The name Barabbas is an odd one; it means the son of the father, or the son
of his father. It seems to have been made up in allusion to Bar-cocheba, the
Jewish Christ who raised a rebellion against the Romans, whose hands were
stained with the blood of his uncle, and who was preferred by the Jews to
Christ Jesus.
Indeed, having read the essay Jesus Barabbas, I can safely say that G. is making this up all on his own as there is nothing in that article to suggest even a tenth of what he is preaching.
G. is a cautionary tale of when hubris and fanaticism eclipses critical thinking, scepticism and mutual respect of others.
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:52 pm
Indeed, having read the essay Jesus Barabbas, I can safely say that G. is making this up all on his own as there is nothing in that article to suggest even a tenth of what he is preaching.
Evidently you have not read the article, because otherwise never and then never you would have written these stupid words.
But I see a slight progress, now. You call me as G.
This makes me a stone guest, in this thread. Well.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
The name Barabbas is an odd one; it means the son of the father, or the son
of his father. It seems to have been made up in allusion to Bar-cocheba, the
Jewish Christ who raised a rebellion against the Romans, whose hands were
stained with the blood of his uncle, and who was preferred by the Jews to
Christ Jesus.
The Jews may not have been aware they had a preference, especially if Jesus had not existed until then or after, either in reality or as a literary figure.
Couchoud’s essay Jesus Barabbas. G. uses this as a foundation for him calling Barabbas a parody of Marcionism, when Couchoud says no such thing. G. is only projecting his own ignorance onto the text.
Meanwhile, Couchoud said Barabbas is likely a proxy for bar Kochba, which is something I suggested to G. not too long ago.
And even if Couchoud did say Barabbas was a parody of Marcion, he would still be wrong. That’s why G. has to literally invent imaginary scenarios and motivations for his posts. I’m not even calling it a theory anymore, because there is nothing theoretical or scientific about what he writes. It is the mad scribblings of an insane person, who probably has an Oedipus complex and wants to have sex with his mother.
And when Couchoud writes “... who was preferred by the Jews to Christ Jesus,” is Couchoud saying Barabbas was a proxy for the Jews who rejected the Christ Jesus of the Marcionites.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift