mikem

You are taking my comment out of context. I do think that the Temple disruption story is historical. I was simply pointing out that AT THAT POINT in my remarks I was concerned with making another point.

Hallandale

100% Proof Positive -No Doubt
That title is to get your attention.
But I have great proof that the Gospels were edited.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus uses the expression "the Kingdom of Heaven" about 30 times. But Jesus NEVER says "the Kingdom of Heaven" in any of the other Gospels. In Mark, Luke, and John's Gospels, Jesus says "the Kingdom of God".
So now, when Jesus spoke to his apostles, disciples, etc, concerning the "Kingdom" did he actually say "Kingdom of HEAVEN" or did he actually say "Kingdom of GOD"?
If you think about this you will realize that Jesus' words were definitely edited concerning about whether he said "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God".
Now this may be a small point. But if the Gospel writers felt free to edit the actual utterances of Jesus, in this regard, how do we know if they didn't edit other words, verses, paragraphs, etc.....or maybe their imaginations just ran wild and they invented miracles.
"""He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."""Luke 16:10

Nick Hallandale
enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

Diogenes the Cynic

Jewish Wars II, XII, 1

mikem

I have read the passage you refer to, which refers to an incident under another prefect over a decade later. We don't know do we, when the Romans put these security measures into operation, so we don't know for sure that the same arrangements applied under Pilate, although common sense would suggest they were. The wording "stood over the cloisters of the temple" are open to interpretation, either that the soldiers were on the temple ramparts themselves, or on the ramparts of the fortress next door, from where they presumably had a good overview of things. The moneychangers were located in the Court of the Gentiles, which was within the temple complex. It is possible that there were soldiers in the CofG itself, but that is not what the wording of the passage indicates. The Cof G was a large area, andno doubt very busy and noisy. It may have taken some time for soldiers on any ramparts to have noticed one man in particular. If you've ever been in an Eastern market you will know what I mean. Even if they had noticed, and apprehended Jesus, it is more likely he would have been arrested, and if any arresting was done, it would have probably been Caiaphas own temple guard that did it.

I don't think the passage comes close to supporting your contention that Jesus would have been cut down on the spot.

mikem

If you read the gospel accounts, Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple. Mark 13:1, Matthew 24:1,2, Luke 21:6. Also see John 2:17 - 21. The gospels tell us that Jesus spent most of his last week teaching in the temple, so it was not overturning the moneychangers tables that triggered his arrest, although it would have brought him to the attention of Caiaphas' spies.

The false witnesses were not entirely making up the accustation. Their falsehood lay in making Jesus, rather than God, the agent of destruction. Any kind of threat to the temple would have upset Caiaphas and his friends. It was their source of livelihood, and a very lucrative one too. The charge of blasphemy was a means to an end.

Given that the sources for Jewish belief come from a later time, I'm not sure that we can say with exactitude what would have warranted a charge of blasphemy at the time of Jesus.

Amaleq13

This attempt to avoid the evidence would be more credible had Josephus stated that this was the first time anyone had added extra guards but he does not. Taken along with the other descriptions of Pilate's dealings with the Jews, this rather lame apologetic is simply not credible. He was clearly dealing with an angry group during his "rule" so this precaution would only have been common sense as you admit.

I probably should have added that, in the parallel passage from War (Bk 2, Ch 12), Josephus clearly states that "and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals". Andrew Criddle offers you what, IMO, is an apologetic straw to grasp:

Personally, I think this runs contrary to common sense and, given the parallel passage, we are entirely justified to assume that extra guards began with the very first Passover subsequent to Pilate taking control. This is only made more likely by the disruption and anger generated by the census he conducted upon taking over.

War has "in the cloisters" but quibbling over the actual position ignores the fact that they would have done no good if they could not observe and respond immediately.

That's fine. It is more than adequate, however, to support my primary conclusion regarding the lack of historical credibility for the scene.

Well, the Synoptics tell us this but not John. On what basis did you decide to accept their version over John's?

Regardless, this entirely ignores the point that such a disruption would have triggered an arrest if not immediate execution.


I referred to the testimony as false. You asked why I did so. I provided the specific Gospel passage in which the testimony is called false. Your complaint here is with the author of the story, not me.

Are you kidding? You seriously want to advance the argument that, at some point in the history of Judaism, claiming to be the Messiah was considered blasphemy? Seems entirely absurd to me but I remain open to evidence.

Vorkosigan

Yes, but all of those claims except "time" and "language" are wrong.

At the moment, I have no idea who would be relevant to the usages in Matt and Luke. Since the authors are probably both gentiles, and it is not clear where and when they were writing from.

Vorkosigan

Actually, that wouldn't have got them upset either, as it was not blasphemy to claim to be, or to be identified as, the messiah. Additionally, Fowler has argued that the answer "I am" are the only words of Jesus, and the rest is an authorial aside to the reader. Others have argued that it is a later interpolation. From my commentary:

Note that in Matthew and Luke Jesus deflects the question of his identity, refusing to answer directly (Mt 26:64 ="Yes, it is as you say," Lk 22:67="If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer." ). Based on this agreement, Price (2003) speculates that our current version of Mark is incorrect. Sure enough, in certain manuscripts of Mark at 14:62 Jesus simply says: "You say" without the "Son of Man" commentary (p281-2). Grant (1963) notes:

• According to Alexandrian and 'Western' manuscripts, Jesus said, 'I am,' and went on to predict the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (14:61-2). Several questions arise here. (1) Caesarean manuscripts agree with Origen that the answer was less direct; they read, 'You have said that I am.' Do they preserve Mark's original reading, reflected in different ways in Matthew 26:64 and Luke 22:67-71? Or has the text of Mark been influenced by the later gospels?

However, David Hindley (2004) speculates that the writer of Mark may be engaged in a bit of sly word play. The Gospel of Mark is written in Greek. However, anyone familiar with Jewish scripture would immediately realize what "I am" meant in Hebrew: YHWH. And it is blasphemy to utter the name of God.

mikem

No, it definitely says "over the cloisters", not "in the cloisters", at least in the translation I have read. The temple was under the jurisdiction of the High Priest, he had his own temple guard to deal with any problems within the temple precincts. The syrian cohort brought in were stationed at the fortress, and no doubt could respond if required to. The question is why would they do so for one man, when the temple guard are in the immediate vicinity? Another point to consider is that the moneychangers quarter may well have been under cover, directly beneath Caiaphas official quarters, so only people on the same level would have been aware of what was going on. However I am recalling that from memory (of reading it, not being there I hasten to add!) so I will try and find the source for that information, unless anyone else reading this thread knows the source?

John does record that Jesus spent his last week in Jerusalem, and although he does not say that Jesus spent most of his time in the temple, that does not contradict what the synoptics tell us on that head. I take your point that moving the temple scene from the end to the beginning of Jesus' ministry is fairly major, but then John does a lot of things very differently from the synoptics, which is why it is not a synoptic gospel. Having already dealt with that scene to introduce his readers to the believer/nonbeliever conflict, which is one of his main motifs, he does not need to deal with it again. Of all the gospels, John is most obviously theological in intent, and although historical elements are present, it is the synoptics that contain most claims of a historical nature, and a discernible outline of events, and so form the basis for historical study.

Yes, the blasphemy charge. I agree with you that it would not have been blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah, and perhaps I should have made myself a little clearer. I take it that the gospels intend us to understand that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. This was not blasphemous. However, according to Mark, Jesus spoke of the "son of man sitting at the right hand of power" Jesus aserts that there are two figures sitting side by side in the heavenly world, God and a man. This would have been an offence to Jewish monotheism, and might be construed as blasphemy.

I have not forgotten the issue of criteria for historical credibility, and I will get back to that. Oh, and I'm otherwise engaged tomorrow, so Happy New Year for tomorrow.

Vorkosigan

And yet, there was a "two powers in heaven" belief in Judaism of the period. It crops out in the OT in several places, especially in Ps 110, a favorite of early Christianity. There are some good articles here:

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

Read especially the section on divine mediator figures in second temple judaism. Good stuff there.

Michael