“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
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:20 am

So did the first Christians have Matthew or Mark or Luke or John or some other gospel? And if you say 'some other gospel' I would assume that this 'other gospel' contain all the bits and pieces that help support Couchoud's argument from all the aforementioned gospel and none of the things which challenge his hypothesis. We could call this proto-gospel 'the gospel of Couchoud.'
“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: 6613
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:32 am

But I disagree with some points of Couchoud while surely this his specific point about Barabbas seems very plausible to me, even probable. If you can give some other solution that overcomes the embarrassment of having JESUS Barabbas in a Gospel (different from the parody of a rival sect of which we have real external evidence of the his existence and of the his connection with Christianity) then and only then I can hear you.

You can't assume so easily that all the Jews were Christians.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7122
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:36 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:59 am
I have made my case.
Whatever, man. It is fine to lay out a case for something; I am mainly reacting to your overconfidence in it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:16 pm

And if I may chime in. As long as you stay on this macrocosmic level with broad sweeping statement it's easy to brim with over confidence. Jesus was a woman, Jesus was a Jew, Jesus was a god, Jesus was gay, Jesus didn't exist, Jesus never died - it's all safe at 30,000 feet above the actual evidence. It's when you start to trying and piece together fundamental evidence like - what is the gospel text this 'mythicist truth' is based upon? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? or some other gospel. When you get into the details that's when it inevitably all starts to break down.
“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: 6613
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:03 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:16 pm
And if I may chime in. As long as you stay on this macrocosmic level with broad sweeping statement it's easy to brim with over confidence. Jesus was a woman, Jesus was a Jew, Jesus was a god, Jesus was gay, Jesus didn't exist, Jesus never died - it's all safe at 30,000 feet above the actual evidence. It's when you start to trying and piece together fundamental evidence like - what is the gospel text this 'mythicist truth' is based upon? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? or some other gospel. When you get into the details that's when it inevitably all starts to break down.
the your opposition to the explanation given by Couchoud about the enigma called Jesus Barabbas resembles that of Jerome himself:

Jerome (in Matt 28:16) supposed the form Bar-Rabban, filius magistri eorum, son of the Master of the Jews, i.e. of Satan. That is a late alteration, which aims at to give the robber Barabbas a name that is a better than son of the father.. “Bar-Rabban is a form much less probable, the more so as Rabban does not seem to be employed like proper name. Bar-Rabba would be possible, but was not indicated by the Barabbas form. ” - Lagrange, _Evangile selon s. Marc._ Paris, 1911, p. 387.

(my bold)

Afterall, you and Jerome share the same end, even if starting from different assumptions: both you want to explain away the embarassment of a Barabbas parody of the marcionite Christ! :whistling:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:00 am

I am just saying Giuseppe - be careful when you start behaving like a religious fanatic. The reason religious zealots are reprehensible IMHO is that they aren't engaging the evidence. It's not a fanatical belief in God that is the issue. It is a fanatical belief in anything including some stupid theory by Couchoud.

To speak specifically about your beloved theory. Here's what I have against it. We know a little bit about the beliefs of certain communities or ways of approaching the gospel tied to specific groups. Yes the evidence isn't perfect. I wish we had a neutral party, a pagan 'scientist' like Aristotle, giving us on the ground reporting about the various Christian groups and their beliefs. But we have some evidence of some value on the subject from interested Church Fathers. Not the best situation but the situation nonetheless.

Those Church Fathers wrote 'reports' mentioning what 'wrong beliefs' were out there. They defined these 'wrong beliefs' in terms of a 'right belief' which was relatively fluid. But nevertheless we know certain things which make the idea that Barabbas was the 'Son of God' who escaped crucifixion difficult to square.

What is this evidence? Well clearly, for instance, Irenaeus reports that an unnamed group read the gospel of Mark as if Christ escaped and Jesus was crucified. How can that square with the Son of God escaping crucifixion and someone named Jesus dying on the Cross. Clearly all the evidence available to us assumes that 'Christ/Chrestos' was the Father. If Christ escaped crucifixion it's hard to square that with someone named Barabbas where barabbas = 'son of the Father ' escaping crucifixion.

Secondly, and along the same lines, we are told that there was an influential group who were so monarchian in their beliefs that enemies within the Church said that they believed that the Father was crucified. However you interpret this evidence having 'barabbas' which equals Son of the Father escape crucifixion doesn't make a lot of sense. In other words, we see a situation once again where 'adoptionist/separationist' readings of the gospel assume that 'Christ' is the Father. The argument that 'no Christ didn't escape' is countered by 'ok he was then crucified.' That's how I read the context. You (or someone else) might have a different interpretation. But I still can't find any ancient group that specifically spoke about the 'Son' escaping crucifixion. It's always a question of the Father-who-is-Christ/Chrestos being crucified which is at issue.

Thirdly, you don't actually report what Jerome said about the variant 'barrabban.' In fact you use it to say that I am an apologist like Justin merely because I am not a zealot for Couchoud odd theories. You make it seem as if Jerome 'thinks' or 'argues for' barrabban and you assist your attack against Jerome by just citing a third hand source rather than Jerome's original testimony. The reality is that Jerome says that barrabban is derived from first hand textual evidence. Writing in his Commentary on Matthew he says:
In the Gospel that is written according to the Hebrews,316 his name is translated as “son of their teacher.”
The same reading is found in the surviving Hebrew Matthew interestingly.

So now as an anti-Semitic 'mythicist' you are left in a bind. There is textual evidence from the fourth century that a gospel read barrabban. What do you do? Of course you will persist in your religious devotion to Couchoud. The Marcionite gospel, Couchoud your 'spiritual high priest' tells must have read barabbas which means 'son of the Father.' Maybe Jerome was reporting an ancient gospel. But it is a Judaizing gospel you would argue I guess. Anything Jewish would necessarily be inferior to something Marcionite - so who cares about Jerome's evidence.

Ah, but you see where your fixation on Couchoud has led you! Like any religious apologist you prefer what a 'modern spiritualist' tells you rather than the evidence itself. Maybe if you had picked up a translation of Tertullian's Against Marcion you had read about the Church Father's reporting. Maybe Couchoud did too. You would have read:
Barabbas, a man of most criminal conduct, is released as though a good man: while Christ, most righteous, is demanded for death as though a murderer. Also two malefactors are crucified along with him, that he might be numbered among the transgressors. [4.42]
Yes! You fist pump in the air. You see, you say, Barabbas is 'a good man' - that is Chrestos. It all fits perfectly ... except for one thing. You didn't check the Latin original. It reads:
Et Barrabas quidem nocentissimus vita ut bonus donatur, Christus vero iustissimus ut homicida morti expostulatur.
What is this? It's not 'son of the father' at all in Marcion. Here too we find the same reading as the Gospel of the Hebrews and Hebrew Matthew. The bottom line is that Couchoud's theory suddenly falls off the rails. Let's see whether you demonstrate yourself to be a scholar or a religious zealot. Do you finally admit defeat?
“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: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:04 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:59 am
I have made my case.
Yeah about that ...

Interestingly Barabbas in Spanish I think takes the same form, "Barrabas." https://books.google.com/books?id=rElMA ... as&f=false Moreover Ephrem and various Syriac documents seem to testify to the Barrabas form. Indeed I want to make clear that I am not objecting to mythicism at all through this. An example of a mythicist preferring or at least considering the plausibility of barrabas is here https://books.google.com/books?id=xpMwA ... ac&f=false I haven't seen the actual text of Ephrem's Commentary but Neusner and others render it Barrabas https://books.google.com/books?id=v3A3A ... em&f=false Also the double resh might possibly explain the emergence of 'barnabas' https://books.google.com/books?id=xLcCA ... ke&f=false albeit here a nun sophit. 'Nebuchadnezzar' is an example of non-sophit interchange between resh and nun https://books.google.com/books?id=-EIqD ... 22&f=false there are others. And in case you are interested 'rabban' derives from rab which means 'great, master, etc. http://cal.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1438 There are a lot of possibilities here some of which might be useful for mythicists.
“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: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:02 pm

The Vulgate reads 'Barrabas' for instance Mark 15:7:

Erat autem qui dicebatur Barrabas, qui cum seditiosis erat vinctus, qui in seditione fecerat homicidium.

From Jerome, On Matthew 4, commentary on Matthew 27.16 (de Santos 25):

Iste [Barabbas] in evangelio quod scribitur iuxta Hebraeos filius magistri eorum interpretatur qui propter seditionem et homicidium fuerat condemnatus.

This man [Barabbas] is interpreted in the gospel which is written according to the Hebrews as the son of their master, who was condemned on account of sedition and homicide.

A. F. J. Klijn, on page 92 of Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, lists two parallels to this text. First, Paschasius Radbertus (century IX) writes: Barrabas autem filius magistri eorum interpretatur (Barabbas, however, is interpreted as son of their master). Second, Zacharias Chrysopolitani (century XII) has: ...quia Barrabas in evangelio Hebraico filius magistri eorum interpretatur (...because Barabbas is interpreted in the Hebraic gospel as son of their master).

But it wasn't just Jerome who used this spelling. Rufinus disparagingly referenced Jerome's Hebrew teacher - Judah bar Anina - as 'Barrabas' (Apol. contra Hier. 2.15, 38). Thus it wasn't that Jerome influenced the copyists of Tertullian. The standard Latin rendering of the name was Barrabas it seems. (from BCS)

Klijn writes:

Thus we have to assume that Jerome wanted to say that in the Hebrew Gospel the name Barabbas was read in such a way that its meaning became "son of their master".86 A name filius magistri eorum, however, is father curious. The solution of this problem may be found in a remark in Origen who spoke of the name filius magistri nostri.87 Whoever this "master" may be, the name itself is acceptable. On the other hand we can understand that outsiders who did not accept this particular "master" changed the name into "their master". The name is supposed to have been read in a Gospel which was written in a Semitic language. The following possibilities exist: Hebrew and Aramaic: "ID 1 3T) , Palestinian Aramaic: |T1 "13, and Syriac: ^i -\j . The name in Aramaic and Syriac in particular shows a relation to the Greek of the synoptic Gospels where it is generally found in the accusative (3apap/}Sv (cf. Matth. 27,16.17.20; Mark 15,11 and Luke 23,18). The double -pp- is characteristic of the meaning "master" instead of the meaning "father". But this spelling is also not unknown in the Greek manuscript tradition. But this spelling is also not unknown in the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament. We may conclude that Jerome was right when he wrote elsewhere Barabban filhtm magistri eorum (but in some manuscripts nostri!), syrum est non hebreum.

F r o m this we may conclude t h a t t h e n a m e originated in an Aramaicspeaking environment. T h e relation between the name in the New Testament and the n a m e offered here is more difficult to establish. We do not exclude the possibility that we should seek its origin in a G r e e k text which offers various spellings of the name.
“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: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:46 pm

Greek texts that read Barrabas at Mark 15:7 in Codex Montfortianus: https://books.google.com/books?id=PW9AA ... 82&f=false Same codex has Barrabas in John https://books.google.com/books?id=PW9AA ... 82&f=false

Mark 15, 7 βαρραβας for βαραββας; cf. Sahidic 73
Mark 15:15 Koridethianus βαρραββαν
John 19:40 βαρραββαν https://greekcntr.org/transcripts/GA20032.htm
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“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: 11211
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:56 pm

More Syriac attestations in Mark, Matthew and John https://books.google.com/books?id=ULQvA ... 20&f=false

List of Greek variants (including 'Barnabas') in Mark https://books.google.com/books?id=a5-_j ... 0-&f=false
“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