Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Surely Paul and his earliest followers were principally Jewish

Stephan Huller wrote:the baptism scene wasn't in the Marcionite original

When it comes to Marcion, Stephan does tend to assume his conclusions. Naughty Stephan, naughty, naughty Stephan. The best you can say is "the baptism scene wasn't in the Marcionite version". And if the Marcionite version happened to be the most original written version, it certainly doesn't negate the probability that the baptism material was entrenched in the oral tradition and not taken up by Marcion. The Pauline corpus shows a desire to get out from under baptism, so baptism in some form was there in the tradition from Paul.

John is only introduced later in the narrative. Explicitly stated in Tertullian and echoed by Harnack and everyone else.

Just go to Adv Marc 4 and search the name "john"

Paul's baptism involves death which is not a part of the existing Markan narrative but is at the core of secret (!) Mark. The Philosophumena 7:18 says the Marcionites added mystical doctrines to the gospel of Mark including metempsychosis

Stephan Huller wrote:I don't think the current crop of mythcists have grasped the real bottom line. It all comes down to one question- could the Jewish believers in antiquity have accepted the idea that 'God' (i.e. the godhead) was unaware of or wasn't involved in the destruction of the temple. Unlike the first destruction (where there is no surviving literature) the gospel represents nothing more (or less) than proof that the godhead was doing it's job, was (as always) involved in world history. A human Jesus even one born from a virgin obscures that core understanding. The reason the current mythicist crop doesn't see this is because they are little more than (reactionary) atheists trying to disprove that the Bible 'is true' through the implausibility of its 'myth.'. The bottom line is that a supernatural Jesus has to have been the original formulation of Mark or whoever wrote the first gospel. It was a wholly Jewish understanding too one which appealed to many or at least some Jews until the late second century. Don't count on the current crop of mythicists to figure this out. They are too busy 'slaying' religion...

Fwiw this is what I have been arguing for some time -- that Mark's Jesus is The Divinity of the OT throughout, right from the baptism to the cross; and that the Gospel was written (largely as symbol though probably intended to be understood literally anyway) to explain the destruction of the Temple and help shape a new post-Moses identity for many. Others have argued the same, though I have no idea whether all who do argue this are mythicists or not.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Stephan Huller wrote:I don't think the current crop of mythcists have grasped the real bottom line. It all comes down to one question- could the Jewish believers in antiquity have accepted the idea that 'God' (i.e. the godhead) was unaware of or wasn't involved in the destruction of the temple. Unlike the first destruction (where there is no surviving literature) the gospel represents nothing more (or less) than proof that the godhead was doing it's job, was (as always) involved in world history. A human Jesus even one born from a virgin obscures that core understanding. The reason the current mythicist crop doesn't see this is because they are little more than (reactionary) atheists trying to disprove that the Bible 'is true' through the implausibility of its 'myth.'. The bottom line is that a supernatural Jesus has to have been the original formulation of Mark or whoever wrote the first gospel. It was a wholly Jewish understanding too one which appealed to many or at least some Jews until the late second century. Don't count on the current crop of mythicists to figure this out. They are too busy 'slaying' religion...

Fwiw this is what I have been arguing for some time -- that Mark's Jesus is The Divinity of the OT throughout, right from the baptism [hi= #6D9BC3]to the cross[/hi]; and that the Gospel was written (largely as symbol though probably intended to be understood literally anyway) to explain the destruction of the Temple and help shape a new post-Moses identity for many. Others have argued the same, though I have no idea whether all who do argue this are mythicists or not.

Could you expand on how the Roman trial and execution of Jesus fit into the framework of The Divinity of the OT?
If you've already blogged about this, I'd appreciate links to your articles.
Thanks!

^ another sacrifice & salvation proposal? ie. a variation on the sacrifice & salvation theme.

pakeha wrote:Could you expand on how the Roman trial and execution of Jesus fit into the framework of The Divinity of the OT?
If you've already blogged about this, I'd appreciate links to your articles.
Thanks!

In brief for now:

The classic illustration of how Mark personifies God himself in the literary Jesus is the stilling of the storm. The phrases used are from the Psalms speaking of the way God stills the storm and waves. Jesus is portrayed in the role of God. Elsewhere, too.

The suffering and death and atoning blood of the Beloved of God (Firstborn/Only Son) was understood by a good number of Jews in the Second Temple era -- along with what we might generally call a Logos theology, or belief in a "second God" figure. The likeness to the human figure in Daniel -- a key trope in Mark's gospel -- represented the victories of the suffering martyrs. Isaac was understood by some of these Jews to have actually been slain and resurrected, his blood meanwhile, like the blood of other martyrs, having an atoning power to cover the sins and save the nation. The Suffering Servant is also found in Mark through his motifs of the Second (Isaianic) Exodus; he represents the ideal Israel who atones for sins through his suffering. Zechariah also speaks of an anointed one (christ) coming through great suffering. Most references to the messiah, if I recall correctly, certainly many of them, actually refer to a messiah/anointed one dying and/or saving others through dying. Even if we accept the idea that Mark was basing his Passion scenario ironically on the Roman Triumph, (I think he was), it is not insignificant that the triumphant figure was ceremonially mocked as part of the procession.

The very idea of a mediator persona as part of the god-head is Hellenistic and one that Jews refined and accentuated more than the Greeks did. That such a figure should suffer, or that a Son of God or hypostasis of God should suffer and that his blood should atone for the sins of his people is very, very Jewish for the era.

Judaism was a Hellenistic culture/religion (Hellenism being a blend of Greek and Asiatic cultures) through the first and into the second centuries and it was not until the fourth century that we begin to find the Judaism that we would recognise today. (Jewish scholars are increasingly recognising the Hellenistic character of Judaism while New Testament scholars are, as so often, being left behind because of their theological mud they continually try to wade through.)

In a rush now but check posts on Levenson (another Jewish scholar) for the idea of "Beloved Son" being virtually code-language for a sacrificial victim in Jewish religious ideas; try keywords on stilling the storm for Mark's Jesus as God idea; see also the Index/Archives and look for posts under Owens/Son of Yahweh for Mark constructing the Passion and crucifixion as a symbol of the fall of Jerusalem; and look for posts on Hanhart, too, for a similar idea from another angle.

I'm beginning to post a series (it will be on and off over coming weeks) on the Hellenistic character of Judaism and the extent of what are essentially binitarian beliefs -- Larry Hurtado's and other Christian theologian's arguments notwithstanding.