Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

JUDAS THE SICARIOS

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    It is interesting that amongst the followers of Jesus there was not only Simon the Zealot but there was also Judah the Sicarius. The Pharisaic movement was a
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      It is interesting that amongst the followers of Jesus there was not only Simon the Zealot but there was also Judah the Sicarius.
      The Pharisaic movement was a broad church which included not only those who were prepared to try to bring in the kingdom of God by force of arms but also those, the Sicarii, who were prepared to assassinate those Jews who they regarded as collaborators.
      Jesus himself was clearly a Pharisee, since his views regarding the afterlife matched theirs entirely. Where he differed however was that he belonged rather to the quietistic side of the movement which was happy to accept Roman rule as long as the Jews retained religious freedom. This attitude however would have been unpopular with the more hotheaded nationalistic members of the movement who could not even stomach a half Jew as a king, let alone the Romans.
      It is easy to see therefore that if it became a choice for the general population between Jesus bar Abbas, a guerilla leader and stalwart patriot who had risked his life with his companions fighting the Romans and Jesus of Nazareth, the Jews were always going to choose the fighter against the pacifist.
      It was no good Jesus preaching that his kingdom was not of this world, a popular wonder worker such as he was easily aroused the messianic hopes of the multitude, much to the discomfiture of the Jewish establishment. It is unsurprising therefore that the Jewish authorities took the opportunity to remove him from circulation by passing him over to the Romans for condemnation on a charge of sedition. It would seem also that Judah the Sicarius became disillusioned with the pacifist approach of Jesus, which is why he was prepared to assist the Jewish authorities.
      Dennis
      ---------------------

      Dennis Goffin

      Chorleywood UK




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Greg Crawford
      Dennis, There is no such person in the Gospels as Judah the Sicarius ; it is rather Judas Iscariot. The attempts to derive Sicarius from Iscariot join a
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dennis,



        There is no such person in the Gospels as "Judah the Sicarius"; it is rather
        Judas Iscariot. The attempts to derive "Sicarius" from "Iscariot" join a long
        list of derivations of dubious philology. These include the notion that
        "Iscariot" meant "the man of lies", the man who "handed over", the many who dyed
        things red, a fruit grower, a man with red hair or a ruddy complexion, the man
        from Kerioth, the man from Askar/Jericho/Kartah or the man from "the city" (i.e.
        Jerusalem).



        The derivation of "saccarii" from Iscariot is not only one in a long list of
        dubious derivations, it runs into the problem that the sicarii do not seem to
        appear until the 40s and 50s of the 1st century - too late for Jesus.
        Furthermore, the identification of Judas as "Iscariot" seems to derive from the
        fact that his father was Simon Iscariot (John 6:71; 13:2, 26).



        Greg



        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        Dennis Goffin
        Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:03 AM
        To: gpg@yahoogroups.com; crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com; synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] JUDAS THE SICARIOS







        It is interesting that amongst the followers of Jesus there was not only Simon
        the Zealot but there was also Judah the Sicarius.
        The Pharisaic movement was a broad church which included not only those who were
        prepared to try to bring in the kingdom of God by force of arms but also those,
        the Sicarii, who were prepared to assassinate those Jews who they regarded as
        collaborators.
        Jesus himself was clearly a Pharisee, since his views regarding the afterlife
        matched theirs entirely. Where he differed however was that he belonged rather
        to the quietistic side of the movement which was happy to accept Roman rule as
        long as the Jews retained religious freedom. This attitude however would have
        been unpopular with the more hotheaded nationalistic members of the movement who
        could not even stomach a half Jew as a king, let alone the Romans.
        It is easy to see therefore that if it became a choice for the general
        population between Jesus bar Abbas, a guerilla leader and stalwart patriot who
        had risked his life with his companions fighting the Romans and Jesus of
        Nazareth, the Jews were always going to choose the fighter against the pacifist.
        It was no good Jesus preaching that his kingdom was not of this world, a popular
        wonder worker such as he was easily aroused the messianic hopes of the
        multitude, much to the discomfiture of the Jewish establishment. It is
        unsurprising therefore that the Jewish authorities took the opportunity to
        remove him from circulation by passing him over to the Romans for condemnation
        on a charge of sedition. It would seem also that Judah the Sicarius became
        disillusioned with the pacifist approach of Jesus, which is why he was prepared
        to assist the Jewish authorities.
        Dennis
        ---------------------

        Dennis Goffin

        Chorleywood UK



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dennis Goffin
        Since you quote John, Greg, that must mean that you accept the accuracy of 11: 47-50. Is that so ?Dennis ... Dennis Goffin Chorleywood UK To:
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Since you quote John, Greg, that must mean that you accept the accuracy of 11: 47-50. Is that so ?Dennis

          ---------------------

          Dennis Goffin

          Chorleywood UK

          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          From: g.c@...
          Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:08:30 +1100
          Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] JUDAS THE SICARIOS




























          Dennis,



          There is no such person in the Gospels as "Judah the Sicarius"; it is rather

          Judas Iscariot. The attempts to derive "Sicarius" from "Iscariot" join a long

          list of derivations of dubious philology. These include the notion that

          "Iscariot" meant "the man of lies", the man who "handed over", the many who dyed

          things red, a fruit grower, a man with red hair or a ruddy complexion, the man

          from Kerioth, the man from Askar/Jericho/Kartah or the man from "the city" (i.e.

          Jerusalem).



          The derivation of "saccarii" from Iscariot is not only one in a long list of

          dubious derivations, it runs into the problem that the sicarii do not seem to

          appear until the 40s and 50s of the 1st century - too late for Jesus.

          Furthermore, the identification of Judas as "Iscariot" seems to derive from the

          fact that his father was Simon Iscariot (John 6:71; 13:2, 26).



          Greg



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

          Dennis Goffin

          Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:03 AM

          To: gpg@yahoogroups.com; crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com; synoptic@yahoogroups.com

          Subject: [Synoptic-L] JUDAS THE SICARIOS



          It is interesting that amongst the followers of Jesus there was not only Simon

          the Zealot but there was also Judah the Sicarius.

          The Pharisaic movement was a broad church which included not only those who were

          prepared to try to bring in the kingdom of God by force of arms but also those,

          the Sicarii, who were prepared to assassinate those Jews who they regarded as

          collaborators.

          Jesus himself was clearly a Pharisee, since his views regarding the afterlife

          matched theirs entirely. Where he differed however was that he belonged rather

          to the quietistic side of the movement which was happy to accept Roman rule as

          long as the Jews retained religious freedom. This attitude however would have

          been unpopular with the more hotheaded nationalistic members of the movement who

          could not even stomach a half Jew as a king, let alone the Romans.

          It is easy to see therefore that if it became a choice for the general

          population between Jesus bar Abbas, a guerilla leader and stalwart patriot who

          had risked his life with his companions fighting the Romans and Jesus of

          Nazareth, the Jews were always going to choose the fighter against the pacifist.

          It was no good Jesus preaching that his kingdom was not of this world, a popular

          wonder worker such as he was easily aroused the messianic hopes of the

          multitude, much to the discomfiture of the Jewish establishment. It is

          unsurprising therefore that the Jewish authorities took the opportunity to

          remove him from circulation by passing him over to the Romans for condemnation

          on a charge of sedition. It would seem also that Judah the Sicarius became

          disillusioned with the pacifist approach of Jesus, which is why he was prepared

          to assist the Jewish authorities.

          Dennis

          ---------------------



          Dennis Goffin



          Chorleywood UK



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jgibson
          ... Since you note that Jesus thought that his Kingdom was not of this world , does that mean that Jn 18:36 is accurate ? Jeffrey -- ... Jeffrey B. Gibson
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 8, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            On 2/8/2012 9:37 AM, Dennis Goffin wrote:
            > Since you quote John, Greg, that must mean that you accept the accuracy of 11: 47-50. Is that so ?Dennis

            Since you note that Jesus thought that his Kingdom "was not of this
            world", does that mean that Jn 18:36 is "accurate"?

            Jeffrey

            --
            ---
            Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd
            Chicago, Il.
            jgibson000@...
          • Dennis Goffin
            Jeffrey: Since you note that Jesus thought that his Kingdom was not of this world , does that mean that Jn 18:36 is accurate ?Dennis: The writer of John s
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 8, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeffrey: Since you note that Jesus thought that his Kingdom "was not of this world", does that mean that Jn 18:36 is "accurate"?Dennis: The writer of John's Gospel, like the Synoptics, had no way of knowing what exchange took place between Jesus and Pilate. He therefore adopted the accepted convention of his day, and put in Jesus' mouth what he considered his response to be, from what he knew of the beliefs of Jesus from tradition. In so far as these beliefs would seem to correspond with those prevalent in that sector of Judaism at that time, I consider them "accurate".. Dennis
              ---------------------

              Dennis Goffin

              Chorleywood UKTo: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              From: jgibson000@...
              Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:54:20 -0600
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] JUDAS THE SICARIOS




























              On 2/8/2012 9:37 AM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

              > Since you quote John, Greg, that must mean that you accept the accuracy of 11: 47-50. Is that so ?Dennis



              Since you note that Jesus thought that his Kingdom "was not of this

              world", does that mean that Jn 18:36 is "accurate"?



              Jeffrey



              --

              ---

              Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.

              1500 W. Pratt Blvd

              Chicago, Il.

              jgibson000@...


















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.