Rabbi Meir and the parable of the twins.

[Joseph D. L.]

My point is that there was in the Jewish tradition the (polemical) comparison between two apparently (and only apparently) identical men, as both Ben and Nanine Charbonnel have proved. It is reductive to reduce all to Leviticus 16, even if Leviticus 16 is part of that tradition.

But Couchoud/Stahl's point is more subtle. The tool is given gratuitously by Lev 16 etc, but the goal is: attack Marcion's Jesus (by reducing him to the bastard Barabbas).

The goal has justified the use of that tool.

[Joseph D. L.]

What's the simplest, most parsimonious explanation that does not need presumed scenarios or conspiracies of which there is zero evidence for?

Barabbas being the scapegoat, of which there are actual textual midrashes for?

Or Barabbas being a proxy for Marcion, of which there is zero evidence for, and actually is contradictory to what is presumed about Marcion and requires an entire battery of apologetics?

Your theories have too much baggage and thus is not accepted by anyone. Not here, not your hero Carrier, or the wider world of academia.

The common denominator is you. Either we're all idiots and you're the sole genius among us; or, we're more critical and honest and you're just a putz getting a high from his masturbatory posts.

Don't spill your seed here, Giuseppe.

[Giuseppe]

What's the simplest, most parsimonious explanation that does not need presumed scenarios or conspiracies of which there is zero evidence for?

The consensus assumes already that Mark is polemical against the Pillars. Or that Matthew is polemical against Paulines.

I recognize the existence of "actual textual midrashes" for Barabbas, but the common denominator behind the use of these " actual textual midrashes" is a polemic against an enemy, a conflict between the good and the bad. Hence the need of someone playing the role of the bad.

Now, Barabbas can't represent only Zealots because the Zealots don't share nothing with a "Son of Father" who was never called Messiah. And after 70, for the civilized world, Zealots don't represent more a threat.

Hence: Barabbas can only represent the marcionite Christ. There was really a concrete enemy called Marcion.

The implication is that the Passion story of any Gospel is surely not marcionite. The rest of the Gospel story may be marcionite.

[Joseph D. L.]

The consensus assumes already that Mark is polemical against the Pillars. Or that Matthew is polemical against Paulines.

Irrelevant. The consensus completely rejects Barabbas being a polemic against Marcion and that is the subject at hand. Don't confuse the issue.

I recognize the existence of "actual textual midrashes" for Barabbas, but the common denominator behind the use of these " actual textual midrashes" is a polemic against an enemy, a conflict between the good and the bad. Hence the need of someone playing the role of the bad.

This is pure rhetorical drivel. The Epistle of Barnabas, likely written before the canonical Gospels, already bares witness to comparing Christ to the sacrificial statute of Leviticus 16, and calls BOTH the goat sacrificed on the alter and the goat led out to the wilderness as types of Christ. He doesn't repudiate one or the other, but exalts both.

Now, Barabbas can't represent only Zealots because the Zealots don't share nothing with a "Son of Father" who was never called Messiah. And after 70, for the civilized world, Zealots don't represent more a threat.

There is still the rebels who followed Lukuas and Simon bar Kochba.

Hence: Barabbas can only represent the marcionite Christ. There was really a concrete enemy called Marcion.

Which doesn't make sense simply for the fact that Barabbas is ACCEPTED BY THE JEWS, which you absolutely refuse to explain even though I have brought this point up about fifty times now. And saying Barabbas can "only" mean one thing is intrinsically dishonest. Barabbas can mean a number of different things. You don't have a monopoly on how to interpret the passage, and to be honest, everything you say I immediately think the opposite is correct.

The implication is that the Passion story of any Gospel is surely not marcionite. The rest of the Gospel story may be marcionite.

Explain then how it ended up in the Marcionite Gospel? Again, something you have refused to do.

Talking to you is like talking to a schizoid patient.

[Giuseppe]

The consensus completely rejects Barabbas being a polemic against Marcion

that is a problem of the consensus, not mine.

The Epistle of Barnabas, likely written before the canonical Gospels

that is false, because the Epistle of Barnabas shows knowledge of a historical Jesus, therefore it follows necessarily our Gospels who gave birth to the legend of the man Jesus.

There is still the rebels who followed Lukuas and Simon bar Kochba.

From Rome, where all the Gospels were written, the Zealots are considered as bastard terrorists by all the Jews living in the city.

Which doesn't make sense simply for the fact that Barabbas is ACCEPTED BY THE JEWS,

in the fiction he is accepted by the Jews, but in the real History who is allegorized by "Bar-Abbas" ("Son of Father" rejecting the title of Jewish Messiah) IS ACCEPTED BY THE GNOSTICS AND MARCIONITES.

It is called: anti-Marcionite parody.
Any exegesis who ignores this point is written by an idiot. And yes: even if he is named "Richard Carrier".

Explain then how it ended up in the Marcionite Gospel? Again, something you have refused to do.

The final of the Oldest Gospel is lost forever.

We know only that it had very probably only a trial before Pilate. And that Pilate didn't know who Jesus was and who the God adored by Jesus was.

We can't know nothing apart that.

[Giuseppe]

As to alternatives, in his book Le mensonge chrétien (Jésus-Christ n'a pas existé), the mythicist (really a historicist) Arthur Heulhard gives a really good alternative, with the only sin of having validity only under a historicist paradigm.

Heulhard assumes that Bar-Abbas was the real seditious (= the historical Jesus), and Marcion preached that the spiritual Christ possessed him and abandoned him on the cross, with the (theological) result that the Jewish-Christians deified Barabbas and YHWH, while the Marcion's Paul and the Marcionites adored the Good Christ and the Good God, because they knew the "truth".

Against Marcion, the Judaizers had Barabbas released by Pilate, so now Marcion couldn't say more that the victim was a mere seditious, since the man (known by History for his sediction), Barabbas, was now said released by Pilate: now, Marcion is obliged to recognize that the victim was the same Christ adored by him, and that Christ himself was called "king of Jews". Sic stantibus rebus, Marcion could't defend more his separationism as before. He lost.


Why I would like Heulhard if only I was historicist:

Because also he concludes that the fable of a Barabbas released by Pilate is a strike against Marcion.

He is not an idiot.

[Joseph D. L.]

that is a problem of the consensus, not mine.

It's important to keep in mind where you stand in the greater world around you.

that is false, because the Epistle of Barnabas shows knowledge of a historical Jesus, therefore it follows necessarily our Gospels who gave birth to the legend of the man Jesus.

Or a historical Jesus is more probable than you're giving it credit for.

Nevertheless, the Epistle pre-dates our Gospels. That doesn't mean it has to pre-date the idea of a historical Jesus.

From Rome, where all the Gospels were written, the Zealots are considered as bastard terrorists by all the Jews living in the city.

Mark was composed in Egypt, Matthew in Jerusalem, Luke was composed in Rome, and John was composed in Ephesus.

You also ignore that there were Jews sympathetic to the Zealots even in Rome.

in the fiction he is accepted by the Jews, but in the real History who is allegorized by "Bar-Abbas" ("Son of Father" rejecting the title of Jewish Messiah) IS ACCEPTED BY THE GNOSTICS AND MARCIONITES.

That's a load of bullshit and just shows that you're twisting this to fit your presupposed bias.

It's historical when it needs to be, allegorical when it needs to be. You know who that sounds like, Giuseppe?

This guy.

It is called: anti-Marcionite parody.
Any exegesis who ignores this point is written by an idiot. And yes: even if he is named "Richard Carrier".

So Richard Carrier is an idiot by your own admission. Good to know that you stand alone on your hill of incredulity.

Also, it isn't an anti-Marcionite parody. It's an anti-Jewish polemic. Anyone who denies this is an idiot!

See how easy I can call anyone an idiot?

The final of the Oldest Gospel is lost forever.

No, you just don't accept it.

The Marcionites used it. You have to explain how they came to accept it.

We know only that it had very probably only a trial before Pilate. And that Pilate didn't know who Jesus was and who the God adored by Jesus was.

We can't know nothing apart that.

No, that's your own hypothetical reconstruction, of which you have no evidence outside your own exegesis.

Get fucked Giuseppe. I hate you so fucking much.