PhilosopherJay

Hi Freethinkers and Rationalists,

It is the traditional job of theologians to protect the gods by separating myth and history. The theologian tries to determine what the gods actually did as opposed to what human beings say they did.

They do this by separating out false stories from true stories.

As humanists who believe there are no gods, we have a role as anti-theologians, explaining how the criteria that the theologians use for separating mythology and history is incorrect because the gods only have an historical existence as mythological stories. Another way to look at it is that we are theologians who separate the stories into 100% myth and 0% history.

Christian theologians place the gospel of John as the last gospel. They do this because John is the most obviously mythological of the four gospels. Jesus is portrayed in it as a superhuman Passover sacrifice. This explains the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. The super-human passover sacrifice was the Son of God and God reacted to his son's sacrifice by causing the Romans to destroy the temple. Because of Jesus' death, God stopped accepting sacrifices.

The synoptic gospels are post the horrific war 132-135, so the destruction of the Temple is not a big deal to them, the survival of Judaism itself was in doubt after this event. The story gets rewritten so Jesus is no longer just the passover sacrifice responsible for the destruction of the temple, but Jesus' death caused God to lose faith in the Jews and to transfer the Yahweh franchise to his elect last believers -- the Christians.

Christian theologists reverse the order and blame the author of John for introducing the crazy idea of Jesus being a Passover sacrifice.

As humanists, shouldn't we recognize that John's obviously more mythological Jesus contains elements of the earlier tale. For example, it is where Jesus does everything in threes: (2.1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee)(three visits to the Temple on three Passovers, three rejections by Peter, Peter falls asleep three times, Jesus three hours on the cross, Jesus three days dead, three post-death appearances to the apostles (21.14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.), asking Peter three times if he loves him, etc.

We should stop calling it the last gospel as the Christian theologians do and recognize it as preserving a generally pre-132-135 interpretation of the Jesus Myth. This is not to say that the Montanist-paraclete material found in 13:31-17:26 isn't added much later, well after 132-135.

Later Christians, good Roman citizens that they were, wished to believe that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, not only for the sins of the Jews alone, as a Passover sacrifice suggests. Therefore they must denigrate John's gospel by saying that it was the Fourth gospel put forward by that wild semi-gnostical freak John, rather than that it contains much material that is earlier than the later theological view evidenced in the Synoptic Gospels. In both form and theology it is earlier than the Synoptics.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

GakuseiDon

What about your Superman comics example? We theologians demand your Superman comics example!!!!

aa5874

It is the actual written information in gJohn that suggests that it is AFTER the Synoptics.

The author of gJohn virtually CHANGED the entire Synoptic Jesus story by removing many of the dubious or problematic claims in gMatthew, gMark and gLuke.

1. The author claimed Jesus was God and the Creator.

2. The author questions the Baptism of Jesus by John.

3. There is NO Temptation scene in gJohn.

4. The author questions the claim Jesus was from Nazareth.

5. The author has THREE passovers in his story.

6.In gJohn Jesus came to save all mankind and was Sacrificed.

7.In gJohn Jesus was crucified on a Thursday.

8.In gJohn the body of Jesus was anointed BEFORE he was buried.

9.Judas does NOT betray Jesus in gJohn. Jesus Identified himself.

10.The so-called FAILED prophecies of Jesus are MISSING from gJohn.

11. Jesus does NOT speak in PARABLES in gJohn.

12 . Jesus IMPLIES he is the Son of God in gJohn.

It is clear that gJohn is AFTER the Synoptic type Jesus story was written and that the author attempted to "SANITIZE" the Synoptics and Elevate Jesus to the status of a LOVING God who was Sacrificed.

You will not find these words in the Synoptics.

John 3.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

You are simply repeating what the Christian theologians say without thinking about it.

The high Christology of John matches more closely the high Christology of the epistles of Paul. When you are presenting your Son of God to Jews, you have him act like an aloof supernatural Jewish Creator God. You put in all the Philo-Alexandrian neo-Platonic stuff about the light and coming from the light. It is only when you are trying to convert Greco-Romans that your Son of God takes on more tragic human characteristics like the Greek and Roman sons of God.

The quote from John 3 is irrelevant to the Gospel of John.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseDon,

You wish is my command.

Superman is an alien being from another planet who comes to earth with superpowers. This is close to how the gospel of John portrays Jesus. On the other hand, Spider-man is just an ordinary New York teenage boy who gets baptized/bitten by a Spider and becomes a superhero. The original Superman was written in 1938. Spider-man came a generation (24 years) after Superman in 1962.
The Synoptics are the more realistic Marvel Comics compared to gospel of John's DC comic. Neither is more historical or gives a history of a real hero or superhero.

Spider-man was created for a generation sobered by the experience of World War II, the Holocaust, the Korean War, the Cold War and existentialist philosophy. In the same way the Synoptics Jesus represents the results of the sobering results of the Second Jewish-Roman War where hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed and starved to death, Jews banned from Jerusalem and the abomination of Temples to Jupiter and other Roman Gods being built there.

It would be absurd to accuse Jerry Siegel of making a more supernatural. less human superhero than Stan Lee, no matter how much one loves and worships Peter Parker.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

JonA

They're both high, but is it from the same drug?

If I believe that Jesus is present in every atom of the Universe from which he looks out to judge me, that is a rather high Christology; but it has nothing to do with the Christology of John or Paul.

High Christologies ≠ the same Christologies.

It is hardly the sole theological undertone of the gospel, but it is far from irrelevant. It ties in with all of the other special privileges bestowed upon Christians according tot he gospel of John. In fact, the evolution of these privileges is further evidence for the gospel of John being later.

Jon

maryhelena

Hi, Philosopher Jay

Here is an idea re dating gJohn as the earliest gospel JC story. (I do think it is....)

There is one big storyline missing from gJohn. The symbolic drama of Herod (Antipas), Herodias, Philip and John the Baptist. Historically, there are many questions here. Running from the two Jewish princesses being blamed for the death of John the Baptist. (Ross Kraemer has an article, ‘Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptist. A (Christian) Theological Strategy?” - JBL. Summer 2006). Many of the historical issues are covered re dating.

Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip, on his death she marries Herod (Antipas). Luke leaves out the name of Philip. Antiquities (93/94 ce) saying it was the daughter of Herodias, Salome, that was married to Philip. The gospels of Mark and Matthew have Herodias previously married to Philip.

So, if gJohn is the earlier gospel, then the fact that it does not have the Herod/Herodias/Philip/John the Baptist story makes sense, ie the gJohn storyline is set in a time when Philip is alive. Philip ruled from 4 b.c. (or 1 b.c. for a later date) to, depending on Josephus, either the 20th or 22nd year of Tiberius. Josephus gives him 37 years - so going with that, Philip’s rule could run to 36/37 ce. The last time period of Pilate.

However, the JC crucifixion story does not have to be placed at the end of this time. In fact, without the Herod/Herodias/Philip/John the Baptist story, the gJohn crucifixion story can go way back to the start of Pilate’s rule. Which is, of course, a controversial point in that an argument can be made that that rule started in 19 c.e. If we view the JC storyline as a developing storyline, then a change in the date, ie gLuke, of the crucifixion story is no big deal. It’s simply an update, possibly taking into consideration whatever new historical or theological developments might be made.

We do have an indication that an early crucifixion date was doing the rounds. The 7th year of Tiberius in 21 c.e.

In gJohn, the JC figure is not yet 50 years old around crucifixion time. So, 50 years back from 21 ce and it’s 29 b.c. Give or take a year re the round 50 number - and we can consider the Slavonic Josephus dating re the birth of the messiah figure. The 15th year of Herod the Great - from 40 b.c. is 25 b.c. (ie messiah figure about 46 years old in 21 c.e.)

Why the early interest in 21 ce? Well, consider that the messiah figure (Dan.ch.9) is to be cut off in the middle of the week - 19 c.e. to 26 ce. (Pilate’s usual dating) and the middle of the week is 21 ce. The big date being 19 ce - which is 483 years back to 465/4 b.c. the first year of Artaxerxes. (the 7th and 20th years being relevant to the Jerusalem and it’s temple re Ezra and Nehemiah).

So, re gJohn and it’s lack of the Herod/Herodias/Philip/John the Baptist story - perhaps it’s a case of that dog that did not bark...

The crucifixion dating in gMark and gMatthew can be considered at the end of Pilate’s rule - around 36 c.e. - which ties in better with the John the Baptist story in Antiquities.

The crucifixion dating for gLuke is then the 15th year of Tiberius - around 29/30 ce.

Thus, no need to harmonize all the details - rather read each gospel on it’s own to see the developing storyline. From gJohn, to gMark and gMatthew and last gLuke.

All this of course relates to the idea that JC is not a historical figure, and that the JC storyline is a developing storyline.

aa5874

No at all. I do not accept that the Pauline writings are early unlike what "Christian theologians say without thinking about it".

I do not accept that that any of the gospels are from the 1st century unlike what "Christian theologians say without thinking about it"

I do not accept that the Jesus story was initiated in the 1st century unlike what "Christian theologians say without thinking about it".

Think about it. It is expected that there was a "Low Christology" before there was a "High Christology".

The Synoptics Jesus is an unknown obscure character who did virtually nothing except Spit in the faces of Jews hoping for a miracle and claim he would resurrect on the third day while speaking incoherently so that the Jews would remain WITHOUT SALVATION.

You seem to want to write another Jesus story. You have no actual evidence of antiquity for what you are asserting. I need some sources for what you claim. I cannot just accept speculation.

You must know that the Jews expected a HUMAN Messianic ruler in the 1st century around 70 CE. The very Jewish War was because the Jews expected a HUMAN Messianic ruler or rulers as stated by Josephus in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus "Histories" 5.

You must know that it would be Blasphemy to the Jews to claim a known man is a God or that the Jews must worship another God besides the Creator.

In the very NT, Jesus was executed the very day he claimed he was the Son of the Blessed.

As has been pointed out to you, as is obvious, the author of gJohn fundamentally DISCARDED the Synoptic Jesus and simply re-wrote the Jesus story WITHOUT the Failed Prophecies about the second coming and made his Jesus a LOVING God who was Sacrificed for Remission of Sins.

The rejection and crucifixion of the Synoptic Jesus signified destruction of the Jews but that was later changed to signify Salvation for all mankind in gJohn and the Pauline writings even later claimed that it was the resurrection of Jesus that was the most significant event for the Christian faith and remission of Sins.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity suggests that gJohn is a later version of the Jesus story.

JonA

The real problem, of course, is trying to find the apocalypticism in John and explain the apparent evolution of ideas.

By the time John was written the people regarded as Jesus' last disciples were all dead (Jn 21:23). John attacks Docetic views in his gospel (20:26–29), which would have just been emerging in the 70s and gaining recognition at the turn of the century (Wikipedia on Docetism). The authors of the synoptics, as far as I can discern, betray no awareness of Docetism.

We also see in John a continuation of the development of apostolic powers and the understanding of Jesus' death and resurrection. In short, we see improved marketing strategies developing in John; ones not present in Paul or the synoptics. Compare:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Mark 6:7–13 (NRSV):

He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. He said to them, 'Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.' So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

Not an easy sell. Matthew ups the offer though; now the disciples aren't just expected to serve, but they get some cooler super powers too:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Matthew 10:5–15 (NRSV):

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, "The kingdom of heaven has come near." Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for labourers deserve their food. Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

Then there's Acts, where the disciples get the Holy Spirit put in them:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Acts 2:4 (NRSV):

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

That's a one-up for sure; but wait till you see what they get in John:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
John 20:23 (NRSV):

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

These aren't just super powers anymore; these folk now have the ability to speak for God. It's a clear and mighty step up from the powers they had been given in Matthew and Luke-Acts; and it is leaps from the charge issued in Mark. Ordering from Mark to John gives us an evolving theology.

For the significance of Jesus' resurrection, I will not go through the trouble of providing so many quotes. But we can chart it as starting off with the basic beliefs of Paul (see 1 Cor 15) that the resurrection of Jesus proves the resurrection of everyone to be possible and defeats sin (see Romans). This basic idea is what we also get in the synoptics. Yet, once again, John has a very market-friendly view of Jesus' crucifixion: according to John, you don't have to wait to get resurrected, simply believe in Jesus' sacrifice and you get instant eternal life (3:16) and never hunger or thirst again (6:35). It's quite the sell, and something that is easily explained as something added to the message over time, but difficult to imagine having been removed from the message. Like the apostolic powers, it looks evolved.

And so all of these appearances of gradual evolution need be accounted for in a John-first theory. The appearance of evolution from Mark to John is just too much to ignore; any theory regarding their relative dating must account for it.

Jon

GakuseiDon

Thanks, and actually that's pretty good. It just makes it clearer on how you intend to treat the Gospels if you include your usual Superman example. Regardless of what cultural motifs that go into such works (and that can be interesting in themselves, as in your post above), if that is the starting point for your evaluation of the Gospels then fair enough, but it should be noted outright at the start, so at least we know what is on the table. Otherwise we will be talking at cross-purposes.

The original Superman couldn't fly. Later he could fly, and when they introduced the Superboy character he also could fly. However, the Smallville TV series has a Superboy that can't fly. The danger of using this to date the different products is obvious: the intention of the author in using previous elements of the story. What is the intention of John in writing his Gospel, in your view?