Barabbas and Marduk

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:48 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 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.

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:

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.


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.



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.
It seems to me that you read Georges Ory and agreed with him without critically examining what the tablet found by Heinrich Zimmern actually said.

Now you have read the outlandish theory of L Couchoud and R Stahl again without critically examining it. As it refers to Marcion and Marcionites you want to accept it as it fits with the rest of your theories.

In John’s gospel Jesus is the Messiah (1:44, 4:42, 9:22, 11:22 and 20:31). Couchoud and Stahl ignore that “son of God” is a Messianic title. John’s gospel also has Barabbas:

18:40
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.
You may find the idea that an earlier version of John’s gospel didn’t refer to Jesus as the Christ rather than John’s theology emphasising the Messianic aspect of Jesus as the Son of God, but I don’t. Barabbas in the Synoptics is not needed to present the case that Jesus was the Messiah. If there was no Barabbas in the Synoptics Jesus would still be presented as the Christ and the Son of God in them. If we look only in Mark we find Jesus is called the Son of God at least 5 times (1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 8:29, and 15:39).
15:39
And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

Giuseppe
Posts: 4085
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:33 am

Michael BG wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:48 am

It seems to me that you read Georges Ory and agreed with him without critically examining what the tablet found by Heinrich Zimmern actually said.
In a first moment, this is true. But then I have read entirely the Couchoud's article mentioned by Ory and I have changed entirely the my view. I think now that the enigma Barabbas has finally a solution. :cheers:
Now you have read the outlandish theory of L Couchoud and R Stahl again without critically examining it.
Without offence, but between you and me, you continue to be who doesn't like to be precise in a critical analysis of a case.

As it refers to Marcion and Marcionites you want to accept it as it fits with the rest of your theories.
I can even accept it, since I know my own bias. This makes me a more 'dangerous' judge when I claim that I have the solution of the enigma called Barabbas. :cheers:
In John’s gospel Jesus is the Messiah (1:44, 4:42, 9:22, 11:22 and 20:31). Couchoud and Stahl ignore that “son of God” is a Messianic title.
Evidently for you ''messianic title'' means the title of the ''SON OF YHWH'', the god of the Jews.
The living scholar April DeConick has argued very well for the Fourth Gospel (at least the his Ur-form) being a Gnostic Dualist Gospel, where Jesus is the Serpent of Genesis while YHWH is the evil ''Prince of this world'', the inferior demiurge.

Vridar may help you to know better what this great academic scholar is saying:

The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John


John’s gospel also has Barabbas:

18:40
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.
You may find the idea that an earlier version of John’s gospel didn’t refer to Jesus as the Christ rather than John’s theology emphasising the Messianic aspect of Jesus as the Son of God, but I don’t.

But April DeConick does. And she is an academic scholar. So you should confute his claims, and to my knowledge I don't know any scholar who has confuted her optimal case for a Gnostic proto-John.

Barabbas in the Synoptics is not needed to present the case that Jesus was the Messiah.
Again and again you show your ignorance of the Couchoud's case.

'Jesus the Son of Father' was introduced to prove that the only character who was crucified was Jesus called ''King of the Jews'' [i.e., who is the Jewish messiah], against Marcion who claimed that the really crucified one was the ''Son of the Father'', aka the Son of an Alien God, higher than the god of the Jews.

Only as corollary you have that this Barabbas is a brigand (the irony in his being a brigand is already shown above).

If there was no Barabbas in the Synoptics Jesus would still be presented as the Christ and the Son of God in them. If we look only in Mark we find Jesus is called the Son of God at least 5 times (1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 8:29, and 15:39).
It doesn't matter to me if the Barabbas episode was introduced on a previous Gnostic Gospel (in order to catholize or judaize it) or if the Barabbas episode was inserted later in a Gospel that was already an anti-Gnostic Gospel.

What is important for me is that the Barabbas episode proves that the Gospels were written in a time when their authors had as polemical target 'heretical' sects already well formed. The marcionite threat was already there.

So, in conclusion, Michael BG, I think that you are too much apologetically blind to ignore so arrogantly the compelling exegesis given by Couchoud about the Barabbas episode. :tombstone:

I think that this exegesis of the case Barabbas may be used as a test on any future commentary of the Gospels. Who doesn't account for it would be surely a bad commentary. :cheers:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG » Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:24 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:33 am
Michael BG wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:48 am

It seems to me that you read Georges Ory and agreed with him without critically examining what the tablet found by Heinrich Zimmern actually said.
In a first moment, this is true. But then I have read entirely the Couchoud's article mentioned by Ory and I have changed entirely the my view. I think now that the enigma Barabbas has finally a solution.
Now you have read the outlandish theory of L Couchoud and R Stahl again without critically examining it.
As it refers to Marcion and Marcionites you want to accept it as it fits with the rest of your theories.
I can even accept it, since I know my own bias. This makes me a more 'dangerous' judge when I claim that I have the solution of the enigma called Barabbas.
I didn’t want to use the loaded word “bias”. My purpose was to try to get you to be more critical. You accept that with Georges Ory you initially accepted his theory without subjecting it to any critical questioning of your own. Then you discarded it because you now accept the theory of L Couchoud and R Stahl and in your earlier posts you didn’t seem to consider it critically.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:33 am
So, in conclusion, Michael BG, I think that you are too much apologetically blind to ignore so arrogantly the compelling exegesis given by Couchoud about the Barabbas episode.

I don’t understand why you wish to call be “apologetically blind” and “arrogant” because I am not convinced by Couchoud and Stahl. It is not going to persuade me to change my mind, but may persuade me that trying to engage you in a debate is not worth it.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:33 am
In John’s gospel Jesus is the Messiah (1:44, 4:42, 9:22, 11:22 and 20:31). Couchoud and Stahl ignore that “son of God” is a Messianic title.
Evidently for you ''messianic title'' means the title of the ''SON OF YHWH'', the god of the Jews.
The living scholar April DeConick has argued very well for the Fourth Gospel (at least the his Ur-form) being a Gnostic Dualist Gospel, where Jesus is the Serpent of Genesis while YHWH is the evil ''Prince of this world'', the inferior demiurge.

Vridar may help you to know better what this great academic scholar is saying:

The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John
I have read the part of that post about April DeConick’s different translation of John 8:44. I can’t judge if her reading is correct or not, but it does seem plausible and would open up the gospel writer’s theology to a Marcion interpretation that Jesus was the son of a different God to the God of the Jews who was also the father of the Devil.

I found this quotation from Wikipedia which might sum up her position, “According to DeConinck, the John shows a beginning bifurcation between Jesus' "Father in Heaven," and the Jews "Father of the Devil," which may have developed into the gnostic idea of the Monad and the Demiurge.”

However, this does not really counter all my arguments against Couchoud and Stahl.

Are you saying that Marcion accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah? As I think this would be necessary if John’s gospel is Marcion because John’s gospel presents Jesus as the Messiah.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:33 am
John’s gospel also has Barabbas:

18:40
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.

Barabbas in the Synoptics is not needed to present the case that Jesus was the Messiah.
Again and again you show your ignorance of the Couchoud's case.

'Jesus the Son of Father' was introduced to prove that the only character who was crucified was Jesus called ''King of the Jews'' [i.e., who is the Jewish messiah], against Marcion who claimed that the really crucified one was the ''Son of the Father'', aka the Son of an Alien God, higher than the god of the Jews.
If John was a Marcionite document why does he have Barabbas as well as Jesus?
If John is presenting Jesus as the son of the Father and not the Messiah why does he call him Christ?
It seems that if we accept Couchoud and Stahl’s case we have two sons of the Father in John – Jesus and Barabbas.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:33 am
If there was no Barabbas in the Synoptics Jesus would still be presented as the Christ and the Son of God in them. If we look only in Mark we find Jesus is called the Son of God at least 5 times (1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 8:29, and 15:39).
It doesn't matter to me if the Barabbas episode was introduced on a previous Gnostic Gospel (in order to catholize or judaize it) or if the Barabbas episode was inserted later in a Gospel that was already an anti-Gnostic Gospel.

What is important for me is that the Barabbas episode proves that the Gospels were written in a time when their authors had as polemical target 'heretical' sects already well formed. The marcionite threat was already there.
You may well be convinced but I am not and you have not presented a case to convince me.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5545
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:00 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:24 pm
I don’t understand why you wish to call be “apologetically blind” and “arrogant” because I am not convinced by Couchoud and Stahl. It is not going to persuade me to change my mind, but may persuade me that trying to engage you in a debate is not worth it.
Rest assured, Michael, that Giuseppe is the one who is blinded by his own assumptions, which come thick and heavy and obscure his reasoning.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4085
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:17 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:24 pm
. It is not going to persuade me to change my mind, but may persuade me that trying to engage you in a debate is not worth it.
if the thing may make pleasure for you, I would address the same words to Ben.
Both you are clearly blind to recognize that the enigma Barabbas finds his better explanation in absolute terms in the Couchoud's article.
I have read the part of that post about April DeConick’s different translation of John 8:44. I can’t judge if her reading is correct or not, but it does seem plausible and would open up the gospel writer’s theology to a Marcion interpretation that Jesus was the son of a different God to the God of the Jews who was also the father of the Devil.

I found this quotation from Wikipedia which might sum up her position, “According to DeConinck, the John shows a beginning bifurcation between Jesus' "Father in Heaven," and the Jews "Father of the Devil," which may have developed into the gnostic idea of the Monad and the Demiurge.”

However, this does not really counter all my arguments against Couchoud and Stahl.

Are you saying that Marcion accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah? As I think this would be necessary if John’s gospel is Marcion because John’s gospel presents Jesus as the Messiah.
for the precision, April DeConick argues for the dualistic Gnostic nature of proto-John, not of the our John, where even a blind (even Bultmann) realizes that our John is a catholicized Gospel of a previous Gnostic gospel.
John’s gospel also has Barabbas:

18:40
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.
Read above: proto-John is been interpolated and redacted by a Catholic forger. (A sign of the interpolation may be that Pilate gave Jesus to Jews and "they" crucified Jesus).

If John was a Marcionite document why does he have Barabbas as well as Jesus?
If John is presenting Jesus as the son of the Father and not the Messiah why does he call him Christ?
It seems that if we accept Couchoud and Stahl’s case we have two sons of the Father in John – Jesus and Barabbas.
this your observation is stupid, since we all - Bultmann, Couchoud, DeConick, also Stuart on this forum - agree about the fact that proto-John was a Gnostic Gospel, whereas canonical John is a Catholic (really, a Katholic) Gospel.

Moreover, it is not even necessary for the splendid exegesis about Barabbas that proto-John is a Gnostic gospel or strictly speaking a marcionite Gospel (really I think it is Gnostic but not marcionite). Since already Tertullian accused of "robbery" the marcionite Christ. And Barabbas is a brigand. In addition, this ermeneutical key allows me to interpret correctly Mark 14:48-50.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4280
:cheers: :cheers:
It doesn't matter to me if the Barabbas episode was introduced on a previous Gnostic Gospel (in order to catholize or judaize it) or if the Barabbas episode was inserted later in a Gospel that was already an anti-Gnostic Gospel.

What is important for me is that the Barabbas episode proves that the Gospels were written in a time when their authors had as polemical target 'heretical' sects already well formed. The marcionite threat was already there.
You may well be convinced but I am not and you have not presented a case to convince me.
What both you and Ben don't and can't see is that when a central argument is too much strong, [Barabbas as a judaizing parody of the marcionite Christ] and the rest that is not explained are only marginal details, then the latter have to fit to the former and not vice versa. I would like to be a harmonizer of apparently divergent details on a good ground and not on a so weak ground as you and Ben are doing.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4085
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:49 pm

Irony of the destiny: the mythicist J. M. Robertson argued that Barabbas was in the Gospel against Jewish anti-Christian accusation that the real Jesus of the early Christians was the trace of an old Jewish cult of "Joshua Son of Father". But he offered zero evidence of a so (presumed) embarrassing cult in the time of the evangelists.

While thanks to Couchoud we have now the solution: Barabbas is the trace of a new cult around Jesus, an anti-Jewish cult that was really really really embarrassing for the our 4 evangelists.

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

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

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:23 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:17 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:24 pm

I have read the part of that post about April DeConick’s different translation of John 8:44. I can’t judge if her reading is correct or not, but it does seem plausible and would open up the gospel writer’s theology to a Marcion interpretation that Jesus was the son of a different God to the God of the Jews who was also the father of the Devil.

I found this quotation from Wikipedia which might sum up her position, “According to DeConinck, the John shows a beginning bifurcation between Jesus' "Father in Heaven," and the Jews "Father of the Devil," which may have developed into the gnostic idea of the Monad and the Demiurge.”

However, this does not really counter all my arguments against Couchoud and Stahl.

Are you saying that Marcion accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah? As I think this would be necessary if John’s gospel is Marcion because John’s gospel presents Jesus as the Messiah.
for the precision, April DeConick argues for the dualistic Gnostic nature of proto-John, not of the our John, where even a blind (even Bultmann) realizes that our John is a catholicized Gospel of a previous Gnostic gospel.
I don’t think Bultmann sees a Gnostic proto-John. I thought he saw a “Signs Gospel” as one of the sources of John’s gospel.

April DeConick in her article “Who is Hiding in the Gospel of John” (https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/ ... sAllowed=y), which is the one referred to in the Vridar article you referred to earlier, does not talk of a proto-John, she states that the “literal reading of John 8:44 appears to be primary and the catholic reading appears to be apologetic, responsive and secondary” (p 19 {p 7 of the article}). She states that a literal reading of Jn 8:12-55 reveals a primary Johannine theology “in which there are our key players: Jesus' Father; Jesus; the Father of the Devil who is also the God of the Jews; and the Devil-who is the son of the God of the Jews” (p 20 {p 8 of the article}).

Did you actually read her article?
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:17 pm
If John was a Marcionite document why does he have Barabbas as well as Jesus?
If John is presenting Jesus as the son of the Father and not the Messiah why does he call him Christ?
It seems that if we accept Couchoud and Stahl’s case we have two sons of the Father in John – Jesus and Barabbas.
this your observation is stupid, since we all - Bultmann, Couchoud, DeConick, also Stuart on this forum - agree about the fact that proto-John was a Gnostic Gospel, whereas canonical John is a Catholic (really, a Katholic) Gospel.
Calling my observation stupid does not further the debate.

(As I wrote earlier I found the idea of a Marduk myth as the foundation for the narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection interesting. I didn’t dismiss it out of hand as you seem to believe I do with all ideas which are new to me. I was so interested that I found an English translation of the tablet concerned so I could consider if the theory was plausible.)

You seem to be appealing to authority figures here rather than presenting the evidence! As I have pointed out DeConick appears to see our version of John’s gospel as being Gnostic.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:17 pm
It doesn't matter to me if the Barabbas episode was introduced on a previous Gnostic Gospel (in order to catholize or judaize it) or if the Barabbas episode was inserted later in a Gospel that was already an anti-Gnostic Gospel.

What is important for me is that the Barabbas episode proves that the Gospels were written in a time when their authors had as polemical target 'heretical' sects already well formed. The marcionite threat was already there.
What both you and Ben don't and can't see is that when a central argument is too much strong, [Barabbas as a judaizing parody of the marcionite Christ] and the rest that is not explained are only marginal details, then the latter have to fit to the former and not vice versa.
Clearly you believe this, but you don’t have “proof”; you have a theory which you seem to have trouble defending.
As I have already pointed out Barabbas is not needed to counter a Gnostic John either in John’s gospel or in the Synoptics.

Perhaps a better argument could be made for the inclusion of Jesus son of the Father as a way of including the idea that there were two figures: one the Catholic Jesus Christ; and the other the Gnostic Jesus the son of the Father. I think it would have been much more effective for the Jesus son of the Father figure to be deleted altogether rather than accept two existed as a way to counter Gnostic ideas.

Of the all the explanations given by Couchoud and Stahl for having both Jesus and Barabbas my preference is for theory that it goes back to the two goats of Leviticus 16:7. Using the Epistle of Barnabas (7:8) as evidence of this link along with the idea that Easter replaces Passover and the Day of Atonement. I am not sure how plausible it is though.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4085
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 am

Michael BG wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:23 am
I don’t think Bultmann sees a Gnostic proto-John. I thought he saw a “Signs Gospel” as one of the sources of John’s gospel.

April DeConick in her article “Who is Hiding in the Gospel of John” (https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/ ... sAllowed=y), which is the one referred to in the Vridar article you referred to earlier, does not talk of a proto-John, ...Did you actually read her article?
I find you resistance against the obvious fact very irrational and disturbing.
I quote directly April DeConick, The Gnostic New Age, Columbia University Press, p. 141:

Clearly, in our earliest primary sources, there are Gnostic footprints circling the fourth Gospel. In fact, one of the most famous interpreters of the Gospel of John, Rudolph Bultmann (1971), was convinced that the fourth Gospel is dependant on Gnostic sources. Although Bultmann's commentary is well known, he certainly was not the first to note such footprints. As early as the nineteenth century, scholars had already conjectured along these lines.
But what does this primary evidence mean? If the footprints came late, then we might have an Apostolic Catholic Gospel that was simply reinterpreted by Gnostics in aberrant ways, as most historians suggest (see Hill 2004; Keefer 2006; Rasimus 2010). But if they came early, then we might have Gnostic sensibilities woven into the very fabric of the fourth Gospel. If this is the case, then the fourth Gospel would have had his origin outside the Apostolic Catholic movement, in a religious buffer much more complicated than we have been able to imagine previously.
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.

(my bold)

I hope that now you realize that we are talking about proto-John as the Gnostic Gospel.

But what is more disturbing about your vain apologetical resistance (your and Ben's, surely), is that even if I concede you that you are right about John as a Catholic Gospel later gnosticized, even if I ignore entirely the John or proto-John as evidence for the my case, ...

....the fact remains that Tertullian despised the marcionite Christ as a ''robber":


Then the things which the Father delivered to the Son are good, and the Creator is therefore good, since all His things are good; whereas he is no longer good who has invaded another's good (domains) to deliver it to his son, thus teaching robbery of another's goods








(As I wrote earlier I found the idea of a Marduk myth as the foundation for the narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection interesting. I didn’t dismiss it out of hand as you seem to believe I do with all ideas which are new to me. I was so interested that I found an English translation of the tablet concerned so I could consider if the theory was plausible.)
Couchoud rejects the hypothesis Marduk, and I too. So please ignore Marduk.
You seem to be appealing to authority figures here rather than presenting the evidence! As I have pointed out DeConick appears to see our version of John’s gospel as being Gnostic.
As quoted above, DeConick is open to any possibility about John (from a Gnostic Gospel to a Catholic Gospel or vice versa).

But I address you again to Couchoud's article. He gives evidence that Barabbas is an interpolation in the Fourth Gospel:

The episode of Barabbas appears in all four Gospels. But one
recognizes easily that in the Fourth Gospel it is a later addition, as
well as the scene of insults which follows it. The secondary character
is apparent. The Jews shouted according to John 18:40, whereas with
Mark they did not yet shout. Before the enclave Pilate declares to the
Jews: “I do not find in him any crime,” (18:38). At the end of the
enclave Pilate repeats the same thing in the same terms: “I do not find
in him any crime”, so as to bring the answer which, in the original
text [John 19:7], came immediately: “He must die because he made
himself the Son of God.” The interpolation with reprise [1] is hardly
contestable; it is recognized by Schwartz, Wellhausen, Loisy,
Delafosse.
It is one of these many final improvements which harmonized
the Gospels and complicated the task of criticism.
Originally the episode of Barabbas belonged only to the Synoptic
Gospels.
(p. 142, my bold)

But then again: it is not necessary for the my case that proto-John is a Gnostic Gospel. Tertullian calling 'robber' the marcionite Christ is sufficient.

Clearly you believe this, but you don’t have “proof”; you have a theory which you seem to have trouble defending.
As I have already pointed out Barabbas is not needed to counter a Gnostic John either in John’s gospel or in the Synoptics.
You continue to show ignorance of the Couchoud's argument. I explain it again:

1) Marcion preached that his Christ really suffered and really was crucified, even if he was not recognized as the Messiah of an alien God, but as the Son of YHWH.

2) To confute point (1), the Judaizers behind the our Gospels (at least in their last redaction) introduced the figure of Jesus Son of Father, aka Jesus Barabbas, to make the point that who was crucified really is the Jesus called Christ, and not the marcionite Christ.

3) as mere corollary of point (2), you have the marcionite Christ reduced to the role of a robber and brigand, just that Christ who considered the old Prophets of the Demiurge as robbers and brigands.

4) as corollary, you have this my optimal exegesis of Mark 14:48-50. Sincerely, I don't know other better explanations.

This theory is the best explanation in absolute terms for the simple reason that it is able to explain what otherwise seem too much enigmatic disiepta membra of sediction, or very strange theories about the ethymological meaning of Barabbas etc.

This theory is the best explanation in absolute terms because it was argued by the Mythicist J. M. Robertson the basic point that the Barabbas episode could be inserted there (I mean: just the idea of an evil person called ''Jesus Son of the Father'') only to confute a dangerous misunderstanding of identity about the Jesus of the Christians. But note the great difference between Couchoud's theory and the Robertson's theory or the Zealot theory:

1) Robertson was not able to give contemporary evidence of a ''Joshua Son of Father'''s cult, with which the Jesus Christ could be identified by not-Christians.

2) prof Bermejo-Rubio and our John2 and our DCH, even with all the sympathy I have for the theory of a seditious historical Jesus, are not able to give extra-Gospel evidence of a historical Jesus who was a seditious rebel.

3) differently from point 1 and point 2, the great Mythicist scholar Couchoud is extremely able to give us the evidence of another Christ ''Son of the Father'' with which the Jesus Son of YHWH could be exchanged (and note that Secret Alias thinks that even Celsus exchanged the marcionite Christ for the Christ of the Catholics, using against the Catholics the criticisms used by the Catholics against the Marcionites!).
:cheers:

If you don't concede me at least this point (of the qualitative difference of the Couchoud's theory in comparison with the Robertson and Bermejo-Rubio's theories), then I can only call you (and Ben) a fool Christian apologist.



Of the all the explanations given by Couchoud and Stahl for having both Jesus and Barabbas my preference is for theory that it goes back to the two goats of Leviticus 16:7. Using the Epistle of Barnabas (7:8) as evidence of this link along with the idea that Easter replaces Passover and the Day of Atonement. I am not sure how plausible it is though.
Note that Couchoud quotes that theory in order to confute it.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:48 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 am
I find you resistance against the obvious fact very irrational and disturbing.
I quote directly April DeConick, The Gnostic New Age, Columbia University Press, p. 141:

Clearly, in our earliest primary sources, there are Gnostic footprints circling the fourth Gospel. …
Could it have emerged in a moment when Gnostic spirituality collided with emergent Christian mythology and the Jewish scriptures?

I hope that now you realize that we are talking about proto-John as the Gnostic Gospel.
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!
Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 am
(As I wrote earlier I found the idea of a Marduk myth as the foundation for the narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection interesting. I didn’t dismiss it out of hand as you seem to believe I do with all ideas which are new to me. I was so interested that I found an English translation of the tablet concerned so I could consider if the theory was plausible.)
Couchoud rejects the hypothesis Marduk, and I too. So please ignore Marduk.
It seems you didn’t understand the point I was making. I was refuting the idea that my views are fixed and I can’t be persuaded to change them. In the case of Marduk I didn’t change my view but it was only after I had more extensively researched the idea than you that I formed this view.
Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 am
But I address you again to Couchoud's article. He gives evidence that Barabbas is an interpolation in the Fourth Gospel:

The episode of Barabbas appears in all four Gospels. But one
recognizes easily that in the Fourth Gospel it is a later addition, as
well as the scene of insults which follows it. The secondary character
is apparent. The Jews shouted according to John 18:40, whereas with
Mark they did not yet shout. Before the enclave Pilate declares to the
Jews: “I do not find in him any crime,” (18:38). At the end of the
enclave Pilate repeats the same thing in the same terms: “I do not find
in him any crime”, so as to bring the answer which, in the original
text [John 19:7], came immediately: “He must die because he made
himself the Son of God.” The interpolation with reprise [1] is hardly
contestable; it is recognized by Schwartz, Wellhausen, Loisy,
Delafosse.
It is one of these many final improvements which harmonized
the Gospels and complicated the task of criticism.
Originally the episode of Barabbas belonged only to the Synoptic
Gospels.
(p. 142, my bold)

I think there is a strong case to be made for John 18:40 being based on Mark 15:13
And they cried out again, "Crucify him."
I think this is evidence that the author of John’s Gospel knew Mark. I can see why others, such as Couchoud and Stahl might see this as a later layer and therefore reject it as evidence against their theory.
Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 am
As I have already pointed out Barabbas is not needed to counter a Gnostic John either in John’s gospel or in the Synoptics.
You continue to show ignorance of the Couchoud's argument. I explain it again:

1) Marcion preached that his Christ really suffered and really was crucified, even if he was not recognized as the Messiah of an alien God, but as the Son of YHWH.

2) To confute point (1), the Judaizers behind the our Gospels (at least in their last redaction) introduced the figure of Jesus Son of Father, aka Jesus Barabbas, to make the point that who was crucified really is the Jesus called Christ, and not the marcionite Christ.

3) as mere corollary of point (2), you have the marcionite Christ reduced to the role of a robber and brigand, just that Christ who considered the old Prophets of the Demiurge as robbers and brigands.

4) as corollary, you have this my optimal exegesis of Mark 14:48-50. Sincerely, I don't know other better explanations.

This theory is the best explanation in absolute terms for the simple reason that it is able to explain what otherwise seem too much enigmatic disiepta membra of sediction, or very strange theories about the ethymological meaning of Barabbas etc.

This theory is the best explanation in absolute terms because it was argued by the Mythicist J. M. Robertson the basic point that the Barabbas episode could be inserted there (I mean: just the idea of an evil person called ''Jesus Son of the Father'') only to confute a dangerous misunderstanding of identity about the Jesus of the Christians. But note the great difference between Couchoud's theory and the Robertson's theory or the Zealot theory:

1) Robertson was not able to give contemporary evidence of a ''Joshua Son of Father'''s cult, with which the Jesus Christ could be identified by not-Christians.

….

3) differently from point 1 … the great Mythicist scholar Couchoud is extremely able to give us the evidence of another Christ ''Son of the Father'' with which the Jesus Son of YHWH could be exchanged …

If you don't concede me at least this point (of the qualitative difference of the Couchoud's theory in comparison with the Robertson and Bermejo-Rubio's theories), then I can only call you (and Ben) a fool Christian apologist.
I am not aware of the Robertson and Bermejo-Rubio’s theories and I don’t see their relevance here.

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.

Following on from the idea that Jesus the Son of God and the Messiah are one person there is no need for the Catholics to confuse matters by introducing a second Jesus. The issue if it existed as you believe it did would be about titles and how believers viewed Jesus. As I have already pointed out, to introduce two Jesus concedes too much to the Gnostics.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4085
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe » 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.(my bold)

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 am

It seems you didn’t understand the point I was making. I was refuting the idea that my views are fixed and I can’t be persuaded to change them. In the case of Marduk I didn’t change my view but it was only after I had more extensively researched the idea than you that I formed this view.
I have changed my view about Marduk since Couchoud himself has given a better theory: ubi maior minor cessat.
I think this is evidence that the author of John’s Gospel knew Mark. I can see why others, such as Couchoud and Stahl might see this as a later layer and therefore reject it as evidence against their theory.
at any case, perhaps the only defect of Choucoud (a defect that doesn't destroy a priori the his exegesis of Barabbas) is to insist too much on a proto-John without Barabbas.
I am not aware of the Robertson and Bermejo-Rubio’s theories and I don’t see their relevance here.

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.

Following on from the idea that Jesus the Son of God and the Messiah are one person there is no need for the Catholics to confuse matters by introducing a second Jesus. The issue if it existed as you believe it did would be about titles and how believers viewed Jesus. As I have already pointed out, to introduce two Jesus concedes too much to the Gnostics.
my theory is not that the anti-marcionite inventor of the "brigand Jesus Barabbas" was introducing another "true" Jesus, since it is evident that a killer can't be proclaimed "Jesus" and "Son of Father" by a Christian. So the introduction of a parody of the true Christ would make a lot of sense since that the true Christ is only one (Jesus called Christ) continues to be too much evident for any reader of the our Mark. You seem to mean (wrongly) that the Judaizer/Catholic who introduced Barabbas was really conceding that Barabbas (a brigand!) was the true "Son of Father" in opposition to the Jesus called Christ. But what escapes your attention is that Barabbas is an anti-marcionite parody, and as such someone about which the marcionites have to be embarrassed (insofar they proclaimed themselves followers not of the Jewish Christ but of the "Son of Father" only).

And I disagree when you say:

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.

Note that I am not arguing for marcionite priority, here. Mark could be the Earliest Gospel and the marcionite Gospel could come still after Mark etc.

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.


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.

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.

Now do you realize the serious importance of the Couchoud's theory about Barabbas?

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

Post Reply