James and John are called the "Pillars" because they supported the celestial cross of Jesus in outer space

[schillingklaus]

The brigands were there before the burial and resurrection, as otherwise Jesus in Lk could not have made the promise to the one of the two creeps to be with him in heaven the same evening. This proves once more the falsity of Markan prioritism.

[Giuseppe]

So Mergui:

Le récit de la Passion de Jésus reprend donc la structure du récit relatif au sacrifice d’Isaac. Ainsi les deux jeunes gens qui accompagnent Isaac, deviennent les deux larrons de la Passion du Christ.

https://www.lechampdumidrash.net/introd ... a-passion/

Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.

(Genesis 1:3)

This confirms newly the thesis of Jean Pain:

Mais si le christianisme s'est constitué autour du sacrifice d'un agneau qui, chargé des péchés de la secte, encourait à sa place la malédiction divine, la légende, en s'évhémérisant, devait naturellement faire périr le Messie de la manière humaine correspondante, c'est-à-dire du supplice le plus ignominieux.

(Jean Pain, Jésus dieu de la Pâque, p. 246)

Jesus is the scapegoat and in proportion to the weight of the sins carried by him he deserves the crucifixion, accordingly the two servants have to die in the same way.

But note again and again the role of servants, assistants assumed by the "Pillars": James and John.

The servile supplicium was the crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

That 'Pillars' == 'servants, supporters, assistants' is reiterated (not only in Genesis 1:3 but also) in Mark 10:41-44:

41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all

So the irony is that the two Pillars/'servants' died by the servile supplicium: the crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

I am inclined to agree with J.-K.-Watson, when he says that in the original Transfiguration episode the trio who was transfigured "in the glory" was formed by Jesus, James and John, with Peter alone working as mere witness.

The Transfiguration episode was changed by replacing James and John with Moses and Elijah as the transfigured actors, so reducing the status of James and John, as it is expected by a Paulinist à la "Mark" (author).

The role of servant/Pillar is survived in the obtuse request by Peter of building three tents, one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah.

[MrMacSon]

Don't forget one of the others was named Barabbas ...

Also, there's
'
Mark Finney (2013) 'Servile Supplicium: Shame and the Deuteronomic Curse—Crucifixion in Its Cultural Context' Biblical Theology Bulletin: a Journal of Bible and Theology 43(3):124-134

Abstract

Contemporary scholarly reference to the subject of crucifixion in the ancient world is typically dominated by the figure of the crucified Christ, and within such discourse it is the christological or theological ramifications of the cross that normally predominate. But such perspectives, whilst perfectly valid, have at the same time left a lacuna in understanding crucifixion holistically within its first-century environment (and so within the social world of the nascent Christ-movement). For little recourse has been made to the dynamics of honor and shame, which played such a vital part of social life within the ancient world. This article examines crucifixion from such a perspective, paying particular attention to the ignominy and revulsion of being put to death in the manner of a slave. It also offers insight into crucifixion from a Judean context, and does so within the framework of the Deuteronomic curse (Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13), which traditional interpretations maintain was said to fall upon the crucified victim. In so doing, the article makes a response to Paula Fredrikson, who claims that the curse does not apply ipso facto from the physical act of crucifixion, but is ascribed to the victim for the crime(s) committed.