Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:23 pm
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:03 pmthe point is that if I remove the
released Barabbas, then I should remove also the
releaser:
Pi
la
te. And make anonymous (and really
bad) the Roman "
governor".
rgprice has pointed out a few times that you are reconstructing a supposed original gospel, although you could essentially get the story from Paul's letters
without any major differences.
That is begging the question, since you (and possibly also rgprice) are ignoring a major difference between 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 and the Earliest Gospel Story:
- in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 only the demons are the killers of Jesus: in heaven;
- in my reconstructed Earliest Gospel Story, only an anonymous Roman "governor" crucified Jesus: on the earth.
Hence it is not correct at all the claim that I can "get the same story" from Paul. More precisely, my reconstructed Passion story is the
immediate, more direct translation
on the earth of the sacred drama believed by Paul happened
in heaven.
The difference between a drama
in heaven and a drama
on the earth is abyssal and colossal. An anonymous Roman governor is never a demon, sorry.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:23 pm
You seem to have made it clear that you absolutely want to stick to an Ur-Passion account.
Exactly. 'Absolutely' insofar the essential reason is that the removal of the
released Barabbas implies the logical removal of the
releaser Pi
la
te.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:23 pm
I noted with interest that Martijn judges the Gospels to be older than Paul's letters. In your opinion, is there a common trend here?
Unfortunately for Martijn, the Pillar of the mythicism in the last two centuries is that the epistles, with their abyssal silence about an earthly Jesus, precede the earliest gospel and not the contrary.
An exception is Bruno Bauer, who argued that the Ur-Gospel preceded the earliest 'epistle'.
But even the other radical critics accepted the chronological priority of the (fabricated) epistles over the first gospel (and we are talking abour radical critics who were ready to accept even Marcion before the canonicals).
Martijn is completely
alone in arguing for the
catholics (!) fabricating the epistles, when all the radical critics placed the early fabricators of the epistles in the "Gnostic" ( = anti-demiurgist) field. Possibly Martijn is a genius, but I am too much obtuse to realize that.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:23 pm
(Of course I have the feeling that the critical perspective of the 19th and 20th centuries is being abandoned here and we are falling back into the deepest "superstition")
I don't understand this comment. By judging from the Peter's approval of it, it seems to be critical of the my view. What I see in your view of Mark is a reluctance to remove the Barabbas's episode. I think that you have made it clear why you are reluctant to remove the Barabbas's episode: you do
n't consider the Barabbas's episode an apology for
diplomatic reasons, therefore you are surely more
justified to consider original the Barabbas' episode, since usually it is the
apology that is introduced
later in a story (usually after that the
diplomatic incident with the authorities is at least partially exploded), while the allegory may be peculiar to the original story.
Even so, I think that it is really hard not to see the pro-Roman apologetics in action behind the Barabbas's episode.
- In short, I read allegory + pro-Roman apology + anti-Marcionite polemic in the Barabbas's episode: enough to reject it as interpolated.
- While you read only allegory in the Barabbas's episode, without a valid reason to reject the other two factors (pro-Roman apology and anti-Marcionite polemic).
Which makes me to have the suspicion that you want at any cost a proto-Mark very much similar to our current Mark.