Was the Primal Man identified before with Joseph and not with Joshua?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Was the Primal Man identified before with Joseph and not with Joshua?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:33 am

I see again and again in the Gospel that when the ''Christ'' - in the real History - is identified falsely with mr. X, then the evangelist invents an episode entirely ad hoc to exorcise the only idea that Jesus was mr. X.

The more famous case is surely the famous cry ''eloi eloi lema sabacatani'', designed to explain (to the stupid hoi polloi) that Jesus was not invoking Elijiah, and so the Spirit who abandoned him on the Cross was not the same spirit who possessed John the Baptist. In other words, that the Christ was not John the Baptist.

So I think that the introduction of Joseph of Arimathea serves precisely the same pattern: someone was identifying the Christ (or the Primal Man) with the Patriarch Joseph, so that someone had to be silenced astutely. It was not Christ who was ''buried'' in [=who possessed] the Patriarch Joseph, but viceversa: the patriarch Joseph 'buried'/'possessed' temporarily the presumed Christ.

Et voilà: the invented ''Joseph of Arimathea'' was the literal ''owner' of the body of the presumed Christ, even if only for a short time. The message addressed against who identified the Christ as ''embodied'' in Joseph, was therefore the following: please, don't enumerate Jesus among the evildoers.


And for who in this forum is not able to derive the correct evidence from Hippolytus (and does so only because of a mere contempt of the Gnostics), here is the evidence:

This, he says, is he who appeared in the last days, in form of a man, in the times of Herod, being born after the likeness of Joseph, who was sold by the hand of his brethren, to whom alone belonged the coat of many colours.

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Was the Primal Man identified before with Joseph and not with Joshua?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:01 am

This proves that our Earliest Gospel - proto-Mark - was written in a period when Christ or the Primal Man was already identified with ''one of the prophets'', with Adam or with ''one of the patriarchs''. Clearly, it is not correct to talk of euhemerization since these people were not-historical.

But when someone (probably a Judaizer) started to identify the Christ with John the Baptist - not a mythical person, but a real person, and lived even in the recent past - then there was by need the more strong impulse, in absolute terms, to euhemerize Jesus.

And Celsus is able to say us when this identification of the Christ with John probably happened:

And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce, it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

So in the Gospel read by Celsus, ''the punishment of John'' - the only possible testimony of the dove/Holy Spirit - was connected more strictly than in the our Gospels ''with that of Christ''. This is also the precise reason why in Mark John is made not a testimony of the dove/Holy Spirit.

This means that proto-Mark was written very late in the second century CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply