Reflection due to connection to a gospel crucifixion story.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:58 amOkay, but that doesn't answer my question. How does such a comparison contribute to the message of the gospel? How does it help us interpret or understand the story in the Gospel of Mark any better?maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am
Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?
Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.
Yes, but again, that doesn't answer my question. Alexander and Rufus in the Gospel of Mark were not crucified. Nor was their father. None of those three figures in the Gospel of Mark was executed by any means.
I have used the word reflection many times. If you want a correspondence - then by all means search for one in Jewish history - and let me now when you find it.Again, you seem to be avoiding my question. How does a historical narrative of three persons being killed by Romans add any meaning or help us understand in a better way the story in the gospel about three men who were not hunted by the Romans?maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am
Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.
Josephus talks of thousands being crucified by Romans but what meaning does that add to the story about a father of two sons carrying a cross for Jesus?
We have two stories, one in the gospels and one in Josephus - two stories about a father and two sons. I've looked at Hasmonean history and found an historical account of a father with two sons - one of which was hung on a stake/cross and both executed by Roman agents.
Perhaps re read the quote from Rabbi Wise:Can you explain how it allows Hasmonean history to be moved centre stage in the origin of the gospel story? What is the actual connection that helps us understand the gospel story in a more meaningful or significant way?
Reflection of historical events via the means of figurative figures in the gospel literary story.
The gospel story has a father carrying a cross in the service of the Romans who are in the process of executing Jesus. Neither that father nor his sons according to the story suffer in any way at the hands of the Romans. How does a historical account of a father and two sons who are killed by Romans help us see the Gospel narrative in a more meaningful way? What is the message that we can read into the gospel from the perspective of the historical persons you are speaking about?
The gospel Jesus, re the story, is crucified with the involvement of a Roman agent.
Great - then perhaps you can let me know what historical Hasmonean figures we see reflected in the gospel Jesus story.I do not reject the relevance of Hasmonean history as you here infer. I thought I had made that clear by now. I have even in these recent discussions attempted to point out to you that I do indeed see a relevance of Jewish history to the gospel story. [/quote[maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.
Re read Rabbi Wise:
But if the connection to a historical background does not add any particular meaning or interpretative layer to the gospel narrative then I cannot see how it has any relevance to the gospel narrative.
So how is our understanding of the (fictional) narrative of Simon of Cyrene and his two sons enhanced in some way by the events of a father and his two sons being killed by Romans?