spamandham

Indeed they have. More importantly, well qualified mainstream scholars (not sure why people have a bugaboo about mainstream, but meh) have come up with an endless list of possible Jesi using the same techniques and the same sources. What should this be telling us about the value of such approaches?

Steven Carr

Like Barabbas, who was let go?

Or Peter, who cut off the ear of somebody in the arresting party and was let go?

If the NYPD come to arrest somebody, and somebody pulls a knife, what do you think would happen? Suppose somebody pulls a sword?


What had Jesus done that was 'revolutionary'?

Steven Carr

John 20:19 'On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews....'

I guess Peter had forgotten that the authorities would not have know him apart from Adam, without somebody to point out his face.

neilgodfrey

Philo's mind-reading of a governor he hated is one way to interpret the passage.

It is more valid, I'm sure, to interpret the passage through the narrative's agenda. Pilate wasn't doing the normal "handwash" custom of the Jews -- that custom of handwashing before meals is an anachronism anyway. It was confined to a few Pharisees, and not common among all Jews till after 70 c.e. (Crossley, 2004). As per Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Matthew is looking back to Deut 21:1-9 where handwashing is required of one seeking to be free from blood guilt for murder. Also Psalm 26:6 has handwashing as a symbol of innocence. Matthew then structures the sequence carefully so that the crowd follow by taking the blood-guilt on themselves and their children.

This is but one of Matthew's anti-semitisms that are his specialty.

You seem to be forgetting the gospels describe Jesus as being able to stop "anyone carrying their wares through the temple" single-handedly. That is imagining a much smaller temple than the historical one. Look at Mark 13 and there is nothing to overturn that impression. You seem to be reading Mark 13:1 in the light of modern knowledge and not in terms of the narrative within gospel texts themselves. The alternative is to think all the evangelists use the same misleading exaggeration when saying Jesus did this.

How so? Read the novels and plays and letters and essays from the time and it is pretty clear that authorities had no problems identifying and arresting their target in cities. Even crowded ones. You don't need to have a sophisticated C21 SEO to nab someone who is daily making a public spectacle of himself.



Too busy to take time to even talk face to face with Jesus daily? Which they did -- beginning with Mark 11:27. You are creating an imaginary scenario that simply defies the gospel narratives.

Recall they had ample leisure time to debate with Jesus throughout this period.

Nationalistic fever at its pitch at this time? I've always wondered the source for this common claim. The passover was an annual event and we can be reasonably confident after X number of years the authorities managed it fairly well. To think they couldn't spare a few armed men to arrest Jesus any time they felt like it is fanciful. Simply follow him outside the city if they didn't want to do it in the city. Or simply arrest him when he was speaking in the temple.

The Feast of Tabernacles was also huge. John tells us the authorities had no trouble sending along a few "police" to arrest him on the spot. Or wait till after the weekend when the crowds would disperse. "Spies" -- like Judas -- for such tasks were a specialty in this time and part of the world. Only they had their own and didn't need to trust one from the other side.

Galilee was not a stereotypical yokel place. It was cosmopolitan with major city centres and philosophical schools. (Collins, Sterling (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2001) There were differences, but not so much of the kind you suggest here.

Bethany is outside Jerusalem. The miracle he performed there outraged the Jerusalem authorities enough to want to kill its beneficiary, Lazarus. Not someone else's problem at all.

When he arrived in Jerusalem crowds lined the highway to catch a glimpse of him as their king and saviour. Think they'd forget the face they saw? Compare notes? Talk about him afterwards? Cement the experience?

Next was not the temple cleansing, but the Pharisees being outraged at this reception Jesus got (John, Matthew).

The authorities DID catch up with Jesus many times. It was to have a debate with him about his authority, another time to listen to a parable or two, then again to discuss taxation, and again to discuss the resurrection, then to discuss the commandments, and the prophecies about the Son of David.

Lots of catch-up time happened.

Simpler would have been to simply come with a few thugs to the next debate and take him away on the spot.

He didn't slip away at all. He went right back where he was recognised as a follower of Jesus and had to deny Jesus three times to narrowly escape detection.

Ticks in historicity boxes? Armed thugs falling over backwards when Jesus spoke? Peter cuts off a high priest servant's ear and then just hangs around smirking "nya nya's" while Jesus delivers a little speech to put a stop to any more of that sort of action? You can strip all this away if you like to find "a historical core" but when you get there you have lost and destroyed the story.

You have to take your pick. Historicity or the gospel. Can't have both.

So let's stress in response all the free catching up time with Jesus that the authorities did indeed have. It was all this time that they had dialoguing with Jesus in Jerusalem that further provoked them against him. They knew exactly what Jesus looked like. They were talking with him daily. They knew how to describe him and ensure that the right channels also knew, and where he stayed, etc.


Everything ad hoc? I think you're just inventing this. Decades, some would say centuries, of experience with annual feasts hadn't taught them a thing? We are not dealing with stone age tribal communities trying to shuffle things together here. Do you really think Romans would tolerate an uncontrollable mob taking over any city for a week - religious festival or not?

To save the historicity of the gospel narratives you are making up scenarios (historical though they may be in some instances) that conflict with those very gospel narratives, as I have attempted to demonstrate here.

bacht

Good stuff Neil.

A criminal that the Romans had a lot of trouble with was Spartacus, a real threat to the establishment who was able to hold off the soldiers for a couple of years. But eventually the Romans won and crucified him and his followers.

It's hard to believe the authorities couldn't have taken Jesus any time they wanted. But if we allow for divine intervention then there's wiggle room for "God's will" and timing; this is the ace-up-the-sleeve for apologists.

rhutchin

The Romans could have done anything they wanted. Jesus wasn't a threat to Rome, so they ignored Him. Jesus was undermining the authority of the priests, not the authority of Rome. We might attribute the presence of the Roman authorities to the freedom Jesus exercised as, without Rome, the priests would likely have acted (or tried to) earlier than they did.

Jane H

Neilgodfrey- thanks for your detailed post. A lot of thought, effort and understanding! Naturally you'd expect me to disagree with you, so let's proceed!

The Jesus Seminar is simply one body of opinion. Mileages vary considerably amongst academic scholarship on hand-washing in C1. Space and the impending New Year prevent more than a suggestion of reading chapter 7 of this for a detailed example of the other side of the debate. That Pilate tried to annoy the Jews is consistent with the external evidence given. Matthew's relationship to the Jews is a very complex one- in most ways he is the most Jewish of the Gospels; anti-semitism is the wrong brush to be using for him (he includes the 'King of the Jews' titulus in the same chapter). Matthew is probably referencing the events of AD70 ex eventu in his account of the crowd.

Mark 13:1,2 “As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings! Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus..."

Hardly a small pagan temple. Throughout the NT, the Temple is described as the magnificent place it was. Herod may have been a psychopath, but he knew how to do a place up. Look, the Wailing Wall's still standing today- no-one would have been unaware of the size of this place. As for stopping the wares- probably a temporary halt to the normal route when the traders traffic got backed up. The crowd present didn't help matters, and if someone was waving a whip around, best to wait before proceeding.


On Judas- small points
Plays and novels don't necessarily reflect a reality at all...think dramatic needs and cop shows here.
Galilee had it's Greek-originated culture, sure, but Jesus spent most of his ministry wandering around the countryside. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?”- the sneer of the southerner against a northern city (UK residents will appreciate).
Peter did escape identification- precisely what Judas prevented in the Jesus incident.
I don't see a problem with thugs backing off a little when a charismatic person does his thing. Lone pensioners sending a gang of thugs running is a regular press feature in this country. The Peter incident happens in an instant. No time for smirking- events moved fast ending with Peter running for his mummy. I don't see a problem with the ear incident- multiple attestation of an event not putting Peter in a good light.

Mark 11:27- Mark 11:27-30 makes the point that they couldn't act because of the crowd.

I take no view on the accuracy timing of the conversations referred to relative to other events. A later insertion in the account of a previous conversation for editorial effect is quite possible.

E.P.Sanders- “Pilate lived in one of Herod's luxurious palaces down on the Mediterranean coast in Caesarea. For festivals however, he along with extra troops came up to Jerusalem. That was because there was a history of riots and disturbances during festivals. You pack an extra 300,000 or so extra people into a relatively small city and you fill a large open area with these pilgrims and they are remembering things like "it's Passover week - this celebrates our liberation from bondage in Egypt!" That is, there is an aspect of national liberation to the religious festival of Passover - and then it wouldn't take much for there to be an outbreak, an uprising or disturbance. “ (from the transcript of Jesus before Christ)

Jane H

Main on Judas

The authorities were trying to cope with a situation crossing the logistical issues of the Hajj with the potential for violence of an early Nazi rally. They had a lot to deal with- much of it spontaneous or unpredictable, and picking up Jesus was one important issue amongst many. For a couple of days he would turn up places, have conversations with any authorities around at the time who challenged him. On the odd couple of occasions an arrest could be organised, there were too many people around in what was a tinderbox situation. Just as something more specific was being put together, along (probably very early in this sequence) comes Judas.

He offers to provide a good time and place on an ad hoc basis. This frees up time and manpower in the nightmare week, and prevents agents getting identified and attacked. It helps solve a problem and is accepted.

So after the improvised Last Supper, Judas sees the chance, and the authorities put together a mixed bunch of professionals and rentacrowd to bulk up the muscle. None of those present is quite sure they would recognise Jesus, so Judas offers to make a positive ID. The rest, as they say, is history.

Historicity and the Gospel.

Toto

Godwin's Law? [staffwarn]Get a grip, man[/staffwarn]

Solo

If a suspect pulls a knife it would be a sign he belongs to a gangland culture, if he pulls a sword then the cops would know instantly they are dealing with a poorly medicated psycho. :huh:

Jiri