There are indicators all over GMark that it is revisionist propaganda and that the real story being whitewashed is one of an insurrectionist movement and their popular leader. All of the nonsense about "brother against brother" and fleeing to the mountains and how they will be "hated" because of him, etc.
Why? If you take the gospels as, well, gospel, then all Jesus ever teaches is the golden rule and to love your enemies and pay your taxes (to Rome) and avoid litigation and do whatever any earthly authority tells you to do. In fact, go even further and if Romans beat you, insist that they beat you again and wear your clothes and give them your money, etc., etc., etc.
There is nothing that I can find in any of the gospels that even
hints at any "governors and kings" being in any way upset about what he teaches--including any "orthodox" Jews considering there were already thousands of Essenes and Zealots and "Hellenized Jews" and Pagans, of course, and a whole slew of people believing all kinds of batshit crazy nonsense in Jerusalem long before Jesus ever comes onto the scene--let alone any Romans. Hell,
he's teaching in the Temple, which had to have been approved by the chief priests and Pilate must have been absolutely thrilled with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes and literally everything Jesus ever reportedly said to any of the "masses" in Jerusalem.
The only overt civil unrest Jesus ever comes close to fomenting is when he gets inexplicably angry at the necessary money changers in the Temple and flips a few tables. It is as disruptive an event as a fucking food fight, not cause for the entire hierarchy of Roman and Jewish authority to begin plotting his death.
Only a cult member would place such importance on a minor, isolated disturbance that,
at best would have been cause for a low level Roman "police officer" (equivalent) maybe sending someone to find out who this homeless carpenter Rabbi is and then the report back would be, "He's just another Jew preaching love and shit. Oh, and telling his followers to obey us and offer their other cheek when we beat them and that if they rejoice in their suffering and remain meek for their entire lives, their God will reward them. So that's refreshing."
End of report and end of concern about Jesus from a Roman perspective, certainly.
And, of course, from a Jewish orthodoxy perspective, the only apologetic is that the San Hedrin--again, numbering into the
70s--are so threatened by Jesus' supposed popularity that they want him
killed (but really it's that they just
know he's their messiah and that means they no longer have any power and so they want him
killed, something every Jew would know is not possible if he actually were a supernatural entity sent by Jehovah as prophesied).
So where does fleeing to the hills and being hated because they know Jesus and brother turning against brother come into anything Jesus ever does, says, practices or preaches?
It is literally a message of do nothing, love those who beat you, obey authority and thank God you're oppressed! An insurrectionist leader
actually talking about rising up against a military occupation and empire like the Romans, otoh? Yeah, then all of the brother against brother and his soldiers will be facing punishment and standing before governors and kings, damn straight, but a homeless Jewish carpenter talking to Jewish whores and Jewish fishermen about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? He would be celebrated and
sponsored by Pilate, ffs, right from day one, if Pilate ever even were made aware such a low personage existed.
Then there is the entire arrest sequence starting in Mark 14 likewise evidencing the
real story underneath the whitewash:
Mark 14: 10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. 11 They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
Why? For any of that? Why would they be "delighted to hear this" and promise him money? What for? And what "opportunity" does he need to watch for? Supposedly, Jesus was well known to the chief priests by this point. Again, they had to have approved of him teaching in the Temple and saw him overturn the necessary money changing tables and tried to trip him up with questions
directly, etc., etc., etc. They knew exactly who Jesus was--by sight--and supposedly had already tried to stone him to death for blasphemy twice already, so why exactly would they need Judas for anything at all, let alone to pay him to "betray" him? What is he betraying? Did Jesus walk around all day openly and get periodically questioned by the chief priests and then at night went to a super secret hiding place? Why would he do that?
Homeless carpenter Rabbi preaching non-unique unorthodoxy? No. Unknown leader of an underground insurrectionist movement who actually did have super secret hiding places? Yes, only it wouldn't be the chief priests who enlisted Judas to betray him, of course. It would be the Romans.
So, do we see any evidence of this kind of super secret hiding places--and clandestine passwords--that only an underground insurrectionist movement would require? Mark 14:12:
The Last Supper
On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”
It's straight out of Casablanca! But, again, why? For ANY of it? Why in the world wouldn't a homeless carpenter Rabbi just say, "Let's have Passover at Jerry's house"? No, it's a pre-arrangend special meeting place
in the city that can only be accessed by finding "a man carrying a jar of water" and knowing the right password phrase, etc.
And then there is the whole "One of you will betray me this night" and woe be unto him for such a monumental transgression and "this is my body, this is my blood," which is literally a blood pact between them and ALL HUMANITY.
Homeless carpenter Rabbi? NO. NONE of that. The stakes simply aren't that large. Again, no Roman Prefect would have ever even heard of any such low personage as a homeless carpenter Rabbi who hangs out with whores and fishermen and preaches love and obedience to Rome and not a single member of the San Hedrin would feel in any way threatened by anyone
they had approved to teach in the Temple saying whatever the hell his version of Judaism was. ALL Jews constantly debate what Judaism is.
Their power was invulnerable. The scenario would be identical to a Cardinal or City Councilman sitting in their million dollar penthouse apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan giving two shits about a homeless guy down on the street twenty floors below shouting at passersby about how the people in that building are hypocrites. Even if it were true--and that guy managed to get thousands of New Yorkers to gather around him every night and listen to his harrangues against the elite (just like we see today with
millions screaming about wealth inequality and yet NOTHING happens)--the San Hedrin simply would not give a shit about Jesus.
But, again, an underground insurrectionist movement with a charismatic, popular leader that no one but his loyal lieutenants know by sight? Then this shit makes sense:
Mark 14:26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
...
43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him.
Again, why? For ANY of that? Judas leads a "crowd" of armed men--sent by the San Hedrin, so, iow, the very people that would have been at the Temple too and seen Jesus turn over the tables, etc--to
arrest a homeless carpenter Rabbi that Judas nevertheless must kiss in order to mark him as the one to arrest. But they already knew who Jesus was!
And why did Judas need to arrange a signal with them? They're evidently a select, heavily armed "crowd" of Jewish policemen, essentially; first century Mossad. Even if they didn't already know who Jesus was by sight from any number of times Jesus taught in the Temple and spoke around town--with the San Hedrin asking him questions, no less, which they would have been present for as their henchmen--was there some secret as to who, among eleven
fishermen, was the one they all revered?
And who did Jesus and the "disciples" think was the "crowd" of heavily armed men with Judas? Were they all going to pretend to be buddies of Judas' and mingle with the post passover disciples drinking wine and partying until such time as Judas could give them that pre-arranged signal?
Again, homeless carpenter Rabbi preaching the golden rule and a bunch of humble fishermen spiritualists having just eaten Passover? No. Unknown leader of an underground insurrectionist leader in a
second secret meeting place in the outskirts of town--after having held some form of blood-covenant secret meeting in the city where he warned of upheaval and rebellion and being persecuted because they knew him (iow, the night before some sort of attack, perhaps?)--being betrayed by an undercover or turncoat Judas that fears for his life if it is revealed who he is? YES.
Roman soldiers--dressed in peasant, "undercover" clothing just like with the aqueduct--who don't know who the actual leader is needing a sign indicating who he is, from someone who is either their own agent who had joined the "movement" to spy on them (and thus knows that
this was the night before whatever was really being planned in the secret meeting place in the city) or someone who had been caught at some point earlier and turned by the Romans into betraying his fellow soldiers/leader.
All of that tracks perfectly. 100%.
Further evidence:
Mark 14:47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?
Wait, WHAT!? One of the eleven fishermen is
armed at the secret out of town after party for Passover? And he cuts off one of the soldier's ears and then NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS?
NO. No way in hell that just happens and a fishermen is armed on passover and he
cuts a guy's fucking ear off, and nothing. Whether Roman soldiers or a San Hedrin "crowd" of heavily armed henchmen, if one of their ears gets suddenly sliced off, then it's ON and a bloodbath would ensue.
And note what Jesus says next:
49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me.
So the "crowd" DID know who Jesus was by sight! So why the fuck does Judas need to pre-arrange a "signal" with the men so that they will know which one is Jesus?
And then we have the final bit of evidence of a whitewashing going on with:
Mark 14:50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.
Everyone "deserted" Jesus and
fled. Why? Again, he's
supposedly just their Rabbi. Imagine you're at a Church potluck dinner on, say, Easter. A group of heavily armed men show up claiming to be sent by, say, the Archdiocese or Bishop or whatever. And you, for some unknown reason, pull a gun and shoot one of their ears off and your minister or priest or pastor stops everything at that point and willingly surrenders himself to these men.
Why would you--or anyone in the church--then
desert him (and what would that even entail), let alone
flee? You haven't done anything wrong. You've just been listening to the guy's sermons about love and obedience to authority and rejoicing in being beaten, etc.
Again, those are words and actions that a group of insurrectionist soldiers would do during a
raid, but certainly not what a group of spiritual fishermen would do if their pastor had just surrendered himself to a bunch of guys supposedly sent from the pastor's Bishop or the like.
Then, of course, there's the whole tortured nonsense regarding Pilate, but this alone is strong evidence--imo--that in GMark we are seeing a Roman propagandist revising (whitewashing) an actual story that would have been recorded by Roman officials in Jerusalem--if not Pilate himself--and reported to Rome as a successful thwarting of an insurrectionist movement that had been planning some form of larger scale attack and that's when Pilate sprung the trap.
And then we get the publicly held trial and torture and mockery and crucifixion of a caught insurrectionist leader as a warning to ALL the Jews in Judea. And because those events actually happened--Jesus was in fact betrayed and arrested (by undercover Roman soldiers, not a San Hedrin "crowd") and then publicly tried by Pilate--the author was not just making anything he wanted up. It had to follow at least the known aspects of what actually happened. What needed to be changed was who was to blame for it all.
And why would that be necessary? Well, again, it was written
right at the same time that the Jews are just starting to openly rebel. A nascient insurrectionist movement from thirty or forty years prior grew as a result of its adherents
deserting and fleeing and telling and retelling and embellishing a marytyr mythology about how the Romans killed a warrior messiah sent from Jehovah to free us all from Roman oppression, such that it helped to form and spur on a much larger movement that ultimately becomes the first Jewish revolt.
But before that happens, efforts are undertaken to infiltrate this secondary movement (just like the first movement) with other agents, like Saul of Tsarsus, who is a Roman and (allegedly) a Jew and was a confirmed agent provocateur supposedly engaged by the San Hedrin (which faction not entirely established) to hunt down and persecute (whatever that actually meant) "Christians."
And what does he do? He tells of a "vision" he had that "converted" him and that's his entire entryway. That's it. A "vision." Why? Because the smarter ones knew how gullible cult members can be. But the other "disciples"
do not trust Paul and relegate him to those on the fringe that are more adherents to the mythology than to the real cause (insurrection).
And Paul then immediately sets about to rise up within the organization to the best he can and all the while desperately tries to turn the story--the Jesus martyr story, that becomes the "passion narrative"--into something supernatural rather than natural (in perfect keeping with everything the Romans have put into practice in their propaganda "psy ops" agendas). Even to the point of writing letters to his burgeoning "flock" insisting that HIS version of the Jesus story MUST be the only true version or else they have nothing and it's all meaningless.
Jesus wasn't a martyrd insurrectionist leader--
warrior messiah as the other "disciples" are saying--no, according to my vision sent from Jehovah, he was a man of peace and love who was ALL MANKIND's
savior messiah! The Jews got it all wrong! Their fathers and grandfathers are the ones who killed God's son and our savior! The Jews are wrong! The Jews, the Jews, the Jews, not the Romans!
All of the components are literally right there, including
in the written document of GMark.