Stromholm: The Riddle of the New Testament (1926)

[Giuseppe]

Interesting. I have found this article by dr. Stromholm on archive.org:

https://archive.org/details/sim_the-hib ... ew=theater

[Giuseppe]

Another article of Stromholm is found here:

https://archive.org/details/sim_the-hib ... ew=theater

[Giuseppe]

A real jem found in this article by Stromholm:

Evidence of opposition to it is afforded by a curious point in the ancient Apostles' Creed - the sudden intrusion into it of the name of a secular personage, Pontius Pilate. By the introduction of that name the creed lays emphasis on the fact that the Romans killed Jesus, not a word being said about the Jews - a proceeding so out of harmony with the political interest of the Church at that time as to call for explanation. I can only explain it by supposing that it was intended to meet the opposition of those who refused to accept the general view of the life of Jesus contained in Mark's Gospel, with the exact dating it gives under Pontius Pilate.

https://archive.org/details/sim_the-hib ... ew=theater

[Giuseppe]

This is the first article.
https://archive.org/details/sim_the-hib ... ew=theater

Search for 'upsala' and you will find the articles of interest.

[Giuseppe]

What coincidence!
Stromholm is a precursor of mlinssen insofar the former thinks, just as the second, that the historical Paul was going to make a 'concordat' between the sect of the radical gentilizers (he calls them 'stephanists') and the sect of the radical judaizers (the 12 apostles).

[Giuseppe]

I have examined well the first article.

My conclusion is that Stromholm was a real genius.

For example, he interprets the temptations in the wilderness as what we today would call, without hesitation, an anti-marcionite episode: Jesus is tempted by Satan to replace YHWH with Jesus himself! The marcionites would have learned the lesson.


What is more interesting, is the difference of belief between judaizers ("Apostolics") and gentilizers ("stephanists") about the form of death: differently from Alfaric, Stromholm thinks that the Judaizers introduced the crucifixion of the king of Jews, while the gentilizers introduced the stoning of the Son of God. I should focus better my attention on this point, since it was rather easy for me, following Alfaric, to think the contrary: the stoning was a judaizing thing, while the crucifixion was a gentilizing thing.

[Giuseppe]

Another genial finding by Stromholm: when the demons recognize Jesus as the son of god, etc, this was really a veiled criticism against gentilizers (remember that Stromholm calls them "Stephanists", but I may call them, with equal right, "marcionites") who adored Jesus as a deity ("Jesus Son of Father"...) and not as a mere pious Jew. As the implication goes, if you indulge de facto in marcionism by calling Jesus a deity, then you are a demon. "Therefore" you must recognize and concede his humanity, obviously his Jewishness. Pace Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

I conclude that Stromholm has persuaded definitively me about the Gospels being authentic masterpieces in the art of compromise: a case study in such sense is just the episode of Jesus being recognized only by demons. A such ability masks a condemnation: if for you Jesus is only a deity, then you are, as the demons, a bastard demonic marcionite. If for you Jesus is only a man then you are, as the not-Christian Jews, a poor ebionite. Only if you accept both divinity and humanity, then you have learned finally the lesson. Which is the exact point the author of the episode was going to make.

[mlinssen]

I have examined well the first article.

My conclusion is that Stromholm was a real genius.

For example, he interprets the temptations in the wilderness as what we today would call, without hesitation, an anti-marcionite episode: Jesus is tempted by Satan to replace YHWH with Jesus himself! The marcionites would have learned the lesson.


What is more interesting, is the difference of belief between judaizers ("Apostolics") and gentilizers ("stephanists") about the form of death: differently from Alfaric, Stromholm thinks that the Judaizers introduced the crucifixion of the king of Jews, while the gentilizers introduced the stoning of the Son of God. I should focus better my attention on this point, since it was rather easy for me, following Alfaric, to think the contrary: the stoning was a judaizing thing, while the crucifixion was a gentilizing thing.

I'm just reading these now, Giuseppe, and I'm finding them very interesting!
Don't forget the legacy that existed for either party: while I have no idea how Thomas logion 55 ended up in the Greek copy, it is evident that "carrying your cross in my manner" must have at least come very close to it - which still doesn't mean anything for which party used what.
But the answers to some are to be sought in Thomas if they can't be found in *Ev: not necessarily because they would be missing in *Ev, but simply because *Ev was based mostly on Thomas

Also look at the lies of the FF: they talk about nails as soon as they can, I believe that even Justin does so - although he also very clearly has the stirogram in mind. Did their faulty translation of Isaiah (pierced hands etc) drive them to this?

[Giuseppe]

Hear this: John the Baptist was killed by Herod because a previous story (found in Acts) had John the Pillar killed by Herod. So John Son of Thunder was the real Baptizer: only a radical Judaizer who didn't accept the compromise with the gentilizers, hence the antypathy of Marcion against him.