DCHindley

To me, Jiri is falling into the trap of transforming Jesus' political dimension into an ethical one.

The Romans historically allowed their subject peoples to maintain temples to their ancestral gods. There were, however, operated by permission of the emperor and under the authority of the local Roman governor, who may rob them (they called this "emergency tax exactions") and imposed limits to the size of the territory they controlled to produce grain and income for the maintenance of the priesthood and property, generally to weaken their influence so they were more manageable.

In Asia and Egypt, the temple priests would be granted rights to a certain amount of agricultural land which they leased to "temple slaves." Along this same model, the Jewish priesthood were granted authority over the land in the province of Judea, less that land long ago seized by previous conquerors and now under the direct control of the Roman emperor (to be granted at his discretion to his government officials and favorites), and they "leased" it to Jewish families in return for required tithes and sacrifices.

Outside of the exactions mentioned above, I am not aware of any such cash skimming by the Romans when it came to the Jewish temple, other than some sort of fee for the agreement that allowed the temple to mint silver coins for use in temple transactions under the pseudonym of the long closed mint at Tyre. In that period, governments routinely charged a fee to cover the "overhead" required to produce enough coins and replace losses (stolen or lost coins such as those taken home as souvenirs).

Jesus says "You have made it a den of robbers" (Matt. Mark, Luke) = ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (from Lēstēs, 1. robber, highwayman, bandit. — 2. revolutionary, insurrectionist). Lēstēs were armed bands of outlaws, so how would that fit into a hypothesis of graft & corruption? If so, only by hyperbole.

I would suggest that it is a moralization by the author of this triple tradition pericope, in that the temple priesthood had strongly participated in and made the temple the focus of the revolution of 66-70 CE, and who were motivated by money and power, resulting in the temple's destruction. It is an anachronism, placed back into Jesus' mouth. The tables of the moneychangers only serve as a prop in the narrative. For all we know, there weren't any tables set up like this at all. There would be kiosks all over town where money could be exchanged, and these were more likely than not controlled by the temple authorities, either directly or by concession. If anyone knows of citations in rabbinic literature that mention moneychangers tables in the temple, please let me know.

DCH

JoeWallack

Ou la rah Roma, Ou yah gah Gala


knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; (ASV)

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that [life] which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, [the faith] which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.

Solo

Can you provide any source for the assertion that the Romans ran the temple and used the place as a treasury ? Much obliged.

Best,
Jiri

Solo

You got it, Joe. The verb systaurō looks like Paul's neologism. It is possible to create new words in Greek by combining existing ones or by using prefixes. In this case (Rom 6:6, Gal 2:20) however, Paul used the word to express a really strange new idea of "sharing" in the crucifixion of another being. I doubt this word would have had circulation beyond Pauline churches which took the imitatio (1 Cor 11:1) seriously.

So I am thinking the 'synstaurōthentes syn autō' was originally a ridiculing shot by Matthew who read the two robbers correctly as the ironic rendering of the 'lawless ones' (Isa 53:12) (who could they be ? :dancy and made them badmouth Jesus. Oneidizō at Mk 15:32 is a hapax in Mark which makes me think Matthew used this image first and Mark was later assimilated to it.

Best,
Jiri

Solo

Here you go.

Best,
Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Ehrman of course sights the supposed crucifixion as one of two key pieces of evidence for almost certain HJ. His specific problem here is he does not consider Paul as a possible source for "Mark". Strange since Paul is the only known significant Christian author before "Mark" and parallels well with him/her/it. On the other side Ehrman accepts all kinds of other possible sources for "Mark" that are not extant.

The crucifixion tests very high for fictional criteria. Christianity starts with a [emphasis] belief [/emphasis] in the resurrection (let the Reader understand ([subtle] which starts with revelation to Paul[/subtle]). The accepted first letter of Paul, 1 Thessalonians, does not even mention crucifixion. Keep in mind that this letter would have been a stand alone, policy statement at the time. This suggests that the "crucifixion" was a later development (literally, so to speak).

Having Jesus hung instead of crucified solves a lot of problems like why Jesus promoters were still permitted in Jerusalem. HJ has no answer for this. So the problems with the supposed crucifixion as almost certain evidence for HJ are:

1) Tests high for fictional criteria.

2) Source looks to be dependent. There is no first or second hand witness. Paul never claims that a witness told him Jesus was crucified (look it up).

3) Historically unlikely. Josephus does not show Messy candidates getting crucified. For the Romans this would be counter-productive. Crucifying non serious threats would lessen the significance of the punishment.

That being said, there is no reason to crucify Ehrman here. He is trying. Instead of criticizing him, criticize his methodology and he will improve it. He's not perfect. I mean at one time he was dumb enough to believe that god sacrificed himself to himself in order to conquer death by dying and bring an end to his eternal Law.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

Your claim that "Paul is the only known significant Christian author before "Mark" is COMPLETELY unsubstantiated.

There is virtually NO parallels in gMark with the Pauline writings--gMark's Jesus CONTRADICTS the Pauline Jesus.

gMark's Jesus was NOT a Savior and was NOT the End of the Law.

You have NOT shown and cannot show that the author of gMark was influenced by the Pauline writer, the Pauline letters or attended any Pauline churches.

In fact, gMark's Jesus story is almost certainly BEFORE the Pauline letters.

Even Apologetic sources Place Paul after gLuke and in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation was written.

Also, letters attempting to position Paul before c 65 CE have been deduced to be forgeries plus the supposed close companion of Paul, the author of Acts, even though claiming to have traveled with him all over the Roman Empire did NOT claim Paul wrote any letters.

Other Apologetic sources like Aristides and Justin Martyr were completely UNAWARE that a Pauline character supposedly evangelised the Roman Empire and documented his gospel of salvation by the resurrection.

The Pauline letters cannot be shown to have been written before the Jesus story was known.

In the very Pauline writings it is claimed Paul preached Christ Crucified so it is just not even logical that the crucifixion story was a later development.

1 Corinthians 1:23 NIV

outhouse

who places Caiaphas in the temple as a leader? romans

would Pilate taking money show you he had more control then you know??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct.


was this the first time?
the last time?
the only time?


or one of many since he had control of the temple. Jews were not free to run a huge buisiness like the bank or treasury.

outhouse

http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/pilate.html


Collection of Taxes: Rome relied to a large extent on the help of local authorities and private agents in the collection of taxes. Supervising these was the governor, acting as the emperor's personal financial agent. The heaviest of these taxes was the tributum; by the first century CE this was primarily a tax on provincial land and the amount of tribute required from each person was worked out by means of a census. Only one census appears to have been conducted in Judaea, that organised by Quirinius at the formation of the new province in 6 CE (Josephus, Antiquities 18.3f, 20.102, War 7.253; Tacitus, Annals 2.6; Acts 5.37, {Lk 2.2})

General Administration: In accordance with general Roman practice, the entire day-to-day administration of the nation was left largely to the Jewish High Priest and aristocracy in Jerusalem. The Romans expected them to uphold imperial interests whilst the local aristocracies could expect their own privileged positions to be safeguarded by Rome in return. The Roman governors recognised the political importance of the High Priesthood and sought to keep a tight control over it, appointing and deposing High Priests at will.




A second distinctive feature of Pilate's governorship is that, unlike his predecessor Gratus who changed the High Priest four times in his eleven years, Pilate made no change to the incumbent of the High Priesthood. This was presumably not out of any wish to respect Jewish sensitivities but rather because he found in Gratus' last appointee, Caiaphas, a man who could be relied on to support Roman interests and who could command some respect amongst the people.

Solo

Funny, you should be saying that: I am just now writing an essay on the extent of Paul's influence on Mark. Paul's epistles I believe is the only significant text that we can trace in Mark. The rest is just total speculation which does not become 'historical material' by the sad finding that thousands of graduate students repeat the Q abacadabra-cross-my-heart-and-hpe-to-die after their professors as a way to getting their theses approved and thus being recognized as academic experts themselves.

It's really a rudimentary observation that we don't need to postulate a Q entry for Mark 8:34 “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.…..” when we have Paul's exhortation in 1 Cor 11:1 "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ".


It looks like a later development in Paul, all right, but this does not weaken the probability that Paul started to tackle the historical crucifixion head on (at Corinth) to get a 'morality edge' over the Jerusalem missions. Paul's 1 Cor 1:18-31 is a moving confession but also masterful propaganda, created when he noticed that the James missions were uncomfortable with the fact their martyr was executed as a common criminal. They did not have the chutzpah and the brains to re-interpret Deu 21:22-23. He did. Paul's rhapsodizing about the temple inside one's body in 1 Cr 6:19 leads me to believe this was a veiled allusion to the fatal incident of the Nazarene martyr in the temple. (If you doubt this look at the next verse.) This is strengthened by John recounting a second incident at the temple in which Jesus miraculously escapes stoning. Mark's apologia for the cross would probably be the second of these magical escapes, or (short) reprieves, told regularly about famous rebels and leaders of new religious movements. It was told about Mohammed, Ali, The Bab, the Slovak highlander avenger of the poor - Juro Janosik. In our time, the Sikh martyr Jamail Singh Bhindranwale is widely believed to have survived the assault on the Golden Temple in 1984 and died in dignity some time later. The leader of the Tamil Tigers, Velupillai Prabhakaran was ambushed and killed in 2009. His corpse was displayed publicly by the Sri Lankan military. It was a case of mistaken indentity, say the Tigers. David Koresh did not yet generate a 'reprieve' myth but the BDs believe he is coming back for sure. So I do not think that I would want to go as far as saying that Jesus was invented out of the whole cloth. It could very well be we don't know anything about him because there was not much to know about him except that he got killed for his belief in the imminent coming of God's kingdom to Israel which didn't come. Instead a great disaster ! Paul must have looked like the ultimate prophet to his communities in Syria seeing the throngs of wretched exiles from Palestine in the latter stages of the war.

HJ has no answer for the supposed immediate founding of a community dedicated exclusively to worshipping Jesus : whether he was stoned and hung
after or crucified alive.

It looks far more probable to me that a pre-existent messianist communities led by James the Just raised a big stink about judicial (or outright) murder of the prophetic figure. It may well have been that Cephas, James and John were taken prisoner with Jesus during some melee in the precinct. There may be some phantasy reporting about this in Acts 12: in reality it would have not been an angel liberating Peter alone, but James the Just and his poor saints forcing the temple authorities to release all the ones taken with Jesus. They would then join James' apostles on missions to preach Jesus as a messianic martyr outside of Palestine.

As you may remember, I am convinced that James the Just and James "the pillar" were not the same figure. Haenchen thought that the " tell James and the brethern" (12:17) is Luke's own idea and the removal of James the Zebedee with a 'meager' a notice to Peter's deliverance, clearing the stage for the emergence of the big James, and his overshadowing of Peter (later in ch 15).

Paul would have known about Jesus from 'men' before his revelation about him as Christ from God.

2 Cr 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.

It is reasonable to conclude that Paul would have considered Jesus from the point of view of other Jews, with an eye to Deu 21:22-23.

I agree with this though I am somewhat sceptical. I xchanged e-mails with him last spring tryng to coax him into a discussion of 'the brother of the Lord' at Jesus Mysteries for him to get an idea what 'mythicists' really think.
He wouldn't bite. He also seemed totally inaccessible on this issue. I recall Arthur Koestler writing to the effect that some of his Indian friends who seemed highly intelligent and down-to-earth would become raving lunatics the moment someone would question their favourite guru's capacity to levitate.

Best,
Jiri