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

RE: [XTalk] Jesus Temple Act

Expand Messages
  • Loren Rosson
    [Loren] ... [Gordon] ... Obviously. The point is that it would have been easy for Jesus to get away after raising hell with the money-changers, and evade
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
      [Loren]
      >people get away with bank
      >robberies all the time -- at
      >least for a time

      [Gordon]
      >But again... what they did were crimes and
      >the police are on the hunt.
      >In the Gospels the authorities after this
      >are still looking for a way
      >to trap this guy with a legal charge and he's
      >not rushing in and out of anywhere nor hiding.

      Obviously. The point is that it would have been easy
      for Jesus to get away after raising hell with the
      money-changers, and evade capture for a time.

      >Are you wanting to go with Fredrickson's
      >idea that Jesus did this near the start
      >of his 3 year (Johannine) career? In other
      >words, there's really no arrestable
      >offense in this?

      I don't think it's necessary to endorse the Johannine
      placement of the temple incident for Fredriksen's
      point to hold. The temple incident could have happened
      hours or days before crowds and pilgrims became
      galvanized enough to attract serious attention. The
      crucial question is whether or not Caiaphas is in the
      driver's seat getting Jesus nailed. Sanders (and
      others) think this is the case -- that the high priest
      wanted Jesus dead for threatening the temple.
      Fredrisken disputes this for (a) archeological reasons
      (the size of the temple mount, especially seen in
      scale to masses of very "small" people), (b)
      historical reasons (if Pilate were just doing a favor
      for Caiaphas, it would explain Jesus being murdered,
      but not crucified), and (c) literary ones (John's
      repositioning). But no, I don't think (c) calls for
      endorsement of the way John actually places it, only
      that a strict reading of the synoptics yields
      problems. (That's old news anyway.)

      >I'd say if it did happen, Paula's
      >ideas is the least likely scenario.

      Fredrisken is convincing by drawing a strong line
      between the "triumphal entry" (or whenever during the
      crowds succumbed to messianic enthusiasm) and the
      crucifixion. She is also persuasive about the chief
      reason for Caiaphas' involvement -- helping Pilate
      pinpopint and apprehend Jesus in order to avoid wider
      bloodshed (Jn 11). I doubt, however, that Pilate
      hitherto "knew" that Jesus' movement was harmless, as
      she claims. Authorities would have been suspicious of
      any kingdom talk. Then too, there seems to have been a
      charge of sedition in the air over the question of
      taxation. Jesus' veiled transcript ("Render to
      Caesar") would have caused alarm while keeping him
      safe at the same time. And threatening the temple was
      obviously no joke, once people could identify Jesus
      and tie him to the incident. I think it's a mistake to
      look for a single reason for Jesus's execution. But it
      makes sense to distinguish between immediate reasons
      and subsequent charges (the latter of which don't
      depend on truth when enaging in a show trial as a
      preliminary to killing a low-life).

      So messianic enthusiasm is a strong candidate for the
      immediate reason for arrest and crucifixion. Charges
      of temple threats and tax evasion only sealed Jesus'
      fate, for the most part serving the purposes of a
      theatrical show trial and more public example. Those
      charges needn't have been true, though I think they
      were.

      You, however, deny all of the above three (messianinc
      enthusaism, temple incident, tax evasion) as causes
      for arrest. (Do I understand you correctly?) So how do
      **you** account for the "King of the Judeans'"
      crucifixion? Or do you?

      Loren Rosson III
      Nashua NH
      rossoiii@...



      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Messenger
      Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
      http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
    • Gordon Raynal
      Hi Loren, ... What do you think about the pandemonium issue? I don t know how many of these coins (with the other trade ins) would be on a given table, but
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
        Hi Loren,
        On Apr 2, 2005, at 7:47 AM, Loren Rosson wrote:
        >
        > Obviously. The point is that it would have been easy
        > for Jesus to get away after raising hell with the
        > money-changers, and evade capture for a time.

        What do you think about "the pandemonium" issue? I don't know how many
        of these coins (with the other trade ins) would be on a given table,
        but if these very valuable coins just started rolling all over the
        place don't you think there would be a large scramble? Such would make
        a getaway more plausible. Any thoughts?
        >
        > I don't think it's necessary to endorse the Johannine
        > placement of the temple incident for Fredriksen's
        > point to hold.

        Thanks for the clarification.
        >

        > You, however, deny all of the above three (messianinc
        > enthusaism, temple incident, tax evasion) as causes
        > for arrest. (Do I understand you correctly?)

        Yes (more below).
        > So how do
        > **you** account for the "King of the Judeans'"
        > crucifixion? Or do you?
        >
        I honestly don't know. I think "the reason(s)" he got killed was
        because he was the recognized "voice" of "a kingdom movement" that was
        taking root in Galilee, H. Philip's domain, Samaria and Judea
        (including Jerusalem). But as to the precise scenario of his
        identification at Passover time, his arrest and crucifixion I don't
        think we have records of that, rather we have a theological (and very
        effective one) drama that is part of a parable created by Mark. Just
        showing up and being identified as "this guy," as far as I'm concerned,
        is quite enough to get hauled off for official state execution by
        tortuous means of crucifixion to send the clear message that the state
        would in no way tolerate any other kingdom allegiances than those
        authorized by the state. I think that this grand drama that Mark
        creates works, as I've said, to raise up the breadth of challenges that
        were and are in Jesus' language about "God's Kingdom." Again... the
        whole messianic heritage as it was popularly interpreted (so often to
        such grievous and violent ends... and I think about the time when
        Archelaus killed 3000 of his own subjects at Passover time because of
        fears of sedition); what was being offered by the Pharisees, by the
        Saducees, by the Scribes; the current rulers of the Temple
        establishment; the current jurisprudence practice of the Temple
        leadership; the Roman system of rule, "Pax" and "law;" the mob
        mentality and even the self-assurance of Jesus' own followers is
        powerfully raised up as being **entirely** wanting. The Markan parable
        works to dramatize the choice being offered and the harsh realities for
        those in the community to live with the choice they have made. In my
        view, Mark written after the R-J war works to show precisely just how
        right Jesus was some 50 years earlier. Popular messianism was squashed
        again and again. The Roman appointed Temple establishment did nothing
        to create unity. The "law" was anything but. The Roman "Pax" was
        murderous. The mob mentality fueled by statist notions of Covenant had
        led to Vespasian and Titus coming and so the utter destruction that
        ensued. And counting on "self-assurance" was a sure path to denial or
        flight into the proverbial night. The drama, in other words, clearly
        works to show that Jesus was correct then and still correct in Mark's
        time. I'd like to no more historical details, but I just don't think
        the data we have contains them. I think what we do have is **far,
        far** more important.

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
      • Ernest Pennells
        [Josephus] ... grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 2, 2005
          [Josephus]
          >And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers,
          grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length
          from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae,
          [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got
          their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they
          mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were
          come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said
          before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay.<

          Is this fiction; or historical evidence that you could actually get away
          with murder - repeatedly - in the middle of a festival crowd? The surprise
          element still works, even when something similar has happened previously
          (One up for GJohn).

          Regards,

          Ernie Pennells
          Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
          Level 12 Apartment 4
          28 Corniche el Nil
          Cairo, Egypt
          Tel: (20-2)526 6383 Mobile 0121001490
          http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/03-1982.html
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.