The Messianic Secret

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This story looks so ironic. I like it. On the surface, Jesus is able to make the impossible, namely that the mute can speak, but he is completely unable to make that the spectators don't speak about it

they are comments as this that make me think necessarily to Marcion:

The source of this story is Isaiah (and just as an aside imho primarily Isaiah 50:4ff and only secondary Isaiah 35:5ff).

Just out of curiosity: Will Vinzent comment on this? How does he imagine that passages in GMarcion are based on Isaiah? Does Vinzent think that in Marcion's truth, Isaiah was also a prophet of the unknown God?

[schillingklaus]

No, Isaiah was not a prophet for Marcionists. The passage is from a pre-synoptyic source and serves to Judaize and historize deceptively some prior gnostic topic.

[Giuseppe]

Just out of curiosity: Will Vinzent comment on this? How does he imagine that passages in GMarcion are based on Isaiah? Does Vinzent think that in Marcion's truth, Isaiah was also a prophet of the unknown God?

I also am curious and surely I reject any "explanation" that makes Marcion a Jew or son of proselites. In whiletime I note that the Gospel of Judas is anti-demiurgist despite of it being based also on midrash from Jewish scriptures.

[Sinouhe]

I also am curious and surely I reject any "explanation" that makes Marcion a Jew or son of proselites. In whiletime I note that the Gospel of Judas is anti-demiurgist despite of it being based also on midrash from Jewish scriptures.

Which midrashim are you referring to in Judas? Midrashim that he took from the other gospels or new ones that the author himself elaborated?

[Giuseppe]

I also am curious and surely I reject any "explanation" that makes Marcion a Jew or son of proselites. In whiletime I note that the Gospel of Judas is anti-demiurgist despite of it being based also on midrash from Jewish scriptures.

Which midrashim are you referring to in Judas? Midrashim that he took from the other gospels or new ones that the author himself elaborated?

obviously, for my argument holding something, the latter midrashim, i.e. new ones that the author himself elaborated. But I would expect the Vinzent's book for a true argument.

[Leucius Charinus]

In whiletime I note that the Gospel of Judas is anti-demiurgist despite of it being based also on midrash from Jewish scriptures.

The gospel of Judas -

"portrays Judas Iscariot as the "thirteenth spirit (daemon)",[23] who "exceeded" the evil sacrifices the disciples offered to Saklas by sacrificing the "man who clothed me (Jesus)".[24] Its reference to Barbelo and inclusion of material similar to the Apocryphon of John and other such texts, connects the text to Barbeloite and/or Sethian Gnosticism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sethianism#Sethian_texts

[Sinouhe]

I also am curious and surely I reject any "explanation" that makes Marcion a Jew or son of proselites. In whiletime I note that the Gospel of Judas is anti-demiurgist despite of it being based also on midrash from Jewish scriptures.

Which midrashim are you referring to in Judas? Midrashim that he took from the other gospels or new ones that the author himself elaborated?

obviously, for my argument holding something, the latter midrashim, i.e. new ones that the author himself elaborated. But I would expect the Vinzent's book for a true argument.

Do you have any examples to give us of new midrashim in Judas ?

[Giuseppe]

Do you have any examples to give us of new midrashim in Judas ?

At the moment, no. The recent Vinzent's book is expected for the 24 of this month , so surely if there is some argument I will resume it here.

[GakuseiDon]

Is that because, if there were a historical Jesus, he wouldn't be associated with Isaiah's servant?

Not, it would make sense for a would-be Messiah to be associated with the servant to demonstrate that he was the Messiah since the servant of Isaiah was the typical messianic figure during Second Temple Judaism. Even Zechariah refers to Isaiah's servant when he announces the Messiah.

That's right. If Jesus was Christ, then to prove it he needed to conform with the Old Testament descriptions. As it says in the Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
...
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

According to Acts, it wasn't Paul describing how wonderful Jesus was that caused people to believe, but rather how Jesus conformed to scriptures.

Or if he was associated with Isaiah's servant, Christians wouldn't quote from the Old Testament but rather use oral tradition instead?

Obviously a bit of both, since it is not credible that the few details from the life of Jesus coincide completely with what Isaiah tells us, even the least credible details: his resurrection, his exaltation.

We don't know what they knew, only what they argued. I suggest that showing Jesus conformed with the Old Testament was a convincing argument to questions about Jesus, especially his suffering, death and resurrection. People weren't interested in his life until after the Gospels were written. Even then, historicist writers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen were still using the Old Testament when talking about Jesus.

Logic would have wanted Christians to mention realistic details from the oral tradition and that are independent of Isaiah.
When Mark departs from the servant, he only uses other characters: Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Ezekiel, etc.

You'd need to explain that logic to me, I'm afraid. If oral tradition went against what was found in the Old Testament, would that oral tradition have been passed on? I think you'd agree that the "Old Testament" Jesus traditions would be more likely to survive than oral traditions that didn't conform to the "Old Testament" Jesus.

So much so that even in Origen's day, commentators were still forced to use scripture to talk about the life of Jesus. Even for basic things like his physical appearance.
I think this is very problematic if one assumes that Jesus existed.

This is "the Old Testament reporter's Jesus" vs "the newspaper reporter's Jesus". On the one side, you have people of that time arguing that Jesus was Christ because he conformed to the Old Testament. On the other side, you have people of that time noting down that Jesus was Christ because of the amazing things he said and did. The evidence is for the former rather than the latter. If that leads to mythicism, so be it.

But I think it doesn't make sense to recognise that later historicist writers had the same fascination with 'finding' Jesus in the Old Testament as earlier writers like Paul, without it affecting our analysis of Paul.

[Sinouhe]

According to Acts, it wasn't Paul describing how wonderful Jesus was that caused people to believe, but rather how Jesus conformed to scriptures.

Acts is not history = Jesus if he existed, was not resurrected and was not exalted in heaven. It is therefore impossible for Jesus' destiny to be conform to the servant in Isaiah 53.

We don't know what they knew, only what they argued. I suggest that showing Jesus conformed with the Old Testament was a convincing argument to questions about Jesus, especially his suffering, death and resurrection.

Jesus, if he existed, was not resurrected and was not exalted in heaven.

People weren't interested in his life until after the Gospels were written.

It is precisely because Paul says nothing about the life of Jesus that Mark was written to satisfy the curiosity of second or third generation Christians.

Even then, historicist writers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen were still using the Old Testament when talking about Jesus.

Because this is how the information about Jesus was transmitted by the first Christians before the gospels became what we know.
But you can notice that Origen refers much more to the gospels and less to the scriptures to speak of Jesus's life than the first church fathers.

You'd need to explain that logic to me, I'm afraid. If oral tradition went against what was found in the Old Testament, would that oral tradition have been passed on? I think you'd agree that the "Old Testament" Jesus traditions would be more likely to survive than oral traditions that didn't conform to the "Old Testament" Jesus.

I don't think so. No doubt the early Christians would have included details of the life of Jesus not present in the scriptures, but which do not contradict it, if they had these details. But they have nothing. Not even his physical appearance.
Seeing Irenaeus speculate about the age of Jesus and the duration of his ministry, which he estimates at 20 years when he was a direct disciple of Polycarp, himself a direct disciple of John, easily demonstrates the poverty or the non-existence of a relevant oral tradition concerning the life of Jesus.

This is "the Old Testament reporter's Jesus" vs "the newspaper reporter's Jesus". On the one side, you have people of that time arguing that Jesus was Christ because he conformed to the Old Testament. On the other side, you have people of that time noting down that Jesus was Christ because of the amazing things he said and did. The evidence is for the former rather than the latter. If that leads to mythicism, so be it.

For Jesus to be considered resurrected, exalted to heaven and pre-existent, his life would obviously have to be exceptional as well. Oviously it was not the case. And in view of our early sources and the flawed oral tradition, it seems to me more logical that Jesus was built from scriptures rather than a random jew did the outlandish things that were written in a prophetic book 600 years before.

But I think it doesn't make sense to recognise that later historicist writers had the same fascination with 'finding' Jesus in the Old Testament as earlier writers like Paul, without it affecting our analysis of Paul.

I think it was necessary to fill in the gaps of a failing oral tradition with what was available: non-credible novels and the old testament from which these novels were written.