https://www.google.com/books/edition/Or ... frontcover
Giuseppe wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:02 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 am
What distinguishes my view from Giuseppe's is that I am going off of tangible evidence
This is a total falsity. Leviticus 16 and Barnabas are not tangible evidence for your interpretation of Barabbas episode. The moral difference is relevant, here, since the Christians, even today, are strongly embarrassed for having the criminal Barabbas named even 'Jesus Barabbas'. No midrash from OT would justify a such blasphemy.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover
We do, however, know that Barabbas was presented as a perfect twin to Jesus, since he was seen fit at least to fill the predetermined role of the Yom Kippur scapegoat.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pa ... frontcover
Here, both Jesus and Barabbas are compared to the two goats of the atoning rite.
Frederick Niedner has argued that the reference to blood should be read in the context of the choice which Pilate offers between Jesus and Barabbas. Niedner believes that the atonement ritual prescribed in Leviticus 16 is the interpretive key for this choice.
How can you even say "Christians, even today, are strongly embarrassed for having the criminal Barabbas named even 'Jesus Barabbas'
", when the majority of Christians don't even know Barabbas was called Jesus in a very marginal textual tradition? This is further evidence that you are just making up excuses to justify your false beliefs.
Only strong sectarian rivarly could justify a similar apparent blasphemy: the name of Jesus Son of Father given to a bastard criminal.
Then show us this secterian rivalry. Where is it? Why is there no evidence of it, except for the most tenuous and obscure references only you can see?
The first implication is that the separationism is the oldest Christology appearing in a Gospel. I know already the origin of that separationism (allusion to role of separator of the celestial cross), but I should inquiry now how Paul is related with that separationism: was he against it or not ?
And Barabbas satisfies this by being the Jesus that escapes, and the Epistle of Barnabas
proves conclusively that this was the view of Christians. Your theory proposes that Barabbas was a later addition to the narrative, which 1) would disprove your idea that Separationism was the original strata, and 2) is not proved in anyway by textual or written sources.
Stantibus rebus, I give up to discuss with a polemicist as you. I consider you sympathetic for the insults you give, as nincopompon, etc. But I think that you are wasting your time here.
At least you admit that you are a waste of time.