Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sedition, and Mark.

[Giuseppe]

About this point:

8) All four Gospels (Mk 14.47; Mt. 26.51; Lk. 22.38, 49–50; Jn 18.10–11) record that armed resistance (involving swords) was offered in Gethsemane.

In particular, the account of Tacitus bears a few parallels to the capture of Jesus. According to that account, Vitellius sought to hide from the advancing forces of Vespasian, who succeeded him. A tribune named Julius Placidus find Vitellius and drags him out into the light, where Vitellius presented a 'grievous sight as he was led away'. Tacitus tells us that 'even the meanest of his slaves had slipped away or else avoided meeting him'. In the case of Jesus, some of his disciples deserted or deniem him. Having been an emperor, Vitellius now found himself in a situation where 'many cried against him, not one shed a tear'. The crowds taunted Jesus, the king of kings, without mercy after his arrest. More importantly, Tacitus reports the following:

One of the soldiers from Germany met him and struck at him in rage, or else his purpose was to remove him the quicker from insult or he may have been aiming at the tribune - no one could tell. He cut off the tribune's ear and was once run through. Vitellius was forced at the point of the sword to lift his face and offer to his captors' insults... His only utterance marked his spirit as not ignoble, for when the tribune insulted him, he replied, 'Yet, I was your emperor'. Then he fell under a shower of blows; and the people attacked his body after he was dead with the same base spirit which they have fawned on him when he lived.

Aside from the similarity in the incident involving the lopped ear of an official, there are other broader similarities that one could transform into a manifesto for nonviolence. As in the case of Jesus, Tacitus explicitly notes that Vitellius did not resist, and only uttered an innocuous phrase. Tacitus cites Vitellius' gracious response as an expicit indication of his character. Indeed, we could read into the arrest of Jesus a sterotypical accont of the arrest of a leader regarded in favor by the author. Vitellius is humble and not combative. Yet, there are no New Testament scholars turning Tacitus's account of Vitellius's arrest and execution into some anti-violence manifesto on the part of Vitellius.

(Hector Avalos, The Bad Jesus, p. 99)

[outhouse]

, but why the specific and more charged word λῃσταί (as Matthew and Mark have it)? .

Good question.

That context we may never know, but it does point he arrow towards the category of pre existing tradition.

That makes me wonder what Mark would have had in mind here if he is the inventor of this bit

It seems so literal to be part of the apocalyptic theology often used in association with thief or robber like the Parable of the Good Shepherd.

[maryhelena]

Let me add that being crucified between two malefactors (as Luke has it) may well fulfill Isaianic prophecy ("numbered with transgressors") and thus have been created on that basis, but why the specific and more charged word λῃσταί (as Matthew and Mark have it)? That makes me wonder what Mark would have had in mind here if he is the inventor of this bit.

The 'robbers' crucified with Jesus indicated involvement of Jesus with seditious elements. For theological reasons Jesus needed to be separated from the sedition of the two 'robbers' - but historically, three men crucified together would indicate that all three were similarly viewed by Rome. Jesus, crucified in the middle, would be viewed as the ringleader. Or as with the gospel story, as a king with attendants, followers, either side. Bermejo-Rubio refers to the mocking of Carabbas:

• ''I therefore think it is plausible that the reports placing Jesus in the middle of
  other crucified men reflect a historical fact that is deep-rooted in tradition.
  What was the reason for it? In an account by Philo (Flacc. 6.36-41) which is
  often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria
  dressed up Carabas as a mock king, and ‘young men carrying rods on their
  shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him ........
  in imitation of a bodyguard’. In Mk 10.35-40,
  when James and John ask Jesus to allow them to sit, one at his right and the
  other at his left, their request implies closest participation in his royal glory.
  The seats to the right and the left of the king are of the highest rank and honour
  after the king.The most plausible explanation of the Golgotha scene is that
  Jesus was placed in the middle because the Romans considered him to be the
  leader of the men crucified with him.''

"(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum"

https://www.academia.edu/8139537/_Why_W ... 13_127-154

[Ben C. Smith]

Let me add that being crucified between two malefactors (as Luke has it) may well fulfill Isaianic prophecy ("numbered with transgressors") and thus have been created on that basis, but why the specific and more charged word λῃσταί (as Matthew and Mark have it)? That makes me wonder what Mark would have had in mind here if he is the inventor of this bit.

The 'robbers' crucified with Jesus indicated involvement of Jesus with seditious elements. For theological reasons Jesus needed to be separated from the sedition of the two 'robbers' - but historically, three men crucified together would indicate that all three were similarly viewed by Rome. Jesus, crucified in the middle, would be viewed as the ringleader. Or as with the gospel story, as a king with attendants, followers, either side. Bermejo-Rubio refers to the mocking of Carabbas:

• ''I therefore think it is plausible that the reports placing Jesus in the middle of
  other crucified men reflect a historical fact that is deep-rooted in tradition.
  What was the reason for it? In an account by Philo (Flacc. 6.36-41) which is
  often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria
  dressed up Carabas as a mock king, and ‘young men carrying rods on their
  shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him ........
  in imitation of a bodyguard’. In Mk 10.35-40,
  when James and John ask Jesus to allow them to sit, one at his right and the
  other at his left, their request implies closest participation in his royal glory.
  The seats to the right and the left of the king are of the highest rank and honour
  after the king.The most plausible explanation of the Golgotha scene is that
  Jesus was placed in the middle because the Romans considered him to be the
  leader of the men crucified with him.''

"(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum"

https://www.academia.edu/8139537/_Why_W ... 13_127-154

Well, I read both articles, too; but I am confused as to how you are answering my question, which was: if Mark invented this crucifixion with brigands, what was the point of making them brigands and not just malefactors (which would have satisfied the Isaianic reference)? Why make a choice that seems to dovetail with other downplayed bits of seditious material? If your answer is that Mark did not invent this datum, that is fine, but it is not clear to me whether that is what you are doing.

Ben.

[maryhelena]

Let me add that being crucified between two malefactors (as Luke has it) may well fulfill Isaianic prophecy ("numbered with transgressors") and thus have been created on that basis, but why the specific and more charged word λῃσταί (as Matthew and Mark have it)? That makes me wonder what Mark would have had in mind here if he is the inventor of this bit.

The 'robbers' crucified with Jesus indicated involvement of Jesus with seditious elements. For theological reasons Jesus needed to be separated from the sedition of the two 'robbers' - but historically, three men crucified together would indicate that all three were similarly viewed by Rome. Jesus, crucified in the middle, would be viewed as the ringleader. Or as with the gospel story, as a king with attendants, followers, either side. Bermejo-Rubio refers to the mocking of Carabbas:

• ''I therefore think it is plausible that the reports placing Jesus in the middle of
  other crucified men reflect a historical fact that is deep-rooted in tradition.
  What was the reason for it? In an account by Philo (Flacc. 6.36-41) which is
  often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria
  dressed up Carabas as a mock king, and ‘young men carrying rods on their
  shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him ........
  in imitation of a bodyguard’. In Mk 10.35-40,
  when James and John ask Jesus to allow them to sit, one at his right and the
  other at his left, their request implies closest participation in his royal glory.
  The seats to the right and the left of the king are of the highest rank and honour
  after the king.The most plausible explanation of the Golgotha scene is that
  Jesus was placed in the middle because the Romans considered him to be the
  leader of the men crucified with him.''

"(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum"

https://www.academia.edu/8139537/_Why_W ... 13_127-154

Well, I read both articles, too; but I am confused as to how you are answering my question, which was: if Mark invented this crucifixion with brigands, what was the point of making them brigands and not just malefactors (which would have satisfied the Isaianic reference)? Why make a choice that seems to dovetail with other downplayed bits of seditious material? If your answer is that Mark did not invent this datum, that is fine, but it is not clear to me whether that is what you are doing.

Ben.

Violence would be at issue. Whether the gospel story is historical or literary, i.e. invented. Jesus being crucified among malefactors or transgressors would not necessarily convey the violence that sedition involves. Violence is not the chosen mode of operation of thieves or robbers. Sedition and violence are intertwined. Thus, the gospel story had to up the transgression of Isaiah 53 in order to accommodate the seditious nature of the charge against Jesus i.e. King of the Jews. (either a historical Jesus or an invented Jesus).

So, yes, Mark invented his story re the two robbers/insurrectionists - but the story does not contradict the plausibility of how Rome would have crucified a rebel leader and two of his followers. (Historically, re Josephus, Rome, via Herod, killed 45 of the followers of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus.....)

Obviously, the gospel writers needed their story to run on - the crucified Jesus died alone and his followers lived to tell the tale.....Rome being ever so accommodating....historically a very unlikely scenario....

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

if Mark invented this crucifixion with brigands, what was the point of making them brigands and not just malefactors (which would have satisfied the Isaianic reference)? Why make a choice that seems to dovetail with other downplayed bits of seditious material? If your answer is that Mark did not invent this datum, that is fine, but it is not clear to me whether that is what you are doing.

Verbatim you may be right, but figuratively? Mark could have seen the ανομοις of LXX-Isaiah as transgressors of the law of Moses. That would not be Mark's story. But the λῃστάς fit very well. In the Roman context of his story Mark said the same as Isaiah in the Jewish context.

[Ben C. Smith]

if Mark invented this crucifixion with brigands, what was the point of making them brigands and not just malefactors (which would have satisfied the Isaianic reference)? Why make a choice that seems to dovetail with other downplayed bits of seditious material? If your answer is that Mark did not invent this datum, that is fine, but it is not clear to me whether that is what you are doing.

Verbatim you may be right, but figuratively? Mark could have seen the ανομοις of LXX-Isaiah as transgressors of the law of Moses. That would not be Mark's story. But the λῃστάς fit very well. In the Roman context of his story Mark said the same as Isaiah in the Jewish context.

I was hoping you would drop by, Kunigunde.

Do you happen to have any thoughts on the contingent sent to arrest Jesus at Mark 14.43, 48 and the seemingly furtive and coded movements at Mark 11.1-6, 11, 19; 14.12-16, not to mention the apparent pattern of sedition that Bermejo-Rubio argues these scenes to converge on?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

In Aramaic the Greek term took on an antinomian character.

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=708

To be a Marcionite is to be a lestes.

[Giuseppe]

1 Thessalonians 5:2 (Matthew 24:44)

Thanks for it. The two λῃσταί would remind the reader that at that precise time he was truly the Son of Man coming ''as a thief in the night'' (see the solar eclipse at the crucifixion) in order to fulfill its mission in secret (just as in the original myth). This is also expected under the theme of the 'messianic secret' in Mark, but even more so under the priority of Mcn, with Jesus actually stealing from the Demiurge the souls of all those who open themselves to a unknown God who loves all.

This makes me think. If for the first gospel (Beyond if Mark or Mcn, here) the fulfillment of all the 'apocalyptic' prophecies is not the Parusia but the crucifixion himself (because it's at that moment that Jesus comes ''as a thief in the night''), then their authors had no hope in an apocalyptic still-to-come end of the world, since the crucifixion of the Son is already the escatological event per se. My suspect is that this is more expected if the material world is considered in the first gospel not even worthy of a final redemption, but is always, before, during and after the crucifixion, merely archontic territory.


The evidence for a pattern of sedition evaporates entirely in this crucial point. I find more supportive of the BR's general argument the episode of the Two Swords in Luke and the episode where Jesus says he bears not the peace but the division. I'm curious to know how do you interpret allegorically/simbolically these two episodes, very thanks.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Do you happen to have any thoughts on the contingent sent to arrest Jesus at Mark 14.43, 48 and the seemingly furtive and coded movements at Mark 11.1-6, 11, 19; 14.12-16, not to mention the apparent pattern of sedition that Bermejo-Rubio argues these scenes to converge on?

Actually, I have no satisfactory explanation (and not only for these problems )

But similar to Ulan I'm not so impressed by the list of Bermejo-Rubio. Particularly noteworthy seems to me John 18:10-11.

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

Beside some theological clues here we have an armed Peter as the tip of the iceberg - and that coming from John.

Personally I tend to think that the „flight to Pella“ is a late pious legend. If the church of Jerusalem took an active part in the first Jewish-Roman war, it would explain a lot.