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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am

In answer to Ulan:
The main protagonist here is Jesus Christ, and the scene wants to make clear that you don't miss who is to blame for the death of the protagonist: not Pilate, but the sanhedrin
Also in the his article, Couchoud admits that the episode works also as pro-Roman apology. But he recognizes the role of Pilate in securing himself (and so the reader by collateral effect) that the crucified one is the 'king of the Jews':
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

(Mark 15:2)
This question and answer would be not necessary under your hypothesis (=that Pilate serves only to accuse the Jews). So you have to ignore this question and answer without an explanation (differently from Couchoud's hypothesis).
I am not talking of a 'psychological profile' for Pilate when I point out the problem that your hypothesis can't explain: any Roman ruler in the place of Pilate could kill both, Barabbas and Jesus. This is the point that escapes your attention. So this is a strong clue that the entire Pilate episode was designed from the beginning to show a mutually exclusive Death and liberation: only one has to be the crucified because only one IS the CRUCIFIED Messiah.

You seem to forget that our Jesus is a "Christ", a messiah. The question what kind of messiah the people want is the core here. You don't even need Leviticus 16 for this point still to be true, even in the scenario I presented. So no, I don't think Couchoud's point is strong.
I don't understand why you say that I am ignoring that our Jesus (you mean: "called Christ") is Christ.
I agree with you that it is the choice of "the people" that matters in this scene, but for a reason entirely different from your. The choice of "the people" matters because it is made clear that the "people" chose who the people called "king OF THE JEWS". The emphasis is on the Jewishness of the victim chosen by the people: the people was not deceiving themselves, their chosen victim is really a Jewish victim. Not an alien as only the Son of an unknown Father could be.
However, you can not use your premises to your case (here that Couchoud's assumption is right that we only see one person, or your premise that the word "insurrection" is meaningless)
Probably you don't understand the Couchoud's point. I am alluding above that, for the Epistle of Barbabas, for example, the two goats of Lev 16 allegorize the same Messianic figure: Jesus Christ. So Couchoud concludes that Barabbas can't be allegory of the expelled goat since also the expelled goat is pure and immaculate just as the killed goat.
Well, no, because I think your premise is wrong. You seem to forget that "Jesus" was such a common name that, by itself, it's a completely meaningless detail. It's this meaningless detail you base your case on. Nevertheless, the name Jesus in combination with what follows (Barabbas or Christ) serves as parallelism, and we obviously look at two possible ways to become a messiah here, independently of whether you accept my whole scenario or not. This means that we do not need to look at a rival Christian sect here, as Barabbas the insurrectionist of a somewhat equal rang to Jesus Christ matches of what we (later) see in Jewish history (Simon bar Kokhba). This means there is no need to assume a Christian background for the parallel figure.
How can 'Jesus' be a insignificant detail if even Origen confessed his embarrassment when he wrote that 'Jesus' has to be not the name of a robber as Barabbas? So Origen's words is evidence that the Christians were really embarrassed from the strange fact that the robber is named 'Jesus Bar-Abbas'.
What Couchoud says is that the only reason to overcome that embarrassment is to attack a Christian rival sect. Now, Bar-Kochba is not the hero of a rival and Christian sect. If we had evidence of the fact that the Christians of the time were in relation someway with the Zealots, then and only then I can concede that your exegesis is right (I will do also more than this: I will become a proponent of the Zealot Jesus hypothesis and I would abandon my mythicism). But since no scholar has advanced evidence of an effective relation between Christians and Zealots, then any hypothesis of Barabbas as a banal Jewish messianist is based on pure nothing.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:01 am

In answer to Ben:
But you are obviously, intractably incorrect about it being a distinction without a difference. Insurrectionists are not the same as brigands.
Birds can fly. So can butterflies. But birds and butterflies are not the same thing.
In the eyes of the Roman rule, a insurrectionist and a brigand are the same thing. Aren't they?
And John 10:10 confirms that the his gnostic Jesus called 'murderer' who had come before him (=the OT prophets).
And Barabbas is a murderer. So your is really a distinction without difference.
if Mark's goal was to make Barabbas/Barrabas a stand-in for the Jewish idea of the warrior messiah (as then the marcionites did by reading 'Bar-Rabbas' and not Bar-Abbas' to return the favor) then why couldn't Pilate crucify also this Zealot messianist, and not only Jesus?

Because that is what the Jewish people chose, of course! The path of insurrection instead of the path of the spiritual messiah.
you are assuming gratis that Barabbas would have continued (!) the insurrection even after the his release! This is clearly an hypothesis ad hoc to support your Zealot exegesis. The entire point about Barabbas is that a 'Jesus Son of Father' who is not called the king OF THE JEWS was not crucified.
The your Zealot hypothesis can't explain what is the point about the not-crucifixion of a 'Jesus Son of Father' who is NOT the true king OF THE JEWS.

If only Pilate had compared Barabbas to a 'Jesus the Poor', a 'Jesus Nazarene', even a 'Jesus so-called Christ'. Instead, he calls him three times the king of the Jews.
If Barabbas symbolizes the path of insurrection, then of course Pilate has to release him; to crucify him is to put an end to insurrection, and we know (as did Mark) that this did not happen.
This is a great assumption ad hoc (!), to assume gratis that a freed Barabbas goes to the wilderness and planned another kamikaze attack against Rome! By using the same your logic, Sir Frazer could assume gratis that the freed Barabbas was lead in triumph along the streets of Jerusalem as the mock king of the year! As Couchoud says: the Gospel fictions are sufficient.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:10 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:01 am
In answer to Ben:
But you are obviously, intractably incorrect about it being a distinction without a difference. Insurrectionists are not the same as brigands.
Birds can fly. So can butterflies. But birds and butterflies are not the same thing.
In the eyes of the Roman rule, a insurrectionist and a brigand are the same thing. Aren't they?
No, of course not. They receive similar punishments; but, then again, so did a lot of people.
And John 10:10 confirms that the his gnostic Jesus called 'murderer' who had come before him (=the OT prophets).
And Barabbas is a murderer. So your is really a distinction without difference.
Nonsense.

If you want to build a case on Barabbas being a "murderer," have at it. That may work. But you built your case on Barabbas being a "brigand," which fails to explain why Mark twice associates him with insurrection instead of with brigandage.
you are assuming gratis that Barabbas would have continued (!) the insurrection even after the his release!
No, I am not. I am saying that Barabbas, on the messianic view, represents insurrection as a strategy against Rome. To crucify him is to crucify the idea of insurrection, but that is not, ex hypothesi, what the Jewish commonwealth did; instead, they (figuratively) crucified the path of peace.
The your Zealot hypothesis can't explain what is the point about the not-crucifixion of a 'Jesus Son of Father' who is NOT the true king OF THE JEWS.
Giuseppe, if you cannot read me accurately, a modern contemporary, how can you expect to read the ancient texts accurately? I said explicitly that the zealot hypothesis is not mine. I am juggling it just like I am juggling yours. But it explains something that yours does not, while yours may explain a thing or two that it does not (the jury is still out for me on that).
This is a great assumption ad hoc (!), to assume gratis that a freed Barabbas goes to the wilderness and planned another kamikame attack against Rome!
Wow. What an amazing misreading of the hypothesis. Ulan was right about you reading the opposing hypotheses as if they described real events in 3D. Please think about this issue with more depth of reasoning before coming back with such gobbledygook.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:24 am

Ben
If you want to build a case on Barabbas being a "murderer," have at it. That may work. But you built your case on Barabbas being a "brigand," which fails to explain why Mark twice associates him with insurrection instead of with brigandage.
Because the not-Christians were accusing the Christ (of all the Christians) of anti-Roman sedition (see for example Celsus who called Jesus a robber). So the point of Mark is that only the marcionite Christ was a real robber (note that this is the same accusation moved by Tertullian against the marcionite Christ) : accuse him, please, not the our Christ called 'king of the Jews'.
No, I am not. I am saying that Barabbas, on the messianic view, represents insurrection as a strategy against Rome.
Also in Couchoud's view the marcionite Christ is the Christ who has to be defamed (in the intentions of the Judaizers who invented Barabbas) by connection with the seditious messianists.
Wow. What an amazing misreading of the hypothesis. Ulan was right about you reading the opposing hypotheses as if they described real events in 3D.
I can accept that Barabbas represents an idea (morally bad: the rebellion against Rome) that has to be connected with the rival Christ of the marcionites (in order to defame them and not the Jewish Christ), but I can't see how your exegesis (='your' in the sense that you are placing it on the same explanatory value of Couchoud's view, that is where I disagree) can explain why Pilate couldn't crucify both (= why 'Mark' invented the strange usage 'during the festival').
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:29 am

You are still not explaining why Mark associates Barabbas with insurrectionists rather than with brigands/robbers. Every word you write, whether about John or about Celsus or about Marcion, depends upon the association with brigandage/robbery. But Mark (twice) specifies insurrection. This is a detail that the messianic hypothesis (so far) explains better than yours does.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:35 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:29 am
You are still not explaining why Mark associates Barabbas with insurrectionists rather than with brigands/robbers. Every word you write, whether about John or about Celsus or about Marcion, depends upon the association with brigandage/robbery. But Mark (twice) specifies insurrection. This is a detail that the messianic hypothesis (so far) explains better than yours does.
So the messianic hypothesis (I would call it the 'Zealot' hypothesis) fails to explain why the name of 'JESUS Son of Father' has to be connected with insurrectionism. Against the Origen's embarrassment for the presence of the name 'Jesus' given to a robber.

The Couchoud's hypothesis can explain why the name of 'JESUS Son of Father' has to be connected with insurrectionism: it is called 'defamation'.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:43 am

Another defect of the Messianic hypothesis: it assumes as a natural thing a comparison between the insurrectionist ideology and the Christian Messianic ideology. As if Mark had the 'moral duty', as writer, of placing the Christians or the Jesus story in relation to the fall of Jerusalem and his historical causes, to condemn the Jews. Definitely I abandon that idea as an idea without fondations.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Ulan
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:22 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am
In answer to Ulan:
The main protagonist here is Jesus Christ, and the scene wants to make clear that you don't miss who is to blame for the death of the protagonist: not Pilate, but the sanhedrin
Also in the his article, Couchoud admits that the episode works also as pro-Roman apology. But he recognizes the role of Pilate in securing himself (and so the reader by collateral effect) that the crucified one is the 'king of the Jews':
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

(Mark 15:2)
This question and answer would be not necessary under your hypothesis (=that Pilate serves only to accuse the Jews). So you have to ignore this question and answer without an explanation (differently from Couchoud's hypothesis).
I am not talking of a 'psychological profile' for Pilate when I point out the problem that your hypothesis can't explain: any Roman ruler in the place of Pilate could kill both, Barabbas and Jesus. This is the point that escapes your attention. So this is a strong clue that the entire Pilate episode was designed from the beginning to show a mutually exclusive Death and liberation: only one has to be the crucified because only one IS the CRUCIFIED Messiah.
You seem not to read my posts very well. The real Pilate would have killed/crucified any supposed insurrectionist without hesitation and without process, and I already stated such. Which means I have no idea how you would get the idea that this "escaped my attention". We are most likely looking at a fictitious scene. Alternatively, the Bible doesn't tell us something very important about these characters.

As to the Jesus quote, I'm lacking the Greek skills to judge that properly, but the English version always smacked me as Jesus avoiding an answer to the question. "You have said so" is a non-answer. We already know that Pilate said so.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am
You seem to forget that our Jesus is a "Christ", a messiah. The question what kind of messiah the people want is the core here. You don't even need Leviticus 16 for this point still to be true, even in the scenario I presented. So no, I don't think Couchoud's point is strong.
I don't understand why you say that I am ignoring that our Jesus (you mean: "called Christ") is Christ.
I agree with you that it is the choice of "the people" that matters in this scene, but for a reason entirely different from your. The choice of "the people" matters because it is made clear that the "people" chose who the people called "king OF THE JEWS". The emphasis is on the Jewishness of the victim chosen by the people: the people was not deceiving themselves, their chosen victim is really a Jewish victim. Not an alien as only the Son of an unknown Father could be.

I admit I don't have the slightest idea about what you are trying to tell me here.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am
However, you can not use your premises to your case (here that Couchoud's assumption is right that we only see one person, or your premise that the word "insurrection" is meaningless)
Probably you don't understand the Couchoud's point. I am alluding above that, for the Epistle of Barbabas, for example, the two goats of Lev 16 allegorize the same Messianic figure: Jesus Christ. So Couchoud concludes that Barabbas can't be allegory of the expelled goat since also the expelled goat is pure and immaculate just as the killed goat.
This is a weak point as it doesn't cover the main issue (that we are looking at one person here). It also ignores the reference to "the insurrection" (note the definite article).
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am
Well, no, because I think your premise is wrong. You seem to forget that "Jesus" was such a common name that, by itself, it's a completely meaningless detail. It's this meaningless detail you base your case on. Nevertheless, the name Jesus in combination with what follows (Barabbas or Christ) serves as parallelism, and we obviously look at two possible ways to become a messiah here, independently of whether you accept my whole scenario or not. This means that we do not need to look at a rival Christian sect here, as Barabbas the insurrectionist of a somewhat equal rang to Jesus Christ matches of what we (later) see in Jewish history (Simon bar Kokhba). This means there is no need to assume a Christian background for the parallel figure.
How can 'Jesus' be a insignificant detail if even Origen confessed his embarrassment when he wrote that 'Jesus' has to be not the name of a robber as Barabbas? So Origen's words is evidence that the Christians were really embarrassed from the strange fact that the robber is named 'Jesus Bar-Abbas'.
What Couchoud says is that the only reason to overcome that embarrassment is to attack a Christian rival sect. Now, Bar-Kochba is not the hero of a rival and Christian sect. If we had evidence of the fact that the Christians of the time were in relation someway with the Zealots, then and only then I can concede that your exegesis is right (I will do also more than this: I will become a proponent of the Zealot Jesus hypothesis and I would abandon my mythicism). But since no scholar has advanced evidence of an effective relation between Christians and Zealots, then any hypothesis of Barabbas as a banal Jewish messianist is based on pure nothing.
I don't see how the embarrassment of a 3rd century writer matters here. Jesus was a very common name in the first century. Just look at all the "Jesuses" in Josephus, from high priests to some crazy person whose process eerily resembles that of Jesus Christ. Who knows, maybe "Jesus" had got out of fashion in Origen's times. The main point is though that this embarrassment doesn't just remove the fact that "Jesus" was a very, very common name. Origen should at least know some other very famous Jesus from the Septuagint.

