Chili

But Jesus was the reborn Joseph and that is why the temple was 46 years old, which is about the right age for a good dose of menopause.

I think it is fair to say that this ruckus took place in the temple that Jesus would first destroy and raise again in three days. If so, this temple is his own conscious mind and here Jesus is trying to destroy the old habits of Joseph (big sinner such as he was) because that was the barren fig tree [of knowledge] that had not produced anything good for a long time.

I guess this is much like the first step in AA in that we must first recognize our faults before we can even begin to cleanse the temple and after this things went pretty well for him. So he goes on to deal with the facts of his past in a very rational way and behold, the fig tree withered to its very roots and Jesus would never be led into the old temptations of Joseph = incarnate evil is defeated (sins of the clan, tribe and nation).

Was it predicted? If not, it was predictable because it is a very normal event before a true metanoia can take place. The anger Jesus displayed just shows his motivation and indicates that he was in charge and not JBab (who still is the big push from behind the scene).

Vorkosigan

Rick, it is isn't "impossible." However, the scene as it exists in Mark is clearly a fiction that exhibits strong literary dependence on every level of detail, intermediate structure, and broad framework. This three-fold fictionality accounts for both the detail of the story, and why the story exists at all (it is in Mark's source, the Elijah tales).

So, why should anyone accept a historical kernel here?

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

I've just stated I'd color it gray. Toto has stated, repeatedly, that it is "impossible," this is contrasted with the trial, that is just "improbable."

I'd like to know why it's impossible.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I was speaking from the perspective of the author. Clearly, he considered it to be perfect.

It doesn't appear to bother the author that he is replacing the more historically accurate Sadducees with Pharisees. This makes sense given a date of authorship after 70CE when the latter were far more prominent than the former.

Not in my opinion. That's one reason I don't consider the trials to be reliable sources of history. Then again, I don't see any reason to accept Premise 1 except for the sake of argument.

Amaleq13

You think it is possible for one guy to clear out all the moneychangers and prevent "any man" from carrying "any vessel" through it while 600 Roman soldiers stood guard over the area?

Rick Sumner

Is that what is being referred to here by the "Temple Tantrum" though? I'm certainly not a fundamentalist, no apologist, not even Christian. Is this definition of the "impossibility" of the temple incident any kind of response to my initial position? Is it even vaguely linked?

It's a strawman.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Amaleq has raised a valid issue. The Temple Ruckus has Jesus entering the Temple, causing a ruckus, then sitting down to teach, then leaving with himself and group intact -- all without any retaliation from the personal servants of the moneychangers or the Roman guards specifically posted there to deal with such events. Even granting a historical kernel in which a ruckus takes place in the Temple still leaves us facing the problem of him getting in, causing trouble, and most importantly, exiting -- all without provoking instantaneous retaliation. It doesn't work. "Impossible" might be a strong word, but it is not exactly unfounded here.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

Not a valid one against my position, only a valid one against a Fundamentalist.

This is how the temple incident is recounted though, I certainly haven't suggested that it's what the temple incident was.

It's a concern if you're a Fundamentalist, rabidly insisting every word is inerrant. I'm not, and thus a response to my earlier arguments it's worthless.

I say "Something happened in the temple that became a source for Mark's narrative." You can't respond to this by saying "Well, Mark's narrative can't be true as it is," that's not addressing the argument, it's creating one that is easier to rebut. A strawman. The impossibility of the temple incident as recounted in Mark has absolutely no bearing on the possibility of a temple incident.

Who said anything about him getting out, for starters? Why couldn't he have simply been arrested there?

Secondly, even if he did get out, it would seem quite plausible to me that they'd wait for him to leave before arresting him, so as to avoid risk of riot. Thirdly, it would, as has been noted, akin to starting a fight at the Superbowl--it not only might not get broken up, it's quite likely that it would scarcely be noticed by anyone not immediately present.

"Impossible" stands up only by the most grandiose of imaginings. It would be "impossible" for the Markan narrative to be true, an historical event behind it would not be an "impossible" occurrence--not even in the ballpark.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

That is the only story under consideration since you have offered no other specific scenario that might be judged with regard to its "possibility". A vague reference to "a disturbance" or "an incident" doesn't provide enough information for anyone to determine if it is possible or not so that can't be it. What else could you have been referring to when you asked if "it" was truly impossible?

Where, in your "initial position" do you describe an alternate story? Referring to a vague reference to "a disturbance" or "an incident" as a "position" is, to borrow a term, a bit grandiose, wouldn't you say?

Actually, you haven't suggest what the "temple incident" actually was at all so nobody can tell if it is possible or not. I would think that would obviously eliminate it as the object of Toto's observation.

And an undescribed "temple incident" lacks sufficient information to be of any use to anyone let alone being judged with regard to its possibility.

Since it makes no sense to say whether an undescribed event is possible, it seems rather obvious that Toto is referring to the only story relevant to this discussion that contains enough detail to render such a judgment.

Does your reasoning eliminate this impossible story from being considered true if no motive to fabricate it could be identified?

Rick Sumner

This is pedantic, and you doubtlessly know it, though I suppose that's what I get for squaring off against the mods.

That's okay, two can play. I suggested, repeatedly, that Mark had spiced up a narrative with a source he liked best--the Hebrew Bible. If Mark's narrative is crafted and redacted using the Hebrew Bible, then his source cannot possibly have looked the same as his story, and I cannot possibly be referring to an event identical to the Markan narrative.

If my failure to elucidate what I thought to be inherent has genuinely confused you such, then I'd suggest you read some scholarship on the temple incident. Any of a broad swath of literature will suffice, virtually every reconstruction of the historical Jesus concludes that it should be described in more or less the same way, it's only the symbolism of it that differs.

If I haven't confused you, then perhaps we look at what is being conveyed, rather than lining up along party lines?

Regards,
Rick Sumner