Barabbas and Marduk

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:04 pm About my point about Robertson and Bermejo-Rubio, in essentia I agree with Robertson about the fact that an evil person named Jesus Barabbas could be inserted only to remove the confusion in the real world between two rival Jesus.

According to J. M. Robertson the rival Jesus of which Barabbas has to be the parody was an old Joshua 'Son of Father' cult but there is no evidence of the his existence to a so great degree to be embarrassing for Mark.

According to Bermejo-Rubio (a mere proponent of the seditious anti-Roman Jesus) the rival Jesus of which Barabbas has to be the parody was a historical Jesus who acted riotously against the Roman Empire. But there is no evidence that a historical Jesus existed and/or that he was a seditious anti-Roman.

I have changed my view about Marduk since Couchoud himself has given a better theory: ubi maior minor cessat.

While there is an ocean of evidence about the existence of a rival Christian sect that preached a Jesus Son of the Father who was not the Messiah of the Jews even if he was confused as such.

What the Couchoud's theory implies logically in the my eyes is that Mark was written against the marcionite threat well in view. Since you can introduce the parody of the marcionite Christ only if you are already aware about the preaching of Marcion. So Mark can be dated with certainty after 140 CE as terminus post quem.

(reordered by me)
Thank you for this. I think it clearly reveals the way you work. It seems that you read a theory and agreed with it, or part of it; then you read another and so you drop your previous belief in the theory read earlier to replace it with the one you have just read. It seems you have to either agree or disagree quickly, that you can’t look at the theory critically and consider it for a while and the arguments against it before enthusiastically embracing it and preaching it to others.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:04 pm
Michael BG wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:48 pm She is still talking about John’s gospel and not a proto-John. You seem to be reading more into what she wrote than is there!
she has to talk necessarily about proto-John insofar she uses - as she writes - terms as "impose", "taming", "domesticating", "bringing in line", in a word, corruption of a previous Gospel (i.e. proto-John):
Could it have emerged in a moment when Gnostic spirituality collided with emergent Christian mythology and the Jewish scriptures? If this is what happened, then its orthodoxy would have come later, as the result of a secondary interpretation that was imposed upon the Gospel by Apostolic Catholics who read into it their own view of the biblical God. If so, this would have ended up domesticating the Gospel, taming its wild Gnostic proclivities and bringing it in line with Apostolic Catholic Christianity.

(bold changed by me)
She does not have to be talking about a proto-John. It does not even seem that she is talking of the sources used by the author of John’s gospel. She is clearly stating that the gospel of John was domesticated by being secondly interpreted by Catholics so it could be acceptable to them and to refute its gnostic tendencies.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:04 pm
Your point one is the start of my issues. My issue is; why would Marcion have a Jesus Son of the Father God who is also the Messiah in any sense what so ever? Being the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God are not multi-exclusive for either the Marcionites or the Catholics
the marcionites denied explicitly that the true Jesus Christ Son of Father was the Jewish messiah. Marcion preached that his Christ was confused by the Judaizing apostles as the Jewish Messiah (hence you have the confusion at work in the marcionite Gospel) but this was only an error of recognition by them, since Paul realized the truth: Jesus was the Messiah of an Alien God, not the Messiah of the god of the Jews.
If the Marcionites didn’t use the title Christ your position would make a little more sense. My point was why did they use a Jewish title – Messiah for Jesus?

However you seem to be accepting that the Marionites didn’t create another Jesus to rival Jesus Christ, but took over the Jesus Christ figure and re-interpreted it. This seems to be evidence for my point – there was no need to create another Jesus, the Catholics could have countered the Marcionite interpretation with their own interpretation with different emphasises without Jesus Barabbas.

Perhaps your theory would fall down if we looked at what is likely to have been in Marcion’s gospel. According to Dieter T. Roth as presented by Ben C Smith Barabbas is there (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20). Also on this page is a quotation from Tertullian telling us what is in the Marcion gospel – “Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer”.

From my reading of Ben’s presentation it appears that according to Jason BeDuhn this section ends with (v 25) “He released him who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus up to their will”. This “him” had already been named as Barabbas in verses 18 and 19 according to Roth.

So Barabbas was not created to counter Marcionite theology he was already in the traditions used by both sides.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Michael BG wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:29 am
Thank you for this. I think it clearly reveals the way you work. It seems that you read a theory and agreed with it, or part of it; then you read another and so you drop your previous belief in the theory read earlier to replace it with the one you have just read. It seems you have to either agree or disagree quickly, that you can’t look at the theory critically and consider it for a while and the arguments against it before enthusiastically embracing it and preaching it to others.
There is nothing of evil in changing the own views. I am not a dogmatic, whereas I see that you show more and more a dogmatic view in the your rejection of the clear evidence I am going to show you.
She does not have to be talking about a proto-John. It does not even seem that she is talking of the sources used by the author of John’s gospel. She is clearly stating that the gospel of John was domesticated by being secondly interpreted by Catholics so it could be acceptable to them and to refute its gnostic tendencies.
''Domesticated'' in my view is necessarily synonymous of ''interpolated''. So the possibility that Barabbas was not there in origin can't be confuted, given the fact that we should be open to the concrete possibility that our John is a catholic redaction of a previous Gnostic gospel or gnostic sources.

At any case, I insist in saying that I am basing myself more on Tertullian's accusation of ''robbery'' addressed to the marcionite Christ (than on a proto-John being gnostic).
If the Marcionites didn’t use the title Christ your position would make a little more sense. My point was why did they use a Jewish title – Messiah for Jesus?
You seem to be able to answer to your same question, whereas you say:
However you seem to be accepting that the Marcionites didn’t create another Jesus to rival Jesus Christ, but took over the Jesus Christ figure and re-interpreted it.
This is what Couchud thought (and I think, too). Marcionism is a middle second century phenomenon.

But after you write:
This seems to be evidence for my point – there was no need to create another Jesus, the Catholics could have countered the Marcionite interpretation with their own interpretation with different emphasises without Jesus Barabbas.
And there I disagree. The Judaizers (please don't talk about Catholics since they came after the Marcionites) had the problem: the not-Christians were confusing again and again who was the Christ who was crucified really, if the Jewish Messiah or the marcionite Christ, since Marcion did insist that his Christ was really crucified - and not the Jewish Messiah (who had to come still in future).

So the Barabbas episode would prove - in the intentions of the anti-marcionite Judaizer - that the only Christ who was crucified really was the Jesus called ''king of the Jews''/''Christ'' and not the Jesus who was called ''Son of Father'' (but who was not really the Jewish ''Christ'' or the ''King of Jews'').

In this way the Marcionite preachers are neutralized in advance: the not-Christians would have said them, basing their knowledge on Mark: ''you preach that your Son of Father was crucified, but we know another story, that he was not crucified but was an impostor and a brigand released by Pilate''.

As reaction against the anti-marcionite Barabbas, the marcionites had only a strategy: to accept the fact that Barabbas was in the Gospels but reinterpret him as the typical Messianist loved by the Jews. And so you have accordingly the same your next fact so well described by you:

According to Dieter T. Roth as presented by Ben C Smith Barabbas is there (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20). Also on this page is a quotation from Tertullian telling us what is in the Marcion gospel – “Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer”.

From my reading of Ben’s presentation it appears that according to Jason BeDuhn this section ends with (v 25) “He released him who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus up to their will”. This “him” had already been named as Barabbas in verses 18 and 19 according to Roth.

Therefore this fact:
So Barabbas ... was already in the traditions used by both sides.
...is not evidence that the Barabbas episode was not an anti-marcionite episode. It is only evidence that the marcionites accepted the anti-marcionite Barabbas in their own Gospel tradition.

As I have said before, I am not arguing for the Marcionite priority. I am saying only that any Gospel having Barabbas is basically a Gospel written after Marcion. Totally beyond if that Gospel was marcionite or judaizing or proto-catholic.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Probably - very probably - a reason of the fact that Barabbas appears in the marcionite gospel is that the marcionite reply against an anti-marcionite Barabbas episode couldn't change so a lot, afterall.

Before the introduction of Barabbas in Mark, Marcion was already saying: ''the Jewish apostles have confused the Christ of an Alien God with the Jewish Messiah''.

After the introduction of Barabbas in Mark, Marcion/marcionites would have continued to say: ''the Judaizing readers of Mark are confusing the our Christ son of the Alien God [in a Gospel of Mark read according to marcionite lens] with the brigand and robber Barabbas (a type of the Jewish messiah).

basically, they were using de facto the anti-marcionite Barabbas as supporting their same anti-Judaizing claims. After all, Barabbas was a robber just as the OT prophets.

At most, they would have removed only the name ''Jesus'' from ''Jesus Barabbas'': et voilà, ''Jesus Barabbas'' appears only in Matthew.

Do you realize the difference in the reply of Marcion?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

According to Couchoud, the episode of Symon of Cyrene was introduced to attack Basilides who preached that another man was crucified in the place of Jesus.

Some finish the story with Simon of Cyrene being crucified. If one grants that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross as if he were to be crucified himself, that could mislead some. But it is affirmed that he carried it for another and that it was certainly Jesus, Jesus in person, who was crucified and who suffered

(p. 17, my bold)


Now, according to the logic of Michael_BG, we would have no evidence of the name ''Simon of Cyrene'' in the Gospel used by Basilides. Afterall, if the Couchoud's hypothesis is true, then Basilides would have rejected any Gospel showing Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross in it.

Against that expectation of Michael_BG, we have evidence that Basilides accepted a Gospel having Simon of Cyrene:

So Ireneus reports the Basilides's words:
“Jesus did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was obliged to carry the cross in his place. It was he whom, by ignorance and error, was crucified, having been transfigured by Jesus, in order to take the place of Jesus. As for Jesus, he took the shape of Simon and stood aside and laughed at them”
So for the same reason the Marcionites accepted a Gospel having Barabbas, even if Barabbas was introduced in the Gospel tradition in virtue of anti-marcionite intentions.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am
Michael BG wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:29 am
Thank you for this. I think it clearly reveals the way you work. It seems that you read a theory and agreed with it, or part of it; then you read another and so you drop your previous belief in the theory read earlier to replace it with the one you have just read. It seems you have to either agree or disagree quickly, that you can’t look at the theory critically and consider it for a while and the arguments against it before enthusiastically embracing it and preaching it to others.
There is nothing of evil in changing the own views. I am not a dogmatic, whereas I see that you show more and more a dogmatic view in the your rejection of the clear evidence I am going to show you.
I didn’t imply there was anything evil in changing one’s mind. In fact I was showing that I support the idea that we should be open to be persuaded to change our minds. I didn’t call you dogmatic and I don’t see why you feel it necessary to call my views dogmatic!
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am
She does not have to be talking about a proto-John. It does not even seem that she is talking of the sources used by the author of John’s gospel. She is clearly stating that the gospel of John was domesticated by being secondly interpreted by Catholics so it could be acceptable to them and to refute its gnostic tendencies.
''Domesticated'' in my view is necessarily synonymous of ''interpolated''.
Thank you for explaining how you leaped from April DeConick’s Gospel of John being domesticated by being secondly interpreted by Catholics, to your view that it wasn’t just the interpretations which were changed but the text itself.
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am
If the Marcionites didn’t use the title Christ your position would make a little more sense. My point was why did they use a Jewish title – Messiah for Jesus?
You seem to be able to answer to your same question, whereas you say:
However you seem to be accepting that the Marcionites didn’t create another Jesus to rival Jesus Christ, but took over the Jesus Christ figure and re-interpreted it.
This is what Couchud thought (and I think, too). Marcionism is a middle second century phenomenon.

But after you write:
This seems to be evidence for my point – there was no need to create another Jesus, the Catholics could have countered the Marcionite interpretation with their own interpretation with different emphasises without Jesus Barabbas.
And there I disagree. The Judaizers (please don't talk about Catholics since they came after the Marcionites) had the problem: the not-Christians were confusing again and again who was the Christ who was crucified really, if the Jewish Messiah or the marcionite Christ, since Marcion did insist that his Christ was really crucified - and not the Jewish Messiah (who had to come still in future).
I don’t think there is any evidence for this. I think this is your conjecture. It doesn’t really explain why what was good for the Marcionites was not good enough for the Catholics (your Judaizers).
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:26 am As reaction against the anti-marcionite Barabbas, the marcionites had only a strategy: to accept the fact that Barabbas was in the Gospels but reinterpret him as the typical Messianist loved by the Jews. And so you have accordingly the same your next fact so well described by you:
According to Dieter T. Roth as presented by Ben C Smith Barabbas is there (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20). Also on this page is a quotation from Tertullian telling us what is in the Marcion gospel – “Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer”.

From my reading of Ben’s presentation it appears that according to Jason BeDuhn this section ends with (v 25) “He released him who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus up to their will”. This “him” had already been named as Barabbas in verses 18 and 19 according to Roth.
Therefore this fact:
So Barabbas ... was already in the traditions used by both sides.
...is not evidence that the Barabbas episode was not an anti-marcionite episode. It is only evidence that the marcionites accepted the anti-marcionite Barabbas in their own Gospel tradition.

As I have said before, I am not arguing for the Marcionite priority. I am saying only that any Gospel having Barabbas is basically a Gospel written after Marcion. Totally beyond if that Gospel was marcionite or judaizing or proto-catholic.
I am not convinced your position is logical. For your Judaizers (DeConick’s Catholics) to add Barabbas to an existing Marcionite story, the Marcionite story has to come first. If Barabbas is already in the tradition used by the Marcionites it can’t have been added as a reaction against them.
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:34 am According to Couchoud, the episode of Symon of Cyrene was introduced to attack Basilides who preached that another man was crucified in the place of Jesus.

Some finish the story with Simon of Cyrene being crucified. If one grants that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross as if he were to be crucified himself, that could mislead some. But it is affirmed that he carried it for another and that it was certainly Jesus, Jesus in person, who was crucified and who suffered

(p. 17)

Now, according to the logic of Michael_BG, we would have no evidence of the name ''Simon of Cyrene'' in the Gospel used by Basilides. Afterall, if the Couchoud's hypothesis is true, then Basilides would have rejected any Gospel showing Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross in it.

Against that expectation of Michael_BG, we have evidence that Basilides accepted a Gospel having Simon of Cyrene:

So Ireneus reports the Basilides's words:
“Jesus did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was obliged to carry the cross in his place. It was he whom, by ignorance and error, was crucified, having been transfigured by Jesus, in order to take the place of Jesus. As for Jesus, he took the shape of Simon and stood aside and laughed at them”
I don’t understand why you think I have any expectations about what is in the Marcionite or Basilides’ gospels. Basilides has Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross and being crucified. He hasn’t been invented by the “Catholics” he seems again to be already in the tradition and used differently by Basilides and the “Catholics”. My point is that because Barabbas appears in the Marcionite gospel he must have appeared in the pre-Marcionite tradition and was not created after the Marcionites came along.

(The Simon of Cyrene story has been seen as part of the pre-Marcan narrative showing that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, not the day of Passover.)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Thank you for explaining how you leaped from April DeConick’s Gospel of John being domesticated by being secondly interpreted by Catholics, to your view that it wasn’t just the interpretations which were changed but the text itself.
note that names as Bultmann, Loisy and Wellhausen were persuaded that the "core of the Fourth Gospel" preceded the Synoptical tradition. And the latter two thought that Barabbas was a late insertion in John.
I don’t think there is any evidence for this. I think this is your conjecture. It doesn’t really explain why what was good for the Marcionites was not good enough for the Catholics (your Judaizers).
I think that it is a fact that Marcion started by accusing the 12 apostles of betrayal and misunderstanding of the true identity of Jesus. So a confusion between 2 rival Jesus is at the origin of the our Gospel tradition.
I am not convinced your position is logical. For your Judaizers (DeConick’s Catholics) to add Barabbas to an existing Marcionite story, the Marcionite story has to come first. If Barabbas is already in the tradition used by the Marcionites it can’t have been added as a reaction against them.
I don’t understand why you think I have any expectations about what is in the Marcionite or Basilides’ gospels. Basilides has Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross and being crucified. He hasn’t been invented by the “Catholics” he seems again to be already in the tradition and used differently by Basilides and the “Catholics”. My point is that because Barabbas appears in the Marcionite gospel he must have appeared in the pre-Marcionite tradition and was not created after the Marcionites came along.
So you are ignoring the fact that before our Gospel tradition (so connected with the names of Barabbas and Pilate) there could be a previous Gospel tradition where only the Jews crucified directly Jesus. Marcion could have linked himself to that tradition.

So you are ignoring the fact that the gospel used by Marcion could be different from the Gospel used by the marcionites.

I mention Simon of Cyrene since this name doesn't appear as the name of the crucified one in the place of Jesus, for example in the Acts of John or in the Muslim Tradition. So Basilides mentions a Simon of Cyrene introduced already by the Judaizers after that already before both the Judaizers and Basilides there was the separationist "heresy".

So Basilides is evidence that an heretic could accept in the his own Gospel tradition what was introduced by the Judaizers before him as a tool against him (i.e. the name of Simon of Cyrene).

Therefore the same fate could be happened to Barabbas: originally an anti-marcionite episode, it was adopted by the same marcionites (but not by Marcion).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:44 am Probably - very probably - a reason of the fact that Barabbas appears in the marcionite gospel is that the marcionite reply against an anti-marcionite Barabbas episode couldn't change so a lot, afterall.

Before the introduction of Barabbas in Mark, Marcion was already saying: ''the Jewish apostles have confused the Christ of an Alien God with the Jewish Messiah''.

After the introduction of Barabbas in Mark, Marcion/marcionites would have continued to say: ''the Judaizing readers of Mark are confusing the our Christ son of the Alien God [in a Gospel of Mark read according to marcionite lens] with the brigand and robber Barabbas (a type of the Jewish messiah).

basically, they were using de facto the anti-marcionite Barabbas as supporting their same anti-Judaizing claims. After all, Barabbas was a robber just as the OT prophets.

At most, they would have removed only the name ''Jesus'' from ''Jesus Barabbas'': et voilà, ''Jesus Barabbas'' appears only in Matthew.

Do you realize the difference in the reply of Marcion?
Michael_BG didn't answer to the question above, so I do. The difference is that in the second answer, the marcionites were saying simply the... ...the truth:
the Judaizing readers of Mark are confusing the our Christ son of the Alien God [in a Gospel of Mark read according to marcionite lens] with the brigand and robber Barabbas (a type of the Jewish messiah).
This interpretation was not only the mere effect of the marcionite interpretation, but it was just the deliberate effect of the Judaizer inventor of Barabbas: to confuse deliberately the marcionite Christ with the Jesus Bar-Abbas.

Hence there was no need of removing Barabbas in the marcionite Gospel, once Barabbas was introduced in it.

So when Marcion proclaimed the betrayal by the 12 apostles of the true identity of Jesus, he was already revealing the judaizing corruption of the Gospel tradition.

So this is evidence that before Marcion the corruption was already at work. So the Earliest Gospel has to be necessarily a Gnostic Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

The Couchoud's solution is able to explain another otherwise enigmatic detail in Mark:

35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

(Mark 14:35-36)

The strange occurrence of ''Abba'' both here and in the ''Bar-Abbas'' name can't be a mere coincidence. Again the emphasis is on the true identity of who will suffer until to a death of cross. Only this real suffering will be the real Son of the Father/''Abba'' who is being prayed. So the ''Son of the Father'' Barabbas, since he doesn't suffer, can't be the real Christ even if, in virtue of the his name, he is advancing that claim.

So the reader of Mark 14:35-36 is already made aware in advance of the fact that a rival ''Jesus Son of Father'' [=the marcionite Christ] is contending the claim to the death on the cross.


I write the following words without before reading Roth's reconstruction of Mcn:
The marcionite Christ couldn't invoke the Father to be dispensed by the coming death, as the Jesus of Mark 14:35-36 is clearly doing. Since the marcionite Christ has never no doubt about his mission in incognito (as a real Robber) on the Earth. According to proto-John, the Son IS the Father. Some have said even that the marcionite Son is the same Alien Father.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:21 pm
I am not convinced your position is logical. For your Judaizers (DeConick’s Catholics) to add Barabbas to an existing Marcionite story, the Marcionite story has to come first. If Barabbas is already in the tradition used by the Marcionites it can’t have been added as a reaction against them.
I don’t understand why you think I have any expectations about what is in the Marcionite or Basilides’ gospels. Basilides has Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross and being crucified. He hasn’t been invented by the “Catholics” he seems again to be already in the tradition and used differently by Basilides and the “Catholics”. My point is that because Barabbas appears in the Marcionite gospel he must have appeared in the pre-Marcionite tradition and was not created after the Marcionites came along.
So you are ignoring the fact that before our Gospel tradition (so connected with the names of Barabbas and Pilate) there could be a previous Gospel tradition where only the Jews crucified directly Jesus. Marcion could have linked himself to that tradition.

So you are ignoring the fact that the gospel used by Marcion could be different from the Gospel used by the marcionites.
You don’t have the same definition of a fact as me. For me a fact is something which is true and can be verified as true. For example – today 18th June the Sun came up.

We don’t have any copies of the Marcionite gospel and there is no way to know what was in any earlier Marcionite gospels or even if such things existed.
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:21 pm So Basilides is evidence that an heretic could accept in the his own Gospel tradition what was introduced by the Judaizers before him as a tool against him (i.e. the name of Simon of Cyrene).
No. Basilides is evidence that Simon of Cyrene was in his gospel and so is unlikely to have been invented to counter the gospel of Basilides. It is much more likely that Simon of Cyrene was created by Basilides so he can be crucified in the place of Jesus. However, if Alexander and Rufus are not in Basilides’ gospel and Mark’s gospel was later than Basilides’ then Alexander and Rufus could be Marcan inventions to give Mark’s gospel the appearance of an earlier date than Basilides.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Michael BG wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:27 am You don’t have the same definition of a fact as me. For me a fact is something which is true and can be verified as true. For example – today 18th June the Sun came up.
for me it is a fact that Marcion preached a Jesus Son of the Father who (always accordingly to Marcion) was confused by the Judaizers with the Jewish Messiah predicted in the scriptures. For me it is a fact that the marcionite Christ proclaimed that the OT prophets were robbers and brigands. For me it is a fact that Marcion preached that the crucified one was his Christ and not the Jewish Messiah. For me it is especially a fact that the Barabbas episode had to serve, in the intentions of the his author, to exorcize the possible confusion between two rival Christs.

Given these premises, the probability a priori that Couchoud is correct is too much strong against any probability a posteriori of the contrary.

We don’t have any copies of the Marcionite gospel and there is no way to know what was in any earlier Marcionite gospels or even if such things existed.
but we have what their enemies thought about them. What their enemies thought about them could be even a mere ghost, even so I have right to see traces of the polemic against that ghost in the our Gospels.
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:21 pm So Basilides is evidence that an heretic could accept in the his own Gospel tradition what was introduced by the Judaizers before him as a tool against him (i.e. the name of Simon of Cyrene).
No. Basilides is evidence that Simon of Cyrene was in his gospel and so is unlikely to have been invented to counter the gospel of Basilides.

How do you explain the fact that in the Acts of John the man crucified in the place of Jesus is anonymous?
How do you explain that according to Irenaeus, according to the separationist readers of Mark (nota bene: Judaizers) the man crucified in the place of Christ was named Jesus and not Simon of Cyrene?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply