Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:57 pm
I consider plausible the your hypothesis on Lukuas etc but only in virtue of the fact that Basilides hated the Zealots and probably their hostility would have shown itself in the Cyrenaic episode along the lines so well described by Jeff_Q.
This has always been your problem, Giuseppe. You take a casual thought experiment, something that even the author does off the cuff, and extrapolate all sorts of differing ideas that you then take to be axiomatic and beyond dispute.
Barabbas betrayes evidence of rival people who wanted that the victim of the evil Jews was the Son of an Alien Father: an "anti-Christ" insofar not the Jewish Messiah. Hence who invented Barabbas makes it certain that the victim of the evil Jews was just their Jewish Christ. Along the lines so well described by RG Price: the Jews kill their Christ, therefore YHWH kills the Jews in 70 CE.
But according to you, those who believed this "
Alien Father", were not Jews. If Barabbas, whom you call an unrepentant evil figure, is demanded release by the
Jews, how does that bare ill will towards the Marcionites?
"Son of the Father" was a Jewish Christian belief, not Marcionite.
Honestly man, you just ad hoc your way through this.
The Basilidians wanted another scenario: the Jews wanted to kill the Son of an unknown Father, but they ended to kill the Jewish rebellious messiah Simon. Clearly, the Cyrenaic episode was invented to make it clear that Simon limited himself to be a carrier (not Richard) of the cross, not the true victim on the cross.
Then why is it the Romans who kill Christ? If the Jews were to execute Jesus for blasphemy, they have a specific Law for it: stoning to death,
then having his dead body hung upon a tree.
The problem I have with you, Joseph D.L. is that you want to interpret Barabbas and Simon as written by the original more or less "heretical" authors. No, they weren't. They were interpolated by Catholics against respectively Marcion and Basilides.
No I don't. Lukuas was seen as a messianic figure, and so was bar Kochba. Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene would only be later, much later, allegories to them. I have even stated multiple times that Barabbas as an allegory of the transmigration, but only insofar as the idea of transmigration is concerned. Simon of Cyrene is that same deal, and will have confirmation that he was indeed seen as that very thing. The only difference here is that Simon of Cyrene was historical [Lukuas]. Barabbas wasn't. So everything in Jewish Christianity begins with him. My theory on Hadrian is that he was seen as the Christ to the Marcionites and Carpocratians, and this is the origin of the gentile Christianity. Judaism without the Laws of Moses, because they had been banned by Hadrian.
Ben seems to ignore all this. I wonder about this his resistance, because it would make better just his case that Mark used (polemically) previous Gospels.
Because he doesn't see it like that. He is free to do as he wants without you interfering in his thought process.
I want an actual show of hands here. How many of you guys buy Giuseppe's interpretation of Barabbas being a parody of Marcionism?