Matthew 27:25: a self-blaming lynch mob?

[Stephan Huller]

MrMcson or whatever your name is

You know I was thinking about you this morning. Like John T you've got to get out of the imaginary categories you make up in your head. Go back to the original source material and learn to separate your reconstruction of 'history' (and indeed a kind of neo-Hegelian 'purpose' behind all things). When the Marcionites had their canon there is no logical reason why 'the canon' as such needed to be expanded. As the apostle was deemed to be holy (and exclusively holy, paralleled indeed by the exclusive Samaritan devotion to Moses) there were no other books or writings that needed to be added to the canon.

You have to learn to see things from another perspective besides your own. You know 'get out of your skin' and imagine - what would a community that was exclusively devoted to a single Christian author. This is the starting point of real knowledge about antiquity.

What most people do - IMO because of a psychological need to reinforce their own ego - is to reinforce invented categories they made up for the sake of personal comfort. Real knowledge begins with actual 'things' that we can pick out of the surviving source material and the Marcionites are one of them. And most importantly we have to stop projecting our needs and comforts on that information.

So, for instance, you and many others at this forum want to move back the dating of the gospel to the second century. I am not interested in the arguments for or against the proposition right now. Instead I am trying to make you aware of the fact that YOU CAN'T FAIRLY EXAMINE THE INFORMATION ABOUT A REAL SECT IN ANTIQUITY LIKE THE MARCIONITES AND THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE GOSPEL WAS A FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY LITERARY CREATION. In order to fairly evaluate the evidence about this early sect you just have to focus on appreciating the historical phenomenon that is Marcionism for what is. That means SUSPENDING ALL THE FUCKING SELF-INVENTED PREJUDICES IN YOUR OWN HEAD.

A fair person does the same thing when he meets a new person. You can't give someone 'a fair shake' when you discover that this person is let's say Chinese by introducing all this self-invented made up shit (prejudices) about Chinese people ('Oh I bet he's a bad driver' 'Oh I bet he's whatever'). It doesn't help you get to know that particular person. You've got to learn to shut down that creative desire to make up shit when you are trying to get to know people or get to know things from antiquity.

[John T]

That will do Huller.

I have learned long ago the debate is over and won when your opponent resorts to invincible ignorance and ad hominem attacks.
I return you back to your gnostic friends.

Best wishes,

John T

[Stephan Huller]

In the future spend some time actually reading what the position of Jews are on a given subject before you make one up in your own imagination that happens to suit your theological POV. Just a tip.

[Stephan Huller]

In the event John T wants to walk away from this discussion with a better understanding of the actual Jewish understanding of the resurrection developed here is a discussion of one attempt to interpret the Pentateuch in order to justify the belief in the resurrection of the dead:

Very few people actually understand what the 'sign of Jonah' is and as it is absolutely connected with the figure of Eliezer, I thought it would be important to cite the material here. The passage in question occurs two chapters earlier and is widely understood to be one of the most explicit references to resurrection in the rabbinic literature. Yet let's first set up the narrative.

We begin with a childless Abraham lamenting that his servant Eliezer will be his only heir:

After this, Abram had a vision and heard the Lord say to him, Do not be afraid, Abram. I will shield you from danger and give you a great reward. But Abram answered, Sovereign Lord, what good will your reward do me, since I have no children? My only heir is Eliezer of Damascus. You have given me no children, and one of my slaves will inherit my property. [Genesis 15.1 - 4]

God first promises Abraham that "this man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir" and then he says "look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them ... so shall your offspring be.” Philo already identifies this as a promise to be translated into angelic beings.

What often fails to get noticed in many of these discussions is that Abraham goes on to ask God for a sign that all these things will come true and so God asks him to bring him some animals for sacrifice. The section is usually translated as:

[Abram] brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away. As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[e] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” [ibid 15:10 - 21]

Is it coincidence that the collective body of 'descendants' of Abraham end up as slaves just like Eliezer? Perhaps. But first let's examine how the rabbinic tradition treats the 'sign' that God gives to Abraham (Gen 15.10,11), the sign of the dove (bar yonah which not surprisingly becomes the only sign which is given to the generation at the advent of Christianity. Here is how it is usually translated again:

וַיֵּרֶד הָעַיִט, עַל-הַפְּגָרִים; וַיַּשֵּׁב אֹתָם, אַבְרָם.
And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away. [Gen 15:11]
Here is what I found when looking at the rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 15:11. Saadya Gaon (b 882) follows a surprisingly well-attested line of interpretation that reads like this. Abram asks in verse 8 how he can be sure of what he is promised, but he seems to be given no sign till you look at verse 11 properly . Here is what verse 11 literally says. It does NOT say ‘he chased them (i.e. the birds) away”. It says he breathed on them. (Not the same verb as in Gn 2:7). I promise you that this is what the word really does mean. Only refusal to let it mean what it must mean lets you read it any other way.

The first words can be read as “He put the bird on the bodies”. (The verb can be read as “it came down” [qal] and as “he put it” [hif‘il]). The meaning is that all the sacrifices came back to life when Abraham breathed on the bird and the other bodies. Saadya translates:

He put the bird [singular] on the bodies and stirred them [by breathing on them], and they started moving
Notice that in verse 9 gozal meaning a young bird is translated bar-yonah by Onkelos and bar-yon in the Palestinian Targum and the Fragmentary Targum. There is also something else quite remarkable. The word meaning “bird” in verse 10 is tsippor. In verse 11 it is ‘ayiṭ, which normally would mean an eagle, but can mean birds of prey collectively. It is highly unexpected here as a reference to a young dove. Some kind of transformation has clearly taken place to make a bar yonah (dove) emerge as an eagle ('ayit).

It is impossible not to see that the narrative is being deliberately evasive about what is actually going on here. The rabbinic tradition however makes absolutely clear that God was giving Abraham a sign about the resurrection of the messiah. Yet before we examine all of this, let's make a quick observation. Abraham laments that all he has is a servant and God says that he will eventually have a great many descendants but that they too will end up as servants before being finally 'redeemed.'

If we look at Jeremiah 12:9 the ‘ayiṭ (eagle) is a symbol of Judah. The reason the eagle or ‘ayiṭ is said to be tsavua [tsade-bet-vav-‘ayin] is that it is distinguished from vultures by having a middle talon longer than the rest. (Etsba‘ = alef-tsade-bet-‘ayin means finger). If you take Gen 15:11 literally it says the bar-yon or bar-yonah became like an eagle, and then Abram blew on it and it came to life. The ‘ayiṭ is the bird specified in Isaiah 46:11.

Although very well attested, this line of interpretation is not mentioned in any extant document before Saadya. Here is a very good example of how an ancient tradition can surface after centuries. The tradition covered up resembles some of what is in the Diatessaron and not in the Four Gospels. I think we can see a similar rationale in the bits in the infancy gospels about Jesus doing something similar.

I doubt many of my readers are familiar with the scheme of four empires in Daniel comes from verse 12 of this chapter. Dread + darkness + great + fell. This is the standard Rabbinic explanation. The indication of the four empires comes after the sun had started to set. I suppose this means the end of the fourth empire will be a sunrise.

Now we should have a look at Isaiah 46:11 and 12. Here are the renderings of ‘ayiṭ in Greek and Aramaic versions of Isaiah 46:11:

•LXX peteinos fledgling (young but just old enough to fly)
•Symmachus orneos bird
•Targum. … like a quick little bird. (Notice it is not a big bird. I have translated qallil twice to try to bring out the basic meaning of being light).
And now Jeremiah 12:9.
•MT “Is the long-taloned eagle ….?”
•LXX translates from a Hebrew text with the first word different, or perhaps it just understood it differently. The long-taloned eagle becomes a hyaena’s cave. (Tsavua usually means hyaena but literally means streaked).
•Iôsêphos [a Greek translation of unknown origin] and ho Hebraios [Greek translation of unknown origin] have “a streaked [or multicoloured] bird.” Jerome says this is the translation in “the others”, that is, Theodotion Symmachus Aquila. It was also in his LXX text, though no extant LXX witness has this.
•Targum. Like a frightened bird.
And Genesis 15:11
•LXX. Verse 10 at end. Tsippor is translated ornea birds [plural]. Verse 11. Again ornea but apparently taken to be birds of prey. No record of any other translation, so the later translators probably agreed.
•All Targums. Birds plural both times. Meant to be birds of prey the second time.

So we may conclude that by the time of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, nesher in Hebrew had changed its meaning from the tawny vulture Gyps fulvus, the biggest of all birds of prey in Palestine-Syria, to eagle, specifically Aquila chrysaetus, the kind depicted on flags. This might have been under the influence of Aramaic. I don’t know the history of the meaning in Aramaic, but in all the dialects I am familiar with it means eagle.

I think the knowledge of its original meaning had not been lost in the Rabbinic halachic tradition (cf. Ḥullin 61a and the Palestinian Targum). At the same time ‘ayiṭ had changed its meaning from eagle to any bird of any size. Even in its expanded explanation of Gn 15:11, the Palestinian Targum does not say ‘ayiṭ means birds of prey. It just says they were other birds, but unclean. Interestingly, the Samaritan tradition recognises ‘ayiṭ as meaning a bird of prey, apparently an eagle, in Gn XV:11 [Arabic and Targum ms. A]. It recognises the meaning of nesher as vulture in Lev 11:13 [Arabic nasr “vulture” same as Saadya. Aramaic ambiguous as in the Jewish Targums]. This statement is made only by comparing the Samaritan Targum with the Arabic Version. I haven’t looked at the commentaries yet.

This change of meaning enabled a new interpretation of Genesis 15:10 and 11. The word tsippor in verse 10 is probably meant to be collective, but grammatically it is singular. Either way, the new interpretation takes ‘ayiṭ in verse 11 to be singular not collective and to refer to the young dove. There is a new interpretation of the verb. The verb (vayyashshév vay-yod-shin-bet) is translated plausibly by the LXX as meaning “he sat with them”, that is, the sacrifices. It seems vayyéshev was read [he sat, from yashav yod-shin-bet].

The next word otam “them” might have been read as ittam “with them”, but not necessarily. Taking the verb to mean “he frightened them away”, as is done by the Jewish Targums, is fanciful. The argument is that the verb nun-shin-bet in the pi‘el nishshev means to breathe or blow, so here it must mean he said shoosh at them, and that frightened them away. About as fanciful as much else that is repeated and repeated. This is a guess on the part of the Jewish Targums, repeated by the Peshitta and everyone else since. The Samaritan tradition takes the verb quite plausibly as meaning he sent them back, as if from the hif‘il of shuv (shin-vav-bet). Anyway, in the new interpretation the verb is taken as meaning he breathed on them. Then they came to life. I think when you look closer at the interpretation and relate it to the words of the text in both verses, it would make more sense if what was meant was that the dove (the bar-yonah) came to life first.

Here is the hidden meaning of the story of Jesus doing much the same in the infancy gospels. The best way to cover the story up was to take it out of the official version of the gospels but keep it in the infancy gospels, where it sounded silly in isolation. This was more effective than trying to remove all traces of it. This is the same technique as with Jesus at school being taught about Alef and reminding the teacher about Bet. Originally it would have been an utterance. Putting it in an infancy gospel just makes it seem Jesus was insufferable as a child. The resurrection of Jairus’s daughter was thus meant to be symbolic. It was meant to be connected to Gn 15:10 and 11.

Looking deeper into the rabbinic tradition I couldn’t find an exact parallel to Saadya’s interpretation, but I did find the ingredients. Take for instance Pirke de-Rabbi Eli‘ezer (hereafter 'PRE') ch. 28. supplemented by Bereshit Rabba on Gn 15:10 and 11. Here are the ingredients. Remember all these are mixed in with alternatives, so you will have to read carefully. The pigeon is not linked with the gozal. The gozal is taken as being a young dove in this place, even though it can be a young bird of any kind. The three animals in their third year are three empires, and the pigeon is the fourth.

The young dove bar-yonah is the Anointed Davidic king. The tsippor is the young dove. The dove was not killed. The ‘ayiṭ is the dove and is the anointed Davidic king. The verse from Jeremiah about the ‘ayiṭ tsavua is quoted, but ‘ayiṭ is taken to be a messianic title of the dove. The dove wanted to bring the sacrifices back to life. Implicit here is the identification of all the sacrifices with Israel, contrary to the interpretation of them being empires. Perhaps they are those killed by the empires. Abraham stopped it from doing so because the time had not come.

The verb vayyashshév is interpreted as vayyáshev, meaning “made it go back”, in this context meaning to stop doing what it was doing. I think the dove will be able to do this at the end of the fourth empire, but I will have to look again. This meaning of the verb is in the Samaritan sources, though these take the ‘ayiṭ as being a bird of prey. In an alternative explanation, vayyáshev is taken to have two meanings, first “he (Abram) enabled them (future generations) to repent” and second “he brought them (the future generations) back”, that is, back to life.

Saadya agrees that the tsippor and ‘ayiṭ is the gozal are the same, and that they are a young dove. It is unclear whether the dove was killed or not. It is explicit that the sacrifices came back to life. This is somehow connected with the dove being on top of them. The start of verse 11 is not “the ‘ayiṭ came down’, but “he put the ‘ayiṭ on top”. The verb vayyashshév is apparently taken in its literal meaning. “he blew on them” or “blew into them”, but is given a double interpretation. The translation is “he stirred them and they started to move”. This is a double interpretation of the causative sense of the hif‘il. Notice that the implicit subject can equally well be Abram or the dove in its guise of ‘ayiṭ. Implicit is the causative use of shuv, as if the verb is read as vayyáshev, he brought them back. I think the literal intention would be that Abram blew on them and they started breathing, and at the same time the dove brought them back.

We should reread what is said about bringing Jairus’s daughter back to life, about how Jesus did it. Then note Jesus’s words “She isn’t dead, only sleeping” and compare the statement that when Israel seems to have been killed the merit of Abraham which enables them to repent makes them come back to life. The resurrection of the sacrifices is a sign of future recovery from the empires, caused both by Abram (as explained above) and the dove. This explanation is deduced from a careful reading of Saadya’s translation and my interpretation of the implications of a summary of the mediaeval parallels given by the editor of Saadya’s translation.

I think you will see that an explicit doctrine has been made obscure by being broken up into parts, with some of the parts being modified. The modifications can be picked up by putting similar but contradictory versions of each element together and finding the explicit original version. The doctrine had to be preserved but had to be hidden from the profane reader.

There are two interpretations of the sign of Jonah, one being that he came out of the fish alive and one being that the Ninevites repented. Both are correct, but deliberately superficial. The full meaning comes out when you see the implicit reference. The sign of Jonah is the enactment by both Jonah and the Ninevites of the repentance and resurrection made possible by Abram and the dove, the bar-yonah.

Some of what I quoted from the PRE might only be in the Yemenite recension. I haven’t had time yet to compare the European recension in detail. The explicit identification of the ‘ayiṭ in Gn 15:11 with the anointed Davidic king, and the obscure statement that Abram told it to delay its act of bringing about full resurrection till the right century, might be two of the differences. I will include a comparison in my systematic summary, but this will take a while.

The Yemenite recension of many midrashim is superior. There are some midrashim of the time of the Tanna’im that only survived in the Yemen. I quote the Yemenite recension of the PRE from the Midrash ha-Gadol, which is a very big anthology. I think it is longer than the Yalquṭ Shim‘oni on the Torah. I still have to look at another Yemenite collection and a few other sources. I still say this is an old teaching that had to be kept but was deliberately obscured by breaking it up into components each of which on its own seemed unimportant or fanciful.

It say the ‘ayiṭ is the Ben David, quoting Jeremiah 12:9 as proof. Then it says the ‘ayiṭ which is again said to be the Ben David wanted to light on the carcases representing the four empires to disperse them and wipe them out, but Abraham waved his sash over the bodies to keep the áyiṭ away, saying that he (subject unclear) could not have power over them (object unclear) till the evening. I think something is missing. Reconstruction. The ‘ayiṭ wanted to light on the carcases representing the empires to wipe them out. Abraham told him each must have its turn to end. Then in a return to a different set of symbolism from another source which was brought in just before, the ‘ayiṭ which is Edom (Rome) is told it will have no power over Israel (the carcases) till the evening.

An observation. I have said this before. If the four empires are seen during the full darkness of night, then the end of Edom ought to be when the sun first rises. The last empire is identified as Edom and Ishmael in two contradictory interpretations from two different periods. There is a quote from Psalm 132:17-18 in connection with Ishmael, so I don’t know if the quote is original. But note that the end of the last empire comes when the sun has first risen.

Midrash Bereshit Rabbati [NOT Midrash Bereshit Rabba]. Gn 15:17. The words “Then the sun started to set” are reread literally. The verb bo bet-vav-alef means to come, except that when applied to the sun it means to set. (This is because the verb can mean to go inside). Here it is reread in the meaning of coming. The verb vayehi vav-yod-he-yod (from the root haya he-yod-he) which is a marker of sequence in past time is reread as vihi (same spelling) a marker of future time. “When the Anointed comes, of whom it is written ‘his throne is like the sun before me’ [Psalm 89:37], at that time there will be thick darkness for the nations of the world, as it is written ‘Darkness will cover the earth, and impenetrable darkness the nations, and upon you will rise etc.” [Isaiah 60:2].

