Solo

Ok, let's play a little :

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

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

Juststeve

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

Solo

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

Minimalist

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.

Juststeve

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

jgoodguy

In many times and places, robbers and bandits are euphemisms for rebels.

Solo

It would be good, guys, if we could keep this discussion on track.

Thanks.

Jiri

aa5874

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

Mark 15 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.

stephan huller

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.

Minimalist

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