Cruci f i c t i o n

[Ben C. Smith]

A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
(Mark 15:7)

In Greek:
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.


Question: is it possible to read the passage as meaning possibly strictu sensu that only ''the insurrectionists had committed murder in the uprising'', but not Barabbas, too ?

Jesus can be with (μετά) the beasts without being a beast himself (Mark 1.13), a bridegroom can be with (μετά) his attendants without being an attendant himself (Mark 2.19), and a teacher can be with (μετά) his disciples without being a disciple himself (Mark 14.14). So I would say that it is grammatically possible for Barabbas to be with (μετά) the insurrectionists without actually being an insurrectionist himself (Mark 15.7).

I do not think that the grammar at all rules out his being an insurrectionist, however. Jacob, for example, strove with both (μετά) God and men, and he was presumably a man himself, though presumably not also a god (Genesis 32.28 LXX).

Whether we think of Barabbas as one of the insurrectionists or not will apparently have to come from context and other considerations, not from the grammar.

[Giuseppe]

Thanks, Ben, more than exhaustive.

More solito, I am impressed by the interpretation of Heretical. However, wanting to keep his game, I wonder how to explain the ending of Mark.

I can see the parallels between every fine detail of the Word and the end which respectively make disciples, the naked young man, Peter, the Pillars. Jesus gets from his Father the transformation in order to be freed as Barabbas. Peter weeps because he knows to be gradually transformed into Jesus in the appearance of the face (''by induction'' on the words of who recognizes him as a Jesus's follower) . Peter/Jesus doesn't respond to Pilate because in him the Word is suffocated. Peter/Jesus is treated like a king by Romans to punish him of his desire for power. The Pillars are crucified with him.

But after?

[Giuseppe]

A plea for Heretical so that he may write more and more about his suggestive views. What do you think about Paul in Mark?
Very thanks,
Giuseppe.

[Adam]

Thanks Ben and Peter,
But why is ANYONE bothering to reply to this nonsense from Heretical and Giuseppe?

[iskander]

Wait in peace . Propaganda for a new religion takes time to work its magic.


The myth of the Garden of Eden and the trivial act of eating fruit is the rock on which Christianity is built ! And this ugly invention became our yoke!:

"O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!"

'O truly needful sin of Adam, which was blotted out by the death of Christ! O happy fault, that merited so great a Redeemer!'

A needful sin ...

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks Ben and Peter,
But why is ANYONE bothering to reply to this nonsense from Heretical and Giuseppe?

I can speak only for myself, naturally. I replied because the question was straightforward, apparently in earnest, very polite, and in relation to a topic (Greek grammar and syntax) that suffers more abuse at the hands of internet users than my classical training ever could have prepared me for. Anytime a grammatical question can be cleared up so swiftly and cleanly, it is always worth the trouble, I find, if only to keep the potential abuse at bay for while.

[Peter Kirby]

Welcome to the forum! I hope you find it interesting to participate here.

Andrew is the naked young man fleeing away in Gethsemane and reappears at the tomb

Why identify him as Andrew?

Thanks Ben and Peter,
But why is ANYONE bothering to reply to this nonsense from Heretical and Giuseppe?

I was curious to see what the reply might be.

[Giuseppe]

Adam, I am not a scholar.
My personal interest on academic studies et similia, besides Mythicism, is only about Klinghardt & Vinzent's research about Marcion. I will be happy to write about Mcn once strong of the best arguments.
I will be Mythicist beyond any reasonable doubt only if I will be persuaded that Mcn is the oldest gospel, or if in his place Mark can be interpreted in a manner scandalously heretical: the idea that ''the historical Jesus was a pious Jew but the the first Gospel was heretical'' is for me a contradiction in terms which can be resolved only with the falsification of one of the two members.
I hope this will be interesting for the readers:

He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

(Mark 8:32-33)

ὁ δὲ ἐπιστραφεὶς καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἐπετίμησεν Πέτρῳ καὶ λέγει Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

How is it realized this prophecy (assuming obviously that “Get behind me, Satan!” is a prophecy) ?

Note that Jesus alludes to the disciples, too, because ''Jesus turned and looked at his disciples'' while saying that words.



x is behind y if x physically is walking in the footsteps of y.

But x can be behind y if y is only the appearance of x, the mask that hides x.

In this sense, then, Jesus prophesied to Peter, who will be Peter to be crucified, mistaken in the eyes of the people for Jesus himself.

Because I do not want to abuse nor my nor your confidence I ask this question:

in Greek, there is at least a sense by which Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, can be interpreted as meaning '' to be behind the face, the mere appearance of someone else'' ?

Note that if your response is 'yes', then Peter may be really the crucified ''Jesus'', with the Pillars on his sides. While the real Jesus could be laughing out loud at that time.

In that case, the reason why Peter erupted into tears after denying Jesus three times was that Peter knew he was going to be exchanged with Jesus before a ''Jesus'' was presented to Pilate (the real Jesus being Jesus Bar-Abbas).

[Heretical]

Welcome to the forum! I hope you find it interesting to participate here.

Andrew is the naked young man fleeing away in Gethsemane and reappears at the tomb

Why identify him as Andrew?

Thanks!

Mostly because of his presence in Mark 13 (and Matthew hiding/changing stuff as usual).

Sorry for not answering anything, but I have once again underestimated my friend's and family's need for social interaction. I believed I had few days for this at the end of the holidays. Bad timing.

I wouldn't be comfortable if I was too far from Carrier, Doherty and Price. That would answer most questions!

It's not that I think I would spend much time arguing about this in here, I just wanted to see what others had about the same thing (gMark as a heretical overblown parable/riddle). I’ll get back with some more later. Just “consider carefully what you hear“ before you laugh it of or whatever.

[Heretical]

Giuseppe:

"Very interesting and suggestive implication, very thanks for this!"


Thanks!