go into, as this concerns all parts of the text.