RE: [XTalk] Jesus Temple Act
>people get away with bank[Gordon]
>robberies all the time -- at
>least for a time
>But again... what they did were crimes andObviously. The point is that it would have been easy
>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.
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'sI don't think it's necessary to endorse the Johannine
>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?
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'sFredrisken is convincing by drawing a strong line
>ideas is the least likely scenario.
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
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
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
- 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.
>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).
Samaa el Maadi Tower No 2B
Level 12 Apartment 4
28 Corniche el Nil
Tel: (20-2)526 6383 Mobile 0121001490