The inevitable emergence of Christianity

The self-evident emergence of Christianity Absolute Thomasine Priority, Part IV ©Copyright 2022 Martijn AT Linssen, MA Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 The gospel of Thomas....................................................................................................................... 1 Marcion’s Evangelion ....................................................................................................................... 3 The New Testament..........................................................................................................................5 Chrestianity...................................................................................................................................... 8 Anti-Judaism .................................................................................................................................... 9 Christianity ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Rewriting history for the sake of the present and future .............................................................. 12 The core strategy behind both Paul and the gospels .................................................................... 13 Aftermath ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Addendum ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Mark’s ending in Mark and in Luke ...............................................................................................20 Similarities and differences ............................................................................................................ 22 The women did (certainly) (not) forsake their divine instruction ............................................... 25 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 27 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Introduction Many, many years ago, I stumbled upon the Gospel of Thomas. Fast forward thousands of hours and over 3,000 published pages - the majority of which are my own - and I have developed a theory regarding Christian origins, the outline of which I will present in this document. The aim is not to address the general public or the casual reader - the intended audience here consists of those with years of experience concerning matters such as the Synoptic Problem, Pauline epistles, Markan priority, Latin loanwords in the NT, Marcion, Christian origins, nomina sacra, and the Nag Hammadi Library (NHL), to name a few. A proposition - yet a carefully elaborated one - is what this theory is. When I wrote my Absolute Thomasine Priority I really had no idea about any of the above, yet it was clear that Thomas preceded the NT. That was what textual criticism demonstrated, like it or not. This time, however, I will present what was missing then: a reason for the NT containing those 72 copies of Thomasine logia; a proper - and solid - business case for incorporating the (selective) content of Thomas into the (quite different) context of the NT The gospel of Thomas The gospel of Thomas (Thomas) is the start of it all. I have never liked spelling ‘gospel’ in full, and always at least assign a lowercase letter to that strange Old English word that is so inherently tied to Christianity; gōd spell. So I just call it Thomas, as it most certainly is not about Christianity, nor about any Jesus that we know - in fact it is not only not about Christianity, but even against Judaism; Thomas is a vehemently anti-religious text, a text that also rejects other “schools of thought”. Thomas is a text about self-realisation, self-salvation; introspection is what it teaches (the kingdom is of your inside and she is of your eye - logion 3) and it openly rejects typical Judaic habits such as fasting, praying, giving alms. Upon close and objective inspection the text is ferociously antiJudaic and the disciples serve to present Judaic ideas and platitudes, only to be burnt down to the ground in response to those. There are 600 pages of Complete Thomas Commentary detailing the first half of logia, and those show how Thomas tells us that we’re dualised, divided, separated - yet don’t consider ourselves sick. We - each of us - are the sons (plural, indeed!) of the living father, we are the Ego and the Self - or, like he says, ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ and ϩⲙϩ̅ⲁ̅ⲗ̅. as I translate those as ‘slaveowner’ and ‘slave’. We once were the father, ‘been made one’, yet we grew up and became two - we in fact created those two ourself, and now we are ‘ourselves’; and there are certain points where Thomas Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 1 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 treats multiple persons as if they were one (e.g. logion 30), and that is exactly the crux of his sayings and his central message. Yet 72 of those logia have parallels in the Synoptics - how is that possible? How can Thomas be about these soft, spiritual and metaphysical topics when the NT undeniably is religious? Or is it? What helps, is that Thomas is very cryptic at first sight, especially in the usual (mis)translations, e.g. logion 4: IS said he will not hesitate, the human who is old in his days, to question a little child who is seven days young, because of the Place of life, and he will live: there are many first who will become last and they come to be a single one. That is a riddle, isn’t it? Why the lack of hesitation? What on earth will the question (and the answer) be? And who will live? Hard to tell, isn’t it? Why is this translated the way it is, are there no alternatives? IS said he will not delay, the human who is old in his days, to make cease a little child who is seven days young, because of the Place of life, and he will live: there are many first who will become last and they come to be a single one. Two words translated differently, in a perfectly legitimate and grammatically sound way: the old man will ‘make cease the little child’ - stop him from growing up - and as the child is only 7 days old, there is great haste involved as only one more day would be a relatively great part of the child’s life. And if the child doesn’t grow up, it will live. That surely still is riddling, yes but in a sensible way: growing up likely is dangerous (as will turn out to be the case in just a few logia), so it must be ceased - and quickly. A different logion serves to demonstrate how an apparent riddle can also cease (sic) being a riddle. Logion 35: IS said there is not strength of one to go inward to the house of the strong and take him by force, Unless he binds his hands: Then he will turn outward his house . That is more than puzzling: it is evident that one needs strength or force to handle a strong man, but there is no need to do so once his hands are tied - even an adolescent could handle a strong man in that state. Why is this translated the way it is, are there no alternatives? IS said there is not strength of one to go inward to the house of the strong and take him by forearm, Unless he binds his hands: Then he will turn outward his house . One word translated differently, in a perfectly legitimate and grammatically sound way: and from a riddle we have arrived at something very sensible; if you want to take a strong man by the forearm, yes it would surely make a very great difference if his hands were tied! Naturally, Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 2 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 this logion has its copies in the NT, unlike the previous one, and no translator has ever looked beyond the boundaries of his own self-induced confinement. Really, seriously, no one? No, really not - the confirmation bias among Coptologists, Egyptologists and even amateurs who took up the translation of Thomas is of such magnitude that no one ever came up with this incredibly straightforward translation. And when the pivotal word ϫⲛⲁϩ is looked up, the dictionary reveals that ‘forearm’ is even the primary translation, with ‘force’ merely a secondary one. One last logion, to demonstrate how the usual Thomas translations are not only uneventful, or wrongly harmonised with their inaccurate Christian copies in the NT - but even are deliberate and outright falsifications. Logion 96: IS said: the reign of king of the father, she is comparable to a woman who took a little first-milk, she hid him in a dough; she made him be some great loaves. He whom there are ears within him, let! him hear One word translated correctly, in a perfectly legitimate and grammatically sound way; Thomas very clearly and unambiguously says ‘first-milk’ or ‘colostrum’, and not ‘leaven’. This can be verified with a simple click by anyone as every word in my Translation is linked to an online dictionary. No one can assume they have read Thomas unless they have consulted my translation, and I cordially invite everyone to disagree with anything in there - yet after two years and thousands of views no one has made a case so far, and while I have challenged other translators regarding their interpretations, their response has been either absent or evasive with not one of them providing arguments that my translation is wrong. Why does any of this matter? Of the 72 logia in Thomas that have parallels in the NT, 59 can be found in Luke - and the general consensus these days is that Luke is nothing but a redaction of Marcion’s Evangelion Marcion’s Evangelion I follow Matthias Klinghardt and Markus Vinzent and call Marcion’s Evangelion *Ev for short but let me start by saying that I doubt most of what the so-called “Church Fathers” claim: their business (case) was to make propaganda and to defend their stronghold at any and all cost. It is evident (and duly noted by these two who went before me) that the various “witnesses” to *Ev disagree with one another’s claims in the vast majority of cases, and I have doubts about the very existence of any person named Marcion - yet I am quite convinced that there was a movement prior to Christianity, and that it was “called Chrestianity”. A reliable and verifiable witness to that is found in the Nag Hammadi Library that indisputably tells us of Chrestos and Chrestians and Chrest-ness; the 52 codices contain some 165 occurrences of ⲭ̅ⲥ̅, and 35 Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 3 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 instances of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ and ⲙⲛⲧⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ. Only the gospel of Philip narrates (twice) of ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ, Christian, and only towards the end; it is evident that Philip narrates of a chronological order and evolution there, and he speaks to us on the brink of Chrestianity and Christianity - yet his and all other NHL translations simply say Christ or Christian, and in all of the 5,000 pages published by Brill there is only one single (and diffuse) comment to the Chrest-translated-as-Christ matter. It stands beyond reason that a) the current translation of any NHL text is unreliable and greatly coloured by Christian bias, just as b) there likely was a grand movement of something that can be considered Chrestianity and likely was even called that way. Was there a Marcion? I highly doubt it, because it would be a very convenient way to tackle and address something like Chrestianity; how does one handle a movement but by its leader? How better to ridicule something than by ridiculing someone who represents that very something? I doubt the existence of a Marcion (regardless of the additional implications made, such as e.g. Marcion raping a virgin), precisely because more than a century separates the alleged “peak dates” for Jesus (30 CE) and Marcion (144 CE). Yet regardless of the shape, length and history of a movement, there was a text, and that text is important - as it contained a great amount of what was in Thomas and what was also in the NT; yet not all, as far as we can tell. There is Thomasine material in the NT that likely is not present in Marcion (like the parable of the seed and the weeds) and Matthew especially seems to have tried to increase the Thomasine material, for instance Matthew 13:44-48 where he very quickly and hastily throws in three complete Thomas logia in just a handful of verses. What did Marcion look like? Matthias Klinghardt has created a fabulous and magnificent reconstruction in his more than 1,400 pages of The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels. What Harnack wrote was heavily biased and Roth’s is not much better, yet Klinghardt’s work addresses all questions, especially the critical ones like the wondrous remark in Luke 4:23 (Berean Literal): And He said to them, “Surely you will say to Me this proverb, ‘Physician heal yourself! Whatsoever we have heard has been done in Capernaum, do here in Your hometown also.’” In Luke, Jesus hasn’t been in Capernaum; it is only in Luke 4:31 that he first goes there, whereas in *Ev his story starts in Capernaum - making this verse in this very place a perfect fit for *Ev yet a most contradictory and inexplicable anomaly in Luke. Harnack doesn’t comment on this most remarkable event, which indubitably deserves attention, and neither does Roth, and that fully discredits the both of them; BeDuhn has a small footnote on the matter in reference to what others think about it and leaves it at that, while including the fragment in his reconstruction in between square brackets. Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 4 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 I follow Klinghardt’s reconstruction, as well as Vinzent’s great use of that in his Christi Thora, yet deviate from it at two points: *Ev highly likely did not contain the Tiberius dating “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea”: there is ample attestation to it but there’s quite a lot of it really. It serves no purpose to Marcion whereas its benefits to Christianity are undeniably essential 2) *Ev highly likely did not contain a resurrection - and that is pivotal and it will be discussed in the next chapter, and it will serve as the working thesis for it 1) The New Testament When looking at Mark we find a much more palatable redaction of *Ev than in Luke, because Mark’s is a rather short one: it takes the death of Jesus, and adds only 17 verses to that, whereas Matthew adds 36, Luke 63 and John 68: Mark 15:37 But Jesus, having uttered a loud cry, breathed His last. 38 And the veil of the temple was torn into two from top to bottom. 39 And the centurion standing opposite of Him, having seen that He breathed His last, thus said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” 40 And there were also women looking on from afar off, among whom also were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the least and of Joseph, and Salome, 41 who had been following Him and had been ministering to Him when He was in Galilee, and many other ones having come up with Him to Jerusalem. 42 And evening having arrived already, since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before Sabbath, 43 having come, Joseph from Arimathea, a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God, having boldness, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already. 45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph. 46 And having bought a linen cloth, having taken Him down, he wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which was cut out of a rock. And he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb. 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph were watching where He was laid. Mark 16 1 And the Sabbath having passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that having come, they might anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, the sun having arisen. Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 5 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 3 And they were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” 4 And having looked up, they see that the stone has been rolled away; for it was extremely large. 5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe, sitting on the right; and they were greatly amazed. 6 And he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” 8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had seized them. And they spoke nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. Women, women, and nothing but women. The bold parts emphasise their presence in these verses and of the 16 verses following Mark 15:39, they participate in 11 - and the remaining 5 serve Joseph burying Jesus. Yet what do we conclude from this? Jesus dies, the veil of the temple splits and the centurion proclaims his divine status - and verse 38 and 39 are evident “Judadditions” to *Ev by Mark (we’ll get to those later). Verse 15:37 in itself is a fine open ending really, or rather, a pretty closed one - we only think it is open because in our mind and memory the story continues with 16:9-20. But that certainly wasn’t the case in the first centuries and the earliest Codices that we have, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (+/- 350 CE), don’t have it - whereas Bezae and Alexandrinus (+/- 400 CE) do, yet the consensus is that the text of 16:9-20 is decidedly non-Markan. Mark initially ended at 16:8, and when we look - really look - at what’s there then it is evident that after the death of Jesus the women are forcefully pushed onto the scene; Mary gets named only once in Mark 6:3, Mary Magdalene appears here for the first time, and Salome appears only here and in Mark 16:1 - in all of the NT. Three women make a cameo appearance; that is very suspicious. When we observe their role, we see that it starts right after the death of Jesus and follows through until the very end of Mark - and if we consider that to be a little story in itself, then what is the conclusion, what is the summary, loosely translated? The women witnessed it all; then Joseph buried Jesus and when those same women went to check on his grave they got told - by an angel no less - that he had risen; yet instead of telling anyone they ran! That is what Mark wants to tell us, and that is really all that he wants to tell us: verse 38 and 39 are merely ticking off the Scripture box while the burial is of no consequence either because it is a requirement for the resurrection scene, and it is evident how neither isn’t elaborated on until in Luke, Matthew and (especially) John. As always, the reason for this little story by Mark lies in another story, and that story is the very reason for all of Mark’s story, and that very story Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 6 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 is the story as it is told in *Ev: Mark is the very first copy of an *Ev-like text and apart from adding a plethora of Judaic elements (“Judadditions”) from the Tanakh, he also changes the outcome of *Ev, the final end: *Ev didn’t tell of a resurrected Jesus but of an executed Jesus, a very dead Jesus. A completely and definitely dead Jesus, with all hope lost forever; most certainly not a happy ending at all but a frustrating, devastatingly sad and utterly unfair ending. An ending that either makes you cry bitter tears or fills you with rage. Yet such isn’t the story that Mark wants to tell, he wants to tell a quite different story, one with a much less grizzly outcome; there is hope, there is light, in and after all of this darkness: Jesus lives! So the story he invents for that is that everyone believed - nay, incorrectly assumed - that Jesus died because the damn women simply botched it, they forgot to tell that they got told by an angel that Jesus had risen. So Jesus surely didn’t die, not at all - on the contrary! Jesus lived, he lives!! Rejoice!!! And when we pay a visit to Luke, we see the same story unfold yet it isn’t until Luke 24:10 that the women get named, even though that is with slightly different names / roles: Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And their words appeared before them like folly, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter having risen up, ran to the tomb, and having stooped down, he sees only the linen strips . And he went away, wondering in himself at that having come to pass. And although Luke disagrees with Mark and has the women tell the apostles(!), right after that it is Peter who gets the prize because he runs to the tomb and spots the ‘linen strips’ that Jesus was wrapped in, thus being the first to verify the story (but neither is he telling anyone about it). Matthew also has three women in 27:56, also similar yet not identical in names - neither to Mark nor to Luke: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee Yet it is the same outcome even though Matthew adds an overwhelming amount of drama but solves the predicament of whether or not the women forsook their duty with his so awkwardly casual 28:9: And having gone out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Greetings!” And having approached, they took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 7 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 As usual, a great evolution is witnessed and the order appears to be Mark, Luke, Matthew; but what does this entail for *Ev, and why did that story need changing, and especially in such a radical fashion? Chrestianity When we look beyond any and all possible veils then it is highly likely that a movement preceded Christianity, and it is one to which the NHL attests, as well as do Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and even Justin Martyr, Clement and Tertullian, among others, by using a word that isn’t spelled Christ(ian) but in fact Chrest(ian). And *Ev narrates the story of this Chrestianity and that story - in my view - ends with the death of its protagonist at the hands of Romans, at the instigation of Judaics. And going by Vinzent’s Christi Thora that is not all, as the pivotal scene is *Ev 16:16-17, when and where Jesus announces: The Law and the prophets were until John. From then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed. 17 Heaven and earth will pass away faster than one single stroke of the words of the Lord John (the Baptist!) is history, a thing of the past; until him were the Judaic Law and their prophets, yet from then on there is the kingdom of God, a brand-new promise and religion with a brand-new hero/protagonist. And John the Baptist not only failed to recognise Jesus but he also failed to believe in him, and this scene of him sending his disciples in order to check up on Jesus is a most remarkable remnant in the NT, where that very same John suddenly has baptised that same Jesus not long before - and a dove landed on said Jesus, or was it the Holy Spirit, or both? - while at the same time a voice from heaven said “This is my Son with whom I am well pleased”. As I have said before: even I would believe in that Jesus if I had witnessed that scene, and it is no small wonder that Mark dropped this scene right here, with John having his disciples checking out whether Jesus is for real. It so very strongly conflicts with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, so why did Luke and Matthew not do so likewise, why did they keep this - now so very contradictory - scene? Not the declaration about John itself, but John sending his disciples (Mat 11:2-7, Luke 7:18-24) because he doubts Jesus? It is evident that that scene comes from *Ev, and that it is part and parcel of Chrestianity, and that it is yet another j’accuse of Judaism just like the Transfiguration - that only serves to let Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets) know that their days are over, and that both of them should listen to Jesus, and it is God himself who instructs them to do so. *Ev is a story of a god or messiah-like figure outside of Judaism, yet one who is not even recognised by their prophet. This Jesus is a New Promise, who works magic or miracles and who speaks in riddles, and not only does he exist outside of Judaism, and neither is he recognised by Judaism or their Judaic prophet - he also operates against Judaism, by e.g. rejecting some of their core habits Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 8 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 like fasting, praying, giving alms - and likely even circumcision, if we look at how Paul apologises for that. Chrestianity is not just some new religion, it is one that vehemently rejects Judaism - it is not precisely like a parasite living off a host and slowly consuming it, but a somewhat essential part of Chrestianity’s existence, its claim to fame, depends on Judaism as it so very strongly reacts against it; Judaism serves as the Nemesis of Chrestianity, so to say. And when we then look at Thomas with whom *Ev and the NT have such overwhelming material in common, then what starts to unfold is a rather ugly picture, and it is one of truly fierce anti-Judaism, of something that borders on outright hate against Judeans, Judaics and Judaism Anti-Judaism Claudius expelled Judaics from Rome around 50 CE - for no specific reason - and Suetonius’ testimony to that mentions a Chrestus. Cassius Dio may or may not refer to the same event, yet decades earlier (6 CE) a certain Judas caused disturbances in Judea - if we are to believe and trust Josephus. Count in the Alexandrian riots (38 CE), the Jacob and Simon uprising (46-48 CE), the first Jewish-Roman war (66-73 CE), the Kitos War (115-117 CE) and Bar Kokhba (132-136 CE), and there is almost one and a half century of unrest throughout the Roman Empire involving Judaics and hundreds of thousands of casualties - even though that last number may be exaggerated. Civil unrest involving Judaics throughout the Roman Empire, over the course of a century, taking place in multiple continents - for no apparent or consistent reason whatsoever, it would seem. If the Chrestian movement reflects the story of “my *Ev”, one that ends with the death of Jesus at the instigation of Judaics and carried out by Romans, then it is very plausible that such a story wouldn’t have gone down very well: combine zeal with unfair treatment and frustration, and that mixes into a highly volatile and explosive combination, destined to combust at any moment. And that in turn would lead to a very unfair and unequal fight, assuming that Chrestians didn’t wear any particular labels or insignia: anyone could or could not be a Chrestian, there would be nothing on the outside showing someone to be either - is my likely assumption. In turn, the Judaics and Romans would have been very distinguishable: general appearance and typical dress code would give both away, as would the places they visited, synagogues for the Judaics for instance. What would ensue as a result of this disparity, this great imbalance in the distinction between the three parties involved, is a certain guerrilla war; Chrestians would be free to wander and roam the streets and buildings, locations of any kind: unchecked, indistinguishable from other citizens - only to possibly strike with full force at any time. They could even dress up as Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 9 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Romans or Judaics, setting up both their enemies against one another - the true magnitude of the implications here can only be grossly underestimated. What this would imply is an absolute either-or scenario from the point of view of the state: either everyone would have to be trusted to be a kind, law abiding citizen - or no one at all; when only a full body search can ascertain the extent to which you can trust someone then it is evident that a situation like this eliminates all trust from all of society. There simply is nothing more disruptive to society than civil war, as civil war eliminates even the small set of rules that “normal war” at least is supposed to uphold. Chrestians would be free to target Judaics, their gatherings, even their properties as well - in public but perhaps also in private, in broad daylight but likely also in dark alleys. And with an invisible enemy there was nothing left to do for the Judaics but to maintain a constant vigil and to defend when struck. The Judaics would have appealed to the Romans, the powers that be, but those would likewise have felt equally powerless and not particularly inclined to e.g. furnish groups of Judaics with free bodyguards: there is a certain duty of a state to protect its citizens but that is based on regular circumstances, and these circumstances would have upset everything. Judaic tensions surely weren’t all related to this, but the odd sentence ‘Hadrian (emperor 117– 138 CE) attempted to completely root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions’ trying to justify what happened after Bar Kokhba just doesn’t make any sense as a cause - and there isn’t one; there isn’t a cause relating Judaics to these tensions that lasted well over a century. The reasons for the various revolts and rebellions are either absent or vague, related to taxation as well as to prior executions of Judaics, but there simply is not a religious cause to any of it all, going by the written records that have survived - and if Judaism is not (even remotely related to) the cause of these uprisings then how can it be involved in the solution to its problem? What really would explain well over a century of continued civil unrest, something that apparently even the greatest of Romans couldn’t resolve, would be others targeting the Judaics relentlessly and thereby obliging them to strike back. The banning of Judaics and Judaism in subsequent cities would attest to reluctant and truly desperate Roman measures of trying to dampen the fuel to that fire, as only the victims of these attacks were visible, i.e. the Judaics themselves. Romans had to resort to this most drastic of measures and punish the victim instead of the perpetrator, as the latter was invisible while the former was perfectly visible whether victim or not. The real downside to that measure however was that it would effectively only worsen the situation, as taking the Judaics out of the equation would give the Chrestians all the time in the world to redirect their attention to the Romans, who would in turn receive the full brunt - after all it was them who executed Jesus, wasn’t it? The Judaics merely made them do it, according to the story... Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 10 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Christianity And here we are, after Bar Kokhba, with all of Judaism and Judaics banned in Judea around 135 CE, looking back at more than a century of civil unrest involving Judaics throughout the Roman Empire. Did eradicating Judaism from its beating heart prove to be enough? I am unsure, as I am unsure about many things - yet all the signs point in this direction as the earliest point in time for ‘the making of Christianity’, or the hostile take-over of Chrestianity by the rulers of the world: Romans. Just pause and imagine it: there is a story about an ⲓ̅ⲥ̅. It’s your hero, and he is against the rulers who are so sanctimonious and hypocritical, and in response they kill him! Ruthlessly, without remorse, without reason. And while some tell you that it didn’t really happen, it is evident that they’d only say so to save their skins. What can you do? Make them pay! If the Chrestian (*Ev) story really ended at Jesus ex-Spiriting as in Mark 15:37, then the Markan ending can only make sense as a radical attempt at damage control, at mitigating that outcome - for then there was some very real reason for some truly solid animosity between Chrestians and Judaics (and Romans). And it is absolutely irrelevant whether this story was real or whether any stories are real because all stories are always true (enough) to act on, and action certainly is very well attested to in more than a century of rulings & regulations on Judaics, rebellion, and outright revolt. And if the Chrestian story didn’t end there yet included a resurrection of any kind, then what on earth is Mark’s real contribution here? Is it even possible, assuming that *Ev ended with a buried yet resurrected Jesus, that Mark just leaves all of that almost intact? While only adding Judaic elements like the rent veil and the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of god? Mark’s κεντυρίων in 15:39, 44, 45 is a Roman loanword that gets fixed by Luke and Matthew into ἑκατοντάρχης and the centurion is unattested for in *Ev; the veil appears to be attested by Tertullian alone but it doesn’t receive any attention. What really is the added value of Mark here but a mere story about solely completely unknown and uncommitted people busying themselves with the burial and resurrection of Jesus, only to nigh nefariously neglect it all? What is the point of writing the mother of Jesus into this script without explicitly referring to her as the mother of Jesus? But most importantly, what use is it to have Jesus killed, only to resurrect him and put that to no use whatsoever? The very least that Jesus should have done is gloat and voice a strong “I told you so” at the Judaic leaders who wanted him dead, at Pontius Pilate who had him executed despite the fact that he didn’t find him guilty of anything. It really does not make any sense for *Ev to have his story end with his protagonist being killed by the ruling Romans at the instigation of his Nemesis, the Pharisaic/Judaic collective, only to cheerfully resurrect after three days and just end all of Jesus’ action right there: that only euphemises the atrocious death and cuts both the executors as the instigators considerable slack - whereas Mark has a Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 11 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 blatantly obvious reason, and also a business case to “make a prophecy come true” - and it is precisely both those that will be discussed in the following chapter as they lie at the core of the entire strategy Rewriting history for the sake of the present and future It seems that there apparently was no other option for the Roman rulers but to rewrite the Chrestian story in an attempt to take matters into their own hands: rewrite history and the present can become yours, and then so will the future be. And the first attempt to consider that, or one that perhaps merely attests to a dress rehearsal, can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr who so very remarkably hands out verbatim quotes that are a mix of Luke and Matthew, and nowhere to be found. Irenaeus also has the uncanny ability to verbatim quote non-existing sources - did they recite from a proto-gospel of their own making that they were working on, and were they trying out how that would be received? The least intrusive attempt in the NT appears to be the book of Romans where “Paul” simply tries to apologise for the rejection of laws, circumcision and whatnot. He doesn’t cling to Jesus in any way, he doesn’t try to explain anything - but only unleashes his typical Roman rhetoric in a grand scene that is so very reminiscent of someone selling a “Gentile” religion to a Judaic audience: only in Romans 11:13 does Paul start to address ‘Gentiles’. Paul is really trying very, very hard to appear to convince Judaics that Chrestianity is not all that bad really and come to think of it, even a fulfilling of Torah promises. Paul bends but doesn’t break, as he e.g. suggests that the Law is a thing of the past only to instantaneously claim next that the Law is Holy (Romans 7:7-12): Paul continuously dances on wafer-thin ice on his mission impossible of converting Judaics to Chrestianity, pleasing both parties while juggling untold carrots and sticks simultaneously. Did Paul succeed? I find that very hard to believe, and highly doubt it. Yet is his text really an attempt to convert Judaics to Chrestianity in order to close the gap and fuse the so very hostile and anti-Judaic Chrestianity with Judaism, or did it merely serve as a showcase, a demonstration of how Judaics allegedly accepted Chrestianity - and thus persuasively demonstrating that in actuality Chrestianity couldn’t possibly be really against Judaism and vice versa, or could it? Whether such was (intended to be) the case or not, and to what extent, Mark got written nonetheless either before, during or after - and Mark follows the exact same strategy as Paul who attempts to heal the wounds, to close the great divide between Chrestianity and Judaism by bringing them together, while on the other he cements that newly forged bond by creating a mutual dependency on the two, by the two: the essence of Chrestianity, its very core, was foretold by Judaism via its sacred scripture as laid down in the Tanakh - and as such it has not only become undeniable that Chrestianity owes its very existence to Judaism, but it is also the Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 12 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 very fate of Judaism that Chrestianity has come into being (and favoured the Gentiles over the Judaics). Yet where Paul sketches Chrestianity as righteous punishment for the Judaic disobedience to their God (although foretold by that same God so it’s not really their fault but merely their fate) and thereby intends to make both Chrestianity greatly indebted to Judaism as well as vice versa, Mark makes it all very small and merely sticks to having Jesus himself “fulfil prophecies” in order to make the Chrestian Jesus fully dependent on Judaism as well as vice versa; and what Mark starts will later lead to the unbridled falsifications and inventions of “Judaic prophecies” by Matthew such as the shameless application of Jeremiah 31:15 to Matthew 2:17, the alleged Bethlehem children massacre, while wisely not quoting the immediate successive verses (Berean Study Bible): Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”b 16 This is what the LORD says: “Keep your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for the reward for your work will come, declares the LORD. Then your children will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So there is hope for your future, declares the LORD, and your children will return to their own land. The core strategy behind both Paul and the gospels In essence, the gospels thus share the same strategy as Paul ff: 1. 