Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:11 am

to Giuseppe,
You can send me the book as attachment at mullerb@shaw.ca

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8330
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:42 am

Done.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Nov 15, 2020 1:33 pm

to Giuseppe,
Thank you. You must have spent a lot of time in order to get the image for each page. When I said 'digitalized' I was thinking about some HTML, or PDF files or equivalent.
However, I found these images rather impossible to put together in order to read the book.
But your translation on 2 key passages of the book is enough to give me an idea of the way that Guillet was thinking. And that's enough.
Yet, I cannot use him, a socialist career politician, on what look to be biased opinions, even if I would agree with many things he wrote.

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8330
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:55 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Nov 15, 2020 1:33 pm
Yet, I cannot use him, a socialist career politician, on what look to be biased opinions
no problem for the rest, but this point raises partially my curiosity: what do the political views of X imply on your judgement of X's view on Christian origins ? Only curious (politics doesn't matter for me).

davidmartin
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by davidmartin » Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:36 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:28 pm
davidmartin wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:13 pm
The most logical thing i can think of is that there was an early tradition of women doing stuff and playing key roles
what we see then, is the end result of this being toned down and put in other contexts, for example Mary simply passes a message on whereas before she may have been an evangelist (a bit like Thekla)
In the abstract, as a possible reconstruction, that makes perfect sense, and I think something similar to this happened, for instance, in Pauline churches. Women had some power in the early charismatic context and were later put (back) in their place.

In the concrete, however, I have found it not to be very likely in the case of the empty tomb. Saying nothing to anyone is not playing a role: it is refusing to play a role, and the cover story explanation makes perfect sense of that refusal. So, in other words, while I have zero difficulty imagining that at least some of the women named in the Marcan burial and resurrection account were actually early and influential leaders in the movement, the Marcan burial and resurrection account itself is not evidence of that; the women come off, rather, as the reason why the story was new to its readers.
that makes sense to me Ben and thankyou, it's almost a separate question on women's role and resurrection accounts as we got them
i'm working on a hypothesis that it was Paul's gospel that was the motivation behind the empty tomb narrative (and also the last supper communion).
Such gospels then become acceptable in churches based on Paul's theology. But the gospels were coming in from outside originally or at least the gospels themselves or their sources for the empty tomb came in from outside
This would introduce certain possibilities:
1. Some lessor differences in theology or facts (first witness Peter vs Mary) might sneak in even if different to Paul's gospel
2. Greater differences in theology could be hinted at by wrapping things up in allegory or some other pattern intentionally

The difference in Mary's role between Mark and John (where a thinly disguised Mary at the well goes off preaching) is early church politics maybe over something they thought was historical, and i struggle to see as purely a literary invention even if it was partially that.
This would lead to a basic historical reconstruction of original missionary activity associated with Mary, that later got embedded in the gospel story. If that were the case then this is different from the Acts account where the base is Peter instead, so Bernard thinks Peter was the original just like Acts yet the gospels say it was Mary if you go back far enough and had that original conviction the messiah had arrived

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:56 am

davidmartin wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:36 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:28 pm
davidmartin wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:13 pm
The most logical thing i can think of is that there was an early tradition of women doing stuff and playing key roles
what we see then, is the end result of this being toned down and put in other contexts, for example Mary simply passes a message on whereas before she may have been an evangelist (a bit like Thekla)
In the abstract, as a possible reconstruction, that makes perfect sense, and I think something similar to this happened, for instance, in Pauline churches. Women had some power in the early charismatic context and were later put (back) in their place.

In the concrete, however, I have found it not to be very likely in the case of the empty tomb. Saying nothing to anyone is not playing a role: it is refusing to play a role, and the cover story explanation makes perfect sense of that refusal. So, in other words, while I have zero difficulty imagining that at least some of the women named in the Marcan burial and resurrection account were actually early and influential leaders in the movement, the Marcan burial and resurrection account itself is not evidence of that; the women come off, rather, as the reason why the story was new to its readers.
that makes sense to me Ben and thankyou, it's almost a separate question on women's role and resurrection accounts as we got them
i'm working on a hypothesis that it was Paul's gospel that was the motivation behind the empty tomb narrative (and also the last supper communion).
Such gospels then become acceptable in churches based on Paul's theology. But the gospels were coming in from outside originally or at least the gospels themselves or their sources for the empty tomb came in from outside
This would introduce certain possibilities:
1. Some lessor differences in theology or facts (first witness Peter vs Mary) might sneak in even if different to Paul's gospel
2. Greater differences in theology could be hinted at by wrapping things up in allegory or some other pattern intentionally

The difference in Mary's role between Mark and John (where a thinly disguised Mary at the well goes off preaching) is early church politics maybe over something they thought was historical, and i struggle to see as purely a literary invention even if it was partially that.
This would lead to a basic historical reconstruction of original missionary activity associated with Mary, that later got embedded in the gospel story. If that were the case then this is different from the Acts account where the base is Peter instead, so Bernard thinks Peter was the original just like Acts yet the gospels say it was Mary if you go back far enough and had that original conviction the messiah had arrived
Mark 15 presents a neat ending already if you ask me, finishing with the wrapping up of Jesus, and ending with the two leading names of the movement:
and Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he is laid.
Case closed, story told

And then the mini chapter gets added, which then also needs to explain why the new news is news.
And then much much later it is turned into a decent chapter with a very clear and unambiguous resurrection, dummies version, etc

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am

davidmartin wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:36 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:28 pm
davidmartin wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:13 pm
The most logical thing i can think of is that there was an early tradition of women doing stuff and playing key roles
what we see then, is the end result of this being toned down and put in other contexts, for example Mary simply passes a message on whereas before she may have been an evangelist (a bit like Thekla)
In the abstract, as a possible reconstruction, that makes perfect sense, and I think something similar to this happened, for instance, in Pauline churches. Women had some power in the early charismatic context and were later put (back) in their place.

In the concrete, however, I have found it not to be very likely in the case of the empty tomb. Saying nothing to anyone is not playing a role: it is refusing to play a role, and the cover story explanation makes perfect sense of that refusal. So, in other words, while I have zero difficulty imagining that at least some of the women named in the Marcan burial and resurrection account were actually early and influential leaders in the movement, the Marcan burial and resurrection account itself is not evidence of that; the women come off, rather, as the reason why the story was new to its readers.
that makes sense to me Ben and thankyou, it's almost a separate question on women's role and resurrection accounts as we got them
i'm working on a hypothesis that it was Paul's gospel that was the motivation behind the empty tomb narrative (and also the last supper communion).
This is what I am seeing between Mark and Paul:

1 Corinthians 15.3-11: 3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that [A] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that [B] He was buried, and that [C] He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Mark 15.40-16.8:

[A] 40 Now there were also some women watching from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. 41 When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and serve Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

[B] 42 When evening had already come, since it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself also waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Now Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. 45 And after learning this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb which had been cut out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were watching to see where He was laid.

[C] 16.1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 And, very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb for us?” 4 And looking up, they notice that the stone had been rolled away; for it was extremely large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 But he says to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Each of the three steps which Paul names before the appearances (death, burial, resurrection) the women watch or see. Notice that these women have not once appeared in the gospel up to this point, but their presence during the ministry is backwritten in with that sentence I highlighted in pink. Martijn's instinct that there was a gospel layer ending in chapter 15 is correct, I think, but I believe his cutoff point is incorrect. The women are a unit, and they are there to explain (as mentioned before) why everybody in Christendom (to abuse a term) had heard about the appearances to the apostles but nobody had heard about an empty tomb (the women had kept silent); in the same vein, they explain why the apostolic preaching included bare assertions about the death, the burial, and the resurrection without providing the same kind of witness testimony it had provided for the appearances; at some point in the ancient apologetics game "according to the scriptures" just did not cut it anymore. Also, mere appearances are susceptible to alternate explanations from skeptics (a bit of undigested beef, as Dickens might suggest, or a misunderstood dream, or what have you).

So my best estimate of where an original narrative may have ended is Mark 15.38-39 or thereabouts, making Jesus a martyr exalted after death and explaining why some seemingly very early Christian statements seem to skip the resurrection and go straight from death to exaltation (the Jesus hymn in Philippians, for example). There may have been an early story line to the effect that he was taken up from the cross. Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.

lsayre
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by lsayre » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am
Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.
Might that be intended as a contrived means whereby to bring a budding movement with potential negative ramifications for Rome to a close? To "nip it in the bud" by "burying it", so to speak?

I.E., was Mark's intent in writing what eventually became a 'Gospel' to begin or to end a budding religious movement?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:27 am

lsayre wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am
Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.
Might that be intended as a contrived means whereby to bring a budding movement with potential negative ramifications for Rome to a close? To "nip it in the bud" by "burying it", so to speak?

I.E., was Mark's intent in writing what eventually became a 'Gospel' to begin or to end a budding religious movement?
Maybe. Flesh that out for me, if you would.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:59 am

lsayre wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am
Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.
Might that be intended as a contrived means whereby to bring a budding movement with potential negative ramifications for Rome to a close? To "nip it in the bud" by "burying it", so to speak?

I.E., was Mark's intent in writing what eventually became a 'Gospel' to begin or to end a budding religious movement?
My entire theory is based on the fact that "Jesus" was the fictitious character of Thomas, IS, and that Mark wrote his Gospel in order to make his words cease: he brought him to life so he could kill him

I recently encountered the "Paul being prior"-angle here and I like it, but it poses issues for my theory. Which is perfectly alright of course, theories can be off or even wrong. And I still don't like the fact that his Christology is so terribly advanced compared to that of Mark cs

But Mark writes in order to kill Jesus. He puts John B on stage only to kill him so the Elijah in him can transfigure next to Jesus. Once you bring people to life on paper, they're yours alone - and whatever you do to them becomes a legacy for those who come after, simple as that

[Edited]

Mark created Christianity by bringing Jesus to life. Whether that was his intention is another story; he appears to be remarkably literate, very literate even, and although we shouldn't confuse intelligence with brightness, I can't imagine that his blundering with all foods declared clean was unintentional
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply