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

[XTalk] Re: Temple;

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... The placement of the Temple event in Mark seems to some at least to have something to do with Jesus arrest and execution (although you seem curiously
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > On 24 Jul 99, at 13:45, William Arnal wrote:
      >
      > > Anyway, why unrealistic? Because a single man, acting alone, is able to
      > > halt all traffic in an important and complex institution (try this in a
      > > bank sometime, and see what happens). Moreover, he is able to do so
      > > without getting arrested, in spite of the authorities, especially during
      > > Passover, being vigilant about precisely such subversive displays. In
      > > fact, not only is he not arrested, but he subsequently sits down to teach
      > > about the significance of his action. This is not only implausible from
      > > the side of other folks' reactions (they not only fail to arrest him, but
      > > actually let him sit there and yack for a while) but it is also
      > > implausible in terms of JESUS' activity, since it would suggest that he
      > > saw the action as a purely symbolic demonstration, a teaching aid, as it
      > > were.
      >
      > But this is not an argument against the historicity of the Temple
      > incident but rather against a pre- form-critical reading of the whole
      > Temple complex in Mark (and parallels). While I would want to
      > defend the historicity of the Temple incident, I do not assume that the
      > teaching attributed to Jesus and situated in Mark 11.20 -- 13 must
      > have taken place subsequent to that Temple incident. So the
      > arguments about Jesus sitting down afterwards and no-one touching
      > him are irrelevant.
      ======
      > This is one, I think, of several places where NT scholars are still
      > working with a pre-form-critical understanding of the gospels. Bill is
      > right to criticise the implausibility of the picture that the standard
      > understanding produces but wrong to think that that invalidates the
      > historicity of the event likely to have resulted in Jesus' arrest and
      > execution.

      The placement of the
      Temple event in Mark seems to some at least to have something
      to do with Jesus' arrest and execution (although you seem
      curiously willing to admit that Mark doesn't necessarily see
      it that way). However, the incident in John's gospel occurs
      years before the execution. Thus at minimum one can conclude
      that (unlike, let's say, the Last Supper) the Temple event was
      separable from the passion narrative so that one is certainly
      entitled to suspect that Mark put it where it is in his gospel
      for reasons other than "it happened that way.". But if so, then
      the historicity of the event per se has NOTHING to do with
      a post-form-critical conclusion that the event "resulted in
      Jesus' arrest and execution." Aren't you doing yourself in
      the same paragraph what you criticize Bill for doing?

      Or am I missing something again?

      Steve
    • Mark Goodacre
      ... I don t think John s positioning of the Temple incident tells us much about when the event happened. He has brought it forward in accordance with his new
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 29, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 26 Jul 99, at 13:30, Stevan Davies wrote:

        > The placement of the
        > Temple event in Mark seems to some at least to have something
        > to do with Jesus' arrest and execution (although you seem
        > curiously willing to admit that Mark doesn't necessarily see
        > it that way). However, the incident in John's gospel occurs
        > years before the execution. Thus at minimum one can conclude
        > that (unlike, let's say, the Last Supper) the Temple event was
        > separable from the passion narrative so that one is certainly
        > entitled to suspect that Mark put it where it is in his gospel
        > for reasons other than "it happened that way."

        I don't think John's positioning of the Temple incident tells us much
        about when the event happened. He has brought it forward in
        accordance with his new covenant / supercessionist theology; it
        follows on well from Cana. As for Mark, I am simply pointing out
        that the location of teaching in Mark 11-13 is not an adequate
        argument against the historicity of the event. This is what Bill's
        argument, it seemed to me, amounted to, i.e. it assumed that those
        who accepted the historicity of the incident also accepted the
        historicity of the Markan narrative agenda, specifically Mark 11-13.

        >But if so, then
        > the historicity of the event per se has NOTHING to do with
        > a post-form-critical conclusion that the event "resulted in
        > Jesus' arrest and execution." Aren't you doing yourself in
        > the same paragraph what you criticize Bill for doing?

        Interesting thought -- a good attempt to turn my method against me.
        Of course Mark is indeed constrained by his narrative agenda also to
        place the incident in the latter part of his Gospel since it is only there
        that he has the visit to Jerusalem. Given that admission, though, it is
        interesting that he places it so early on in that visit, perhaps to give him
        time to interpret it properly in accordance with his agenda, hence the
        need -- for him -- for 11-13.

        Mark
        --------------------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
        The New Testament Gateway
        Mark Without Q
        Aseneth Home Page
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.