aa5874

Please wake up. You are dreaming. I cannot find your story in any sources of antiquity.

la70119

They would have to commit armed robbery for that, or Pilate determining it qualified as part of a crimen maiestas which would automatically cause slaves and foregn nationals to be crucified. Now any Roman with his head screwed on straight would see the triuphal entry itself as a C.M., of which the disciples play a supporting role in stealing the donkey. Of course, Mark doesn't say anything about any of this, he just drops it like a hot potato.

Diogenes the Cynic

The lestai in Mark most likely referred to a class of social bandits - basically coalitions of unlanded or dispossessed peasants who banded together to live by robbing the elite citizenry. They had populist cache (some "Robin Hood" kinds of feeling), and they could sometimes become politicized as happened with the Zealots. Josephus talks a lot about these groups (with disapproval), and routinely calls the Zealots lestai and sicarri ("cutthroats"). He really hated Zealots:

"for Zealots they called themselves, as if they were devoted to good works, not zealous for all that was vile, vile beyond belief.” (Wars IV.161)

I think an analogy could be drawn to pirates here, more than simply thieves or cutthroats (although they had no compunction about those things), but organized, paramilitary cells - guerrilla groups - who the Romans did view as political/military threats, not just as ordinary criminals.

outhouse

I can tell you dont know anything about the histrory of this time period let me help.


the temple was ran by romans and this payday which was huge, comparable to a rock band event now a days.

You do know Pilate was there to make sure things ran smoothly, this and the garrison were not free :constern01: I wonder why HHHHmmmm

not only that who was in charge of the temple?? yes Caiaphas whom Gratus appointed.


There was also a roman poll tax going on as well, that would be the one jesus was questioned about why he didnt pay his taxes, you know the whole render to Caesar thing in which Jesus didnt pay and sent Peter fishing instead.


The tempe was in fact the bank and treasury for that area, roman controlled and ran under a tight grip.


This had ever jew in the area ticked off, why do you think they revolted a short 30+ years after jesus death.

OH and what roman sect ran teh bank and money?? yes the Saducees. guess who dissapears after the fall of the temple.



its amazing we know all this history from the roman/gentile version of judaism were left with to dig evidence from

outhouse

and its said jesus had a disciple who was a zealot :constern01:

Solo

I think more likely than not these were not 'lestai' or Zealots at all. Someone, who apparently knew the original meaning of the symbolism added later at Mk 15:28 that this was to fulfil the prophecy of the servant being counted 'with the lawless' (Isa 53:12), i.e. 'anomoi', those without or outside of (the) law.

The 'synestaurōmenoi/synstaurōthentes syn autō' phrasing looks very odd and may have actually been ridiculing the symbolism of the two robbers.

Best,
Jiri

Solo

What Romans refered to as crimen maiestatis was conspiracy against the emperor or the Roman people....kind of doubtful this would be applied in a case of an unauthorized removal of a donkey.

More to the point, Pilate clearly sees that Jesus is a harmless furiosus who should be whipped and let go. The insertion of the Barrabas figure is a Markan farce to fulfill Paul (with a nasty anti-Jewish edge), which serves to underline the "folly" of the crucifixion. Barrabas is a legal exhibit of an 'enemy of the Roman people and their security' and for a Roman governor to let him go would have been extremely foolish as he would open himself to a charge under lex maiestas which under Tiberius, I am told, was a notoriously abused legal implement.

Best,
Jiri

la70119

Except during his ride into the city would have been seen as an ersatz triumph by an ersatz imperator, directly challenging Pilate's control over the city, and with it, Caesar's rule.

He scopes out the Temple for the next day when he gives a direct challenge to Caiaphas' rule and the Roman payday. Remember, as outhouse has repeatedly said, this was a ROMAN TEMPLE now, no longer the House of the Holyplace of Yahweh, and the romans always got thyeir cut. Jesus here the next day will be clearly calling the Romans themselves and their Saducee lackeys lestai -- robbers.

Which shows the total absurdity of the whole Markan holyweek narrative. Here we have someone who made a symbolic challenge to Roman rule and on the following day, a direct challenge to the rule of both the Romans and their lackeys. Pilate, even if he was not well-versed in Jewish mythology and eschatology, would have seen those two actions both as challenges to Rome and as a violation of lex maiestas. If there is any historicity to any of this at all, he definitely would not have released either Jesus "King of the Jews" or Barabbas.

la70119

There is an evolving downgrading of the two co-crucifyees' criminal status.

gMark 15.27: λῃστάς (lestas) (N Acc M pl) robbers, brigands, bandits
gMatt 27.38: λῃσταί (lestai) (N nom M pl) robbers, brigands, bandits
gLuke 23. 32: κακοῦργοι (kakourgoi) (Adj nom M pl) criminals, evildoers
gLuke 23.33: κακούργους (kakourgous) (Adj acc m pl) criminals, evildoers
gLuke 23.39: κακούργων (kakourgwn) (Adj gen m pl) criminals, evildoers
gJohn 19.18: ἄλλους (allous) (Adj acc m pl) others

is it any wonder Christians believe today that the Romans crucified common thieves?:huh:

mountainman

Who really knows? Trajan crucified 2000 Jews of the city of Emmaus c.101 CE.

Curiously, this was the very city Jesus reappeared in after ascending though the Jerusalem cloud bank.



Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, in front of the Parliament of Vienna