Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:29 am
Couchoud/Stahl's article anti-Semite? Really? When Tertullian accused Marcion -
HIS Marcion hater of YHWH - as secretly allied with the Jews?
Did I say Couchoud and Stalh were antisemitic? No. I said you are.
What's more, why should anyone take what Couchoud and Stahl as anything more than their own personal interpretation? You take everything you read and just run with.
So now it becomes clear the agenda of Joseph D.L. He insists on Barabbas explained by Leviticus 16 because he believes that my alternative is "anti-...".
No. Because that interpretation is supported by the evidence and scholarly consensus. All you have is the belief of two men who are not qualified in the relevant field. Couchoud wasn't a Biblical scholar, had no training in the field, and Stalh was a nobody, literally, there is nothing about who this man was thus no way to know his expertise in this field. I dismiss both as useless mythicist charlatans.
Your stupid midrash on Leviticus 16 is not even able to explain who is "Abba" in Bar-Abbas, in addition to not explain why Barabbas is criminal. Couchoud/Stahl can explain who is "Abba" in Bar-Abbas. Their thesis is even able to explain why Abba in Barabbas has to be unknown (the father of the bastards is always unknown, and the supreme god of Marcion was the Unknown par excellence).
Two things, Giuseppe:
1) You do know that
"bar Abbas" was an actual name used in first and second century Jewish communities? You do also know that
"son of the father' does not indicate at all that the father is unknown? What an absurd position to hold.
2)
Matthew has Joseph ready to divorce Mary because he thinks she has slept with another man, thus making Jesus a bastard, and this was the common view of Jews in the rabbinical period, that Jesus was a bastard son of a man named Panterah.
Occam is with me, here. Your appeal ad consensus proves only the extreme reluctance of the consensus itself to accept the great influence of the marcionite threat in the formation of the Gospels.
How is it a threat when Barabbas was present in the Marcionite Gospel?
All you can do is rave about some hypothetical proto-Gospel, which you cannot produce or show even existed, let alone that the Church fathers knew about it.
It's always the same with you Giuseppe.
I remember, for the readers, that Joseph D.L. doesn't like to answer to this post:
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:55 am
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.:
What am I supposed to respond to? There was absolutely nothing about Barabbas in the above articles. I'm not interested in your pet theories. Unless you have hard evidence, stop wasting my time.