Midrash Aggada ‘al ha-Tora. Instead of ba’a bet-alef-he meaning setting or coming, it quotes lavo the infinitive meaning in the construction with vihi “will be arriving [at some implicit time]” or “will have arrived”. This might only be a mistake, but it might not. “The sun will have come. This is the Anointed, the son of David, of whom it is written ‘His throne is like the sun before him”. In the verse from the Psalm kenegdo meaning “before him” is quoted instead of kenegdi “before me”. This reading is attested in an important fragment of the Torah from the Cairo Geniza. The provenance means it is a reading that was once a possible alternative in the MT but was rejected by the Masoretes in the last stage of editing.

Before this the Midrash Aggada quotes from the PRE. There is a remarkable divergence in one place. It says this. “The ‘ayiṭ came down on the carcases. This is David the Son of Jesse who is called ‘ayiṭ [then Jeremiah 12:9]”. This is instead of Ben David, the son of David. This might simply be a mistake. Then again it might be an error for an earlier Ben David ben Yishshai “the Son of David the son of Jesse”, with an implicit reference to the meaning of the name Jesse Yishshai yod-shin-yod, which is a diminutive of Yesha‘ya yod-shin-‘ayin-yod-he “God saves”. I favour the second explanation.

I will explain the date and origin and importance of these two books in detail later on. It’s very late. It is enough to say that they both preserve ancient content not transmitted later on, probably on purpose. There is only one extant ms. of each. The first was written in Narbonne (Catalonia, but currently in France) under Islamic rule. The ms. of the second comes from Aleppo. They both bypass European editing, like the Yemenite recension of the PRE.

I apologize for this very long diversion (but it gives me a chance to show off all that I learned from my teacher Ruairidh Boid) but if we go back to a literal reading of Gen 15:11 we learn that the bar-yon or bar-yonah or dove became like an eagle, and then Abram blew on it and it came to life. This is the sign which God gave to Abraham to prove that Eliezer would not be his heir but rather that God would give him an heir from his own flesh and blood. In earliest Christianity this was the 'sign of Jonah,' the only sign that would be given to the generation.

Notice the difference when research isn't guided by an idée fixe.

[steve43]

Some advice for all:

If you are going to spend time- and some spend a LOT of time- on this subject I would recommend that FIRST you get a good grasp on the REAL history of the early Christian times.

And calling it early Christian is a label that was given later, far after the Jewish revolt, when it was apparent that Christianity WOULD survive.

The times were ROMAN and JEWISH. So you have to become an expert in Roman and Jewish history.

Now, that sounds difficult, and it is to a degree, in that you have to take some time reading the original sources. But the good news is that there are NOT THAT MANY original sources. To become an expert on WWII, there are ten thousand solid sources to be considered.

For contemporaneous first century sources, there are few- Tacitus, Josephus, Philo, Suetonius, and a few others.

Build your framework first- on a foundation of rock- THEN you can spin off into whatever sub-topic appeals to you.

For this, an easy way would be to read John Hagan's works on kindle, "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome."

He builds up a timeline of accepted Christian events using these sources (along with the NT, of course) tracing characters common to religious and non-religious works.

Just sayin'...

[MrMacSon]

... Go back to the original source material

Essentially, I want you to specify what you called "original source material".

When the Marcionites had their canon there is no logical reason why 'the canon' as such needed to be expanded. As the apostle was deemed to be holy (and exclusively holy, paralleled indeed by the exclusive Samaritan devotion to Moses) there were no other books or writings that needed to be added to the canon.

Who or what is "the apostle" that you refer to??

You have to learn to see things from another perspective besides your own. You know 'get out of your skin' and imagine - what would a community that was exclusively devoted to a single Christian author. This is the starting point of real knowledge about antiquity.

I agree. I am trying to do that through interacting with things you say. Often you thwart that by being vague or by going off on a tangent (often ad hominem) or both.

So, for instance, you and many others at this forum want to move back the dating of the gospel to the second century ... Instead I am trying to make you aware of the fact that YOU CAN'T FAIRLY EXAMINE THE INFORMATION ABOUT A REAL SECT IN ANTIQUITY LIKE THE MARCIONITES AND THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE GOSPEL WAS A FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY LITERARY CREATION. In order to fairly evaluate the evidence about this early sect you just have to focus on appreciating the historical phenomenon that is Marcionism for what is. That means SUSPENDING ALL THE FUCKING SELF-INVENTED PREJUDICES IN YOUR OWN HEAD.

... You've got to learn to shut down that creative desire to make up shit when you are trying to get to know people or get to know things from antiquity.

You have me wrong. I think it is possible some of these early tests, such as the alleged Marcionite texts, could have had origins in varying pre-1st C theology.

It is your failure to be specific about various things, such as "the gospel" or the Apostle" that makes it extremely hard to interact with you - the general commentary in the post I am trying to address here, and the previous post I am trying to address, show this -

The Marcionites thought the writings of the apostle (Gospel and Apostle) were 'complete' in and of themselves

You keep referring to a 'Gospel' without any suitable descriptor/adjective.

I repeat my reasonable request - What "Gospel"? Which or What "Apostle"?

I repeat this request -

... the fact that the Church Fathers mention Marcion doesn't mean that Marcion can only be dated to the Church Fathers ...

Please elaborate.

[Blood]

^If Christianity was a Gentile cultus from the beginning, how do you explain the controversies over how and whether or not the Mosaic laws should be followed? Seems to me that such a controversy is more naturally to have arisen as a Jewish sect made inroads into the Gentile communities (as the NT sources indicate) rather than the other way around. How do you explain Paul's rivals, the "Judaizing circumcision party" and Ebionitism etc.?

1. The controversy was between different sects of Gentile Christians.
2. "Paul's rivals" existed only in the minds of the second century writers of the epistles.
3. The Ebionites were Gentiles.

[Blood]

There you go again with your subtle insinuations that mythicism is somehow motivated by a latent anti-Semitism, when in reality, the opposite is the case.

Where in this post do I accuse anyone of 'anti-Semitism'? Where did I do it before that you say 'again' as well? I accuse people of intellectual laziness not of hatred for the Jews. The argument that 'Christ' doesn't mean 'messiah' or isn't an appropriation of a Jewish theological concept is among the stupidest claims mythicists typically make. The difficulty is that the text of the gospel has been changed in order to foster a relationship between Jesus and the messiah concept.

You see the disconnection between the two religions yourself (as this thread shows), yet for some reason you get defensive and protective when anyone suggests that perhaps the reason why the disconnections are there is because "Christianity" was a Gentile cultus from the beginning. Was it influenced by Judaism? Of course

My argument is consistent and logical and develops from the existing sources. In the contemporary world 'messiah' or 'Christ' meant exactly what 'messiah' meant for the Jews. In the original gospel Jesus denied the association between himself and this Jewish concept. The blind man at Jericho, Jesus's rebuking of Peter when he calls him by this name are only a few of the examples of this phenomenon and it is supported by what the Marcionites are known to have said. Again, I am telling mythicists to give up making up shit about what 'the Christ' could have meant in the contemporary environment. It just makes them look foolish. THE messiah always meant secular monarch.

"I do wonder why mythicism tends to go hand in hand with a conscious effort to depreciate or devalue the Jewish influence over Christianity" in my interpretation insinuates that mythicists have some kind of anti-Jewish agenda. And I said "there you go again" because you have told me that I supposedly "don't like Jews very much" because of my criticism of the Pauline epistles. As if the Pauline writer were a Zionist! Hyam Maccoby correctly asserted that anti-Semitism begins with Paul (or Marcion or whoever).

I never said that the Christ isn't an "appropriation of a Jewish theological concept." What I argue for is that the best explanation for the Christians' misunderstanding of this concept can be quite simply explained by the supposition that the "early" Christians weren't Jews. They were God-Fearers and Proselytes who had left Diaspora Judaism a long time prior to the writing of the texts.

[Blood]

Build your framework first- on a foundation of rock- THEN you can spin off into whatever sub-topic appeals to you.

For this, an easy way would be to read John Hagan's works on kindle, "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome."

He builds up a timeline of accepted Christian events using these sources (along with the NT, of course) tracing characters common to religious and non-religious works.

Just sayin'...

You can't build a foundation of rock on swamp water.

[steve43]

Point taken.

But you have to start somewhere and with some rules and discipline.