Why in the Earliest Gospel the earthly mother of Jesus had to be a NEGATIVE character

[Giuseppe]

The answer is very simple and economic.

Since she had gave birth to his son Jesus, she was ipso facto a slave of the Demiurge, because she had obeyed to his Commandament: procreate for the Creator.

By giving birth not only to one son, but to a mountain of sons!

Hence she was by definition enemy of the her son Jesus.

Hence it is vain to effort to find behind the contrast of Jesus against mother and brothers a trace of a historical conflict between paulines and "Desposyni" so-called "Brothers of the Lord" (carnal or elitary). The latter never existed.

Only generic "Brothers of the Lord" existed.

There was never not even a thin elite of spiritual or carnal brothers above the other Christians.

[Giuseppe]

And this Gnostic rivalry of Jesus against her mother was judaized by midrash from Psalm 27:10:

For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the LORD will take me in.

And from Psalm 69:8-9:

I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to my own mother’s children;
9 for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

Hence not only there is zero evidence for carnal and/or elitist "brothers of Jesus", but there is even evidence against, already from the first gospel.

Hegesippus was a 100% liar, then.

[davidmartin]

Jesus ain't gonna like you talking about his mother like that, whip your ideas into shape son!

[MrMacSon]

Giuseppe, What do you think is the 'Earliest Gospel' ?

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, What do you think is the 'Earliest Gospel' ?

the Earliest Gospel is lost forever but we can infer what was it like.

It was written probably by precursors of Marcion's antinomianism: Saturnilus or Cerdon:

It is in a Marcionite medium, or pre-marcionite, that is best understood the development of a Jesus Son of the Father, opposed to the Jesus Messiah of Israel.

http://radikalkritik.de/geschichte/paul-louis-couchoud

English translation here. https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... r_engl.pdf

So the presumption of the earliness in favour of the Gospel of John remains. One is thus brought to conceive that the Synoptic Gospels could be written in sharp reaction against the tendencies of the primitive Johannic Gospel. R. Bultmann is not distant from this concept when he says synoptic tradition which it “must be perhaps understood as a phenomenon of judaizing reaction. ” 2 A. Loisy approaches some more
still when he says of Luke: Its favour for the Old Testament… attests a reaction against those of the Gnostics who repudiated the
Scriptures and God of the Jews,…

Hence the Earliest Gospel was something of very similar to proto-John. That is the logical conclusion from the recognition that "Bar-Abbas" is a sarcastic parody against a "Son of Father" famous for the his being an anti-Christ more than a Jewish Messiah.

Said sincerely and frankly, I would have wanted to share the enthusiasm of who argues for Markan priority but even the best commenters of Mark (I think about Paul Nadim Tarazi or Tom Dykstra), well, even they, seem to be clearly unable to resolve the enigma Barabbas at contrary of Couchoud/Stahl.

It is a curious that during my first online exchange with Carrier, I asked him about how he resolved Barabbas. Then I was fully satisfied by the his answer. But now not more. The Barabbas episode is a perfect 100% expected example of a polemic against rival Christians.

R.G.Price writes in the his book that only extraordinary evidence may persuade him that there was a gospel preceding our Mark. The Barabbas episode is that extraordinary evidence.