I searched for a midrashical reason (or in alternative a theological reason) for the presence of the titulus crucis.
For example, the following point:
(my bold)
The last item is the titulus crucis.
About the titulus crucis, I don't find in Dennis MacDonald, nor in other authors following strictly the Markan priority, a good midrashical explanation. A fact that is recognized by Bermejo-Rubio himself when he writes, as from you translated:
Now, the Bermejo-Rubio's argument is the following:
I have found a possible theological reason for the titulus crucis here:
(my bold)
...but obviously this interpretation is obliged to give up to the Markan priority. Hence my question for you is even more urgent and pressing.![:whistling:]( "Whistling")
For example, the following point:
...is explained (in the context of this discussion about Bermejo-Rubio, I would say: 'neutralized') by Dennis MacDonald (The Gospels and Homer, Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts) as:Pontius Pilate examining Jesus and asking him: "Are you the king of the Jews?" (Mk 15, 2)
Jesus’ Silence (Mark 14:60–62 and 15:2–5)
Mark’s Jesus refuses to speak in his own defense in his two trials. This is what happened at the Sanhedrin trial: “The chief priest arose in the middle, interrogated Jesus, and said, ‘Have you nothing to answer these people who are witnessing against you?’ He was silent and made no response” (14:60–62). Jesus shows composure also in his Roman trial. “Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus responded to him and said, ‘So you say.’ And the chief priests accused him of many things, and Pilate again asked him, ‘Have you no reply? Look at the number of accusations they are making against you!’ 5 But Jesus still made no response, so that Pilate was amazed” (15:2–5). Interpreters frequently see here the influence of Isa 53:7: “Despite the abuse, he did not open his mouth. Like a sheep he was led to slaughter, and like a lamb silent before the one shearing it, so he does not open his mouth.” Yarbro Collins suggests that Jesus’ silence was inspired by Ps 37:15 (MT 38:14): “I became like a person who does not hear and has no refutation in his mouth.”195 Such biblical associations may be correct, but the context suggests also a connection with Odysseus’s silent suffering in Od. 17–20. By refusing to defend himself, he treats his accusers with contempt and increases their guilt. Later they will get their comeuppance, which is precisely what Jesus predicts for the Jewish authorities at the end of his Sanhedrin trial: “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62), like Odysseus, who later would slay the suitors. Particularly noteworthy are the following parallels:
Mark’s Jesus refuses to speak in his own defense in his two trials. This is what happened at the Sanhedrin trial: “The chief priest arose in the middle, interrogated Jesus, and said, ‘Have you nothing to answer these people who are witnessing against you?’ He was silent and made no response” (14:60–62). Jesus shows composure also in his Roman trial. “Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus responded to him and said, ‘So you say.’ And the chief priests accused him of many things, and Pilate again asked him, ‘Have you no reply? Look at the number of accusations they are making against you!’ 5 But Jesus still made no response, so that Pilate was amazed” (15:2–5). Interpreters frequently see here the influence of Isa 53:7: “Despite the abuse, he did not open his mouth. Like a sheep he was led to slaughter, and like a lamb silent before the one shearing it, so he does not open his mouth.” Yarbro Collins suggests that Jesus’ silence was inspired by Ps 37:15 (MT 38:14): “I became like a person who does not hear and has no refutation in his mouth.”195 Such biblical associations may be correct, but the context suggests also a connection with Odysseus’s silent suffering in Od. 17–20. By refusing to defend himself, he treats his accusers with contempt and increases their guilt. Later they will get their comeuppance, which is precisely what Jesus predicts for the Jewish authorities at the end of his Sanhedrin trial: “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62), like Odysseus, who later would slay the suitors. Particularly noteworthy are the following parallels:
| Od. 20.183–184 | Mark 15:5 |
And clever Odysseus said nothing [τὸν δ᾿ οὒ τι προσέφη πολύμητις ᾿Οδυσσεύς]/ but without a word, he shook his head while secretly planning evil. | Jesus still made no response [ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη]. [Jesus knew he would be vindicated in the end and his enemies would be punished.] |
Also this presumed 'seditious clue' is neutralized by Dennis MacDonald along the following lines:According to Mark 15:16-20 (cf. Jn 19:1-5), Jesus is the object of a parody of royal epiphany by the Roman soldiers.
This mocking of the soldiers in Mark resembles another passage in Od. 18. When Odysseus laid out Irus, the suitors saluted his victory by giving him food and drank a toast to him: “Welcome, father stranger; may good fortune be yours / in the future, even though now you have many woes” (18.122– 123). No careful reader could miss the irony: the good fortune that the beggar wanted most of all was the death of the very men who were toasting him. Like Homer, Mark used a rogue to intensify the guilt of his hero’s foes. Instead of siding with the true son of God, they championed “Son of the Father,” a murderous revolutionary. Ironically, the suitors toasted Odysseus, “Welcome, father stranger,” wishing him “good fortune,” unaware that soon he would have his good fortune at their expense. Ironically, the soldiers in Mark saluted Jesus, “Welcome, king of the Jews,” unaware that he actually was a king and that he would indeed reign and punish those most responsible for his death.
(my bold)
The last item is the titulus crucis.
About the titulus crucis, I don't find in Dennis MacDonald, nor in other authors following strictly the Markan priority, a good midrashical explanation. A fact that is recognized by Bermejo-Rubio himself when he writes, as from you translated:
(my bold)First of all, the association of the royal title with the cross lacks biblical precedent, and since the expression was not later used in Christianity, it is implausible to consider it the historicization of a dogmatic motif: Mark wishes to present Jesus as the son of God, not as king of the Jews, and the titulus is only a circumstantial detail in his account.
Now, the Bermejo-Rubio's argument is the following:
- 1) there is not a midrashical source for the titulus crucis
- 2) there is not a theological cause behind the titulus crucis
- 3) this fact makes the previous cases (where the expression 'king of the Jews' occurs) rise from the tomb where the reductio ad midrash had thrown them, by making them a pattern of 'seditious clues'
- 4) therefore: Jesus existed and was a rebel.
I have found a possible theological reason for the titulus crucis here:
La polémique contre Jésus Bar-Abba prit la forme la plus populaire et la plus efficace, celle du récit. Il s’agissait de faire voir que le seul crucifié, le seul rédempteur des hommes, était bien le Messie d’Israël, celui même qu’annonçaient les prophètes. Les Synoptiques, principalement Luc et Matthieu, s’attachèrent à cette démonstration. Dès la naissance de Jésus, un prophète inspiré, Siméon, le prend dans ses bras et reconnaît en lui le Messie, salut de Dieu, lumière des nations, gloire du peuple d’Israël. Matthieu souligne d’un trait appuyé vingt accomplissements de prophéties. Devant Pilate Jésus est formellement accusé de se dire le Messie-Roi (Luc xxiii. 2), et quand Pilate lui demande s’il l’est, il ne contredit pas. Donc il n’y a pas de doute. Le vrai crucifié est bien Jésus le Messie. Quant à Jésus Bar-Abba, le brigand, il n’a aucunement été crucifié. Il a été relâché. Voilà ce qu’il faut répondre à ceux qui racontent autre chose de lui. Quant aux circonstances de la libération, elles ont été inventées et habilement agencées dans le récit de manière à prouver autre chose encore d’utile : l’irresponsabilité de Pilate.
Ainsi les épisodes de Barabbas et de Simon de Cyrène sont de même guise. Ce sont des récits polémiques. Le premier est dirigé contre l’évangile johannique, le second contre l’évangile basilidien.
Ainsi les épisodes de Barabbas et de Simon de Cyrène sont de même guise. Ce sont des récits polémiques. Le premier est dirigé contre l’évangile johannique, le second contre l’évangile basilidien.
(my bold)
...but obviously this interpretation is obliged to give up to the Markan priority. Hence my question for you is even more urgent and pressing.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Tue Feb 06, 2024 7:16 am