Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

The genius of Paul-Louis Couchoud, something about which I will be always grateful, was, among other things, to find that in the pre-pauline hymn to Philippians, "Jesus" receives the name JESUS only AFTER the death and resurrection.

If Couchoud is right, and he is probably right, then the Philippians hymn, to use the Bob Price's words,

...attests a time when the Christian savior was not yet called Jesus during his earthly sojourn

Bob Price does from this the following inference: during the his presumed (but mythical) earthly sojourn, "Jesus" was the gnostic deity X, the Jewish archangel Y, (add here a list of other not-historical candidates) before he received the name "Jesus" by the pre-pauline authors of the hymn.

But why was he called "Jesus", then, if he was already known with a lot of other names, for example Melkizedech, Seth, Illuminator,...

The whole creation that came from the dead earth will be under the authority of death. But those who reflect on the knowledge of the eternal god in their hearts will not perish. They have not received spirit from this kingdom but from something eternal, angelic. . . . The illuminator will come . . . Seth. And he will perform signs and wonders to scorn the powers and their ruler.

Then the god of the powers is disturbed and says, “What is the power of this person who is higher than we are?” Then he brings a great wrath against that person. And glory withdraws and lives in holy houses it has chosen for itself. The powers do not see it with their eyes, nor do they see the illuminator. They punish the flesh of the one over whom the holy spirit has come.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/adam-barnstone.html

If there was a deity saviour among a lot of Gnostic pre-christian sects,

And if some Jews wanted for themselves this Gnostic saviour,

Then they had only to specify that this saviour gave the his salvation not in the name of the supreme god of the Gnostics (usually identified by the Gnostics themselves as an enemy of YHWH) but in the name of YHWH.

Hence, the Gnostic saviour X,Y, Z, etc, became only one saviour, sent by only one god: "YHWH-Saves".

This explains why Paul was tremendously silent about the earthly sojourn of "Jesus" on the earth:

That "Jesus" was not called "Jesus" during his earthly sojourn. He had the various Gnostic names, meaning that the earthly "Jesus-who-was-not-called-Jesus" was famous to be author of great miracles and exploits on earth... ...only, against YHWH.

Paul, being an adorer of YHWH, had to ignore what Jesus did on the earth under the names of other Gnostic deities. Because otherwise he had to concede, against the his will, that the Gnostic saviour was sent not from YHWH but from a different god: the enemy of YHWH.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

What I am saying is that, assuming a lot of names for "Jesus" before he was called "Jesus" by the hymnist, there was a strong need of a reduction of all these names to only one (not coincidentially: Jesus) as well as there was a strong need of a reduction of all these miracles of "Jesus" on earth (=read: lower heavens) to only two: death and resurrection.

And, as probably the original saviour deity not still named Jesus, equally the Christian Jesus died in outer space.

Reducing the "facts" about Jesus to only two (death and resurrection) was part and parcel of the process of gradual co-optation of the Gnostic saviour (not still named Jesus) in the Jewish field.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidmartin
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by davidmartin »

Giuseppe, that Phillipians hymn ! never knew that before
If you read 1 John, it is entirely about accepting the name Jesus for Christ and not other names
eg "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ"
"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ"

and right before this is the 'they went out from us thing', the church split... and obviously those others didn't believe the name was Jesus, and yet were part of the church until then!!
so early Christians did have different names for Christ, it would seem
perseusomega9
Posts: 907
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by perseusomega9 »

:cheers:
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:11 pm Giuseppe, that Phillipians hymn ! never knew that before
If you read 1 John, it is entirely about accepting the name Jesus for Christ and not other names
eg "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ"
"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ"

and right before this is the 'they went out from us thing', the church split... and obviously those others didn't believe the name was Jesus, and yet were part of the church until then!!
so early Christians did have different names for Christ, it would seem
frankly, I have always interpreted 1 John as saying that Jesus (recognized by the Anti-Christs as the name of the deity) has to be identified with the Jewish Christ (=Messiah). The polemic is against Marcion, called Antichrist by Polycarp to my memory.

The sense is not that the opponents adored a deity as "Christ" and only they had to add the name "Jesus" for him/her.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidmartin
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by davidmartin »

Right, you picked up correctly on my sense Guiseppe, but we differ here
I do think we are talking about 'Christ' as a concept with different names (sort of, see below)
the reason 1 John invokes 'anti-Christ' is to deny his opponents 'Christ', but in doing so admits they do speak about 'Christ' but they are 'anti-Christ'. It's the same thing being handled here

I think you draw the distinction too strongly, in order to say the opponents had no concept of Christ
The difference was theological and these opponents differed in theology to the author of 1 John but still talked about Christ
They might not 'worship' Christ in the same way, but held much in common also
The fact they had names besides Jesus just gave him a nominal reference point to hammer their theology and promote his own
It's a classic split in a community that previously was merely divided into factions - not yet split
End result - the orthodox become more orthodox and the gnostic become more gnostic

As to it being against Marcion, maybe, if he was associated with the Johnanine community in some way. These folk are members of the Johnanine community, as evidenced by the gospel of John where a bunch of Jesus disciples abandon him and no longer follow him any more. A direct reference to these later events!
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:43 am As to it being against Marcion, maybe, if he was associated with the Johnanine community in some way.
For me 1 and 2 John, before their falling in catholic hands, were written by the same author of proto-John. A marcionite author.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidmartin
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by davidmartin »

i see where you are coming from
I see Marcion as coming after John and 1/2 John a bit of a later character, one iteration further down the line c 100 - 140
i don't see the John community being particularly pro-Paul like the Marcionites
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe »

It is curious that "Zebedee" shares the same ethymology of "John":

Gift Of Yah, Yah Has Given
Etymology
From (1) the verb זבד (zabad), to give, and (2) יה (yah), the shortened version of the name of the Lord.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... eqVVm5Fxjo

The sense is then that the disciples of "John"/"Zebedee" became the disciples of Jesus. They follow Jesus as robots only because they are whorty sons of their father, i.e. only because they are followers of "John"/"Zebedee" .

But then "Mark" (a Judaizer and a pauline) is conceding the fact that the his community derived from Apollonism before the his conversion to paulinism, insofar here I am considering Apollonism as the original meaning of the "Baptism of John", whoever it was.

But the sense is distorted, as expected by Judaizers (and the pauline "Mark" is one of them): it is YHWH who is giving followers for Jesus, insofar "Zebedee/John" means: "YHWH-gives-grace".

Surprises expect the reader. :popcorn:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:58 am It is curious that "Zebedee" shares the same ethymology of "John" ....
Different etymology. Similar meaning.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply