Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:00 amWhat 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.
How can Christ/Chrestos be the Father if Christ/Chrestos is an anthropomorfic figure? The only way I can accept this identity Christ = Father is in the way proto-John explains it: ''I and the Father are one''. And you can't deny that proto-John is a dualist Gnostic Gospel. Christ is the Father but he is also the Son of the Father in proto-John.
This is only a my hypothesis (advanced only in the first post of this thread). It is not what Couchoud says.However you interpret this evidence having 'barabbas' which equals Son of the Father escape crucifixion doesn't make a lot of sense.
Couchoud argues that Barabbas is the parody of the marcionite/gnostic Christ in a time when there was not still a Gospel fusion between the Jesus Son of Father and the Jewish Jesus Messiah. That fusion appeared impossible since the Jesus Son of Father was enemy of the Jewish God: a very blasphemous idea.
I see a great contradiction in the your method. You are the same person who wrote that we don't have a pagan scientist who described any Christian sect of the time. Well, just you now say that Jerome is a figure very similar to that scientist. And the reason would be that Jerome is based on first hand textual evidence (was it even a Gospel of the Jews). I have pointed out in the Couchoud's quote the more interesting feature of Jerome, the real reason because he takes cure to find "first hand textual evidence" abour Barabbas: the embarrassment for the strange fact that a robber and a murderer is called "Jesus Barabbas" where "Barabbas" means "Son of Father". The coincidence (Jesus + "Son of Father") is too much impossible to be a mere coincidence, so it is NOT a coincidence.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.
It is amazing how you and Jerome are arguing in the same identical manner, in order to avoid the reading 'Jesus Son of Father" for 'Jesus Barabbas'. I am saying that this your insistence on other ethymologies (insistence that you share with Jerome) different from the my ethymology for Barabbas is strongly expected if you want to avoid that Barabbas is an anti-marcionite parody of the Son of Father unknown to the Jews.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.
It is precisely because Jerome gives evidence of a different interpretation (Bar-Rabbas rather than Bar-Abbas) that I am inclined to suspect that Jerome is strongly wrong.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.
Tertullian called the marcionite Christ a ROBBER: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.
And Barabbas is a ROBBER.
Your is a straw-man fallacy. Couchoud is not arguing for "Barabbas = the marcionite Christ". Couchoud is arguing for "Barabbas = the PARODY of the marcionite Christ".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.
The strangest enigma we should resolve about the Barabbas episode is the fact that the freedom of Jesus Barabbas coincides with the death of Jesus called Christ. Pilate could crucify both, Barabbas and Jesus. Instead, the precise point of the evangelist is that only one was the crucified. So he betrayes the clear evident insistence of the Judaizing apologist: the crucified Son of Father is the Jesus "called king of the Jews". The same point of the titulus crucis: THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Your hypothesis "Jesus Bar-Rabbas" can't explain why this Jesus Bar-Rabbas must be NOT crucified.
You have proved very well that you don't know even the Couchoud's view.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?
Couchoud is arguing for Barabbas being a Judaizing PARODY of the marcionite Christ, not for Barabbas being really the Christ adored by the marcionites.
No people can adore a robber as their own Son of Father. But a deity can be despised as a ROBBER if that deity is enemy of another deity.