Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:04 am
I imagine a situation where these communities were in modest conflict, but not too serious, as a result of this divergence on the story and interpretation of Jesus.
While I may accept a condition of relative peace before the 70 CE, I don't think that it is possible to talk, in an early date, of ''divergence on the story and interpretation of Jesus'', since before the 70 CE it is highly improbable that Jesus had a story (I mean: a biography complete of earthly acts and deeds).
But when one of the monks evangelized with this Gospel (the legend of which becomes Paul, as perhaps a Marcion stand in), it changed the situation dramatically
I agree fully. But it is necessary a distinction. If you replace the word ''Gospel' in the your quote with
''aggressive proselytism coming from the Judaizers'' after the 70 CE (evidence in Galatians 1-2, assuming Galatians is post-70), in a context where an earthly biography for Jesus is still missing, then we have a good reason for the
Gnostic invention of the Earliest Passion Narrative, with
''the Jews'' (allegory of the Judaizers) killers of Jesus.
The effect of this Earliest Passion Narrative is well described by you in the following terms:
This sparked a response from what hitherto fore was a mild disagreement and escalated it to incendiary rhetorical bomb throwing.
Once we remove the Roman second trial, we are left only with the first Jewish trial of Jesus. What preceded the trial is clearly a late addition (since before the 70 Jesus was not remembered as a teacher or a prophet). So the Earliest Passion Narrative had only the Jewish trial, the death, and only a resurrection scene. Period.
[personal speculation]
Personally, I think one aspect of it is real, Barabbas could well be a reference to the Jewish rebel Bar Kokhba, as the earthly king, as opposed to Jesus the heavenly king ("my kingdom is in heaven"). That is not to say Barabbas == Bar Kokhba, but rather as the one released by the Jews, he is a stand in for the concept of an earthly kingdom, and the early readers would be aware of his fate, and by implication anyone who called for such a Jesus. By the time the first church fathers popped up in the Severan era, this association was a lost memory, and the concept of Jesus having only a heavenly kingdom was the view of all the surviving sects.
I wont defend this concept, just throwing it out as speculation.
[/personal speculation]
You seem to ignore completely the fact that
''Jesus Bar-Abbas'' was introduced against the previous Gnostic tradition by the Judaizers,
as explained by Couchoud. So Barabbas is only another ''titulum crucis'' insofar his function is only to remember the readers that the true crucified Jesus is the ''King of the Jews''.
Too bad the fact that just
you, Stuart, don't see this. You who are so able to recognize the theological reason (supporting the Judaizers) behind the titulum crucis in the previous post.
I think the reason you don't see this is the presence of Barabbas in a marcionite Gospel.
But I may well appeal to the so-called
''Stuart's Law'' to explain the (apparently unexpected) marcionite acceptance of Barabbas,
pace Michael_BG :
Once an element is accepted as part of the story, rather than drop it if it conflicts with your theology, you flip it to match your theology. This is a spot on observation!
The marcionites could have omitted ''Jesus'' from ''Jesus Barabbas'', or they could simply be not aware of
aramaic pun behind ''Jesus Barabbas''.
At any rate, thanks Stuart for the interesting discussion. I think that the the my conclusion is directly derived from the your kind of exegesis applied on the Gospels, even if you disagree with that conclusion and limit yourself only to the (so well justified) premises.