THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by Giuseppe »

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' ?

The only violent episode before the Trial was the Arrest of Jesus. Maybe one of the disciples of Jesus used really the sword to kill someone of the guards.
Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?
(15:47-48)

If we assume that the construct ''cutting off his hear'' was a later interpolation by ''Mark'', then we would have a real murderer behind ''one of those standing near''. Could he be ''Barabbas''? Afterall, he was a Christian, and any Christian is ''Son of Father'' and eo ipso a ''Brother of Jesus''.

This fact may explain why Peter had to be embarrassed to be named ''a Galilean''... ...by the same ''servant of the high priest'' (a female, while the male was killed by Barabbas).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by archibald »

At least in the story, Barabbas seems to be described as being already in prison prior to Jesus' arrest.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by archibald »

So....what insurrection?

Given that there is no insurrection in the NT for the 20's-30's CE, nor in Josephus, and Tacitus says that 'all was quiet (in Judea) under Tiberias' (14-37 CE).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by Giuseppe »

I am wondering about some irony behind the fact that:

1) Mark talks about ''the'' insurrection, not about a generic insurrection.

2) the servant of the high priest is wounded by one of the disciples.

3) the servant of the high priest recognizes Peter as a Galilean.

4)
in later Gospels, who cuts off the ear to the servant of the high priest is Peter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by DCHindley »

archibald wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:33 am So....what insurrection?

Given that there is no insurrection in the NT for the 20's-30's CE, nor in Josephus, and Tacitus says that 'all was quiet (in Judea) under Tiberias' (14-37 CE).
Mark 15:7 refer(s) to "the insurrection" (τῇ στάσει, "uprising" or "riot") that had resulted in the arrest of Barabbas and the two men who were later crucified with Jesus.

To explain why Josephus did not mention this particular insurrection around 30 CE (he mentions none at all, nor any other notable news, between 17 & 26 CE), seems to require that
1) Josephus did not consider these insurrections large enough to require description, or
2) they were originally included (as in other places within Josephus' works) and someone sanitized this period to advance an agenda.

I think that S G F Brandon believes that there was an uprising resulting from Jesus's actions in the temple, and devotes several paragraphs to it, in Jesus and the Zealots (1967). When he speaks of "Zealots" though he is speaking of "4th philosophy" type groups generally, like Sicarii, and anti-Roman resistance movements which Josephus says only came to be called "Zealots" at the start of the rebellion of 66 CE. To Brandon, Jesus is a teacher in the tradition of this 4th philosophy, who was later rehabilitated (not his term) by Mark, which is a sort of apology for Christian origins directed to the Romans, in which Jesus is presented as a misinterpreted "pacific" Christ (not a rebel against Rome but a pacifist betrayed by jealous Jewish aristocrats & established scholarship of his day).

Huh, I just realized my position is almost identical to this, although I do not anachronistically project "Zealots" of 66 CE into earlier periods. I am not married to any particular alternate name, but I am on the fence as to whether Jesus was a 4th philosophy type advocate as opposed to a royal aspirant type. The two types are not identical. You can be one, or the other, or both, or even neither.

DCH
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by archibald »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:18 am To explain why Josephus did not mention this particular insurrection around 30 CE (he mentions none at all, nor any other notable news, between 17 & 26 CE), seems to require that
1) Josephus did not consider these insurrections large enough to require description, or
2) they were originally included (as in other places within Josephus' works) and someone sanitized this period to advance an agenda.
3a) The events (and an actual figure) were relocated to that time for sanitisation purposes.
3b) The events were relocated to (and a fictional figure located in) that time for the purpose of historicising a non-historical figure.
4-) Other theory or theories.

But I admit, if I'm of a mind (which is usually but not always) to think Jesus more likely than not existed, especially if he existed and was active in the 30's CE, his being a moderate (influenced by the teachings of Rabbi Hillel perhaps, or having some other source for a relatively non-violent philosophy, at least by the standards of the time and place) on the fringe of a less moderate 'movement' is one of my favourite notions. This would be 'sage Jesus', 'religio-political wing Jesus' or 'nationalist sympathiser and eschatological Jesus', rather than 'actively violent or violence-espousing rebel Jesus'.

It's also hard to imagine 'nothing much of note happening' (of a rebellious nature) in Judea for that length of time (the 'gap' in Josephus and/or the 'all was quiet under Tiberius' period). In Judea? That stubborn and troublesome bunch (other than the collaborating establishment) of jumped-up goat-herders and their oh-so-effing-awesome mono-deity? Under Roman occupation? I hear it was considered by the Romans one of the most awkward 1st C (and after) provinces to try to rule.

Tangentally: that the supposedly released robber was called 'Son of the Father' doesn't feel like a coincidence. But then I have no idea if it was a common Jewish name. As for Roman prisoner releases, it does sound slightly out of character, and the only other one I know of in Roman Palestine (hope that's the correct name for the general area) was when Archelaus promised to release (or at least entertained the request from the crowd to release) some prisoners in 4 CE, also at or near passover I think (I stand to be corrected on the proximity to passover), according to Josephus (Antiquities, book 17, chapter 8, verse 4).
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by DCHindley »

archibald wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:34 pm
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:18 am To explain why Josephus did not mention this particular insurrection around 30 CE (he mentions none at all, nor any other notable news, between 17 & 26 CE), seems to require that
1) Josephus did not consider these insurrections large enough to require description, or
2) they were originally included (as in other places within Josephus' works) and someone sanitized this period to advance an agenda.
3a) The events (and an actual figure) were relocated to that time for sanitisation purposes.
3b) The events were relocated to (and a fictional figure located in) that time for the purpose of historicising a non-historical figure.
4-) Other theory or theories.
I'd kinda say your 3a & b are really related to 2 of my list. As for #4, sure, my list assumes a real flesh & blood Jesus, and there are other - more speculative - options, such as giving a historical grounding to an entirely mythical figure.
It's also hard to imagine 'nothing much of note happening' (of a rebellious nature) in Judea for that length of time (the 'gap' in Josephus and/or the 'all was quiet under Tiberius' period). In Judea? That stubborn and troublesome bunch (other than the collaborating establishment) of jumped-up goat-herders and their oh-so-effing-awesome mono-deity? Under Roman occupation? I hear it was considered by the Romans one of the most awkward 1st C (and after) provinces to try to rule.
I think that I have seen that "dry spot" in Josephus' history of Judea being due to a "lack of sources" available to him when and where he wrote, but I find it hard to believe that he could access every other governors' records (for Pilate's predecessor Cumanus he was listing them yearly, but perhaps because he was appointing a new High Priest annually) then nothing until the several "tumults" under Pilate, when he enters the city of Jerusalem with his army standards and folks riot. As Josephus stands now, that means nothing from Pilate's predecessor's 4th year (18 CE) to Pilates "first" year 26 CE.
But I admit, if I'm of a mind (which is usually but not always) to think Jesus more likely than not existed, especially if he existed and was active in the 30's CE, his being a moderate (influenced by the teachings of Rabbi Hillel perhaps, or having some other source for a relatively non-violent philosophy, at least by the standards of the time and place) on the fringe of a less moderate 'movement' is one of my favourite notions. This would be 'sage Jesus', 'religio-political wing Jesus' or 'nationalist sympathiser and eschatological Jesus', rather than 'actively violent or violence-espousing rebel Jesus'.
For me, though, it is easier to think that a real life Jesus whose figure became adorned with myths that developed in the course of time on account of socio-economic pressures, than to imagine an entirely mythical figure who has been "grounded" so to speak. I do not think that - at this point - we need to speculate about his religious and/or political positions. That will come later.
Tangentally: that the supposedly released robber was called 'Son of the Father' doesn't feel like a coincidence. But then I have no idea if it was a common Jewish name. As for Roman prisoner releases, it does sound slightly out of character, and the only other one I know of in Roman Palestine (hope that's the correct name for the general area) was when Archelaus promised to release (or at least entertained the request from the crowd to release) some prisoners in 4 CE, also at or near passover I think (I stand to be corrected on the proximity to passover), according to Josephus (Antiquities, book 17, chapter 8, verse 4).
From what I have read, there was no one else who used this type of name. It reminds me a little of the Rabbinic habit of calling some sages by nonsense nick-names like "ben Bag Bag" or "ben He He," or "Acher." Every man is the "son of (his) father!" My guess would be that this man Barabbas was a religious teacher who incited his followers to do something that resulted in bloodshed, deaths which the Romans naturally blamed on the agitator(s). He could be related to some previously known religious leader, like Judas the Galilean, or Judas & Matthias who agitated to remove Herod's dedicatory eagle. The bloodshed itself may have come at the hands of the Governor's soldiers when they came in to "quell" the riot: "Men!" says the commander as they prepare to enter the arena of battle, "Run them through with your sword first, then ask questions."

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

archibald wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:34 pmTangentally: that the supposedly released robber was called 'Son of the Father' doesn't feel like a coincidence. But then I have no idea if it was a common Jewish name.
I have a bit of data on that issue here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2431&p=54409#p54409.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by archibald »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:29 pm
archibald wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:34 pmTangentally: that the supposedly released robber was called 'Son of the Father' doesn't feel like a coincidence. But then I have no idea if it was a common Jewish name.
I have a bit of data on that issue here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2431&p=54409#p54409.
Thx.

Given that Matthew, at one time, appeared to call him Jesus Barabbas and that the gospel writers weren't above pun and allegory, it does exercise the imagination as to what is going on and who is being described. Even if Barabbas does not necessarily, as per your link, signify anything 'odd', there is still the coincidence of its association with Jesus' trial.

I have a mini-theory in the back of my mind (which I don't air because it sounds silly and I haven't a detailed case for it) that somehow, 'Jesus' avoided execution and possibly turned up later before legging it safely out of the area. It is, potentially, one naturalistic explanation for the supernaturalistic resurrection. I confess that the belief in a literal resurrection, even in terms of only a 'ghost', has always struck me as a tad implausible.
Last edited by archibald on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:54 am, edited 4 times in total.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: THE insurrection (Mark 15:7)

Post by archibald »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:52 pm I'd kinda say your 3a & b are really related to 2 of my list.
I saw your 2 as suggesting that events which had actually happened during the 'quiet' time were sanitised or erased?
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:52 pmI think that I have seen that "dry spot" in Josephus' history of Judea being due to a "lack of sources" available to him when and where he wrote, but I find it hard to believe that he could access every other governors' records (for Pilate's predecessor Cumanus he was listing them yearly, but perhaps because he was appointing a new High Priest annually) then nothing until the several "tumults" under Pilate, when he enters the city of Jerusalem with his army standards and folks riot. As Josephus stands now, that means nothing from Pilate's predecessor's 4th year (18 CE) to Pilates "first" year 26 CE.
And only one coin for Gratus after 18 CE, which coin has come under metallurgical scrutiny and may not be a Gratus coin (or so I read). Daniel Unterbrink used this to suggest that Pilate had arrived prior to 18 CE. Which, quelle surprise, fitted with his not altogether flawed timeshift thesis.
DCHindley wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:52 pmFor me, though, it is easier to think that a real life Jesus whose figure became adorned with myths that developed in the course of time on account of socio-economic pressures, than to imagine an entirely mythical figure who has been "grounded" so to speak.
Same here, in principle. But imho it nonetheless has to be admitted that there is (a) that pesky 'silence' in Paul, (b) the fact that at least a good slice of the content of the (anonymous and non Judean-seeming) canonical gospels appears ahistorical, allegorical or fictional in one way or another and (c) the plethora of non-canonical, pseudographical, aprocryphal texts (and heresies apparently) which muddy the waters. If it were only one of those, not all three, it would be easier to arrive at a historical-person-conclusion.

When the answer to the question, 'what can we reliably say about Jesus' is 'not much at all, if anything', I can see why some of the questing bible scholars who arrived at that point, still wanting to know, to have 'an answer', perhaps got the christian collywobbles and wondered if he existed at all. Whereas to a less invested mind, 'we merely and unfortunately don't know what he did, it's obscure, and/or a bit of a mystery' could have sufficed, without throwing the baby Jesus out over the end of the pier with the bathwater, so to speak, with 'New Atheists' subsequently joining forces with their recently-acquired non-mainstream scholar chums (a match made in heaven, surely) in the search for the washed-up body, if there ever was one.

As to psychological and cultural biases, I find it very difficult to get a handle, at any given juncture, on how much my opinions might be influenced by the fact that I live in and grew up in a culture saturated for thousands of years with the historical Jesus. I equally find it very difficult to get a handle on when my thinking goes too far in the other direction (see for example my even thinking Jesus possibly avoided execution, above). At times, it seems that recent Jesus ahistoricism is a fashionable 'Dan Brown-ish' meme which appeals partly because of the novelty, the imaginative possibilities (and on occasions, for some atheists, because of a spicy dash of anti-theism) and at other times it feels rationally warranted. Is it easy to tell when an interpretation is forced and does not just seem forced to the culturally Jesus-steeped mind prone to taking certain things for granted?

So for lack of any reliable way to assess and compare those two potentially distorting and opposite predilictions, and because the majority of recent secular historians don't lend their weight (either not caring enough or not wanting to 'go there') I end up on the fence or near it most of the time (except when I'm dissing Carrier's and Doherty's outer space Jesus theses, though even there I could be awry and being too put off by the fact that both of them come across as cranks at a personality level).

Sometimes, when I'm being at least what feels like somewhat lucid and neutral, I know there is no conclusive answer (to the existence question and possibly also to the 'what was christianty originally like' question) and I say, occasionally online, 'look, someone probably existed as the piece of sand in the oyster of Christianity; get over it and move on'. But it is, oddly (to an atheist like myself especially perhaps, or someone not naturally inclined to or familiar with copious hermeneutics or translating dead languages) an intoxicating and beguiling question. Not to mention distracting.

And surely there must be some theists at least pleased that so many heathens are still apparently so fascinated by Jesus.

Here endeth the first lesson from the book of archibald. :)
Post Reply