[XTalk] Re: Temple;
> 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 stillThe placement of the
> 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
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?
- On 26 Jul 99, at 13:30, Stevan Davies wrote:
> The placement of theI don't think John's positioning of the Temple incident tells us much
> 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."
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, thenInteresting thought -- a good attempt to turn my method against me.
> 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?
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.
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
The New Testament Gateway
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page