“Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

“Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:07 am


Chap. 4 .--And when all were in such joy, came Satan the heir of darkness, and said to Hades: O all-devouring and insatiable, hear my words. There is of the race of the Jews one named Jesus, calling himself the Son of God; and being a man, by our working with them the Jews have crucified him: and now when he is dead, be ready that we may secure him here. For I know that he is a man, and I heard him also saying, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. He has also done me many evils when living with mortals in the upper world. For wherever he found my servants, he persecuted them; and whatever men I made crooked, blind, lame, lepers, or any such thing, by a single word he healed them; and many whom I had got ready to be buried, even these through a single word he brought to life again.

http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2001-03/22-13/1L.html

So according to GNicodemus Satan realizes that Jesus is merely a man (and not the Son of God) because of this episode in Mark 14:

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.”

Note that Jesus is invoking two deities, and not one: the god of the Jews named Abbà and a higher god, the unknown Father adored by Marcion and the gnostics. Really, under a separationist view of Mark, the mere man Jesus invokes YHWH while the divine Christ (possessing Jesus) invokes his unknown Father.

By seeing the scene, Satan is moved to think (wrongly) that YHWH/Abbà = the Father. Hence, Jesus had to be for him only a mere man "of the race of the Jews".

So by introducing Barabbas as a parody of the gnostic Son of Father, the judaizing interpolator is identifying the Father with Abbà so there are no doubts that the gnostic "Son of Father" was not the crucified Christ insofar Abbà means Father.

I wonder if there is some suggestive Gnostic relation between “Abba, Father” and the choice between Jesus and Barabbas. I try.
Just as Satan thinks that the mere man Jesus who invokes Abbà coincides with the same person who invokes the Father, so the Jews are moved to believe that the Christ is the mere man named Jesus and not rather Jesus Barabbas aka the gnostic "Jesus the Son of the Father": in this sense Jesus Barabbas is the real Christ who remained impassible while the mere man Jesus was crucified in his place.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:14 am

Dumbest theory yet. Like the "gnostic Son of Father" was so well known that a parody of this obscure (or perhaps non-existent) cultural figure would found a religion that would takeover the world. I think arguing for the effect of time travel in history has more going for it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:25 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:14 am
Dumbest theory yet. Like the "gnostic Son of Father" was so well known that a parody of this obscure (or perhaps non-existent) cultural figure would found a religion that would takeover the world. I think arguing for the effect of time travel in history has more going for it.
Attention, please. According to Couchoud (and I agree), the Gnostic Christians didn't found Christianity. Not even Paul founded Christianity. The Pillars founded Christianity. When some gnostics became Christians (early second century CE), they reduced YHWH to the inferior demiurge. The evidence of the gnostic Son of Father is found in proto-John that, according to Bultmann, is based on a tradition preceding the Synoptical tradition. The explanation given by Couchoud about Barabbas continues to be the best explaination in absolute terms, in my view.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:38 am

That's not the point. You're developing an idea from a fringe writer about a fringe culture (so-called 'gnostic Christianity') saying that the gospel was constructed around it so that the term 'father' in two different languages (secretly?) denote two different gods to an initiated reader. There are so many things wrong with this theory. The first is that 'gnostic' wasn't used like this in antiquity. gnostikos was an obscure Platonic terminology which didn't have widespread usage going for it. The communities called 'false gnostics' by Irenaeus were even more obscure. The number of people who would be able to read or understand Aramaic and Greek, were familiar with so-called 'gnostic culture' and would 'get' the connection of this word translated into two languages and two divine cultural figures (the two gods) is basically zero. The gospel 'wouldn't have sold one copy' if this is what it was rooted in.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:49 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:38 am
That's not the point. You're developing an idea from a fringe writer about a fringe culture (so-called 'gnostic Christianity') saying that the gospel was constructed around it so that the term 'father' in two different languages (secretly?) denote two different gods to an initiated reader.
we have another example of this double meaning of an aramaic word, only made slightly more explicit: "eloi eloi lema sabactani" were taken as invocation to Elijah. So in the same way "Abbà, Father" may have a double meaning.
There are so many things wrong with this theory. The first is that 'gnostic' wasn't used like this in antiquity. gnostikos was an obscure Platonic terminology which didn't have widespread usage going for it. The communities called 'false gnostics' by Irenaeus were even more obscure. The number of people who would be able to read or understand Aramaic and Greek, were familiar with so-called 'gnostic culture' and would 'get' the connection of this word translated into two languages and two divine cultural figures (the two gods) is basically zero. The gospel 'wouldn't have sold one copy' if this is what it was rooted in.
I don't understand your point.
For "gnostics" I mean the dualist gentiles who, after their conversion to a pauline form of Christianity (early second century CE), applied their dualism on the Christ figure by assuming a cosmic conflict between an unknown Father and the Jewish god. Frankly, it doesn't matter how they called themselves or were named (if "gnostics" or some other name).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:03 am

It's just so frustrating. Let me start with your last point:
I mean the dualist gentiles who, after their conversion to a pauline form of Christianity (early second century CE), applied their dualism on the Christ figure by assuming a cosmic conflict between an unknown Father and the Jewish god
How many assholes like this do you think there were in any given year in antiquity - at their peak. 10 actual "dualist gentiles who after their conversion ..."? Maybe 20 assholes like this? Come on, you've got to see that this wasn't a 'real culture' to develop a religion out of. I'd say there never was a "dualist gentile ... conver[ted] to a pauline form of Christianity." Where is this culture? Where is the archaeology supporting its existence? You just talk and talk and talk and you start believing you are dealing with actual categories, actual cultures when this is all about as real as a game of Fortnite. There is no 'Salty' or 'Moisty Mire' no 'Tilted Towers.' https://www.metabomb.net/fortnite-battl ... -to-land-4 There is no history of any 'Battle Royale.' It's all just made up nonsense like your "dualist gentiles who, after their conversion to a pauline form of Christianity (early second century CE), applied their dualism on the Christ figure by assuming a cosmic conflict between an unknown Father and the Jewish god"
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:14 am

And you think this:
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
is the same thing as having 'Abba' and 'Pater' in the same text? First of all Abba doesn't appear in the gospel. There is a name 'barabbas' which is taken by many to mean something like 'son of the father.' But this isn't a proven fact. It could just as well be 'son of Abraham' or 'son of Abba' among other options. In the first case, Mark is always pointing to the existence of an Aramaic original - whether or not one existed is another issue entirely. What he's done (or this particular redactor of Mark) is to provide a translation in Greek alongside the original. In the case of your 'abba' (a) there is no reference to abba in the gospel (b) there is no translation of the term into Greek (because it isn't there) and finally (c) 'barabbas' isn't translated either which evidently means Mark didn't think it was important for us to know that. Also it should be noted that Mark's reference to Elijah in the narrative is clearly presented as an incorrect interpretation on the part of the hearers. I think Plutarch does something similar when discussing Judaism in his table-talk. But to argue that a 'secret scenario' is hidden inside the gospel relating to an Aramaic term that doesn't appear in the gospel ('abba') isn't translated into Greek and contrasts with a common Greek word 'pater' but denotes a distinct 'father' god from 'abba' is simply too silly to take seriously. One might - theoretically!!!! - make the case if the gospel writer was contrasting Hebrew with Greek or some other language because Hebrew is the Jewish language. But 'abba' is Aramaic not Hebrew and if the writer wanted to name a specifically Hebrew father he wouldn't have associated it with a man with an Aramaic name like 'barabbas.' Aramaic was a common Semitic language, not specifically Jewish.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:29 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:14 am
And you think this:
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
is the same thing as having 'Abba' and 'Pater' in the same text? First of all Abba doesn't appear in the gospel. There is a name 'barabbas' which is taken by many to mean something like 'son of the father.' But this isn't a proven fact. It could just as well be 'son of Abraham' or 'son of Abba' among other options.
no, under the light of the total evidence it is a proven fact. Only that hypothesis proves the being Barabbas a robber (against Marcion who named 'robbers' the OT prophets) and the being Barabbas not crucified (against Marcion who claimed his Christ being the real crucified Christ. Please read Couchoud's article linked above.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:42 am

no, under the light of the total evidence it is a proven fact.
Really? And what facts are these?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10786
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: “Abba, Father” as two distinct deities, not one

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:45 am

So you are saying that 'Abba' in 'bar Abba' couldn't have been a reference to a personal name of someone? https://books.google.com/books?id=bxM9A ... 22&f=false Love to see how this is 'proved' and those who argue otherwise 'disproved.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply