Steven Carr

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

This does seem close to what Mark says the 'false' witnesses said.

So did Jesus actually say what Mark claims was a false allegation?

Is Mark saying straight-out that some sayings (sayings which we can find today in the Gospel of John) are false?

Peter Kirby

Yes, I think so. The temple thing in the Gospel of John is interesting; I will be looking at it in more detail in my John study.

best,
Peter Kirby

Chili

Mark is heresay without insight (har har but not really to make such a perfect match with John).

"Man-made temple" is the kingship of the conscious mind that has been accumilate in and by the ego during this generation.

"Not made by man" is found in the subconscious mind that contains the incarnate reign of God.

John is omniscient: he will raise "this temple into the reign of God." The three days in spend in the netherworld enabled Jesus to do this. In this sense did Jesus know exactly where he was going and what he was doing and is the reason why I hold that the Gospels compliment each other in their perspective.

pierneef

The problem about much of the debate above, is that it is based on the assumption that we have as accurate and pure a record as possible about a confusing set of events. However, all the Biblical scholars I have read have argued that the Trial of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, is not authentic, but subject to heavy redaction, interpolation, and editing to achieve very obvious political goals at the time. So, it seems rather odd to be debating within the framework of an undisputed series of texts, when these texts are generally regarded as unreliable. There is a tradition on which these texts have added their own propaganda layer, and trying to unearth that tradition seems to me a more rewarding path to take.

Vorkosigan

Here's my take on this passage. The witnesses whose stories didn't agree appears to be derived from Daniel and the Psalms. At this point Mark has stopped using the Elijah-Elisha cycle as his skeleton, and is now transitioning to Daniel 6. The details of this passage come, as far as I can see, from Daniel, the Psalms, and maybe a stray one from 2 Kings.

Here's what I have compiled so far. Lots more to input, though.

http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/nt/marktemp2.html

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pierneef,

This is an excellent point.

The movie musical "Chicago" (2002) is based on a real life trial of a woman named Beulah Annan. About 5% of the lines of the lead character, Roxie Hart, in the movie, can be traced back to things that Beulah Annan actually said during her arrest and trial. However, even these 5% are problematical. For example, she did say the famous line "We both reached for the Gun," which is the basis for an exciting dance number in the musical. However, it was Beulah's lawyer evidently who told her to say the line. He told her to say it because he, no doubt, felt that it was what the press/jury/public wanted to hear.
Even if we do somehow come up with the 5% of authentic sayings of Jesus, we have to ask how many of them were said because his advisers told him to say them. How many of them were said because he/they thought it was what the public /officials/fans wanted to hear?

This assumes that there is a real event at the core of the narrative.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan

It can't be done, because unlike the case Jay cited, there's no outside vector on this. Further, the trials appear to be total constructions of Mark, based on the OT and Mark's literary invention. There isn't anything underneath to excavate to, if you get what I mean. I doubt Jesus was ever "tried" before PIlate in any meaningful sense of the word.

Rick Sumner

Why he said X is irrelevant, for purposes of reconstruction. It's enough to note simply that he did.

Questions of motivation are useful for criticism of authors (Mark says X because Y), in that they help us discern what is being conveyed and why. They're useless as a tool for reconstruction beyond that. Why Jesus said "X" is anyone's guess. Maybe he was inspired by a mystical vision of Charlton Heston playing Moses. Who knows. All we can wonder is why Mark has Jesus say X. If we conclude that the answer to this latter question is that Jesus did, in fact, say X, we've gone as far as we can in any branch of historical reconstruction.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amlodhi

Hi Steven,

I have been following this thread with interest and you do bring up an interesting question here.

The gospel of John (2:19) does record this statement of Jesus. But John (or whoever) also adds the disclaimer:

John 2:21, "But he spake of the temple of his body."

However, the following verse (22) seems to suggest that the disciples didn't understand that "he spake of the temple of his body" until after the resurrection.

Any thoughts on how this disclaimer in John relates to the story as it is told in Mark?


Thanks,

Amlodhi

Chili

In that the resurrected body was not a human body (and here I would prefer the word mind that must transform the body).

What I wanted to point out is that the temple took 46 years to built. I think this temple was built by Joseph, cleansed when Jesus took over, and denounced from the precinct only and hence Peter's denial was a ligitimate claim against Jesus. This temple became the cross of Jesus to which he had to die but it would be raised in appreciation of Jerusalem (or there will never be a New Jerusalem).