Page 1 of 1

On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Tue May 28, 2024 8:01 am
by Giuseppe
Minimalist historicists are used to say that the historical Jesus was insignificant to the point of ridiculousness, while mythicists à la Carrier emphasize the original mythical Jesus as anything but insignificant (to the eyes of the original Apostles).

But if the letters are all fabricated, then also the mythicism has to be minimalistic, insofar it has to assume the chronological priority of an obscure Jesus cult preceding the fabrication (in the second century) of all the epistles and the first gospel.

The original mythical Jesus was insignificant to his same believers, even if still a deity (i.e. a Jewish angel or archangel): not different from some minor god of the Pagan pantheon.

This Jewish angel called Jesus was labelled "Christ" by the his followers even before that the Cerdonites and Marcionites increased beyond measure his proportions and titles. After their action, which implied in whiletime the euhemerization of the angel on the earth, the ebionites (i.e. the evolution of the original Jewish sectarians) continued to use the title 'Christ' but this time provided with a new meaning: to point out polemically the Jewishness of the deity (now a 'historical' man) against Marcion.

Hence the title of 'Christ' was given to the angel Jesus in the early times, only it didn't have yet the importance it assumed later in marcionite times (and relative controversies).

This continues to be true even if the title 'Christ' was given to the angel Jesus after the 70 CE or the 100 CE. In any case, before the Marcionite invasion.

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Tue May 28, 2024 8:40 am
by rgprice
But we don't really know when the title "Christ" was applied. It does seem it was applied with the first Gospel(s), but prior to that we don't know. It's unclear if Paul was ever talking about "Christ Jesus" or if Paul was always talking about "Good Jesus", who later was converted to Christ Jesus.

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Tue May 28, 2024 9:00 am
by Giuseppe
Against the idea that in the epistles there was 'Good' and not 'Christ', I think that if the Marcionites would have wanted to call Jesus with the title of 'Good', they would have never used a title so similar, less a iota, to 'Messiah': too good divine coincidence here. The vice versa is more expected (i.e. having heard about the title 'Christ', they joked about 'Chrest', but even in that case, they never imagined to eclipse totally the original title 'Christ').

When the Muslims called Jesus "Isa", I don't think that they did so by wanting to eclipse totally any mention of Jesus as 'Jesus'. Even if they were remote precursors of Secret Alias in calling Jesus the 'Man'.

I think that it is implicit in the idea of the entire Marcion's propaganda about Paul the Only Apostle (solus Paulus) that previous Jewish apostles had to be replaced by the marcionite icon: therefore the Jewish apostles had to be the originators of the title 'Christ' for Jesus.

By saying this, I don't mean minimally to minimize the alternative scenario. Only my conservative approach is justified by psychological reasons: I feel better in assuming Jewish origins for the "obscure Jesus cult".

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 2:08 pm
by Peter Kirby
Giuseppe wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 8:01 am The original mythical Jesus was insignificant to his same believers, even if still a deity (i.e. a Jewish angel or archangel): not different from some minor god of the Pagan pantheon.
Gregory Riley wrote about how views of Jesus were based on the model of the Hellenistic hero. According to Riley (p. 14): "The story of Jesus was the story of a kind and righteous man, a man from God, the son of God, whatever was meant by the phrase, who followed the will of God against evil to the death and thereby not only gained resurrection for himself, but could offer it to others who would do the same. And in so doing, the early Christians brought new meaning to the word 'martyr.' I think that Tertullian was right: the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church. That is the kind of energy necessary to start a world religion and call forth the commitment that requires one's whole life. That energy is found in only one place in the Greco-Roman world - in the tales of the heroes that had been told for a thousand years. The very culture was founded on them, and the people lived and died imitating them. For those who heard the story of Jesus in the ancient world, whichever doctrinal form it came to them in, Jesus was a hero. He was also, of course, many other things to his followers far more familiar to us arising out the many doctrinal formulations. But why the story of Jesus was able to inspire so many people in the ancient world, why they imitated him and followed him to the grave, was that, in some way lost to us, he was their hero."

In his book chapter "The Story of the Hero and the Ideals of Antiquity," Riley begins with an exploration of the different types of living beings according to Plutarch and Hesiod. Hesiod combined the story of the Four Ages of gold silver, bronze, and iron with the concept of the types of living beings: gods, daimones, heroes, humans, and animals. According to Hesiod, gods and humans came from the same source, and the Golden race was happy and favored by the gods. Hesiod says that the souls of those living in the Golden age became daimones, "agents of Zeus who now invisibly watch over human affairs, kindly spirits who guard and deliver us from harm (Works and Days, 122-24)" (p. 33). The daimon was not to be seen as purely evil until the rise of dualism after the Exile in intertestamental Jewish literature. After the golden age comes the silver age and the bronze age, which are successively more unhappy and violent. The bronze age destroys itself, and instead of leading to a further degeneration (in line with the ANE myth of the Four Ages), there comes the Age of Heroes: "they are not degenerates, but righteous demigods, literally hemitheoi, 'half gods,' again to be ruled over by Kronos in his new capacity as sovereign of the blessed afterlife. Yet they are curiously human like ourselves; they fight the battles and suffer the pains and death of the famous epics of Greece, the battles of Thebes and the Trojan War. These are the classical heroes of antiquity." (p. 34) After the age of heroes, comes the age in which we live, the worst of all ages, known as the Age of Iron. Yet, according to the myth, the age to come will be a return to the Golden Age.

Riley notes that the hero is typically "the offspring of the union between divine and human parents," as reflected in Greek literature and even in Gen. 6:4. The hero is known to be a person of remarkable talent, such as a Homer or Alexander the Great. The fate of the hero is interwoven with the fate of the hero's people; "their very genetics placed them in the mids of destiny on a larger-than-human scale" (p. 43). Continuing his exploration of the hero in Greek culture, particularly in the Illiad, Riley notes: "This choice to die for principle and with honor became one of the most famous heroic events to be imitated in the entire tradition." (p. 47) And Riley says: "The issue of destiny, often fatal destiny, points to another aspect of the heroic career - heroes have divine enemies." Riley observes that heroes have rulers as human enemies and that the rulers who abuse the hero bring suffering on their cities (such as Troy and Thebes in Greek legend, or Jerusalem in Christian). Riley states: "Common to all stories of heroes is the test of character - the critical situation that is the hero's destiny and shows forth the true character of the soul," as is most obvious in the choice of Heracles between Vice and Virtue and subsequently in the labors (p. 51). Riley claims: "The fate in which the hero is bound while alive often forms a complex pattern of divine justice in which the gods themselves are partners: the hero suffers humiliation, privation, and even death as a kind of bait in a larger divine trap designed to catch and destroy the wicked." Riley points out the example of Odysseus, whose wanderings eventually led to the destruction of the wicked suitors. Riley also argues that the hero dies "in the prime of life, in the midst of the very test, the crisis for which they were destined" (p. 54). The prize of immortality is a theme among some stories of heroes: "One may see here the concept that among the ancient heroes suffering led to a prize. The prize for Heracles was immortality, but for the rest of us, in spite of the assurances of the philosophers, the prize was an uncertain remembrance of bravery among our friends and family, or perhaps nothing at all." (p. 58) The hero could act as an intermediary: "What remained after death was the right of the hero to stand on behalf of his or her worshipers who themselves passed the test. This was true because through death the hero became a transformed being." (p. 58) Riley also notes: "Heroes not only offered help - their stories also provided understanding of the proper modes of action. They were models, examples, and ideals." (p. 59) This sums up the concept of the hero.

Riley says, then: "If one is not a New Testament scholar, one may see with little difficulty from the preceding chapters that stories of the life of Jesus were very much set in the mold of the stories of the ancient heroes." (One Jesus, Many Christs, p. 61)

For those who don't believe that the idea of a "Jewish angel called Jesus" fits the sources well, this kind of thing may be a more fitting setting for the original Jesus cult.

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 8:01 pm
by Giuseppe
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 2:08 pmAccording to Riley (p. 14): "The story of Jesus was the story of a kind and righteous man, a man from God, the son of God, whatever was meant by the phrase, who followed the will of God
"whatever was meant by the phrase" surely is not sufficient to remove the suspicion that the Riley's phrase fits only the Jewish-Christian version of Jesus and not at all the marcionite version of Jesus as not even a man.
Hence I classify your post only for use and consume by historicists, as you concede rightly in the end.

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 9:43 pm
by Peter Kirby
Mythicism doesn't have to be a permanent state.

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 11:44 pm
by maryhelena
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 2:08 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue May 28, 2024 8:01 am The original mythical Jesus was insignificant to his same believers, even if still a deity (i.e. a Jewish angel or archangel): not different from some minor god of the Pagan pantheon.
Gregory Riley wrote about how views of Jesus were based on the model of the Hellenistic hero. According to Riley (p. 14): "The story of Jesus was the story of a kind and righteous man, a man from God, the son of God, whatever was meant by the phrase, who followed the will of God against evil to the death and thereby not only gained resurrection for himself, but could offer it to others who would do the same. And in so doing, the early Christians brought new meaning to the word 'martyr.' I think that Tertullian was right: the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church. That is the kind of energy necessary to start a world religion and call forth the commitment that requires one's whole life. That energy is found in only one place in the Greco-Roman world - in the tales of the heroes that had been told for a thousand years. The very culture was founded on them, and the people lived and died imitating them. For those who heard the story of Jesus in the ancient world, whichever doctrinal form it came to them in, Jesus was a hero. He was also, of course, many other things to his followers far more familiar to us arising out the many doctrinal formulations. But why the story of Jesus was able to inspire so many people in the ancient world, why they imitated him and followed him to the grave, was that, in some way lost to us, he was their hero."

In his book chapter "The Story of the Hero and the Ideals of Antiquity," Riley begins with an exploration of the different types of living beings according to Plutarch and Hesiod. Hesiod combined the story of the Four Ages of gold silver, bronze, and iron with the concept of the types of living beings: gods, daimones, heroes, humans, and animals. According to Hesiod, gods and humans came from the same source, and the Golden race was happy and favored by the gods. Hesiod says that the souls of those living in the Golden age became daimones, "agents of Zeus who now invisibly watch over human affairs, kindly spirits who guard and deliver us from harm (Works and Days, 122-24)" (p. 33). The daimon was not to be seen as purely evil until the rise of dualism after the Exile in intertestamental Jewish literature. After the golden age comes the silver age and the bronze age, which are successively more unhappy and violent. The bronze age destroys itself, and instead of leading to a further degeneration (in line with the ANE myth of the Four Ages), there comes the Age of Heroes: "they are not degenerates, but righteous demigods, literally hemitheoi, 'half gods,' again to be ruled over by Kronos in his new capacity as sovereign of the blessed afterlife. Yet they are curiously human like ourselves; they fight the battles and suffer the pains and death of the famous epics of Greece, the battles of Thebes and the Trojan War. These are the classical heroes of antiquity." (p. 34) After the age of heroes, comes the age in which we live, the worst of all ages, known as the Age of Iron. Yet, according to the myth, the age to come will be a return to the Golden Age.

Riley notes that the hero is typically "the offspring of the union between divine and human parents," as reflected in Greek literature and even in Gen. 6:4. The hero is known to be a person of remarkable talent, such as a Homer or Alexander the Great. The fate of the hero is interwoven with the fate of the hero's people; "their very genetics placed them in the mids of destiny on a larger-than-human scale" (p. 43). Continuing his exploration of the hero in Greek culture, particularly in the Illiad, Riley notes: "This choice to die for principle and with honor became one of the most famous heroic events to be imitated in the entire tradition." (p. 47) And Riley says: "The issue of destiny, often fatal destiny, points to another aspect of the heroic career - heroes have divine enemies." Riley observes that heroes have rulers as human enemies and that the rulers who abuse the hero bring suffering on their cities (such as Troy and Thebes in Greek legend, or Jerusalem in Christian). Riley states: "Common to all stories of heroes is the test of character - the critical situation that is the hero's destiny and shows forth the true character of the soul," as is most obvious in the choice of Heracles between Vice and Virtue and subsequently in the labors (p. 51). Riley claims: "The fate in which the hero is bound while alive often forms a complex pattern of divine justice in which the gods themselves are partners: the hero suffers humiliation, privation, and even death as a kind of bait in a larger divine trap designed to catch and destroy the wicked." Riley points out the example of Odysseus, whose wanderings eventually led to the destruction of the wicked suitors. Riley also argues that the hero dies "in the prime of life, in the midst of the very test, the crisis for which they were destined" (p. 54). The prize of immortality is a theme among some stories of heroes: "One may see here the concept that among the ancient heroes suffering led to a prize. The prize for Heracles was immortality, but for the rest of us, in spite of the assurances of the philosophers, the prize was an uncertain remembrance of bravery among our friends and family, or perhaps nothing at all." (p. 58) The hero could act as an intermediary: "What remained after death was the right of the hero to stand on behalf of his or her worshipers who themselves passed the test. This was true because through death the hero became a transformed being." (p. 58) Riley also notes: "Heroes not only offered help - their stories also provided understanding of the proper modes of action. They were models, examples, and ideals." (p. 59) This sums up the concept of the hero.

Riley says, then: "If one is not a New Testament scholar, one may see with little difficulty from the preceding chapters that stories of the life of Jesus were very much set in the mold of the stories of the ancient heroes." (One Jesus, Many Christs, p. 61)

For those who don't believe that the idea of a "Jewish angel called Jesus" fits the sources well, this kind of thing may be a more fitting setting for the original Jesus cult.
Ancient heroes - epic heroes - those who leave their mark on history. Being 'good' is never enough to leave ones mark on history. After all even that literary gospel figure has to resort to miracles in order to move the dial, as it were.


Earl Doherty

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."


Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Thu May 30, 2024 2:44 am
by davidmartin
according to Ephrem the Marcionite's who spoke Aramaic called Jesus ISOU (transliterating the Greek) in their Syriac texts
whereas the orthodox spelled it Yeshua, as they do in the peshitta
so there was a spelling difference in Syriac

any idea what do make of this?

if they have another form for IS then it makes sense they had another form for XS

it is worth noting also that I re-read Justin recently and his works are not really 'messianic', he never stops 'finding' Jesus in the scriptures but he doesn't seem to leverage the idea of the 'messiah' to do so. his understanding of XS doesn't have to be 'Christ' to make sense of his writings. However I'm willing to be corrected here - as I only read his apology. Perhaps his dialog with Trypho might be a different story.
What I'm getting at is, it might not just be Marcion that didn't fully engage with the idea of Messiah and perhaps one could include Justin's circle in this?
as for 'Jewish apostles' almost by definition they would engage with it if it's right to assume Messianic expectation and speculation was rife in these areas but not in the hellenistic world that had never heard of him!

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Thu May 30, 2024 7:02 am
by andrewcriddle
davidmartin wrote: Thu May 30, 2024 2:44 am according to Ephrem the Marcionite's who spoke Aramaic called Jesus ISOU (transliterating the Greek) in their Syriac texts
whereas the orthodox spelled it Yeshua, as they do in the peshitta
so there was a spelling difference in Syriac

any idea what do make of this?

if they have another form for IS then it makes sense they had another form for XS

it is worth noting also that I re-read Justin recently and his works are not really 'messianic', he never stops 'finding' Jesus in the scriptures but he doesn't seem to leverage the idea of the 'messiah' to do so. his understanding of XS doesn't have to be 'Christ' to make sense of his writings. However I'm willing to be corrected here - as I only read his apology. Perhaps his dialog with Trypho might be a different story.
What I'm getting at is, it might not just be Marcion that didn't fully engage with the idea of Messiah and perhaps one could include Justin's circle in this?
as for 'Jewish apostles' almost by definition they would engage with it if it's right to assume Messianic expectation and speculation was rife in these areas but not in the hellenistic world that had never heard of him!
I think there is no doubt that Justin's argument in Trypho is messianic. See this section

Andrew Criddle

Re: On the use of 'Christ' for Jesus before and after the Marcionite invasion

Posted: Fri May 31, 2024 12:32 pm
by davidmartin
Granted.
However, I see the Marcionites and their XS actually rejecting the concept altogether which is surely to be expected
In my opinion a really classic Messiah may be hinted at in the gospels but doesn't exist beyond them, Marcion rejects a Judaic Messiah and Justin see's a gentile Messiah, only the gospels preserve any kind of expected Messiah (revealer, preacher, prophet)