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

[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

I think we've made some good observations in this thread and can begin to decide whether Bermejo-Rubio's pov is trustworthy or not. He himself considers the cross inscription to be historical and gave the following reasons for it:

google-translation

In fact, there are good reasons to give credibility to the titulus crucis. First of all, the association of the royal title with the cross lacks biblical precedent, and since the expression was not later used in Christianity, it is implausible to consider it the historicization of a dogmatic motif: Mark wishes to present Jesus as the son of God, not as king of the Jews, and the titulus is only a circumstantial detail in his account. Second, it is hardly credible that the formulation of the inscription, of unmistakably political significance, was invented by Christians. Third, the irony in the Roman use of the title fits well with the parodic nature of the Roman crucifixion: the supposed king finds death reserved for humiliors, unmasking his – for the Empire – outrageous pretensions. Fourth, given the public nature of the crucifixion and its intended deterrent function, it is very plausible that the causa mortis was shown in order to serve as a warning and increase the impact of the sentence. Fifth, the title expresses a desire for independence and the desire to usurp the imperium from the prefect—and ultimately the emperor—which fits very well with the type of crimes (crimen maestatis) to which crucifixion was applied in the Judea subject to the Roman Empire. The convergence of all these reasons argues for opting in favor of the titulus reflecting a historical fact.

What do YOU think Giuseppe? And all the others? Are Bermejo-Rubio's reasons valid? Do you also think that the title of the cross is a historical fact or at least could be with high probability?

[Giuseppe]

What do YOU think Giuseppe?

curiously, I think that the only theological reason to neutralize the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis in the specific case of the titulus crucis, is partially explained by Peter Kirby in this thread:

Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

'King of the Jews' is part and parcel of the obsessive insistence, found particularly in the Passion story, designed to prove that Jesus is the 'king of the Jews', i.e. the 'Christ', the Messiah of YHWH.

The point has been made rather explicit in John 20:31:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God

The reader can appreciate this point only on the background of the opposed claim: some Chr(e)stians were preaching that Jesus is not the Christ, that he was the Son of an Unknown Father (not YHWH).

If I was without this theological explanation, then I would have agreed with Bermejo-Rubio, i.e. with the thesis that the Christians wanted that Jesus was recognized velim nolim as Messiah contra factum that the historical events had confuted dramatically that claim.

Hence my challenge to Kunigunde is this: since you disagree probably with the my point (that the titulus is designed against rival Chr(e)stians), then you are condamned to be historicist and to accept the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis.

[StephenGoranson]

The "...since...then..." sentence is a non-sequitur.

[Giuseppe]

The "...since...then..." sentence is a non-sequitur.

really? I remember that the challenge by prof Bermejo-Rubio is the following:

First of all, the association of the royal title with the cross lacks biblical precedent, and since the expression was not later used in Christianity, it is implausible to consider it the historicization of a dogmatic motif: Mark wishes to present Jesus as the son of God, not as king of the Jews, and the titulus is only a circumstantial detail in his account.

I have found a theological reason to consider the titulus crucis the historicization of a dogmatic motif: rivalry against Chrestian deniers that Jesus is the Christ.

What is the reason given by StephenGoranson to reply to Bermejo-Rubio? I fear that he is without reason, in this case, which makes his general position rather weak (compared to Bermejo-Rubio's challenge).

[StephenGoranson]

Your sentence was a non-sequitur, regardless of B-R.

[Giuseppe]

I don't know what is more offensive, if your opposition to me or your opposition to B-R.

In whiletime it is too much obvious that you don't like to be nailed between the two horns of the beast (me and B-R).

[rgprice]

I don't agree with FBR's conclusion for a number of reasons.

#1) He does nothing, as far as I have been able to see in these threads (since I haven't read his book), to address the literary nature of the Gospel narratives, especially Mark. There are numerous signs, from beginning to end in Mark, the the writer himself is inventing this story. It seems that FBR thinks that this is an "extreme" position to take.

Never mind that the Crucifixion scene itself is clearly concocted from the Jewish scriptures, not from historical details, what about the implication of the writer of Mark having used Philo's Against Flaccus as inspiration for his mock trial?

Firstly, we have to acknowledge that this writer has included many details that are provably ahistorical, such as the dividing of his clothes. So if we can see that the writer of the scene is inventing details from literary sources, such as the use of Psalm 22, then why would we think that any given detail is "authentic"?

In other words, if someone has set out to provide a "historical account" of the crucifixion, then they would not mix in clearly invented details. The fact that this writer is clearly inventing details for symbolic purposes means that this writer is not interested in providing a historical account, they are interested in crafting a symbolic narrative.

Obviously the sign "King of the Jews" has symbolic importance to the narrative and we know for sure that this writer is inventing symbolic details due to his use of scriptural allusions, which are so replete in the Gospel of Mark that nary a periscope can be identified that is not based on them.

What he's doing is like taking a Bug's Bunny cartoon and ignoring the absurdities of a talking rabbit, of people walking through holes drawn on walls, of characters suffering massive trauma and then going on like nothing happened, etc., and then saying, "But look, Elmer Fudd is driving a car. That's plausible. That could happen. So maybe this part of the story is true!"

#2) Secondly, he has said things that are just absurd, like saying, "the emergence of a tradition according to which there was a Roman initiative against him could hardly have been a fabrication, since it would definitely damage Christian apologetic interests." To me this just shows a blatant lack of comprehension of this material.

FBR is suffering from the typical tunnel vision of theologians and apologists, who assume that the writer of the first Gospel narrative, or any Gospel narrative, had the same perspective and agenda as later orthodox Christians. This is where this whole "criteria of embarrassment" nonsense comes from. The classic example is the issue of Peter abandoning Jesus. The apologetic view of this is that, "this must be true" because a Christian wouldn't have invented a claim that the most important disciple abandoned the Lord in his time of need! This claim is "embarrassing" to Christians, so they would only have included it if they had to because it was a known fact.

This is total nonsense, because it firstly assumes that the person writing the narrative would have had the same agenda as the orthodox church fathers. But in fact, one can fairly easily see from analysis of the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline letters that the writer of the narrative we find in the Gospel of Mark was someone who was intentionally attempting to discredit Peter, or at the very least to reflect the tension found between Peter and Paul in the relationship between Peter and Jesus. So from the writer's perspective, the "embarrassment of Peter" was a literary goal. This narrative was written in order to set the stage for Paul to be recognized at the only legitimate apostle. And part of that story is related to Paul's knowledge of "Christ" vs. Peter's knowledge of "Jesus".

So the assumption of the agenda or perspective of the Gospel writers is entirely flawed.

And secondly, as I describe in another thread, many orthodox Christians invented many martyrdom stories in which Romans apprehended and executed Christians, such as Peter, Paul, Ignatius, etc., so the idea that a Christian writer would never "invent" a claim about a Christian figure being apprehended by the Romans is entirely baseless. We know for a fact that orthodox/proto-orthodox Christians invented dozens, if not hundreds, of such stories. So the whole line of reasoning is entirely without merit to begin with.

I find FBR's logic and arguments to be extremely lacking time and time again, and then he is so smug to trot out this "middle-wayism", claiming that what's he's doing in finding the "reasonable" middle ground between the two "extremes" of faith and skepticism. Give me a break

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What do YOU think Giuseppe?

curiously, I think that the only theological reason to neutralize the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis in the specific case of the titulus crucis, is partially explained by Peter Kirby in this thread:

Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark
...
If I was without this theological explanation, then I would have agreed with Bermejo-Rubio, i.e. with the thesis that the Christians wanted that Jesus was recognized velim nolim as Messiah contra factum that the historical events had confuted dramatically that claim.

You didn't answer my question at all Okay, you actually prefer a different answer, but if that answer doesn't apply, you consider Bermejo-Rubio's thesis as correct.

Again: Why? Do you find his reasons for the historicity of the title of the cross convincing?

[Peter Kirby]

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

I think we've made some good observations in this thread and can begin to decide whether Bermejo-Rubio's pov is trustworthy or not. He himself considers the cross inscription to be historical and gave the following reasons for it:

google-translation

In fact, there are good reasons to give credibility to the titulus crucis. First of all, the association of the royal title with the cross lacks biblical precedent, and since the expression was not later used in Christianity, it is implausible to consider it the historicization of a dogmatic motif: Mark wishes to present Jesus as the son of God, not as king of the Jews, and the titulus is only a circumstantial detail in his account. Second, it is hardly credible that the formulation of the inscription, of unmistakably political significance, was invented by Christians. Third, the irony in the Roman use of the title fits well with the parodic nature of the Roman crucifixion: the supposed king finds death reserved for humiliors, unmasking his – for the Empire – outrageous pretensions. Fourth, given the public nature of the crucifixion and its intended deterrent function, it is very plausible that the causa mortis was shown in order to serve as a warning and increase the impact of the sentence. Fifth, the title expresses a desire for independence and the desire to usurp the imperium from the prefect—and ultimately the emperor—which fits very well with the type of crimes (crimen maestatis) to which crucifixion was applied in the Judea subject to the Roman Empire. The convergence of all these reasons argues for opting in favor of the titulus reflecting a historical fact.

What do YOU think Giuseppe? And all the others? Are Bermejo-Rubio's reasons valid? Do you also think that the title of the cross is a historical fact or at least could be with high probability?

JD Crossan wrote (Who Killed Jesus?, pp. 124-125):

Jesus’ crime, in other words, had to be a capital one, not only from the viewpoint of the highest Jewish authorities, but also from that of the highest Roman authorities. Recall, for example, that the word of Jesus ben Ananias against the Temple was considered blasphemy worthy of death by the Jewish authorities, but, without any accompanying deed, he was judged to be but a raving lunatic by the Roman authorities. Jesus of Nazareth, in contrast, had done something against the Temple and had been arrested, and now the accusation should have been simple for both venues: he performed some sort of subversive act that could have engendered a riot in the Temple at Passover. Why, then, do we hear less about Jesus’ Temple actions and more about Jesus’ title claims during his twin trials?

pp. 126-127

But if there was a historical link between Jesus’ Temple action and his subsequent execution, it is now fast disappearing from the tradition. Mark is only interested in it because of Christian misunderstandings conjoining the Temple’s physical destruction and Jesus’ expected return. He had said he would destroy the Temple; the Temple was now destroyed; so he must be here, returned, present, and triumphant. He is primarily interested in Jesus’ title claims because those were what Christians were questioned about during persecution.

p. 127

All of that is Markan theology, not historical memory. It tells us accusations made against the Markan Christians by Jewish authorities, and it retrojects such accusations back onto Jesus himself. Similarly with the title claims before Pilate. Terms such as Messiah, King of Zion, or Son of God are translated from Jewish to Roman concerns and become King of the Jews. The former terms might indicate blasphemy and suffice for condemnation in a Jewish venue, but only rebellion, not blasphemy, would suffice for a Roman situation.

p. 129

The hypothesis I am testing is that Jesus’ companions knew he had been arrested and executed but knew nothing at all about what, if anything, had intervened. They had no details at all about any judicial process or, indeed, any knowledge about whether any such event took place. At the start of the trial narrative stands Psalm 2 and the scholarly application of that text to Jesus’ trial. At a first stage that was developed from scribal exegesis into popular narrative with but one single, composite trial as in the gospel of Peter. This narrative was developed by Mark into two separate trials, one before the religious authorities and another before the civil authorities, so that he could speak to his community’s experience of both religious and civil persecution.

pp. 133-134

It is not just the content of the trial(s) but the very fact of the trial(s) that I consider to be unhistorical. It is, of course, always possible that there were trial(s) whose exact details are now lost forever. But, in historical reconstruction, I proceed minimally. I do not find trial(s) a necessary postulate. Imagine, for example, that Caiaphas and Pilate had standing agreements and orders concerning Passover whereby any subversive action involving the Temple and its crowds would beget instant punishment with immediate crucifixion as public warning and deterrent. There would be no need to go very high up the chain of command for a peasant nuisance nobody like Jesus, no need for even a formal interrogation before Caiaphas, let alone a detailed trial before Pilate. In the case of Jesus, there may well have been Arrest and Execution but no Trial whatsoever in between.

The interrogation and charge of being 'king of the Jews' is first introduced in a trial narrative that may not be historical. If accusation of claiming to be king of the Jews isn't historical, then the historicity of the titulus, repeating that charge, is also questionable. It might be said that they stand or fall together.

Crossan's full position isn't necessarily correct, and it doesn't need to be here; it's possible that some information reached the disciples about the death of Jesus after they had fled. But if there was a different reason for the arrest and execution of Jesus (ie something other than claiming to be a Messiah or king of the Jews), then there may not have been this titulus.

All that would remain is to explain why Mark introduced it. Crossan suggests that it had a narrative function here, of refocusing the reason for the arrest of Jesus away from the temple actions to the 'title claims' discussed, given that the latter were much more relevant to the Christian community. This particular title claim - 'king of the Jews' - had no particular significance to the Christian community, it is true. And, on that count, Crossan suggests that Mark may have wanted a way to translate the Christian claims about who Jesus was into something that could have led to his execution by Pilate. The charge on the titulus sufficed for that, and it completed the effort to refocus the attention on what brought about the death of Jesus onto the idea of who Jesus was.

This is, anyway, an alternative view.

[Giuseppe]

You didn't answer my question at all Okay, you actually prefer a different answer,

The answer has been already given implicitly by Couchoud/Stahl:

et quand Pilate lui demande s’il l’est, il ne contredit pas. Donc il n’y a pas de doute. Le vrai crucifié est bien Jésus le Messie

Again: Why? Do you find his reasons for the historicity of the title of the cross convincing?

because otherwise his point (the lack of a biblical precedent or a theological explanation) stands all.

Possibly Exodus 17:12 may give a biblical precedent:

When Moses' arms grew tired, Aaron and Hur brought a stone for him to sit on, while they stood beside him and held up his arms, holding them steady until the sun went down. 13 In this way Joshua totally defeated the Amalekites.

The two thieves == Aaron and Hur.

The titulus == the divine scripting on a scroll:

14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.”
15 Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner. 16 He said, “Because hands were lifted up against the throne of the Lord, the Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.”