aa5874

Jesus the son of Ananus, according to Josephus, was beaten to a pulp, down to the bare bones, on at least 2 separate occasions just for cying out "Woe unto Jerusalem" when he was at the Temple on a feast day.

How did the NT Jesus single-handedly manage to beat up others and create havoc at the Temple but did not suffer any consequences at all?

Jesus was not even constrained.

This is Josephus on Jesus of Ananus and his disturbance at the Temple.

See http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com

Wars of the Jews 6.5

How did JESUS manage to exit the Temple alive or without a single injury.?

dog-on

You missed the point.

If the Jews could execute Stephen, why couldn't they execute Jesus for Blasphemy? Why go to Pilate?

JoeWallack

JW:
The comparison that follows is from Super Skeptic Neil Godfree @:

http://vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

"Mark"	Josephus
Primary subject of story is named Jesus	Primary subject of the story is named Jesus (son of Ananias) [Jewish War, 6, 300]
Jesus is an artisan (Greek 'teknon', or translated 'carpenter'). (The artisan class ranked below peasants) [6:3]	Jesus is described as a low class unskilled rustic peasant [J.W.6:301]
Jerusalem leaders believe Jesus is demon possessed [3:22]	Jerusalem leaders believe Jesus is demon possessed [J.W.6, 301]
Some people thought Jesus was out of his mind [3:21ff]	Some thought Jesus was a maniac [J.W.6,305]
Jesus was at times teaching daily in the Temple [14:49]	Jesus was daily in the Temple repeating his message [J.W.6,306]
In the Temple during time of a holy festival (Passover) [14:2]	In the Temple during the time of a holy festival (Tabernacles) [J.W.6,301]
Jesus cites Jeremiah 7:11 (LXX, speaking against defilement of Temple) (conflated with Isa.56:7) to denounce practices in the Temple [11:17]	Jesus cites Jeremiah 7:34 (speaking against the people of Judah and Jerusalem) in his harangue against Jerusalem, the Temple and the people. [J.W.6, 301]
Declares Woes on the people of Jerusalem/Judea [13:17]	Declares Woes on the people of Jerusalem/Judea [J.W.6,304,306,309]
Pronounces doom on the Temple [13:2]	Pronounces doom on the Temple [J.W.6,300,309]
Arrested by the Jerusalem leaders [14:43]	Arrested by the Jerusalem leaders [J.W.6,302]
Accused of speaking against the Temple [14:58]	Accused of speaking against the Temple [J.W.6,302]
Made no defence for himself in face of these charges of speaking against the Temple [14:60f]	Made no defence for himself in face of these charges of speaking against the Temple [J.W.6,302]
Physically abused at the Jewish hearing [14:65]	Physically abused at the Jewish hearing [J.W.6,302]
Following Jewish hearing the Jerusalem authorities delivered him to the Roman procurator (Pilate) [15:1]	Following Jewish hearing the Jerusalem authorities delivered him to the Roman procurator (Albinus) [J.W.6,302f]
Interrogated by the governor (Pilate) in the Roman hearing [15:2-4]	Interrogated by the governor (Albinus) in the Roman hearing [J.W.6,305]
During their Roman interrogation the governor asks him to disclose his identity [15:2]	During their Roman interrogation the governor asks him to disclose his identity [J.W.6,305]
He is silent before governor [15:3-5]	He is silent before governor [J.W.6,305]
The procurator moved to release Jesus (but failed) [15:6-15]	The procurator moved to release Jesus (successfully) [J.W.6,305]
Jesus was scourged at end of his Roman hearing [15:15]	Jesus was scourged at end of his Roman hearing [J.W.6,304]
Killed by Roman soldiers [15:16,20-24]	Killed by Roman soldiers (although unluckily by chance) [J.W.6,308-9]
Uttered a personal woeful cry just before his death [15:34]	Uttered a personal woeful cry just before his death [J.W.6,309]
Died with a loud cry [15:27]	Died with a loud cry [J.W.6,309]
Mark uses the word "naos" for Temple in the contexts of the charge against Jesus that he spoke against the Temple [14:58; 15:29; and the vindication of Jesus' dismissal of the Temple in 15:38]. Elsewhere Mark always uses "hieros" for the Temple [11:11,15,16,27; 12:35; 13:1,3; 14:49]	Josephus uses the word "naos" for Temple in the account of his Jesus' declarations against it. [J.W.6,301,309]

While I think the comparisons in the table are somewhat overstated, if you apply proper criteria for parallels, similarity in language, scope, similarity in context, consistency and sequence, it's clear that Josephus is "Mark's" source here. This has several important implications:

1) Dating - "Mark" is post Josephus

2) "Mark" wrote the original Passion narrative

Less important is the significance of Josephus above to this Thread. My guess is Josephus is giving a Legend here and not history. At a minimum though, presumably Josephus thought it could be historical. Josephus is only a negative example though to my assertion that Jesus' ("Mark's") Temple actions, if historical, would have earned him a one way ticket to the next life. Josephus gives no evidence that anyone, "The Jews" or the Governor, thought that badmouthing the Temple warranted the death penalty. All this does is discredit "Mark" but we already know that "Mark's" Passion is not historical. That's my point.

