John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

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: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:44 am Returning to your original post, I am proposing that the "good news of the kingdom of God" was always a project of "violent ones who want to take over the kingdom", and that the collapse of Hasmonean power in the context of your theory, is what provokes the rise of this alternative political-religious movement.
I agree. The logion concedes the reality of sedition as the cause of itself and condemns that reality for the ideal world it wants to build. I can't say it better than you say here:
yakovzutolmai wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:19 pm In Mark's Gospel, I believe we have Jesus as an allegorical figure for the theologically correct Christ, who is betrayed or overlooked by his own disciples (the Sicarii).
You seem to think as Stephan Hoebeek about a historical uncorrect "Jesus", who served as model for the 'theologically correct' Christ, but at the moment, even if I concede willingly that the life of some seditious was used by the inventor, I am more interested (following Stephan Hoebeek in this interest) about the pars construens of Mark (=the ideal new Israel as personified Logos), than his pars destruens (= a hypothetical deliberate eclipse of a particular seditious x).
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9715
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by Giuseppe »

yakovzutolmai, since you think that the pauline epistles are invented all after the 70 (a conclusion I am intrigued about), how do you harmonize their post-70 invention with their silence about the Gospel Jesus ?

Basically, I am addressing the same question I had raised here, gaining still no answer at all from other users of the forum.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: John Hyrcanus, not John the Baptist, in Luke 16:16

Post by yakovzutolmai »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:17 am yakovzutolmai, since you think that the pauline epistles are invented all after the 70 (a conclusion I am intrigued about), how do you harmonize their post-70 invention with their silence about the Gospel Jesus ?

Basically, I am addressing the same question I had raised here, gaining still no answer at all from other users of the forum.
Your discussions have been part of having me wonder if the authentic paulines were written earlier. My context for them is Vespasian's exile, which I believe was in Corinth, at 65. I think this became the epicenter of "pauline" and later Flavian Christianity. The ministry was restricted to Greece.

We can see evidence of this in the form of the false Nero phenomenon, which is particularly interesting since rabbinical tradition speaks of Nero having survived his assassination and become Jewish. I think this all stems from "Pauline Christianity" in Corinth attempting to create an interpretation of contemporary Jewish belief that would support Vespasian's rule in Rome and Roman sovereignty in Judea.

I identify Balbilus (who is Suetonius's Basilides) as the principal author, which allows for him to have written other pauline material later when he lived at Ephesus and had a less political purpose. However, I haven't thought much about that.

I don't think there was a recognized gospel Jesus until at least the second century. I've probably said my general theory of Mark where it was early, but kind of disappears as Flavian Christianity becomes less popular (see Pliny the Younger). The Mark of Flavian Christianity, I think, is mocking the followers of Chrestus and Chrestus himself (Barabbas). However, I have come to think that the Jesus of Mark is meant to be the "Melchizedekian" (Joshua) Jesus of the Greek Jews. Mark is commenting that the Sicarii rebels were fanatics who had Jesus with them the entire time, but never recognized him or knew what to do with him. So, Mark's Jesus is mythicist, but Barabbas and all the disciples are historical.

I don't know what to do with dating, because as I've said, I think Mark fades away until Marcionite Christianity renews interest in these texts.

However, recently I've stumbled on a theory for Luke-Acts. I believe Luke-Acts was written by the Basilidean school as they were developing a Gnostic replacement for lingering Sicarii/messianic fervor in a direct reaction to the Kitos War.

My evidence is the presence of "Lucius of Cyrene" in Acts 13 among the brethren of the Church. The brethren of the Church seem to correspond to people who could be derived from Josephus's writings as "Sicarii" or Sons of Judas. There's no Luke figure in that context in Josephus, and there's the odd identification of "of Cyrene" after the horrific acts of "Lukuas of Cyrene" (called Andreas - the physician connotation). The Basilideans claimed "Glaucias" as one source of their knowledge. Glaucias, like Andreas, appears to connote the physician.

So, I think the Basilideans are set up after the Kitos War as a reaction, to assert a non-violent doctrine. However, they claim Lukuas (and Matthias, Menander - Manaen or Menahem I think) as their source of authority. So they are attempting to appeal to the former followers of Lukuas, I think.

Thus, in constructing the narrative of Acts, they insert "Lucius of Cyrene" into Antioch with the brethren of the church, as a kind of claim to apostolic authority through Luke. Which, in fact, is the alleged author of this literature.

Or, Christianize Basilideans (maybe Gnosticized Christians?), people who are trying to integrate Christian and Basilidean doctrine, are the writers of Luke-Acts.

Luke, I don't think, rules out a Gnostic interpretation. I see John as serving that purpose. Even John, however, allows for an allegorical interpretation of Jesus.

Matthew is where Jesus is given a life story and background. I think the Bethlehem nativity is ripped-off directly from the local Adonis cult, but it's still a more substantial history than Luke's.

We also have Christian Gnostic works which attempt to give details to the histories of gospel characters. I would say that these mid-second century Christian Gnostic texts invent the notion of a historical Jesus.

However, I did say I felt vague about Mark. I support your hypothesis that there was an early-second century "Acts of ___ (Pilate, etc.)" tradition which may have first introduced historicity. However, I would tie this to the influence of the Flavian cult. In general, I think the Flavian Cult totally died off or was absorbed into other groups. I also think that orthodox Christianity was essentially the mass adoption of anti-Marcionite, gospel/Pauline Christianity by Greek Jews renouncing their Hebraic identity.

Here is how I see the evolution
1) Historical "Sicarii"; Mythicist Jesus - Flavian Christianity also emerges and fades
2) Kitos War ends Sicarii faith in the West, they migrate to Gnosticism
3) Christianity remains mostly Gnostic, and the historical Jesus concept emerges
4) Marcionite beliefs appear
5) Remnant Greek Jews react to Marcionite beliefs, and Gnosticism, creating orthodox Christianity

Insert whichever work of literature into the appropriate context.

I think this does not speak about what is occurring in the East after the Kitos War. I think the Simonian/Mandean/Manichean/Elchasaite/etc. systems may have been the inspiration for Marcionite beliefs.

I would argue that Simonian beliefs, for example, are able to possess a Samaritan/Enochian anti-Yahweh perspective. Also, the "Sicarii" were the historically real players, whom the West has rejected but the East has not. Therefore, the East can produce as historical, anti-Yahweh Jesus and insert him into the Gnostic environment of the mid-second century.

The ultimate reason for the importance of Paul lies with the original political purpose: to convince Jews to assimilate to gentile life. This is what mid-second century Greek and Roman Jews desperately needed. I also think that orthodox Christianity's eschatology and bold historical claims would have helped it in the East.

We see that Abgar of Edessa, around 200, is among the first state sponsors of orthodox Christianity.
Post Reply