Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »


Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

"Mark" (editor) means to prove that that distinction between Jesus and Christ has not to be made. John the Baptist was not the true Christ, he was only the precursor of the authentic Christ.

It is the latter who was crucified, not John.

Hence, John was Bar-Abbas, the rival Jesus about which some people claimed that he was the true crucified "Jesus son of Father".
  • Valentinus preached that Paul had known Theudas.
  • Paul could have known only the Risen Christ.
  • Hence, for the valentinian Paul. the risen Christ was Theudas (under the mystical name of 'Jesus').
Theudas was considered John redivivus, which would make John the true original Christ. Theudas or Thaddeus was the twin brother of Thomas, an alias of Jesus. The story of the finger of Thomas doubtful is a polemic against who claimed that the true Risen Christ was Thomas, aka Thaddeus, aka Theudas, aka John (Dositheus?), i.e. the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.

"Mark" (editor) invented the decapitation of John the Baptist because he derived it from the fate of Theudas, considered the same Risen Christ (the one known by Paul, per Valentinus).
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

Josephus, Antiquities 20.97-99 (5.1), on a false prophet named Theudas (c. 40s CE)

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words.

However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive.

They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

"for he told them he was a prophet", i.e. the risen Samaritan false prophet, to eclipse the memory of which, the Christians interpolated the Baptist Passage in Josephus (if it was not the same Josephus to interpolate it, in order to eclipse the fact that YHWH punished Herod because he helped Pilate to kill the Samaritan false prophet).
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

Irenaeus thinks that Jesus lived to be 50 years old, crucified under Claudius.

If Jesus was still alive under Claudius, as the apologetical logic of Irenaeus goes, then Theudas couldn't be the Risen Christ, since a Christ was still alive by that time.

It is clear here that someone (the valentinian Paul?) was claiming that the Risen Christ was Theudas.

Irenaeus was against them.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

The "Gospel of Thomas" could be a veiled way to say: "the Gospel of the Risen Christ", i.e. Thomas/Thaddeus/Theudas.

Curiously, the Gospel of Thomas adores Barabbas, i.e. "Jesus Son of Father", not Jesus called Christ.

The Gospel of Thomas is valentinian, and Valentinus followed Theudas, again.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

Again and again, everything revolves around two, and only two, best candidates for the role of the "historical Jesus" (if the latter existed really):
  • the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate
  • Jesus b. Sapphat
Other figures (Theudas/Thomas/Thaddeus, Jesus b. Ananias, etc) have not the same right, of course.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

"Mark" (editor) wanted to use John against Marcion, but in the same time he wanted to christianize John.

This conjunction of goals is evident in the episode of the Temple Incident. It is absent in Mcn, but its introduction allowed in the same time:
  • to claim that the home of Jesus was the temple of YHWH, hence Jesus was the true son of YHWH;
  • to claim that the Temple Incident was not an action of John, but an action of Jesus.
Who was that John who purified the Temple?

There can be no doubt that only a John purified historically the Temple:

John of Gischala.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

Philo talks about a Karabbas, and the reference is probably to the same Bar-Abbas of Gospel memory.

Now, Philo was wrong: it was not to offend Agrippas that the parody of the madman Karabbas was staged in Alexandria, but to honor and flatter Agrippas himself.

In other terms, the fool Karabbas in stage at Alexandria was not an allegory of Agrippas, he was an allegory of the mortal enemy of the Herodians and Romans: the "Jesus Son of Father", i.e. the Samaritan false prophet, just crucified by Pilate.

The Alexandrian Jews were ocular witnesses, in Jerusalem, of the crucifixion of the Samaritan false prophet by Pilate, hence they remembered the event as a sign of good omen for the king Agrippas visiting Alexandria, something as: may your enemies receive the same punishment fell on the Samaritan false prophet!!

The Judaizers introduced Bar-Abbas in the Gospels, again and again, to reach two goals:
  • against Marcion: his Son of an Unknown Father was not the crucified Messiah
  • against anyone who knew about the Samaritan false prophet: to insist that he has to be not confused with Jesus called Christ.
ADDENDA:

What other subject for a comedy, more apt to the circumstances, could the Alexandrians better choose for a theatrical performance in honor of Agrippas, and of that dynasty that the Davidic pretender had wanted to oust from the throne of Judea ? And what more than flattering scene when the Messianist — and not Agrippas — is despised in a role played by a madman?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

Evidence that Barabbas alluded to the "Son of the Alien Father" adored by Basilides, Marcion, and all the anti-YHWH Christians:

While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel, and that he invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, and others that had no existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze those who marvel at such things

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

"Barcabbas" is merely the same "Karabbas" of Philonic memory, i.e. the Bar-Abbas of Gospel memory.

Pace the fool apologist Eusebius, 'Barcabbas" was not a barbaric name, but a Jewish name. It means: Son of the Father.

The same title claimed for himself by Simon Magus, notoriously son of an alien father enemy of YHWH.

The Alexandrian Jews wanted to please king Agrippas, by despising publicly Karabbas/Barabbas, i.e. the false Samaritan prophet slain by Pilate.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9003
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by Giuseppe »

The Christian interpolator could have inserted anything after the following authentic phrase by Josephus:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John.

Without the interpolation, the reader would have realized, seeing that a “John” is mentioned the first time without explanation, that that “John” was the name of the Samaritan false prophet punished by Pilate.
A reason to think so is that Josephus doesn’t give the name of the Samaritan false prophet, hence reserving possibly his mention for another time: when he would have talked about the defeat of Herod by Aretas. This would fit — not coincidentially — the pattern of the punitions received, in sequence:
  • by Pilate (disgraced for the insistence of the Samaritans)
  • by Caiaphas (replaced by order of Vitellius)
  • by Herod (punished by Aretas).
The implicit sense would be that, if only Pilate had not killed the Samaritan false prophet,
  • ...then the emperor would have not punished Pilate
  • ...then Vitellius would have not punished Caiaphas
  • ...then some Jews would have not interpreted the defeat of Herod by Antipas as a divine punition of Herod for having he conspired against John, the Samaritan false prophet.
davidmartin
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Irenaeus on the true goal of Mark: Jesus was the Christ, not John

Post by davidmartin »

well, when i read gospel of John it's possible to see more than one Christ's story is being told
John first, then he goes, then the wedding in cana is another one and the near stoning might be passing of another, or the 'Lazarus' is another and Jesus appears again in the one who takes over from him. This is a deviant reading of course but it's kind of possible to see it
This would make sense of Paul really, he's just the next in line..
Post Reply