Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:37 pm
Barabbas is not there because Pilate is not there (Herod kills Jesus in GPeter and Pilate is there to see), but my point is that the absence of Barabbas in proto-John proves
virtually that Barabbas in John was the
correction of the Jesus of proto-John (hence: a Judaizing parody).
Since you cannot produce nor recreate
proto-John to substantiate your arguments, your evidence amounts to nothing.
You can make the same argument for the Synoptics,
Marcion, and yes, even
John. And it's a point that you have adamantly refused to address.
PILATE DOES NOT WISH TO KILL JESUS. PERIOD Yet Barabbas is there, seemingly to fulfill some custom that was never apart of the Passover ritual (and this adds further proof that was based on the Yom Kippur rite).
You have to persuade me why in our John the author has ignored (verse 9) to say that Jesus returns in the palace contra factum that in all the other times he has specified the movement of both Pilate and Jesus inside and out the palace.
Can you get inside the head of an author who lived 2000 years ago? Why did Kafka have Josef K. arrested for seemingly no reason? Why didn't Rowling just have Voldemort shot with a gun? Why did Tolstoy have Pierre keep a journal that was there for two chapters and then disappears having served absolutely no function to the story? È perché lo è.
It is evident that the presence of only Jesus and Pilate in the palace serves to have them in intimacy sufficient to make the Jews outsiders and Pilate an insider. In other terms, the intimacy between Jesus and Pilate serves a theological point: the gentile knows more Jesus than the Jews.
You are overthinking everything. Hell I even grant that Pilate is instrumental in the gentile and Marcionite Christianities, because he is a proxy for Marcion/Paul himself. But what is your point? There is no greater theological exegesis at work.
Stantibus sic rebus, why should the original author break his construction by having magically Jesus inside the palace when just before he was out ?
You're asking for a solution to a problem that isn't there.
Joseph D.L. can't answer.
Because there isn't a question.
Hence the Barabbas episode is an interpolation in the fourth gospel. It was introduced to prove that Pilate had yes intimacy with Jesus, but with the Jewish Jesus (son of YHWH), not with the alien Jesus Son of Father ("Bar-abbas").
Why is it an interpolation in the fourth Gospel and not the Synoptics? Where did it come from? It's even in
Marcion so it absolutely cannot have been the product of Judiazers satirizing Marcionites, interpolation or not.
Who disagrees with me on this is a total idiot. And to put it more clearly, Joseph D.L., I am ready to insult any user of this forum as IDIOT, even the admin himself, if he/she writes that he/she disagrees with me on Barabbas.
Call Peter Kirby an idiot to his face.
I don't agree, I think you're absolutely fucking wrong, and I think you're il supremo idiota.
No one cares what you think and no one cares about you.