Etienne Nodet on the origin of the Barabbas episode

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Etienne Nodet on the origin of the Barabbas episode

Post by Giuseppe »

Luke 22:70-71, according to Etienne Nodet, is part of the evidence about why a "Bar-Abbas" (Son of Father) had to be introduced in the Gospels to make Jesus innocent:

70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”

He replied, “You say that I am.”

71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

Only the Emperor Augustus could be named "God, Son of God", hence Pilate had to fear any messianist claiming to be the "Son of God".

The title of "Son of God" is theocratic, hence anti-imperial. Just as the "Golgotha" works as the anti-Capitolium. Remember about Adam Winn's view about Mark as anti-Imperial propaganda.

By introducing the Barabbas episode, the Gospels have removed from Jesus the claim of being "Son of Father", by inventing de facto another Jesus who claimed the embarrassing title, in his same name ("Bar-Abbas"), of "Son of Father".

Since the implication is that the historical Jesus was an anti-Roman seditionist, the Christian scholar Etienne Nodet is obliged to assume that Barabbas existed really as a rabble-rouser released by Pilate and distinct (sic) fom Jesus.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Etienne Nodet on the origin of the Barabbas episode

Post by Giuseppe »

Michael Peppard would agree with Nodet about the title "Son of God"/"Son of Father" having ipso facto anti-imperial connotations:

Peppard’s thesis — that this Gospel is depicting Jesus as a son of God in opposition to the Roman emperor who was then worshiped as a son of god — throws interesting light on this declaration by the centurion.

https://vridar.org/2013/03/02/jesus-as- ... l-of-mark/

Accordingly, docet Adam Winn, if Jesus purified the Temple, then he is a better purifier/destroyer of the Temple than Titus himself. And the list of anti-Flavian clues may continue.

Hence, the Barabbas episode goes directly against the original anti-Vespasian propaganda that is called "Gospel of Mark". What better evidence than this about the Barabbas episode being an interpolation?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Etienne Nodet on the origin of the Barabbas episode

Post by Giuseppe »

The view of Mark as anti-Vespasian propaganda is able to explain also the presumed "separationism" in Mark:

Hence the eagle and the dove: a bird descends and absolute power comes upon a son of God—almost the same, but not quite. Read in the light of Roman imperial ideology, the narrative characterization of Jesus’ baptism mimics the accession of imperial power even as it disavows the authority and methods of imperial power. It mimics Roman imperial adoption but disavows the militaristic type of power transmitted through adoption. It mimics the bird omens of Roman warfare and imperial lore but disavows the dominating war-symbol of the Roman eagle. The bird omen of the dove instead portends the accession of a different son of God, whose rise to power, though it would be mocked and suspended by the colonial authority, would ultimately be vindicated by his adoptive father.

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_ ... 8510000159

Hence the so-called "separationism" of the early readers of Mark was simply the fruit of a misunderstanding of the original Mark's propaganda about a carnal Jesus being "adopted" in an anti-imperial way by god.



So Blood:

The Christians did not participate in the Imperial cult, and rejected the idea that the emperor was a god. This is why they were persecuted, and also why they needed a sacred text laying out their rationale for not worshipping the emperor. The Jesus myth grew out of their rejection, not the other way around. They knew that Vespasian or Hadrian were not sons of God, but they needed an explanation for why their god Jesus fit that role.

The Roman victory in Judea played a major role in Mark’s conception. The Romans had defeated the Jews because God was on their side, and the “adulterous and sinful generation” of Jews had supposedly rejected God. Mark needed to portray Jesus predicting the fall of the temple in the Olivet Discourse while simultaneously diminishing the victory of the Romans as venerating the emperor as God’s chosen son. Having a Roman centurion be the first person to recognize Jesus as “the son of God” after the crucifixion was not an accident.

This also helps explain the otherwise obscure connection of the word “euangellion” between how it was normally used by the Imperial mythology and its adaptation by Mark, to assure his listeners that the “real” good news was that Jesus, not Vespasian or Hadrian, was the son of God.

Post Reply