Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:33 am

Yes. Add the fact that John 10:8 has a Jesus Son of Father accusing the OT prophets of robbery and thief.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:40 am

And Tertullian accused the marcionite Christ of being a thieve of the creatures of the creator.

Then the things which the Father delivered to the Son are good, and the Creator is therefore good, since all His things are good; whereas he is no longer good who has invaded another's good (domains) to deliver it to his son, thus teaching robbery of another's goods

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:46 am

Add the fact that it was too much embarrassing for a Christian author have the name of Barabbas just "Jesus Barabbas" (so in Matthew), unless the need of a such name was justified by polemical reasons against an existing rival sect.

And we know that a such existing rival sect existed. (Note the difference in comparison to who interprets Barabbas as a clue of a lost seditious historical Jesus: in this case we have no evidence of a rival Zealot Christian sect).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:52 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:15 am
Hi Giuseppe,

I want to make sure whether I have understand the thesis. So check it out please.

  • It cannot be assumed that the Barabbas incident is a historical account.
  • One of our main reasons is the improbability that both „our“ Jesus, who is the son of God the father, and Jesus Barrabbas, who is the named „son (Bar) of the father (Abbas)“ are available as candidates.
  • These two „sons of the father“ are not equal. Barabbas is a sheer „son of the father“, but Jesus is as well the Christ and was crucified as the King of the Jews.
  • The two figures „son of the father“ and „Messiah“ have a different origin, the Messiah is not necessarily the son of a divine father.
  • There was a sect or number of early Christians, who rejected the idea that Jesus was as well the Jewish Messiah. Their Jesus was the sheer son of the one unknown divine father.
  • Therefore the Barrabas incident is a polemical story against those Christians with which the Orthodox claimed that the sheer „son of the father“ was released and the crucified redeemer was in fact Jesus Messiah + son of God.
  • The thesis becomes completely plausible when we also note that the name Barabbas is likewise an insult for a man with an unknown father (bastard).
  • The Barabbas incident is obviously a later addition to GJohn. Jesus is the perfect son of God the father in GJohn, namely equal with God.
  • Therefore Proto-John is older than the Synoptics

In particular:
There was a sect or number of early Christians, who rejected the idea that Jesus was as well the Jewish Messiah. Their Jesus was the sheer son of the one unknown divine father.
And the only moment when their Jesus had really a body, it was on the cross: the crucifixion was real (for them). It was not a substitute to die.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:57 pm

.
My dear Giuseppe,

it does not make the impression that you are convinced of the thesis by Couchoud and Stahl with a cool head :ugeek: No, (like a donna fatale) this thesis turned your head and you're hopelessly in love. How could it be possible that I can convince you :scratch: that „she“ is not a good girl, neither Lavinia nor Beatrice and especially not Julia. In truth, she is a Dalila and deprives you of all your strength :tomato: It's enough to drive me to despair! :banghead:


Have you never read in the first and the smartest of all gospels that there is not only a second “son of father”, but also a second “father”. It's in Mark 11:10 (Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!). And just look at what this crowd is doing. They put their hope on an earthly kingdom of their father David and not on Jesus' spiritual kingdom of God. They have probably heard that Bartimaeus - while still blind – called Jesus a “son of David” - Mark 10:46. That is why Jesus had to teach that the Messiah is not the son of David at all – Mark 12:35.

So what should we suspect? Is an Aramaic Barabbas (who was "in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising") rather an earthly “son of our father David” (like the rebels in the Jewish war) or rather the sheer son of an unknown god who has nothing to do with the Jews?

And what would Marcion say about this?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:17 pm
Luke 23.1-25, to Pilate, Jesus before Pilate and Herod.

1 Καὶ ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειλᾶτον. 2 ἤρξαντο δὲ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες Τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι, καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα, καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι. 3 ὁ δὲ Πειλᾶτος ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν λέγων Σὺ εἶ ὁ Βασιλεὺς [Marcion: Χριστός] τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ἔφη Σὺ λέγεις. 4 ὁ δὲ Πειλᾶτος εἶπεν πρὸς τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ὄχλους Οὐδὲν εὑρίσκω αἴτιον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ. 5 οἱ δὲ ἐπίσχυον λέγοντες ὅτι Ἀνασείει τὸν λαὸν, διδάσκων καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἕως ὧδε. 6 Πειλᾶτος δὲ ἀκούσας ἐπηρώτησεν εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν, 7 καὶ ἐπιγνοὺς ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας Ἡρῴδου ἐστὶν, ἀνέπεμψεν αὐτὸν πρὸς Ἡρῴδην, ὄντα καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις. 8 ὁ δὲ Ἡρῴδης ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐχάρη λίαν· ἦν γὰρ ἐξ ἱκανῶν χρόνων θέλων ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ ἀκούειν περὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἤλπιζέν τι σημεῖον ἰδεῖν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γινόμενον. 9 ἐπηρώτα δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς· αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ. 10 εἱστήκεισαν δὲ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς εὐτόνως κατηγοροῦντες αὐτοῦ. 11 ἐξουθενήσας δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἡρῴδης σὺν τοῖς στρατεύμασιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμπαίξας, περιβαλὼν ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν ἀνέπεμψεν αὐτὸν τῷ Πειλάτῳ. 12 ἐγένοντο δὲ φίλοι ὅ τε Ἡρῴδης καὶ ὁ Πειλᾶτος ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετ’ ἀλλήλων· προϋπῆρχον γὰρ ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὑτούς. 13 Πειλᾶτος δὲ συνκαλεσάμενος τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τὸν λαὸν 14 εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Προσηνέγκατέ μοι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὡς ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν ἀνακρίνας οὐθὲν εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον ὧν κατηγορεῖτε κατ’ αὐτοῦ. 15 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Ἡρῴδης· ἀνέπεμψεν γὰρ αὐτὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ· 16 παιδεύσας οὖν αὐτὸν ἀπολύσω. 18 ἀνέκραγον δὲ πανπληθεὶ λέγοντες Αἶρε τοῦτον, ἀπόλυσον δὲ ἡμῖν τὸν Βαραββᾶν· 19 ὅστις ἦν διὰ στάσιν τινὰ γενομένην ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ φόνον βληθεὶς ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ. 20 πάλιν δὲ ὁ Πειλᾶτος προσεφώνησεν αὐτοῖς, θέλων ἀπολῦσαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν. 21 οἱ δὲ ἐπεφώνουν λέγοντες Σταύρου σταύρου αὐτόν. 22 ὁ δὲ τρίτον εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν οὗτος; οὐδὲν αἴτιον θανάτου εὗρον ἐν αὐτῷ· παιδεύσας οὖν αὐτὸν ἀπολύσω. 23 οἱ δὲ ἐπέκειντο φωναῖς μεγάλαις αἰτούμενοι αὐτὸν σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ κατίσχυον αἱ φωναὶ αὐτῶν. 24 καὶ Πειλᾶτος ἐπέκρινεν γενέσθαι τὸ αἴτημα αὐτῶν· 25 ἀπέλυσεν δὲ τὸν διὰ στάσιν καὶ φόνον βεβλημένον εἰς φυλακὴν, ὃν ᾐτοῦντο, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν. 1 The whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying,We found this man perverting the nation, destroying the law and the prophets, forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, misleading women and children, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.3 Pilate asked him,Are you the King [Marcion: Christ] of the Jews?” He answered him, “So you say.” 4 Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.” 5 But they insisted, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place.” 6 But when Pilate heard Galilee mentioned, he asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 When he found out that he was in Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem during those days. 8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad, for he had wanted to see him for a long time, because he had heard many things about him. He hoped to see some miracle done by him. 9 He questioned him with many words, but he gave him no answers. 10 The chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him. 11 Herod with his soldiers humiliated him and mocked him. Dressing him in luxurious clothing, they sent him back to Pilate. 12 Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before that they were enemies with each other. 13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought this man to me as one that perverts the people, and behold, having examined him before you, I found no basis for a charge against this man concerning those things of which you accuse him. 15 Neither has Herod, for I sent you to him, and see, nothing worthy of death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore chastise him and release him.” 17 Now he had to release one prisoner to them at the feast. 18 But they all cried out together, saying, “Away with this man! Release to us Barabbas!”— 19 one who was thrown into prison for a certain revolt in the city, and for murder. 20 Then Pilate spoke to them again, wanting to release Jesus, 21 but they shouted, saying, “Crucify! Crucify him!” 22 He said to them the third time, “Why? What evil has this man done? I have found no capital crime in him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.” 23 But they were urgent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. Their voices and the voices of the chief priests prevailed. 24 Pilate decreed that what they asked for should be done. 25 He released him who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus up to their will.

So what further witnesses did you need? ;)

Greetings, Kunigunde

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:14 pm

You have fixed a point about my effective predilection for Couchoud/Stahl's views. I can't hide it. :oops:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:57 pm
So what should we suspect? Is an Aramaic Barabbas (who was "in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising") rather an earthly “son of our father David” (like the rebels in the Jewish war) or rather the sheer son of an unknown god who has nothing to do with the Jews?
the point is that Matthew makes it even more explicit, for a gentile audience (ignoring probably the aramaic), that "Barabbas" is "JESUS Barabbas", therefore the reason of conflit is not about the name (Jesus) of the son, but about the true legitimate father of the crucified one. The fact that Jesus invokes "Father, Abba" in Gethsemani secures a Gentile reader, in Mark too, that "Bar-Abbas" means "Son of Father". Hence what would be disputed is the identity of the true Father of the crucified. A marcionite theme, is'n it?
And what would Marcion say about this?
I recognize that the my argument would be more strong if that hypothetical reconstruction of Mcn was without Barabbas, but I am defending here the priority of proto-John, not of Mcn aka proto-Luke.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:55 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:14 pm
... but I am defending here the priority of proto-John ...
No problem :-)

But ... I am sometimes a little disappointed with interpretations, including the one by Couchoud and Stahl, whether from the conservative or liberal camp or from mythicists, where neither the pericope itself nor GMark as a whole is important. I think there are a number of points that were really important to Mark (faith and against Jewish law, denying himself and suffering, resurrection and the preaching of the gospel, mission to Jews and Gentiles, rejection of worldly interests and fame, for order, but against hierarchies ...). But none of this plays even the tiniest role in these interpretations. I find that an abuse. :consternation:

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the birth story was not added to Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:28 am

I concede you a point: insofar all that insistence that the chosen victim was "king of the Jews", called as such by Pilate, despised as such by the crowd around the cross, by the guards, designed as such by the titulus, insofar, I say, all that insistence seems to be addressed against Marcion's denial that the victim was the king of the Jews (genitive possessive), well, a voice inside me says that maybe I should consider all that insistence on an apparent reality as a denial of that reality: that Jesus is not really the king of the Jews even in Mark. That he is not the son of David. Connecting so the logic with your post above.

But then I remember that Markus Vinzent interprets just that denial of davidic ascendance by Jesus as a marcionite trace left in Mark (just as the fact that Jesus rejects the his mother and brothers, without a bit of humanity, is a way to mask the fact that in Marcion Jesus denies that he has mother and sisters, really even in proto-John).

Hence, no, dear Kunigunde, I remain in my opinion that something as proto-John and as Mcn (à la Vinzent) precedes Mark. :)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply