Posted: Apr 02, 2010 10:50 am
verbal pocketplay wrote:Sorry, but I can't think of any "credible, mainstream scholars" who makes such a silly argument. We have no idea of the scale of the demonstration in the Temple.
E.P. Saunders has estimated that approximately four hundred thousand pilgrims crowded into jesusalem for passover. he says ancient sources put the number much higher. "The Historical Figure of Jesus" page 249
to quote him, "the temple area was far too large and the number of pilrims far too great for jesus to have done more than display his displeasure by a limited attack."
As I keep saying, given that the gospels almost certainly play down what Jesus did in the Temple, we can't know how "limited" it was. And to pretend that we can know it would have gone unnoticed by the Temple priesthood is fanciful. And, all that aside, the very fact he entered Jerusalem claiming to be (or being claimed to be) the Messiah was more than enough to get him nailed up.
he also claims, "pilate probably acted on his own accord, with the backing of caiaphas. [...] it is entirely probable that the trial before jewish authorities was a fiction"
I don't disagree with any of those statements.
so, its unlikely that if the event even happened, and was not added as a metaphor by christians who still saw themselves as jews trying to understand the destruction of the temple and the death of jesus, it still seems unlikely his temple tantrum would have been noticed. and if it wasn't noticed, he wasn't turned into to caiaphus for this reason, as john says he was.
John doesn't say he was handed over to the Sadducees for this reason at all. John's gospel even places the incident in the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' career. And, as I keep saying, it doesn't actually matter if the "cleansing of the Temple" never happened - coming to Jerusalem as the supposed Messiah was more than enough reason to nip him in the bud before Pilate took wider, bloodier action as he was wont to do.
now lets say jesus was detained and tried by the sanhedrin. how would anyone know? jesus died the next day and so obviously didn't tell anyone where he was taken.
Firstly, how did we get onto his trial? Did I make any claim about his trial? I happen to think the trial is either a complete fiction or at least wholly embellished. That aside, if there was a trial why wouldn't anyone know about it? It's not like they'd keep it a secret. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
how would the gospel writers have known what happened to jesus? we only know roman soldiers took him.
No. There is zero mention of any "Roman soldiers" at all, except a dubious reference in John. In the other three gospels it's Temple guards who arrest him.
it's not like the roman soldiers told his followers were they were taking him. it's not like the sanhedrin told his followers what happened to jesus. no one knows what happens to jesus between his arrest and his crucifixion, or at least not the gospel writers.
Again, I have no idea what point you're making here, but you seem to be forgetting that three of the gospels report Peter hanging around during the trial, being spotted and denying association with Jesus.
so since we can dismiss the gospel stories about caiaphis, we have no reason to assume he or the priests played any role. occam's razor tell us the least suppositions is that roman soldiers took him and killed him for disturbing the peace. no?
No. How did you arrive at the conclusion "we can dismiss the gospel stories about Caiaphas"? And we have plenty of reasons to to think it makes sense that the Priesthood would see him as a threat to the greater good with Pilate on their doorstep. That they were involved is perfectly plausible, which is why we find their involvement in all four gospels, in Acts and in Paul.
and to repeat a point i made eariler that was not addressed, the gospel of john has the temple tantrum happening three years earlier. so why wasn't he detained then by the priests? he was just as big a threat then?
Again, the cleansing of the Temple is not required for him to be seen as a problem. And that argument simply casts doubt on John's placement of the incident in the story, nothing more.
simply turning up in Jerusalem while being hailed as the Messiah would do the trick any way.
but not if nobody noticed.
And what evidence do you have that "nobody noticed"? These people had a vested interest in "noticing" this kind of thing and Jesus and his followers had a vested interest in getting themselves noticed.
and if they noticed jesus, they knew his messiahness (word?) was not like that of theudas or the nameless egyptian. it was not a kingdom of this world. jesus says he will detroy and rebuild the temple "not with his hands" (somewhere in john's gospel). he even says he will "resurrect the temple in three days", so obviously the temple is a metaphor for him and his kingdom that is not of this world
Firstly, you seem to be taking some of those statements designed to distance Jesus from Jewish radicalism rather naively at face value. Secondly, as I said, the Romans didn't care much about what subtle theological meanings "I am the King of the Jews" might have - they tended to take a dim view of anyone making that kind of claim regardless of what they meant by it. Thirdly, the apocalyptic message of Jesus DID have political implications that would not be lost on anyone involved, even if you don't seem to grasp them.
you don't seem to understand Jesus' apocalyptic message at all. He was not a mellow hippy preaching about how to go meekly to heaven. He was a blood and thunder preacher of an immanent end of the world where the high and mighty (that's the Sadducees) and the unrighteous before Yahweh (that's the Romans, amongst others) were going to be cleansed with fire and armies from heaven.
could you give us the gospel passages. i know he like to threaten the pharisees with hell. but he was talking about the blood and thunder in the next life, not the worldly life. am i misunderstanding "my kingdom is not of this world"?
His message had nothing to do with "the next life". It was to do with the coming apocalypse and the renewed world afterwards when the saved righteous would be ruled directly by Yahweh. As for the gospel verses, they are all through the synoptics. Try Mark 13 for a summary. That "my kingdom is not of this world" stuff is from John - the latest gospel written for non-Jewish Christians in a period when Christianity is already drifting from its apocalyptic Jewish roots and becoming much more of a Greek mystic religion. Since you seem aware of Ehrman, I suggest you read his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium to get a better grasp of Jesus' Jewish message. It was very much about this world.
Until you understand that I don't think you're going to grasp why this stuff about how Jesus wasn't a threat and that no-one had a reason to ice him makes no sense.