2. Heal the wounds between Judaism and Chrestianity by ending the divide via bringing the opponents together; Permanently align Chrestianity and Judaism by forging an unbreakable bond between the two via making one dependent on the other and vice versa Paul (and ff) addresses the first point with his apologising for the Gentiles having received this new god and kingdom, even while being “Lawless” and uncircumcised, and he moves on to the second point by asserting that Chrestianity is the fulfilment of God’s plan (Romans 9:25-26); Mark (and ff) handles the first issue by taking the anti-Judaism in *Ev and focussing all of it towards the ‘Pharisees and scribes’ - thereby catching two birds with one stone, and his way of addressing the second point is by taking not Chrestianity but only Jesus and to present him as the fulfilment of God’s plan (Mark 1:1-3). And in the direct and immediate context of *Ev, the very first thing that Mark did was to follow up on this dual strategy and to turn John the Baptist into a friend of Jesus, to put them on the same team. While e.g. the resulting baptism of Jesus by John has forever haunted Christianity, Malachi 3:1 predicted that the Messenger would get a visit in his ‘temple’ and this was the best that Mark could come up with to have them do - and straight away we see implications of the application of this twofold strategy by Mark, and all this has to be done on Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 13 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 top of *Ev within the confines of that text/story being fairly well known already. And it certainly was not an easy task at all, to follow the story of *Ev and alter the anti-Judaism by dropping that and adding (pro-) Judaism to it - while at the same time seek to even bond the two, Chrestianity and Judaism; yet Mark starts right away at the task in Mark 1:1-11 and he doesn’t miss a beat, he doesn’t skip a verse, without maximising both of these goals. Yet the really initial thing that Mark did and which simply had to be done was to undo the death of Jesus and to resuscitate him, to turn the dead Jesus into a live one, and we can see how daring and monumental Mark 15:40-16:8 actually is: it takes a dead Jesus and turns him into a living one, and that is all that matters. We may perceive Mark 15:40-16:8 through our contemporary lens, tainted with tons of knowledge of “all that unfolded afterwards” and mistake Mark’s ending for a means without end, but it most certainly wasn’t, it was - and still is, and always has been - his entire ultimate goal. And what we now, from our luxurious armchairs and over more than a dozen centuries later, may perceive as a somewhat feeble, perhaps rather uneventful ending most definitely was very far from either of that; on the contrary, it was wild, daring, daunting, bold and brazen: it was a most magnificent counterstrike in the War Against Chrestianity. The Chrestian fire must be quenched, the rage subdued, the risks mitigated, the damage controlled - and in love and war anything is allowed, definitely after more than a century of unrest, decades of decay, hundreds of thousands of deaths. Were the so-called “Church Fathers” lying? Of course they were, they were lying through the back of their teeth, and willing and able to do so; and while we shouldn’t forget that ‘writing history’ was looked upon slightly differently some 1,500 years ago, we must not forget what highly likely was at stake: the stability of the greater part of the Roman Empire. After every single other measure had been tried and tested - and failed - said stability was easily expressed in gigantic magnitudes of money due to its sheer size, but also equated to tens of thousands of lives: all this wasn’t necessarily about nothing but a mere power and land grab driven by greed and corruption, it primarily was directed at finally establishing peace and prosperity Aftermath Mark very successfully managed to turn the tide, and while Matthew must have cursed him more than a few times for the mistakes that he made it is evident that Matthew merely fixing Mark and following up on him is the greatest compliment that Mark could ever have received but we can not - must not - forget that whatever Mark wrote immediately became history and “fact”: the baptism of Jesus is a fine example, and it is obvious how that which Mark did and which was ‘appreciated’ got continued, and that which didn’t get appreciated got either completely ditched or altered - to the best of the abilities of his successors, and within the confines of the possibilities as dictated by legacy itself. And just as hard as Luke tries to Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 14 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 pretend that Judas didn’t kiss Jesus (for very good reasons), so does John Presbyter (also) try to ignore that Jesus got baptised: both sketch the scene and move the stage props around to their expected positions, and most readers won’t even notice that there is no actual kiss in Luke, and that there is no actual Jesus baptism in John. There most certainly are very visible traces of discomfort, and even outright disagreement with the legacy that Mark left behind. But was it enough? Basically yes, but every story leads to others. And even if Mark (or even Paul) didn’t get written until the 3rd or even 4th CE, it took two more waves for the gospels to become ‘settled’. Irenaeus gives us a glimpse at the revolution during his time when he reveals the order of his ‘canonical’ to be John, Luke, Matthew, Mark - and it is evident how John is from the Chrestian camp, heavily redacted, offered up in good gesture followed by Luke who likewise has strong ties there (being an *Ev copy), with Matthew right behind it in order to strike at those who took that bait. What we see there is Irenaeus taking the knee at Chrestianity and we’re end 2nd CE at the earliest, and at the cutover from Chrestianity to Christianity, and that is where a Philip would fit in. Yet the final concession to Chrestianity, to all of it, involved not only the incorporation of most of *Ev but also of some extra material from its own source, Thomas - and that attests to full awareness, a completely living testimony, around 200 CE, of and to both original sources to the NT that possibly date back to the 1st half of 1st CE or even earlier: the second wave namely consists of Matthew taking *Ev and turning it into Luke while writing his own on the side, and it doesn’t need to get any more complicated than that. When one accepts the possibility of ‘the making of gospels’ like Mark then anything goes and Matthew writing both his and Luke’s explains the remaining crux to the Synoptic Problem: textual criticism demonstrates that Luke used Matthew yet textual criticism also demonstrates that Matthew used Luke: indeed, Luke and Matthew are the outcome of two different yet similar ‘gospels’ meant for two completely different audiences - and they were written in unison. Luke was nothing but *Ev in a Judaic straitjacket whereas Matthew was a much more rigid form of Mark, the new Judaic Chrestianity (still not rebranded Christianity). But the similarities and simultaneous discrepancies between Luke and Matthew are very pleasantly explained when we accept that Luke is merely ‘*Ev done right’ and really in need of some support from another source, as there is only so much that can be changed to a story when only one other story (Mark) is known to exist, and one that at points strongly deviates from it at that - and the very fact that there are so many minor disagreements between Luke and Matthew is the superglue to their agreements against Mark, and it is obvious how the birth narratives are divided over Luke as well as Matthew, how the same is done to the genealogy, John the Baptists’ “preaching”, how the Sermon on the Mount is mirrored in the Beatitudes and vice versa; they are reinforcing the central story of each of them exactly by and via the minor disagreements. ‘LukeMatthew’ really is a brilliant move because two people testifying to e.g. having seen a clown dressed in red paradoxically are perceived to be less credulous than Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 15 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 one of them testifying to the clown wearing red with the other swearing it was blue: the clothing will forever be contested yet the very existence of the clown itself has become (much more) reliable. And when we then consider these two different applications of one and the same strategy, the four gospels on one side and Romans ff on the other side, then Acts is the obvious glue in between: where ever the both share very little, Acts contains both; for instance disciples (gospels) versus apostles (Romans), heaven (2 occurrences in all of Romans versus 150 in the gospels), Jerusalem / Judea / Samaria / Galilee (65, 28, 4 and 54 occurrences in the gospels) versus 4 Jerusalems and 1 Judea in all of Romans, prophet / priest / Pharisee / Sadducee / scribe (91, 94, 91, 9 and 61 occurrences) versus 4 prophets and nothing more in all of Romans. There is a gaping void between the four gospels and the remainder of the NT, and Acts is simply filling it with a fusion of both, it is bridging the giant gap between these two evidently so decisively different drivers of change: Paul ff pleading his case for Chrestianity, almost blissfully unaware of Jesus, and Mark ff pleading his case for Jesus, (naturally) entirely unaware of Chrestianity Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 16 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Conclusion This concludes the story of the inevitable emergence of Christianity - that simply had to be brought about in order to combat the perpetual civil unrest that Chrestianity had created. It took centuries for this all to settle, and even Constantine didn’t rule over Christianity, with Bezae, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus attesting to χρειϲτιανοι, αντιχριϲτοϲ, χρηϲτιανουϲ, and so on1 - so many texts had already been written and spread, and while each of these three here shows evidence of tampering, ultimately having corrected the root word into Christ, history couldn’t completely be unwritten. Yet new history can be written at any time, and if just enough time goes by, and if just enough texts get destroyed, and if just enough people get persecuted, murdered, annihilated, and eradicated - then the collective memory will get altered and history will be forever changed. Until and unless history is rewritten once more - and what I strive for is to give humanity what is theirs, to give Thomas what is his: exactly like his protagonist exclaims in logion 100 to ‘give me what is mine!’ - and that is that “the true Jesus” is that of Thomas, who proclaims that the kingdom is inside you, and ‘of your eye’. It is time for religions to recede from our world, to retreat: whereas faith can be a beautiful experience lived in privacy, a too large feature of religions is to serve the powerful at the cost of the powerless. And while there once was a legitimate reason to create Christianity on top of Chrestianity, there are many more valid reasons these days to dissolve the Christian religion in order to preserve its faith 1 Codex Vaticanus (4th CE): https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403 Left column, from the bottom, line 5: χρειϲτιανουϲ (Acts 11:26) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426 Left column, from the top, line 11: χρειϲτιανον (Acts 26:28) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: χρειϲτιανοι (1 Peter 4:16) Codex Vaticanus and "antiChrist": https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:18) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Left column, from the top, line 11: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:22) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444 Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: αντιχρ[ε]ιϲτου (1 John 4:3). There is clearly ample room there, and it should be an epsilon but beware that it's not the letter on the other side of the leaf. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446 Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (2 John 1:7) Codex Sinaiticus: (4th-5th CE) https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=51&chapter=11&verse=26 (Acts 11:26) - χρηϲτιανουϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=51&chapter=26&verse=28 (Acts 26:28) - χρηϲτιανον https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=53&chapter=4&verse=16 (1 Peter 4:16) - χρηϲτιανοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=2&verse=18 (1 John 2:18, both counts) - αντιχριϲτοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=2&verse=22 (1 John 2:22) - αντιχριϲτοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=4&verse=3 (1 John 4:3) - αντιχριϲτου https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=56&chapter=1&verse=8 (2 John 1:7) - αντιχριϲτοϲ Codex Bezae: (5th CE) https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/755 και ως συντυχων παρεκαλεσεν ⸆ ελθειν εις αντιοχειαν οιτινες παραγενομενοι ενιαυτον ολον συνεχυθησαν οχλον ϊκανον και τοτε πρωτον εχρηματισεν εν αντιοχεια οι μαθηται χρειστιανοι (⸆ - αυτον is suffixed at the end of the verse) (Acts 11:26) Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 17 The self-evident emergence of Christianity Martijn Linssen 2022 1-6-2022 18 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Addendum This addendum was written during the course of the Discussion that evolved as a result of the paper to which this is an addendum; and now the Discussion has ended I have incorporated it into the original paper. It contains the detailed ending of Mark and its equivalent of that in the ending of Luke, and the goal of doing that is to see what the similarities and differences are in order to ascertain which of these two stories came first. Naturally, a few verses exist before, and what is left out from Luke is the entire Emmaus story and all that comes after, another 41 verses: it is more than very plausible that Luke built on top of Mark in that regard, but if we zoom in on just this little piece, what can be learned? The question is solely and entirely about which of these two stories about ‘death, burial and empty tomb’ preceded the other, and which one shows more or better traces of responding to *Ev as a possible result of that Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 19 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Mark’s ending in Mark and in Luke In the fragments below Mark starts at Mark 15:37 and ends at his end, Mark 16:8; Luke starts at Luke 23:45 and ends at Luke 24:12. What is not included here but comes after that in Luke is ‘The Road to Emmaus’ (Luke 24:13:24, comparable to Mark 16:12-13), ‘Jesus Opens the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:25-35), ‘Jesus Appears to the Disciples’ (Luke 24:36-43), ‘Jesus Unveils the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:44-49), and ‘The Ascension’ (Luke 24:50-53, comparable to Mark 16:19-20). Bible content is from Berean Literal as usual and the comparison is by verse in order to keep it traceable, and in English in order to keep it accessible. Each emphasised part in Mark has a counterpart in Luke, in the same verse: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Bold denotes verbatim agreement; bold italic indicates verbatim agreement that has been reworded: same word or phrase yet only slightly different wording; italic is one step further away from that and demonstrates deliberate expansion / regression (and that arguably is a subjective hence arbitrary qualification when compared to the previous type of emphasis); underscore points to an immediately previous or successive verse for the same phrase or word; verse numbers in red indicate a different order, and the choice is to shift that of Luke over that of Mark. Please do note, also very carefully, that such initially is an indubitably subtle (and unintentional) push in favour of Mark as being prior2; highlighted indicates verbatim repetition of earlier phrases and is followed by the relevant [verse number] Mark chapter 15 Luke chapter 23 37 But Jesus, 46 And having uttered a loud cry, having called out in a loud voice, Jesus said, “Father, into Your hands I commit breathed His last. My Spirit.” And having said this, He breathed His last. 38 45 The sun was darkened, And the veil of the temple was torn and the veil of the temple was torn into two from top to bottom. in the middle. 39 And the centurion standing opposite of Him, 47 And having seen that which had taken having seen that He breathed His last [37], thus place, the centurion began glorifying God, said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” saying, “Certainly this man was righteous.” 40 And there were also women looking on from 49 And all from those who knew Him, and afar off, among whom also were Mary Magdalene, women, those having followed Him from and Mary the mother of James the least and of Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these Joseph, and Salome, things. 2 It is my personal professional (sic) experience that we, Western people, are trained to read from left to right and thus prefer a source to the left and a target (or destination) to the right and not the other way around. Given the fact that all this is about Mark, it is Mark who needs to go to the left. In my 25 years of creating and maintaining data and paper mappings for data integrations (my core daily work) I have not come across anyone who favoured a reverse order of source and target Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 20 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 41 who had been following Him and had been 48 And all the crowds having come together ministering to Him when He was in Galilee, and to this spectacle, having seen the things that many other ones having come up with Him to had taken place[47], were returning home, Jerusalem. beating the breasts. 42 And evening having arrived already, since it was 54 And it was the Day of Preparation, and the Preparation, that is, the day before Sabbath, Sabbath was just beginning. 43 having come, Joseph from Arimathea, a 50 And behold, a man named Joseph, being prominent Council member, also a Council member, a good and righteous man 51 he was not having consented to their counsel and deed - from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of who was waiting for the kingdom of God. God, having boldness, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 52 He having gone to Pilate, asked for the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already. 45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph. 46 And having bought a linen cloth, having taken 53 And having taken it down, Him down, he wrapped Him in the linen cloth he wrapped it in a linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which was cut out of a and placed it in a tomb cut in a rock, in rock. And he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb. which no one yet had been laid. 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of 55 And the women who were come with Him Joseph were watching out of Galilee, having followed, saw the tomb where He was laid. and how His body was laid. 16:1 And the Sabbath having passed, Mary 56 And having returned, they prepared spices Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and and anointing oils. And they rested indeed on Salome bought spices, that having come, they the Sabbath according to the commandment. might anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, 1 But the first day of the week, very early they come to the tomb, the sun having arisen. morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices that they had prepared, 3 And they were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” 4 And having looked up, they see that the stone 2 and they found the stone having been has been rolled away; for it was extremely large. rolled away from the tomb. 5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw 3 But having entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 21 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 4 And it came to pass that while they are a young man clothed in a white robe, sitting on the perplexed about this, behold, two men in right; dazzling garments stood by them; and they were greatly amazed. 5 and of them having become terrified and bowing the faces to the ground, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 And he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek 6 He is not here, but He is risen! Remember Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. how He spoke to you, being yet in Galilee, He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He 7 saying, ‘It behooves the Son of Man to be goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, delivered into hands of sinful men, and to be as He said to you.” crucified, and the third day to arise.’” 8 And they remembered His words. 8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for 9 And having returned from the tomb, they trembling and amazement had seized them. And related all these things to the eleven and to all they spoke nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And their words appeared before them like folly, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter having risen up, ran to the tomb, and having stooped down, he sees only the linen strips. And he went away, wondering in himself at that having come to pass. Similarities and differences Two stories that share a great amount of similarities, with a fair amount of verbatim agreements - although only the Greek, with NA28 in hand, can really demonstrate the extent of the latter. Looking at both Mark and Luke, the vast majority of their verses has ample emphasis, and very often a combination of different types of those. What really jumps out (and the different font colour does help there) is Mark 16:8 versus Luke 24:9, and they are pivotal as one narrates the very opposite of its counterpart - although the result of everything up to Luke 24:12 in essence is the same as that of everything up to Mark 16:8, and it gets motivated in 24:11. Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 22 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Looking at Luke and each verse, only verses 24:7, 10, 11 and 12 have nothing in common with Mark: the repetition of the prediction, the mentioning of the names of the women (for the first time), and the indispensable verses 24:11 and 24:12: in the end Peter gets declared as the winner, as the very first to having convinced himself that Jesus’ body is gone. Looking at Mark and each verse, there are three verses that don’t have parallels in Luke: 15:44, 45 and 16:3 - and starting with the latter, that clearly is an attempt to let the audience in on the predicament that the women would be facing “under regular circumstances” even though Joseph apparently had no issues in 15:46 in moving the stone all by himself, and three women easily have more power than one single man - but the verses that really stand out are 15:44 and 45: Mark 15:44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already. 45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph. These two verses here stress the same thing three times: has Jesus died? Two explicit questions in these verses, one implicit answer. But that is not all, this same κεντυρίων here previously already affirmed the death of Jesus in 15:39, by repeating verbatim the pivotal word of 15:37: Mark 15:37 Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν Mark 15:39 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν, εἶπεν “Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἦν.” Jesus exhales, ex-spirits, ἐκπνέω; from the verb πνέω (‘to breathe’) that relates to the noun πνεῦμα: ‘blast, wind’,’air, breath’, ‘spirit’. Jesus breathes out - a beautiful choice of word, isn’t it? 1. 2. 3. 4. Jesus dies in Mark 15:37 Jesus dies in Mark 15:39, by repeating the words from the scene of 15:37 yet this time from the viewpoint of the centurion Jesus is doubted by Pilate to have died in Mark 15:44, and Pilate expresses said doubt twice in one single verse Jesus’ death is confirmed once again by the centurion, yet implicitly this time What is the literal text to these verses? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mark 15:37 - Jesus dies: “breathed His last” (explicit) Mark 15:39 - Jesus dies: “having seen that He breathed His last” (explicit) Mark 15:44a - Did Jesus die?: “Pilate wondered if already He were dead” (explicit) Mark 15:44b - Did Jesus die?: “he questioned him whether He had died already” (explicit) Mark 15:45 - Jesus has died: “having known it from the centurion” (implicit) A typical Markan back-and-forth perhaps; two statements, two questions, one final statement reaffirming it all - there can really be no question about the outcome here, but most certainly not about the implied process. And this is the essential difference between Mark and Luke: an Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 23 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 enormous, gigantic, overwhelming emphasis on the alleged real, actual death of Jesus. In the space of 9 verses, the death of Jesus gets explicitly named 4 times, and implicitly named 1 time in response to the last explicit mention. Luke shares the first of these occurrences in his explicit 23:46, yet rephrases the second in 23:47 with the implicit ‘that which had taken place’, and he skips the entire Pilate-centurion dialogue of the 3 other references made by Mark; then again in 23:48 Luke refers to the crucifixion and death by verbatim repeating the implicit reference of 23:47, as if trying hard to avoid the very words “Jesus is dead / has died”. While Luke refers three times to the death of Jesus, he satisfies himself (and the audience) with the absolute minimum number of times that Luke must explicitly refer to the ‘death of Jesus’ (namely at least once) and that stands in stark and significant contrast with Mark who explicitly refers to it four times. Yet Matthew doesn’t even once explicitly name the death of Jesus, and paraphrases it with his 27:50 ‘yielded up His spirit (ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα)’. In 27:54 Matthew has the centurion bear witness in the same implicit way as Luke with ‘having seen (the earthquake and) the things taking place’. The only time that Matthew uses the literal words occurs in the scene of the guards yet that 27:64 names the very opposite of it all, namely ‘He is risen from the dead (Ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν)’ - Matthew doesn’t even once explicitly state that Jesus is dead, but instead he explicitly states that he isn’t dead (anymore)! Take all of Matthew out of context and the only explicit sentence that refers to the death of Jesus states that Jesus is alive, namely that he is risen from the dead. Four explicit references by Mark that Jesus is dead, only one by Luke, and none by Matthew and these are the subtle ways in which the Synoptics disagree even though all of them agree that Jesus died, was buried, and resurrected Mark affirms that really everyone (although Romans alone, save for the narrator himself, namely Pilate and the centurion) confirmed that Jesus was dead; he “states the facts” that everyone must have agreed upon until then. He really, absolutely, does not leave a shred of a doubt about the fact that “the whole world” is under the impression that Jesus has died because the Roman rulers, the least partial party present at the execution of Jesus, twice questioned the death of Jesus and also twice affirmed the death of Jesus. Why does Mark do this? It is obvious that he is working towards something, this is not a particularly hidden agenda of some kind, this is overtly over-emphasising not only the question whether Jesus is dead but also the response that Jesus is dead. Like Mark, in Luke 23:46 Jesus also ‘exhales’, ἐξέπνευσεν - yet that is the only reference in Luke to the death of Jesus, and the complete absence of an explicit and literal reference to death in Matthew, who merely paraphrases it all with his “sending forth the spirit”, ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα, confirms his moving away from Mark, and avoiding the topic of physical death altogether Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 24 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 The women did (certainly) (not) forsake their divine instruction That is not all that Luke and Matthew move away from; when the conflicting, contradictory and even opposite verses Mark 16:8 and Luke 24:9 are compared, there can be no doubt about the redactional correction there. This is not a case of the typical NT disagreement, this is a grand protest from one ‘gospel’ to the other: Mark 16:8 And having gone out, they fled Luke 23:9 And having returned from the from the tomb, for trembling and tomb, amazement had seized them. And they spoke nothing to anyone; for they related all these things to the eleven they were afraid. and to all the rest. “No they most certainly didn’t ‘speak nothing’ to anyone, they related all these things to the eleven and to all the rest!”; “No they most certainly didn’t relate all these things to the eleven and to all the rest, they spoke nothing to anyone!” - there is a fierce battle going on here between these two, and the exclamation mark almost puts itself in place. The Greek clearly expresses opposites here, with Mark’s ‘to-nobody nothing’ counterbalanced by Luke’s ‘these all-things’: καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν versus ἀπήγγειλαν ταῦτα πάντα. Mark ends here and the result of that end can only be that the story had gotten out that Jesus had died, and Mark is supporting - yet certainly not endorsing - that very story here and, in an aside, explaining to the audience alone how that story was inaccurate yet came into being nonetheless - and he entirely blames the women for it, and the women alone. And that appears to be the whole, sole and entire goal of Mark; to narrate his story of how that (other) story mistakenly got narrated because the women forsook their duty, instructed by an angel, to tell all about it - and Mark likely corrects *Ev here in no subtle way, and this could be considered to be the first formal and most significant attempt of ending Chrestianity and starting Christianity: Jesus did not die, he lives. And it is clear and evident how this end of Mark, his final verse 16:8, leaves the audience with only two takeaways: a) damn those women! and b) oh my good gracious goodness, Jesus lives! Luke wants to mitigate those circumstances - but not the direct outcome of it - by adding, in an aside of his own, his twist to this story: Luke 24:10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And their words appeared before them like folly, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter having risen up, ran to the tomb, and having stooped down, he sees only the linen strips. And he went away, wondering in himself at that having come to pass. Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 25 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 Where Mark identifies the women in the very beginning, Luke moves that moment to this very apologetic moment itself in order to emphasise their names, this appears to be a formal and public exoneration of them all - really all possible women ever allegedly present. As paraphrased by me, with the literal Lukan underlined: “yes indeed, it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who really did tell all these things to the apostles - contrary to what you heard, dear audience! And while these sweet ladies fulfilled their duty, it was the apostles’ choosing to not believe them - yes, dear audience, can you imagine that! - so they surely are not to blame in any way for any possible consequences, such as for instance the spreading of the - absolutely mistaken and truly untrue! - story that Jesus had died and was not resurrected” More than slightly tongue-in-cheek there, but the women certainly didn’t forsake their duty, according to Luke. And Luke drops that egg on Mark yet saves Peter from it by exonerating him in 24:12. Peter is the first to really convince himself of the fact that Jesus is no longer just dead by discovering the bindings, yet the reason for that “fact” not leading to a change in the story about Jesus being really dead is that Peter - poor Peter, ‘wondering in himself at that having come to pass’ - neglected to tell anyone of that as well because he was distracted or pondering or both. And at that moment, 24:12, Luke is perfectly in sync with Mark and has effectively told the same story yet he has exonerated the women, and safeguarded Peter from not knowing or telling. Why on earth would Luke go through so much trouble just to plead ‘not guilty’ for the women? On the road to Emmaus he emphasises the disbelief of the apostles who fail to recognise Jesus when they see him; they fail to recognise Jesus when he reads from the Scriptures, interpreting everything said about him there, and only see him for who he is when he breaks, blesses and hands out the bread. Matthew cunningly avoids the confrontation and does a Lukan kiss or Johannine baptism by telling that the women intended to tell everything to all, only to very conveniently not finish that initial story: Matthew 28:8 And having gone out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Greetings!” And having approached, they took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. They ran to tell His disciples! The poor women really did their best - yet Jesus intervened and that is the end of that story - and also any other story as the apostles couldn’t possibly be unbelieving now, and Matthew’s ending is miraculously short with 5 verses spent on the story that it was the guards who spread the story of the stolen body, and 5 verses spent on everything else that occurs after the tomb. And with a quickie that is very reminiscent of how Matthew 13:44-48 rams through three Thomas logia (109, 76 and 8) in 5 verses and 91 words Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 26 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 that – even in Thomas – consist of 93, 82 and 90 words, Matthew exonerates both the women and the apostles by having Jesus meet them before they can bungle anything, and in just one and a half verse Matthew fixes all of Mark’s and Luke’s excusing. Yet why does Luke go through so much trouble? The women in Mark’s story must have had great meaning for his audience, and perhaps that is the reason why Salome has switched places with this equally completely unknown Joanna who appears only once more in Luke 8:3? The only Salome that I know is in Thomas logion 613 - no name like that in the Tanakh, or the NT besides this very fragment of Mark Summary Mark puts tremendous stress on repeating the statement that Jesus is dead, and his story ends with no one knowing otherwise because the women forsook their duty. Luke suffices with the bare minimum and only mentions once that Jesus is dead by reusing the exact same phrase that Mark has, and he completely exonerates the women by putting the blame on the apostles for not believing them, which in turn he emphasises in the remainder of his story by having two of them failing to recognise Jesus twice. Matthew only paraphrases the moment of death, leaves it undecided whether or not the women did tell and the apostles believed them or not by having Jesus appear straight away, but he covers for the counter story that must have developed after Mark: Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, they just stole his body! As sometimes happens when comparing the Synoptics, a clear evolution is visible, and it doesn’t matter what is possible - as anything is possible - but what is likely. Is it likely that Matthew came first and that Luke and Mark expanded his curt decisions and statements in order to present the apostles as unbelieving and / or the women as forsaking their duty? No, it is instead very likely that Matthew decided to put an end to all that by evading all of it via dropping Jesus in their midst immediately after the tomb scene. Would Mark take the women who told the apostles but were not believed, and turn them into women who didn’t tell ‘nothing to none’? Or is it much more likely that Luke wants to soften the blow on the women while keeping the outcome the same, and changes their “not telling to anyone” into them dutifully reporting out to the apostles who themselves chose to not believe any of what they said, and affirming their unbelief by having it occur twice more afterwards? In the first scenario it would excuse the apostles for not telling anyone, and shift the blame onto the women; but that would leave the fact that the apostles were unbelieving and even discredit themselves for that later, in Luke 24:22-24, when and where they tell that they confess that they ‘went to the tomb and found it just as the women also said’. 3 There is a Salome in The (First) Apocalypse of James, NHL Codex V leaf 40 line 25 – and there are only 2 occurrences of Salome in all of the NHL (counting the two words in logion 61 of Thomas as 1 occurrence) Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 27 The self-evident emergence of Christianity 2022 So it is very implausible that Luke preceded Mark, and it is highly likely that both Mark and Luke preceded Matthew Then where does the extreme emphasis on the death of Jesus by Mark come from? Why is he the first to do this and why do the others so clearly move away from it, as they move away from most everything else that Mark writes? And why is everything to this end so very malleable, from the moment after that Jesus dies to every last verse? That can only be the case because that moment is shared, and the remainder isn’t: the death of Jesus can’t be changed anymore, but there can be “life after death” by creating it - and that is exactly what Mark is doing and it is the only thing that he is doing: because Mark desperately needs to debunk the entire story about the death of Jesus, and sacrifices the last 16 verses of his ending to entirely fulfil that purpose alone - and nothing else Martijn Linssen 1-6-2022 28