“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: 6636
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 10:03 am

Ulan wrote:
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.
It is not only this, since Couchoud agrees also with this your point. But in addition to this he says that the name of the figure who allegorizes the 'flashy warrior etc' is just 'JESUS SON OF FATHER' because the judaizer who introduced the Barabbas episode was attacking the gnostic Jesus Son of an unknown Father (not YHWH), the same Jesus of the gnostic proto-John.

So the readers are secured: under the external accusation (for example, by a Celsus) that their Christ is a brigand, they can reply that only the marcionite Jesus Son of Father was really a brigand (and was not even crucified), not the Jesus called Christ/king of the Jews, the true (and Jewish) Messiah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7149
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 10:28 am

Giuseppe wrote:
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'.
I think I may agree with you on that (not about Origen's embarrassment, but about the possibility that the name Jesus means something in Matthew). But you are still not explaining why Mark associates Barabbas with insurrectionists rather than with brigands/robbers. This is a detail that the messianic hypothesis (so far) explains better than yours does.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6636
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 10:37 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:28 am
I think I may agree with you on that (not about Origen's embarrassment, but about the possibility that the name Jesus means something in Matthew). But you are still not explaining why Mark associates Barabbas with insurrectionists rather than with brigands/robbers. This is a detail that the messianic hypothesis (so far) explains better than yours does.
It has to be clear that the messianic hypothesis is not excluded by Couchoud's hypothesis but it is a his subset.
I think with Couchoud that the need of a pro-Roman apology served to distance Jesus from the accusation of being a brigand and Zealot. This is expected given the fact that Jesus was proclaimed 'crucified' and so a not-Christian could suspect the worst about him (that he was a real anti-Roman rebel). Celsus's Jew is evidence of this accusation.
So the Barabbas episode serves to remove the accusation from the Jesus of the Judaizers: yes, the our Jesus (the Jewish Messiah) was crucified but he was not the Zealot you are talking about. The Zealot was the marcionite 'Jesus Son of Father'. Accuse them, the gnostics and marcionites. Not us.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6636
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 10:41 am

Note that, in order to return the favor, the marcionites interpreted 'Bar-Abbas' as 'Bar-Rabbas', so making it a parody of the Jewish Messiah, the Jesus 'Son of Teacher' adored by the Judaizers.

Matthew 23:8-10

8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7149
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 12:03 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:37 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:28 am
I think I may agree with you on that (not about Origen's embarrassment, but about the possibility that the name Jesus means something in Matthew). But you are still not explaining why Mark associates Barabbas with insurrectionists rather than with brigands/robbers. This is a detail that the messianic hypothesis (so far) explains better than yours does.
It has to be clear that the messianic hypothesis is not excluded by Couchoud's hypothesis but it is a his subset.
I think with Couchoud that the need of a pro-Roman apology served to distance Jesus from the accusation of being a brigand and Zealot. This is expected given the fact that Jesus was proclaimed 'crucified' and so a not-Christian could suspect the worst about him (that he was a real anti-Roman rebel). Celsus's Jew is evidence of this accusation.
So the Barabbas episode serves to remove the accusation from the Jesus of the Judaizers: yes, the our Jesus (the Jewish Messiah) was crucified but he was not the Zealot you are talking about. The Zealot was the marcionite 'Jesus Son of Father'. Accuse them, the gnostics and marcionites. Not us.
The Barabbas episode can be anything to anyone.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6636
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 10:16 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:03 pm
The Barabbas episode can be anything to anyone.
The Couchoud's hypothesis captures so well the evidence (at least in my view) that it would be interesting to know the origin of the accusation of robbery and insurrectionism moved by the Pagans against the Christian Messiah. Without that accusation, no need of Pilate and no need of accusing a rival Christ by inventing the fictional 'Barabbas'. Note that the article in question (being for me so useful to understand the Gospels) is not only written by Couchoud (a mythicist) but also by Sthal, a historicist proponent of the Zealot Hypothesis.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Ulan
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan » Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:09 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:03 pm
The Barabbas episode can be anything to anyone.
The four different gospel accounts already illustrate that statement nicely.

Post Reply