One other important point though: We should not fall into apologetic pitfalls and create the typical "gospel stew", with everything from all gospels mixed together. I don't know of any gMark manuscript that calls Barabbas "Jesus". There are some manuscripts of gMatthew that contain that name. Also, the Barabbas story is surprisingly different between the canonical gospels. Every gospel tries to tell a completely different story here. There may also be the confusion with Barabbas being called a brigand come from, as some gospels actually do that. gMark is the one where he is unmistakingly called an insurrectionist.

Ulan
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:31 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:43 am
Another defect of the Messianic hypothesis: it assumes as a natural thing a comparison between the insurrectionist ideology and the Christian Messianic ideology. As if Mark had the 'moral duty', as writer, of placing the Christians or the Jesus story in relation to the fall of Jerusalem and his historical causes, to condemn the Jews. Definitely I abandon that idea as an idea without fondations.
I'm not sure how you can give summaries like this after all the discussions you had with Stephan. It's not about "moral duty", and it's not about "condemning the Jews". It's an explanation of the calamities that befell them, given after the fact. They had been punished, and this is an attempt at explaining why. They didn't go with the humble messiah from Zechariah 9:9, they chose the flashy warrior and paid the price. It's the same as what half the Old Testament does.

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 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:55 am

@Ulan
Ulan wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:22 am

You seem not to read my posts very well. The real Pilate would have killed/crucified any supposed insurrectionist without hesitation and without process, and I already stated such.
Not only the 'real Pilate'. But any judge in the his place. What is strange is the usage of giving the fredoom to X and the Death to Y.


As to the Jesus quote, I'm lacking the Greek skills to judge that properly, but the English version always smacked me as Jesus avoiding an answer to the question. "You have said so" is a non-answer. We already know that Pilate said so.
How can you say that it is a 'non-answer'? Jesus is confirming what Pilate asked about him. So for the reader there are no doubts: who is going to be Condemned is just someone who is (called) the king of the Jews. The emphasis is on the his Jewishness.
I admit I don't have the slightest idea about what you are trying to tell me here.
the choice of the people is functional to prove that who is not the crucified Jesus is just the 'Jesus Son of Father'('Jesus Bar-Abbas'). So the reader is confirmed in the his certainty that who is going to be crucified is just the Jesus 'who is called king of the Jews' (i.e. the Jewish Jesus, not a Gnostic alien).

This is a weak point as it doesn't cover the main issue (that we are looking at one person here). It also ignores the reference to "the insurrection" (note the definite article).
It is not a weak point insofar it excludes the midrash from Leviticus 16 as a better hypothesis than Couchoud's.
It explains the reference to 'THE insurrection' insofar the connection of the insurrectionist idea with the 'Jesus Son of Father' is deliberate (in the mind of the Judaizer who introduced the 'Barabbas' episode) to defame the marcionite Jesus Son of Father. Against a Celsus who called BRIGAND the Jesus of all the Christians.

It seems that, differently from Ben, you are not even understanding the Couchoud's exegesis.
I don't see how the embarrassment of a 3rd century writer matters here.
And sorry, but here I have to disagree. The criterion of embarrassment is to be applied when we have real external evidence of the fact that something is embarrassing. And Origen is that evidence.

One other important point though: We should not fall into apologetic pitfalls and create the typical "gospel stew", with everything from all gospels mixed together. I don't know of any gMark manuscript that calls Barabbas "Jesus". There are some manuscripts of gMatthew that contain that name. Also, the Barabbas story is surprisingly different between the canonical gospels. Every gospel tries to tell a completely different story here. There may also be the confusion with Barabbas being called a brigand come from, as some gospels actually do that. gMark is the one where he is unmistakingly called an insurrectionist.
Couchod explains why Matthew has more interest among all to preserve 'Jesus Barabbas': who is going to be defamed by connection with the figure of a murderer and rebel is just the 'Jesus Son of Father', the Jesus of the rival Marcionites.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply