He argues that the original first composition of Mark ended with the Ascension episode. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet but at some point he disappeared physically. No one saw him further. The Pillars believed that he was ascended to heaven. Paul comes and he was the first to say that the Ascension was preceded by a crucifixion by demons. The Pillars couldn't reply him on a point about which themselves didn't know nothing.
The Christians were always pacifists. But since they had to invent a story to explain how and why Jesus was crucified, after the 135 CE they introduced Pilate as who crucified Jesus. Obviously, their story is totally nonsense based on Isaiah and Psalm 22. It seems that the Roman custom of dividing the garments of the crucified victims was officialized only by Hadrian the first time. Hence it is evidence for a dating post-135 of Mark.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
After the enigmatic disappearance of the historical Jesus, the Jewish custom claimed that if two witnesses agree, then it could be established as a fact that the absent was dead.
The hearsay collected by them said that a possibility was that Jesus was dead during "the" revolt (Mark 15:7; Luke 13:1). But it was only a mere hearsay.
Even Mark is embarrassed by the absence of witnesses during the execution. Peter denies that he is witness of Jesus during the trial. The pious women see from far. According to the Roman custom, the corpse of the hypothetical crucified had to be given gratis to the first person who required it. Hence Joseph of Arimathea was invented to eclipse the ignorance of the disciples about how and where and why Jesus was crucified. The apology was something like this:
Since Joseph of Arimathea was "coincidentially" the first to require the corpse, please don't accuse us Christian disciples because we were not even there to bury Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Hence by applying the criterion of embarrassment on the episode of Joseph from Arimathea, I can infer that there were skeptics accusing the Christians of ignorance about where Jesus was precisely crucified and buried. "You don't even know where he was crucified and buried".
This remembers closely the Tryphon's accusation: "but the Christ, if he was born, is unknown...".
This would explain why the presence of the two other thieves. It was better to show some doubt about who precisely of the 3 was just Jesus. Only the titulus crucis mattered for them,
I think, against Marcion who denied that the crucified was the Jewish messiah.
This explains why the Risen Christ had to appear in Galilee. It was there, in the Diaspora (allegorized by "Galilee of gentiles") where the early Christians had heard the first time about the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. By Paul and by "Mark" (author). The Pillars in Jerusalem didn't know that Jesus was crucified.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Guillet is historicist in virtue only of 2 Corinthians 5:16, where in the his view only the disciples could have known Jesus kata sarka.
The precise order of events would be the following:
Jesus disappears (he doesn't die).
The disciples/Pillars believe that he is ascended to heaven.
Paul met them but Paul doesn't learn nothing from them. Paul doesn't preach still the crucified Christ.
Paul by hallucination realizes that Jesus was crucified by demons. In alternative, he heard mere hearsay coming from Jewish pilgrims returning in the Diaspora from their visit to Jerusalem, about the death on the cross of 3 rebels during the Passover, of which one was named Jesus. Paul is clearly embarrassed from that hearsay referred (polemically) by some about the his same Christ.
After 14 years, Paul goes again to Pillars. He doesn't learn still nothing from them (Gal 2:6).
But he persuades them that Jesus was crucified by demons.
The historical Jesus returned from the his previous temporary absence and told the Pillars that he was never crucified. But the Pillars don't believe more him. They believe blindly now that he was crucified and risen. Hence by anger they killed the historical Jesus.
As it can be seen, there are mixed a lot of good and grotesque ideas...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:23 am It seems that the Roman custom of dividing the garments of the crucified victims was officialized only by Hadrian the first time. Hence it is evidence for a dating post-135 of Mark.
the source is Digesta (Pandectae) XLVII.XX.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:23 amIt seems that the Roman custom of dividing the garments of the crucified victims was officialized only by Hadrian the first time.
I am not sure what numbering system is being used here, but the reference appears to be referring to Book XLVII (= 47) of the Digests. It would make sense for the next number to refer to Title XX (= 20), but Digest 47.20 does not appear to have anything to do with the topic at hand.
The English translation is online here: https://www.constitution.org/sps/sps.htm. I have done some searching for the alleged reference, but so far have come up empty. If you can find it, Giuseppe, please post it.
Marc n'ignore pas, toutefois, que, selon un usage qu'Hadrien devait règlementer, les soldats qui procédaient aux exécutions se partageaient les vêtements des suppliciés (Digeste XLVII.XX).
(p. 136)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
