Mark and Revelation

“Only in the Jew’s heart, nourished by Johannes’ Apocalypse, was the addiction to rule over the world…[But for Mark] the most sacred and solemn proclamation, here for the third time (Mark 10:32-34), was that Christ entered into glory only through suffering and the deepest humiliation.”   —Die Religion Jesu, Gustav Volkmar, 1857

Gustav Volkmar held that Revelation (the Apocalypse) was written by a Jewish follower of Jesus in 68AD prior to the fall of Jerusalem in the first Jewish revolt. And the Gospel of Mark was written in 73AD after the fall of Jerusalem by a follower of Paul as a counter-gospel and correction to the false prophecy of Revelation. Volkmar also held that Mark’s Gospel was written as a parable for Paul in defense of Paul’s authority against Judaizing superapostles come from the Jerusalem church. This blog will revisit and expand on Volkmar’s hypothesis in the light of recent historical research into first century Christianity (Robert H. Eisenman “James the Brother of Jesus”), and inter-textual narrative criticism of the New Testament.

Note: Words in square brackets are not in the quoted text. But they are added to expand on Volkmar’s hypothesis and to make the meaning clear.

Chapter 1: Revolt against Rome

In the context of Mark 10:32-45 (cf. Matt 16:21-23) “the Jews” that Volkmar was referring to were Jewish followers of Jesus, as were James and John “the sons of thunder”, and as were James the Brother of Jesus and John of Patmos who wrote Revelation. Volkmar asserted that the Jewish followers of Jesus expected worldly glory and wealth and to rule the kingdoms of this world. And this assertion seems to be confirmed by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, Roman historians Tacitus and Seutonius, and by Revelation (the Apocalypse) itself. The Dead Sea Scrolls also testify to a similar expectation by Jewish sectarians who called themselves the “sons of Light” (Eph 5:8, 1Thess 5:5, Luke 16:8, John 12:36-40).

But now, what did the most elevate them [the Jews] in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. —Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4, Antiquities 18.3.3, Flavius Josephus, AD 37~100

The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world….the common people [of the Jews], true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities [The Jewish War] opened their eyes to the truth. —Histories 5.13, Tacitus,  AD 56-120

A firm persuasion had long prevailed through all the East that it was fated for the empire of the world, at that time, to devolve on one who should go forth from Judaea…the Jews, applying it to themselves, broke out into rebellion [against Rome]. —Divus Vespasianus 4, Seutonius AD 69-122

Just as You told us in time past, saying: “There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall crush the forehead of Moab and tear down all sons of Sheth, and he shall descend of Jacob and shall destroy the remnant from the city, and the enemy shall be a possession, and Israel shall do valiantly” (Numbers 24:17-19). By the hand of Your anointed ones, seers (prophets) of things appointed, You have told us about the times of the wars of Your hands in order that You may glorify Yourself {fight} among our enemies, to bring down the hordes of Belial, the seven vainglorious nations, at the hand of the oppressed [Poor] whom You have redeemed with power and retribution; a wondrous strength. –Dead Sea Scrolls, War Scroll 1QM 11.5-9, Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook.

Seventy weeks [of years] are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the Saint of saints may be anointed. —Dan 9:24

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John…Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. —Revelation 1:1-3, Daniel 11:35

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book...Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand…And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work[s of the Law] shall be…He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. —Revelation 22:7-20

And to the one who conquers and who keeps my works [of the Law] until the end, I will give him power over the nations —he will rule them with a rod of iron and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father. —Revelation 2:26-27, Psalms 2:7-9, Psalms of Solomon 17:21-24 

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. —Revelation 19:15-16

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. —Revelation 5:10, Dan 7:27, Psalms 110 (both king and priest like Simon Maccabee)

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. —Revelation 11:15, Dan 7:14

And she [the Jewish church] brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God…..And the dragon [Rome] was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev 12:5, 17

He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God….The nations will walk by its light, and to it the kings of the earth will bring their treasure…The treasure and wealth (or “glory and honor”) of the nations will be brought there…   —Revelation 21:10-26 New Jerusalem DSS

The Jewish author of Revelation imagines (or prophesies) the time is at hand that Rome will be burned with fire (Rev 17:16, Rev 18:1-24), and [new] Jerusalem will rule the world instead of Rome, and the nations will bring tribute to Jerusalem instead of Rome. But, as Tacitus and Mark wrote, this “exalted destiny” and false prophecy spoken by false prophets would not come to pass. And instead Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple were burned with fire (Mark 13:1-2), and many Jews killed (cf. Matt 26:51-52), and enslaved and exiled to Rome to build the Flavian Coliseum as a testimony to the power and glory of Rome.

It could be foreseen that these troubled consciences, incapable of distinguishing their gross appetite from passions which their zeal represented to them as holy, went to the most extreme excess and stopped before no degree of folly. –The Antichrist, Ernest Renan, 1873 (two years after the disastrous Franco-Prussian War)

Which nation likes to be oppressed by another stronger than itself, or likes its wealth to be wickedly seized? And yet which nation has not oppressed another, and where is there a people which has not seized another’s wealth? — 1Q27.10 Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes

Matt 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Renan is referring to the Jewish Zealots and Sicarii, who were zealous of the Law, and included assassins and murderers (freedom fighters) intent on throwing off Roman rule and taxation (or tribute). Judas the Galilean, founder of the “Fourth Sect” and the Jewish Sicarii (Judas Sicariots), at the beginning of the Christian era, held that the Roman census and taxation of Cyrenius was but an introduction to slavery for the Jewish people. Judas was a “theocratic nationalist” who held that only God should be King over his people. This view is similar to Revelation except Revelation envisions Rome will be overthrown and all nations will come to Jerusalem to bow before God as King of nations. In ancient times the tribal god (even Caesar) was worshiped as a token of obedience to the territorially dominant tribe and its socially dominant ruler. Renan says “gross appetite” motivated the Jewish rebels. But for many Jews the land had been promised by God to the Jews and not to the Romans. So it was a holy cause to take back the holy land from the Romans.

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name [Nero], stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of nations. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship (bow down) before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. —Revelation 15:2-4, Isaiah 2:2-3, Psalms 86:9 (“for Thou only art holy” — What about the Lamb?)

The Gospel of Mark, written after the first Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem, and consistent with Volkmar’s hypothesis, rejects Revelation’s false Jewish prophecy of a world ruling Jewish Messiah and Jerusalem. Likewise, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John reject this type of Messiah and have Jesus correct these false Jerusalem church expectations Matt 16:21-23.

And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. —Mark 10:35-40, Revelation 3:21 (Mark 15:27 a parable pointing to the martyrdom of these two pillars and “lestes” of the Jerusalem church)

And He will glorify the pious [hasidim/saints] on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. —The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q521, Geza Vermes

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. —Revelation 20:4

Note the emphasis on “glory” in Revelation and Mark 10:35-38. But this type of “glory”, meaning world ruling power and wealth for Jerusalem and the Davidic Messiah, is rejected by Mark and the other Gospels. Compare Mark 9:31-49 where the Jewish disciples again dispute over who would be the greatest but Jesus corrects them, and Luke 24:21 Luke 24:25 where the expectation had been that Jesus would redeem (or liberate) Zion but Jesus corrects them. And even after his death, Revelation’s Jewish expectation is that Israel would be liberated by supernatural and natural means, the coming of Jesus in the clouds of heaven Rev 1:7, and the intervention of the Parthians and their client state Adiabene. —Rev 16:12

Again, the Devil[-God] took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory (or wealth) of them; and he said to him, All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan —Matthew 4:8-10, Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33, compare Numbers 27:12, Deuteronomy 3:27-28, Deuteronomy 9:9 Rev 12:5 Daniel 7:13-14 Matthew 6:9-13

And the Devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world… And the Devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory (or wealth) of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan  —Luke 4:5-8 Mark 8:33 Rev 12:5 Daniel 7:13-14 Matt 6:9-13 Rev 2:26-27

He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem…and to it the kings of the earth will bring their treasure…The treasure and wealth (or “glory and honor”) of the nations will be brought there…   —Revelation 21:10-26

Jesus [Barabbas] taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them… —Mark 9:2

And to the one who conquers and who keeps my works [of the Law] until the end, I will give him power over [all] the nations —he will rule them with a rod of iron and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I have received [was given] the right to rule from my Father.—Revelation 2:26-27

And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; —Mark 1:13

In John’s Apocalypse, the power and the glory of the nations is what God and Jesus give to those who worship them. But the kingdom, the power, and the glory of this world is what Jesus is made to reject as being from the Devil in the temptation parable of Q Mat 4:8-9 and Q Luk 4:5-7. Mark 1:12-13 only says Jesus was in the wilderness tempted of Satan, and was with the “wild beasts”. Josephus sometimes describes the Judean nationalists as acting like “wild beasts”. And Jesus rejects Peter’s temptation and calls Peter the Satan in Mark and Matthew (Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33). Paul’s teaching was that the kingdom, the power, and the glory of this world (current evil age) is given to the rulers (archons) of this age (and to the Romans, Rom 13:4), but is passing away 1Corinthians 7:31 1John 2:17 Galatians 1:4, and therefore one should deny these worldly things and wait and watch for the parousia. And yet the kingdom, the power, and the glory of this world (present age) is what the Jewish disciples James and John wanted (Mark 10:37), as did Revelation, and as did [Jesus] Barabbas (Mark 15:7, Matt 27:16-17). It would seem the Temptation accounts in Matthew and Luke are arguing the God and Jesus [Barabbas] of John’s Apocalypse are of the Devil (cf. John 8:31-44). Revelation 1:6, 2:27, 3:5, 3:21, 14:1 refer to Jesus as “son of the Father”. Barabbas is Aramaic for “son of the Father”. Gustav Volkmar said Mark’s Gospel was written to counter the Book of Revelation. It stands to reason then the Barabbas of Revelation, who wanted to burn Rome with fire, and rule the world with a rod of iron, would feature as an insurrectionist and a murderer in Mark’s Gospel.

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. —John 6:15 ….Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?…Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. —John 18:33

So not just the Apocalypse, and Josephus, and Tacitus, and Seutonius, but also Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John all testify to imminent world rule as the goal of the Jewish church and the Book of Revelation. In Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus is made to reject this worldly Jewish rule as being of the Devil. But in Mark 15:9-15 “the Jews”, meaning the Jewish church, choose world rule and the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation. In Mark 8:29-33 Peter tempts Jesus to reject suffering and death. And Peter tempts Jesus with the things of men, a world ruling Jewish Messiah-King. And while the temptations in Mark 1:12-13 and Mark 8:29-33 do not make this especially clear, an inter-textual reading of Matt 4:8-11 Matt 16:21-23 Luke 4:5-8 and John 6:15 does. Mark’s Jesus is made to reject Peter’s Jewish Messiah (Jesus Barabbas of Revelation) and Jewish world rule in the same way he rejected Satan (“get thee behind me Satan”), and instead he chooses suffering and death to save all (even the Gentiles) in accordance with Paul’s Gospel of the cross (Mark 8:34). And by this we may know Mark’s Gospel is a counter-gospel and correction to the world ruling ambitions of Revelation, even as Gustav Volkmar said in 1857.

James Tabor suggests Habakkuk 2:3 and Daniel 9:24 (cf. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu 155, pg.80) were the oracles that most elevated the Jews to war with Rome, because seventy weeks of years (490 years from Daniel’s prayer) would be “about that time” as Josephus and Revelation write. Compare James 5:7-8. Also see 11QMelch on the tenth Jubilee and redemption (liberation) from Rome [Babylon]. Because even as the anointed one Cyrus delivered (liberated) the captives of Babylon after Jeremiah’s seventy years, so too would Daniel’s anointed one (son of man) after seventy weeks of years bring good news to the Poor, deliver the captives of Rome (4Q521), and glorify the Jewish Saints on the throne of the eternal kingdom. So this might suggest that Rome was metaphorically seen as Babylon even before the destruction of the second Temple, when the Zealots were still holding the Temple (den of thieves, insurrectionists, John 12:6) against the Romans. The mindset behind Revelation predates the fall of Jerusalem (Ur-text, New Jerusalem DSS).

More examples of Messianic world rule and glory can be found in Revelation (Rev 5:10, Rev 20:6) which were rejected by the Gospels, and which were not consistent with Paul’s doctrine of Christians crucified to the flesh and to the things of this world (Galatians 5:24, Galatians 6:14, 2Corinthians 5:1-2, 2Corinthians 5:8, 1Thessalonians 4:16-17, Philippians 3:18-20). And yet even Paul and Mark allowed that Christ, in the end, must reign and put all enemies under his feet (Mark 14:62, 1Cor 15:24-25, but compare Rom 12:19-21). So Mark’s apocalyptic view was not entirely different from Revelation, with a major difference being that it was not Rome but Jerusalem and the Jerusalem church which would be destroyed because they denied, and betrayed, and could not wait and watch for the coming of Paul’s Jesus Christ. But enough on that (for now) so I can move on to Volkmar’s other hypothesis: that Mark and the other Pauline Gospels were mainly a parable (or allegory) for Paul, and the Gospels were promoting and retroactively foreshadowing Paul’s gospel and Paul’s Jesus over against the world ruling ambitions of the Jerusalem church and the Book of Revelation.

Chapter 2: Paul and Mark on tribute

Whereas in the first chapter we saw that Revelation was expecting that Jerusalem would receive tribute from the nations, in Paul’s letter to the Romans we see instead that Paul commands that tribute (or taxes) be paid to Rome. Paul’s letters are older than the Gospels, and Mark takes Paul’s teaching and makes his Jesus endorse Paul’s commandment to pay tribute to Rome, but with the caveat that god-worship belongs to God.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they [the Romans] are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. —Romans 13:5-7

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the Way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a denarius, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. —Mark 12:13-17

In this case, as in many others, Mark was channeling Paul, and Mark’s Jesus was a parable for Paul, who seeks not to please men (meaning the Jerusalem church) but preaches the truth of Paul’s Gospel (Galatians 1:6-12, Galatians 2:4-5). Caught between the pro-Roman Herodians and the “hypocritical Pharisees” (an insult and euphemism for zealots from the Jerusalem church Acts 21:18-21), Paul says render tribute to Rome as does Mark’s Pauline Jesus. This tribute-paying Jesus was Paul’s and Mark’s Jesus. But there was another Jesus and another gospel (Revelation) that Rome would be overthrown and burned with fire, and that tribute and honor would instead be paid to Jerusalem and her God.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. —2Corinthians 11:4

This “other Jesus” was probably preached by the Jerusalem church and the Book of Revelation, a Jesus called Barabbas.

And there was one called Barabbas bound with them that had made insurrection who in the insurrection had committed murder. —Mark 15:7

At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. (Other mss. read Jesus Barabbas)  —Matthew 27:16

And to the one who conquers and who keeps my works [of the Law] until the end, I will give him authority over the nations —he will rule them with a rod of iron and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I [Barabbas] have received the right to rule from my Father. —Revelation 2:26-27, Psalm 2:7-9, Psalm 89:26-27 

Revelation 1:6, 2:27, 3:5, 3:21, 14:1 refer to Jesus as “son of the Father”. Barabbas is Aramaic for “son of the Father”. Gustav Volkmar in 1857 said Mark’s Gospel was written as a parable for Paul and to counter the Book of Revelation. It stands to reason then the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation, who wanted to burn Rome with fire, would feature as an insurrectionist and a murderer in Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s parable being that the Jerusalem church (The Way) rejected Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ (Acts 21:36, Acts 22:22) and chose instead their own Jesus Barabbas of Revelation, whom they believed to be glorified in heaven. Paul is delivered to the Romans. Paul may have been crucified during the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD, but Barabbas was not. Hence the parable that Barabbas was released and Paul’s Jesus Christ was crucified.

Chapter 3: Dogs and Gentiles

This chapter will include more examples of how Mark used parable to create a Jesus that mirrors Paul’s Gospel and Paul’s Jesus. One instance of this has already been demonstrated in chapter two with respect to the tribute. Mark’s Jesus channels Paul on the issue of tribute instead of channeling Revelation, and therefore Mark’s Jesus and Gospel is a parable for Paul and Paul’s Gospel instead of the Jesus and the gospel of Revelation.

Blessed are they that do His commandments…For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. —Revelation 22:14-15

Peake’s Commentary: “dogs” signified impure or lascivious persons, and was also applied by Jews to Pagans (Gentiles).

But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the little dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the little dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.  —Mark 7:27-29

Mark knows the Jerusalem church and their Jesus believe that the children of the kingdom, the Jews (Matthew 8:12), should be first. But Mark has the Gentile woman protest that even the little dogs, meaning the Gentiles or Pagans, are allowed to eat the scraps. Mark’s Jesus agrees, thus endorsing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Again, Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul.

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee…And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. —Mark 3:31-4:12

For Paul and Mark it is not the Gentiles but the family of Jesus who are the “dogs” that are “without”. And those like James, the brother of Jesus, who think they are chief and first because they “do His commandments”, these will be last. Mark’s Jesus makes a similar accusation against his home town (Mark 6:3-6).

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers [of the Law], beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. —Philippians 3:2-3

But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. —Mark 10:31

Saying, These last [Gentiles] have wrought but one hour, and thou [Paul] hast made them equal unto us [the Jewish Christ followers], which have borne the burden and heat of the day…So the last shall be first, and the first last. —Matthew 20:12-16

Mark and Matthew both channel Paul, who is the last and “least” of the apostles, and who does not follow the other Jewish apostles. (1Corinthians 15:8-9, Galatians 1:9-10, Mark 9:38-49, Mark 6:4). And Paul’s Gentile Christian “little dogs”, or the “little ones” or “little children” of the Gentiles, even though they are last, and least, and have labored only one hour, yet they will be first instead of Jesus’ own family and the Torah doing Jewish Christ followers who have borne the burden of the Law and the “heat of the day” (possibly meaning persecution for adhering to Torah and preaching sedition, which is what the Book of Revelation is, sedition).

Chapter 4: Come down from Jerusalem

These parables in Mark owe their origin primarily to the problem that Paul had with “certain” Jewish scribes or teachers of the Law come down to Antioch from James the chief priest of the Jerusalem church. These teachers of the Law caused Peter and the other Jews to separate from Paul’s Gentiles and act like hypocritical Pharisees (separatists). And this caused Paul grief for this excommunication of his Gentile Christians. According to Paul, these Jerusalem church teachers of the Law were expecting Paul’s Christians to convert to Judaism, or at least adhere to certain Jewish traditions and works of the Law in order to share table fellowship with the Jewish Christ followers. This episode in Antioch, which Paul relates in his letter to the Galatians 2:11-14, cannot be emphasized too much in the creation of Mark’s Gospel, because it is the core of Mark’s parables and anti-Jerusalem church polemic. It is a polemic that many confuse with a polemic against the Jews and the sect of the Pharisees (Rabbis), but which, in fact, was mainly directed against the Jewish Saints of the Jerusalem church, and their gospel, and their Jesus. The “hypocritical Pharisees” in Mark are a parable (or euphemism) for the Jewish Saints who separated themselves from Paul’s Gentile Christians. This confusion was later to cause great persecution of the Jewish people and their Rabbis.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed [or condemned]. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews were hypocrites likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel [which I preach], I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. —Gal 2:11-16 (cf. Rev 20:12-13)

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his [Levi’s] house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes (teachers of the Law) and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? —Mark 2:15-16 (note: “scribes of the Pharisees” in the best Greek texts, meaning the scribes of those preaching separation from unclean foods and sinners)

Here is the core of Mark’s argument and parables. For before certain [scribes or teachers of the Law] came down from Jerusalem, Peter and the other Jews were willing to eat with Paul’s Gentile Christians. But after these teachers of the Law came, then Peter and the other Jews separated themselves from the Gentiles like “hypocritical Pharisees”.  “Pharisee” is from the Aramaic “Perushim”, meaning “those who separate themselves from the unholy or unclean.” This “Pharisaic” separation is based on keeping (or doing) “works of the Law”, that is, all the commandments of Jewish Torah. If Paul’s Gentiles could not keep a necessary minimum of the purity “traditions of the elders”, then those come from James in Jerusalem said the Jewish Christ followers had to separate from these Gentile believers. And this became an ongoing problem for Paul, and is immortalized by Mark in “scribes” or “teachers of the Law” and “hypocritical Pharisees”, being a parable or euphemism for Jewish Christ followers (the Jewish Saints) answering only to James and the Jerusalem church. Mark also immortalizes Paul’s rejection in Antioch with the parables of Peter’s rejection of Paul’s suffering servant Christ, and Peter’s denial thrice before the cock crow twice of Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s Gospel, and the parable that all the Jewish disciples likewise deserted Paul’s Jesus when the Jewish Christians deserted Paul in Antioch. They all fall away from Jesus in Mark’s Gospel just as the Jews all fall away from Paul in Antioch. And not just the Jewish disciples, but even Jesus’ own family is to be blamed or condemned.

And when his family heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. And the scribes (teachers of the Law) which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.  —Mark 3:21-22

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes (teachers of the Law), which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his [actually Paul’s] disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes (teachers of the Law) asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? —Mark 7:1-5 Acts 21:21 

For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly [kosher foods], and whose glory is in their shame [circumcision], who mind earthly things. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. —Philippians 3:18-20

Here, as elsewhere, Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul, and “scribes” (teachers of the Law) a parable for “certain” Jews come down to Antioch from James the brother of Jesus, who was “chief priest” of the Jerusalem church. These Jewish followers of Christ “walk” according to the tradition of the elders and works of the Law. But they walk not in the [holy] Spirit according to the truth of Paul’s Gospel. (Galatians 5:10-18).

Chapter 5: As one having authority

Mark not only has in mind to put the teaching of Paul in the mouth of Jesus, but Mark also wants to demonstrate the authority of Paul in opposition to the Judaizing Christ followers come from Jerusalem.

And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. —Mark 1:21-22

Mark’s Jesus is a parable for the authority of Paul and his teaching versus the scribes (teachers of the Law) come down from James and the Jerusalem church.

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee. —Mark 1:27-28

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.  —Mar 16:7

Those in “Galilee” are indeed amazed at this new doctrine of Paul. But Paul was not in Galilee. Paul was teaching and preaching his Gospel among the Gentile nations and Diaspora Jews. Volkmar and later scholars have pointed out that “Galilee of the Gentiles” may be a Markan parable for the Gentile nations and the Gentile cities that Paul went to (Acts 16:9-10, Mark 5:1-2). And the “Sea of Galilee” a parable for the Mediterranean sea. And with Mark’s Jesus being a parable for Paul, it is in Galilee of the Gentiles that Mark’s Jesus is “seen”, being revealed in Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. Mark is not interested in the carnal gospel and Jesus of Revelation and the Jewish Church, which only resulted in calamity for the Jews.

And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth. And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils. —Mark 1:38-39 Acts 16:8-10

Paul preaches and faith heals throughout the Diaspora Jews and Gentile nations.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? —Mark 2:5-7, Mark 5:34, Mark 10:52, Mark 4:40

Paul’s old nemeses, the Jerusalem church scribes (teachers of the Law), question Paul’s doctrine that faith in Jesus will serve as forgiveness of sins for Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 3:11, Romans 1:17). Because the pesher on Habakuk 2:4b in the Dead Sea Scrolls says God will deliver from judgment those Jews who observe the Law, and suffer, and have faith in the Teacher of Righteousness (Pesher Habakuk column 8.1). So they (the zealots for the Law of the Jewish church) were offended (Matt 20:12) at Paul’s teaching.

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with tax collectors and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with tax collectors and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. —Mark 2:16-17

The scribes and Pharisees of the Jerusalem church question Paul’s authority and his willingness to eat with “sinners of the Gentiles” in Antioch.

And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? —Mark 2:18

Disciples like Apollos, who know only the baptism of John, or disciples of the so-called “Pharisees” like Peter ask Paul why the disciples of Paul do not fast. And Mark’s Jesus, like Paul, informs these “old timers” that this is new doctrine for the new Gentiles and his “new” Jesus. And that Paul’s new doctrine has authority even over the old Jewish Sabbath laws.

No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. —Mark 2:21-22

And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?  —Mark 2:23-24

And then Mark sets up the parable of the “betrayal and passion” of Jesus and Paul.

And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace…And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy [kill] him. —Mark 3:4-6

And he taught them, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye made it a den of robbers [Sicarii]. And the scribes and chief priests [of the Jewish church] heard it, and sought how they might destroy [kill] him; for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. —Mar 11:17-18

And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? —Mark 11:27-28

They shall rank the chiefs of the priests after the Chief Priest and his deputy; twelve chief priests to serve in the regular offering before God. –Dead Sea Scrolls, War Scroll, 1QM 2:11

….to bring down the hordes of Belial, the seven vainglorious nations, at the hand of the oppressed [Poor] whom You have redeemed with power and retribution; a wondrous strength. –Dead Sea Scrolls, War Scroll 1QM 11.8-9

On Paul’s last trip to Jerusalem to bring the collection for “the Poor”, once again the “chief priests” and the “scribes” of the Jerusalem church (who were Zealots and Sicarii robbers) question Paul’s authority to teach the things he was teaching among the Gentiles and the Diaspora Jews. Because for Mark, not only “scribes” and “Pharisees” are a parable, but also “chief priests” and “elders” are a parable for the Jerusalem church. And the episode of Paul’s going up to Jerusalem for the last time has been paralleled to the last entry of Jesus Barabbas into Jerusalem. The seditious Jesus Barabbas was likely at odds with the Roman appointed high priest Caiaphas and the family of Annas, whom he would have seen as Roman collaborators financially benefiting from that collaboration. And Paul too will later find himself at odds with the Herodian appointed high priest Ananias, who saw all these members of the Nazarene sect (including Paul) as dangerous and seditious (Acts 24:5 Vulgate). But is seems something of a paradox that a seditious Zealot Nazarene sect would deliver up their leader Jesus Barabbas if that leader was also seditious and anti-Roman. In fact the sect would probably ask for his release. But Paul was not virulently anti-Roman, and the sect would have been more than willing to deliver Paul up to the Roman authorities if Paul was teaching against the Law and traditions, as does Mark’s Jesus. And in fact Paul does not mention in his letters that Jesus was betrayed by one of the twelve, but only that Jesus was “delivered up” (for our sins), which thing Paul “received from the Lord” and not from men (cf. 1Corinthians 2:8). Revelation also does not mention any betrayal. Mark’s story of the betrayal of Jesus is more likely Mark’s parable of Paul’s betrayal by the Zealots and Judas Sicariots (Sicarii) of the Jerusalem church, because Paul was a pestilence to both the Jerusalem church Zealot chief priests and the Temple high priests, and both were trying to destroy him. So there is no paradox in Mark if one knows the parable.

Ananias’ relations to the [Roman] procurator Albinus drew upon him the hatred of the Sicarii; and at the outbreak of the great revolt, when he sided with the party of the king [the Herodians of Herod Agrippa II], the revolutionists not only burnt his palace but killed him and his brother (“B. J.” ii. 17, §§ 6, 9). —Jewish Encyclopedia Acts 23:2-3

And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. But when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude (Many) must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. —Acts 21:18-22

Book 9, Chapter 20, Refutations of all Hersies, Hippolytus of Rome
But as regards judicial decisions, the Essenes are most accurate and impartial. And they deliver their judgments when they have assembled together, numbering at the very least one hundred; and the sentence delivered by them is irreversible. And they honour the legislator next after God; and if any one is guilty of blasphemy against this framer of laws, he is punished.

Matthew 10:4  Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.  

Simon the Zealot Essene and Judas the Sicariot Essene, who “betrayed” Paul and Paul’s Jesus.

See Robert Eisenman and Hippolytus on the Zealot Essenes and Sicarii Essenes. (Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 21)

On the day when he talks with the Censor of the Many they shall count him by the oath of the covenant that Moses established to the Inspector of the Many, they shall enroll him with the covenant oath which Moses established. Damascus Document, Constitution, Life in the New Covenant

Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye the account which I now give unto you… And he saith: I am a Jew… zealous for the law, as also all you are this day: Who persecuted this Way unto death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women…And he [the Lord] said to me: Go, for unto the Gentiles afar off will I send thee. And they heard him until this word [Gentiles] and then lifted up their voice, saying: Away with such an one from the earth. For it is not fit that he should live. Acts 22:1-21 (Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate)

Acts 23:12  When it was day, the Jews made a plot and bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

And then the Zealot “chief priests”, teachers of the Law, and zealot brethren of the Jerusalem church (also called the Way) conspire with the Assassins, Judas Sicariots, to have Paul killed (Acts 23:12-14, Acts 21:11, Mark 10:32-33). But instead Paul is delivered into the hands of the Gentiles (Romans) and accused by the Herodian appointed high priest Ananias of being a seditious ringleader of the seditious sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5 Vulgate). It is a parallel story and a parable of how “the Jews” tried to kill Paul and Paul’s Jesus.

Chapter 6: Another gospel, another spirit

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. —Gal 1:6-9 2Cor 11:13-15 John 8:31

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.  —2Corinthians 11:4-5  Gal 2:12-13 Mark 3:22

And when his disciples James and John [sons of thunder] saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. —Luke 9:54-56, Mark 8:33 (turned and rebuked, as he had Peter), Gal 2:11

Paul and Luke are here speaking of another gospel and another spirit and another Jesus preached by James and the Jerusalem church, who were all Zealots of the Law and works of the Law (Acts 21:20, Acts 22:3). This gospel, this spirit, and this Jesus, like Revelation, are warlike and Judaizing, and of the Devil according to Paul and the Pauline Gospels. It is a Jerusalem church gospel hell bent on overthrowing Roman rule and establishing God’s kingdom here on earth. But, similar to Revelation and like Paul himself, even though Paul preached his own version of the Gospel, this other gospel of the Jerusalem church probably sought to conceal its true intentions and cloak them in coded symbols and words until believers were fully part of the cult (2Corinthians 11:3-5). This helped hide the sedition and also helped fund the “collection” for the Jerusalem church (“the Poor” John 12:6 Gal 2:9-10 Rom 15:26) by Gentiles who might not otherwise wish to be part of sedition against Rome (a.k.a. Babylon). Gentiles may not have been told the whole truth. For example, did the Gentiles know of the “holy spirit” taught by the Dead Sea Scroll Sect (CD 8:19-21)? This Jewish sect’s spirit of holiness was for apocalyptic war with Rome, as was the Poor’s Apocalypse. And what did John the Baptist teach about this holy spirit? Was that too hidden from the Gentiles? Robert Eisenman in his book “James the Brother of Jesus” says that James and John the sons of Zebedee were most likely stand-ins (or parables) for James and John the Pillars of the Jerusalem church. If so then this too was hidden from the Gentiles.

He [Paul] said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
—Acts 19:2-3

Joseph Atwill highlights the use of the Greek word “hedon” (malicious pleasure) used by Flavius Josephus when describing the seditious Jewish “wise men” and “teachers” of first century Judea.

But God remembered the covenant with the forefathers. And He took from Aaron* men of understanding and from Israel wise men and made them* understand, and they digged the well. “The princes digged the well; they digged it, the nobles of the people, by the lawgiver. The well is the Law, and they who digged it are the captivity of Israel who have gone forth out of the land of Judah and sojourned in the land of Damascus, all of whom God called princes. —CD MS A column vi

Now many people came in crowds to him [John the Baptist], for they were greatly moved [maliciously pleased] by hearing his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best  to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. –Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man…a teacher of such men as receive the truth with [malicious] pleasure. –Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination….But these men interpreted some of these signs according to their own [malicious] pleasure….until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction. Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4, Flavius Josephus

Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite; of a city whose name was Gamala; who, taking with him Saddouk, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt: who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery: and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty…So men received what they said with [malicious] pleasure: and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. –Josephus, Antiquities 18.1 (Judas, founder of the sect of the Sicarii)

A tenth century Arabic version of the Testimonium says Jesus was “believed to be the Christ”. This sets up Josephus’ reference (Ant. 20.9.1) to Jesus the brother of James being “called the Christ”. Origen in the third century said Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. This makes one wonder what additional information Origen had that would make him positively assert that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ? It might be noted the Testimonium calls Jesus a “wise man” and he was “a teacher of such people as receive the truth with [hedonistic] pleasure”. But in Wars 6.5.4 Josephus says these “wise men” were deceived in their determination that one from their own country would rule the world (Rev 2:27, 12:5), and that these men interpreted these signs according to their own [hedonistic] pleasure. And this madness is what most motivated these men to war with Rome, resulting in the taking of their city and their own destruction. According to Josephus the correct interpretation of the truth of the oracles and signs was that Vespasian was the world ruler to come out of Judea.

So Josephus does not deny the truth of the oracles and signs, nor that Jesus taught them, but only that these “wise men” interpreted these things according to their own hedonistic pleasure. And Tacitus repeats this.

…men destined to rule the world…the common people, true to the selfish ambitions (hedonism) of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. —Histories 5.13, Tacitus, AD 56-120

The decision to behead John was probably an informed decision on the part of Herod, given that John the Baptist, Jesus [Barabbas], John of Patmos, and Judas of Galilee were all teachers of God’s coming earthly kingdom, a coming Jewish nationalist theocracy, which was “another [violent] spirit” and “another Gospel” than that taught by Paul or Mark’s Jesus. And many thousands of Jews were “zealous of the Law” and received with [malicious] pleasure what was taught by John the Baptist, John of Patmos, Jesus Barabbas, and the Jerusalem church. The Roman appointed temple high priest Ananias also knew that Paul was part of this same seditious sect (Acts 24:5, Acts 22:3, Vulgate) and probably assumed that Paul was teaching the same seditious gospel and spirit as the Jerusalem church and the Book of Revelation. At any rate, Paul was collecting money for this “seditious” Nazarene sect. These considerations along with others lead us to an understanding of other of Mark’s parables, the most significant being that the Jerusalem church rejection of Paul, Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s Jesus became the parable of the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ. A parable which, through lack of understanding, led to terrible consequences over the centuries (Matt 27:25).

Chapter 7: Christ crucified

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. —1Corinthians 2:2

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. —2Corinthians 5:16

For he [Pilate] was beginning to know that the chief priests had delivered Him [Jesus] up on account of envy. But the chief priests vehemently stirred up the crowd, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What are ye willing then that I shall do unto Him Whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify Him. —Mark 15:10-13

Paul is determined to know only Christ crucified. And Mark describes Christ crucified. But, on the face of it, there are several problems with the events that Mark describes leading up to the crucifixion. Firstly, why would Roman appointed “chief priests” of the Jewish temple be “envious” of Jesus? Secondly, why would Roman appointed “chief priests” stir up the crowd to release an insurrectionist, an insurrection in which murder had been committed, possibly murder of Roman soldiers? Thirdly, why would the crowd ask the Roman governor to crucify a man who just days before they hailed as son of David? And fourthly, why would the Roman governor even consider let alone grant a seditious request to release an insurrectionist? Mark says something about a custom (cf. John 18:39 “ye [Jews] have a custom“). These are paradoxical questions. But Mark is all about parables, parallel stories, in which Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul. So which “chief priests” would have been envious of Paul and this Jesus Christ who taught with authority and not as the teachers of the Law? According to Mark’s thinking and Paul’s (Philippians 1:15-17, Acts 13:45-46, Romans 11:11), that would have been the Jerusalem church “chief priests” who were all Zealots of the Law and teachers of the Law. And which “chief priests” would have stirred up the crowd to release an insurrectionist? That too would be the seditious Jerusalem church anti-Roman “opposition chief priests” who were all zealots of the Law (1Macc 2:50, 1Macc 2:54, 1Macc 2:58, Rev 12:5, Rev 1:6, Rev 5:10, Rev 20:6) and wanted to burn Rome with fire Rev 18:4-8. And why would the crowd ask Pilate to release Barabbas and crucify Jesus? Because Paul’s Jesus was not their Messiah. And would Pilate have granted such a seditious request? No, because there was no such request and no such custom and no such Pauline Jesus Christ in 30AD. The story is a parable about how the chief priests, scribes, and elders (Mark 11:27-28) of the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:18-21) were to later reject Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ and chose instead their own Jesus Barabbas of the Book of Revelation. And it is a parable about how the actions of the crowd and the Sicarios (Acts 23:12-14) and the “opposition chief priests” in combination with the Roman appointed “high priests” resulted in betraying Paul into the hands of the Romans even though Paul had been an “innocent” man. Mark’s parable preserves the well known doctrine that the historical Jesus was crucified in 30AD, but without revealing (too openly) that Mark is telling a parable about Paul. One must know the parable to explain the paradox of two Jesuses (Matt 27:16-17) and a Roman governor releasing an insurrectionist and condemning an innocent man.

Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest. —Mark 11:10

“What I did not expect [in the Oberammergau Passion Play] was that a story I knew so well as written text was so profoundly unconvincing as enacted drama. The play started early in the morning with Palm Sunday, and the huge stage was filled with a crowd shouting approval and acclamation for Jesus as he entered Jerusalem. But by late afternoon the play had progressed to Good Friday, and that same huge crowd was now shouting condemnation and demanding crucifixion. But nothing in the play explained how the crowd had changed it’s mind so completely.” –“The Power of Parable”, John Dominic Crossan, 2012

Mark’s Jesus has already rejected the type of worldly Messiah the crowd acclaims in Mark 11:10. And Mark’s chief priests have stirred up the crowd to reject Mark’s Jesus in the same way the chief priests of the Jerusalem church and the crowd (Way) would later reject Paul and his Jesus. So there is no paradox. The story of Paul’s last Passover to Jerusalem has been overlaid onto the historical Jesus. And the same type of Jesus the crowd wants and acclaims is the same type of Jesus the crowd gets in the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation. The idea is, as in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the crowd “chose poorly”.

Chapter 8: Know all parables

And when his family heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. And the scribes [teachers of the Law] which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils….Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. —Mark 3:23-33 1QS4:11

In ancient times being “beside oneself” or “insane” was many times considered a sign of demonic possession. Mark’s Jesus here says the Jerusalem church (teachers of the Law come down from Jerusalem – Gal 2:12) and Jesus’ family are in danger of never having forgiveness and eternal damnation because they have blasphemed Paul’s Holy Spirit and rejected Paul and Paul’s Jesus as being insane and demonically possessed. Insanity was an accusation leveled against Paul Acts 26:24 2Cor 5:13.

And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.  —Mark 4:2-9 Matt 21:43

Paul is the sower around the great sea, the Mediterranean (1Corinthians 3:6). Birds of the air from Satan (Jubilees 11:10, 2Corinthians 11:13-15, Mark 4:15) are those sent by James to Antioch (Galatians 2:12) to pluck up Paul’s word (Gospel) to rob Paul of his labors. Paul’s Gospel falls on “stony ground”, the Jews, but in particular the “rock” Peter was offended (stumbled) and fell away (Galatians 2:12, Mark 14:29-30) when tribulation arose from James because of Paul’s Gospel (word). The Jewish Christians, including Peter (Mark 8:29-33, Matt 16:20-23) and James and John (Mark 10:37), the “Pillars” of the Jerusalem Church (Galatians 2:9), expect a world ruling Messiah. So the cares (or things) of “this world” choke the word. The “good ground” that brought forth a hundredfold is Paul’s Gentile churches.

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?  —Mark 4:11-13, Romans 11:5-11, Acts 28:25-28

Which Jesus knowing, saith to them: Why do you reason, because you have no bread? Do you not yet know nor understand? Have you still your heart [mind] blinded? Having eyes, see you not? And having ears, hear you not? Neither do you remember?….And he said to them: How do you not yet understand? —Mark 8:11-22 2Cor 4:3-4 2Cor 3:14 1QS4:11

Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them…for they were sore afraid…And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. —Mark 9:2-7

Mark 9:2-7 repurposes a Jerusalem church appearance claim to authorize Paul’s Gospel Mark 9:31-35 1Cor 9:19, and Paul does the same 1Cor 15:5-9. Paul is last of all and servant of all, and teaches Christ crucified, just as Mark’s Jesus does, but the other Jews are afraid (Gal 2:12), and do not hear God’s son (Rom 8:14) even though commanded to do so. As in the Matt 28:16-20 Jesus appearance, Mark probably has in mind Paul’s great commission to the Gentiles. Theodore Weeden said Mark drew on the traditions of those preaching another Jesus (apparently including this transfiguration account) but did so in order to refute them. In this case the worldly glory the Jewish disciples seek is refuted by Jesus telling them he must instead suffer and die (Mark 9:9-10) to save all nations which believe on him (including the hated Romans). But the scribes (teachers of the Law come from James) and the Jewish disciples are a faithless generation (Mark 9:14-19) and do not heed Paul’s Gospel of faith.

The reason the Jewish disciples are always afraid in Mark’s Gospel:

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

The Jewish Zealots of the Law believed that God would save the Jewish nation if only the Jews were zealous of God’s Law. So any Jew teaching against the Law (like Paul for example) might very well end up dead at the hands of the Zealots and the Sicarii for being a traitor to the Jewish nation.

The family of Jesus stands without and they do not know Paul’s mystery of the kingdom, nor do they understand Paul’s Gospel, nor do they understand Mark’s parables (but see Mark 12:12). And neither do the teachers of the Law from James know and understand, nor do the “hypocritical Pharisees” like Peter and Barnabas, who paid heed to these teachers of the Law, but by which Law no man can be saved. Nor do the Pillars (Gal 2:6) of the Jerusalem church hear and understand God’s son Paul (Gal 4:6 Rom 8:15 Gal 1:16 Mark 9:2-7 Mark 15:39 Mark 1:10-11). And because they still do not hear and understand Paul, and because they cause the “little ones” of the Gentiles to stumble, and because they are blind and desire the kingdom and power and glory of this world, then they will never have forgiveness in Mark’s Gospel. And after the first Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem, when Mark was writing, there were none left to forgive. Rome did not fall as Revelation 18 would have it, but instead Jerusalem and the Jerusalem church fell as Mark 13:1-2 says. Showing again that Mark is a counter gospel and correction to the Jerusalem church and their book of Revelation.

He said, Go and tell this people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving. Make the heart (mind) of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts (minds), and turn and be healed. Then I said, For how long, O Lord? And he answered: Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken. —Isaiah 6:9-11

And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of robbers (insurrectionists).  —Mark 11:17

Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, May no one ever eat fruit from you again. —Mark 11:13-14 Jeremiah 8:13

Mark’s “den of robbers” is a parable for the Zealots of the Law and insurrectionists who took over the Jewish temple during the first Jewish revolt. Mark’s fig tree is a parable for the destruction of the Jewish temple and a Jewish church that yielded no fruit to Paul’s Gospel (cf. Matt 21:43, Matt 3:9-10). And Mark says those who are without, the family of Jesus and the Jerusalem church, who rejected Paul, Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s Jesus, and who instead asked for another Jesus called Barabbas, their hearts (minds) were calloused (blinded) for their own destruction, and for the destruction of the Jewish temple and Jerusalem (2Cor 4:3-4, 2Cor 3:14).

And from this, in time, came Matthew’s “blood libel”:

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. —Matthew 27:25-26

And with him they crucify two robbers (insurrectionists), one on his right hand, and one on his left….And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ha! Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross. And in like manner also the chief priests mocking him among themselves with the scribes said, He saved others, himself he cannot save….And they (the insurrectionists) that were crucified with him also reviled him. —Mark 15:27-32, Mark 14:58

For we know that if the earthly tent (or temple) we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. —2Corinthians 5:1

Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul. And the “chief priests” and “scribes” and “robbers” of the Jerusalem church mock Paul for being unable to save himself, even though Paul had “saved others” (the Gentiles). Mark is perhaps suggesting that Paul, like the “robber” Jesus Barabbas, was executed by the Romans. Nero believed that Christians (possibly Revelation type Jewish Zealots) set fire to Rome in 64AD, and Nero had many Christians rounded up and executed. Mark blames the Jerusalem church and the Jews for the death of Paul, which Mark portrays in parable as the death of Paul’s “innocent” Jesus. But it was really “another Jesus”, the Jerusalem church’s Jesus Barabbas, who was executed by the Roman governor Pilate.

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. —Mark 15:39 Gal 4:6 Rom 8:15 Mark 9:7

Having sacrificed Paul’s Jesus Christ as a sin offering for the sins of the Gentiles and, as was the custom, having let go another Jesus, Barabbas, bearing the sins of the Satanic Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:8-9, 2Corinthinans 11:3-4, 2Corinthians 11:13-15, Mark 4:15, Mark 8:33, Luke 22:3), Mark then has the Roman declare Paul’s Jesus Christ (or Paul) the true Son of God, and not this Jerusalem church Jesus Barabbas son of the Father.

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. —Mark 16:7-8

Mark’s Gospel ends where it began, by pointing the reader back to the appearance of Paul’s Jesus in Galilee of the Gentiles, thus foreshadowing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. The women are commanded to be not afraid, but are afraid, and are commanded to tell, but they tell no man and keep it secret. So the Jerusalem church and Peter are not knowing the secret (mystery) of Paul’s revelation and “great commission” to the Gentiles, nor do they know Paul’s Gospel nor Paul’s Jesus, who must suffer and die so that all (even the Gentiles) might be saved (from death and the wrath to come). The historical Jerusalem church only knows “another Jesus”, the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation, who will come in the clouds of heaven to redeem Israel and rule the Gentiles with a rod (scepter) of iron. (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:12, Gal 1:17) 

Volkmar’s 1857 hypothesis of parallel stories (parables) seems to logically suggest these conclusions. Volkmar did not create the parables, only the key to understanding them. Mark created the parables. And, ironically, Mark knew if the parables were understood, then the people would not believe in the Gospel!

Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel. —Mark 1:14-15

Moses Hess (“Rome and Jerusalem”) explains that these words (“believe in the gospel”) are suspicious and can hardly have been said by Jesus but were post-Pauline, meaning “believe in Paul’s Gospel” about the good news of Jesus Christ preached to the Gentiles.

He said to them, Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear. Consider carefully what you hear, he continued. With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. —Mark 4:21-25

Mark had just explained the simple literal meaning of the “parable of the sower”. But Mark did not explain the hidden parallel meaning of those sent by James (Satan or Mastema) to pluck up Paul’s word. So what is Mark saying in Mark 4:21-25? That even the hidden meaning of the parables will be revealed? And then Mark seems to reference the Q saying of Matthew 7:1-2 about the Jewish Christians judging the Gentile with respect to Jewish customs, and the Q parable of Matthew 25:29-30 about the good and faithful servant Paul being given more converts and the Jerusalem church less, for which cause the unprofitable chief priests of the Jerusalem church would be envious of Paul (according to Mark).

And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it: and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things. —Mark 4:33-34

But Paul did not speak these kind of parables, although Paul did teach allegories (Galatians 4:24-26) and reveal mysteries (Colossians 1:26-27, Romans 16:25-27). So the conclusion seems to be that Mark’s Jesus is not just a parable for Paul, but also a parable for Mark himself as a teacher of parables. And without a parable spake Mark not unto them. And this is how Mark creates his Gospel of Jesus, by overlaying the historical death of Jesus Barabbas with Paul’s gospel and Paul’s difficulties with “the Jews”, even the Jews of the Jerusalem church. And by doing this Mark takes the religious authority away from “the Jews” and gives it to Paul, Paul’s Gospel, Paul’s Jesus, and Paul’s Gentile churches. 

Volkmar held that the parabolic meaning of the Gospels was known to the early Church. But in time the parabolic meaning was forgotten, and the Gospels were then taken as simple literal historical narrative. This forgetfulness had terrible consequences for the Jewish people.

Chapter 9: Afterword and Notes

It is apparent that Mark’s Gospel and Mark’s Jesus (as well as Paul’s, Matthew’s, Luke’s, and John’s) are different in theme and spirit than the Gospel and Jesus of the Book of Revelation. Over the years there had been many attempts to explain the different perspectives of these two Gospels. After some labor to understand these differences, I came across the work of Gustav Volkmar. This blog is an update to Volkmar’s hypothesis in the light of more recent New Testament research.

Specifically the current investigation revolves around (among other things) a textual variant of Matthew 27: 16-17, which verses Matthew had borrowed and adapted from Mark.

Matthew 27:15-17 And at the feast the governor had been accustomed to release one to the multitude, a prisoner, whom they willed. And they had then a noted prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. They therefore having been gathered together, Pilate said to them, `Whom will ye I shall release to you? Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?’

Taken by itself these verses in Matthew would not present too much of a problem. However, there is a problem. Barabbas in Aramaic is “bar Abba”, son of the father, and is another title or surname for Jesus Christ. In addition, Paul in his letters speaks in unfriendly terms of those [come from Jerusalem] preaching “another Jesus” (2Cor 11:14, Gal 1:6-9). Further, Mark asserts this “noted prisoner” was one who had been involved in insurrection [against Rome], and that murder had been committed in the insurrection.

These things (along with others) suggest that there were two competing Gospels of Jesus. There was Paul’s otherworldly Gospel of a Jesus Christ who preached obedience to Rome (as do the four Pauline Gospels). And then there was the Jerusalem Church worldly Gospel of a Jesus Barabbas who, as in the Book of Revelation, preached that Rome would be burned with fire, and that Jerusalem and the Jewish Church (“the Jews”) would rule the world instead of Rome.

And it was these two competing Gospels that led to Mark (and the other Pauline Gospels) being a parable for Paul and Paul’s difficulties with “the Jews” of the Jerusalem church. With the consequences being (according to the Pauline Gospels) that “the Jews” and the Jewish church and the Jewish Temple were burned with fire by the Romans for rejecting Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ and Paul’s Gospel, and choosing instead their own seditious Jesus Barabbas and seditious gospel the Book of Revelation. The four Pauline Gospels are therefore intentional parable and polemic against the Jerusalem church. And, on the other hand, John’s letters in Revelation to the seven churches in Asia are a not so veiled attack on Paul who says he is an apostle but is not, but is a liar, and Paul’s followers in Asia, who say they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (see G.B. Caird, “The Revelation of St. John The Divine”, Harpers, 1966). John might have been willing to revise Revelation to more easily take over Paul’s churches in Asia, but Revelation still remained entirely at odds with Paul’s “render honor and taxes unto Caesar”. Indeed it is possible that John’s vision of the Lord was meant to counter or correct Paul’s vision of the Lord (2Cor 12:2-4). Paul’s vision was of love and obedience to Rome (Romans 13:1-10) , but John’s vision was one of burning hate and burning Rome with fire (Revelation 18:6-9).

An Example of the Parabolic Method

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

(compare also: John 12:36-40)

John is here alluding to those Jewish Christians in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-16) who had believed on the sower Paul’s word (Gospel) and Paul’s Jesus. But certain men (birds of the air and chief apostles) came from James (Satan 2Cor 11:3-5) and plucked up Paul’s word which he had sowed along the way. And the Jewish Christians, including Peter, separated themselves like “hypocritical Pharisees” from Paul’s little ones, the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians, like Peter, were plants on stony ground that had no root, and they quickly sprang up and just as quickly fell away. The Jewish Christians, like Peter, denied Paul and his Gospel and his Jesus thrice before the cock crow twice when persecution arose from James and the Jerusalem church because of Paul’s word and Paul’s Jesus. The cares of this world, the riches, the power, the glory, and the kingdoms of this world in the Jewish gospel, the Book of Revelation, choked out Paul’s good seed and Paul’s word, and all the Jewish Christians (and many Gentiles as well) in Asia fell away from Paul and Paul’s Jesus. These Jewish Christians were of their father the Devil, like the murderer and liar and false prophet of Revelation, Jesus Barabbas, and like James, the brother of Jesus Barabbas, and like the false prophet John of Patmos. And because they broke the commandments to not murder and not steal, as did Jesus Barabbas and Judas Sicarios, (and as did the Romans), they were hypocrites (Wars of the Jews 7.8.1) according to Paul and the Gospels.

And this, in all likelihood, is what the early Roman Church intended for us to understand by these parables. Otherwise the Church would not have created the parables. The early Roman Church did not like the Jewish Ebionite (Poor) “heresy” of the Jerusalem church, and possibly for good reason. The zealot Jewish Christians had possibly set fire to Rome in 64AD, or at least Nero said the “Christians” did. And the Jewish Christian gospel of Revelation commands that Rome (Babylon) be burned with fire.

Rev 18:4-8 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven: and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. Render [ye (my people)] to her as she also hath rendered to you: and double [ye] unto her double, according to her works. In the cup wherein she hath mingled [to you], mingle ye double unto her. As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her. Because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen and am no widow: and sorrow I shall not see. Therefore, shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning and famine. And she shall be burnt with the fire…

See “Baker’s New Testament Commentary” on the plural imperatives in Rev 18:6. As in other religions, it is the invisible territorial ape in heaven that commands, and the believing territorial apes on earth (my people) that do the commands and reap the rewards. However, compare Rev 17:16 where others will burn Rome with fire. For John of Patmos the main thing was Rome burns. This might explain why John was exiled to the island of Patmos.

Note: The Apocalypse of John (Revelation) is an extremely anti-Roman text. But the Gospel of John is by another author and is an extremely anti-Jewish text. This apparently was related to the on going disturbances of the Jews in attempting to throw off Roman rule. Since the rebellion against Rome was also religious in nature, the Gospel polemics against the Jews and vice versa the polemics in Revelation against Rome are equally vicious. This is not unusual for a supernatural and demonic holy war, which dimension these polemics are engaged in. The wars in heaven between spiritual beings are realized here on earth in the words and actions of territorial apes that believe these things (or claim to believe them). The Gospel of John is equally severe in its criticism of those Jews who had believed on [Paul’s] Jesus, but then did not continue in his word (that is Paul’s word). The Gospel of John (like Paul and the other Gospels) makes this into a supernatural holy war between the Pauline Christians and “the demonic Jews” who are opposing Paul’s word (Gospel), Paul’s Jesus, and Rome. And so the Gospel of John demonizes all the Jews, most of whom probably never even heard of Jesus – either Paul’s Jesus Christ, or the Jerusalem church’s Jesus Barabbas.

And yet there were certain Jews (the Jews) who had heard of Paul’s Jesus and the Jerusalem church’s Jesus. These Jews were Jewish Christians and members of the Way in Jerusalem. And these Jews (the Jews) were all zealous of the Law and trying to kill Paul and Paul’s version of Jesus, for they did not believe in him.

John 7:1-5 After these things Jesus [Paul] walked in Galilee [of the Gentiles]; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him…For neither did his brethren believe in him [i.e. Paul and Paul’s Jesus].

Acts 21:20-22 Thou seest, brother [Paul], how many thousands there are among the Jews that have believed: and they are all zealous for the law. Now they have heard of thee that thou teachest those Jews, who are among the Gentiles to depart from Moses: saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor walk according to the custom. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Acts 22:3-4  And he [Paul] saith: I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the Law of the fathers, and was zealous for the Law, as also all you are this day: Who persecuted this Way unto death…Acts 22:21-22  And he [Jesus] said to me: Go, for unto the Gentiles afar off will I send thee. And they [of the Way] heard him until this word [Gentiles] and then lifted up their voice, saying: Away with such an one from the earth. For it is not fit that he should live.

Catholic Confraternity Text note on Acts 22:4 — Way: the Christian manner of life.

Mark 1:3  A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ye the Way of the Lord; make straight his paths.

Matthew 3:1-13 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the Way of the Lord, make his paths straight….But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

Luke 3:4-9 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the Way of the Lord, make his paths straight….Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Romans 7:4-5 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Mat 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Peoples New Testament (1891): Matthew 3:9 Think not to say . . . We have Abraham to our father. They believed that Abraham’s race was to be saved, if all else were destroyed. John destroys this refuge of sin. Of these stones. Pointing, perhaps, to the stones of the Jordan. In thus sinking the higher claims of Judaism, John points to the Gentiles, who were to become Abraham’s children by faith. (See Galatians 3:29) Matthew 3:10 The axe laid at the root of the trees. A sign that the tree is to be cut down. The tree meant is the Jewish nation. Every tree. A fruitless fig-tree was afterward made by our Lord the representative of the whole Jewish nation (Luke 13:6) (Mark 11:13-14) (Matt 7:16-19)

Matt 11:10-12 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy Way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Matt 11:11 NET Bible note: After John comes a shift of eras. The new era is so great that the lowest member of it (the one who is least in the kingdom of God) is greater than the greatest one of the previous era.

This shift of eras is the coming of Paul (the least of the apostles) and Paul’s Gospel and Paul’s Jesus to the least of the Gentiles, the fall of Jerusalem, and the beginning of the Roman church. But that shift of eras is retrojected back onto the ahistorical Pauline Jesus of the Gospels. The historical Jesus was Jesus Barabbas who takes the kingdom of heaven by violence and force, like the historical John the Baptist, and like John of Patmos and the Book of Revelation.

He [John the Baptist] came to the Jews and summoned them to freedom [like Judas of Galilee], saying: “God hath sent me, that I may show you the Way of the Law, wherein ye may free yourselves from many holders of power. And there will be no mortal ruling over you, only the Highest who hath sent me.” And when the people had heard this, they were joyful [maliciously pleased]. And there went after him all Judæa, that lies in the region round Jerusalem. And he did nothing else to them save that he plunged them into the stream of the Jordan and dismissed them, instructing them that they should cease from evil works, and [promising] that there would [then] be given them a ruler who would set them free, and subject to them all [nations] that is not in submission; but no one of whom we speak (the Jews?), would himself be subjected. —Slavonic Josephus, Wars, (Follows on B. J. II. vii. 2.)

…instructing them that they should cease from evil works, and [promising] that there would [then] be given them a ruler who would set them free, and subject to them all [nations]

So, according to Slavonic Josephus, John says that if they do works of the Law (cease from evil works) and are zealous of the Law (the Way of the Law), then the Jews of the Way will be set free by a ruler (Messiah), and they will rule all nations, just as Revelation says (Rev 2:26-28 Rev 22:14). And this is sedition and madness, and why Herod beheaded John. But, for those who believe in the resurrection, the morning star and the tree of life, martyrdom is only a temporary inconvenience, or so they say. This goes to show the power of propaganda, the gullibility of the masses, and the deceitfulness of their leaders.

2Co 11:4-5 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

Therefore, if those from James and Jerusalem were preaching another Jesus, another gospel, and another spirit than Paul, then is stands to reason the Gentile churches of Paul would write Gospels and a Jesus that would mirror Paul so as to counter the teaching of those sent by James and the Jerusalem Community. This is what Volkmar postulated in 1857. However, there are some exceptions in Matthew that seem to be derived from the the Judaizers (Matt 5:18-19,Matt 7:22-23, cf. Mark 9:38-40). Paul was the “least” of the apostles. But for the most part the four Gospels mirror Paul, with the exception that because the Gospels hide the fact they are talking about the Jerusalem church (an embarrassment), then the four Gospels appear (are) very anti-Jewish, which Paul was not (but see Acts 21:28-29) . Paul was anti-Law (Gal 3:19-22) because he thought the Law could not save, and was passing away along with the present evil age. A minor miscalculation, apparently.

Some notes on Q:

Luke 3:7-9 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew 3:7-10 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Luke 3:7-9 addresses all the Jews, but Matthew 3:7-10 targets the religious leaders. The historical John and the Dead Sea Scroll Sect may well have thought the Roman appointed high priests were a generation of vipers, but it is unlikely that John would have said that God would raise up children to Abraham from these stones (i.e. the Gentiles) to replace the Jews, which is Paul’s teaching. As Robert H. Eisenman and SGF Brandon have pointed out, the Gentile Gospels turn the Dead Sea Scrolls around 180 degrees to attack “the Jews” and the Jerusalem church (cf. Weeden). Paul calls the Jerusalem church serpents, and Mark 4:2-7 says they do not bring forth fruit to Paul’s Gospel. And, according to Paul, the Jewish Law worketh wrath, and so do the Romans. Both Luke and Matthew are probably referring to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, as does the parable of the barren fig tree, and as does the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:1-9, Matt 21:33-45). The four Gentile Gospels, written after the destruction of the Jerusalem, are explaining why the Jews were destroyed. “The Jews” and the Jerusalem church rejected Paul, Paul’s Jesus, and Paul’s pacifist Gospel, and instead chose Jesus Barabbas of Revelation. So God rejected “the Jews” and destroyed their city Matthew 22:7.

Mat 5:43-44 (Luke 6:27-28) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

1QS 1:7-10 He shall admit into the Covenant of Grace all those who have freely devoted themselves to the observance of God’s precepts, that they may be joined to the counsel of God and may live perfectly before Him in accordance with all that has been revealed concerning their appointed times, and that they may love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in God’s design, and hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt in God’s vengeance. –Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls

One might think Jesus is teaching against the Dead Sea Scroll Sect. But in fact it is the Gentile churches of Paul and Paul’s Jesus that are teaching against the Jerusalem church and the Dead Sea Scroll Sect. The idea being that one does not wish the Gentile Christians to follow the disastrous teaching of the Jerusalem church and the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation who wants to burn Rome with fire. So subtly change the Jerusalem church teaching 180 degrees. This is further confirmed by Matt 5:41 in which if a Roman soldier compels one to carry his pack for one mile, then carry it two miles (cf. Mark 15:21). According to Theodore Weeden (Mark – Traditions in Conflict), Mark drew on the traditions of those preaching another Jesus (2Cor 11:4-5), but did so in order to refute them or transform them. This is also what Gustav Volkmar said in 1857, and more recently SGF Brandon, and Robert Eisenman. This also true for the Q source in Matthew and Luke.

Luke 14:27 may and may not be talking about bearing the cross for Jewish sedition against Rome. “Bearing your cross” was later a metaphor for Paul’s Gospel of the cross, which freed one from bondage to the Law, and entailed persecution for the sake of Paul’s Gospel, and not persecution for the sake of Torah. This is why Peter rejects Paul and Paul’s Gospel in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-12, Luke 6:22-23), and why Peter rejects Mark’s Jesus and Mark’s Gospel of the cross in Mark 8:31-34, and why Mark includes this same “saying” in Mark 8:34 as a counter-rejection of Peter. Peter is expected to follow Paul’s example, and Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s Jesus. But Peter and all the Jews fall away from Paul and Paul’s Jesus in Antioch, and also later in Jerusalem, just as they all fall away from Mark’s Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. So Luke 14:27 is metaphor, and yet still based on the Roman crucifixion of Jesus, possibly for being overly zealous of the Law and the messianic kingdom (4Maccabees 17:21, John 2:16-17, Acts 21:20-21).

Luke 6:22-23 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake…for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. Note this is like Galatians 2:11-14 where some came from James, and then Peter and the other Jews “hypocritically” separated from Paul’s Gentiles. From whence we have hypocritical separatists – which in Hebrew is hypocritical Pharisees or Perushim. So Q is again here post Pauline and, in this case, very much in line with Mark’s Gospel. Paul’s experience in Antioch with Peter and some scribes (teachers of the Law) come from James is a big deal for Mark and also for Q. It all has to do with the Jerusalem “church” rejection of Paul and Paul’s Jesus for being “lawless”. For which cause these Jerusalem church zealots of the Law and Sicarii try to kill Paul (Acts 21 and 22). In the same way the Gospels later portray “the Jews” as trying to kill Jesus. However Luke 6:20-21 seems to go back to the Poor of the Jerusalem church, and a temporal kingdom of God, characteristic of the Nazarenes. So again Q appears to be a mixed bag, as one would expect, because Pauline Christianity evolved from Nazarene sedition (Acts 24:5).

Other Notes:

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

The Temple had been destroyed when Mark was writing, but Mark 13:10 prolongs the time of the end until after Paul’s Gospel (Gal 1:6) has been preached to all nations (Rom 11:25, Hab 2:1-4).

Mark 12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country (or journey).

Mark 13:34-37 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Mar 14:33-37 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy…And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

Mark 12:1-9 (Matt 21:33-45) is the parable of the wicked husbandmen, in which a man planted a vineyard and goes on a far journey. But because the wicked husbandmen denied and killed the man’s servants and son, then when the lord of the vineyard comes he will destroy the husbandmen and give the vineyard to others (KJV meaning the Gentiles). In Mark 13:34-37 the disciples are told that Jesus is like a man that goes on a far journey, and that they are to watch and not sleep (Hab 2:1-4). But in Mark 14 the Jewish disciples do not watch but sleep, and deny Jesus thrice, and betray him. What then will the lord of the vineyard do when he comes?

Matthew 21:43-45 Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce fruit in abundance. When the chief priests and the Pharisees (Lk. scribes) heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them

Matt 21:43-45 and Luke 20:19 add to Mark 12:1-9 “chief priests and Pharisees and scribes” which is probably a parable (or euphemism) for the Jerusalem church. They deny Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s Gospel (Gal 2:9-16), choosing instead Jesus Barabbas of John’s Apocalypse (Rev 2:26-27); therefore the kingdom of God will be taken from them (Matt 21:43) and given to the Gentile believers (Mark 4:20). Paul (the sower) was concerned about his people following this other Jesus and this other gospel (Gal 1:6-9, 2Cor 11:3-5, 2Cor 11:13-15, Rom 13:1-4). It need hardly be pointed out the only other group besides Paul’s expecting the coming “kingdom of God” was the Jerusalem church.

Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Matt 15:10-15 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls “the sons of light” were those Jews who belonged to the DSS Sect or the Jewish Way Community. The “sons of darkness” were the Romans and Jews who had accommodated themselves to Roman rule. But for Paul, the converts to his Gentile-Roman accommodation gospel were the sons of light. And in the Pauline Gospels, the Jewish Way Community are “blind guides of the blind and both will fall into the pit [of Roman destruction]”. So being blind, one might assume they too are sons of darkness, and also hypocrites according to Paul and the four Gospels. Romans 2:18-21 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness…Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? ……2Corinthians 11:13-14 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into a messenger (angel) of light.

Mark 15:21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

Ellicott’s Commentary Mark 15:21 makes the interesting suggestion: “St. Paul (Rom 16:13) speaks of the mother of Rufus as being also his mother—i.e., endeared to him by many proofs of maternal kindness—and so we are led to the belief that the wife of Simon of Cyrene must, at some time or other, at Antioch or Corinth, and afterwards at Rome, have come within the inner circle of St. Paul’s friends. This, in its turn, connects itself with the prominence given to “men of Cyrene” in St. Luke’s account of the foundation of the Gentile Church of Antioch (Acts 11:20,13:1-2).” Gustav Volkmar (1857) said the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is a parable for Paul. Therefore, is Mark making an honorable mention of the family of Simon for the assistance they gave to Paul in helping Paul bear his cross in Antioch and later in Rome, metaphorically speaking? This would be consistent with Mark’s parabolic emphasis on Paul and Antioch in his Gospel (e.g. Mark 3:21-22, Gal 2:11-14, Mark 4:2-6). It is ironic that Simon Peter is told to take up the cross in Mark 8:34, but instead Simon of Cyrene does. It is equally ironic that Mark’s Jesus Christ takes up the cross, but Jesus Barabbas does not. Simon of Cyrene follows Paul in Antioch, but Simon Peter does not.

Mar 11:2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.

Zec 9:9-10 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

Given Mark’s tendenz, what Mark probably has in mind is that his Jesus is not a warrior king like the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation. Again, theologia crucis vs. theologia gloriae. But Paul’s and Mark’s Jesus was rejected by “the Jews” Mark 15:7-15 Matt 23:37 Luke 23:28. Of course Paul’s Jesus was not presented by Pilate to the Jews in 30AD because Paul’s Jesus did not then exist. And it would be unrealistic to expect “the Jews” to choose Paul’s Jesus at a later date when the Jewish Temple had by then (68AD) become a “den of thieves” and a stronghold of insurrectionists (like Mark’s Barabbas). And while it might be difficult to know the historical Jesus from the sources, nonetheless one can reasonably infer from Mark’s parabolic Gospel that Mark (like Paul) did not approve of the “other Jesus” and the “other Gospel” being preached by the Jerusalem church and James, the brother of the Lord. (2Cor 11:3-5 Gal 1:8)

…later date when the Jewish Temple had by then (68AD) become a “den of thieves“ and a stronghold of insurrectionists…

Mark 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

SGF Brandon proposed in his 1967 book “Jesus and the Zealots” that Mark 11:17 almost certainly refers to when the Jewish rebels stopped the daily sacrifice for Caesar (“all nations”) and made the Jewish temple a stronghold of Zealots. And this agrees well with the fact that Mark includes Barabbas in his parable. Mark has carefully crafted these verses from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11 and is taking Paul’s teaching about the believing Gentiles (“all nations”) being equal with the Jews (Gal 6:15-16) and contrasting that with Barabbas and the den of thieves/lestes/Zealots. In fact Paul is attacked by his own Way (Zealot Jerusalem church) for supposedly bringing Gentiles (“all nations”) into the Temple area reserved for Jews (Acts 21:28). But to Barabbas, the Roman appointed high priests were a “den of thieves” because of the sacrifices for Caesar (“all nations”) among other things. So of course one might understand why Zealots like Barabbas would not be happy with the Temple high priests making sacrifices to God to benefit their enemy, Caesar.

Luke 7:36-50 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner…..And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

Luke is referring to Simon Peter (Cephas) in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). From which we can understand the Gospels use “Pharisee” as a euphemism for the ritually clean Jewish believers who separate themselves from Paul’s unclean Gentiles. The same can be said of “scribes” and “chief priests”. These too are a euphemism for the “teachers of the Law” sent by the “chief priests” of the Jerusalem church to spy out Paul and his followers. Out of an abundance of narrative fun, Luke makes Mary a sinner (cf. John 12:3-8), and Mark 14:3-11 changes Simon Peter into an unclean leper. And on this “rock” and foil to Paul and Paul’s Jesus, Mark will build his church. Thus adding another touch of irony to Mark’s parables.

Mark calls them Pharisees to hide the fact that they were of the believers of the Jerusalem church. Of course they didn’t believe in Paul’s Jesus, they believed in their own Jesus Barabbas. But this is an embarrassment to the Gospel writers. Mark wanted to attack the Jerusalem church under the euphemism of “hypocritical Pharisees, scribes (teachers of the Law), and chief priests”. The Apocalypse of John proves they still had a fairly large presence in the Diaspora. And this, Gutav Volkmar said, was the reason Mark wrote his Gospel, to counter those still believing in John’s worldly glory and works based Apocalypse.

robertheisenman.com/every-plant-which-my-heavenly-father-has-not-planted-shall-be-uprooted/

Who was the only authorized sower (planter) as far as Paul’s churches were concerned?

Mar 4:2-6  And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,  Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower (planter) to sow (plant):  And it came to pass, as he sowed (planted), some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.  And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:  But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

The “fowls of the air” are those sent by James (Mastema) to pluck up the seed that Paul sowed (planted) to rob Paul of his labors (Jubilees 11:10). And Peter (petros) was stony ground. He quickly accepted Paul’s word (seed) but just as quickly fell away, and denied Paul thrice (“I know not the man”) when some came from James the chief priest. And the other Jews in Antioch did likewise. But the Gentiles brought forth a hundredfold to Paul’s Gospel.

1Co 3:4-8  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

Schisms were already rampant. And some in Asia were already trying to kill Paul. No wonder why Paul wanted to pass over to Macedonia. He said the Lord told him to do it!  Maybe Paul had a vision of his own death at the hand of Zealots of the Law, his own Yahad!

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;

2Co 1:8-10  For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:  But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us;

Act 21:27-28  And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Matthew 10:4  Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.  

See Robert Eisenman and Hippolytus on the Zealot Essenes and the Sicarii Essenes. (Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 21)

Simon the Zealot Essene and Judas the Sicariot Essene, who “betrayed” Paul and Paul’s Jesus. Simon Peter (Cephas), along with the Jerusalem Yahad (church), were all zealous of the Law. Therefore one must wonder if this Simon is the same as he who “betrayed” Paul and Paul’s Jesus in Antioch?

Gal 2:11-12 But when Peter was come to Antioch [Asia], I withstood him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain [teachers of the Law] came from James [the chief priest in Jerusalem], he did eat with the nations.

Mark 3:22 And the scribes [teachers of the Law] which came down from [James the chief priest in] Jerusalem said, He [Paul] hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

Mark 14:37-44 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?…43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve….from the chief priests [James in Jerusalem] and the scribes [teachers of the Law] and the elders [in Jerusalem].

Teachers of the Law are like Santa Claus, they are everywhere. Given the Gospels, like Paul, are not interested in Jesus “after the flesh” (the historical Jesus), one must wonder if Matthew 10:4 is also parable and polemic against the Jerusalem church opponents of Paul? A type of history, but mainly parabolic history about Paul and not Jesus.

With the Greek word “exo” meaning “without”, Mark ties the destruction of Jerusalem to the family of Jesus. Mark is not about coincidence; Mark is about narrative intent, and the below is probably a Markan “sandwich” continuation of chapter 3. This is Mark’s opinion, apparently because the Jerusalem church rejected Paul’s Gospel and Paul’s Jesus and chose instead Jesus Barabbas.

Mark 3:31-4:12 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee…And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand;lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Isaiah 6:9-11 He said, Go and tell this people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving. Make the heart (mind) of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts (minds), and turn and be healed. Then I said, For how long, O Lord? And he answered: Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.

Compare this with Revelation where it is those (like Paul) not doing the commandments who are “without”. Here the commandments are probably those of “Alpha and Omega”, God himself, in the original version of Revelation.

Revelation 22:14-15 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

It might be noted that not all in Mark is parable about Paul. For example, in Mark chapter 6, following the execution of John the Baptist for fear of sedition by Herod Antipas, then Jesus and five thousand followers flee into the desert. And they sit down in ranks by fifties and hundreds for a “picnic”, apparently after obtaining provisions from the nearby villages. This is reminiscent of the Dead Sea War Scroll where the Sons of Light are organized in ranks by thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. But then Mark “sandwiches” this chapter 6 “feeding” of the Jews with the parable of the Syrophoenician woman in chapter 7, and the feeding of the Gentiles in chapter 8. Thus the Jews are “fed” first and the “little dogs” of the Gentiles are fed last, foreshadowing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles Romans 1:16. The parable also raises the question if the Gentiles were always going to be last in this coming kingdom of God? The answer one suspects is “yes,” according to the Jerusalem church (Matthew 20:12). But Paul has made the Gentiles equal to the Jews. Mark 10:31, written after the fall of Jerusalem, goes even further and says many (the Jerusalem church) will be last and the Gentiles first.

Act 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers (Sicarii)?

Wars 6.258-259 Another band of the wicked gathered, purer in their actions, but even worse in their intentions, which ruined the prosperity of the city no less than did these murderers (Sicarii). These were the sort who deceived the people under pretext of divine inspiration, but were in favour of revolt and upheaval and drove the people mad and led them into the wilderness, claiming that God would there show them signs of liberation.

Antioch – Mark’s Jesus and in many cases Matthew’s Jesus a parable for Paul

Galatians 2:11-13 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain [scribes] came from James [in Jerusalem], he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew (cowered) and separated himself [like a hypocritical Pharisee], fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews used hypocrisy likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Mark 7:1-24 And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault…And rising from thence he went into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon (i.e. to the Gentiles or Greeks like Paul).

Matthew 15:12-14 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended (scandalized), after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.

Matthew compares or identifies these so-called Pharisees and scribes from the Jerusalem church with the Dead Sea Scroll Sect: https://robertheisenman.com/every-plant-which-my-heavenly-father-has-not-planted-shall-be-uprooted/ 

Matt 5:20 – For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the [self] righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Who are these so-called “scribes and Pharisees” except those come to Antioch from James in Jerusalem, and the Jews (including Cephas) who separated themselves like hypocritical Pharisees in Antioch? Compare Matt 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem and Matt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. This all refers to the scribes come from James in Jerusalem and the so-called hypocritical Pharisees (separatists like Peter and Barnabas) in Antioch who shut out (separated) Paul’s Gentile believers from entering into the kingdom of heaven. Note “entering in to the kingdom of heaven”. Matthew’s source does not think the Jerusalem church will enter into the kingdom of heaven. The “[self] righteousness” of the Jerusalem church was not the right kind of righteousness for entering into the kingdom of heaven (JFB Comm. on Matt 5:20 The superiority to the Pharisaic righteousness here required is plainly in kind, not degree. cf. Rom 9:30-32). One must wonder where Matthew got some of his material? Matthew’s source fits perfectly with Mark’s own parabolic gospel directed against the Jerusalem church of James and the episode with Peter and Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:11-16). Apparently Matthew is not above borrowing from any number of sources to create his Jesus, whether it be from Mark or the Jerusalem church. And Matthew fashions it as he sees fit (Matt 13:52).

Mark 14:27-30 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended (scandalized) because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee [of the Gentiles]. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended (scandalized), yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Mark’s Jesus like Paul is betrayed by Peter, and by the Jerusalem church. But Mark’s Jesus like Paul goes before them to the Gentiles (Greeks). This is Mark’s parabolic way of foreshadowing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, and Paul’s betrayal by the Pillars of the Jerusalem church.

Context is important: Look at Matthew 7:1-5 about not judging, which harks back to Colossians 2:16-23 and Romans 14:17. These discussions in “Galilee of the Gentiles” were mainly relevant to the Diaspora, and were a main cause of the schism between Paul and the Jerusalem church. Compare Matt 7:5 hypocrites with Mark 7:1-6 hypocrites and the hypocrites in Gal 2:11-13. Again context is important. Matthew (like Mark) may include pre-war Jerusalem church material, but it is used in a post-war context to condemn the “hypocritical Pharisees” of the Jerusalem church who revolted against Rome. It is well known the Zealots of the Law were responsible for the first Jewish revolt (Acts 21:20). But this embarrassment caused a later parabolic history to be written by the Gentile churches. This parabolic history pacified the Jesus of history into the image of Paul and his pacifist Jesus (turn the other cheek Matt 5:39 and walk an extra mile – carrying a Roman soldier’s kit Matt 5:41).

Context is important. The Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem. So ravening wolves Matt 7:15-16 almost certainly refers to the Zealots of the Law of the Jerusalem church (Acts 20:29 and Acts 21:20-21) who led their people to destruction in the war with Rome. Josephus and Tacitus paraphrase: “What most induced the Jews to war with Rome was a false prophecy that One from their own country would rule the world.” Revelation (and Daniel) both fit that description. It was the Zealots of the Law who expected a “reward” for their works of the Law. Therefore they were hirelings (John 10:12-13, Mark 1:19-20). Their “reward” according to Rev 2:26-27 and Rev 22:12 was to rule the nations (world) with a rod of iron. But the actual “reward” (or fruit) from these false prophets was the destruction of Jerusalem.

For those who would argue that the Jerusalem church (the Way) were all pacifists (like Paul), consider this that in Acts 22:3 (Douay-Rheims) the Way were all zealots of the Law, and in Acts 22:21-23 they cry out that Paul should not live when he says the word “Gentiles” (cf. 1Thess 2:16). In Acts 23:12-14 “certain” of the Jews made a pact with the “chief priests and elders” to assassinate Paul. This tell-tale word “certain” (or “some”) harks back to Galatians 2:12 when certain [Jews] came from James, the most chief of the three chief priests of the Way. Peter (Cephas) had every reason to fear them of the circumcision, and separate himself from Paul’s unclean Gentiles, as demonstrated in Acts 22:21-23 and Acts 23:12-14.

Revelation 2:2 Paul no apostle

Rev 2:2 I know thy works [of the Law] and thy labour and thy patience and how thou canst not bear them that are evil. And thou hast tried them who say they are apostles and are not: and hast found them liars:

1Cor 9:2 And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12:2 “…the Ebionites, who, when they receive the rest of the apostles, repudiate Paul as a transgressor of the law.”

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.2 Those who are called Ebionites [the Poor]…repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

Bishop Ambrose of Milan, Commentary (pg. 242) on 1Cor 9:2 says “…because by the Jews who believed and nevertheless kept the law, he [Paul] was denied to be an apostle. For he already taught that circumcision should not be done, nor should the Sabbath be kept; but to the rest of the apostles, who, because of the scandal, dissembled [used hypocrisy] in this matter, he seemed to teach differently; therefore the Apostle [Paul] was denied by them.”

And this is why the Gospel of John promotes the devil accusation against the Jewish believers for denying Paul (not continuing in his word). And, by extension, John of Patmos would also be of the devil because he denied that Paul was an apostle and denied Paul’s teaching. At least this is how the polemics go back and forth between these two camps.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed...John 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 12:6 This he [Judas Sicariot] said, not that he cared for the Poor [Ebionites]; but because he was a thief, and had the [money] bag, and bare what was put therein.

John 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot [the Sicarius], Simon’s son, to betray him;

So this is all quite consistent with Volkmar’s hypothesis that the Jesus of the Gospels is mainly a parable for Paul, and was written as opposition literature to the seditious Jerusalem church, and the seditious Book of Revelation, the believers in which wished to (and possibly did) burn Rome with fire in 64AD.

The Two Apologies

There are two apologies that are the basis of Mark. The first apology was for why Jesus failed to become the Davidic king during his lifetime. The apology was that Jesus must suffer and die as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). This first apology probably had its origin in the apology of the Jerusalem church for why Jesus died, which was to become a ransom for the sin of the Jewish nation (4Macc 17:21). Paul then generalizes this as a ransom for the sin of all believers, including Gentiles, and sees it as doing away with works of the Law (Gal 2:16). The second apology in Mark is for why the Jerusalem Temple and the Jerusalem church were destroyed. The answer in the Markan sandwich of chapters 12, 13, and 14 is that the Pillars of the Jerusalem church could not watch one hour, and denied, and betrayed Paul and Paul’s Gospel and Paul’s Jesus Christ, and so the lord of the vineyard destroyed those wicked husbandmen. This is further confirmed when the “chief priests” or Pillars of the Jerusalem church and the “crowd” (the Way, the Many) reject Paul’s Jesus Christ and choose instead Jesus Barabbas [of Revelation]. According to Acts 22:22 this had to do with Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and probably also the Diaspora Jews (Acts 21:18-21). Mark 13:10 says that [Paul’s] Gospel must first be published to all nations, but according to Mark 14 the Zealot Way and the Pillars of the Zealot Jerusalem church could not watch one hour for the fullness of Paul’s Gentiles to come in (Rom 11:25); and so they deny and betray Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ in Mark 14, and choose insurrection and Jesus Barabbas of Revelation in Mark 15. And therefore, according to Mark 12 and Mark 13, and the blood curse of Matthew 27:25, the Jerusalem Temple and the Jerusalem church were destroyed.

Summary:

The Jesus of Revelation is Jesus Barabbas, son of the Father. Mark’s Gospel was written to oppose this Jesus and Revelation according to Gustav Volkmar in his 1857 book “Die Religion Jesu”. Volkmar said Mark’s Jesus is mostly a parable about Paul. The Jerusalem church rejected Paul and Paul’s risen Jesus and chose instead the risen Jesus Barabbas of Revelation. And that is why Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed – according to the Gospels. Needless to say this was a little embarrassing at church on Sunday, so the Gospels obscured this with parable, and used scribes, and Pharisees, and chief priests as a euphemism for the Jerusalem church and James. Paul was the sower who went out to sow, but birds of the air (apostles and scribes) sent by the chief priest James plucked up the seed that Paul planted, robbing Paul of his labor. Peter and the other Jews in Antioch (Asia) were stony ground, and quickly fell away (before the cock crow twice) and separated themselves like hypocritical separatists (i.e. Pharisees) when teachers of the Law came from James. They all forsook Paul, and on his last trip to Jerusalem they betrayed him and tried to kill him at the hands of the Judas Sicarii. But Paul is delivered up to the Romans instead. John’s letters to the seven churches of Asia are an attack on Paul and Paul’s teaching. John might have revised Revelation to more easily take over Paul’s churches in Asia, even as Paul revised his Gospel for the Gentiles. But Revelation still remained entirely at odds with Paul’s “render honor and taxes unto Caesar, and overcome your enemy with good”. According to Josephus and Tacitus what most motivated the Jews to go to war with Rome was a prophecy that a Jewish Messiah would rule the nations with a rod of iron. Revelation fits that mold. These conclusions and others seem to follow logically from Volkmar’s 1857 “Die Religion Jesu”.

YouTube Comments:

Gospel of Q: The theory (Gustav Volkmar, 1857, Die Religion Jesu) goes that Paul was parabolically written into the four Gospels to authorize Paul’s teaching over against the teaching of the Nazarenes. Hence the emphasis on the Gentiles. The teaching of the Nazarenes (e.g. Luke 22:28-30) would have been seditious in a Roman context. So this sayings source is predominantly post-Pauline with some original Nazarene teaching.

Interesting. So Mark 9:38 pro-Paul and Matthew 7:22 anti-Paul. Entirely possible. There was a fair amount of variability at that time – followers of Paul, followers of Cephas, etc. But Dr. Tabor wants us to stick to the topic of Q. But I certainly don’t think all of Q originates with the original sayings of Jesus the Nazarene.

I think you miss my point. My point is that Q like the Gospels is a mixed bag of Gentile (Pauline) church teaching, and Jerusalem Nazarene teaching. Paul says in 2Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:6-12 that there were those come from James and the Nazarenes in Jerusalem who were teaching a different gospel and a different Jesus. And we see both Paul and the Nazarenes reflected in Q and in the 4 Gospels. So this would suggest that Q has much the same provenance as Mark, the earliest Gospel. Maybe Q is material that ended up on Mark’s cutting room floor. Mark does seem to have some knowledge of Q, for example the “Temptation” which Mark reduces to almost nothing.

I am a cynical soul. Paul was given a commission by James (Gal 2:9-10) to go to the Gentiles to collect money for the Poor (Nazarenes) back in Jerusalem. Paul had to make up some story about Jesus dying for the sins of the Gentiles so he could collect money from the Gentiles to help fund insurrection in Judea, and to support all the widows and orphans of insurrection. One could not blame the Jews for wanting to be free, but going up against Rome was doomed to failure from the start. However, this is a little off topic from Q.

The Jewish Sicarios – Sicarii (Judas Iscariots) repurposed Paul’s collection for insurrection, because they were robbers. Everything in the Gospel of Mark is parable according to Gustav Volkmar. Paul is the sower that went out to sow, but birds of the air sent by James plucked up the seed that Paul sowed, robbing Paul of his labors (Jubilees 11:10). Once you know this parable, then you will know all the parables.

“the centurion said…..when Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. Then…they found the slave well.” This is like Mark’s centurion who said “Truly this man is the Son of God.” Why this emphasis on a Gentile Roman soldier, and healing and salvation by faith? This might suggest Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and a rejection by “the Jews”. Luke 22:28-30 is seditious in a Roman context and possibly Nazarene in origin. But others “for so their fathers did to the prophets” might be considered anti-Jewish. Why not “our fathers” instead of “their fathers” if this is a saying of Jesus or even a saying of Paul? So these “sayings” seem to be a mixed bag.

“a centurion saying “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof…. is not of Jewish origin.” I could not agree more. The Roman centurion here is no different than the Roman centurion at the cross of Christ, who also has more faith than all Israel (or the Jews) by recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, which is anti-Jewish and pro-Roman. Also “their fathers” (Luke 6:20-26) instead of “our fathers” is just as anti-Jewish as Mark’s 7:3 “and all the Jews except they wash their hands” (a parable for Gal 2:11-14). Is Jesus not a Jew also? So much of Q is post Paul, and might be scraps Mark left on the cutting room floor, and which Matthew and Luke then included in their extended cuts.

Also, like you, I think John could be alluding to the coming destruction of Jerusalem (the fig tree and vineyard that did not yield fruit to Paul’s Gospel), not just to the coming judgment at the end of the age. Many of these Nazarene sayings get repurposed by the Gentile churches after the fall of Jerusalem to explain that fall. For example, the parable of the Jews choosing their own Jesus Barabbas instead of Paul’s imaginary Jesus Christ, or God rejecting the natural children of Abraham, and raising up new children to Abraham from the nations (stones of Deucalion). In both cases, according to the Gentile churches, God is rejecting the Jews for rejecting Paul, and Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s imaginary Jesus Christ. But, unfortunately, people do not understand the Gospels because they lack the historical context for doing so. It is ancient history.

It seems to me that Q is simply stuff that Mark chose not to use, and then
it later showed up in Luke and Matthew. In fact Mark may have created
some of Q and the rest originated from the Jerusalem church, and Mark
chose not to put either in his own Gospel, perhaps wanting to keep his
Gospel short and to the point.

Much of Q is not from Jesus or even from the Jerusalem church. I suspect much of it comes from Mark’s shop. But they are similar to Zen stories. Mark calls them parables, parallel stories. Paul is the sower that went out to sow, but birds of the air sent by James plucked up the seed that Paul sowed, and robbed Paul of his labors. This is a parallel to the Book of Jubilees 11:10. The Jesus of Mark is a parable about Paul, and Mark is comparing James, the brother of Jesus, to Satan. (Mark 4:2-4) These are literary creations which are mostly anti-Jerusalem church, but do contain Jerusalem church content, which some ascribe parts of to Jesus. Pauline Christianity evolved from the beliefs of the Nazarenes, so of course it will contain Nazarene content, many times repurposed into a polemic against the Jerusalem church, because Paul’s Gentiles churches saw the Jerusalem church as hypocritical separatists (Pharisees) and teachers of the Law (scribes). One church against another church. Paul against Peter (or James) as scholars point out.

Yeah. Many years ago I was trying to understand how a pacifist tax-paying Jesus could say “Take up your cross and follow me.” That sounded seditious and rebellious to me. But then I found out that was from Paul and his church. Then that led to other study. How could Paul’s teaching end up in Mark’s Gospel? Well, Mark’s Gospel came after Paul. And Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul. Everything in Mark is parable. Paul is the sower that went out to sow, and the Satan James sent birds of the air (apostles and teachers of the law) to pluck up the seed, robbing Paul of his labors. Jubilees 11:10 Luke 14:27 may and may not be talking about bearing the cross for Jewish sedition against Rome. “Bearing your cross” was later a metaphor for Paul’s Gospel of the cross, which freed one from bondage to the Law, and entailed persecution for the sake of Paul’s Gospel, and not persecution for the sake of Torah. This is why Peter rejects Paul and Paul’s Gospel in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-12, Luke 6:22-23), and why Peter rejects Mark’s Jesus and Mark’s Gospel of the cross in Mark 8:31-34, and why Mark includes this same “saying” in Mark 8:34 as a counter-rejection of Peter. Peter is expected to follow Paul’s example, and Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s Jesus. But Peter and all the Jews fall away from Paul and Paul’s Jesus in Antioch, and also later in Jerusalem, just as they all fall away from Mark’s Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. So Luke 14:27 is metaphor, and yet still based on the Roman crucifixion of Jesus, possibly for being overly zealous of the Law and the messianic kingdom (4 Maccabees 17:21, John 2:16-17, Acts 21: 20-21). It would be something of a paradox if the pacifist turn the other cheek Jesus of the Gospels advocated being literally crucified for murder and insurrection, as would have been the case for Barabbas if not for a little creative parable on Mark’s part. The parable being: “the Jews” of the Jerusalem church rejected Paul and his Jesus Christ, and chose instead their own Jesus Barabbas. Being only a parable, it is not clear if Mark means this other Jesus was literally involved in insurrection and murder, or only that his Jerusalem church was later involved in the war with Rome along with the other Jews. “Luke 6:22-23 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake…for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.” Note this is like Galatians 2:11-14 where some came from James, and then Peter and the other Jews hypocritically separated from Paul’s Gentiles. From whence we have hypocritical separatists – which in Hebrew is hypocritical Pharisees or Perushim. So Q is again here post Pauline and, in this case, very much in line with Mark’s Gospel. Paul’s experience in Antioch with Peter and some scribes (teachers of the Law) come from James is a big deal for Mark and also for Q. It all has to do with the Jerusalem “church” rejection of Paul and Paul’s Jesus for being “lawless”. For which cause these Jerusalem church zealots of the Law and Sicarii try to kill Paul (Acts 21 and 22). In the same way the Gospels later portray “the Jews” as trying to kill Jesus. However Luke 6:20-21 seems to go back to the Poor of the Jerusalem church, and a temporal kingdom of God, characteristic of the Nazarenes. So again Q appears to be a mixed bag, as one would expect, because Pauline Christianity evolved from Nazarene sedition (Acts 24:5).

For me, it is a matter of what makes sense. A Roman governor releasing an insurrectionist and a murderer did not make sense to me. But if this story is only a parable for how the Jews rejected Paul, and Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s Jesus Christ, and chose instead their own Jesus Barabbas, then that makes sense to me. And Paul does say the super-apostles [from James] were preaching another Jesus, and another Gospel, and another Spirit than the one he was preaching. And Paul said they should be anathema because of that. So I assume Paul meant Jesus Barabbas is the other Jesus – one who’s teaching was more in line with John’s Apocalypse. Mark is probably writing from a Gentile church perspective, so he will not be especially kind to the Jerusalem church after the war with Rome. And, as I said, Mark may not be saying that Jesus Barabbas was a murderer and an insurrectionist, only that his Jerusalem church was later involved in the war with Rome, which Mark would have seen (most probably) as murder and insurrection. It is obvious “the Jews” could not literally reject Paul’s Jesus Christ and choose Jesus Barabbas in 30AD, because Paul was not involved at that time. But in 64AD the Jewish Christians might have been able to choose Jesus Barabbas of Revelation instead of Paul’s Jesus Christ. So again, I don’t know that I would put much stock in this idea that Jesus Barabbas was an insurrectionist and a murderer during his lifetime if Mark is only making a parable about how “the Jews” rejected Paul and Paul’s pacifist Jesus Christ, and chose instead Jesus Barabbas of Revelation some 30 or so years later. I might also point out that Gustav Volkmar put forth much the same hypothesis in 1857 but did not flesh it out as much. “But in 64AD the Jewish Christians might have been able to choose Jesus Barabbas of Revelation instead of Paul’s Jesus Christ.” The reason I pick 64AD is because that was the year of the Great Fire of Rome. There may have existed an ur-Revelation with chapter 18 that was about burning Rome with fire. Nero blamed the Christians (maybe Jewish Zealots) for setting fire to Rome. Gentile Christians and Paul may also have been caught up in the police action that followed. And that might be the reason Mark portrayed Jesus Barabbas of Revelation as an insurrectionist and a murderer. It might be noted in that case that Paul would have been crucified, but not Jesus Barabbas. But it is just speculation.

What Jesus really preached: Paul said in Romans 13:4 “rulers (the Romans) do not bear the sword in vain” which is just a short hop to saying “Jewish rebels who take up the sword against Rome will die by the sword.” And if the Jewish zealots of the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:20-21) took up the sword of Jesus Barabbas of Revelation and burned Rome with fire (as Nero said they did), then yes they would have died by the sword and by crucifixion in Nero’s circus, even as the “innocent” Christians like Paul did. Methinks scholars have a penchant for creating Jesus Christ in Paul’s image, even as Mark did. And there is a parable in this. In 64AD the Jewish zealots of the Jerusalem church chose their own Jesus Barabbas of Revelation chapter 18 and rejected Paul’s Jesus Christ. And Mark puts that parable in his Gospel.

Did Judas Iscariot Exist: Gustav Volkmar in 1857 said the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is a parable about Paul. On his last Passover to Jerusalem the chief priests and zealots of the Jerusalem church conspire with the Judas Sicarii to kill Paul for teaching against Torah, even as “the Jews” try to kill Jesus in Mark’s Gopsel. It is a parable. Paul is the sower who went out to sow, but birds of the air (false apostles – 2Cor 11:13-15) sent by James plucked up the seed, and robbed Paul of his labors (Jubilees 11:10). It is a parable. That is why Mark insists you must understand this parable.

Has the family tomb of Simon of Cyrene been found: Ellicott’s Commentary makes the interesting suggestion: “St. Paul (Rom 16:13) speaks of the mother of Rufus as being also his mother—i.e., endeared to him by many proofs of maternal kindness—and so we are led to the belief that the wife of Simon of Cyrene must, at some time or other, at Antioch or Corinth, and afterwards at Rome, have come within the inner circle of St. Paul’s friends. This, in its turn, connects itself with the prominence given to “men of Cyrene” in St. Luke’s account of the foundation of the Gentile Church of Antioch (Acts 11:20, 13:1-2).” Gustav Volkmar (1857) said the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is a parable for Paul. Therefore, is Mark making an honorable mention of the family of Simon for the assistance they gave to Paul in helping Paul bear his cross in Antioch and later in Rome, metaphorically speaking? This would be consistent with Mark’s parabolic emphasis on Paul and Antioch in his Gospel (e.g. Mark 3:21-22, Gal 2:11-14, Mark 4:2-6). It is ironic that Simon Peter is told to take up the cross in Mark 8:34, but instead Simon of Cyrene does. It is equally ironic that Mark’s Jesus Christ takes up the cross, but Jesus Barabbas does not. (Luz: theologia crucis vs. theologia gloriae — Gal 6:14 vs. Rev 1:6, 2:27, 5:10). Volkmar also said Mark’s Gospel (theologia crucis) was written to counter Revelation (theologia gloriae). It seems Volkmar was right on both counts.

Is Christ of Revelation out for blood: Revelation 1:6, 2:27, 3:5, 3:21, 14:1 refer to Jesus as “son of the Father”. Barabbas is Aramaic for “son of the Father”. Gustav Volkmar in 1857 said Mark’s Gospel was a parable for Paul and Paul’s Gospel and was written to counter the “gospel” of the Book of Revelation. It stands to reason then the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation would feature as an insurrectionist and murderer in Mark’s Gospel (Luz: Paul’s and Mark’s theologia crucis vs. Revelation’s theologia gloriae). It is probably the case the Book of Revelation we have now is not exactly the same as the one that was available to Mark in 73AD. There may have been an Ur-Revelation. See Dr. James Tabor’s excellent blogs on this. So if Mark’s Jesus Christ is not the historical Jesus, and Revelation’s Jesus Barabbas is not the historical Jesus, then who was the historical Jesus?

Did the Jesus Apocalypse fail: Mark 12:1-9 is the parable of the wicked husbandmen, in which a man planted a vineyard and goes on a “far journey”. But because the husbandmen denied and killed the man’s servants and son, then when the lord of the vineyard comes he will destroy the husbandmen and give the vineyard to others (KJV meaning the Gentiles). In Mark 13:34-37 the disciples are told that Jesus is like a man that goes on a “far journey”, and they are told to watch and not sleep (Hab 2:1-4). But in Mark 14 the Jewish disciples do not watch and sleep, and deny Jesus thrice, and betray him. What then will the lord of the vineyard do when he comes? Matt 21:43-45 and Luke 20:19 adds to the parable “chief priests and Pharisees and scribes” which is probably a parable (or euphemism) for the Jerusalem church. They deny Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s Gospel (Gal 2:9-16), choosing instead Jesus Barabbas of John’s Apocalypse (Rev 2:26-27); therefore the kingdom of God will be taken from them (Matt 21:43) and given to the Gentile believers (Mark 4:20). Paul (the sower) was concerned about his people following this other Jesus and this other gospel (Gal 1:6-9, 2Cor 11:3-5, 2Cor 11:13-15, Rom 13:1-4).

What was God’s message to the Gentiles: Mark 12:1-9 is the parable of the wicked husbandmen, in which a man planted a vineyard and goes on a “far journey”. But because the husbandmen denied and killed the man’s servants and son, then when the lord of the vineyard comes he will destroy the husbandmen and give the vineyard to others (KJV meaning the Gentiles). In Mark 13:34-37 the disciples are told that Jesus is like a man that goes on a “far journey”, and they are told to watch and not sleep (Hab 2:1-4). But in Mark 14 the Jewish disciples do not watch and sleep, and deny Jesus thrice, and betray him. What then will the lord of the vineyard do when he comes? Matt 21:43-45 and Luke 20:19 adds to the parable “chief priests and Pharisees and scribes” which is probably a parable (or euphemism) for the Jerusalem church. They deny Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s Gospel (Gal 2:9-16), choosing instead Jesus Barabbas of John’s Apocalypse (Rev 2:26-27); therefore the kingdom of God will be taken from them (Matt 21:43) and given to the Gentile believers (Mark 4:20). Paul (the sower) was concerned about his people following this other Jesus and this other gospel (Gal 1:6-9, 2Cor 11:3-5, 2Cor 11:13-15, Rom 13:1-4).

Saved By Faith: According to Theodore Weeden (Mark – Traditions in Conflict), Mark drew on the traditions of those preaching another Jesus (2Cor 11:4-5), but did so in order to refute them or transform them. This is also what Gustav Volkmar said in 1857, and more recently SGF Brandon, and Robert Eisenman. This might suggest the historical Jesus (not Mark’s Jesus) was sympathetic to the traditions of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect. But after the fall of Jerusalem, the gospel writers wanted these traditions (or teaching) to be more similar to Paul’s teaching.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls “the sons of light” are those Jews who belonged to the DSS Sect or Jewish Way Community. The “sons of darkness” were the Romans, and the Jews who had accommodated themselves to Roman rule. But for Paul, his converts to his Gentile-Roman accommodation gospel were the sons of light. And in the four Pauline Gospels, the Jewish Way Community are “blind guides of the blind and both will fall into the pit [of Roman destruction].” Hypocritical Pharisees and scribes and chief priests in the four Gospels are a euphemism and insult for the Jewish Way, i.e. the Jerusalem church (Robert Eisenman). And they are “blind guides” as far as Paul and the four Gospels are concerned. So being blind, one might assume they are also children of darkness, and hypocrites according to Paul and the Gospels. Romans 2:18-21 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness…Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? ……2Corinthians 11:13-14 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into a messenger (angel) of light.

There is no authority. But the process or hypothesis is that of Gustav Volkmar in 1857, “Die Religion Jesu”. Volkmar said Mark’s Gospel was a parable for Paul, and was written to counter the teaching of the Jerusalem church, which was the Apocalypse of John. By extension one might also conclude the Jesus Christ of Mark (a parable for Paul) was written to counter the Jesus of the Apocalypse, Jesus Barabbas (son of the father). The Jewish believers chose the warlike (or seditious) Jesus Barabbas of John’s Apocalypse instead of Paul’s pacifist Jesus Christ. So the lord of the vineyard destroyed those wicked husbandmen, and the kingdom of God was taken from them and given to the pacifist Gentile believers of Paul.

The Millennial Kingdom and the Enoch 93 Prophecy: This “plant of righteousness” in Enoch 92 is possibly related to the Damascus Document. Robert Eisenman says these Dead Sea Scroll sayings are sometimes included in the Gospels, but typically to 180-degree opposite effect. They were anti-Gentile or anti-Roman resistance literature, and ran counter to Paul’s admonition to be obedient to Rome so as to avoid the wrath of Rome. See Matt 15:13-17

Bible Prophecy: Excellent! One might also note Revelation’s emphasis on “works” and “righteous acts” of the Saints and keeping and doing the commandments (Rev 22:14 kjv). The seven letters to the seven churches seem to be an attack on Paul and his followers in much the same way as the letter of James. Given that Revelation 18:6-9 seems to command believers to burn Rome with fire, then one might think Jesus of Revelation an insurrectionist like Barabbas!

Robert Eisenman has suggested “scribes and Pharisees” is a euphemism for those teachers of the Law sent by James to Antioch (Gal 2:9-13). And then Peter and the other Jewish believers separated like hypocritical Pharisees from Paul’s Gentile believers. Pharisee was a euphemism and an insult for the Jewish Zealots of the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:18-21). But they were not Pharisees. Matt 10:4 Simon the Zealot and Judas the Sicarii, who also betrayed him (Paul).

Waco: It is important to know the truth. David Koresh and Waco happened in part because of David’s misunderstanding of Revelation. Revelation is primarily a first century Jewish apocalypse that expected that Rome would be burned with fire, and that all nations will bring their tribute (honor and glory) to Jerusalem instead of to Rome. Josephus said this expectation of the Jews and Jerusalem ruling the world is what most led to the Jewish war with Rome. So misunderstanding Revelation has in the past led to disaster, and could do so again.

Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus: Atwill is good at thinking outside the box, and is correct to emphasize the typology. But Atwill is incorrect about Titus being the “son of God” in the four Gospels. In the Gospels (especially Mark) Jesus prefigures Paul and Paul’s Jesus. Gustav Volkmar in 1857 “Die Religion Jesu” said Mark’s Jesus was a parable for Paul and written to counter the seditious Jesus [Barabbas] of Revelation. Mark and the other Gospels are a Pauline theology of the cross versus a theology of glory and sedition like Revelation, which was the “gospel” of the Jerusalem church. In Mark chapter 4, Paul is the sower (or planter) who went out to sow, but birds of the air sent by James plucked up the seed Paul planted in Antioch (and Asia), and robbed Paul of his labor (2Tim 1:15, 2Cor 1:8-9). Peter and the other Jews in Antioch (Gal 2:9-13) were rocky soil, and at first accepted Paul’s word, but then quickly fell away when scribes (teachers of the Law) came from James, the chief priest of the church in Jerusalem. Peter and the other Jewish believers acted like “hypocritical Pharisees” in separating themselves from Paul’s Gentile believers (“scribes and pharisees” being a Gospel euphemism for the Jerusalem church). Paul was preaching another Jesus and another Gospel than the Jerusalem church (2Cor 11:3-5, Gal 1:6-12 ). Mark and Matthew seem to identify the Jesus of the Jerusalem church with Jesus Barabbas of Revelation, who wanted to burn Rome with fire, which would be insurrection against Rome. And Rome was burned in 64AD according to Nero by [Jewish Zealot] Christians. So the parable of Mark and the other Gospels is that the Jewish Zealot church (Acts 21:18-22) and its chief priests rejected Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ and obedience to Rome (Rom 13:4-7), and chose instead sedition and their own Jesus Barabbas of Revelation (Rev 18:6-8). In which case it would be Paul and Mark’s crucified Jesus Christ (instead of Jesus Barabbas) who is declared the true son of God (Gal 4:6, Rom 8:15) by the Roman centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39, 1Cor 2:2, Gal 3:1). Which is Paul’s theology of the cross preached to the Gentiles, as opposed to the theology of worldly glory (Luke 4:5-8, Rev 21:10-26) and dominion preached by Revelation (Rev 2:27), and Peter (Mark 8:33), and James, and John, and the Jerusalem church (Mark 10:37). IF the Romans did sponsor the writing of the Gospels so as to graft in Paul, then perhaps this was the old Roman strategy of divide and conquer. The Romans might have been aware of the division between the Pauline (Gentile) and Jamesian (Jewish) camps, and in typical Roman fashion would favor the tribe that was compliant to their own goals and ambitions. Josephus would have heard of Paul and included Decius Mundus and Cannibal Mary in his works as a parody reference to the Pauline camp. The fact that Josephus ties Paul’s Eucharist (which Paul received from the Lord) to the “seditious varlets” in Jerusalem suggests that Josephus saw them as related movements. It might be noted the “varlets” rejected Mary’s proffered feast even as they rejected Paul’s Eucharist in Antioch.

Atwill is really great at thinking outside the box, and is correct to emphasize the typology. But Atwill is incorrect about Titus being the “son of God” in the four Gospels. In the Gospels (especially Mark) it is Paul and Paul’s Jesus who are a type of the son of God (Gal 4:6, Rom 8:15). Gustav Volkmar in 1857 “Die Religion Jesu” said Mark’s Jesus was a parable for Paul and written to counter the seditious Book of Revelation. Mark and the other Gospels are a Pauline theology of the cross versus a theology of glory (and sedition) like Revelation, which was the “gospel” of the Jerusalem church. In Mark chapter 4, Paul is the sower (or planter) who went out to sow, but birds of the air sent by James plucked up the seed Paul planted in Antioch (and Asia), and robbed Paul of his labor (2Tim 1:15, 2Cor 1:8-9). Peter and the other Jews in Antioch (Gal 2:9-13) were rocky soil, and at first accepted Paul’s word, but then quickly fell away when scribes (teachers of the Law) came from James, the chief priest of the church in Jerusalem. Peter and the other Jewish believers acted like “hypocritical Pharisees” in separating themselves from Paul’s Gentile believers (“scribes and pharisees” being a Gospel euphemism for the Jerusalem church). Paul was preaching another Jesus and another Gospel than the Jerusalem church (2Cor 11:3-5, Gal 1:6-12). Mark and Matthew seem to identify the Jesus of the Jerusalem church with Jesus Barabbas of Revelation, who wanted to burn Rome with fire, which would be insurrection against Rome. And Rome was burned in 64AD according to Nero by [Jewish Zealot] Christians. So the parable of Mark and the other Gospels is that the Jewish Zealot church (Acts 21:18-22) and its chief priests rejected Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ and obedience to Rome (Rom 13:4-7), and chose instead sedition and their own Jesus Barabbas of Revelation (Rev 18:6-8). In which case it would be Paul and Mark’s crucified Jesus Christ (instead of Jesus Barabbas) who is declared the true son of God by the Roman centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39, 1Cor 2:2, Gal 3:1). Which is Paul’s theology of the cross preached to the Gentiles, as opposed to the theology of worldly glory (Luke 4:5-8, Rev 21:10-26) and dominion preached by Revelation (Rev 2:27), and Peter (Mark 8:33), and James, and John, and the Jerusalem church (Mark 10:37). IF the Romans did sponsor the writing of the Gospels so as to have the Gospel Jesus mirror Paul, then perhaps this was the old Roman strategy of divide and conquer. The Romans might have been aware of the division between the Pauline (Gentile) and Jamesian (Jewish) camps, and in typical Roman fashion would favor the tribe that was compliant to their own goals and ambitions. Josephus would have heard of Paul and included Decius Mundus and Cannibal Mary in his works as a parody reference to the Pauline camp. The fact that Josephus ties Paul’s Eucharist (which Paul received from the Lord) to the “seditious varlets” in Jerusalem suggests that Josephus saw them as related movements. It might be noted the “varlets” rejected Mary’s proffered feast even as they rejected Paul’s Eucharist in Antioch.

Bible Prophecy: Rev 18:6-7 seems to suggest that “My people” are to reward Rome as she has rewarded them. So it is “My people” who are to burn Rome with fire, as Nero said the Christians did in 64AD with the Great Fire of Rome. One would think these were Zealot Christians like Simon the Zealot, assuming Nero was correct. However, Tacitus said Nero was scapegoating the Christians.

Caesar’s Messiah: Isaiah 53 is preceded by Isaiah 52:13-15, which is where the chapter break should occur, and is referring to Israel as God’s suffering Servant. Typology in the Gospels repurpose this passage to refer to Jesus as the suffering Servant.

On Revelation: If the dead are raised to meet the Lord in the air (1Thess 4:17), then what kind of body will they have? Paul answers in 1Cor 13:35-58 that the body will be a spiritual body, like Jesus in heaven, and not an earthly body. So will the old earth be destroyed at that moment, and a new spiritual earth (creation) replace the old in which everything is spiritual, including those who are saved? One can hardly expect spiritual beings to escort the spiritual Lord back to an old earthly city with rats and sewers. So that is why we always assumed the Lord would rapture us out of this corrupt world before it is destroyed. 2Cor 5:8 has another view of Paul where to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Some may have believed differently than Paul, and expected the Lord to come to rule this old earth and the nations with a scepter of iron, perhaps for a thousand years. And there does seem to be two camps. Paul’s camp, and the camp of the Book of Revelation.

Agreed. I read James Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus,” and Paul had an idea of a “cosmic transformation” at the Parousia . But Revelation has no general rapture, but only ruling the earthly nations (Gentiles) with a rod of iron. Josephus and Tacitus said this idea of an earthly Messianic rule is what most motivated the Jewish nation to revolt against Rome. I suspect instead that a small minority of zealot rebels ended up taking over the whole nation of Judea. And once in power, there was not much that could be done after that. Apparently they believed with God’s help they could defeat the Romans.

Caesar’s Messiah: Atwill is good at thinking outside the box, and he is correct to emphasize the typology. But in the Gospels (especially Mark) Jesus prefigures Paul and Paul’s Jesus. Gustav Volkmar in 1857 “Die Religion Jesu” said Mark’s Jesus was a parable for Paul and written to counter the seditious Jesus [Barabbas] of Revelation. Mark and the other Gospels are a Pauline theology of the cross (suffering) versus a theology of glory and sedition like Revelation, which was the “gospel” of the Jerusalem church. In Mark chapter 4, Paul is the sower (or planter 1Cor 3:6) who went out to sow, but birds of the air sent by James plucked up the seed Paul planted in Antioch (and Asia), and robbed Paul of his labor (2Tim 1:15, 2Cor 1:8-9). Peter and the other Jews in Antioch (Gal 2:9-13) were rocky soil, and at first accepted Paul’s word, but then quickly fell away when scribes (teachers of the Law) came from James, the chief priest of the church in Jerusalem. Peter and the other Jewish believers acted like “hypocritical Pharisees” in separating themselves from Paul’s Gentile believers (“scribes and pharisees” being a Gospel euphemism for the Jerusalem church). Paul was preaching another Jesus and another Gospel than the Jerusalem church (2Cor 11:3-5, Gal 1:6-12). Mark and Matthew seem to identify the Jesus of the Jerusalem church with Jesus Barabbas of Revelation, who wanted to burn Rome with fire, which would be insurrection against Rome. And Rome was burned in 64AD according to Nero by [Jewish (Simon the) Zealot] Christians. So the parable of Mark and the other Gospels is that the Jewish Zealot church (Acts 21:18-22) and its chief priests rejected Paul and Paul’s Jesus Christ and obedience to Rome (Rom 13:4-7), and chose instead insurrection and their own Jesus Barabbas of Revelation (Rev 2:27, Rev 18:6-8). In which case it would be Paul and Mark’s crucified Jesus Christ (instead of Jesus Barabbas) who is declared the true son of God (Gal 4:6, Rom 8:15) by the Roman centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39, 1Cor 2:2, Gal 3:1). Which is Paul’s theology of the cross preached to the Gentiles, as opposed to the theology of worldly glory (Luke 4:5-8, Rev 21:10-26) and dominion preached by Revelation (Rev 2:27), and Peter (Mark 8:33), and James, and John, and the Jerusalem church (Mark 10:37). IF the Romans did sponsor the writing of the Gospels so as to graft Paul onto Jesus, then perhaps this was the old Roman strategy of divide and conquer. The Romans might have been aware of the division between the Pauline (Gentile) and Jamesian (Jewish) camps, and in typical Roman fashion would favor the tribe that was compliant to their own goals and ambitions. Josephus would have heard of Paul and included Decius Mundus and Cannibal Mary in his works as a parody reference to the Paulina camp. The fact that Josephus ties Paul’s Eucharist (which Paul received from the Lord) to the “seditious varlets” in Jerusalem suggests that Josephus saw both camps as related movements. It might be noted the “varlets” rejected Mary’s proffered feast even as they rejected Paul’s Eucharist in Antioch. With this Greek word “exo” meaning “without”, Mark ties the destruction of Jerusalem to the family of Jesus. Mark is not about coincidence; Mark is about narrative intent and parable, and the below is probably a Markan “sandwich” continuation of chapter 3. Now this is Mark’s opinion, apparently because the Jerusalem church rejected Paul’s Gospel and Paul’s Jesus. Mark 3:31-4:12 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee…And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Isaiah 6:9-11 He said, Go and tell this people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving. Make the heart (mind) of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts (minds), and turn and be healed. Then I said, For how long, O Lord? And he answered: Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.

“Caesar’s Messiah” did do a good job advertising the idea that the Jesus of the Gospels does prefigure someone, which is obviously Paul. Did Roman authorities learn from Paul (in Rome) and sponsor the creation of Mark’s Gospel? Or was that a natural consequence of Mark and his Gentile church being opposed to the Jerusalem church? Mark’s Gospel is very sophisticated. So one must wonder at its provenance.

Rapture: I read James Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus,” and Paul had an idea of a “cosmic transformation” at the Parousia . But Revelation has no general rapture, but only ruling the earthly nations (Gentiles) with a rod of iron. Josephus and Tacitus said this idea of an earthly Messianic rule is what most motivated the Jewish nation to revolt against Rome. I suspect instead that a small minority of zealot rebels ended up taking over the whole nation of Judea. And once in power, there was not much that could be done after that. Apparently they believed with God’s help they could defeat the Romans.

Philippians 2: While not related to James, why do some think that Philippians 2 is not the second Adam? The second Adam is consistent with Paul’s teaching of suffering (the cross) and not glory, and Paul does say as in Adam all died, in Christ (the second Adam) all live. And Paul in Romans does say Jesus is born of a woman and only declared divine by his resurrection (because he humbled himself to death). Elsewhere Paul does not seem to have this idea of a preexisting divine Jesus, but only a self denying Jesus whom God exalts. Which is the example Paul has in mind for those who follow Christ. They too like Jesus will be raised to become sons of God by God. They too are not immortal by nature. So it seems strange that Paul would include this poem if he did not think it supported his own view.

Armageddon: The Jesus of Revelation is Jesus Barabbas, son of the Father. Mark’s Gospel was written to oppose this Jesus and Revelation according to Gustav Volkmar in his 1857 book “Die Religion Jesu”. Volkmar said Mark’s Jesus is mostly a parable about Paul. The Jerusalem church rejected Paul and Paul’s risen Jesus and chose instead the risen Jesus Barabbas of Revelation. And that is why Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed – according to the Gospels. Needless to say this was a little embarrassing at church on Sunday, so the Gospels obscured this with parable, and used scribes, and Pharisees, and chief priests as a euphemism for the Jerusalem church and James. Paul was the sower who went out to sow, but birds of the air (apostles and scribes) sent by the chief priest James plucked up the seed that Paul planted, robbing Paul of his labor. Peter and the other Jews in Antioch (Asia) were stony ground, and quickly fell away (before the cock crow twice) and separated themselves like hypocritical separatists (i.e. Pharisees) when teachers of the Law came from James. They all forsook Paul, and on his last trip to Jerusalem they betrayed him and tried to kill him at the hands of the Judas Sicarii. But Paul is delivered up to the Romans instead. John’s letters to the seven churches of Asia are an attack on Paul and Paul’s teaching. John might have revised Revelation to more easily take over Paul’s churches in Asia, even as Paul revised his Gospel for the Gentiles. But Revelation still remained entirely at odds with Paul’s “render honor and taxes unto Caesar, and overcome your enemy with good”. According to Josephus and Tacitus what most motivated the Jews to go to war with Rome was a prophecy that a Jewish Messiah would rule the nations with a rod of iron. Revelation fits that mold. These conclusions and others seem to follow logically from Volkmar’s 1857 “Die Religion Jesu”.

Bible Prophecy: Josephus and Tacitus said that what most motivated the Jews to rebel against Rome was the expectation that, about this time, a Jewish Messiah would rule the world. And John’s Apocalypse held that expectation, as did Paul (1Cor 15:25), as did John the Baptist, and as did, in all likelihood, Jesus. The Dead Sea Scroll Sect believed the same. But a consequence of this madness was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

New Wine: I like the idea of the memory of the Teacher being carried on by the children until the arrival of John and Jesus. It makes sense. Yet I do think some DSS sayings have been modified to opposite effect by the churches of Paul after the fall of Jerusalem. SGF Brandon and Robert Eisenman have suggested the same. Paul himself repurposed the DSS Pesher on Habakkuk 2:4. Paul would not have found the zealously anti-Roman message of the DSS conducive to his mission to the Gentiles. Also “works of the Law” would have been problematic to Paul’s mission. Therefore, new wine for new wineskins.

Domitian or Nero: Tacitus says many Christians were martyred by Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD. Also, many Jewish Christians would have been martyred during the war with the Romans. It is unlikely or even fiction that the Jewish Christians fled to Pella, because Pella had been sacked by the Jewish rebels at the beginning of the war in 66AD. So one need only shift the timeline of Revelation to 68 or 69AD to avoid this difficulty with Christian martyrdom under Domitian. The Book of Revelation might have been revised over time, by John and then by others.

Apocalypse and the Rapture: Dr. Tabor has pointed out that early Jewish Christianity mainly grew out of book of Daniel, being repurposed from resistance literature against Antiochus Epiphanes to resistance literature against Rome. In 4Maccabees 17:21 (written about 40AD) the martyrdom of a righteous one functions as a ransom for the sins of the Jewish people. But the martyrs would be raised from the dead (or raptured) at the end of the age. And the end of the age was close, and Jesus became the first fruits of the dead. This was probably how the Jerusalem church saw the martyrdom of Jesus, and was kind of an apology for Jesus’ failed bid to be the Davidic king in his lifetime. But they believed that Jesus would come again to fulfill that role. Paul took a similar message to the Gentiles, saying that Jesus was a ransom for them also. But some in the Jerusalem church did not like the last and the least (Gentiles) being made equal to the first (Jews), so some apparently rejected Paul’s Gospel, expecting the Gentiles to convert to Judaism. Also, they believed that Paul was teaching Jews not to follow Moses. Mark therefore portrays the pillars of the Jerusalem church in a negative way, wicked husbandmen who could not watch one hour for the fullness of Paul’s Gentiles to come in, and who denied and betrayed Paul’s Jesus (meaning Paul). So Mark’s Gospel is mainly a parable (or allegory) about Paul as pointed out by Gustav Volkmar in 1857 “Die Religion Jesu”. And because they rejected Paul’s Jesus Christ and Paul’s gospel and instead chose Barabbas of Revelation, and they could not watch nor wait, that is why the lord of the vineyard destroyed those husbandmen. This was not strictly true why Jerusalem fell, but that was Mark’s apology to his church for the destruction of the Temple and the Jerusalem church. So Mark’s Gospel centers around two apologies, one for the failed bid of Jesus to be the Davidic Messiah, and the other for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem church, apparently for following or acting out something like Revelation. And you are correct that Revelation is a somewhat coded “letter” and resistance literature that the Romans could not have been happy about, because it wanted to burn their city with fire.

Continue in my word: John repeatedly uses “believe” in the sense of “having faith”, e.g. John 1:12-13. I think John would agree with Paul Galatians 2:16. While it is true that some minimum of the Commandments must be kept and the Gospel obeyed, John is very anti-Judaic, and thinks the Jewish believers who did not continue in Jesus’ words are of the devil (John 8:44). John probably has in mind those Jewish believers that fell away from Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s Gospel when some came from James and the Jerusalem church to Antioch. John probably also has in mind the Jewish believers in Asia who fell away from Paul and went after John of Patmos and Revelation, and the worldly glory that was promised by that book. This would have been like going after Jesus Barabbas, son of the Father, who to the Pauline Christians would have been like the devil because of his revolutionary attitude to the Romans. This was a very violent revolutionary time with each side calling the other demonic.

Faith vs. Repentance: I think that even Paul thought that faith alone was not totally sufficient. For example Paul was horrified at the things the Romans were doing, and I am certain that Paul did not want his believers (the “little ones” of the Gentiles – babes in Christ) to continue in their sins. But for Paul, all the ordinances of the Jewish Law preached by the Judaizers were a stumbling block to the Gentiles coming to Christ. And so “faith” and “grace” (for Paul) became an entry point to repentance from sin. One must first believe before repenting. But by the same token, Paul did not think the “little ones” of the Gentiles had to obey all the ordinances of Jewish law, most of which were peculiar to the Jewish nation. Paul did not see any sin (for example) in not being circumcised. But it was a requirement to be Jewish. Consider for example 1Thess 1:9-10 where Paul teaches repentance from idolatry to be delivered from the wrath to come. And 1Corinth 10:21 Paul says you cannot drink the cup of the lord and the cup of demons (idols). So Paul is expecting some type of repentance even if he thinks one should have faith in Jesus. I guess Paul thinks (like Revelation) that Jesus’ blood has washed away past sins, and may atone for occasional sins even after coming to Jesus. It is rather complicated, but the ancient world with its idols and immorality was complicated.

Anomia/Lawless One: Matthew includes sayings from the Jerusalem church, who did not like Paul because they thought he was teaching other Jews not to follow all of Torah – anomia (which he may have been). However, Matthew is also quoting Mark about “Satan casting out Satan”, which is actually defending Paul against the Jewish believers (even Jesus’ own family) and the Jerusalem church who think Paul is possessed and beside himself. The scribes and the so-called hypocritical Pharisees that came down from Jerusalem are a parable for Paul’s difficulties in Antioch with those scribes (teachers of the Law) sent by James and the Jerusalem church. Peter and the other Jews then separated themselves like hypocritical pharisees. Paul is the sower that when out to sow (plant) but birds of the air (teachers of the Law) were sent by Satan (James) to pluck up the seed that Paul planted. And Peter was stony ground, who first accepted Paul’s word, but then quickly fell away along with the other Jewish believers when some came from James. Mark is all about parables, and even Jesus’ family is “without” and do not understand. Mark portrays the so-called Pillars of the Jerusalem church in a negative way. But Matthew, written later, uses Mark, but then includes some teachings of the Jerusalem church, some of which is not only un-Pauline but anti-Pauline. So this makes for a confusing mix. But for the most part, the Gospels are Pauline and anti-Jerusalem church.

Sons of Light: Good catch on Heb 5:5. It might be noted that the Dead Sea Scroll sect (and the early Jewish church) considered themselves sons of Light. And they were very much into baptism, like John the Baptist. And since God is Light, then one might reason all the DSS / Essene types saw themselves as (adopted) sons of God (Light) at their baptism. But to the Jewish Christians, Jesus would have been preeminently so because of his being caught up to God and His throne at his resurrection as the Messiah, or so they claimed to believe. Of course to the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another Jewish trouble maker whom they crucified for sedition, or to prevent sedition, as was John B. executed to prevent sedition according to Josephus. But this is all very helpful. Thanks! Actually Jude is anti-James, as can be seen by these verses: Jud 1:4  For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Gal_2:4  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: Jud_1:18 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. Gal_2:12  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gustav Volkmar (Die Religion Jesu, 1857) says Mark channels John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Revelation), but usually to opposite effect. In Mark 9:42-47 it is not the sinners of the Romans who will be cast into the sea like a millstone (Rev 18:21), but the Jewish disciples and Zion (Mark 11:23) for forbidding Paul (Mar 9:39) to preach to the little ones of the Gentiles and forbidding the little ones of the Gentiles to be saved (Acts 22:21-22, 1Th 2:16). Volkmar said that Mark’s gospel was written in opposition to the Jewish Revelation and the Pillars of the Jerusalem church, and was a parable for Paul to promote the authority of Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s Gospel. Revelation, on the other hand, is not only un-Pauline, but anti-Pauline. In Revelation it is Rome that falls, but in Mark it is Jerusalem that falls. As 1Thess 2:15-16 says, “the wrath has come upon them [the wicked husbandmen of the Jerusalem church] to the uttermost” (Mark 12:9) for not watching with Paul even one hour, for being offended and denying Paul (Mark 14:27-31, Mark 4:17), and for betraying him. Mark chapter 12, 13, 14 are a Markan sandwich condemning the Jerusalem church and the Way (the Poor) for rejecting and betraying Paul

City on seven hills: Rome was universally known as the city on seven hills, which ruled over the kings of the earth. First century Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the earth. In fact Jerusalem did not even rule its own kingdom, Rome did.

Sayings of Jesus: What makes you so certain that Jesus said any of this? Because the Gospel of Matthew says he said it? At the time Matthew was writing his Gospel he was probably using some source that goes back to the Jewish followers of Jesus. These Jewish followers would certainly have written or said things that were not only un-Pauline but anti-Pauline. One example of this is Revelation 2:2, which was after Jesus’ death, but is still credited to Jesus in his glorified state. There is no reason why Matthew’s Jewish Christian source would not also credit things to Jesus which Jesus did not say in his lifetime, even though Jesus probably did think much the same as the Jerusalem church and his Jewish followers. This might seem like a technicality, but it is important. I think there is a rational explanation for this. Peter Orr says that Mark’s Gospel is a backstory to Paul’s preached Jesus. Because Paul did not choose to provide any details about Jesus’ life, it would have made sense then for Mark to create his Jesus as a parable for Paul, and for Matthew and Luke to fill out Mark’s parable with other traditions they had received, but many times to 180 degree opposite effect to that intended by the Jerusalem church, as Eisenman has pointed out.

Habakkuk 2:4 and Luke 8:13: Luke 18:13 is probably a Pauline polemic against the Jerusalem church. Paul’s take on the Jerusalem church was that they were preaching justification by works of the Law, and not by faith. That is, the Jerusalem church was “self-righteous” because they were made righteous by works of the Law and not by grace (Galatians 2:14-16). If the Jerusalem church were all Zealots of the Law as Acts 21:20-21 says, then one might guess the Zealots would not have had much use for Roman tax collectors no matter how gracious or merciful God was to them. The Zealots rebelled against Rome because of the Roman tax collection, which they saw as an introduction to slavery. One is reminded of the Boston Tea Party.

In Luke 8:13 it is the “humble” Roman tax collector who desires mercy (grace), but the “self-righteous” scribes, and Pharisees, and chief priests, of the Jerusalem church (all Zealots of the Law) whose soul is lifted up within them. So Luke reverses Habakkuk by 180 degrees. In Habakkuk it is Babylon whose soul is lifted up – and by extension Rome in the time of Jesus. But Luke reverses that and says the Jerusalem church’s soul was lifted up because they desired to sit on the right hand and left hand of Jesus when he comes in his glory to rule the world.

I think, as Dr. Eisenman has pointed out, Luke 18:13 is one of these great reversals of the doctrine of the Jerusalem church. The Zealots of the Law and the Judas Sicarii of the Jerusalem church would certainly have looked down upon a Jew who was a Roman tax collector. The same would be true of the Jesus Barabbas of the Jerusalem church. That is why the Jesus of the Gospels is just the opposite of his own Jerusalem church and Jesus Barabbas. Gustav Volkmar pointed out in 1857 that the Jesus of Mark is mainly a parable for Paul – the sower who went out to sow, but birds of the air (teachers of the Law) sent by James plucked up the seed that Paul planted.

Could we say that Jesus Barabbas is THE real Jesus and the Gospel writers put him in there to contrast him with the literary Jesus of the Gospels?

Yes, I think so. Gustav Volkmar pointed out the Jesus of the Gospels is mainly a parable for Paul. And Mark speaks in parables. The scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests and Judas Sicarii of the Jerusalem church rejected Paul’s tax paying Jesus Christ, and they chose instead the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation who wanted to burn Rome with fire. And that is why the lord of the vineyard destroyed that den of Judas Sicarii.

Mark and the other Gospels are mainly a backstory for the preached gospel of Paul and Paul’s letters (Peter Orr, “Mark as Backstory”). And because Mark’s Gospel was created as a backstory for Paul’s preached gospel and Paul’s preached Jesus, Mark creates his Jesus as a parable for Paul. So when you read Mark’s Gospel, one should be aware that the history being told by the Gospel is mainly a history about Paul (the sower who went out to sow/preach) and Paul’s difficulties with the scribes, Pharisees (separatists), chief priests, and Judas Sicariots of the Jerusalem church, who try to kill Paul on his last Passover to Jerusalem. Mark’s Gospel is only vaguely and briefly the story of the historical Jesus Barabbas, who was caught up to heaven (so the Jerusalem church said) after being crucified by the Roman governor. For Mark it is all parable (parallel story), as Gustav Volkmar pointed out in 1857.

People had already received Paul’s good news of Christ crucified for their sins and the promise of everlasting life. But Paul died and had not provided much historical detail about “Jesus after the flesh.” Therefore Mark provides a “Jesus after the flesh” (a backstory) to Paul’s preached good news and to Paul’s preached Jesus. Mark is aware of some historical details of the Jerusalem church. But Mark does not approve of the Jerusalem church nor their Jesus [Barabbas], in the same way Luke 18:13 does not approve. So Mark instead creates his Jesus as a parable for Paul, which gives authority to Paul’s gospel and Paul’s churches over against the followers of the Jerusalem church. This is why the “Pillars” of the Jerusalem church come off so “poorly” in Mark’s Gospel. In fact, according to Mark and the other Gospels, the Jerusalem church chose “Poorly” when they chose their own Jesus Barabbas instead of Paul’s tax paying Jesus Christ. And the Romans then destroyed that den of thieves. This is Mark’s embarrassing parable. Dr. Tabor has pointed out that Paul was apocalyptic, Roman connections notwithstanding. Paul was beside himself (voices in his head), therefore not obeying Torah and obeying Rome was not an issue for Paul, because Jesus would transform this world (cosmos) at his second coming, which transformation was near at hand. Paul was on a mission to save the Gentiles from the “wrath to come”. But the Jerusalem church could not watch one hour with Paul for the fullness of the Gentiles to come in. Therefore, according to Mark, the lord of the vineyard destroyed those wicked husbandmen. They were a plant (or tree) that did not yield any fruit to Paul’s Jesus and Paul’s gospel and were thrown into the fire.

This was Gustav Volkmar’s hypothesis (whopper) back in 1857. Mark wrote his Gospel as a parable for Paul (the sower who went out to sow) and in opposition to the Jerusalem church and their gospel the Book of Revelation – in which Jesus son of the Father (Barabbas) wished to rule the world with a rod of iron. According to Josephus and Tacitus what most motivated the Jews to rebel against Rome was a prophecy that one from their own nation would rule the world. That is what Revelation (and Daniel) is about. And James and John (Pillars of the Jerusalem church) wished to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand in his world ruling glory, which Volkmar pointed out. But this type of world ruling Messiah is from Satan (the Devil) according to the Gospels. Instead of a gospel of world ruling glory, Paul preaches the gospel of the cross, as does Mark and Mark’s Jesus. Many of these same themes are present in all four Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John build on Mark’s “backstory”, including elements like Luke 18:13, which parable is consistent with Mark’s own parabolic polemic against the Jerusalem church. I guess Mark and the other Gospels chose parable because it was embarrassing to say these things plainly about Jesus’ own church. Not only was it embarrassing but also dangerous because the Gentile believers had (unknowingly) helped finance the Jewish rebellion through Paul’s collection for the Poor/the Way (the Zealot and Sicarii Jerusalem church).

Luke 18:13 is not specifically about legitimizing Matthew the tax collector. Jesus eating with tax collectors, and Matthew the tax collector disciple, these are really parables about Paul eating with sinners and tax collectors, and a finger in the eye of the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees of the Jerusalem church, all presided over by their Zealot chief priest James, the brother of Jesus Barabbas and Judas Sicariot. It is a inside joke (parable) by the Gentile churches of Paul, and the main Church at Rome. Of course James and most of the Jerusalem church were dead. But they still had many seditious dead-ender followers, as the Book of Revelation demonstrates. Gustav Volkmar said Mark, and by extension the other Gospels, were written in opposition to these dead-end offshoots of the old Jerusalem church. But, even to our our own day, this stuff never died. It just went under cover, and the anti-Roman Book of Revelation became a part of mainline Pauline Christianity. So I guess one could say the joke is also on the Paulinists.

Jesus Barabbas is simply Jesus bar Abbas, Aramaic for Jesus son of the Father. In Revelation 1:6 2:27 3:5 3:21 14:1, John of Patmos claims that Jesus is son of the Father. Paul also claims that God is his Father (Abba). Given a choice between Paul’s Gentile Gospel and the Book of Revelation, the Zealot chief priests, Judas Sicariots, and the crowd of the Way (the Jerusalem church) chose the Jesus of Revelation, Jesus Barabbas, and rejected Paul’s Jesus Christ. But the Roman soldier said that Paul (or Paul’s Jesus) was the true Son of God. It is all actually straightforward parable, as Gustav Volkmar said in 1857. The Gospel of Mark and the other Gospels are mainly a parable for Paul, and were written in opposition to James and John (the pillars of the Jerusalem church) and the Book of Revelation. So if you read Mark’s Gospel as a parable for Paul, and compare with Paul’s letters, and the “We” document of Acts, one can see quite easily that Mark’s Jesus story from Galilee to Jerusalem matches up with Paul’s journey from Antioch and [Galilee of] the Gentiles up to Paul’s last Passover, where the Jews (the Jerusalem church and the Way) try to kill him. The story of Paul was used by Mark to create a backstory for Paul’s preached Jesus and Paul’s preached Gospel. Matthew, Luke, and John include other tradition to fill out Mark’s threadbare backstory. And typically, but not always, as here in Luke 18:13, they reverse the position of the Jerusalem church so as to make it into a parabolic attack on the Jerusalem church. In this case, the tax collector for Rome is righteous because he believes in Paul’s Jesus, but the Jerusalem church is just a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites, including their Jesus Barabbas. It was this misunderstood polemic and parable that, in the terror of time, resulted in the death of millions of innocent Jews. — note — nobody liked Paul in Judea. To the Zealots of the Jerusalem church Paul was a traitor and teaching against the Law and the people. To the Roman or Herodian appointed Temple high priests, they thought Paul a ringleader of the sedition of the Nazarenes, because Paul’s collection was helping to fund that sedition. And to the Herodians and to his own people, they thought Paul was beside himself and possessed.

If there is any doubt that Luke 18:13 is a parabolic polemic against the Jerusalem church, consider the immediately following Luke 18:14-15 and compare to Luke 9:48-49. Luke 18:14-16 says one that exalts himself shall be abased, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted. Then Jesus says suffer the little children to come to him. Luke 9:48-49 says the disciples of the Jerusalem church were asking who would be the greatest (exalted), but they were corrected and said they must receive these little children, and whoever is least among then will be great. So Luke has drawn a direct parallel between these two pericopes. It is the Jerusalem church that exalts itself, but Paul’s Gentile sinners (like the tax collector) who humble themselves. It is Paul who is the “least of the apostles”, but is “great” to the Gospel writers. And Paul’s Gentile sinners are Paul’s little children in Christ. Compare 1Cor 15:9, 1Cor 3:1, Rom 2:20. And then to top it off, Luke 9:49 almost references Paul by name! Compare Mark 9:34-38, Mark 10:31, Mark 10:37. So once one understands the parabolic method is being used by the Gospel authors, then many times it is relatively easy to decipher the parable. There are other tricks the Gospel writers use also. For example taking Jerusalem church (Dead Sea Scroll) sayings and reversing them to attack the “Pharisees” of the Jerusalem church (Matt 15:11-16). Robert Eisenman has pointed out much of this. For example Eisenman points out “Pharisee” in the Gospels is a euphemism for the Jewish followers of James who separated themselves like hypocritical Pharisees in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). That also includes Peter. And by the same principle, scribes or “teachers of the Law” a euphemism for birds of the air sent by James to pluck up the seed Paul was sowing. And chief priests a euphemism for James and John, pillars of the Jerusalem church, but Satan according to Paul and Mark. And if the Zealot James is Satan, so also is Jesus Barabbas, and Peter, and Judas Sicariot, into whom Satan (Paul’s adversary) entered. Because they all oppose Paul’s version of the gospel, and the Zealots of the Way (Jerusalem church) try to kill him (Acts 21:20-21, Acts 22:3-4, Acts 22:21-22, Acts 23:12-14).

Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up (exalted) is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. It seems rather coincidental that Dr. Tabor references Habakkuk 2:4 with respect to Luke 18:13-14, and by extension Luke 9:48-49, Luke 14:11, and Luke 22:26. Because that is exactly how the Gospels saw things with respect to the Jerusalem church. The soul of the Jerusalem church was lifted up (exalted) and not upright within them, but Paul and his believing Gentiles (the least and the little children [the Gentile believers] – Luke 18:17) were justified by faith, and will live through faith. I might infer from this happy coincidence that Dr. Tabor did this intentionally. Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels, helps to make the parallels (and the parable) clear.

Den of thieves: Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul, the apostle to all nations. For Mark the Jerusalem church were all a den of Judas Sicarii (Sicariots) who received permission from the Zealot chief priests of the Jerusalem church (Way) to assassinate Paul for teaching against the Law (Acts 21:20-22, 28). The Way threw dust in the air and said Paul was not fit to live when Paul said he was sent to all nations by Jesus (Acts 22:21-22). The Jerusalem church (the Way) rejected Paul and Paul’s pacifist Jesus Christ and chose instead their own sikarios Jesus Barabbas. That is why the lord of the vineyard destroyed those wicked husbandmen. This is the meaning of Mark’s parables. The Zealots put an end to the sacrifices on behalf of Caesar (king of all nations) which Josephus said was a key step in the Jewish rebellion against Rome. This is why Mark (not Jesus) says the Temple was a den of lestes (Judas Sicariots) and not Paul’s house of prayer for all nations (Gentiles). The Sicarii were shredders of human beings with the sica daggers they used to assassinate traitors (Acts 21:38). The Roman soldier in Acts 21:38 asks Paul if he is a “sikarios”, but it is the “sikarios” of the Jerusalem church who swear an oath to the chief priests of the Jerusalem church to kill Paul. It is obvious the “sikarios” would not be colluding with the Herodian-Roman appointed high priest Ananias whom they would later murder for being a Roman collaborator.

The Catholic Confraternity NT Acts 22:3 says the Way was “zealous for the Law” even as Paul had been zealous for the Law – they were not apostate, they were the Jewish church of James. And the brethren of the Way were willing to hear Paul until Paul said Jesus had sent him to the Gentiles (the nations). At which point they (the Way) said it was not right that Paul should live. In Acts 23 some forty “Jews” made a conspiracy with the chief priests and elders to kill Paul. Logically these would be the same zealous chief priests and elders of the Way who had previously accused Paul of teaching Jews in the Diaspora to apostatize from Moses (Acts 21:20-22). The high priest Ananias would not have colluded with the Zealots to kill Paul, because the Zealots later killed Ananias for being a Roman collaborator. However, Ananias did collaborate with the Romans to have Paul imprisoned and sent to Rome, where Paul probably was executed by Nero for belonging to the seditious Nazarene sect. So this very much mirrors the parable Mark is telling about his version of Jesus. Mark is creating a backstory to Paul’s preached Jesus, and Mark creates his Jesus as a parable for Paul (the sower who went out to sow). Mark does not like the Jerusalem church (who rejected Paul and Paul’s Gospel in Antioch Gal 2:11-14). And the Jerusalem church was never reconciled to Paul, Paul’s Gospel, and Paul’s Jesus, just as Mark’s Jesus is never understood by the Jewish disciples in Mark’s Gospel. It goes without saying that Mark knew the parable he was telling (Mark 4:13). To look at the Jewish church as apostate is to look at the Jewish church from the point of view of the Gentile churches of Paul and from the “literal” point of view of the Gentile Pauline Gospels/Acts written by Paul’s churches after Paul’s death. These Gentile churches did not know the historical Jesus because Paul did not know him and did not want to know the historical Jesus after the flesh. Instead Paul only revealed to his churches the Jesus and the Gospel that he himself had received in visions from the Lord (2Cor 11:4, Gal 1:6-12) . Therefore, as a result, Paul’s view and the parabolic Pauline Jesus of the Gospels became the orthodox view, and the Jerusalem church view became the “apostate” view. But the Jewish church was not apostate either from the Law or from the historical Jesus Barabbas. And that is what got the Jewish church in trouble with Rome, just as it had gotten Jesus Barabbas in trouble with Rome. This is what the Gospels mean when they say “the Jews” rejected [Paul’s] Jesus Christ and chose instead [Jesus] Barabbas. “The Jews” in question are those of the Jerusalem church and James the brother of Jesus [Barabbas]. It is a parable. It is likely the elders of the Gentile churches of Paul did not want their “little children” to follow the example of the seditious Jerusalem church. And that is why the Gospels and Acts are written the way they are.

Act 22:3-4 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

The received text says Paul “was zealous for God.” This reading is problematic because it would suggest that Paul is no longer zealous for God. But if the Latin Vulgate “was zealous for the Law” is correct, then that would make more sense, even if it is the harder reading because of what it says about the Way in Judea. The Vulgate reading would also be consistent with Acts 21:20-21, Acts 21:28, and the rest of Acts 22:3-4.

Legion: Mark 5:1-20 In parable, Paul crosses over the sea to defeat the demons in Gentile lands Acts 16:9-10, Gustav Volkmar, 1857, “Die Religion Jesu”: “Even more threatening and terrifying [than the sea] is the entire realm of idols, this legion of evil spirits which have possessed the unfortunate human across in the pagan land, symbolically beyond the sea in the land of the Gadarenes. An entire “legion” of idols or demonic spirits have made the man there wretched, depriving him of sense and reason. All the bonds placed upon him (by the best legislators of ancient times) he has torn; he roams in shameless nudity, and instead of dwelling in the light of daily life, he resides among the graves of death. Only Christ’s word, and indeed immediately, can overthrow this entire unreasonableness possessed by the legion of the pagan world…..Mark depicts the foolhardy devil, the army of demons wishes to save itself from the fall into the abyss and the impure spirits choose, quite rightly since they must leave the man, the appropriate animals, but by doing so they are completely destroyed. On the other hand, for the Jew and the Judeo-Christian, the pagan land remains entirely repulsive. There’s something impure, swinish about it, so he does not want to enter. But the poetic narrator demonstrates beautifully: with the idolatry of this possession by the entire legion of demons, the entire swinishness or herd of paganism collapses at its foundation. The rescued pagan, previously so shameless and senseless, now sits rationally and clothed “at Jesus’ feet”, and the pagan land is simultaneously cleansed of the greatest offense, the entire impurity attached to it.” In parable, all thanks to Paul and his Gospel saving the Gentile world from their demonic idolatry – Mark’s Jesus being a parable for Paul, according to Volkmar, and also Mark 5 vaguely reminiscent of Odysseus and his travels in monstrous lands.

Gustav Volkmar in 1857, “Die Religion Jesu” said Mark’s Jesus is a parable for Paul (the sower who went out to sow). So when Mark’s Jesus crosses over the sea to the Gentile land of the Gadarenes, this is a parable for Paul crossing over to Macedonia and other Gentile lands (eventually Rome) in Acts 16:9-10 to save the Gentiles from the wrath to come.

There were a few scholars (William Wrede for example) who thought Volkmar was on to something. But most (Schweitzer, Werner) dismissed Volkmar as given to allegoresis, and instead pursued their fruitless quest for the historical Jesus. But everything that Mark’s Jesus is not, is what the historical Jesus Barabbas and his church were — Zealots of the Law (Acts 21:20, Mark 3:18), and Judas Sicarios (Acts 23:12, Mark 3:19). And, surprisingly, Mark really does want you to understand this parable! The scribes, Pharisees (separatists Gal 2:11-13, Mark 7:1-2), and chief priests of the Jerusalem church deny Paul and his tax paying Jesus Christ (Romans 13, Mark 12:13-17, Gal 1:10) and choose instead their own Jesus Barabbas (i.e. insurrection and murder). And that is why the lord of the vineyard destroyed those wicked husbandmen. But the Roman centurion recognizes that Paul’s Jesus Christ (or Paul) is the true Son of God – and not this Jesus Barabbas (Aramaic: son of the Father). This is history in the form of parable. But to know the history one must know the parable (Mark 4:13).

Taxation: Notice how Mark 12:14 mirrors Paul in Galatians 1:10 in not “respecting men”. In Galatians 2:9-13 and Mark 7:1-7 the issue is keeping kosher. But in Mark 12:13-17 the issue is the Roman taxation. This might suggest that Paul differed with the gospel of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:9) not only on the issue of food, but also the Roman taxation. That would be consistent with SGF Brandon and “Jesus and the Zealots”.