THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

[Giuseppe]

Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword''.

(Matthew 26:52)

I think that this is the irony behind the fact that:

1) Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest

2) it's just the female servant of the high priest to recognize Peter as a potentially Dangerous Galilean.

In this case I doubt that it is necessary to assume that Matthew's version precedes Mark's version. By saying:

for all who draw the sword will die by the sword

Matthew is simply making more explicit what is still implicit in Mark.

Then I wonder if, as reaction, Peter wept because he feared for the his same life (in Mark, or in the source used by Mark), not because he repented of the triple denial.

Surely Peter didn't die by the sword (afterall, he didn't kill the servant of the high priest), but he was punished partially for the his violent use of the sword. Simply, he risked being killed, as Galilean follower of Jesus (according to the fable called Mark).


Now the next question is: could Barabbas be punished, too? Afterall, he killed really someone by the sword.

If ''the'' insurrection was the revolt of Cyrene (end I century CE), then ''Simon of Cyrene'' could be just Barabbas ''coming from the country'', i.e. while he was going out of Jerusalem after the his gained freedom by Pilate. So the irony is that, at the end, just Simon Barabbas ended on the cross (!).

[FJVermeiren]

A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.

(Mark 15:7)

I don't want to interpret it as one of the seditious clues pointing to a historical rebel Jesus (à la Bermejo-Rubio).

What if 'Mark' had a previous source where that particular 'insurrection' was described in detail?

What if in the our Gospel of Mark there is still the description of that specific 'insurrection' ?

IMO there is only one candidate for THE insurrection in the first century CE, and that's the war against the Romans. GMark is the description of Jesus' activity during that war.

Rereading the last chapters of GMark for this thread, and I came across 14:49: Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. I believe this verse is best explained as being part of the (civil) war operations. Elsewhere I have argued that the cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15-19) is a veiled description of the capture of the Temple Mount by the Zealots in 68 CE. Jesus is saying in Mark 14:49 that he was in the temple compound (ἱερόν) for a long time (day after day), and that his opponents didn't seize him - he seems to have been out of their reach. This is completely in line with the military situation in Jerusalem during the civil war, with the Zealots occupying the Temple Mount for a long period and defending it against the Jewish parties opposing them.

[DCHindley]

Here endeth the first lesson from the book of archibald.

"Behold! All of these things are to be found in the Book of Archibald."

Just to be fair, Unterbrink is not wrong that there is evidence that the narrative of the governorships of Cumanus and Pilate has been tampered with. Wasn't Steve Mason on record for suspecting this? I have suggested that this was related to the publication of something called the "Acta" of Pilate AND Jesus, by those seeking to flatter the co-emperor Maximinus Daia, who ruled over Asia Minor and Syria/Palestine. These were supposed to be actual day book entries in Pilate's personal diary as a person holding an office where he had power of life and death. What these were in the case of Jesus I don't know. The picture of Jesus presented was, let's say, unflattering.

Pilate's "Acta" supposedly contained references to two Consuls who were active together in 21 CE. I have suggested, and perhaps others as well, that these textual anomalies were an attempt by Constantine to make the date in the Acta Pilate *impossible*. I suppose Constantine was hoping to gain Christian support from this move. Eusebius seems to be aware that the text was changed, but was not entirely on board with the idea, as he relays that this date of 21 CE is impossible "if one accepts" Josephus' account.

Apparently, "historical revisionism" started long before we all thought.

That doesn't mean I am on board with Unterbrink's time shift scenario.

"Behold! All this can be found in the Book of Dave."

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ati#p79997

DCH

[archibald]

Here endeth the first lesson from the book of archibald.

"Behold! All of these things are to be found in the Book of Archibald."

Just to be fair, Unterbrink is not wrong that there is evidence that the narrative of the governorships of Cumanus and Pilate has been tampered with. Wasn't Steve Mason on record for suspecting this? I have suggested that this was related to the publication of something called the "Acta" of Pilate AND Jesus, by those seeking to flatter the co-emperor Maximinus Daia, who ruled over Asia Minor and Syria/Palestine. These were supposed to be actual day book entries in Pilate's personal diary as a person holding an office where he had power of life and death. What these were in the case of Jesus I don't know. The picture of Jesus presented was, let's say, unflattering.

Pilate's "Acta" supposedly contained references to two Consuls who were active together in 21 CE. I have suggested, and perhaps others as well, that these textual anomalies were an attempt by Constantine to make the date in the Acta Pilate *impossible*. I suppose Constantine was hoping to gain Christian support from this move. Eusebius seems to be aware that the text was changed, but was not entirely on board with the idea, as he relays that this date of 21 CE is impossible "if one accepts" Josephus' account.

Apparently, "historical revisionism" started long before we all thought.

That doesn't mean I am on board with Unterbrink's time shift scenario.

"Behold! All this can be found in the Book of Dave."

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ati#p79997

DCH

Hey. You capitalised archibald (and Dave). Where is your pious modesty?

Yes, Unterbrink refers to some memoranda or other (you will know better than me and are quite possibly already referring to the same lost document) in which, according to Eusebius (if I recall Unterbrink's book right) 'Jesus' was allegedly crucified under Pilate in 21 CE.

To some mythicists, the important/relevant early christian interpolations and tamperings were done, by and large, to establish Jesus' existence, but to me it looks like that was never in doubt, in the sense of being unchallenged or taken for granted. I have even, in my time, heard some extreme mythicists almost rest their blanket case simply on the fact that the texts were dishonestly tampered with. As you imply, there is always a more mundane and conventional alternative explanation for the tamperings.

We could almost, imo, have a separate subforum for the psychology involved here, with perhaps a specific thread on the fascinating phenomenon of confirmation bias. Which of course affects us all, to at least some extent, sometimes to an alarming degree (not in your case or mine, obviously and clearly, for sure, who would dare suggest it). But for some: