Rick Sumner

Neither Mark nor John are "historical" in any contemporary meaning of the term, you're comparing apples and oranges. I'd venture that neither could have given you a date on the matter, there's really no indication that they'd have cared to if they could. John's date is clearly incorrect, if he was as concerned about it as you seem to think he was, he'd have made sure it wasn't.

John's moving it, I'd suggest, would be in keeping with John's redactive tendency of having Jesus replacing Jewish festival days and the like. He starts off by replacing the most important thing in Judaism--the temple itself, as the "temple" is quickly equated with the body of Jesus.

If we are in agreement that John's version is dependent on Mark's, the question of why he moved it is a rather separate issue from whether or not there was an actual temple incident. I'd appreciate it if we could stick to the thread topic.

Thanks,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Yes:

"...and the answer is provided by Thomas Brodie on p93 ..."

Vorkosigan

Why do you characterize what we say this way? Nobody has "screamed" anything. I have provided both relevant cites and relevant literature, including the parallels in some detail.

<shrug> I don't see any improbability in that. The Alexandrian Jews, after all, erected their own Temple and temple worship under Onias IV in response to the usurpation of the priesthood by Jason and Menelaus, from Onias III. Far more devastating is the fact that the story, both its details and its structures at their various levels, can be derived from the OT.

Can you tell us why we should regard this as covering a historical kernel?

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Why then was John so concerned to say that the Temple was 46 years old, and then go on to say that Jesus was talking about his body?

If the 46 years is not related to the dating of the Temple incident, then clearly John is saying that Jesus himself was 46 years old.

I think it is a little blase to say John did not care about the date. He is clear about the 46 years reference.

Rick Sumner

But why did he put it at 46 years, when his timeframe was so clearly off?

If he was that interested in the date, why make such a glaring mistake?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Did any Alexandrian Jews take action against their own temple? Did anybody?

With the Elijah/Elisha argument, you may have a case on that. Without it, you don't, a point Fredriksen was well aware of.

As I already suggested, I will need to review Brodie's argument more fully.

And I saw the page number you quoted. "The answer" isn't what I'm looking for, I'm looking for what is going to lead to it, specifically in the context of the temple. I don't have enough time to read through the book, at present.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Josephus describes them as being placed either "over the cloisters" (Ant.) or "in the cloisters" (JW) but they are explicitly placed there to prevent any trouble from being started in the crowds below ("to repress any attempts of innovation") so I'm not sure why the specific location matters. It wouldn't make any sense to place them somewhere that would not allow them to accomplish their intended task.

Amaleq13

You only have to read the verse immediately following the incident to obtain a possible motivation:

"And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine." (11:18, KJV)

The scene is clearly depicted as the "last straw" inspiring the Jewish leaders to conspire against Jesus.

But the core saying (ie 11:17) appears to have been obtained from two books attributed to major prophets (ie Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11). The author starts with the "prophetic" saying found in Jeremiah, combines it with Isaiah, then places it in the mouth of Jesus. Now he needs a narrative in which to convey the saying from Jesus and he finds a ready-made scene in Nehemiah.

I don't understand how you can consider the scene that is depicted as inspiring the Jewish conspiracy against Jesus as playing "no role in subsequent events".

Vorkosigan

...meanwhile, we wait to understand why you think there is history here. Is it because "Mark wouldn't have made it up?"

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Mark didn't make it up since its found in Thomas and possibly independently in John as well. This still doesn't make it historical, however. It could have been made up by an anti-Jewish element.

In mark Jesus is seen nullifying the food laws and is seen arguing extensively with pious Jews (Pharisees) who are villified intensely. This same type of mindset could have led to an anti-temple saying by Jesus.

I find this to be the most compelling problem with affirming a temple incident and saying.

Vinnie