On the two crucified thieves (again) and the one-out-of-three crucified victims saved by Josephus

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

On the two crucified thieves (again) and the one-out-of-three crucified victims saved by Josephus

Post by Giuseppe »

Often it is argued that the Josephus's story about the one-out-of-three crucifixion victims saved by Josephus was the midrashical source of "Mark" (author), also pointing out the coincidence of Joseph from Arimathea being Josephus himself.


What escapes to who does this parallelism is the function behind the one-out-of-three episode, that is not only about who is removed from the cross (Jesus as opposed to the two thieves) but also about the titulum crucis (Jesus as opposed to the two thieves) and about who is insulted as king of Jews (Jesus is insulted as opposed to the two thieves).

The goal of all these episodes is to focus the attention on the person who is in the middle in all those circumstances: the mere man Jesus.

Hence the true goal of Mark is to insist again and still again that Jesus and only him is the "king of Jews".

That Jesus is the Christ.


Now this is strange, given the fact that in different episodes there are evident sub-traces of separationism in (proto-)Mark.

Hence I think that there are two authors in Mark: the original author of the first part of Mark is separationist, while the author of the final Passion story of Mark is and works deliberately as an anti-separationist.


Given these premises, how can one of grace to talk about a midrash or a pesher from the one-out-of-three crucified victims saved by Josephus ? Even assuming a specific midrash from Josephus, surely the intention of "Mark" (author) was to make the point that the crucified Jesus is the Christ, against who was denying that the man on the cross was the Christ.


But who denied that the crucified Jesus was the Christ ?

Christians who adored a crucified Son of Father who is not the Jewish Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the two crucified thieves (again) and the one-out-of-three crucified victims saved by Josephus

Post by Giuseppe »

The evidence of the intrinsic anti-Jewish nature of the separationist Christology (behind proto-Mark) is found in the same reaction raised by it: our current Gospel of Mark.

Our Mark (I mean: the editor of proto-Mark) insists that Jesus “is the Christ”. But it is an apology for the identity Jesus=Christ against the separationists. It doesn't become, eo ipso, an apology for the Jewish people as an entire. Even if it is an apology for the same god of the Jews. The Jews are left condemned just as they were in the Earliest Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply