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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Last Son of Man Standing

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:56 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:42 am
Mark 13:14 And when you see the abomination of the desolation, (he) standing where it should not (the one reading, let him understand)

It has always been a great mystery to Marcan scholarship how it can be an idol and a male person at the same time and what a reader have to do with it.
Oh God, oh God, you are so close KK. As a gentleman I have to let you finish first. "Mark" obviously parallels Jesus and The Temple. The Roman soldier will be standing where the Temple used to stand. Who was standing where Jesus used to stand?
That's why I said on the narrative level. If one understands the request ("Let the reader understand") discursively (the narrator is speaking to us as the readers of GMark), then your interpretation is very likely, but at the narrative level the only readable object is the inscription.

JoeWallack wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:19 pm “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather,". In general, this is what GJohn is, what "Mark" should have written.
Yup. The same thing can be found in the conversation between Jesus and Pilate ("My kingdom is not of this world.")
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
If I were to formulate a response to Bermejo-Rubio, it would probably include three things, namely

1 - that Bermejo-Rubio sometimes interprets GMark circularly and sometimes clearly misinterprets it and ignores alternative possible interpretations
2 - that it is possible and even more likely that Mark invented it as an author because he had already invented a comparable case in chapter 6
3 - that Bermejo-Rubio circularly imagines an alleged tradition before Mark while ignoring the - according to the opinion of most scholars - actually known tradition (Paul)

It seems to me that a HJ-scholar should always first ask whether an account in the Gospels is historically plausible. Bermejo-Rubio wrote (Google-translated):

The story of Mark 15:1-3, the oldest text we have, presents Pontius Pilate examining Jesus and asking him: "Are you the king of the Jews?" (Mk 15, 2), and in the rest of the interrogation scene the expression βασιλεὺς τῶν ’Ιουδαίων often reappears in his mouth. It is significant that the first to use the expression is the Roman prefect himself, who — despite not having previously appeared in the narrative—seems aware of Jesus' royal pretensions.

imho there are the following reasons to judge Pilate's question in Mark 15:2 as unrealistic:

- In the Roman criminal trial, the accuser first had to present the accusation (the Roman friendly Luke and John also present it that way). In GMark, however, Pilate does not wait for the accusation of the Jewish officials and begins his interrogation immediately.

- The wording of Pilate’s question is implausible. One would first expect Pilate to ask the name of Jesus etc. and then ask the question: Is it true that you claim to be the King of the Jews? or something similar.

- The Greek wording of Pilate’s question is similar to the wording of the confession of demons, the confession of Peter and the question of the High Priest in GMark. (3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.”; 8:29 Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”; 14:61 Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”). Only based on the context one can decide whether it is a question or a statement. So the wording was formulated by Mark and does not come from tradition.

- Mark, as the narrator, points out that psychological tactics played a role in the interrogation (15:10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.; 15:4 See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.) In doing so, he directs the reader's attention to the individual details of the interrogation.

- Bermejo-Rubio correctly recognizes that only Pilate uses the expression "King of the Jews", but does not notice how this claim is passed back and forth between the characters in the narrative. While Jesus points out to Pilate that Pilate said that (“You have said so."), Pilate then claims to the people that the people said it (15:12 Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?) Regardless of these claims, it is actually only Pilate who repeatedly brings the term “King of the Jews” into play.

- It is well documented historically that many rulers and governors were "paranoid" according to our modern standards or overzealously cruel, e.g. Herod the Great. Of Antipas, for example, Josephus writes: "Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.“ Mark also shows how "obsessed" Herod Antipas was with John. 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 Others said, “He is Elijah.” And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” 16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” All well-known historians of the time discussed such behavior and judged the respective rulers accordingly. According to ancient standards, this behavior was just as much a part of „history“ as riots, rebellions, etc. Bermejo-Rubio ignores this in his assessment of Pilate.

Bermejo-Rubio seems to have a submissive trust in Pilate's righteousness and to place the blame on Jesus from the start. He doesn't ask whether this is perhaps a fear on Pilate's part or perhaps a rumor among the people.

The story of Mark 15:1-3, the oldest text we have, presents Pontius Pilate examining Jesus and asking him: "Are you the king of the Jews?" (Mk 15, 2), and in the rest of the interrogation scene the expression βασιλεὺς τῶν ’Ιουδαίων often reappears in his mouth. It is significant that the first to use the expression is the Roman prefect himself, who — despite not having previously appeared in the narrative—seems aware of Jesus' royal pretensions.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Whosonfirst?

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubvYQxTXO3U
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:38 am
imho in the context of GMark, this inscription is initially just another assertion about who Jesus was, and it fits in with all the opinions that any of the characters in GMark once expressed about Jesus. Nevertheless, this inscription has a different quality than the many claims about Jesus. It has a revelatory character and, as a written revelation, claims a higher authority.i
JW:
Disagree (about revelation). "Mark's" primary point about Jesus is that he is the son of God (Paul). This receives the textual Marker of the revelation by divine authority (Paul). The Voice from Heaven and Cloud. Romans (understand dear reader) after the Passion. Here, the "KIng of the Jews" sign (so to speak/write) is just another presentation of the context to the subject:

Evil spirits = good spirit

KIng Herod = Prophet

Peter = Messiah

The crowd = Heir to the Kingdom

Sanhedrin = Son of God (figurative)

Pilate = King

Roman (after Passion) = son of God (literal)

The same reason that "son of God" is likely not original to 1:1, there is no revelation Marker.



