aa5874

In your OP you asked the following questions:

If you have already AGREED that the Gospels are an allegory then EVEN if we were ALL PSYCHICS your questions cannot be answered with any veracity.

stephan huller

I can't find a single early Patristic reference to the two thieves.

Solo

I think that is because of Luke who wiped out the symbolism.

If you follow the tenses going up the hill you will see the reference to Golgotha relates to Simon of Cyrene and not Jesus.

15:21 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. (all verbs are imperfect)

15:21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. (ἀγγαρεύουσιν - present indicative)

15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. (present indicative)

15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received [it] not. (imperfect)

.......

15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
(ην - imperfect active, ἐσταύρωσαν aorist active)

....

15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. (σταυροῦσιν -present !!!)


My take on it is that Mark wanted to refer to the crucifixion of the thieves in 'liturgical' time, so to speak. He drops Simon into the story, and then crucifies him 'symbolically' alongside Jesus who was crucified in local time of Tiberius !

Agreed ?

Jiri

Toto

I came across this blog post on a Coptic manuscript containing the Apocryphal Names of the Two Thieves.

Other sources for the names include John Chrysostom, pseudo-Evodius, pseudo-Theophilus. Some sources reverse the names of the two thieves, making one or the other the good thief, make one a Jew and the other a gentile and both followers of Jesus BarAbbas, and add creative details on their sins.

Solo

Thanks, Toto, this is useful even if, as I said to Stephan, the later IDs seem to follow Luke's eraser of Mark's intent.

Vork reads the two robbers exactly the way I read it; they are the ultimate 'irony' of Peter and the Z's belief in Jesus conquering Jerusalem as their Davidic Messiah. The two seats on the two sides of the throne of Christ's earthly kingdom are reserved for the true followers.

Best,
Jiri

bacht

I've been thinking about this. I'm still hung up on the Transfiguration, was this Mark's way of inserting Paul's visionary Christ into a Jewish-Christian historical matrix?

Solo

The overall setting is historical but the narration is allegorical with possible allusions to actual events. The way I see it is that Mark drops the Pauline Lord as the spirit on Jesus at the Jordan. But the disciples who follow Jesus do not see this spiritual side of him. They follow him as a Jewish prophet and after Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi as a Davidic Messiah into Jerusalem. But Mark asserts the Pauline Messiah (Christ Crucified - which was resisted by the Jerusalem Jesus missions) ; so the thickness and faithlessness of the disciples relates to the basic misunderstanding of the nature of Christ as Mark draws it.

The Transiguration is the second "risen Lord" manifest, the first being the little farce of the Jesus "phantasma" walking on the lake. The mountain event shows Jesus, "peaking" on the spirit - engaging the prophets (which is fairly common in high mania, Mohammed engaged Jesus and the Baptist, before flying off to Jerusalem in al-isra). The three disciples Jesus takes with him of course do not have access to the inner event referenced here - the shekinah represents an aura which is available only to the spiritual witness of the event. Peter and the Z's only react to the exterior of a highly excited Jesus which scares them because they don't understand it.

Matthew scratches the Markan design and lets the three on the show and they fall down on their knees hearing the voice and seing the clouds, recognizing Jesus as the spiritual Messiah as well. But it's a fraud, and no doubt Paulines hated Matthew and started off to found their little gnostic groups rather than making common cause with the swinish Petrine psychics. Luke evidently knew Matthew - he went along with the swindle of turning the Twelve into the twelve apostles (it could not be stopped), so in his view of the Transfig, he would allow the three to receive the "event" in a waking into "horama" to avoid the explicit recognition of Jesus as the Godhead, By Pete and Co., which he knew was fraudulent.

Hope this helps.

Jiri

bacht

Thanks Jiri, lots of food for thought.

JoeWallack

JW:
He tasks me. I've already Threaded that Josephus was a major source for "Mark":

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

Wallack's Rule of Dating = If two writings parallel and the relative dates are in question, the more historical of the two is more likely to be the source.

Using Clark’s criteria for valid parallels I think Josephus is the source here:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war4.html

JW:
Josephus' context is that supposedly religious zealots are using the religious dispute with Rome as an excuse to rob their own people and have hidden in the Sanctuary to avoid Rome and persecute their own people. Quite, quite, now what is the word for this here, starts with "I", someone, anyone, Solo? Note that Josephus' word for these political criminals is "lestai". Not just thieves but armed robbers. As the Romans catch these guys they start pasting (crucifying) them all over the city as the official political punishment.

"Mark" sets the stage here:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_11

"Den of thieves" would seem to be a more appropriate insult for Priests. Why "Den of robbers"? Because "Mark's" word here"lestai" is the same as Josephus' word. Having the Temple become a den for robbers was historical, only it was historical 40 years after "Mark's" setting.

Josephus notes the further irony that the only thing all these criminal Jewish sects hiding in the Temple have in common is that they are guilty of murdering the innocent (killing their own = understand dear Reader?).

After "Mark" notes the crime above he ties it to the inevitable ironic punishment:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15

There was no insurrection in Jesus' supposed time but there was in Josephus' historical account above. Hmmm, which to pick as source.

"Mark's" context is clear. These are fellow robbers with Barabbas in the same insurrection ("lestai again"). Crucifixion confirms that they were political enemies.

So the source of "Mark's" two lestai are the historical lestai who hid in the Temple during the YahWWI as reported by Josephus. There's plenty of irony already in "Mark's" source with the Jewish robbers escaping punishment by hiding in the Temple and spending their vacation punishing their fellow innocent Jews. So "Mark" has the innocent Bar Abbas give up his freedom to get punished in place of the guilty Bar Abbas who is set free. "Mark's" ironic predictability reminds me of Furious' statement to the Master in the God-awful Mystery son of Men:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKGX9tdPeN0



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

mountainman

"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions"


:lol:

Yeah I know the "other" statement was at the end.
Thanks Joe.

Happy midwinter from the southern hemisphere.



Pete