Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13885
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:33 pm I'm still waiting for that source. I want a source from ad 100-400 that says that Barabbas was emblematic of the Gnostics. I don't want vague "Son of the Father" references. And I don't want it filtered through some nonsensical interpretation.
you are an idiot if you expect, under my scenario, a document that says: "boys, it's only a joke, Barabbas is only an our parody invented by ourselves against the Gnostics and their Jesus".

In a parody the sense is implicit. At most, it serves to answer: "our Jesus is the Jesus CALLED CHRIST, our Jesus is not the son of an unknown father, therefore don't confuse the two Jesuses".

But I have used this adjective not coincidentially: unknown.

It is the key to give you a great surprising answer.

The marcionites and the Gnostics in general were accused everywhere in our sources as adorers of an ALIEN UNKNOWN supreme god.

What IS ALREADY in evidence in Barabbas, and you (idiot) can't never deny it, is that nobody knows who is the "Father" of Barabbas. Any idiot who claims to know who is the Father of Barabbas is precisely just a colossal idiot, one without a bit of evidence about the identity of the Father of Barabbas. (I may compare who is so arrogant to know the Father of Barabbas with the people addressed by the Gospel Jesus when he is made to say: who is without sin, throws the first stone).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Charles Wilson »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:39 pmWhat IS ALREADY in evidence in Barabbas, and you (idiot) can't never deny it, is that nobody knows who is the "Father" of Barabbas. Any idiot who claims to know who is the Father of Barabbas is precisely just a colossal idiot, one without a bit of evidence about the identity of the Father of Barabbas.
Don't be so hard on yourself Giuseppe.

Of course we know who the father of Barabbas was:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 18, 2, 4:

"About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians, by the treachery of Phraataces his son, upon the occasion following: When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Caesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. Now she was able to persuade him to do any thing that she said, and was earnest in procuring the government of Parthia for her son; but still she saw that her endeavors would not succeed, unless she could contrive how to remove Phraates's legitimate sons [out of the kingdom;] so she persuaded him to send those his sons as pledges of his fidelity to Rome; and they were sent to Rome accordingly, because it was not easy for him to contradict her commands. Now while Phraataces was alone brought up in order to succeed in the government, he thought it very tedious to expect that government by his father's donation [as his successor]; he therefore formed a treacherous design against his father, by his mother's assistance, with whom, as the report went, he had criminal conversation also. So he was hated for both these vices, while his subjects esteemed this [wicked] love of his mother to be no way inferior to his parricide; and he was by them, in a sedition, expelled out of the country before he grew too great, and died. But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together that it was impossible they should be governed without a king, while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces, [nor did their law allow of any others; and they thought this kingdom had been sufficiently injured already by the marriage with an Italian concubine, and by her issue,] they sent ambassadors, and called Orodes [to take the crown]; for the multitude would not otherwise have borne them; and though he was accused of very great cruelty, and was of an untractable temper, and prone to wrath, yet still he was one of the family of Arsaces. However, they made a conspiracy against him, and slew him, and that, as some say, at a festival, and among their sacrifices; (for it is the universal custom there to carry their swords with them;) but, as the more general report is, they slew him when they had drawn him out a hunting. So they sent ambassadors to Rome, and desired they would send one of those that were there as pledges to be their king. Accordingly, Vonones was preferred before the rest, and sent to them (for he seemed capable of such great fortune, which two of the greatest kingdoms under the sun now offered him, his own and a foreign one). However, the barbarians soon changed their minds, they being naturally of a mutable disposition, upon the supposal that this man was not worthy to be their governor; for they could not think of obeying the commands of one that had been a slave, (for so they called those that had been hostages,) nor could they bear the ignominy of that name; and this was the more intolerable, because then the Parthians must have such a king set over them, not by right of war, but in time of peace. So they presently invited Artabanus, king of Media, to be their king, he being also of the race of Arsaces. Artabanus complied with the offer that was made him, and came to them with an army. So Vonones met him; and at first the multitude of the Parthians stood on this side, and he put his army in array; but Artabanus was beaten, and fled to the mountains of Media. Yet did he a little after gather a great army together, and fought with Vonones, and beat him; whereupon Vonones fled away on horseback, with a few of his attendants about him, to Seleucia [upon Tigris]. So when Artabanus had slain a great number, and this after he had gotten the victory by reason of the very great dismay the barbarians were in, he retired to Ctesiphon with a great number of his people; and so he now reigned over the Parthians. But Vonones fled away to Armenia; and as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him, and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose]. But because Tiberius refused it him, and because he wanted courage, and because the Parthian king threatened him, and sent ambassadors to him to denounce war against him if he proceeded, and because he had no way to take to regain any other kingdom, (for the people of authority among the Armenians about Niphates joined themselves to Artabanus,) he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria, who, out of regard to his education at Rome, kept him in Syria, while Artabanus gave Armenia to Orodes, one of his own sons.

Somewhere over the rainbow,
Bluebirds sing...

The Bluebirds, however, aren't very good Metaphysicians.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I asked for a source from 100-400 ad that says that Barabbas is what you say he is. You cannot use Barabbas himself to prove your theory, as that is circular (and like a Christian saying the Bible is proof for the Bible). You have utterly failed to satisfy even the most basic demands of empirical evidence.

I will give you one last opportunity. Produce for everyone on this forum a source, an ancient Christian or Gnostic witness, that says, in plain Greek/Latin/English, that Barabbas (not "Son of the Father"--which is not Βαραββᾶς in Greek, and Irenaeus's "Son from the Father is in no way applicable to Barabbas--but Barabbas plainly) that says in no unambiguous terms or language that Barabbas is a co-opt of Gnosticism, and you're lucky I'm not demanding it to read parody/satire. I will not accept anything, nor will anyone else on this forum.

Those are your conditions Giuseppe. I give you exactly 24 hours to find one, just one such text from the relevant time period. If you fail, then I will know conclusively that you do not have any such evidence and thus your theory is once and for all disproved.

24 hours starting now.
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Joseph D. L. »

As for myself, I have not only given ancient witness to my claim, I have supported it with the consensus of scholars who know more than I or Giuseppe ever will. Giuseppe, by contrast, has not ever given evidence for his claims. He quotemines Couchoud, Stalh, Carrier and Ory, finds some irrelevant passage in the Church fathers, then acts like he's made some great discovery no one else ever has. He's an egomaniac, a narcissist, concerned not with reasonable discourse and critical thinking, but with his own self worth. He has repeatedly, again and again, admitted that he treats this not as a study but as a religion for him to preach, as if he is an authority on it.

Giuseppe. You are nothing. Just a sad, lonely man from Italy whose only remaining legacy will be on this forum until it is inevitably forgotten by the sands of time. That is your fate, and I pity you, Giuseppe Ferri.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13885
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Giuseppe »

Since you are eager to move the discussion on the personal, without knowing nothing about me and even so abusing continually my patience, I will address you towards another user of this forum who shares with me the view that proto-John is evidence - I point out, for you: EVIDENCE - of the following:

In surveying the content of the Gospel of John today with knowledge of the second century controversies, I am struck by the consistent and blunt repudiation of the Jewish God as the father of Christ, and more generally its opposition against every Jewish Christian theological point we find presented in the rest of the New Testament. It is truly a wonder this book, even with redaction, ever made it into canon.

(my bold, source)

These words in bold are not equivocal. Prof Bultmann could very well subscribe these words in bold.

And if you are not satisfied, prof. April DeConick can very well subscribe to these words, also: The Devil’s Father and Gnostic Hints In the Gospel of John.

Once accepted proto-John as evidence of a Gospel tradition about a Jesus of which the Father is an unknown deity enemy of YHWH, one is obliged to follow the extreme implication: Barabbas is a criminalization and a parody of that Jesus who said (10:8):

"All those who came before me are robbers and thieves"

Turnel comments:
He says "all"; he doesn't exempt persons, not even the prophets, not even Moses. Terrified by this act of accusation, the Fathers, the apologists, the critics did there what firefighters do in the presence of a fire. They endeavored to isolate it.

(my bold)

You, Joseph_D_L, are doing after 2000 years what the Fathers and the apologists did: you're trying to isolate the fire.

Jorge da Burgos, aka Joseph D.L.:

Image
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Joseph D. L. »

You are still incapable of producing this mysterious source for your claim.

"You see! You have here the goat who is released alive into the wilderness, bearing in himself the sins of the people who were shouting and saying "Crucify! Crucify!" He [Barabbas] is therefore the goat released alive into the wilderness, while the other [Jesus] is the goat dedicated to God as a sacrifice to atone for those sins, making of himself a true atonement for those who believe."

Origen, Homily on Leviticus

Why is it that I can quote ancient Christian texts, and modern scholars, who support my theory, yet all you have to offer are the most tenuous of interpretations that do not even begin to resemble a scientific method or rigor.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover
Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas remind him of the ancient Yom Kippur ritual of the two goats, where one is killed as a sacrifice and the other is released into the wilderness.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Or ... 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.
You are simply incapable of providing the direct evidence that is being asked, because it doesn't exist. No, a hypothetical Gospel that you cannot show is not evidence. No, the interpretations of two men, Couchoud and Stahl, is not evidence. What Bultmann and DeConick say does not help you. You are just trying to ad hoc your way through this to prove your nonsensical theories.

You are now embarrassing yourself. I feel sorry for you man. You have a learning disability, cannot grasp the most basic fundamentals of logic, seemingly live in your own world, and is actively despised by numerous people from at least two boards that I know of (This one and the one ran by Robert Tulip) as a troll at worst, and as a fool at best. Even Richard Carrier, the man you hold in highest esteem, thinks you're an absolute idiot who routinely strawmans the opposition and cannot understand simple concepts.

You lose Giuseppe. And you always will.

I'm not even bothering with asking for a source anymore, because I know it doesn't exist.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Joseph D. L. »

And to add further insult to your ego, Carrier agrees with me about Barabbas. He thinks you're a nutcase with idiotic ideas.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13885
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:35 amNo, a hypothetical Gospel that you cannot show is not evidence.
proto-John is evidence. Celsus who informs us about the marcionites adoring the son of an alien deity is evidence. I find incredible the rapid way you deal with Stuart and Bultmann about it. I find incredible that you admire Robert Tulip (sic), a mere fan of Acharya, and one by me totally deliberately ignored, but then I remember that yourself are a fan of her and then I understand all. This only fact is sufficient to desire: the End of any discussion with you.

Frankly, I don't see a minimal point about which we may agree. Someway, your obsession about me betrayes a some kind of perverse fun I don't like to inquiry further.

As to Carrier, he can say so because he places all the gospels before Marcion and before all the Gnostics. In this, he is a modern judaizer as the entire consensus of scholars is. But I am interested to truth, not to consensus. I prefer to explain fully Barabbas rather than to accept apologetical and naive solutions.

And Arthur Drews, Couchoud, Stahl, Magne, Fau, Ory would agree with me against Carrier.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13885
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Giuseppe »

If you want to see an example of REAL folly about who is "Abba" in Barabbas, see here an example.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Evidence that Irenaeus knows the meaning of Barabbas ("Son of Father")

Post by Joseph D. L. »

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15934
Paul of course equated Jesus with both the Passover and the Yom Kippur sacrifice, both rolled into one (his death atones for all sins like the Yom Kippur, and saves us from death like the Passover lamb), even though they are months apart in the Jewish ritual calendar. And yet Mark also merges the two themes into one: having Jesus die on Passover (indeed at the very same hour as a temple sacrifice) and enact at the same time a Yom Kippur ritual (with Barabbas as the scapegoat; see OHJ, pp. 402-08).
Moreover, the only thing that distinguishes Christianity as a distinct sect is its ability to abandon temple cult, which required a messianic sacrifice or equivalent to replace the temple role in Passover and especially Yom Kippur (just as Hebrews 9 explains).
See my analysis of the Barabbas parable (and it is really just a parable) in OHJ. Where I cite three peer reviewed scholars concurring, as well as Origen himself in his own analysis in the third century. Barabbas is the scapegoat in this metaphorical Yom Kippur; so Mark is saying those who choose military messianism are choosing the fate of the scapegoat, whereas those who reject that are choosing salvation in the atonement offered by Jesus.
Post Reply