seven8s

Well, they have for you, correct? It's all a matter of choice?

mountainman

"Render unto Caesar
the things that are Caesar's
and unto god
the things that are god's."


"Render unto god
the things that are god's
and unto Caesar
the things that are Caesar's."

The former order gives priority to Caesar
the latter order gives priority to god.

Why did Jesus use the former order?
Why did he not use the latter order?
Doesn't god have priority in all things?
Isn't that the whole purpose of the story?

Clouseau

Garbage.

Fundies and atheists like the word 'unto'. Forsooth.

Gamera

Because it is a principle of rhetoric that the emphasis is on the last item mentioned in a series, not the first.

Thus: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Which one do you think they wanted to emphasize?

Vorkosigan

Your argument is subjective. How do you know the writer of the passage, or Jesus, assigned priority to the thing mentioned first? You need to first demonstrate that the thing that comes first is the important one.

Michael

mountainman

Hi Michael,

Point taken.

Well, we dont. It was after all a question.


My question is why Jesus or the writer of the passage
did not enunciate god first?

When Caesar is placed first, it appears to me that the
import of the passge is to pay tax to Caesar, and is
thus simply a political statement.

When god is placed first, the statement has a slightly
different import because of the order of selection. In
this alternative order, god comes first.

Why would a purported religious leader, of the Hebrew
traditions, possibly a messiah, renown for their zealous
worship of the one god consent to, or be content in,
making a political statement when at the same time,
both a political and a theological statement
(ie: God comes first) might be made?

It's only a question after all. Perhaps I am just
getting too subjective about my research, and
need to step back a little.

Anyway, thanks for your contribution and for
all the others, espcially wordy's midrash refs.

Best wishes one and all,

Pete Brown

spamandham

I think Vorkosigan has it right here. The impact of the message is greater if the god part comes at the end rather than the beginning. This fits Jesus' character quite well, I think.

But you raise an interesting question. IMHO, all the stories in the NT are well polished and serve a particular purpose of the author. In this case, it's a fairly straightforward message of "obey authority in all it's forms". Sure, Eusebius would want that, but so would a 2nd century religious figure.

Clouseau

Do you think that Jesus spoke to people in archaic language, though? Does that fit Jesus' character well?

spamandham

From my perspective, the Jesus presented in the NT is a fictional character, that may or may not be loosely based on a real historical person. If there is a historical character at the root of these stories, it's doubtful he actually said anything that's attributed to him in the Bible.

So I don't restrict him to sounding like a first century Jew.

Clouseau

That's truly amazing, because you know what the character was of a possibly non-existent person.