Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 11-03-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Thus,
Jesus Christ = sacrificed goat
Barabbas = goat released into the wilderness

Better make that:

Jesus = sacrificed goat

Barabbas = goat released into the wilderness.

Christ remains.

jakejonesiv · 11-03-2006, 09:52 AM

Origen indicates that in ancient manuscripts of Matthew the name was Jesus Barrabas.

Origen was outraged that a sinner should share the name of the Son of God, and this explains the suppression of the text. Jesus Barrabas, Iesous ton Barabban is most likely the original reading of Matthew 27:17.

So we are faced with the outrageous tale that Pilate offered the crowd a choice; release Jesus, Son of the Father or Jesus, son of the father.

This suggests that Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas are memitic twins, as Robert Price has already pointed out in Decontructing Jesus, page 204. And we catch echos of the Mock King, Carrabas, especially in Luke's scene before Herod.

Quote:

Philo, In Flaccum VI.
And there was a certain madman named Carabbas ..., and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a didaem, ... and when like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, .... some came up to salute him

Could this be the historical kernal of the Jeus story that is so desparately sought for; merely a fool to play the mock king in a scape goat ritual? :crying:

Jake Jones IV

douglas · 11-03-2006, 11:31 AM

I find this wikipedia reference interesting...

Quote:

A possible parable
This practice of releasing a prisoner is said by some analysts to be an element in a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable. An interpretation, using modern reader response theory, suggests no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened at all, and that the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus is a parable meant to draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel into the narrative so that they must choose whose revolution, the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus, is truly from the Father

I don't know who "some analysts" are, or what "modern reader response theory" is, but this idea tickles my curiosity bone. When Origen suppressed the use of Jesus Barabbas the meaning of the parable was lost or obscured.

Julian · 11-03-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Origen indicates that in ancient manuscripts of Matthew the name was Jesus Barrabas.

Origen was outraged that a sinner should share the name of the Son of God, and this explains the suppression of the text. Jesus Barrabas, Iesous ton Barabban is most likely the original reading of Matthew 27:17.

So we are faced with the outrageous tale that Pilate offered the crowd a choice; release Jesus, Son of the Father or Jesus, son of the father.

This suggests that Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas are memitic twins, as Robert Price has already pointed out in Decontructing Jesus, page 204. And we catch echos of the Mock King, Carrabas, especially in Luke's scene before Herod.

Could this be the historical kernal of the Jeus story that is so desparately sought for; merely a fool to play the mock king in a scape goat ritual? :crying:

Jake Jones IV

There are quite a few manuscripts which refer to Barabbas as Jesus. An incomplete list include:
Θ f1 22 241^** 299^** 700^* syr^s syr^pal(mss) arm geo²

BTW, Θ and 700^* omit τὀν in Matt. 27:17

I am sure there are other variations, but still interesting how correctors have been fixing it up over the years...

Julian

Johann_Kaspar · 11-03-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mesa Mike - there was no such "custom". No one outside the gospels every heard of it. It doesn't make any sense. It's all fictional.

For a Jew is makes a lot of sense. But one must think like a Jew. And obviously here nobody can.

Johann_Kaspar · 11-03-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

I find this wikipedia reference interesting...

I don't know who "some analysts" are, or what "modern reader response theory" is, but this idea tickles my curiosity bone. When Origen suppressed the use of Jesus Barabbas the meaning of the parable was lost or obscured.

No, it is not interesting.

Quote:

...so that they must choose whose revolution, the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus, is truly from the Father

Yoshua led a violent insurgency. The gospels are calling for a violent insurgency before its failure.

Yoshua Meshia and Yeshua Barabbas are one and the same...

Also it could help to read Philo, In Flaccum...

Johann_Kaspar · 11-03-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Origen indicates that in ancient manuscripts of Matthew the name was Jesus Barrabas.

Origen was outraged that a sinner should share the name of the Son of God, and this explains the suppression of the text. Jesus Barrabas, Iesous ton Barabban is most likely the original reading of Matthew 27:17.

So we are faced with the outrageous tale that Pilate offered the crowd a choice; release Jesus, Son of the Father or Jesus, son of the father.

This suggests that Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas are memitic twins, as Robert Price has already pointed out in Decontructing Jesus, page 204. And we catch echos of the Mock King, Carrabas, especially in Luke's scene before Herod.

Could this be the historical kernal of the Jeus story that is so desparately sought for; merely a fool to play the mock king in a scape goat ritual? :crying:

Jake Jones IV

No twins.
Carabbas = Barabbas, but who will see why?

lpetrich · 11-03-2006, 03:25 PM

I don't think that there is any "historical kernel"; I think, as Richard Carrier had mentioned, that it was an effort to portray Jesus Christ as being sacrificed for people's sins like the sacrificed goat. Barabbas would be his double, and thus would be like the released goat.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2006, 03:25 PM	#18
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I don't think that there is any "historical kernel"; I think, as Richard Carrier had mentioned, that it was an effort to portray Jesus Christ as being sacrificed for people's sins like the sacrificed goat. Barabbas would be his double, and thus would be like the released goat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.