Barabbas and Marduk

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Charles Wilson »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:50 pmBarabbas was inserted in any Gospel by the enemies of Marcion against Marcion. There is no a better explanation.
Actually, I believe there is a better explanation:

Josephus, Ant..., 18, 2, 4:

"About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians, by the treachery of Phraataces his son, upon the occasion following: When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Caesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. Now she was able to persuade him to do any thing that she said, and was earnest in procuring the government of Parthia for her son; but still she saw that her endeavors would not succeed, unless she could contrive how to remove Phraates's legitimate sons [out of the kingdom;] so she persuaded him to send those his sons as pledges of his fidelity to Rome; and they were sent to Rome accordingly, because it was not easy for him to contradict her commands. Now while Phraataces was alone brought up in order to succeed in the government, he thought it very tedious to expect that government by his father's donation [as his successor]; he therefore formed a treacherous design against his father, by his mother's assistance, with whom, as the report went, he had criminal conversation also. So he was hated for both these vices, while his subjects esteemed this [wicked] love of his mother to be no way inferior to his parricide; and he was by them, in a sedition, expelled out of the country before he grew too great, and died. But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together that it was impossible they should be governed without a king, while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces, [nor did their law allow of any others; and they thought this kingdom had been sufficiently injured already by the marriage with an Italian concubine, and by her issue,] they sent ambassadors, and called Orodes [to take the crown]; for the multitude would not otherwise have borne them; and though he was accused of very great cruelty, and was of an untractable temper, and prone to wrath, yet still he was one of the family of Arsaces. However, they made a conspiracy against him, and slew him, and that, as some say, at a festival, and among their sacrifices; (for it is the universal custom there to carry their swords with them;) but, as the more general report is, they slew him when they had drawn him out a hunting. So they sent ambassadors to Rome, and desired they would send one of those that were there as pledges to be their king. Accordingly, Vonones was preferred before the rest, and sent to them (for he seemed capable of such great fortune, which two of the greatest kingdoms under the sun now offered him, his own and a foreign one). However, the barbarians soon changed their minds, they being naturally of a mutable disposition, upon the supposal that this man was not worthy to be their governor; for they could not think of obeying the commands of one that had been a slave, (for so they called those that had been hostages,) nor could they bear the ignominy of that name; and this was the more intolerable, because then the Parthians must have such a king set over them, not by right of war, but in time of peace. So they presently invited Artabanus, king of Media, to be their king, he being also of the race of Arsaces. Artabanus complied with the offer that was made him, and came to them with an army. So Vonones met him; and at first the multitude of the Parthians stood on this side, and he put his army in array; but Artabanus was beaten, and fled to the mountains of Media. Yet did he a little after gather a great army together, and fought with Vonones, and beat him; whereupon Vonones fled away on horseback, with a few of his attendants about him, to Seleucia [upon Tigris]. So when Artabanus had slain a great number, and this after he had gotten the victory by reason of the very great dismay the barbarians were in, he retired to Ctesiphon with a great number of his people; and so he now reigned over the Parthians. But Vonones fled away to Armenia; and as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him, and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose]. But because Tiberius refused it him, and because he wanted courage, and because the Parthian king threatened him, and sent ambassadors to him to denounce war against him if he proceeded, and because he had no way to take to regain any other kingdom, (for the people of authority among the Armenians about Niphates joined themselves to Artabanus,) he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria, who, out of regard to his education at Rome, kept him in Syria, while Artabanus gave Armenia to Orodes, one of his own sons.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:43 am
Michael BG wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:27 am You don’t have the same definition of a fact as me. For me a fact is something which is true and can be verified as true. For example – today 18th June the Sun came up.
for me it is a fact that Marcion preached a Jesus Son of the Father who (always accordingly to Marcion) was confused by the Judaizers with the Jewish Messiah predicted in the scriptures. For me it is a fact that the marcionite Christ proclaimed that the OT prophets were robbers and brigands. For me it is a fact that Marcion preached that the crucified one was his Christ and not the Jewish Messiah. For me it is especially a fact that the Barabbas episode had to serve, in the intentions of the his author, to exorcize the possible confusion between two rival Christs.

Given these premises, the probability a priori that Couchoud is correct is too much strong against any probability a posteriori of the contrary.
That is your opinion. It is not a fact that the Barabbas episode "had to serve, in the intentions of his author, to exorcize the possible confusion between two rival Christs". We know this because Barabbas is in the Marcionite gospel.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:43 am
We don’t have any copies of the Marcionite gospel and there is no way to know what was in any earlier Marcionite gospels or even if such things existed.
but we have what their enemies thought about them. What their enemies thought about them could be even a mere ghost, even so I have right to see traces of the polemic against that ghost in the our Gospels.
Can you provide any second or third or fourth century text that tells us about the gospel used by the Marcionites before the one the opponents of Marcion tell us about?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Michael BG wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:41 pm That is your opinion. It is not a fact that the Barabbas episode "had to serve, in the intentions of his author, to exorcize the possible confusion between two rival Christs". We know this because Barabbas is in the Marcionite gospel.
when there is independent evidence of the source of the embarrassment (=the existence itself of the marcionite sect and of the his rival Christ "Son of Father") then and only then I am fully justified to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on the Barabbas episode and infer the reason of the his presence there.

Effectively this is the only case where the Criterion of Embarrassment can be applied validly with cognition of cause.

The fact itself that today the entire consensus (fpr example, both Crossan and Carrier) reads Barabbas as a type of the violent Jewish Messiah in opposition to the pacific Jesus of the Christians (a favorite marcionite dycothomy of which a Crossan is not aware) is evidence that the marcionites could accept Barabbas in their Gospel, afterall, even if his introduction was caused by an anti-marcionite agenda. So your argument based on the presence of Barabbas in the marcionite gospel is not persuasive (even if I am conceding you the fact that Barabbas entered in the Marcionite gospel since so dr. Roth argues and Stuart would agree).
Can you provide any second or third or fourth century text that tells us about the gospel used by the Marcionites before the one the opponents of Marcion tell us about?
in Acts Jesus is crucified by the Jews. No mention of Pilate. The Gospel of Peter has Jesus crucified directly by the Jews. In John Pilate gave Jesus to the Jews. Serapion says that the "wise king of Jews" was killed by the Jews. There are too much persuasive clues that the second trial before Pilate is a late insertion by the Judaizers designed to insist on the essential Jewishness of the Christ.

At this point of the discussion, I have collected too many clues supporting the view that in the Earliest Gospel :
1) Jesus is not the Jewish Christ and
2) he was killed directly by the Jews.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:56 pm
Michael BG wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:41 pm Can you provide any second or third or fourth century text that tells us about the gospel used by the Marcionites before the one the opponents of Marcion tell us about?
in Acts Jesus is crucified by the Jews. No mention of Pilate. The Gospel of Peter has Jesus crucified directly by the Jews. In John Pilate gave Jesus to the Jews. Serapion says that the "wise king of Jews" was killed by the Jews. There are too much persuasive clues that the second trial before Pilate is a late insertion by the Judaizers designed to insist on the essential Jewishness of the Christ.

At this point of the discussion, I have collected too many clues supporting the view that in the Earliest Gospel :
1) Jesus is not the Jewish Christ and
2) he was killed directly by the Jews.
It is normally seen the other way round. Jesus was crucified by the Romans and this was embarrassing, so the later the texts the more the responsibility is switched to the Jews. If he had been killed by the Jewish authorities he would not have been crucified.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Michael BG wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:10 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:56 pm . There are too much persuasive clues that the second trial before Pilate is a late insertion by the Judaizers designed to insist on the essential Jewishness of the Christ.

At this point of the discussion, I have collected too many clues supporting the view that in the Earliest Gospel :
1) Jesus is not the Jewish Christ and
2) he was killed directly by the Jews.
It is normally seen the other way round. Jesus was crucified by the Romans and this was embarrassing, so the later the texts the more the responsibility is switched to the Jews. If he had been killed by the Jewish authorities he would not have been crucified.
the consensus is wrong on this.


The Barabbas episode serves also as apology before the Roman authorities, in the moment itself when a Pilate is introduced (since his role is to confirm who is the real identity of the crucified Son, in opposition to Barabbas).

What is disturbing by you, Michael_BG, is not that you disagree with my view, but the your clear impossibility to see the things from my point of view even only for a second.

I may concede you that it is PARTIALLY strange and unexpected the presence of Barabbas in the marcionite Gospel (after all what I have said), but I am really embarrassed (sic) from your not seeing that really there is no better explanation for the case Barabbas. For the Pilate's question "are you the king of Jews?" (meaning the need of make it explicit, with good peace of the Messianic Secret in proto-Mark). For the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemani ("abba"/father). For the further break of the Messianic Secret ("...as a robber...").

The beautiful thing about my view is that now I have not only and not more isolated clues pointing to an anti-marcionite polemic in Mark's Passion Narrative.

Now I see that there is an entire pattern of these clues, designed basically to introduce an entire second Roman trial for Jesus, in addition to the first Jewish trial. In order to confirm the crucified Jesus as really the king of Jews, really the Jewish Christ.

The logic behind all this interpolation is the following:

If Jesus is crucified only by the Jews, then Jesus is not the Jewish Christ.

If Jesus is crucified also by Pilate, then Jesus is the Jewish Christ.


Who is intellectually honest with himself can't not see that pattern.

Again, I am not arguing for marcionite priority. Now I am totally persuaded that in the Earliest Gospel there was not Pilate. And Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. The proof is there and is too much evident:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4292

As I have said before, I can use the Barabbas enigma (as resolved by Couchoud) as a test to see if a commentary of Mark is correct or wrong.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

Now in the my eyes there is not more difference at all beteeen something related to Pilate (for example, the proposition "Pilate crucified Jesus") and the more banal and stupid midrash from OT scriptures designed to fulfill prophecies (for example, the fugue in Egypt).

Behind both the Pilate episode and the stupidest midrash from OT scriptures there is the same Judaizing "conspiracy" in action : to judaize a Christ who was never a Jewish Christ in the Earliest Gospel (insofar he was crucified "by the Jews").
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Michael BG »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:31 am
Michael BG wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:10 am It is normally seen the other way round. Jesus was crucified by the Romans and this was embarrassing, so the later the texts the more the responsibility is switched to the Jews. If he had been killed by the Jewish authorities he would not have been crucified.
the consensus is wrong on this.
I understand this is your view, but you haven’t persuaded me that your view is more likely to be correct than the one you call the consensus one.
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:31 am What is disturbing by you, Michael_BG, is not that you disagree with my view, but the your clear impossibility to see the things from my point of view even only for a second.

I may concede you that it is PARTIALLY strange and unexpected the presence of Barabbas in the marcionite Gospel (after all what I have said), but I am really embarrassed (sic) from your not seeing that really there is no better explanation for the case Barabbas.
I think it is time to stop discussing this with you. You have no idea that I can’t understand your position. It is just your false opinion of me and shows your lack of respect for me as someone to debate with.

Your explanation does not explain why Barabbas is in the Marcionite gospel. Therefore it isn’t a perfect explanation. Even for you it might only be a temporary thing to be discarded as quickly as it was taken up when you discover a theory which you think it is better.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

I am only applying correctly the Criterion of Embarrassment on the Barabbas episode.

The your answers from the beginning of the discussion seem to be only designed to make bad propaganda of the Couchoud's hypothesis, just when I have just discovered it...

Is this a typical apologetical strategy?


Even so, if you like it, I am already beyond Couchoud. He thought that the Earliest Gospel was the gospel written by Marcion. While I think that the Earliest Gospel was a Gnostic Gospel. Even Marcion descended to a "Catholic" compromise, since his gospel accepted (before or after) the Barabbas and Pilate (since the two characters go strictly linked as judaizing items and I can't imagine one without the other and vice versa).

Not only Marcion, but any Gnostic preached a "Son of Father" who was not the Jewish Christ.

The proof (and I mean just "proof") of it is already there in addition to this our thread and this other.

The rest are only details.

Thanks at the end for this animated "discussion".

In the my next threads I will say still something about the Earliest Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Giuseppe »

I address the following words to any reader different from Michael_BG:

Remember the two conditions to use correctly the Criterion of Embarrassment:

1) you should have independent evidence of the potential source of embarrassment

2) the evangelist has to say something that seems to go against his own interest.

Both the 1 and 2 conditions are satisfied with Barabbas episode.

1) We have evidence that the entire Gnostic tradition (not only Marcion) preached a Christ who was not the Jewish Christ.

2) We have evidence of a name, "Jesus Barabbas", of which seems to be too much embarrassing to give it to a brigand.

Marcionites were only a particular gnostic sect. The proto-John was without Barabbas according to both Loisy and Wellhausen.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ethan
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Barabbas and Marduk

Post by Ethan »

Marsuas (Barabbas) was shackled by Apollo (Pilate) pending punishment, but managed to escape his gruesome fate through the protection of Liber Pater (לבראבב), to embark on a new life in Italy. hence Barabbas and Barnabas.
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf
Post Reply