Barabbas and Marduk

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:48 am


In 1918, Heinrich Zimmern published a very mutilated text, found during the excavations of Assur, which describes the passion of Bel-Marduck and confirms that it is a myth in relation to New Year's rites.
We can sum it up as follows: The god Marduk is arrested, led to a mountain, interrogated, wounded, killed. Another character called Son of Assur, is accused of the crime and acquitted. He is released and he is in charge of the custody of the dead god. The goddess Ishtar goes to the mountain and laments; she takes the clothes of Marduk. We evocate the dead god by reciting the poem of creation. Marduk, though dead remains god and he implores his return to life. At last Isthar removes the trait that pierced her husband's heart, she wipes the blood and Marduk resuscitates. During the disappearance of Marduk a ruler of masquerade reigned.

The point of contact with Christian texts are striking. Jesus, too, goes to the mountains; he is arrested, interrogated, killed. Barabbas, son of the Father, a criminal is released. Jesus is derided by the title of king by derision; they take off his clothes; Mary Magdalene comes to her tomb as Ishtar; finally, he resurrects like Marduk.

The reign of the king of the Saceae lasted five days; but five days separate Jesus' entry into Jerusalem from his crucifixion.

Until the time of Diocletian (284-305), more than two and a half centuries after Jesus, the Jews used to crucify and burn an effigy every year, during the Feast of Purim (or Sorts) derived from the Feast of Saceae, a character named Hamman. He was the substitute of Mordecai-Marduk, while the prisoner of the Feast was called Zoganes, like the Sagan of the High Priest.

Some of these parallels made Guignebert say: "... There are between some of these traits and those who are most noticeable in the evangelical scene of derision, striking resemblances. I do not dream of denying it. But whoever says resemblance does not say relation and, in this case, it is the relation of derivation that counts ".

This opinion is questionable. When the similarities exist in large numbers between two legends, the relation exists even if one does not see how it occurred. This clarified, the derivation can, in the present case, be put easily in evidence.

This is the episode of Barabbas. "It was the annual custom, say the gospels, that a prisoner is released to the Jews on the occasion of their Easter" (John 18:39). However, while the critics neglected to mention in this mention the very important reminder of an annual rite, they are unanimous in declaring that this custom was unknown in Palestine and, in particular, in Jerusalem. We are not so sure.

For criticism forgets the essential: this custom existed in Babylon. A criminal was released there every year on the occasion of Marduk, while the man who represented the god was killed in the place of the criminal; in Diocletian's time the victim was replaced by his effigy.

Therefore, the Gospels do not describe a historical event that took place in Jerusalem during a Easter but an episode of the Purim Festival. This holiday is not mentioned in the New Testament, but some critics have assumed that the "feast of the Jews" mentioned in John (5: 1-18) was the Feast of Purim; indeed, the Jews were looking for Jesus to kill him.
If, therefore, the passages concerning Barabbas in our gospels are primitive, they merely translate an annual rite derived from a very ancient myth; if they were interpolated, it is because their author or copyist did not think to distort the original text, which would keep us in the realm of the myth. But many insertions in our texts have definitely distorted the meaning.

(Georges Ory, Le Christ et Jésus, p. 207-208, my free translation)

What is extremely interesting is that Barabbas, as 'Son of Father', finds an analogous character with the enigmatic 'Son of Assur' who would replace Marduk in the role of who is freed just before the Passion of the God.


It is curious that this particular point is escaped to the attention of this poor mythicist:
p. 32. The tablet, recovered by Germans from excavations in Assyria, refer to a New Year’s festival celebration performed in Assyria which was very similar to a New Year’s festival celebration performed in Babylon. The Babylonian poem, The Epic of Creation, celebrated the Babylonian god, Marduk, and the Babylonian New Year’s festival celebration therefore celebrated also Marduk; but Assyrians substituted their deity, Assur, in place of Marduk.
http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:59 am

The same Georges Ory alludes to this source:
http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf

I quote the suggestive point (my bold):



One thought of making a mythological feature of it. In 1918,
Heinrich Zimmern published a text coming from the excavations
of Assur, unfortunately very mutilated, which tells the passion of
Bel-Marduk 1. It is a myth in connection with the Babylonian rites of
the new year which it transposes in the divine plan.

The god is arrested, led to a mountain, questioned, wounded, and
killed. Another character, called the son of Assur, was accused of a
crime, acquitted, released
, and appointed to the guard of the dead god.
One seeks Marduk while saying: “Where is he a prisoner?” The gods
maintain him in prison far from the sun and the light. His
disappearance causes revolution and combat in Babylon. The goddess
Ishtar goes to the mountain and weeps while shouting: “My brother, my
brother!”
She carries the clothing of Marduk. The death of the god is evoked by
reciting the poem of Creation. Marduk himself beseeches the return to
life. Finally Ishtar is invited to withdraw the implement which pierced
the heart of her husband and to wipe blood. And Marduk returns to life.

In this very curious document Marduk is a god who dies and resurrects,
the made-to-order of Tammuz and Osiris. Zimmern pointed out that the
passion of Marduk, much more than that of Tammuz or that of Osiris, has
a certain resemblance to that of Jesus. In particular the acquitted and
released character makes one think of Barabbas

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Ulan
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Ulan » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:21 am

I don't find the details of that comparison very convincing, but who knows. Purim is about the Book of Esther. Esther and Mordechai, the two heroes, are most probably Ishtar and Marduk. There even the names match up.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:26 am

The reading of this article of Couchoud is fantastic, extraordinary, sublime!!! :thumbup:

I strongly recommend that you read it in full at least the following words:

The idea of Jesus Son of the Father and that of Jesus Messiah of Israel are so well amalgamated, synthesized today, that it is difficult for us to see that they do not have the same origin and that they could conflict before joining.

Jesus the Son of the Father, it is a design characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. According to John, Jesus is not Son of God in the same way where the scriptures says it of Israel or the Christ of Israel, but in a new direction, blasphemous to Jewish eyes, since he implies identity with God. Jesus is the ONLY son, monogenes, the unique Son, the Son whom we should distinguish nothing from the Father. “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (14:11). “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). It is necessary to return to the Son the same worship that to the Father (v. 23). This design is completely foreign with Judaism. One finds to him parallels only in paganism, where Zeus, according to Chrysippe, is at the same time the Father and Son 1. The origin had to be odious not only to the Jews themselves, but with the orthodox Christians, i.e. at those which wanted to preserve the religion of the Old Testament.
Mr. Delafosse, with insight, pointed out that, in its earliest core, the Fourth Gospel is violently hostile with the Judaism and the Old Testament. Far from merging with the Christ of Israel, the Son formally states not to have anything in common with him: “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,” what was the function of the Christ (3:17). He denies the famous Last Jugement expected by the apocalypses: “Whoever believes in him is not judged, but whoever does not believe is condemned already” (3.18). If the Son does not have anything in common with the Christ of Israel, the Father does not have anything common with God of Israel. The Son made known clearly with the Jews: “He who sent me, you do not know him” (7:29) “You never heard his voice, you did not see his face” (v. 27).
It is a very new, amazing, foreign God in the world, that the Son reveals: “No one has ever seen God: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father has made him known” (1:18). This is a denial of all the theophanies mentioned in the Old Testament. Denied, the ascent into heaven of the Elijah prophet and all the others: “No one has ascended into heaven” (John 3:13). Denied, the mission of all the prophets of Israel: “All those which came before me are robbers and brigands” (10:8). The violently antijudaic character of the Fourth Gospel is dissimulated today because, by way of interpolations and glosses, the ideas most opposed to the primitive spirit of the book were added in the last redaction.
The duality of redactions is loud and clear. It was denounced, before Delafosse, by Schwartz, Wellhausen and Loisy. What Delafosse detected, it is the relationship of the fundamental doctrines of the Fourth Gospel with that of a sect which, by the action which it exerted and the reaction that it caused, took a dominating role in the evolution of primitive Christianity. It is about the Marcionite sect.
Marcion proposes to the Christians to reject all that is Jewish: the Christ of Israel, God of Israel, the Old Testament, and to adore a God foreign to the world, revealed for the first time by Jesus. Its doctrines were spread in Asia and penetrated in Rome. Condemned on his extreme theses in 144 CE, Marcion exerted nevertheless a decisive influence on Christian theology. Thanks to skilful preparings, many writings of Marcionite tendency, to start with the Fourth Gospel, contributed to form the New Testament. It is in a Marcionite medium, or premarcionite, that is best understood the development of a Jesus Son of the Father, opposed to the Jesus Messiah of Israel.

Contrary to Basilides, Marcion professed that his Jesus had been crucified. It was the base of the mystery. By his death the Son had ransomed men from the Creator god and had given them to the Father. Although not having a body himself, but only an etheral envelope, Jesus had certainly undergone on the cross an apparent death. Tertullien, by which we know the doctrines of the Marcionites, is very affirmative on this point It is easy to understand with what indignation, what anger, the Christians attached to Messianic waiting and Jewish prophecies, the Christians who’s Apocalypse reveals us their state of mind, had to initially consider these people, enemies of the Christ of Israel and God of Israel, who forged a crucified Jesus, to which they allotted the strange name, of Son of the Father. One ridiculed this name in the Aramaic form of Bar-Abbas. This son-of-Father who treats the old prophets as robbers and brigands, himself is treated as a brigand. The polemic against Jesus Bar-Abbas took the most popular and most effective form, that of the account. It was a question of showing that only crucified, the only redeemer of the men, was as well the Christ of Israel, that even as announced the prophets. The Synoptic gospels, mainly Luke and Matthew, stuck to this demonstration. As of the birth of Jesus, an inspired prophet, Simeon, took Jesus in his arms and recognized in him the Christ, the salvation of God [Luke 2:20), light of the nations, glory of the people of Israel.

Matthew underlines of a feature supported twenty achievements of prophecies. In front of Pilate Jesus is formally accused of saying is Christ, a King (Luke 23:2), and when Pilate asks to him whether he is it, he does not contradict. Thus there is no doubt. The one crucified in truth is well Jesus the Christ. As for Jesus Bar-Abbas, the brigand, he was not at all crucified. He was released. Here are where it is necessary to answer those which tell another thing of him. As for the circumstances of the release, they were invented and skilfully arranged in the account so as to still prove another useful thing: the lack of responsibility by Pilate. Thus the episodes of Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene are of the same own way.
They are polemical accounts. The first is directed against the Gospel of John, the second against the Gospel of Basilides.
If our interpretation is valid, it should be proven, contrary to the current opinion, that the core of the Gospel of John is earlier than the Synoptic gospels. And to corroborate it, it would be necessary to show other cases of Synoptic polemic against John. We will make short remarks on these two points.

The explanation is perfect.

Note that the great expert of Gnosticism, April De Conick would agree entirely with Couchoud about the anti-Jewish and dualistic nature of the Fourth Gospel, pace Secret Alias.

It is not necessary to assume proto-John as the Earliest Gospel. Given the fact that the Barabbas episode was invented to attack directly marcionites, then the our entire Gospel tradition is later than Marcionism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:58 am

Today is a great day: I have finally unveiled the Enigma called Barabbas!

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

lsayre
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by lsayre » Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:54 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:26 am
The reading of this article of Couchoud is fantastic, extraordinary, sublime!!! :thumbup:

I strongly recommend that you read it in full ...
Where can I find this Couchoud article in full?

Giuseppe
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:59 am

lsayre wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:54 am
Where can I find this Couchoud article in full?
I had written in the previous post:
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:59 am
The same Georges Ory alludes to this source:
http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf
I repeat: the explanation is perfect, PER-FE-CT !!! :cheers: :cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5538
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:06 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:59 am
lsayre wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:54 am
Where can I find this Couchoud article in full?
I had written in the previous post:
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:59 am
The same Georges Ory alludes to this source:
http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf
Translated by an old IIDB/FRDB poster: Jake Jones IV.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:17 pm

The idea of a link between Marduk and Jesus is an interesting idea.
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:59 am
The same Georges Ory alludes to this source:
http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf




One thought of making a mythological feature of it. In 1918,
Heinrich Zimmern published a text coming from the excavations
of Assur, unfortunately very mutilated, which tells the passion of
Bel-Marduk 1. It is a myth in connection with the Babylonian rites of
the new year which it transposes in the divine plan.

The god is arrested, led to a mountain, questioned, wounded, and
killed. Another character, called the son of Assur, was accused of a
crime, acquitted, released, and appointed to the guard of the dead god.
One seeks Marduk while saying: “Where is he a prisoner?” The gods
maintain him in prison far from the sun and the light. His
disappearance causes revolution and combat in Babylon. The goddess
Ishtar goes to the mountain and weeps while shouting: “My brother, my
brother!”
She carries the clothing of Marduk. The death of the god is evoked by
reciting the poem of Creation. Marduk himself beseeches the return to
life. Finally Ishtar is invited to withdraw the implement which pierced
the heart of her husband and to wipe blood. And Marduk returns to life.

In this very curious document Marduk is a god who dies and resurrects,
the made-to-order of Tammuz and Osiris. Zimmern pointed out that the
passion of Marduk, much more than that of Tammuz or that of Osiris, has
a certain resemblance to that of Jesus. In particular the acquitted and
released character makes one think of Barabbas

My bold added.
The link you provide goes to article entitles “Jesus Barabbas” by L Couchoud and R Stahl. And the above quote is from pages 11 and 12 of the article (148-149 of the publication).

Please note that the text is very mutilated.

They conclude this section with rejection of this as the link between Jesus and Barabbas:
As regards Barabbas, the cominging together [of Barabbas and Jesus] remains rather vague. The Babylonian myth does not explain the most embarassing feature: the similarity of name and title between Barabbas and Jesus.
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:48 am

In 1918, Heinrich Zimmern published a very mutilated text, found during the excavations of Assur, which describes the passion of Bel-Marduck and confirms that it is a myth in relation to New Year's rites.
We can sum it up as follows: The god Marduk is arrested, led to a mountain, interrogated, wounded, killed. Another character called Son of Assur, is accused of the crime and acquitted. He is released and he is in charge of the custody of the dead god. The goddess Ishtar goes to the mountain and laments; she takes the clothes of Marduk. We evocate the dead god by reciting the poem of creation. Marduk, though dead remains god and he implores his return to life. At last Isthar removes the trait that pierced her husband's heart, she wipes the blood and Marduk resuscitates. During the disappearance of Marduk a ruler of masquerade reigned.

This text is about Bel and not Murduk.
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:48 am
p. 32. The tablet, recovered by Germans from excavations in Assyria, refer to a New Year’s festival celebration performed in Assyria which was very similar to a New Year’s festival celebration performed in Babylon. The Babylonian poem, The Epic of Creation, celebrated the Babylonian god, Marduk, and the Babylonian New Year’s festival celebration therefore celebrated also Marduk; but Assyrians substituted their deity, Assur, in place of Marduk.
http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html
Giuseppe you haven’t looked at this critically. You seem to have just accepted Zimmern’s position without questioning it. Your link sends us to an article by Robert Howard Kroepel which is a summary of a work by S Langdon. He states that the text of the tablet is disjointed.

It would be much better if we could have a translation of the whole text.

