FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-15-2011, 08:36 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default The Robbers Crucified with Jesus

Ok, let's play a little :

Mark mentions two robbers crucified with Jesus. The relevant verses to identify the robbers are these:

Quote:
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.

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

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

.....

15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

....

15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Anything strange about that, Joe Wallack ? Sure, you have noticed the switching of tenses, haven't you ?
I knew you would and come to the realization that the two robbers who were crucified with Jeez, were done in in a different time zone, so to speak.

Questions to anyone but Harvey Dubish:

1) Who were the "robbers" ?

2) Who did they rob ?

3) Assuming that Matthew read the symbolism as intended by Mark, why did he make these robbers revile Jesus ?

4) Assuming that Luke understood the symbolism of Mark, why did he change "robbers" (lestai) to "criminals" (kakoyrgoi) ?

5) Anything changed on the probability that Luke knew Matthew ?

After you have resolved the puzzle; can you dig that it was one of the hanging characters that was portrayed as Simon Magus in the Clementine Recognitions ?

Have fun !

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:53 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default

I would answer as follows:

1. There is no way to know who the robbers were as the text doesn't tell us.

2. There is no way to know who they robbed.

3. There is no reason to assume that Mark was engaged in symbolism with regard to the robbers. He may have just been writing what he had heard. Matthew added the taunts because that's the version he heard from sources outside Mark.

4. Robbers are criminals, the particular crime is not important.

5. No

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 08:56 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
I would answer as follows:

1. There is no way to know who the robbers were as the text doesn't tell us.

2. There is no way to know who they robbed.

3. There is no reason to assume that Mark was engaged in symbolism with regard to the robbers. He may have just been writing what he had heard. Matthew added the taunts because that's the version he heard from sources outside Mark.

4. Robbers are criminals, the particular crime is not important.

5. No

Steve
You are like my daughter who insists that some sudoku puzzles are impossible to solve and when I solve them for her she says I cheated.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:19 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
4. Robbers are criminals, the particular crime is not important.

Rome did not crucify common criminals. They disposed of them far more economically in the arena as both an amusement - and a warning - to the crowd.

In general, and particularly in this time period, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and rebels.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:29 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default

Minimalist:

My understanding of Roman practice is much like yours but I don't think it is much of a point. Those crucified with Jesus may have been slaves that stole, or highway bandits associated with resisters. Either would have qualified for crucifixion and could be called either robbers or criminals. Mark may also have been mistaken about there being others crucified with Jesus. After all he could only write the story he had heard. So what?

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:30 AM   #6
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post
Quote:
4. Robbers are criminals, the particular crime is not important.

Rome did not crucify common criminals. They disposed of them far more economically in the arena as both an amusement - and a warning - to the crowd.

In general, and particularly in this time period, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and rebels.
In many times and places, robbers and bandits are euphemisms for rebels.
jgoodguy is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 11:08 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post
Quote:
4. Robbers are criminals, the particular crime is not important.

Rome did not crucify common criminals. They disposed of them far more economically in the arena as both an amusement - and a warning - to the crowd.

In general, and particularly in this time period, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and rebels.
It would be good, guys, if we could keep this discussion on track.

Thanks.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 11:22 AM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Minimalist:

My understanding of Roman practice is much like yours but I don't think it is much of a point. Those crucified with Jesus may have been slaves that stole, or highway bandits associated with resisters. Either would have qualified for crucifixion and could be called either robbers or criminals. Mark may also have been mistaken about there being others crucified with Jesus. After all he could only write the story he had heard. So what?

Steve
So, we really don't know anything about the "robbers" except that the story in gMark is most likely FICTION.

Mark 15
Quote:
27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left....... And they that were crucified with him reviled him....
It is MOST ridiculous that persons who are themselves NAILED to crosses could have CURSED Jesus.

Why in the world do people want to believe anything in gMark WITHOUT any external non-apologetic corroboration?

gMark is BEYOND belief.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:54 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
It would be good, guys, if we could keep this discussion on track.
Do these conversations ever stay 'on track'? At some point Pete or AA start distracting everything and then every thread either dies or becomes ground for the same endless discussion about 'the unreliability' of the evidence or that everything was invented by Eusebius.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 06-15-2011, 01:05 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Minimalist:

My understanding of Roman practice is much like yours but I don't think it is much of a point. Those crucified with Jesus may have been slaves that stole, or highway bandits associated with resisters. Either would have qualified for crucifixion and could be called either robbers or criminals. Mark may also have been mistaken about there being others crucified with Jesus. After all he could only write the story he had heard. So what?

Steve

One can make up all sorts of apologies for bible stories if one wants. In fact, it is almost a requirement.
Minimalist is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.