A Marcionite Antithesis behind Jesus Bar-Abbas?

[Giuseppe]

I 'm thinking about the episode of Jesus Bar-abbas and the reasons of his presence in Mcn. Precisely, it would seem apparently contradictory the presence, in Mcn, of a episode derived midrashically from Leviticus 16 along the lines ''first goat''=Jesus Christ, ''second goat'' (driven out the city) = Jesus Bar-abbas.
Really did Marcion thought that Jesus was the scapegoat of Leviticus 16?

Really did he embrace the Jewish Christian theology of atonement of the Lamb?

Clearly no.

So Justin:


For the lamb,(1) which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [goat], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scope [goat]; and His second appearance, because in the same place in Jerusalem you shall recognise Him whom you have dishonoured, and who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent, and keeping the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms(2) of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts, likewise enumerated by him, and which I have quoted,(3) which those believing in Jesus do. And further, you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem.
source: DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO JEW, chapter 11.

As it is impossible that Justin wants to rehabilitate Barabbas as second goat, and as it is impossible to give up the midrashic reading behind the episode of Barabbas from Leviticus 16, then the only possible explanation is that a Marcionite antithesis lurks behind that episode and behind that specific midrash. But which one, more precisely?

Then I remembered this post of Vinzent:
(google jesus rejection in nazareth according Marcion's Gospel )

Precisely where it says:

...This is contentwise a somehow distorted passage, and the comparison with The Gospel teaches, why – it is the result of Luke avoiding to read it as a response to Jesus’ rejection of him being the Messiah ben Joseph, and as Jesus attacking his audience, knowing that they want to provoke him to heal himself, and to fight and to do precisely what they wanted to have proven, that he is the warrior ben Joseph Messiah. What in The Gospel is, indeed, a theologial dilemma, well grafted and literally formulated, has been watered down into an inconsistent narrative. ...


I wonder if the same frustrating waiting for a Messiah Avenger Warror 'ben Joseph' is implicit in the episode of Bar-abbas.
So J. D. Crossan, in his Power of Parable:

The third reason for classing Jesus as a nonviolent resister is Mark’s story of Jesus and Barabbas, even though it is fictional parable rather than factual history. Mark wrote his version of the gospel after the Jewish revolt of 66–74 had left Jerusalem devastated and its Temple destroyed forever. His parable imagines Pilate confronted with two revolutionary figures, both publicly opposing Roman law and order. One is called Barabbas (whose name means “son of the father”) and is violent. The other is Jesus (Son of the Father) and is nonviolent. Pilate arrests Barabbas along with his followers: “A man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” (15:7). Jesus is in prison alone—his companions are not arrested. The point of Mark’s parable is that, in 66–74 CE, Jerusalem chose the wrong savior—the violent rather the nonviolent one.
...
That mini-story is parable rather than history. Mark’s purpose was to say—in retrospect after the terrible Jewish war with Rome of 66–74 CE—that Jerusalem had chosen the wrong option. It had chosen the violent revolutionary Barabbas—“son of the father”—over the nonviolent revolutionary Jesus—“Son of the Father.”
(my bold, pag. 86, The Power of Parable)

Clearly Crossan is not a Mcn priority supporter, but he makes a point here that is in some way marcionite in nature.

This is my hypothesis:
Marcion was denigrating in the figure of Barabbas exactly the second goat of Leviticus 16, that released free in the desert, as that particular goat represented for his readers as an antitype of the triumphant Messiah ben David, that would be succeeded almost immediately after the death of loser warrior Messiah ben Joseph (the ''first goat'').

It's not a coincidence, therefore, that Couchoud so wrote about the view held by apologists like Tertullian on the ''second goat'':
(quote from JESUS BARABBAS by P. - L COUCHOUD AND R. STAHL)
One can believe that the pseudo-Barnabas, Justin, Tertullien, could interpret the Gospels. It is thus probable that the scenes of derision and insults were introduced into Mark and Matthew to give to Jesus the character of scapegoat which one felt the major relationship with that of Mock King. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows clearly that the Christian festival whose Passion is the ritual topic was intended to replace not only Jewish Passover, but also the Day of Atonement. Jesus is not only the Paschal lamb. He is also the Scapegoat of Yom Kippur.
Is other goat perfectly similar? One would be tempted to find there Barabbas, similar to Jesus by name and the title. It is necessary to give up this idea. Barnabas, Justin and Tertullien in agreement that it still represents Jesus, Jesus at his second coming, when he appears in Jerusalem, identical to that which was driven out of the city. The goats, according to Barnabas, must be similar and beautiful and of the same size, so that the day when one will see Jesus coming one is struck with stupor because of the resemblance of the goat.

The second goat, according to Tertullien, offered for sins, given as food only to the priests of the Temple, marked the features of the second appearance when, purified of all sins, the priests of the spiritual temple, that is the Church, will enjoy the Lord’s grace like meat and which the others will starve for salvation.”
The second goat is thus not Barabbas. This one, moreover, simply is released and not at all offered.
(p.13-14)

Contra Couchoud, I think that in Mcn the true Son is not Jesus Bar-abbas, but Jesus Christ. I think that the polemical target of Mcn by this episode is the messianic Jewish hope in a warrior but loser Messiah ben Joseph and his avenger Messiah ben David. The twelve apostles mistakenly thought that Jesus added up in his figure both the loser Messiah son of Joseph and the avenger Messiah son of David, too. Even after the resurrection, they were victims of false views about the Messiah's concept.

The marcionite antithesis would be that the Jews, crying ''crucifige!'', choosed the wrong Messiah, Jesus Bar-Abbas, because they thought that the violent winner warrior Barabbas (the ''second goat'') was the logical implication of the loser crucified Messiah (the ''first goat'') therefore revealing their basic ignorance about the real identity of Jesus: he is not the ''first goat'' because he will not return as the ''second goat'' to redeem a world created by Demiurge.

The Jewish Christian theology of sacrificial scapegoat is rejected along with what is still the soul of the traditional Jewish theology: the hope in a victorious anti-Roman Davidic messiah.

If I'm right, this throws curious implications on the kind of Jewish Christians criticized by Mcn: were they some Jews that had equaled the figure of Messiah son of Joseph with the figure of Messiah son of David? Suggestions, by now.

Thoughts?

[Giuseppe]

What makes me perplexed about my solution, is that it assumes a sacrificial theology as polemical target *already* in Mcn and not, as I would like see it, as a later proto-catholic reaction to Mcn.

So Richard:

The Christian book of Barnabas discerns another aspect of Mark's allegory:

[The Torah says to] take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins. And what should they do with the other? 'Accursed', says He, 'is the one'. Note how the type of Jesus now comes out. 'And all of you spit upon it, and pierce it, and encircle its head with scarlet wool, and thus let it be driven into the wilderness' . . . . What does this mean? Heed what is said, 'one upon the altar, and the other accursed'. And why is the one that is accursed crowned? Because they shall see Him then in that day having a scarlet robe about his body down to his feet; and they sha11 say, 'Is not this He whom we once despised, and pierced, and mocked, and crucified? Truly this is He who then declared Himself to be the Son of God. For how like is He to Him!' With a view to this, the goats had to be of goodly aspect, and similar, that, when they see Him then coming, they may be amazed by the likeness of the goat. Behold, then, the type of Jesus who was to suffer (Barnabas 7.6-10).
Observe how in Mark's story Jesus is treated by the Jews exactly like the scapegoat: scorned and beaten and spat upon and dressed in scarlet and crowned and pierced, yet Barabbas is the actual scapegoat, whom the Jews embrace instead of abuse. So the Jews have not correctly discerned who the actual scapegoat is and who the actual sin offering is. Mark has thus created an allegory for Jewish blindness to what Jesus represents, the Jews choosing instead their sins over their salvation-Jesus Barabbas, instead of Jesus Christ.

This was notably also a choice between two kinds of messiahs: a doomed one of military revolution (Barabbas is a murderous revolutionary) and oneof spiritual victory whose death eliminated the need for military revolution (see Elements 23 to 28). As SUSki ben Ezra explains, 'Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as God wants him to be, while Jesus Barabbas is the Messiah as the people want him to be', and by not letting the choice fall to a lottery (and thus to God), 'the people usurp the role of God on Yom Kippur in choosing between the two'. Thus, as a literary allegory, Mark's composition is near brilliant, conveying everything he wants to say about the gospel and its acceptance and rejection. But there is nothing of history here. None of this actually happened.
(OHJ, p. 407-408)

Is it possible that a proto-catholic 'Mark' would invent the figure of CRIMINAL Jesus Bar-Abbas in order to describe exactly the SECOND goat that, according the proto-catholic Barnabas, ''...when they see Him then coming, they may be amazed by the likeness of the goat. Behold, then, the type of Jesus who was to suffer...'' ? ? ? Can be the criminal Barabbas the same ''coming'' Jesus at Second Parusia?

Clearly not.

But denigrating precisely the second goat that will be seen ''coming'' and will amaze all by his similarity to first goat, through the association with the criminal and robber Barabbas, Mcn is virtually DENYING that to die is just his double 'as first goat'. (we know the reason: he isn't the Jewish Messiah).

[Peter Kirby]

Precisely, it would seem apparently contradictory the presence, in Mcn, of a episode derived midrashically from Leviticus 16

Thoughts?

Would all the other connections knit between the passion narrative and scripture yield to this type of analysis?

[Giuseppe]

I don't know at moment any single case but it would be interesting to know how all the Gospel's midrash can be interpreted in a marcionite view. If Marcion was Jew or God-fearer in origin, then in line of principle he was entirely able to apply the midrash in order to make his theological point.

The logic would be this:

1) Jesus is apparently the first goat of Leviticus 16.
2) if Jesus is the first goat, the criminal (!) Jesus Barabbas would be the second goat.
3) Therefore: Jesus is not really the first goat.

The antithesis is raised at point 2. As anti-marcionite reaction, the proto-catholics as Tertullian, Barnabas, Origen, etc, would rehabilitate the figure of second goat, even if it is the criminal Barabbas.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Mark wrote his version of the gospel after the Jewish revolt of 66–74 had left Jerusalem devastated and its Temple destroyed forever. His parable imagines Pilate confronted with two revolutionary figures, both publicly opposing Roman law and order. One is called Barabbas (whose name means “son of the father”) and is violent. The other is Jesus (Son of the Father) and is nonviolent. Pilate arrests Barabbas along with his followers: “A man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection” (15:7). Jesus is in prison alone—his companions are not arrested. The point of Mark’s parable is that, in 66–74 CE, Jerusalem chose the wrong savior—the violent rather the nonviolent one.

The logic would be this:

1) Jesus is apparently the first goat of Leviticus 16.
2) if Jesus is the first goat, the criminal (!) Jesus Barabbas would be the second goat.

Careful. Nothing is told about what Barabbas has done or whether the insurgents were his friends.

Mark 15:7
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.
But<->(there) was the so-called Barabbas, with the insurgents having been bound who (plural) in the insurrection murder had committed

[Peter Kirby]

I don't know at moment any single case but it would be interesting to know how all the Gospel's midrash can be interpreted in a marcionite view. If Marcion was Jew or God-fearer in origin, then in line of principle he was entirely able to apply the midrash in order to make his theological point.

The logic would be this:

1) Jesus is apparently the first goat of Leviticus 16.
2) if Jesus is the first goat, the criminal (!) Jesus Barabbas would be the second goat.
3) Therefore: Jesus is not really the first goat.

The antithesis is raised at point 2. As anti-marcionite reaction, the proto-catholics as Tertullian, Barnabas, Origen, etc, would rehabilitate the figure of second goat, even if it is the criminal Barabbas.

The Barabbas story seems fairly special among the "Gospel's midrash" in that it is possible (although not necessary) to find a foil to Jesus in the story (in Barabbas), which broadens the horizons on how one can try to interpret the story. As you've shown, you can try to interpret it as "Marcionite."

In general, however, the situation is usually a lot less complex. There's some stuff that the OT presaged (e.g., Elijah and Elisha's healings, or the treatment of Isaiah's suffering servant, etc.). And there's the fulfillment of that in Jesus. It's typically just dealt straight: the scripture has it, Jesus did it. Not really any obvious curve balls, which means that there is not really any obvious way to shoe-horn a certain reading into it.

Of course, a lot would depend on what the word "Marcionite" is supposed to mean or what "Marcion" was supposed to have taught. This post in reply to you is more or less a stab in the dark in that I may be missing some of the assumed context. When reading the OP, I feel like I've walked in on the middle of a conversation that I don't have the beginning of, so it's difficult to interject. It would be more helpful to know the basics of what is supposed behind the OP first, before moving on to the finer points discussed in the OP.

[neilgodfrey]

An interesting resource: Ben Ezra "The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity" -- available at bookzz.

Ben Ezra highlights Matthew's redactional changes to Mark's account of Barabbas showing how the former is lurching Mark's account much more precisely into a midrashic working of the Levitical sacrifices. This leaves me with growing doubts that Mark did mean a link with the sacrifices.

Then BeDuhn ("The First New Testament") argues Marcion may have known of or used something like Bar Rab rather than Barabbas. If so, we come back to Mark's interest in commentary on Roman triumph and the Jews opting for the wrong form of messiah/politics.

[Secret Alias]

But why do we assume that our Mark is ur-Mark? This is silly. Canonical Mark is a specifically 'Catholic' or 'orthodox' redaction of Mark's original text.

[neilgodfrey]

But why do we assume that our Mark is ur-Mark? This is silly. Canonical Mark is a specifically 'Catholic' or 'orthodox' redaction of Mark's original text.

Who is this addressed to? Who is assuming this?

[Secret Alias]

Stephan. Why does Matthew always have to follow from canonical Mark? Why can't both canonical Mark and canonical Matthew derive from a lost ur-gospel?