The Epic of Creation (Enuma Elis) does not have this story. As it is mainly about how Marduk became the supreme god after defeating Tiamat.

I also came across this:
In the early days of Assyriology, some scholars saw parallels between this text and the passion. Modern scholars are a little more cautious. A more up-to-date translation of this text, with commentary, is now available in chapter 6 of Mystical and mythological explanatory works of Assyrian and Babylonian scholars (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), by Alasdair Livingstone. ISBN: 0198154623. Images of the BM tablets may be requested from our departmental administrator, Angela Smith (asmith@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk). She will be able to advise you on technical specifications and their cost.

I hope this helps.

Yours faithfully,
Jon Taylor

Dr Jon Taylor
Curator (Cuneiform Collections)
The Department of the Middle East
The British Museum
Great Russell Street
(http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopi ... w=previous)

I have found this translation:
… [Nabu, who come from Bor]sippa; he comes on behalf of his father who is captive … who is roaming the streets; is looking for Bel – where is he held?
10 [Tasmetum ….] whose hands are outspread: she is praying to Sin (and) Shamash, saying “Grant Bel life.”
…. That she goes; she is going through the gate of the graveyard looking for him.
12 [The str]ongmen who stand in the gates of Esaggil: they are his guards who were appointed over him. … When the gods confined him, he disappeared from the midst … they brought him down from the midst.
15 [ (the mat) ] which is beneath him. The red wool with which he is clothed; [it is coloured] with his blood from the wounds where they beat him.
16 [Tasme]tum who kneels w[ith] him, had gone on his behalf
[ ], who does not go with him, saying “I am not a criminal”, saying “I do not take part [ ]”
[on behal[f] of Assur they opened the case before him, he h[ears] the case
[ the one] who does not go with him; he is a “son of Assur”, he is the guard appointed over him, he g[uards] him in a fortress-city
20 [the head w[hich] they hang on the gateposts of the “Mistress of Babylon”; that is the head of the criminal who stood with him.
21 [ ] they killed him and hung his head on the [nec]k of the “Mistress of Babylon”.
{As Nabu] turns and goes to Borsippa he is sprinkled with palm-stalks in its midst –
[after] Bel went to the hursan, the city revolted against [ ] they made war in its midst –
(and) the “pig-reeds” that are on the way of Nabu when he comes from Borsippa greet him (i.e. the people greet Nabu with the “pig-reeds”
25 When Nabu comes, he stands before him and sees him; he is the criminal who from Bel [ ]
[S]ince he is from Bel he s[ee]s him. The masmasu-“exorcists” who go before him recite formulas: they are his troops who speak before him
The mahhu-priest who goes before the “Mistress of Babylon” is the herald; he cries on her breast,
[s]aying, “they have brought him to the hursan; she comes down crying “Oh, my brother, oh, my brother”.
30 [ ] his clothes, which they take to the Lady of Uruk, are his kuzippu-garments …
… silver, gold or stones … which they brought out from Esaggil to the … temples. His house [ ]
The (divine) seritu-garment in which he (was) dressed; in the kadammu [it is stored]
The milk which they milk before Istar of Uruk is because she brought him up and he showed her mercy (or she showed him mercy).
34 Enuma Elish (the Epic of Creation) which is said before Bel in Nisan; [ ] sings it because he (Bel) is captive (or before Bel is captive).
He prays their prayers, their supplications he implores
[ ] speaks saying, “for the good of Assur he has done this” saying What is [ ] s[in]?
[ ] while looking at the heavens, prays to Sin and Samas saying, grant [me l]ife”
[ while] looking at the ground - - his hole is prepared for him when he c[omes] (or came) from the midst of the hursan
[ ] Bel did not go out ti the Akitu-house [ ] of the prisoner he carries with him [ ]
40 [The “Mistress of Baby]lon” who wears black wool on her back, [wears] red wool on [her[ front.
Her [ ] the blood of the innards which spilled.
[ ] before whom they slau[ghter- a pig on the eight day of Nisan (first month of the year {April}) [ ].
45 She is the [ ] of the house, they question her, saying, “Who is the criminal.” Saying [ ]
[ ] he quickly thirsts for water [ ]
[ ] which they libate; that is the “muddy water” [ ]
50 [ ] which they prepare [ ]
[that flou]r which is exceedingly abundand in Nisan; [ ] flour, since he is captive [ ]
The “hand water” which they bring near to the “house of crying”; these are the tears [in the midst ]
The (divine) seritu-garment that is before him; (that is the one) of which they spoke saying “the water [ ]”
53 The sprinkling (or the infection) which is spoke of in Enuma Elish
When heaven and earth had not been made
Ansar existed. The water before Ansar [ ]
He [ ] because of his sin he is “gathered” in the Kadammu, without water wearing [ ]
57 The footrace which (takes) place before Bel in Kislev (9th month) and they s[urround] all the places [ ]
Because Assur sent Ninurta to capture Zu, the god [ ]
Before Assur he said, “Zu is captured” and Assur [said] to the god [ ]
60 “go and announce to all the gods before [ ].
The whole speech which is in it the kalu priests [ ]
As for the plunder which they plundered (that) which they ruined – the gods, his fathers, they (ordered it)
The dog which cross Esabad: that is the messenger, Gula has sent before him (or because of him)
The sandal which they brought to the house of the “mistress of Babylon” that is the [ ] they bring it to her.
65 Because they have not let him free, he has not come out
The chariot which goes to the Akitu-house came (back) without its master; it rides without a master.
And the Sakkukutu that surround the outside of the city; that is his mourning promenade that goes around outside the city.
The “door of many holes” of which they speak; the gods imprisoned him; he entered the house; the door was locked (after) him
69 (Then) they opened holes in the midst of the door; they made war inside.
The Tribulations of Marduk the so-called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text’” by Tikva Frymer-Kensky in Journal of the American Oriental Society ©1983 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/601866?rea ... b_contents_)

This is based on Von Soden’s 1955 translation with some modifications by by Tikva Frymer-Kensky and she notes the following:

kuzippu could mean regal (the garments of the king)
kadammu a place where slave girls are gathered so maybe a secure place where those inside can’t escape from.
hursan – unknown could be a place or the “netherworld” or the realm of Tiamut, Tikva Frymer-Kensky concludes it is probable “a cosmic location … in which (Bel) was held captive".

Tikva Frymer-Kensky points out that Bel is held captive and guarded (note not killed). She states, “despite the opinions of Zimmern, Jensem and von Soden, there is no ordeal in this composition”. She states that those punished or rewarded are those who “stand with Bel” or don’t. She rejects the idea that this is about a dying and resurrected god. She states that there are indications “that at some stage the gods entered the prison of (Bel), most probably to free him".

The parallels with the “passion of Jesus Christ” are small:
Bel and Jesus are captured;
Bel and Jesus are both beaten;
There are two others with both Bel and Jesus, with Bel one is beheaded and the other appointed to guard him, while both of Jesus’ are crucified with him.

The differences are:
Bel is not put on trial, only the others are;
Bel is imprisoned, Jesus is crucified;
Bel’s son and sister seek him and tell an epic and sing as part of their supplications;
There is a fight to release Bel.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:50 pm

Michael G.,
I agree entirely with you about the rejection of the Marduk hypothesis as the best explanation of the enigma called Barabbas. And not only myself, but also Couchoud (would agree with you).

What has evidently escaped your attention is the my quote of the central part of the Couchoud's article (see link above). It is his case that has totally persuaded me: TOTALLY. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

I quote again in cubital characters the basic point:

This son-of-Father who treats the old prophets as robbers and brigands, himself is treated as a brigand.

Basically, Barabbas was inserted in any Gospel by the enemies of Marcion against Marcion. There is no a better explanation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply