https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Is this viewpoint in the scope of the article "Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark". Wikipedia?Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm Mark is, imho, about the fall of Jerusalem. In this he mirrors Jesus son of Nun and Jeremiah in being rejected 40 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem.
Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm As far as Christ before Jesus, I have to disagree. Jesus was very early.
Metzger, Bruce M. (17 September 1981). Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography. Oxford University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-19-536532-0. "In the developed Byzantine usage the fifteen nomina sacra in their nominative and genitive forms are as follows: […] Scholars differ in accounting for the origin and development of the system of nomina sacra."Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 4:09 amJesus’ crime in Proto-Mark seems to be claiming to be the Christ. However, as we know from the earliest manuscript evidence, it was likely written in nomina sacra as XS. This could be Christ, meaning Messiah or Anointed One, or it could mean Chrest, the Good.
(p.283, my bold)
What is the relevant evidence for this opinion?
dbz wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:06 pm
- The consensus is that for Paul—the term "XC" is not the “messiah” of the Greek Septuagint
Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see:When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”
(p. 32–33)
--Novenson, Matthew V. (2012). Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Godfrey, Neil. "Christ Among the Messiahs (Novenson)". Vridar.
- N.B. For all we know, Paul's Lord, IS XC may of actually been "Lord Redeemer the Chrism Bringer".
Pity, I thought you were opining for "Chrestianity."dbz wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:50 amdbz wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:06 pm
- The consensus is that for Paul—the term "XC" is not the “messiah” of the Greek Septuagint
Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see:When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”
(p. 32–33)
--Novenson, Matthew V. (2012). Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Godfrey, Neil. "Christ Among the Messiahs (Novenson)". Vridar.
- N.B. For all we know, Paul's Lord, IS XC may of actually been "Lord Redeemer the Chrism Bringer".
If the putative first century "Gnostics" were plumping for a "Chrestianity" that featured a variant of Paul's Lord IS XS (i.e counter culture sectarian Jews having conversations about the celestial Jesus Angel dying and rising)...
Perhaps Gnostics == "Chrestianity"The distinguishing characteristic of a Christian sect would be the archangel Jesus having died. There is no evidence Paul knew of any Christian sect preaching “another kind of death.”
[…]
Paul is never clear on what sort of death is meant. The words he uses also referred to standard Jewish executions (as for example by stoning). I cite scholarship and evidence of that in OHJ (pp. 61-62). So, for example, the sect outside the Roman Empire that preached Christ was stoned and then crucified, by the Jews (OHJ, Ch. 8.1; which Paul could be referring to, as he is sufficiently vague) could be more original than the souped up version invented possibly by Mark that has the Romans do it in collusion with the Jews.
Other than that, there probably were pre-Christian sects (one of which probably became Christian, by novel revelation) that did revere the archangel Jesus and probably even taught he would be the coming messiah, but had not yet come to the conclusion that he’d died to effect his plans, thus had already initiated the end times timetable. There are hints in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the sect(s) represented there did have some such view (and may even have written up pesher prophecies of that angel’s future planned death). But we don’t know that for sure, we don’t know if the only such sect simply became Christianity, we don’t know if any members of that sect protested the revelation and stuck to the original timetable and thus broke away, we don’t know if there were other sects never impacted by the revelation who continued preaching their own thing. Paul does say there were sects preaching “another Jesus” whom the Christians should shun. So those could have been any of the above, for example.
Another way to look at it is: the manner of death was too trivial to have a schism over at that point, especially as Paul is so vague about it—and you don’t go vague on a point that’s creating schisms; that’s what creeds are for: to demarcate what’s valid and what’s anathema. So clearly there were no anathemas regarding means of the killing; vagueness would at best mean an intent to “big tent” the movement and unite schisms. Notice that by the time we get to Ignatius, now the manner of death is a schism point built into the creed, indicating that by then there certainly were sects disagreeing (though exactly what they were disagreeing on or why we can only speculate). But that’s almost a hundred years later. But there could well have been sects still revering or expecting the Jesus angel as not having died, and who (like possibly Philo) thought it absurd that he would ever do so, and/or who (like possibly the Qumran sect) thought it was not time yet for it to happen, who were competing with Christian sects. They could be the “other Jesus’s” Paul talks about. But we sadly just don’t know.
Comment by Richard Carrier—23 May 2018—per "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs. 26 April 2018.
Irenaeus believed that true Christianity was his Christianity and he thought that the Gnostics were holy anarchists!
But the Gnostics were dying in the amphitheater as bravely as members of his own congregation.
Irenaeus wanted to show the world an organized universal Church—not a secret sect.
--"John Romer: Testament - Gospel Truth 4/7 (1988)". YouTube. @time:00:45:00
There is some specific, explicit evidence regarding Manichaeans.
Hi.Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm Mark is, imho, about the fall of Jerusalem. In this he mirrors Jesus son of Nun and Jeremiah in being rejected 40 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem.1 That is why Jesus of Nazareth is dated to 30 Ce as far as I can tell. Look into how the Elijah-Elishua2 narrative and the Jeremiah-Jesus son of Jehozadak narrative3 mimic the Moses-Jesus son of Nun narrative.
Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm ... Elishua...is essentially a second coming of Jesus (son of Nun). Its not a one to one comparison, but the EEN is definitely a rewrite of Moses-Jesus. Elijah is promised a warrior Elishua (Judges 19), so I think his personality was completely rewritten as peaceful at some later point. Also consider that the name Elishua means El saves where Jesus-Joshua means YHWH saves. His master Elijah means El is YHWH, which reverses Moses' YHWH is El. Not coincidence.
1) Because of the sins of Jacob (i.e James)/Israel?
DBZ, no, this is the first time seeing that article. It is nice to see others who agree with some of my basic concepts listed in that article. Mark is definitely a story based on prior stories. The problem I have is that many theories get too deep into the theology. Not sure Mark was writing with more than practical applications in mind. Rome is big and powerful. Perhaps YHWH put Rome in charge, as he did Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah and Ezra. Rebellion is damaging, see Zedekiah and Absalom for example.dbz wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:01 amIs this viewpoint in the scope of the article "Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark". Wikipedia?Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm Mark is, imho, about the fall of Jerusalem. In this he mirrors Jesus son of Nun and Jeremiah in being rejected 40 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem.