Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

My first surprise, by reading Josephus the first time, was the fact that Mark describes not the Zealots as the bad figures in the his fable, but the same victims of the Zealots, ''the scribes and pharisees''.

It is as if someone, writing a fiction about the ISIS terrorists, describes as bad figures the Syrian victims of the ISIS and not the terrorists themselves.

I had compared the ''scribes and pharisees'', given their great political role in their vain attempt to prevent the War (in the years immediately preceding the conflict), to the Medici dinasty in Italy: also they pursued a policy of maintaining peace, balancing power between the northern Italian states, and keeping the other major European states such as France and the Holy Roman Empire's Habsburg rulers out. But after the death of Lorenzo of Medici (called ''ago della bilancia'' - ''needle of the balance'' for the his successful diplomacy), Italy lost his independence. I wonder: if Lorenzo was survived to see the French king descend in the Peninsula, I don't believe he would be seen positively later.

Even so, I have failed to explain why Mark seems to condemn the same victims of the war. Afterall, the scribes and the pharisees had done anything in their power to prevent the War.

A possible explanation, then, is that Mark shared fully with the Zealots their condemnation of the priests of Jerusalem.

Their sin, according to Mark, was not to recognize the spiritual Messiah Jesus, just as they didn't recognize the various earthly Zealot messianists.

If the high priests had shared the apocalypticist hopes of the time, then they would have recognized the spiritual Messiah Jesus.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:47 am
If the high priests had shared the apocalypticist hopes of the time, then they would have recognized the spiritual Messiah Jesus.

Better speficied: if the high priests had shared the hope of the Zealots in the coming Messiah-King, then Mark would have not condemned them in the way he did.

The rejection of the entire apocalypticism (not only of the Zealot apocalypticism), by the high priests, was a sin in the eyes of Mark.

Mark condemned the scribes and pharisees (and not the Zealots) because the high priests of Jerusalem weren't apocalypticists.

Giuseppe, if Mark fully represents the Zealot viewpoint, he might be a Zealot. Then 'sharing' is a too weak verb to address this theme because it suggests a difference which is inexistent. Mark is just the most important Zealot author ever.

I know where you would like to conclude. Surely under your theory it is fully expected that the bad people in Mark are just the victims of the Zealots. But don't ignore that even the two Zealots crucified with Jesus mocked him. And the people did choose the Zealot Barabbas.

Even so, my point is that Mark seems different from Josephus when he chooses his enemies.

The capture of the Temple Mount by the Zealots in 68 CE is described in Mark 11:15-19. This event is commonly known as the story of the cleansing of the temple. We see a diametrical opposition between the Zealots on the one hand and the priests and scribes on the other in verse 18.

And what do you think about the Barabbas affair?

It seems the more anti-Zealot clue in the Gospels.

Maybe first: what do you think about Mark 11:15-19?

I think it was based on Menahem's blitz in the temple:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3725

The interruption of the normal trade practices on the Temple Mount is a concrete element of its invasion by the Zealots, which Josephus describes in general terms:
War IV:151b: A ... these men converted the Temple of God into their stronghold and refuge from popular upheavals, and made the Holy Place the center for their tyranny.
War IV:162b: .... indignation was unanimously expressed at the invasion of the sanctuary, at the looting and murders.

One of the literary techniques of the gospel writers is to single out Jesus. If we cancel this technique Mark 11:18 could read as follows: And the chief priests and scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy them (the Zealots, in stead of 'him', Jesus); for they feared them (idem), because all the multitude was astonished at their (idem) teaching.
Josephus gives the names of the leaders opposing of the Zealots, the chief priests and scribes mentioned in GMark (War IV:159-160): Their best leaders of excellent repute, like Gorion, son of Joseph and Simeon, son of Gamaliel, appealed publicly to the whole assembly and canvassed privately, door-to-door, to urge the people to act now and punish the wreckers of freedom, and purge the sanctuary of its guilty polluters. Their efforts were supported by the most outstanding among the priests, Jesus, son of Gamalas, and Ananus, son of Ananus, who held meetings at which they vehemently reproached the people for their apathy, and spurred them on against the Zealots.
Further on Ananus is described as the most important leader of this anti-Zealot coalition. Josephus gives Ananus's speech to the people of Jerusalem, and concludes like this: This is how Ananus inflamed the people against the Zealots. (War IV:193a).