"The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified."
Just noticed this. Got me thinking.
Josephus further attests to the presence of the descendants of Judas as leaders during the first Jewish revolt:
In similar vein, Eusebius quotes from Hegesippus and Julius Africanus regarding "grandchildren of Judas" and desposyni ("of or belonging to the master or lord," which seems like a retooling of the phrase "brothers of the Lord" attested in 1 Corinthians 9:5):Jewish War, 2.4.1
In Sepphoris also, a city of Galilee, there was one Judas (the son of that arch-robber Hezekias, who formerly overran the country, and had been subdued by king Herod); this man got no small multitude together, and brake open the place where the royal armor was laid up, and armed those about him, and attacked those that were so earnest to gain the dominion.
Jewish War, 2.8.1
AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.
Jewish War, 2.17.8
In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada...
Jewish War, 2.17.19
A few there were of them who privately escaped to Masada, among whom was Eleazar, the son of Jairus, who was of kin to Manahem, and acted the part of a tyrant at Masada afterward.
Jewish War, 7.8.1
This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one...
“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Judas, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan.” These things are related by Hegesippus.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.32.1-3. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”
Likewise note:Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.32.5-6. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. He writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.”
I have already found evidence that Judas "the Galilean" is a reference to "Galileans" as a synonym for Zealots, a tradition not recorded by Josephus explicitly but made clear in other references.For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account:122 Some Idumean robbers,123 having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest124 was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to
93
him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine.125 But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune126 was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews127 under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs.128 These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.129
13. But as there had been kept in the archives130 up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes,131 such as Achior132 the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records,133 thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.134
14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni,135 on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba,136 villages of Judea,137 into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory138 and from the book of daily records139 as faithfully as possible.
15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us,
94
for, although we can urge no testimony in its support,140 we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.” And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”
17. Thus far Africanus.
http://peterkirby.com/zealots-aka-galileans.html
Thus far we have plenty of testimony to the effect that the family of Jesus--through his brother Judas--was persecuted by the authorities because of the claim to be sons of David. This was a political claim, about having rightful kingship in Palestine--unlike the King Herod, whom their traditions vilify. This political claim continued in the reigns of Domitian and Trajan, leading up to the Bar Kochba revolt.
That revolt produced coins with the branch as their symbol--NTSR--from which we also get Nazarenes, a name buried deep in the Christian tradition but seemingly transmitted without any explanation and corrupted into the origin of Jesus in a town called Nazareth.
We could find and pile more things up to this effect, but does more really have to be added? If this is not enough to show a political element to these "brothers of the Lord," or desposyni, then I'm not really sure what will.
So a few things really stand out here:
Judas the Galilean was the head of a political movement, and two of his sons named James and Simon were crucified in AD 46-48.
Judas was the father of the desposyni, another (?) political movement, and James and Simon were the prominent leaders in this circle.
Not only that, but for generations this political movement traced their leaders by ancestory back to their patriarch, Judas. And also, in both Josephus and the patristic traditions, the descendants of Judas were being rounded up and put to death.
(Do we wonder whether a John, the third son, lived on to old age, as some Christian traditions state? Or instead do we wonder whether the third pillar John was created by the theologically-inclined branch to reinvent the tradition, as a genuine witness and guarantor behind the fourth gospel? Or, on analogy, is the Gospel John himself the ape of the real one? John of Giscala and John of Patmos are candidates.)
Okay so there is so far the problem that the Gospel of Mark doesn't portray the situation this way. For him the family of Jesus is completely unimportant, James the brother of the Lord plays no real role, and instead we have another guy named Simon (Peter), another guy named James, and James' brother John. (Of course this road has been trodden before, but stay with me.)
So... Why the special attention to Simon (of Cyrene) being "the father of Alexander and Rufus," in the Gospel of Mark?
Why, indeed, is Jesus betrayed by a Judas?
The Gospel of Mark is playing tricks with us, this much seems impossible to resist. But did it play tricks with the original audience, or would all of these references have been clear to them?
Simon/James/John as -not- being the sons of Judas is the invention of Mark. Just as the actual family of Judas and Jesus is shown as unbelieving, these fictional apostles are also shown as being dim-witted and slow to believe. They only come to understand what they're being told after the resurrection. The reader is asked to do what they all failed to do and to proclaim, with the author, that Jesus is the Christ. And not the political kind but rather the sacrificial kind.
Now there was an actual historical Judas, who could be understood as a political messianic claimant. And there were actual historical people named James and Simon, who carried on his claim to kingship because they were his sons.
Jesus being the figurehead of the movement, instead of Judas who betrays him, is a central claim of the Gospel of Mark. But this Judas is just a fiction, a stand-in for Judas the Galilean, whom the author of the Gospel of Mark wants us to repudiate along with him. Mark 14:10 refers to him as "Judas Iscariot," a coded reference, likely referring to the sicarii of the 40s and 50s of the first century. The veil lifts a little in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13, which refer plainly to "Simon the Zealot," and comes off in the Epistula Apostolorum, which simply refers to "Judas the Zealot."
But that's not all. This Jesus is a fiction. Can he be anything else? If his disciples--the Simon and James and John who actually came to understand their movement as a non-political, theological Kingdom of God--are a fiction, then he is a fiction. If his closest followers can't confirm his existence as their leader and instead trace themselves back to Judas--Judas the Galilean--then this "Jesus of Nazareth" savior figure is just a corruption and appropriation of the Nazarene movement.
In the Gospel of Mark's "Simon," we have a triple play: Simon as the family of Jesus, Simon as the first disciple, and Simon as some passerby who takes up the cross of Jesus. Both of the other ones are a cipher on the first. The first one is the one who is invented as the fountain of apostolic tradition. The second one mirrors the Barabbas scene and gives us a choice of whom to follow: Jesus Christ or this rebel, Simon? It is enough to say that Simon picked up the cross. Those who knew the fate of the Simon, son of Judas the Galilean, understood what was meant.
Why is he called a Cyrenian? The word Κυρηναῖον is a play on Κυρηνίου, "of Quirinius," the name of the man who started the census that led Judas to rebel. (See further http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 3&start=20 for some philological details.)
Further, they need not scratch their heads about the sons of Simon, because the genealogical succession was very important for these brothers of the Lord. Alexander and Rufus must be the non-semitic names of the actual sons of the actual Simon, who was crucified, and thus grandsons of the actual Judas the Galilean. One doesn't have to think that they themselves took any pride in these names. The author of the Gospel of Mark could have disguised their identities with these cognomens in order to envelop his narrative in a second layer of riddles for anyone who happens to chance upon his text and might mistakenly suppose that he is with them, the rebels. The references to "Iscariot" and "Cyrenian" also are a code. It is not unlike the hidden reference to Rome as Babylon in some other texts.
Earl D. supposed that the Gospel of Mark fused two different movements, one being a harmless group devoted to the sayings of a wise man, the other being another harmless group devoted to the mythic Christ. But it is not hard to show that these are the same group. The ethics of the Gospel are also the ethics of the Pauline corpus, as many scholars have labored to show over the years, although the Paulina do not really credit them to Jesus for the most part. There is no bridge to gap. There is no reason to posit multiple entities when one will suffice, except that the Q theory demands it.
But that doesn't mean that Earl D. was wrong about there being two movements reflected in the text of the Gospel of Mark. One, however, was completely foreign and competing (the Nazarenes aka the Galileans aka the Zealots led by the brothers of the Lord), while the other was the one in which the author felt at home (which may be described as a kind of mystery religion or a form of gnosticism depending on where you want to place the emphasis).
And Jesus of Galilee wasn't just invented to give milk to babes in the form of outer mysteries, or as a way of understanding the Jewish messianic oracles literally, or towards the process of codifying the deposit of faith in written form. Yes, his invention does all those things. But, particularly in the context of the world after the First Jewish Revolt and the new sense of danger attending any group speaking about a Christ, Jesus was invented in order to prove, once and for all, that the followers of the true Christ, who have no political aspirations, have nothing at all to do with the messianism of Judas the Galilean.
However, why do they strain to do so? The answer must be that the Jewish Nazarenes had a place for a Christ, possibly even venturing the same name of Joshua for him. The idea of two Messiahs is known from Judaism, and this one may be the type that is priestly and not the political kingly kind. The talk about a mission to the Jews, which was divorced from the mission to the Gentiles (which naturally included those Jews who were attracted to it, while the other was exclusive), is not complete fancy. These peacenik practitioners of harmless superstitions had done a bit of religious syncretism in adopting a basic myth of this group of rebels, although they were only interested in half of it, the idea of a suffering priestly messiah. The Jewish Nazarenes may have originally expected both of these Messiahs as arriving in the future, with clear signs whenever it happens, as is indeed typical Judaism. But the gentilic, non-political movement had their backs against the wall after the First Jewish Revolt. The authorities were hunting down people thought to be "Christians" and descendants of David, through Judas. After all, descendants of David were potential "Christs."
Thus it is that the Gospel of Mark, what Mack terms A Myth of Innocence, is born to tell the story of the life of Jesus. By nailing Jesus down in human form, literally, they remove all doubt regarding the kind of Christ that he will be when he comes, by showing the kind of Christ that he already was when he was on earth the first time. By this tactic, and with the repudiation of everything that the Nazarenes held dear in the form of doubles, one deprecated and the other invented, the movement has solid ground to stand on when they say that they do not speak of a kingdom of this world.
One might even wonder whether it were not just the teaching of the outer mysteries but also the documents provided to officials when they arrived for a little search and seizure. The apologists, with their proud references to the Gospels and their complete silence regarding the rest of the New Testament, buttress this idea. Thus, again, the coded references.
