Bermejo-Rubio and the Titulus Crucis ("King of the Jews")

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What surprises me is that BR is ready to see embarrassment in the fact that Jesus was tortured by Romans as the parody of a king, while he doesn't see that the presence of the Romans in the role of torturers is not the embarrassment, but the solution to it: in the Mark's source (*Ev) it were the Herodians who worked as torturers.

That seems completely logical to me.

The Romans are an absolute guarantee for BR that it was really about political and not religious things. (This distinction is, of course, anachronistic.)

Secondly, it is important to BR's conspiracy theory because he can claim the tendency to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews (= from politics to religion and depoliticization). That's actually true if you use the chronology Mark->Matthew->Luke (Marcion)->John. Your assumption that GMarcion is the first gospel would confuse everything and more or less destroy his thesis. The fact that according to Luke/Marcion the Jews, albeit Herodians, were the mockers proves the tendency of shifting the blame.

[Peter Kirby]

Secondly, it is important to BR's conspiracy theory because he can claim the tendency to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews (= from politics to religion and depoliticization). That's actually true if you use the chronology Mark->Matthew->Luke (Marcion)->John.

If we start with Paul and allow 1 Thessalonians 2:15 to be part of his text (and it's not an unusual position to do so), then this reference would be an early and unequivocal attribution of responsibility for the death of Jesus to "the Jews." So it may not be necessary to change the solution of gospel relations to "confuse everything and more or less destroy his thesis" (as you put it).

I haven't read BR's book. I would guess that he discusses it, to say it is interpolated or to find it compatible with his thesis.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Secondly, it is important to BR's conspiracy theory because he can claim the tendency to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews (= from politics to religion and depoliticization). That's actually true if you use the chronology Mark->Matthew->Luke (Marcion)->John.

If we start with Paul and allow 1 Thessalonians 2:15 to be part of his text (and it's not an unusual position to do so), then this reference would be an early and unequivocal attribution of responsibility for the death of Jesus to "the Jews." So it may not be necessary to change the solution of gospel relations to "confuse everything and more or less destroy his thesis" (as you put it).

I haven't read BR's book. I would guess that he discusses it, to say it is interpolated or to find it compatible with his thesis.

As far as I know, most proponents of the seditious Jesus theory see it quite differently, for whom the Jesus material in the Gospels is older than Paul. For Maccoby and Carmichael, Paul was crucial evidence of this trend from politics to religion.

I'm not talking about how it is, but how Bermejo-Rubio sees it. You and I may view Paul as the older source, but these HJ scholars do not.

This will be another important point in my criticism of Bermejo-Rubio and I will come back to it.

[rgprice]

The entire approach he takes seems absurd to me. Of course historical fiction employs the use of historically plausible elements. The fact that something is historically plausible in no way indicates that it is factual. The language and references used in Huckleberry Finn are historically plausible depictions of Antebellum America.

Furthermore, if the writer of the first Gospel is using historical accounts, then of course his narrative is going to coincide with historical accounts of the time. So if Mark was using Josephus and/or Philo, and taking details from those accounts, then of course his story will reflect those details that we find in our other surviving historical accounts.

I think there is a strong case that the writer of the first Gospel used Philo's Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius. These two works were bundled and in these works there are three strong parallels to Mark 13-15. The desolating sacrilege, the mocking of a false Jewish king, and an account of Pilate are all given in Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius.

As far as I can see from the quotes that have been provided, this is just a bunch of speculation cobbled together into a book.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The entire approach he takes seems absurd to me.

I understand Peter and I understand you too.

But for the sake of discussion, I'm completely setting aside my own basic opinions in this thread. I accept a historical Jesus and the assumption that the Gospels may contain historical material. I'm also interested in better understanding how people can come to a seditious Jesus hypothesis. In any case, I want to discuss Bermejo-Rubio's theses here in the nice manner of HJ-scholarship.

In the introduction to his article he wrote

Google translation

Likewise, the limitations that the canonical gospels present as sources for reconstructing events that occurred in the first third of the first century are well known. They are tendentious propaganda texts designed to praise that figure, written at a considerable chronological, geographical and linguistic distance from her, and in which not only the legendary and the marvelous but also anachronisms often break in. If this makes any attempt to use the gospels as a source of data a risky undertaking, it is necessary to realize that the use of mythical and hagiographic elements in ancient sources does not imply that their entire content has been sucked into myth.

This explains why even from biased works, examined with patience and critical caution—also in the light of testimonies extracted from other documentary and archaeological sources—it is often possible to discern certain information with historical value. A nuanced position, therefore, has greater signs of trustworthiness than the excesses of both fideism and extreme skepticism; of course, in the waters of history it is possible to navigate, avoiding at the same time the Scylla of credulity and the Charybdis of hypercriticism.

I just want to see how this heroic Odysseus of HJ scholarship copes with it

[rgprice]

Yes, yes, "middle-wayism". Interestingly, I'm currently reading an account of the development of Christian theology that describes the view that Jesus was both "God and man", both "fully human and fully divine", as a sensible position between the "two extremes" of claiming that he was either purely divine or purely human.

Yes, yes, of course this "middle way" is very sensible...

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, yes, "middle-wayism". Interestingly, I'm currently reading an account of the development of Christian theology that describes the view that Jesus was both "God and man", both "fully human and fully divine", as a sensible position between the "two extremes" of claiming that he was either purely divine or purely human.

Yes, yes, of course this "middle way" is very sensible...

We get it. You hate the idea and think it's stupid.

[Giuseppe]

I see that BR is well ready to sacrifice a lot of episodes on the altar of the purely midrashical origin. But what he doesn't sacrifice are, in the order of importance:

• 1) The scene of violence in Getsemani (well more than a mere ear was mutilated),

• 2) the two thieves (well, he thinks that they were probably well more than two)

• 3) the titulus crucis

• 4) the 'preventive' persecution by Antipas

These are enough as "last citadel" for the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis.

Note that the first point has obliged even a Jesus Agnostic as Neil Godfrey to raise the possibility of a seditious tradition survived in the gospels.

[Paul the Uncertain]

What's funny is that in the following scene it's exactly the other way around. The narrator explains that Pilate is “answering” the people, but Pilate is obviously asking (rhetorical?) questions.

9 But Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you wish that I should release to you the King of the Jews?”
...
12 And Pilate answering was saying to them again, “Then what do you wish that I should do to Him whom you call the King of the Jews?”

Nicely observed, as is this in your later post,

For those of us who believe it is possible that Paul's letters were one of Mark's sources, I would like to point out the following. The verbal speech of the subordinates is limited to very short statements. After the Jewish trial it is “Prophesy!” and after the Roman trial it is a mockery “Hail, King of the Jews!”. One might therefore consider the possibility that Mark consulted 1 Corinthians 1:22-31 in this case.

22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles
...
27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are ...

One of the things that makes Mark's gospel so easy to admire is the density of these grace notes.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I see that BR is well ready to sacrifice a lot of episodes on the altar of the purely midrashical origin. But what he doesn't sacrifice are, in the order of importance:

• 3) the titulus crucis

google-translation

A third relevant aspect is related to the titulus crucis, the tablet that specifies the reason for the sentence. In the canonical gospels there are four different formulations of the title, although all of them have as their common denominator the core βασιλεὺς τῶν ’Ιουδαίων. Now, what can we say about the historicity of the titulus? Some authors have denied it, citing as the main reason that the practice of fixing a tablet on the cross of the condemned is not, strictly speaking, attested outside the gospels. Although there are reports of the existence of criminal charges in explanatory tabellae, contrary to what is sometimes assumed this does not seem to have been a systematic practice in the Roman Empire, and in fact there are no further testimonies about tablets nailed to crosses, but only of tablets that precede the prisoner taken to the place of execution. Now, to this it can be answered, on the one hand, that in Mark's account it is not expressly said that the inscription is fixed to the cross; This being so, and as has been pointed out, at least one parallel can be adduced. On the other hand, the fact that descriptions of the crucifixion are relatively scarce in the Roman world may make the absence of parallels hardly significant, all the more so since it seems reasonable to assume that if the cause was deployed before the execution it would continue to be so. next to the condemned during the execution itself.

Before I continue, let me quote the three cases in context.

Sueton, De vita Caesarum, Caligula 32	Sueton, De vita Caesarum, Domitian 10	Cassius Dio, Roman History, 54.3
1 His acts and words were equally cruel, even when he was indulging in relaxation and given up to amusement and feasting. While he was lunching or revelling capital examinations by torture were often made in his presence, and a soldier who was adept at decapitation cut off the heads of those who were brought from prison. At Puteoli, at the dedication of the bridge that he contrived, as has been said, after inviting a number to come to him from the shore, on a sudden he had them all thrown overboard; and when some caught hold of the rudders of the ships, he pushed them off into the sea with boathooks and oars. 2 At a public banquet in Rome he immediately handed a slave over to the executioners for stealing a strip of silver from the couches, with orders that his hands be cut off and hung from his neck upon his breast, and that he then be led about among the guests, preceded by a placard giving the reason for his punishment (titulo qui causam poenae indicaret).	1 But he did not continue this course of mercy or integrity, although he turned to cruelty somewhat more speedily than to avarice. He put to death a pupil of the pantomimic actor Paris, who was still a beardless boy and ill at the time, because in his skill and his appearance he seemed not unlike his master; also Hermogenes of Tarsus because of some allusions in his History, besides crucifying even the slaves who had written it out. A householder who said that a Thracian gladiator was a match for the murmillo, but not for the giver of the games, he caused to be dragged from his seat and thrown into the arena to dogs, with this placard (titulo): "A favourer of the Thracians who spoke impiously." ("Impie locutus parmularius.")	4 … and others formed a plot against Augustus. Fannius Caepio was the instigator of it, but others also joined with him … 7 at any rate, when Caepio's father freed one of the two slaves who had accompanied his son in his flight because this slave had wished to defend his young master when he met with death, but in the case of the second slave, who had deserted his son, led him through the midst of the Forum with an inscription making known the reason why he was to be put to death (γραμμάτων τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς θανατώσεως), and afterwards crucified him, the emperor was not vexed.

It seems that Bermejo-Rubio is essentially correct. But I noticed the following things.

- No case is a really good parallel. The first two cases of Suetonius are the violent excesses of a ruler and the case of Cassius Dio is the private execution of a slave.

- In Cassius Dio's case, the emphasis is on the inscription being carried through the forum; it no longer plays a role at the crucifixion. Cassius Dio seems to suggest that the whole thing is a message from Caepio's father to the Emperor.

- The inscription seems to be something special for Suetonius and Cassius Dio, as if it were rare.

- My impression was correct that the usual translations ("inscription of the charge") of Mark's text are not good. Suetonius and Cassius Dio use the term "inscription -> of the reason -> for his punishment/killing. The last part is missing from Mark, it only says "inscription -> of the reason of him".

- The words of the inscription are mentioned only in the second case. What is mentioned there is the crime (impietās - impiety) as such, not what the householder said.