He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:07 pm

So Adamczewski on the fourth gospel:

The resulting character of the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ (Jn 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2; 21:7.20-24; cf. also 11:5.36) functions in the Fourth Gospel as a narrative embodiment of several generations of the Pauline Church
and, accordingly, of several stages of the Pauline and post-Pauline literary tradition: (a) Paul, (b) Paul’s Gentile co-workers, (c) the narrative ‘we’ of Acts, and (d) the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel.4
Consequently, the Fourth Gospel suggests to its readers that they have reliable access to Jesus, which is mediated in a narrative form by his Church, in line with the post-Pauline understanding of the Christian tradition: Jesus → Paul → Paul’s Gentile co-workers → the narrative ‘we’ of Acts → the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel → the readers of the Fourth Gospel.5
The author of the Fourth Evangelist creatively used in his work several other early Christian works: all three Synoptic Gospels (Mk, Lk, and Mt); the Acts of the Apostles; Pauline and post-Pauline letters (esp. 1 Thes, 1 Cor, 2 Cor,
Rom, Gal, Phlp, and Col); and ethopoeic, apparently Jewish Christian writings (1-2 Pet, 1-3 Jn, and Rev). Besides, he used in his work Jewish sacred Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, as well as Josephus’ works (Bellum, Antiquita￾tes, and Vita).6
The use of at least seventeen other early Christian works in the Fourth Gospel implies that the Fourth Gospel should be regarded as the work that crowned and at the same time closed the entire collection of the Pauline and
post-Pauline writings.7
The conclusion of the Fourth Gospel suggests that such was indeed the intention of its author. According to the last sentence of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21:25), its readers should not look for yet other narrative works about Jesus (cf. earlier Lk 1:1-4).
Consequently, the Fourth Gospel intentionally summarizes the contents of all earlier Pauline and post-Pauline writings, which dealt in various ways with the person of Jesus. At that time of its composition, the Gospel of the narrative ‘we’ could be regarded as the Christian Gospel and consequently as the work that crowned and at the same time closed the canon of the New Testament writing

(extracted from Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings)

He concedes the point that in John the "memory" (of Markan fabrication, per Adamczewski) of a Paul masked as "Jesus" survives in the fact that the disciples of Jesus are the same Christians who met and/or followed Paul. Hence a gospel is merely the story of what Paul would do if he could come again on this earth masked as "Jesus". He would find the same people who he had met in the his previous life as Paul. He would save only these people who had followed him in the previous life. In this particular sense, he would come to who was his own people, despite of them rejecting him (in the fiction).

But the my point here is to raise a suspicion about the real origin of this exegesis.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by klewis » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:08 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:45 am
klewis wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:37 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:20 am
I am sorry klevis but you seem to be a Christian apologist, here. I would like not use this forum to polemize with Christian apologists (idem with modern judaizers).

I continue my own analysis, therefore.
How did you come up with that. What is the basis of your conclusion. Is it based upon that I disagree with you?
The expression "Learn from it, so that it does not go from you to something else" seems to be both a warning and a threat against my exegesis. My effort here is simply to represent by simple (possibly rational) words (in a foreign language) what I feel that I am finding...
I apologize, I should have made it more clear that the "Learn from it" was connected to the theme and message of the Gospel of John from my perspective and not directed towards you. It was and is never my intent to insult you or others.

klewis wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:12 am
Perhaps the title should be changed. The title suggests that the Gospel of John is a story derived from Paul and Galatians. Where Paul is Jesus and Galatians are the Jews. However, the struggle of a Christian against the Jews and later against the Gentiles would have been told many times and many different ways. Galatians and the Gospel of John are just two of them with a few points in common.

I think you are making way too many connections. The Gospel of John could be just a way of saying this is how the Gospel went from the Jew to the Christian. Learn from it, so that it does not go from you to something else.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:25 pm

A question may be: is Paul used by "Mark" as the alien masked as "Jesus" to eclipse the original alien masked as "Jesus" in a previous gospel?

Is that an operation made by "Mark" or by modern interpreters of GMark?

They want to have an alien behind "Jesus", but they don't like to have that alien, hence they appeal to Paul as the alien-not-so-alien disguided as "Jesus" in Mark.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:32 pm


...and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus himself

(Galatians 4:14)

Paul came to people who already adored him the first time as Jesus himself. But so also the Christ of proto-John: he came to who already adored him (=the Gnostics) only to be abandoned by them insofar they judaized.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by davidmartin » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:22 pm

No, this is Paul yanking your chain. He is just a guy wearing a Jesus costume just like the Easter Bunny is a man in a suit. He ain't Jesus
Why on earth would Gnostics get a hard-on for him? No compatibility. Why all this Judaizer talk? Of course they existed - everyone knows that, so what does that prove? Nothing!

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:00 am

My point is that Gal 4:14 is evidence that there was a diffuse belief about the deity Jesus doing usually a visit in the community x by talking via the apostles and prophets and hallucinated prople.

davidmartin, the point behind John 1:11 is that the deity was expected to come to "his own" people meaning not the "Jews", pace the intentions of the Judaizers, but the people who are already property of the deity: the marcionites (given the fact that the author of proto-John is a follower of Marcion of Sinope).

Now, how does this finding affect the fact that, per Dykstra, Adamczewski, Tarazi etc in Mark "Jesus" is only an allegory of Paul visiting the same people met by Paul in the his activity of apostle?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:16 am

The answer is simple. Mark believed really that the deity Jesus worked on earth exclusively via Paul.
He was obliged to paulinize his Jesus if he wanted to invent an earthly Jesus at table.

The people met by Jesus in Mark could be accordingly only the people met by Paul. The his Jesus couldn't meet different people, by construction.

John 1:11 corroborates independently just this point. That belief (that the deity visits only the his own people, not the people of other rival deities) was not a Markan copy-right. It was shared by all.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by davidmartin » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:28 am

Giuseppe I hope you take my posts with some humour, I'm pretty nuts
The answer is simple. Mark believed really that the deity Jesus worked on earth exclusively via Paul.
He was obliged to paulinize his Jesus if he wanted to invent an earthly Jesus at table.
But.. this is quite interesting. I find that plausible and the earlier Christianity not quite in tune with this development
One major influence in the gospels of Paul may be the communion of bread and wine symbolising blood and body.. I suspect the communion as recorded in Pauls writings was the source for what is in the gospels. The earlier communion was probably simpler and not based on quite the same theology

Giuseppe
Posts: 6624
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: He came to his own (=the Galatians), but his own did not receive him (=Paul)

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:37 am

davidmartin wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:28 am
But.. this is quite interesting.
it is not proposed by me. See for example :
Paul Tarazi, The Rise of Scripture, 2017, an Orthodox Bible scholar, explicitly teaches that all of the stories of Jesus and the Gospels were created by Paulinists for pedagogical purposes. Without any invocation of necessity of, or indication of belief that there was, an historical Jesus, Tarazi is extremely passionate and religious, a “sola scripture” Paulinist (as he exegetes Paul, whom he argues, somewhat idiosyncratically in my opinion but it is his argument, that Paul was anti-Roman empire). It is the only example of which I am aware of religious practice or commitment being based explicitly on the content or meaning or message of the stories of scripture, without any interest in or assumption that Jesus was historical. I know Father Paul Tarazi, have talked with him by Skype, and I gave a paper at an OCABS (Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies) symposium in St. Paul, Minnesota this past March. Tarazi is the teacher of Tom Dykstra, Nicolae Roddy, and others who have developed this school of scholarship. Would Tarazi be a counterexample to the quotation, since he continues lifelong active Syrian Orthodox and is an established scholar? Yet Tarazi has told me he regards notions of God, as well as assumptions concerning historical Jesuses or other biblical figures, as themselves idolatrous in terms of the true scriptural study and practice to which he is devoted. Tarazi has a vision of scripture as stories consciously written anciently to debunk empires and regnant philosophies, and he sees that as their power, still applicable today.

https://vridar.org/2019/09/22/review-pa ... ment-94913
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply