The first Gospel: surprise, indifference or hostility?

[MrMacSon]

I don't mean that. My view is that the reaction after the reading of the first Gospel - the reaction by learned Christian people who could read, therefore the reaction from high society - was a reaction of SURPRISE and the evidence is the creation on the table of 10000 gospels all based, more or less, on the first Gospel.

I know that's what you meant.

My point is that

It is possible that [many of, or most of] the so-called apocryphal gospels are not 'reactions' to the Canonical gospels ...

ie. it is possible they are not "all based, more or less, on the first Gospel".

But perhaps you should clarify by what you mean by "the first Gospel", as this is a departure from 'the canonical gospels".

[Michael BG]

But perhaps you should clarify by what you mean by "the first Gospel", as this is a departure from 'the canonical gospels".

This is the right place to start. The first gospel was an oral message of “good news” and sometime it is called the Kerygma and I think it was:

Jesus is the Messiah because God raised him from the dead to sit beside him in heaven as the Messianic leader foretold in the Old Testament.
God is going to intervene in the world and the last judgement is coming soon therefore you need to repent and turn towards God before it is too late.
The reason we know that the end of the world is coming soon is because Jesus is the first to be resurrected and this means the general resurrection can’t be long now and this will be the beginning of the new Messianic age.
This Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

As the first listeners were Jews they would have been surprised because they did not expect the Messiah to be crucified by Gentiles and his Messianic status to be confirmed by his being raised by God as a separate act before the final inauguration of the Messianic age.

Those Jews and Gentiles who were more aware of Greek culture might not have been so surprised.

If you recognise that the first oral gospel was as simple as I think it was, then it seems reasonable to also conclude that the stories about Jesus which were told most would be ones that fulfilled scripture and showed him as the Messiah. Interest about other aspects of his life would develop latter as the eschatological event was delayed and not seen as so imminent.

[Giuseppe]

But perhaps you should clarify by what you mean by "the first Gospel", as this is a departure from 'the canonical gospels".

This is the right place to start. The first gospel was an oral message of “good news” and sometime it is called the Kerygma and I think it was:

No, I don't mean the first oral gospel in absolute (I thought it was obvious). I mean the first written Gospel, first in his literary genre.

Under a historicist paradigm, even if the first oral ''gospel'' or message was that (and not a mythicist message):

Jesus is the Messiah because God raised him from the dead to sit beside him in heaven as the Messianic leader foretold in the Old Testament.
God is going to intervene in the world and the last judgement is coming soon therefore you need to repent and turn towards God before it is too late.
The reason we know that the end of the world is coming soon is because Jesus is the first to be resurrected and this means the general resurrection can’t be long now and this will be the beginning of the new Messianic age.
This Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

As the first listeners were Jews they would have been surprised because they did not expect the Messiah to be crucified by Gentiles and his Messianic status to be confirmed by his being raised by God as a separate act before the final inauguration of the Messianic age.

Those Jews and Gentiles who were more aware of Greek culture might not have been so surprised.

I agree, under these conditions (''oral preaching and not still writings for all the I CE'') that there was no surprise at all. The Christianity would be a very little movement still for many years, in that case. Oral culture is a passive culture (''listen!'') merely for the hoi polloi.

The surprise is caused by the first written Gospel (beyond if it was Mark, ur-Mark or Mcn) because that first Gospel was absolutely surprising and the evidence of that surprise is the creation, in few years, of 10000 gospels all based on the first of them.

If you recognise that the first oral gospel was as simple as I think it was, then it seems reasonable to also conclude that the stories about Jesus which were told most would be ones that fulfilled scripture and showed him as the Messiah.

The emphasis on the fulfillment of scriptures may be an interested reaction against who (the first written gospel?) denied any authority for these scriptures and not a sincere desire of ''showing him as the Messiah''. Writing becomes a revelatory, mistical experience as collateral effect of the first Gospel.

[Michael BG]

As the first listeners were Jews they would have been surprised because they did not expect the Messiah to be crucified by Gentiles and his Messianic status to be confirmed by his being raised by God as a separate act before the final inauguration of the Messianic age.

Those Jews and Gentiles who were more aware of Greek culture might not have been so surprised.

I agree, under these conditions (''oral preaching and not still writings for all the I CE'') that there was no surprise at all. The Christianity would be a very little movement still for many years, in that case. Oral culture is a passive culture (''listen!'') merely for the hoi polloi.

The surprise is caused by the first written Gospel (beyond if it was Mark, ur-Mark or Mcn) because that first Gospel was absolutely surprising and the evidence of that surprise is the creation, in few years, of 10000 gospels all based on the first of them.

You don’t agree with me, you disagree. I wrote that the first Jews who heard the oral gospel would have been surprised.
There are not 10000 written gospels.
However early Christianity seemed very diverse compared to other religions. If we assume that a written gospel is about a particularly person and his significance we might see 30 or so different or slightly different versions. I am not aware of another religion that produced the same number of versions of the same story. An interesting question is why was this so? Was it because Greek culture is different from say Persian or Indian or Chinese culture?

If you recognise that the first oral gospel was as simple as I think it was, then it seems reasonable to also conclude that the stories about Jesus which were told most would be ones that fulfilled scripture and showed him as the Messiah.

The emphasis on the fulfillment of scriptures may be an interested reaction against who (the first written gospel?) denied any authority for these scriptures and not a sincere desire of ''showing him as the Messiah''. Writing becomes a revelatory, mistical experience as collateral effect of the first Gospel.

If you believe that the first written gospel didn’t see Jesus as the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament, then how do you explain his name – Christ? How can you see Christianity without Jesus as the Christ / Messiah? Where do you think these gospel writers got the idea about a Messiah if not from the Old Testament?

[Giuseppe]

A dying messiah (beyond if mythical or historical) is not a surprise for Jews.
A *crucified* messiah is not a surprise for Jews.
An oral Christianity - the pre-gospel Christianity - was a very little movement of no surprise and no originality (see the silence of Josephus and Philo to begin) and such would remain until the first gospel.
The first written gospel got that idea of Christ from previous (oral) Christianity and from previous Jewish scriptures but in order to debunk them (antitheses): what triggered the creation ex nihilo of the late 30 gospels was the SURPRISE caused by the first gospel. The emphasis on scriptures (in our written gospels) had basically as goal the conversion of the heretics, not the conversion of the no-Christian Jews. Jesus had to fulfill the scriptures to persuade the heretic gentiles, not to convert Jews doubting about the identity of the messiah. An evidence of this is that Jesus appears in essentia "marcionite" even in our canonical judaizing gospels.

[Giuseppe]

All the gospels - both canonical and apocryphal - betray basically *surprise* in front of the first written Gospel. To that extent, even people as Valentinus and Carpocrates and Basilides were more "catholics" than you can imagine, insofar even they did try to harmonize the first written Gospel with moderate form of Judaism (the same Judaism rejected in toto by the first written Gospel).

[Michael BG]

A dying messiah (beyond if mythical or historical) is not a surprise for Jews.
A *crucified* messiah is not a surprise for Jews.
An oral Christianity - the pre-gospel Christianity - was a very little movement of no surprise and no originality (see the silence of Josephus and Philo to begin) and such would remain until the first gospel.

Please quote the Jewish text that states that the Messiah would be crucified?
There can be no pre-gospel Christianity, the gospel is the good news about Jesus and it was preached as soon as people believed that he had been raised from the dead.
What creative thinking did the author of the first written gospel add?

An evidence of this is that Jesus appears in essentia "marcionite" even in our canonical judaizing gospels.

This I think assumes that the Marcionite gospel was the first gospel but there is no evidence for this because there just is not enough evidence to produce the text of the Marcionite gospel as the writings we have are not clear about the wording of the text. As we can’t get back to the text of Q except in a few rare places it is impossible to get back to the Marcionite text. When trying to get back to the Marcionite text the level of probability is much lower than when trying to get back to the text of Q because of the way the original text has been used in the texts we have.

[Giuseppe]

Please quote the Jewish text that states that the Messiah would be crucified?

You can find as many as you here from Vridar:
vridar.org/2015/11/09/and-now-its-barts-turn/

Or has Ehrman not yet had time at least to consider any of the highly suggestive evidence presented by Thomas L. Thompson, Jon D. Levenson or William Scott Green or Leroy Andrew Huizenga or Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis or Matthew V. Novenson?

There can be no pre-gospel Christianity, the gospel is the good news about Jesus and it was preached as soon as people believed that he had been raised from the dead.

I agree, but that crude 'gospel' (the term 'gospel' is even anachronistic for I CE) didn't cause surprise. What caused real surprise was the specific narrative by which these 'good news' were shown by the first written gospel.

What creative thinking did the author of the first written gospel add?

I wrote it before:

The surprise was the precise goal of the first evangelist. Because the essentia of the Gospel Jesus, shared by all the our Gospel Jesuses, is the dramatic contrast between:

1) the old and the new
2) the expected and the unexpected
3) the 'historical' and the mythical
4) the traditional and the revolutionary
5) the boring and the surprising
6) the known and the unknown
7) the prophetized and the un-prophetized
8) the material and the spiritual

An evidence of that surprise is in Justin, Dialogue with Trypho Jew:

When I had said this, my beloved friends those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God.

But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown [the marcionite Jesus is the Son of a Stranger God], and does not even know Himself [the fact that the Son of another God is named Jesus Christ], and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him [i.e. the absence even of John the Baptist in the incipit of the first Gospel and hence the need of one], and make Him manifest to all [the marcionite topic of Messianic Secret]. And you, having accepted a groundless report [without the real support of scriptures], invent a Christ for yourselves [i.e.for gentiles, only], and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," I said. "For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures[i.e. Marcion and company]; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

Then again those who were in his company laughed, and shouted in an unseemly manner. Then I rose up and was about to leave; but he, taking hold of my garment, said I should not accomplish that until I had performed what I promised. "Let not, then, your companions be so tumultuous, or behave so disgracefully," I said. "But if they wish, let them listen in silence; or, if some better occupation prevent them, let them go away; while we, having retired to some spot, and resting there, may finish the discourse." It seemed good to Trypho that we should do so; and accordingly, having agreed upon it, we retired to the middle space of the Xystus. Two of his friends, when they had ridiculed and made game of our zeal, went off. And when we were come to that place, where there are stone seats on both sides, those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judaea.

An evidence of this is that Jesus appears in essentia "marcionite" even in our canonical judaizing gospels.

This I think assumes that the Marcionite gospel was the first gospel but there is no evidence for this because there just is not enough evidence to produce the text of the Marcionite gospel as the writings we have are not clear about the wording of the text. As we can’t get back to the text of Q except in a few rare places it is impossible to get back to the Marcionite text. When trying to get back to the Marcionite text the level of probability is much lower than when trying to get back to the text of Q because of the way the original text has been used in the texts we have.

[/quote]

Not only Klinghardt and Vinzent, but maybe now even David Trobisch and Jason BeDuhn think differently.

Insofar you like to risk on the hypothetical existence of Q, I like to risk on Mcn, since at least I have the moral certainty that Mcn existed (whereas Q remains an abstract hypothesis for the eternity, and in addition has the great defect in my eyes that a mere collection of sayings doesn't cause surprise at all)!

In the words of prof Stevan Davies (I go to memory): if the doctrine of a teacher was not recorded at all, it means he was not a good teacher.

[Michael BG]

Please quote the Jewish text that states that the Messiah would be crucified?

You can find as many as you here from Vridar:
vridar.org/2015/11/09/and-now-its-barts-turn/
Or has Ehrman not yet had time at least to consider any of the highly suggestive evidence presented by Thomas L. Thompson, Jon D. Levenson or William Scott Green or Leroy Andrew Huizenga or Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis or Matthew V. Novenson?

I am sorry this is not quoting any Jewish text. As it appears your answer is – read all these posts yourself rather than pointing me to the right ones, would I be correct to assume you do not know of any at all? (If you think Vridar found one saying the Messiah will be crucified please let me know what it is? The closest I saw was the Wisdom of Solomon which reminded me that I have said somewhere that there is a link between the Wisdom tradition to the passion. I need to find what I was saying and see if I included that verse.)

What creative thinking did the author of the first written gospel add?

I wrote it before:

The surprise was the precise goal of the first evangelist. Because the essentia of the Gospel Jesus, shared by all the our Gospel Jesuses, is the dramatic contrast between:

1) the old and the new
2) the expected and the unexpected
3) the 'historical' and the mythical
4) the traditional and the revolutionary
5) the boring and the surprising
6) the known and the unknown
7) the prophetized and the un-prophetized
8) the material and the spiritual

I did see this, but it does not answer my question. To me it is a meaningless list with no examples of anything creative or surprising. In fact it might be possible to find other first century writings that included these.

I don’t know why you think your quote from Justin shows surprise.

Not only Klinghardt and Vinzent, but maybe now even David Trobisch and Jason BeDuhn think differently.

Listing people who also think Marcion is early is not a counter argument to my opinion.
David Trobisch states in the YouTube video that Marcion is probably the first gospel without making out why it is older than the gospel of Mark. He states the text is quoted in Tertullian, (which was written in Latin) and Epiphanius and someone else and so we can recovery the text. This is not true as I discovered when studying the text (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1770&start=110) as posted on this site by Ben C Smith (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765).

Insofar you like to risk on the hypothetical existence of Q, I like to risk on Mcn, since at least I have the moral certainty that Mcn existed (whereas Q remains an abstract hypothesis for the eternity, and in addition has the great defect in my eyes that a mere collection of sayings doesn't cause surprise at all)!

I am not denying that a gospel of Marcion existed; what I am saying is it is impossible to recover its (Greek) text especially where (Latin) Tertullian is the only authority for the wording.
While Q is made up mostly of sayings it is not just a collection of sayings as it includes sections on John the Baptist, the temptation of Jesus, the healing of the Centurion’s son and the exorcism of a dumb person.

[Giuseppe]

I am sorry this is not quoting any Jewish text. As it appears your answer is – read all these posts yourself rather than pointing me to the right ones, would I be correct to assume you do not know of any at all? (If you think Vridar found one saying the Messiah will be crucified please let me know what it is? The closest I saw was the Wisdom of Solomon which reminded me that I have said somewhere that there is a link between the Wisdom tradition to the passion. I need to find what I was saying and see if I included that verse.)

Stevan Davies says that the Odes of Salomon are a pre-christian text, and there a celestial Christ is suffering celestial pains. At moment I cannot quote the text, but I'm sure you know what I allude.

I did see this, but it does not answer my question. To me it is a meaningless list with no examples of anything creative or surprising. In fact it might be possible to find other first century writings that included these.

the parable of new wine in new skins should arouse surprise if you read it in a marcionite perspective as if it was the first time.

I don’t know why you think your quote from Justin shows surprise.

It refers to a unknown Christ from unknown origin, a Christ unknown even to himself. By definition, everything that is unknown should cause surprise. It was designed for that purpose.

Listing people who also think Marcion is early is not a counter argument to my opinion.

you are mature enough to understand that I just want to examine in the future why some scholars think that Mcn comes first (when they will decide to publish their arguments).

David Trobisch states in the YouTube video that Marcion is probably the first gospel without making out why it is older than the gospel of Mark. He states the text is quoted in Tertullian, (which was written in Latin) and Epiphanius and someone else and so we can recovery the text. This is not true as I discovered when studying the text (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1770&start=110) as posted on this site by Ben C Smith (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765).

1) Tertullian quotes Matthew again and again in polemic against Marcion (to prove the priority of Luke).
2) We know that according to proto-catholics, Mcn is the corruption of Luke.
3) Therefore : the lukan verses parallel to Matthew quoted by Tertullian (in anti-marcionite function) was likely found in Mcn.

I am not denying that a gospel of Marcion existed; what I am saying is it is impossible to recover its (Greek) text especially where (Latin) Tertullian is the only authority for the wording.

too easily and too often (why?) you forget that Mcn is a subset of our Luke and we know Luke. Therefore, if Tertullian quotes Matthew in Latin precisely where according to him Matthew parallels and confutes Mcn, then we may be relatively sure that the corresponding verses in Luke are found in Mcn.