Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

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

Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Giuseppe »

My readers know already that I am completely persuaded that Couchoud has given the best explanation of the enigma Barabbas (basically, a judaizing parody of the Gnostic Son of Father). I think now that only that explanation may reveal another subtle clue of the same enigma:

A man called Barabbas was in prison with the robbers who had committed murder in the uprising

Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Surely, if Barabbas is the parody of the dangerous (as heretical) Christ of the Gnostics, then he has to be connected with the "robbers" in general, and so with the entire Zealot movement, so "the" uprising can only be a reference to the Great Revolt of 66-70 CE.

Hence, if the Gnostic Christ "Barabbas" is in prison with the robbers, the Jesus "called king of the Jews" is crucified with two robbers, but only in the latter case there is a fulfillment of old prophecies. So who invented the episode of three crucified men on the Golgotha had in mind also the scene of a Barabbas imprisoned with the robbers.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Transpose it to Kitos and it works. Anything before then is meaningless.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:22 am Transpose it to Kitos and it works. Anything before then is meaningless.
Surely the entire Jesus legend (=Gospels number 1, 2, 3, ...) is post Kitos. While the Christ Myth is before 70 CE.

For example, Cyrene was destroyed by the Romans so there was surely a sense in saying that Cyrene "died" for a free Jerusalem (just as the Allies "died" for Danzica). Et voilà: Simon of Cyrene suffers (if not even dies) in the place of Jesus. The idea of a sacrifice in the place of another is implicit in both the cases behind the name "Cyrene".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by DCHindley »

G.,

Take a look at Jesus and the Zealots by S G F Brandon (1967). He has an extensive section on this subject.

It is not available online, but it is available as a used book for about $10 US at ABE Books. Despite being slightly out of date (eg., he uses the term "Zealot" to cover all 4th philosophy parties even though the term was probably not associated with a particular political party until near the start of the Judean revolt of 66 CE), it is actually well worth it, if only for the historical references.

For Brandon's own 1971 review of the controversies that followed the publication of his three related books, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1951), Jesus and the Zealots (1967), and The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (1968), see here:

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/a ... CUMENT.PDF

I was not aware that he was an Anglican priest for 7 years, then an army chaplain for 14 years staring with WW2, before starting his academic career. Since he did not have to worry about how his published work would affect his institution (he was retired from both church and military, he was unusually frank about the implications of his study of Jesus-Zealot interconnections, and was unquestionably qualified as a scholar on the subject. :thumbup: His opinions, on the other hand, rubbed some Christian academics the wrong way. :thumbdown:

DCH
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:43 am G.,

Take a look at Jesus and the Zealots by S G F Brandon (1967). He has an extensive section on this subject.
DCH,

you seem completely ignore the Couchoud's explanation of the Barabbas episode, whereas I know too much well the best case for a seditious (historical) Jesus (especially the Bermejo-Rubio's point that only that hypothesis alone may explain the Gospel clues of disjecta membra of sedition: you know what I mean). But what even more escapes your attention is that Couchoud's explanation fits perfectly the disjecta membra of sedition found in the Gospels. Think about the "as a robber" episode, think about the two robbers, etc. These clues are anti-marcionite clues.

If you ignore it, it is an your problem, not mine.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by DCHindley »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:49 am
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:43 am G.,

Take a look at Jesus and the Zealots by S G F Brandon (1967). He has an extensive section on this subject.
DCH,

you seem completely ignore the Couchoud's explanation of the Barabbas episode, whereas I know too much well the best case for a seditious (historical) Jesus (especially the Bermejo-Rubio's point that only that hypothesis alone may explain the Gospel clues of disjecta membra of sedition: you know what I mean). But what even more escapes your attention is that Couchoud's explanation fits perfectly the disjecta membra of sedition found in the Gospels. Think about the "as a robber" episode, think about the two robbers, etc. These clues are anti-marcionite clues.

If you ignore it, it is an your problem, not mine.
Giuseppe,

Like Forrest Gump, I always say, "ignorance is what ignorance does." (Actually he does not say that in the movie of same name, but as the story is entirely fictional anyhow, I can make it say what I want, with a little effort)

You know, I was just pointing out a resource, and I would not know if you read Brandon's three books.

Brandon was a pretty sharp fellow, and except for the little things I mentioned, his books lay out what I consider to be a fairly strong case. This kind of author might be more up Frans Vermain's alley.

I have read some of Couchud's articles online and had downloaded his article 1st Edition of the Pauline Epistles, so maybe not the book you are using, but I found his reasoning baffling.

So, respectfully, I must remain blissfully ignorant.

DCH :goodmorning:
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Jul 22, 2018 9:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:43 am G.,

Take a look at Jesus and the Zealots by S G F Brandon (1967). He has an extensive section on this subject.



For Brandon's own 1971 review of the controversies that followed the publication of his three related books, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1951), Jesus and the Zealots (1967), and The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (1968), see here:

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/a ... CUMENT.PDF



DCH
Decades ago when I was studying I was really impressed with Brandon’s views. I do not I agree with him in the way I did back then, but as you say an interesting read.
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:49 am you seem completely ignore the Couchoud's explanation of the Barabbas episode, whereas I know …
That is your problem Giuseppe that you think you ‘know’ the answer, rather that recognising that you accept a theory as the best explanation at this moment, but will keep your mind open to other ideas, because we can never know what happened back then with regard to Christian origins.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:17 pm Surely the entire Jesus legend (=Gospels number 1, 2, 3, ...) is post Kitos. While the Christ Myth is before 70 CE.
If it is then we have zero evidence for it--or, that Christ was a later euphemism for something else. (i.e. Logos). It's only until the Kitos revolt that recognizable beliefs and terms begin to emerge.

The terminus post quem for Paul/Marcion is 118 ad, because his entire theology is predicated on the eclipse of September of that year. Everything before that point, is something entirely different.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:29 am I have read some of Couchud's articles online and had downloaded his article 1st Edition of the Pauline Epistles, so maybe not the book you are using, but I found his reasoning baffling.
I am saying that the best explanation of the case Barabbas, in my view, is that given by Couchoud in this article.

http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf

(Note that the other author of the article (Sthal) was historicist).

@MichaelBG
That is your problem Giuseppe that you think you ‘know’ the answer, rather that recognising that you accept a theory as the best explanation at this moment, but will keep your mind open to other ideas, because we can never know what happened back then with regard to Christian origins.
I have only said that I know the best case for the seditious Jesus (precisely, the fact that only that hypothesis may explain in the same moment all the disiepta membra of sedition found in the Gospels).
But for the same reason I consider better the Couchoud's explanation, since it also can explain in the same moment all the Gospel clues that in Bermejo-Rubio's view are called disiepta membra of sedition.

Surely there is not other hypothesis that is able to explain in the same moment all these strange Gospel details: Barabbas, the robbers, the titulum crucis, etc.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why "THE uprising" and not "A uprising"?

Post by DCHindley »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:48 pm
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:29 am I have read some of Couchud's articles online and had downloaded his article 1st Edition of the Pauline Epistles, so maybe not the book you are using, but I found his reasoning baffling.
I am saying that the best explanation of the case Barabbas, in my view, is that given by Couchoud in this article.

http://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... r_engl.pdf

(Note that the other author of the article (Sthal) was historicist).
I'll admit, you got me thinking about Couchoud (and also thought it would be nice to spell his name right this time, although I still can't pronounce "Kooshoo" [kuʃu], except when I sneese).

Right now I am decomposing the list of book names on his Wikipedia page into 2nd norbal form for easier slicing and dicing.

The word is that he had a poetic way with words, probably from all that haiku stuff he was fond of recreating in French. But a good half of the works cited never got translated into English. I am <sob> a one language person, English, although I do dabble in Greek and Latin. I wonder how Google Translate would work on his French. Hopefully better than I've seen Tesseract do with Ancient Greek ...

One thing I did notice is that Couchoud likes to give titles to his works in question form: "Could Jesus' sh*t stink?" "Can good explanations really come from historical evidence?" Stuff like that. Nothing good comes from that kind of sassiness, like the correct explanation should be self evident to any normal person with a PhD and who is proficient in Greek, Latin and Hebrew (and maybe throw in Aramaic or Syriac as well), who wants to believe that his preconceptions are spotless, perfect in logic and truer than true can be.

I might as well just read SA's posts here and on his blog! :cheeky:

DCH
Post Reply