Diogenes the Cynic

The healing was not original to either the synoptic source or to John. Luke's only source for the story was Mark. Luke was not adding extra information, but making it up. The original story did not contain that element, so Luke was just filling a pothole.
The fact that they crucified him means the Romans viewed him as an insurgent. Crucifixion was only given out for crimes against the Roman state. If he hadn't been viewed as some kind of insurgent, he wouldn't have been crucified. If he called himself "the King of the Jews," then he was guilty of sedition under Roman law.

We don't know how long his career lasted (if he had one at all), but he spent most of it in obscure backwaters of Galilee even according to the Gospels, so the Romans would have had no reason to notice him. It was stirring up shit among the Passover crowds at the Temple that would get their attention, and if people were saying he was a Messiah (i.e. the true King of the Jews), then he was committing treason by definition. The Romans routinely killed would-be Messiahs, but usually killed their followers too. They didn't really bother fucking around with things like trials either. Peasants in occupied provinces did not have rights. The other Messiahs they killed didn't get trials. Just summary executions.

Ironically, claiming to be he Messiah was (and is) NOT a crime under Jewish law and is not "blasphemy" as the author of Mark mistakenly believed.

Diogenes the Cynic

To both Outhouse and Iskander:

I think the point about how those foothills outside of town were likely to have been filled with campers is a good one. I think it actually helps on every count for plausabilty. If the context of the scene is changed from an isolated band of people hiding in a cave in the dark to more of a Sturgis type, tent town scenario, it makes sense. I think Iskander's scenario of a small detail sent to find one guy on a hill crowded with campers does sound plausible, and it would allow the others to melt away and hide in the crowds without the detail having anyway to know who was who (I would totally be like Kefas in that situation - "Jee-zus? I know not of this 'Jee-zus' you speak of. Praise be to Jove"), and making it way too much of a pain in the ass to look for them.

I do think it's curious that the servant is named, though.

sotto voce

Quite so. And Judas was able to guide them to the exact location for the arrest to be made. So all three OP questions have been satisfied. There was no need for arrest of Peter; the time of arrest and the means of arrest are both accounted for.

A question has subsequently arisen because, while four gospel authors mentioned the removal of an ear (or part of an ear, perhaps no more than an earlobe), only one mentioned that the injured party was healed. Now it is true that, were there no account of that healing, there could be doubt as to why Peter was not held to account for his action. So one needs to understand why three authors could have thought it unnecessary for this question to be asked. Peter was, according to Acts, present and very conspicuous after this event, and indeed brought before the Sanhedrin (for preaching about Jesus) and could have been arrested for this assault.

Of course, if the injured party was of lowly status, and if the injury was minor, the incident may well have been forgotten, particularly in the momentous circumstances that were to grip all Jerusalem. If it was true, as Josephus relates, that the ruling priests hired men to beat up and rob, and were unpopular on this account; and if the Sanhedrin wished to stay in the good books of the people, they would have ignored this assault, anyway. If Peter had perceived that the purpose of the visit was robbery, or if the arresting party had suspected Peter's perception of it, the Sanhedrin would not have wanted the publicity. If this corrupt state of affairs was common knowledge, there would be no need to inform readers of the healing.

In fact, it could have been distraction from the story to add this detail. It is not as though readers were unaware that Jesus could heal supernaturally. Any perspective that could accept resurrection of a whole body (and, in the terms of the OP, that perspective must be acknowledged) could accept mere restoration of an ear.

So it may make more sense to ask why Luke bothered to mention it; though this question has been answered here, also.

sotto voce

How do these details make the account less plausible?

Only Luke mentions a miracle.

outhouse

take into account the romans and high priest had one goal in mind. Peace and no riots to keep the unsettled jewish crowds spending money.

this was a huge payday for romans and the temple


close to 400,000 jews and they all had no place to stay. they slept somewhere.


a small detail would be the only way. they wouldnt send a huge one out for one person, but most of al they didnt want to attract alot of attention.

outhouse

I still think he wasnt killed for his preaching and claims of being the messiah or king of the jews was added later.

Preachers of all kinds were on every corner among 400,000 people there would have been thousands of preachers.

jesus was a nobody preacher with no real following other then a few broke buddies, fishermen which at that time were low lifes, and a tax collector who was even more of low life, and possibly a crazy lady.


he was killed for tax evasion and possible causing a stink in the temple. In the day the temple would have been packed full and its my guess jesus escaped in the crowds only to be caught one or two days later under nightfall.


The NT is full of tax talk, even being questioned about taxes while in the city before his death.


here is how I see it.

he is hanging out with tax collectors and preaching to them to quit raping the people, he is questioned about not paying taxes, he is said to have tipped over money tables [bank tellers] calling them thieves and he is put to death shortly thereafter for roman crimes. which as you say preaching was not a roman crime, they ignored this unless it was percieved as a threat.


jesus as a poor hardworking hand laborer, would have hated roman oppression but more so roman taxation that kept him hard woking and in poverty, he preached town to town for handouts and traveled with nothing so tax collectors had nothing to take and no property to be taken in lieu of tax evasion. he also preached others do the same.


Romans were there to do one thing and one thing ONLY, tax the jews, and they did it well. Jews hated this and jesus was no different

Iskander

John speaks of a roman cohort and Matthew of ‘a great crowd’.

Presumably a roman cohort moving at night through the City to deliver an innocent Jew to a Jewish priest is neither discreet nor plausible. As Pilate shows later, Jesus was not in the Roman list of wanted criminals.

Matthew speaks of “a great crowd”, but again a large number of armed men moving at night through the city would have alarmed everyone and it would have been very difficult to get it going without the opposition knowing what is coming. .That was the sort of thing the plotters wanted to avoid.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't think I've ever seen the original Jesus movement postulated as a passive-aggressive tax revolt before, but I guess that is a possible politicized reason for acseticism.

Not buying that it was the whole point, though. The core sayings traditions are pretty apocalyptic.

outhouse

I think jesus did his tax revolting in a passive way, he understood aggressiveness would be instant death with romans.


When jesus was a child they had a tax war in Galilee, what 3000 killed and 6000 sent to slavery. Odds are jesus family was a victim or definatly someone his dad knew.

then jesus lived and there was a tax war, right after jesus death.


the country jesus lived in was on the brink of a tax war the whole time jesus lived.



Now we have paul and mark both writing a hellenized roman version of a jewish man and his jewish troubles. Of course were not going to get the real jist of it. Yet the bible is ripe with this tax information.




jesus figured out the roman taxation game and figured out a way to beat the romans at there own game. thing is jesus lost his cool and got his hiney killed in the big city out of his element.



So its obvious the romans hellenized their version of jesus and downplayed his jewish plight. They kept the sayings like Q and added OT prophecy and minimalized his plight creating biblical jesus. jesus gained popularity after his death. His apocalyptic teachings were a product of his enviroment due to the country living on the brink of war, and jews new the outcome would mean their death.

since the bible contradicts itself on what jesus ment for the coming kingdom of god, all the doom and gloom really doesnt have the historicity some place on it.


I find anthropology of Galilee speaks more to me then the dogma of the gospels, I follow Johnathan Green on all this part

outhouse

and I still see jesus as a teacher/healer and preahing against taxation.

really he was just a product of his times, he stood for hard working normal people. This is what made him stand out from other teachers of that time. That and his unique sayings and parables


Not your typical zealot at all, even though its said one of hi sdisciples was one