Regarding Jesus' supposed Temple actions, what would be most important from a historical standpoint is what interpretation authority gave to the actions and not what interpretation the actor gave. Overturning, expelling and preventing vessels would have been impossible anyway as described but let's say Jesus did it to a much lesser extent. I think this would have been interpreted by the present authority as theft and they would have been authorized to use deadly force if necessary to prevent it. If Jesus was somehow captured instead I think the Governor would have interpreted this as an attack against the taxation system which merited the death penalty. Josephus does tell us that understandably this was the main Jewish resentment towards Rome and it's common sense that what was most important to Rome was collecting taxes. Hence Jesus would be X-ton Jesus.

The point here is that "Mark" is clearly fiction as to what Jesus was supposedly accused of in an effort to get rid of him. Speaking against the Temple was known not to be effective here while threatening the tax system was known to be effective. The fiction here goes quite well with the larger fiction of the Passion and even larger fiction of "Mark".



Josephus

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Thor Q. Mada

This would then make xianity the only known religion with a convicted fellon as a god or son of god. Explains a lot.

andrewcriddle

The answer given in the Gospels is that the Jewish authorities were not allowed to execute someone without reference to the colonial administrator Pilate. (see John 18:31)

There is dispute among scholars as to how far this represented the actual situation in the Roman Empire but on common-sense grounds the Romans would have been foolish to grant unrestricted discretion to the indigenous authorities in capital cases.

How far the cases of Stephen and Jesus as reported in the NT are contradictory is not clear. Stephen seems to have been convicted on the narrow charge of advocating the overthrow of the temple while the attempt by the Jewish authorities to convict Jesus on this specific charge seems to have failed.

One might speculate that explicit advocacy of the destruction of the temple was in the small category of cases for which the Jewish authorities could execute without reference to the Roman Governor. The failure to convict Jesus (unlike Stephen) of this specific charge made it necessary to involve Pilate. However there is little hard evidence for this speculation.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

FWIW, the stoning of Stephen might well be wholly fictional and designed, as Eisenman argues (in James the Brother of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)) to downgrade the memory of James the Just's martyrdom. The case against Stephen is uncomfortably close in recall of the process against Jesus before the Sanhendrin, including the appearance of false witnesses. (Acts 6:13). Stephen's martyrdom also foreshadows the expulsion of the Nazarene Jesus believers (all but the Twelve) which then effectively transfers the church base outside of Judea, making the body materially independent of Jewish support. This however does not prevent Luke to add Barnabas to the residents when he makes the official introduction of the converted Saul to the apostles (9:27).

I am not sure what 'failure' you have in mind, Andrew. Jesus was condemned in what the gospels describe as a hostile process. Pilate is described as incredulous of the charges. However, I suspect a historical kernel in the handover of Jesus to the Romans. It best fits the view that James the Just's Nazarene church was already in place when Jesus entered the city and had some standing in the community at large to shelter a small group of Jesus followers from harm. It may well have been that there was a minority view of Jesus in the Sanhendrin (Joseph of Arimathea would have been a clue to that) and it was because of them that the council might have preferred to let Pilate do the dirty work (on a charge of sedition against Rome). Pilate would have obliged, probably in character with his reputation. The execution of an unknown preacher from Galilee would have outraged the Nazarene apocalyptics and James the Just would have adopted Jesus disciples (as he likely did the disciples of John). So much for official history.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

What I meant by 'failure' is that in Mark the Sanhedrin is initially attempting to convict Jesus on charges of attacking the temple. It is only when this fails that the Messianic claims of Jesus become the basis of his being denounced to Pilate.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots

Josephus states that a certain Stephen was murdered by robbers, but this may well have been a religiously-motivated mob murder.

With James, there was an administrative interregnum; and so, with no Roman governor in place, the locals took matters into their own hands.

aa5874

Jesus was not really condemned in the Gospels. He was exonerated. It was the Jews who demaned that Jesus be crucified even though found not guilty.


This is just all speculation with no historical support, not even the NT or the Church writings make mention of any of these things.

Solo

You are right, there is no direct mention of these things, but there are indications that the apocalyptic-messianic movement preceded Jesus and that the Jesus movement was merged into it at some point. Paul's writings and gThomas confirm very high esteem that James the Just had, so much so that it is extremely doubtful that he was in any kind of a peer group with the other Jesus apostles.

On the timetable suggested for the crucifixion and Paul's involvement with the emerging Jesus cult in Jerusalem, the pre-existent church of James and its adoption of the tragic passing of the Galilean Jesus as emblematic of the woes of the end-times, explains - to me at least - the historical origins of the movement that later became Christianity.

Consider the following passage from Epiphanius' Panarion, book 29, and his confusion around the origin of the designation Nazarene (Nazorean). By his own admission, it was accepted and replaced the older designation of Jessaeans when they came to faith in Jesus (5,6). There is further conflation of Nazoreans with Nasareans in 5,7. who Epiphanius indicates without equivocation as a separate sect which was before Christ.


Jiri