Why "they glorified him" finds his origins in Vespasian's propaganda

[Giuseppe]

I have often pointed out in this forum the Jean Magne's conclusion that the Earliest Gospel, a lost gospel, preserved the following concise oldest story of the crucifixion, with only the Pilate's question, followed by the Jesus's answer and by an enigmatic "they crucified him", meant probably as "they glorified him", given the following parallelisms:

I note another extraordinary "coincidence":

1 Corinthians 2:6-8	On the origin of the world 115,23	Oldest Gospel Passion Story
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.	Then, when the seven rulers came, they saw him and were greatly disturbed. They went up to him and seized him. And he (viz., the chief ruler) said to the breath within him, "Who are you? And whence did you come hither?" It answered and said, "I have come from the force of the man for the destruction of your work." When they heard, they glorified him.	So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “You have said so,” Jesus replied. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

My error was to believe that "the archontes glorified him" was older than "they crucified him" insofar it sounds as a more Gnostic thing to say. Really, the premise is correct: the sense of "they crucified him" is "they glorified him". Only: the explanation given was wrong. The Gnosticism doesn't count at all here.

What is at the origin of "they glorified him" behind "they crucified him" is the Gospel emulation of the Vespasian's propaganda.

This is strongly visible in the fate of two people who wanted to be "glorified":

Josephus twice comments that Vespasian had “grown grey” in warfare ( JW 3.4; 5.123).108 The ambition of both Titus and Domitian would have been obvious in Rome. It is striking, then, that Mark depicts two ambitious brothers in his story—James and John, who ask of Jesus an amazing and rather impertinent question: “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you” (10:35), and then proceed to request: “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory” (10:37). Irony abounds, given that Jesus has just announced, for the third and final time, that his ‘glory’ will be on a cross. At the crucifixion scene, Mark pointedly links these two ambitious brothers with two criminals, “one on his right and one on his left” (15:27). The scenes turn the reader to the very situation in Roman politics that may threaten them most.

(B.J.Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel , my bold)

Just as the two thieves (=Titus and Domitian, in replacement of James and John) were "glorified", so Jesus, the anti-Vespasian, was "glorified", too.

The cross is a cross of glory in opposition to Imperial propaganda around Vespasian as the Messiah.

[Giuseppe]

Who is really "glorified"?

Jesus crucified	Vespasian
a λῃστής crucified with Jesus	Titus
another λῃστής crucified with Jesus	Domitian

[Giuseppe]

Schmidt has suggested that the two criminals crucified with Jesus have a parallel with those who share power with the triumphator in Roman triumphs, as they would stand either side of him when he was acclaimed. However, he proposes that the motif in Mark is directed against the “self-divinisation efforts” of Gaius and Nero, as he assumes that Mark wrote during the Neronian persecutions. But Mark’s readers would remember the two who shared the emperor’s glory at the recent triumph—his sons Titus and Domitian—as they read of Jesus the king in his triumph of the cross, with the two ‘co-regents’ on the right and the left. The portrayal of the two criminals with the triumphator not only implies the criminal nature of the Roman rulers, but also alludes to the intrigue within the Flavian family. Moreover, the mocking by the criminals of the “king” (15:32) may echo a public perception in Rome of the attitude of Vespasian’s sons toward their father.

(ibid., my bold)