> >>The irony is that Mk 12:13-17/Mt 22:15-22/Lk
> 20:20-26/Thom 100/Eger 3:1-6
> actually show Jesus
> obliquely opposing taxation. If one really wants to
> locate an historical
> Jesus who denied the legitimacy of Caesar's claim on
> this point, it's right
> there in the gospels -- at least, that's how I read
> the text in light of
> both Roman policies and practices in conjunction
> with Jewish views of the day.
> Does the author of the patchwork Gospel hypothesis
> think that the command to
> pay taxes was from Jesus, or simply Paul's
> "addition" to the tradition?
He fervently denies that anything like Mk 12:13-17
(and par) goes back to Jesus. His position is that the
historical Jesus is 99.9% lost to us (more lost than
even Burton Mack believes); that the only thing we can
really say is that he was executed by authorities as a
some kind of revolutionary. So for Templeman Mk 12
(and par) derive from Paul (in Rom 13), who was the
first to inject this material into the tradition.
> Or is the stuff in black type supposed to
> represent Jesus tradition?
No, the stuff in black represents the material that
never shows up in any sources until later than the 3rd
century. So it's the last of the last.
> Of course, Jesus' dispute over the issue owed more
> to "left" than "right" reasons...
If it's any consolation to you, I'm only sightly left
of center (in fact almost a centrist). So while I'm
convinced that the evidence warrants seeing HJ as
aggressively left (especialy if people like Yoder are
right about his harking back to the Jubilee), I'm not
-- and if he lived today, he and I would disagree
substantially on many issues relating to regulated vs
For what that's worth. :)
Loren Rosson III
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).