About Jesus Bar-Abbas aka Joses Bar-Nabas the first collaborator of Paul

[Giuseppe]

It is strange in Acts the fact that the first collaborator of Paul is just “the son of Paraclete”.

“And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,”

(Act 4:36)


“Joses Barnabas” resembles just... ...“Jesus Bar-Abbas”.

the “Paraclete” = the “Father”.


Assuming the same caustic, sarcastic, bastard, asshole irony found behind the Barabbas episode and addressed against the marcionite Son of Father (definitely not the Jewish Christ), I raise, here and now, the same suspicion about Joses Barnabas.


The Pauline original claim that Paul was guided/assisted, in any voyage done by him, by the Son of Father, was euhemerized/ridiculed by the author of Acts as the mere accompaniment of Paul by the his first collaborator, Joses Barnabas.


This opens a curious way of interpretation about the figure prophetized by John the Baptist.

Did John prophetize the coming of the Paraclet, i.e. of God himself?

Hence, Paul had this historical connection with John the Baptist: Paul claimed that the Paraclete predicted by John was just the Son of Father. About this prophecy by John, read what Stuart says about the Fourth Gospel:

In the Marcionite gospel the dispute is understandable, as these represent disciples of different gods. But in the fourth gospel John is sent by the same God as Jesus.

(my bold) http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2 ... te-to.html

[Giuseppe]

Another scenario, slighty more probable:

If the Paraclete is the Risen Jesus, then the prediction of the Paraclete coincides with the prediction of the same Entity who was seen by Paul. According to Marcion, only Paul (SOLUS PAULUS!) realized the true message of the Risen Jesus. Hence, only Paul was assisted by the Paraclete (being the Paraclete = the Risen Jesus).


The prediction of the Paraclete (=the Risen Jesus) by Jesus himself (the “historical” Jesus) was a marcionite thing.

It was judaized, against Marcion, by inventing another prediction:

The prediction of the Jewish Christ (=the “historical” Jesus) by John the Baptist.

Hence John the Baptist was introduced by the Judaizers because they had need of a Precursor of the Christ known really by the 12 apostles, against the Paraclet predicted by the marcionite Christ, a Paraclet who was known really only by Paul (or, was Paul himself).

[Giuseppe]

It is interesting also the connection of John with the Wilderness, before, and with the Prison, after. Both Wilderness and Prison are allegories of Sheol. The Galilee was chosen because Isaiah 9:1-2 describes the Galilee as a Sheol. In the marcionite incipit Jesus descends to Capernaum = “Place of Desolation” = the Sheol (per Heracleon). Hence in the marcionite gospel Jesus met John in the Sheol. De facto, Irenaeus tells us that Marcion taught that in Sheol, Cain, the people of Sodom, and others condemned in O.T. as wicked, received Christ's preaching and were taken up by Him into His kingdom; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the prophets, and other righteous men imagined that the Demiurge was tempting them as on other occasions, and so, being afraid to join themselves to Christ and accept deliverance from Him, were left in the Sheol.

John the Baptist was introduced in Marcion's Gospel since :

• in the incipit of the Cerdon's Gospel, Jesus descended to Sheol.

• John was effectively in the Sheol, since he is the soul of John Hyrcanus II (per Doudna's article, Is Josephus's John the Baptist Passage a Chronologically Dislocated Story of the Death of Hyrcanus II?).

To resolve the contradiction about a John met by Jesus in the Sheol but with a Jesus descending now in Galilee (=Sheol, per Isaiah 9:1-2), both Marcion and the later Gospels put John in the wilderness (=Sheol) and in prison (=Sheol).


Lastly, Ode 24 connects the Baptism of Jesus with the Sheol.

Ode 24 also presents
chasms in Sheol as the result of Jesus’ baptism, with all creation in labor pains, with the
inhabitants of Sheol “seeking the Lord as those who are about to give birth.” Sheol is
mentioned about five times in the Odes of Solomon. Ode 24 presents the inhabitants of
Sheol afraid at the moment of the baptism of Jesus with the chasms of Sheol opening and
closing, submerged in the same submersion of Jesus Christ. The passage seems to combine
elements both of the baptism of Jesus and his descent into Sheol after his Passion

(p. 65, Unctus est a Patre Spiritu: The Baptism of Jesus, Irenaeus of Lyons, and his Interpreters, by Marcos Antonio Ramos)

Note the contradiction, about a descending into Sheol that happens during the baptism and after the crucifixion. The solution of the dilemma is here, surely one of the my best threads in this forum.

[Giuseppe]

Curiously, Adamczewski connects Bar-Abbas with Bar-Nabas. But Adamczewski is a Catholic priest, hence probably an apologist. He doesn't know Couchoud's argument about bar-Abbas as parody of the Son of Father. This only fact makes him de facto totally unable to interpret correctly the Barabbas episode and the Bar-Nabas episode.

[davidlau17]

I've interpreted Jesus Barabbas (Jesus, son of the father) as being a duplicate of Jesus, but what makes you think that the double was meant to serve as a parody of Marcion's Jesus? It's true that twinning Jesus is somewhat in line with Marcion's dualism, but nothing about Barabbas himself seems particularly Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic). The Gospels describe Barabbas as an anti-Roman rebel, with Mark specifying that he committed murder. He sounds more like Jesus, the Zealot/Sicarii version.

I think it's more likely that the authors of the Passion narrative were familiar with two independent traditions. One involved the Jesus from Galilee we are familiar with - the one that the Jews urged Pilate to crucify on allegations of blasphemy. The other involved a Jesus from Galilee that led a rebellion against the Romans; an insurrectionist who Pilate crucified against Jewish protests. The authors, realizing that people were familiar with both stories, decided to pay lip service to the second version in a manner that suited the purposes of the first.

Regarding Barnabas, Paul mentions him at multiple points in his letters (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Colossians) in a manner consistent with Acts. If he were simply Jesus Barabbas 2.0, how would this be accounted for?

[Giuseppe]

I've interpreted Jesus Barabbas (Jesus, son of the father) as being a duplicate of Jesus, but what makes you think that the double was meant to serve as a parody of Marcion's Jesus? It's true that twinning Jesus is somewhat in line with Marcion's dualism, but nothing about Barabbas himself seems particularly Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic). The Gospels describe Barabbas as an anti-Roman rebel, with Mark specifying that he committed murder. He sounds more like Jesus, the Zealot/Sicarii version.

After the reading of this article (read it until the end, please), I have abandoned definitely any alternative interpretation of Barabbas episode. It is one of the greatest discoveries of the critical exegesis, in my view. Note that Bar-abbas is not introduced by gnostics. He was introduced by the Judaizers against the Gnostics. He is the Son of Father with the only “sin” of not being "called Christ".

I think it's more likely

I insist: the more probable interpretation is that given by Couchoud in the article linked above. It is one of the rare times I am 100% persuaded of what I am saying.

I note that you are historicist. In my eyes, this makes your interpretation even more wrong.

Regarding Barnabas, Paul mentions him at multiple points in his letters (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Colossians) in a manner consistent with Acts. If he were simply Jesus Barabbas 2.0, how would this be accounted for?

In the marcionite version of Galatians, Barnabas is not found in Gal 2. He was introduced by the Judaizers to reduce the too much disturbing solitude of Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Acts 15:36-40

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord.

John was the “beloved disciple” of Jesus in the fourth Gospel.


But Jesus in proto-John is the “Son of Father”, not the Jewish Christ.

Hence the caustic irony of Acts 15:36-40: “Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark” is the same Jesus Son of Father of the proto-John, who had as beloved disciple just “John”. Only, now he does so in opposition to Paul, and not, as it would be more expected from the proto-John, to support Paul.

Is there a historical nucleus, behind the rupture between the Jesus Son of Father (aka Bar-Abbas/Bar-nabas: a mythical being) and the historical Paul?

The precise moment when “John called Mark”, wrote the Earliest Gospel.