andrewcriddle

I think you do. In Mark 15:7 we have STASIASTWN when Mark explicitly wants to mean insurrectionists. When he uses LHSTAS he probably means something different.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:7

"And there was one called Barabbas, [lying] bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder. (ASV)"

JW:
So, again, trying to forget that "Mark's" Pilate is offering to release any murderous insurrectionist, the others that are bound with Barabbas (just like Jesus was bound), were they the ones crucified? Is your position that Pilate choose to offer a Rebel (who just happened to be named Jesus Barabbas) for release when he also had bandits in his Inventory and than crucified these bandits when he still had Rebels in his inventory? Wouldn't a Rebel be more likely to be crucified than a bandit?



Joseph

angelo

Tacitus only makes reference to ''christians'' not Jesus. Josephus's reference to Jesus is an interpolation by later christians, according to most historians, because it's completely out of his style and does not blend with his subject at hand.

angelo

The Roman centurion who exclaimed; ''surely this man was the son of god '' at the foot of the cross, as portrayed in Mel Gibson's film, would surely have made a big splash. And some Roman writer of the time would have reported the incident. Especially his resurrection 36 hours later. The story would have travelled around the whole Roman world within weeks. And surely, some manuscript would have survived. Not to mention the christians zeal of capturing any mention at all of their hero.

andrewcriddle

I think we should distinguish the issue of Mark's presentation of events from the issue of historicity (what really happened).

IMO Mark does not seek to link Barabbas with the bandits/rebels crucified with Jesus and in any case the fact that Matthew (probably) calls Barabbas "Jesus Barabbas" is irrelevant to Mark's account.

As to what really happened. If we assume (at least for the sake of argument) that at the same time that Pilate condemned Jesus to be crucified he also set free a man of violence called Barabbas and crucified with Jesus two unnamed men of violence, then the question clearly arises whether these men of violence were common brigands or revolutionaries or something else.

It is very difficult to answer this, partly because whether someone is a common brigand or a revolutionary is often, even in the modern world, difficult to determine, and disputed between different factions, partly because it is unlikely that the Gospel writers had any accurate tradition as to precisely what Barabbas, let alone the two thugs crucified with Jesus, had actually done.

IMVHO I think it more likely that they were brigands than revolutionaries because there seems very little evidence of genuine revolutionary violence in Judaea during the reign of Tiberius.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

Read it again. And which historians assume it is a complete interpolation and not merely tampered with?

JoeWallack

JW:
I'm primarily interested in what "Mark" meant:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:48

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me? (ASV)"

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...er=14&verse=48

"καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με"

"λῃστὴν" = bandit or rebel?

"Mark's" other use of the offending word:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:27

"And with him they crucify two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left. (ASV)"

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...er=15&verse=27

"καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ σταυροῦσιν δύο λῃστάς ἕνα ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἕνα ἐξ εὐωνύμων αὐτοῦ"

"λῃστάς" = bandits or rebels?

Context

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15:7

"And there was one called Barabbas, [lying] bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder. (ASV)"

"Mark" has provided a Context of a Rebellion and no context for any banditry. So it's not just Context favoring Rebellion over banditry. There is no context for banditry.

Crucifixion

Crucifixion is more applicable to Rebellion than banditry. I've already pointed out that with a translation of "bandit" Pilate would be offering a Rebel when he could have offered just a bandit and crucified bandits when he could have crucified rebels.

Ironic Contrast

14:48 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but [this is done] that the scriptures might be fulfilled."

There is a clear Ironic contrast with Josephus' historical account. Josephus primarily blames the Rebels, who he always calls "λῃστάς", for the destruction of the Temple, and specifically shows them as hiding from the Romans in the Temple. "Mark" has created a contrast where Jesus was Teaching peacefully in the Temple, in plain situs, and no one came for him. Than when Jesus was at a remote site minding his own business, they come for him like he was a rebel or bandit. "Rebel" makes the Ironic contrast in a Gospel who's primary literary style is Ironic contrast.

I've already demonstrated that "Barabbas" is not only a contrived fiction but one that "Mark" made sure his audience would recognize:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...72#post4883972

In addition there was no historical Rebellion in the time "Mark" is supposedly writing about just as there was no tradition of Rome releasing murderous Rebels. It's likely than that "Mark" was not trying to write a historical account here and was instead taking real history, the real Israeli Rebellion, which was fresh in his audience's mind and probably the first thing a Roman would have thought about Judea at the time "Mark" was written, and inserting it into the earlier time period of his Narrative.

Reaction of "Matthew" and "Luke"

"Matthew" exorcises mention of Barabbas as a Rebel and "Luke" only identifies Barabbas as a Rebel. This indicates they understood "Mark" as meaning the others crucified were Rebels.

In contrast to my having Context, Crucifixion, Ironic Contrast and Reaction of
"Matthew" and "Luke" to support a meaning of "Rebel" for 14:48 you have "Mark" using a different word to describe Barabbas in 15:7. But instead of having different meanings isn't it more likely that "Mark" intended an equivocal meaning as his likely historical source for the historical Rebellion, Josephus, uses λῃστάς to identify the historical rebels but always compares them to bandits?



Joseph

angelo

My apologies. That is what was meant. Tampered with by later christians trying to find evidence for their hero. And to make him more believable to the masses. If one really tries to find references to a Jesus of Nazareth out side the N/T, you will hit a brick wall. Apart from a few suspect references. :blush:

aa5874

There is no need to apologise. An interpolation can be an addition of a single word, and the word 'interpolation' implies 'tampering' with a written text.

And whether or not the passage in Annals were interpolated, perhaps those 'Christians' were followers of Marcion's Christ, the phantom, who was in Capernaum, teaching in the synagogues, in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

Chris Weimer

Really? How do you know?

Really?