Joseph
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Bermejo-Rubio wrote (google-translated)
However, as is known, the gospels—already from Mc 15, 1.3 (cf. Luke 23, 2)—try to show that “King of the Jews” is an accusation made by the Jewish authorities.
I think that Bermejo-Rubio is clearly misinterpreting GMark on this point and reading his presuppositions into the text. Simply the opposite of what he claims is the case.

As already mentioned, Pilate does not wait for the accusations from the Jewish officials in GMark and begins his questioning immediately. Mark even leaves the reader unclear about what accusations the chief priests are making. He even mentions that Pilate attributes the accusation to the envy of the chief priests and seem to judge it to be baseless. The opposite is the case in GMark. The "King of the Jews" claim is discussed in GMark only between Pilate, Jesus and the people, while the chief priests play no role in this discussion.

15:1 And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate. 2 And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed. ... 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. 9 And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. ... 14 And Pilate said to them, “Why? What evil has he done?”

One might imagine Bermejo-Rubio responding like a typical HJ-scholar: "Okay, but the chief priests probably informed Pilate beforehand." But that doesn't change the fact that Bermejo-Rubio reads something into his source which explicitly states the opposite.

Mark doesn't "try to show that 'king of the Jews' is an accusation made by the Jewish authorities" as Bermejo-Rubio claims.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13570
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Mark doesn't "try to show that 'king of the Jews' is an accusation made by the Jewish authorities" as Bermejo-Rubio claims.
To be sure, going to memory, BR would reply by saying that the first apology, i.e. Mark, shows still too much vulnerability, by making necessary better and better apologies.
It seems to me that a HJ-scholar should always first ask whether an account in the Gospels is historically plausible.
To be sure, BR gives here a solution that other historicists cannot give, because it is peculiar to the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis. An episode is made historically implausible, even invented ex novo, in order to work better as apology against more macabre facts. Based on this premise, BR is well ready to reject the historicity of the purification of the temple or the questioning by Pilate. Even the logion of the two swords could have been invented ex novo, with all the midrash pointed out by Carrier, in order to mask the embarrassing truth that the entire group was armed (and that the swords were well more than two).
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:31 pmTo be sure, BR gives here a solution that other historicists cannot give, because it is peculiar to the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis.
I find that the persuasiveness of the hypothesis is based on something that lies largely outside the Gospels.

The beginning is belief in a historical Jesus, who was "of course" a normal human being. According to a minimalist theory, this man was nicknamed Christ and was crucified by the Romans. Looks like a rebel! Why should the Romans care about a religious weirdo? It is also "known" that the Christ, the Jewish Messiah, is actually an earthly king who will free the holy land from all oppression.

You then look at the Christian scriptures and say: Look, they made a god out of a man, they made a heavenly ruler out of an earthly king, and a heavenly kingdom out of the earthly kingdom. This looks extremely suspicious! All you have to do is take a few small details from the Gospels out of context and throw them into the pot. Oh look, Judas Iscariot, that was a Sicarian! They had swords! Jesus rode on the donkey to present himself as king! This was all typical of that time: the Jews were extremely rebellious and one riot followed another! Great that Jesus was there too. A real Jew of his time!

All you have to do is expand the conspiracy theory that the evangelists covered everything up and John can be held up as a good example.

I think that in principle it could very well be possible that a historical Jesus was a Jewish rebel who was therefore given the nickname Christ and was ultimately crucified. I just think that the rest of the argument is without any basis in GMark and actually comes across as a pretty naive conspiracy theory.

Mark didn't hide anything, but rather, as an author, he actively introduced the claim "King of the Jews" into his plot through his character Pilate. imho Pilate is portrayed in GMark as a cunning politician who confronts both Jesus and the people with the claim, as if to provoke them to test how they would react to it.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:21 am
I think that in principle it could very well be possible that a historical Jesus was a Jewish rebel who was therefore given the nickname Christ and was ultimately crucified. I just think that the rest of the argument is without any basis in GMark and actually comes across as a pretty naive conspiracy theory.
Goodness - GMark is not some sort of gold standard for research into early christianity. The gold standard is history - in the case of the gospel story - Hasmonean/Jewish history under Roman occupation of Judaea. What words the author of GMark put into any of the figures he has put in his gospel are just that - the words of the author, Mark. Interpret his words which ever way one likes - they are still the words of the writer of this gospel. These words do not trump history, they do not trump historical events.

The best bit of advice for anyone attempting to search for early christian origins is - in one hand hold the gospel story - in another hand hold a history book. That has been my position from when first I rejected the idea of a historical gospel Jesus. A history book is the guidebook to gospel research. Deal with history first - then look to the gospel story for reflections of that history. Gospels first, history second - thats a back to front approach and fails the first test of investigation. One works from what is known - what is known from history - not from someone's interpretation of history. Which is all the gospel stories are - interpretations of history.

'pretty naive conspiracy theory' ..... :banghead:
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:09 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:21 am
I think that in principle it could very well be possible that a historical Jesus was a Jewish rebel who was therefore given the nickname Christ and was ultimately crucified. I just think that the rest of the argument is without any basis in GMark and actually comes across as a pretty naive conspiracy theory.
Goodness - GMark is not some sort of gold standard for research into early christianity. The gold standard is history - in the case of the gospel story - Hasmonean/Jewish history under Roman occupation of Judaea. What words the author of GMark put into any of the figures he has put in his gospel are just that - the words of the author, Mark. Interpret his words which ever way one likes - they are still the words of the writer of this gospel. These words do not trump history, they do not trump historical events.

The best bit of advice for anyone attempting to search for early christian origins is - in one hand hold the gospel story - in another hand hold a history book. That has been my position from when first I rejected the idea of a historical gospel Jesus. A history book is the guidebook to gospel research. Deal with history first - then look to the gospel story for reflections of that history. Gospels first, history second - thats a back to front approach and fails the first test of investigation. One works from what is known - what is known from history - not from someone's interpretation of history. Which is all the gospel stories are - interpretations of history.

'pretty naive conspiracy theory' ..... :banghead:
Heavens to Murgatroyd - What is the history book from which you know what is known from history about the Hasmoneans?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2805
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:46 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:09 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:21 am
I think that in principle it could very well be possible that a historical Jesus was a Jewish rebel who was therefore given the nickname Christ and was ultimately crucified. I just think that the rest of the argument is without any basis in GMark and actually comes across as a pretty naive conspiracy theory.
Goodness - GMark is not some sort of gold standard for research into early christianity. The gold standard is history - in the case of the gospel story - Hasmonean/Jewish history under Roman occupation of Judaea. What words the author of GMark put into any of the figures he has put in his gospel are just that - the words of the author, Mark. Interpret his words which ever way one likes - they are still the words of the writer of this gospel. These words do not trump history, they do not trump historical events.

The best bit of advice for anyone attempting to search for early christian origins is - in one hand hold the gospel story - in another hand hold a history book. That has been my position from when first I rejected the idea of a historical gospel Jesus. A history book is the guidebook to gospel research. Deal with history first - then look to the gospel story for reflections of that history. Gospels first, history second - thats a back to front approach and fails the first test of investigation. One works from what is known - what is known from history - not from someone's interpretation of history. Which is all the gospel stories are - interpretations of history.

'pretty naive conspiracy theory' ..... :banghead:
Heavens to Murgatroyd - What is the history book from which you know what is known from history about the Hasmoneans?
My first history book - after realizing that the gospel Jesus is a literary - hence not a historical figure:

Israelite and Judaean History by Hayes and Miller 1977.

A new version of 2012.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Israelite-Juae ... 0334024358

In this book, first issued in 1977, distinguished Old Testament scholars join forces to survey the history of the Old Testament period from earliest times to the Roman era. The present edition is a testimony to the book's enduring value and appeal. In addition to the editors, contributors include W. Malcolm Clark, William G. Dever, Herbert Donner, A. R. C. Leaney, A. D. H. Mayes, Jacob Neusner, Bustenay Oded, Peter Schafer, J. Alberto Soggin, Thomas L. Thompson, Dorothy Irvin and Geo Widengren. 'This volume will obviously become a necessary tool for students and teachers of the Old Testament, and provide both alike with a substantial amount of reliable information' (Society for Old Testament Study Book List). 'It is well detailed, well furnished with bibliographies, and likely to remain a basic work of reference fora long time to come... It provides a kind of indispensable back-up work to set beside the currently standard histories of Israel' (Epworth Review). 'Those who are interested in problems of Israelite history will find that it brings them up-to-date with the latest thinking; and students in particular will find invaluable its clear and cogent descriptions of those problems and the solutions to them which are currently being canvassed and debated' (Church Times). John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller are both Professor of Old Testament at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

From my bookcase:

Reading the First Century by Daniel Schwartz
Turbulent Times by James S. McLaren
The Herodian Dynasty by Nikos Kokkinos


McLaren's words in regard to Josephus are well worth keeping in mind when reading the gospel stories.

It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67.

Any other history books you care to suggest ?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:44 am My first history book - after realizing that the gospel Jesus is a literary - hence not a historical figure:

Israelite and Judaean History by Hayes and Miller 1977.

A new version of 2012.

From my bookcase:

Reading the First Century by Daniel Schwartz
Turbulent Times by James S. McLaren
The Herodian Dynasty by Nikos Kokkinos
Oh, dear - these are secondary sources. What are the primary sources (ancient documents) on which your knowledge of the later Hasmonean history depends?
Post Reply