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

RE: [Synoptic-L] JUDAS THE SICARIOS

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.