I Will Have a Chapter in a New Mythicism Book

[MrMacSon]

The end of Galatians 2 covers it -

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
.

Then there's more in Galatians 3 (gaslighting, then [more] bait & switch) -

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? ... 2 ... Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? [sarx: the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit]

4 Have you experienced/ suffered so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[Gen. 15:6]

7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” [Deut. 27:26] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” [Hab. 2:4] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” [Lev. 18:5]

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” [Deut. 21:23]

14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

And so on https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
.

[Secret Alias]

Just to look at that passage in Mark again. If you look at the Marcionite treatment of the passage (as filtered through Irenaeus/Tertullian):

Jesus is touched by the woman who had an issue of blood, He knew not by whom. "Who touched me?" He asks, when His disciples alleged an excuse. He even persists in His assertion of ignorance: "Somebody hath touched me," He says, and advances some proof: "For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." What says our heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her fear. Precisely as He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance: Adam, where art thou? " Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to the Creator. [9] But in this case He acted as an adversary of the law; and therefore, as the law forbids contact with a woman with an issue, He desired not only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her. ... But will you have it that this faith of the woman consisted in the contempt which she had acquired for the law? Who can suppose, that a woman who had been. hitherto unconscious of any God, uninitiated as yet in any new law, should violently infringe that law by which she was up to this time bound? On what faith, indeed, was such an infringement hazarded? In what God believing? Whom despising? The Creator? Her touch at least was an act of faith. And if of faith in the Creator, how could she have violated His law, when she was ignorant of any other God? Whatever her infringement of the law amounted to, it proceeded from and was proportionate to her faith in the Creator. [11] But how can these two things be compatible? That she violated the law, and violated it in faith, which ought to have restrained her from such violation? I will tell you how her faith was this above all: it made her believe that her God preferred mercy even to sacrifice; she was certain that her God was working in Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all possibility of pollution by any uncleanness. [12] She therefore, not without reason, interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew for certain to be in Christ ... she knew that the succour of God's mercy was needed, and not the natural relief of time. [13] And thus she may evidently be regarded as having discerned768 the law, instead of breaking it. This will prove to be the faith which was to confer intelligence likewise. "If ye will not believe," says (the prophet), "ye shall not understand."

I know the reaction to the exegesis of this 'anecdote' will be a wry smile. "Oh those Church Fathers Always reading 'theology' into historical anecdotes!' But what is the 'historical kernel' here? A woman reached out and touched Jesus. Why so? How much do we have to cut out of the narrative before it becomes 'historical'?

What are we left with? Jesus being molested by a fan? That's the historical nugget which passed on from Peter. And then someone came along - Mark - who added the bit about her wanting to heal her menstrual cramps! Like Jesus is a giant box of Midol:



Maybe Peter was writing a precursor to the modern commercial:

Mary reaches out to grab Jesus

'Can't you do something about this pain?'

The whole point of the story is clearly traced back to Gospel of the Egyptians. the Gospel of Judas Thomas, the Clementine Literature where the Creator's curse on Eve is referenced. The Savior healing the Creation. But the narrative doesn't work without the main protagonist being God. He's not a fucking pharmacist.

[Charles Wilson]

But what is the 'historical kernel' here? A woman reached out and touched Jesus. Why so? How much do we have to cut out of the narrative before it becomes 'historical'?

C'mon, Stephan!

You know this one. She had a period for 12 years. Jairus' Daughter is 12 years old.
The disciples complain: "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, `Who touched me?'"

...AND IT'S THE GARMENTS that carry the Story - The Priesthood.
You have to strip away a "Jesus" character to get to the History. That's all.

The Nation - Mother Judea - has been Unclean for 12 years.
Only the Priesthood can cleanse the Woman.

Rewrite the Story as the story of a savior/god, however, and you get into all kinds of trouble.

Jesus would have made a good Pharmacist. At least he would have had a job.

[MrMacSon]

The Savior healing the Creation ... he main protagonist being God.

Yep.

They were seeking to both use Judaism, especially it's Creation myths, and to sideline the main tenets -

....If you look at the Marcionite treatment of the passage (as filtered through Irenaeus/Tertullian):

... in this case He acted as an adversary of the law

... if of faith in the Creator, how could she have violated His law, when she was ignorant of any other God? ... her infringement of the law...proceeded from and was proportionate to her faith in the Creator.

... she was certain that her God was working in Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all possibility of pollution by any uncleanness ...

Also: "He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance: Adam, where art thou?"

--------------------------------------------------------------

The whole point of the story is clearly traced back to Gospel of the Egyptians. the Gospel of Judas Thomas, the Clementine Literature where the Creator's curse on Eve is referenced.

An interesting proposition.

[Secret Alias]

But what I am getting at is that after YEARS of reading texts like Against Marcion it starts to sink in. The first time you read it you have a very specific function. All the scholars who study Marcion have the interest. Stuart has the same interest. There are like 100 or 200 people in every generation who scour through Tertullian and read Book 4 and 5. Yet they never get beyond that teleological purpose - viz. 'figure out Marcion' and his gospel. But you have to take it the next step. What is Against Marcion saying? What is Against Marcion NOT saying? The text never emphasizes Jesus is 'just' a man of flesh and blood. That would take down Marcion completely. If someone just read the gospel as a biography that's the ultimate anti-Marcionite position. But why not? Why not read the text that way? Because in the end that's not the way the text was written.

When Papias says that Peter spoke in anecdotes about the main protagonist the ancients didn't interpret this the way we did - i.e. that there was 'ordinary' history beneath the events being described. I think 'ordinary' is a better battleground to wage war against the historicists. I think the gospel thought that what it was describing 'happened.' All this stuff 'took place' on some level. But what 'happened' was envisioned as something which transcended ordinary reality. You know what I mean? It was historical but not ordinary. Modern scholars want to find 'ordinary' reality beneath the gospel. This is a step too far. It was akin to a musical number breaking out in first century Judea with costumes, set designs, music, dance numbers. A regular Bollywood production. Not literally but figuratively. God was speaking through poetry, symbolism, allegory. The look for something 'ordinary' beneath the anecdotes is a mistake.

[Secret Alias]

Tertullian is saying that the guy with the nomen sacrum was a God. He came through a virgin birth not a heavenly descent. But a god nevertheless and specifically the God who 'starred' in the Pentateuch. He interacts with humanity as that figure. Tertullian says that's the way to interpret the gospel. But the stories only make sense if you understand him to be a god and specifically THAT god. I am not sure that Marcion would necessarily disagree. Did Jews believe the anthropomorphic divinity at the start of Genesis was the ONLY god in the Pentateuch. No. There are two divine names. Why is that God a stranger? Well clearly the orthodox Jews and Christians of the late second century thought there was only one God. Is it possible that this was the lost 'other' god that Jews of a previous age forgot or denied? i don't know but it is possible.

[Secret Alias]

Even the opening words of Mark - that passage that is now a jumbled mix of a few passages - go back to:

I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.

if this is the text being activated or precisely:

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ὅπως εἰσαγάγῃ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ἡτοίμασά σοι

The 'angel' can only be seen as 'Jesus' or John. The actual material in Exodus 23:20 is unmistakably about a supernatural being. Marqe the Samaritan has the angelic Glory declare:

Let us now be in awe at the speech presented by the ANGELS, also by the GLORY. The GLORY said 'The great name is within me and I do not shun him who is rebellious in action. When a man deviates, I forfeit him, and thus it is said of me 'For he will not pardon your transgression for my name is in him" (Ex. 23.21) The ANGELS also were saying, 'O congregation, hold fast to your Lord and serve in faith, for in our hands is salvation, in our hands destruction, in our hands relief, in our hands weariness, in our hands killing, in our hands love. All this in our hands! Keep guard of yourself and learn the Way of the True One. You need not enquire what we have done from Adam to Noah, with Abraham and Lot, with Isaac and the people of Sodom, with Jacob and Joseph and the great prophet Moses in all that he did.

We were with Adam; we magnified his original status. With Noah we appeared and we honoured him. With Abraham we were when he proclaimed. So with Isaac in his being increased in goodness and we met Joseph too in a group. We were sent only to those good, perfect ones. You need not enquire about the deed of Lot and the people of Sodom, for they appear (in Scripture) before you. If you seek knowledge of what they possess come to Jacob. On the ladder of his dream we were ascending and descending and the Glory was standing above it. A great Blessing was proclaimed (Gen 28.13 ff). In his sojourn with Laban and the meeting with Esau we advised him, and the Glory magnified him and blessed him in the Yabbok and at Luz, and announced to him the coming in and the going out and all this was perfection to him and to his descendants after him, generation after generation.

If you maintain that high status, you will prosper in both world but if you deviate from the way of the True One, then what happened to the people of Sodom will happen to you. Thus the True One wrote " An overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah" (Deut 29.23 Targ). We shall come and bring it about and we shall not appear before exceedingly great judgment is wrought - a judgment with no lack!" [Mimar Marqe 3.5]

It can't be coincidence that the main protagonist in the gospel is identified at the beginning of Mark with the angel called 'the Glory' by Marqe and Paul. It is similarly to be observed that the list of 'theophanies' here are identical with the 'ish' theophanies in the Hebrew Pentateuch and more importantly with OT passages Church Fathers identify 'Jesus' as being present at.

[Giuseppe]

... she was certain that her God was working in Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all possibility of pollution by any uncleanness ...

Zechariah 8:23

This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In those [messianic] days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’

”
kraspedon (Luke 8:44]

Now if the girl is allegory of Israel, then the reversal happens. The God who is "with Jesus" is with the Gentiles.

[Secret Alias]

כנף also means 'wing' i.e.