aa5874

Based on Josephus, Pilate may have had an excellent excuse to kill some more Jews. Pilate appeared to be a bit genocidal, especially when there was a crowd of Jews who refused to obey his commands..

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2 And in Antiquities 18.4.2, Pilate was ordered to Rome accused of murdering Jews.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.4.2.

So, based on Josephus, Pilate may have had those who refused to release Jesus executed. He may have had "plain clothes" soldiers in the crowd with daggers to quell any disturbance.

Solo

And perhaps then the sense of injustice gave rise to a a cult within the "third" stream of Judaism which within twenty years converted a minor prophet martyred as a "sign" of the last days (and through whose martyrdom the Lord (the Jewish one) would avenge the iniquities in Israel and the prophets who were killed before him. Mt 23:29-39) into a universal Saviour of mankind.

As for the OP I consider the crucifixion of Jesus a historical fact until a convincing scenario shows that it isn't. No need for me to derive it from Tacitus. It is quite probable that Tacitus himself was working with information that originated in Christian communities. It makes no difference to the finding of a historical kernel. Paul's epistles and Mark's gospel present themselves elaborate apologetics for the cross, which are not explicable as originating from mythical syncretism.

In Mark, the incident at the temple could very well be a rendering of the historical event which led to the arrest, trial by the council and the handing over of Jesus to the Romans. To Mark this is Heilsgeschichte which is to justify the belief in risen Jesus, not "real" history. Consequently, he borrows Nehemiah to describe the Jesus as "cleansing" the temple and then - mysteriously (I think mischievously) - claiming he was "teaching" the arresting party at the temple "day after day" (Mk 14:49). I have a big hunch that Jesus was grabbed right in (or near) the holy of holies which was well guarded. The Gethsemane ballad would have been a face-saving manoeuvre.

The figure of Joseph of Arimathea also likely had historical roots. Let me explain why:

Mark is clever and subtle but has nowhere the depth of Paul, and consequently he "slides" towards the stance of the Petrines. Partly this may have been a "political" decision of reaching out to the Jewish Christians, to leave the Pauline 'Galilee' church open to them if they wished to repent their failing to recognize and defend Jesus as Christ. Unlike Paul, who proclaimed predestination, Mark takes an adoptionist stance. And unlike Paul - who would have nothing to do with the historical figure and said so - Mark has to deal with the issue of historical Jesus' innocence. Where Paul taught that the rulers would have not killed Lord Jesus if they had wisdom (1 Cr 2:8), the Palestinian church maintained he was killed by "lawless men" (Acts 2:23). Big difference here: Paul was not going to equivocate, or abuse spirituality by making historically false claims - Jesus was executed by due process. Rom 8:4 - period. But Mark, committed to the absolute duality of good and evil, did not think of morally "transcending spirituality". Siding with Jesus (who was God's Son), meant painting the Sanhedrin (who condemned him) all black - automatically.
But in the setting, the figure of Joseph of Arimathea appears to contradict Mark's account of the trial, which consisted only of charges against him to which he aswers only by self-proclamation. So, my question is: if the origin of Joseph as a sympathetic Sanhedrin member is not theological what function does it serve as a literary invention ?

Surely, there would have been dissenting voices in the Sanhedrin against handing over the visionary to Pilate, known to be a brutal killer, and a symbol of the heathen rule in Israel.

And further, I read the sudden appearance of a Jesus- professing cult in one of the Jerusalem religious communities as a sign that the Sanhedrin decision was a subject of controversy among the factions. The disciples were likely sheltered and protected by someone or a group with resources and influence in the community who was (were) sympathetic to the cause Jesus proclaimed. It is unfortunate that this reality, exemplified by Joseph in Mark, had to give way to the mythical self-founding of the church of Christ, later supplied by Acts.

Jiri

avi

This text from Mark was also highlighted by Vincent in post #17. The question is whether Mark explains that the Romans crucified Jesus because the Jews asked them to do so, or because Jesus violated some Roman law.
This question is not resolved. Further study of Mark on Ben's question yielded the following thoughtful and challenging idea. I disagree here. Jesus is contradictorily presented in Mark as both man, and god--> in the latter case, of course, life could not depart from him, since gods are omnipotent.

How could Mark genuinely suggest that humans possess the power to kill a god? Are there other ancient texts which suggest that humans have the power to slay gods?

Mark affirms the unjust torture and murder of the human Jesus. Why not simply accept Mark's iteration of the myth of Jesus' supposed claim of divinity as simple hyperbole presented by Mark for marketing purposes, a kind of supplement to the entertainment value of an otherwise mundane manuscript?

vid

Here is my idea: Jesus supposedly took over some part of John The Baptist's followers (I think we can read that into Mark without too much fantasy). Legacy of John the Baptist was IMO enough reason for high officials to get rid of him - some other guys taking over role of executed usurper.

Going bit further than your question was, we can combine this idea with what we know about John the Baptist from Josephus: that after his death, his dangerous fanatized ex-followers still blamed Herods military failure at this act. And it likely was quite a uproar, if it was worthy for Josephus to break narrative and mention this episode. If Jesus was gathering these people for any reasons (even if for just preaching), no wonder circles around Herod were afraid of him. To me, this gathering of crowds known for voicing anti-state opinions would be the most rational reason for any totalitarian state power to charge somebody with whatever they come up with, and execute him.

We can draw close analogy from recent totalitarian regimes: secretly capture opposition leader not to cause uproar, blame him for everything you can come up with, at least something will work, and execute him. And of course, his followers will whine about him being completely not guilty (even when that is not true), forget about all his bad sides and portrait him as all-good just for the sake of attacking authority. And when the authority finally loses its power for whatever reason, they will write in-your-face books (Mark) where they show how ugly-bad-evil-rulers caused their own downfall, and they elevate their "hero" to sainthood. This is exactly what we lived ~20 years ago here in eastern Europe, even including some saint-making i think, for sure nothing unbelievable to happen 2000 years ago. This is for me the most probable speculation, even though of course it is still just a speculation.

aa5874

But isn't that what the author of Mark wrote? Why don't you accept what the author wrote?

Mr 9:31 -
Mr 14:28 -
Mr 16:6 -
You must show that the author of Mark wrote for entertainment purposes.

I cannot find any church writer of antiquity that claimed Jesus was called the son of a God for entertaiment purposes. the author of Mark called Jesus the son of God in the very first verse of Mark.

Mr 1:1 - You cannot just guess and think what you guess is likely to be true.

DCHindley

For you, then, were the "ugly-bad-evil-rulers" the Jewish govenment, with the "in-your-face book[] (Mark)" written after they "finally [lost] power" during the war with Rome in 66-70 CE?

Or were the pagan Romans the "ugly-bad-evil-rulers," making the "in-your-face book[] (Mark)" be written after they "finally [lost] power" in the time of Constantine?

I'd think you mean the former, but in this forum we get a lot of the latter.

As for any repercussions that might have happened for taking over some part of the JTB movement, the "high officials" would have been the government of the client prince Herod Antipas in Galilee & Peraea, not necessarily priests or even all Jewish. These high officials would be quite distinct from the high officials within the apparatus of the Roman governor/procurator/prefect (mostly Roman citizens or non-Jewish Greeks in charge of the Roman Auxiliary army), or of the Jewish priestly aristocracy who ran the temple state, who operated in Judaea under the general authority of the Roman governor.

Now it is interesting that Mark contains trials of one sort of another before both the aristocretic priests in charge of the temple-state and the Roman governor, in that order. Luke 23:7-11 even adds Herod (Antipas) himself into the action so all three sets of high officials get a piece of Jesus, although the order of action seems to be Temple authorities > Roman governor > Herod (Antipas) > Roman governor, passed around like a bad penny.

DCH

Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd. [Pulp Fiction (1994)]

vid

Yes, I meant the former - Mark written after failed 66-70CE revolution, to show that failure was brought to jewish rulers (or, to jews in general) by themselves, because they killed jesus.

Yes, I realized this problem. But wouldn't Herod still be considered the king of jews by judean priestly officials, even if only as "honorary" title and not real power in judea? Plausibility of this hypothesis probably depends on how good the relations between priests and Herod Antipas was. Am I correct that same high priests had both galilea and judea under their "religious jurisdiction" (sorry, can't remember english term for this)? If yes, then I think my hypothesis still makes good sense.

One thing that I think adds to plausibility of my hypothesis is that in Mark, after being charged with more/less bogus religious charges by priest, in front of Pilate his main charge is claiming to be "King of Jews", and so is during mocking, and so is on the cross. The same title which should belong, if to anyone, then to Herod, who already was threatened by previous leader of same people earlier.

If Jesus really was teaching he is king of jews, or at least if his followers viewed him as such and voiced it, this was likely taking place both in Judea and Herod's galilea. Priests would have good reasons themselves to get rid of this guy preaching against them. And Herod would have extremely good reason to get rid of him.

As for why to arrest and trial him in Judea and not in Galilea. We know that taking down of these people was always delicate matter and likely to cause uproar (both in Josephus and gospels). If we dive bit deeper into speculation, wouldn't arrest in Roman province which nescessitated trial and execution by Romans be a great opportunity for both Herod and priest to direct this uproar against Romans, not themselves? And if pilate saw through this, it would explain his "washing hands" too.

With usage of what we know from Josephus, and without need to read anything into Mark, this hypothesis IMO explains execution and events around it in very likely terms. Mark here would be just a overly artistic allegorical description of christian point of view of Jesus' history, with historical core, but painting jesus as chosen by god, and with main theme of linking jesus execution with destruction after failed jewish uprising. I don't really see any problems with this hypothesis, do you?

Ben C Smith

What first century Sanhedrin laws would you suggest dog-on peruse?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I do not think anything in the hearing before Pilate is necessary to the correctness this conclusion. The plausibility of the Jewish hearing and of the crucifixion itself would almost demand that the initiative come from the religious leaders but the final judgment from the Romans.

There may be some misunderstanding about what I find implausible about the trial before Pilate. It is not the bare fact that Jesus went before the Roman prefect; it is the kind of details given by Mark as to what exactly transpired between Pilate, Jesus, and the Jewish leaders. Unless you are interpreting passages in Mark 15 as meaning something other than what I have always assumed they mean, I do not think it is Mark who lets us know that Pilate is concerned about warring religious factions, or that the crowd would be okay with releasing Jesus (does not Mark say that it was the Jewish leaders that had incited the crowd to demand crucifixion for Jesus?).

This is what I am thinking about what I called the plausibility gap. Could it be that Mark or his tradents had some source for the Jewish trial but not for the Roman one? (Peter is portrayed as standing outside during the former, but I do not think that would qualify.) It stands to reason that, of the two procedures, Jewish disciples would more likely be able to glean information (whether immediately or eventually) about the Jewish hearing than about the Roman one. Is it then a coincidence that the details of the Jewish trial are more plausible than the details of the Roman one? (An alternative understanding would be that the author was simply more familiar with Jewish procedures than with Roman ones.)

In this scenario, the tradents would have access to events in the first hearing but would have to guess at what happened in the second. This would explain the plausibility gap. This is just a suggestion; I am not sure it works. What do you think?

Ben.

andrewcriddle

It seems IMO that at least part of Mark's account is interpretation rather than plausible direct evidence. (Even if there was a disciple listening to the Roman trial while trying to be inconspicuous his knowledge of why various groups and individuals were doing things would be limited.)

The prima-facie direct evidence is (again IMO) that Pilate was initially reluctant to execute Jesus, he even suggested to the crowd come to ask for the release of Barabbas that Jesus might be a better candidate for clemency. However when the crowd is not interested in his suggestion Pilate orders Jesus to be killed.

The question, therefore, is the plausibility of this sequence of events rather than the interpretation put by Mark upon them.

Andrew Criddle