The same reason anybody comes up with a supposition like that–to feel special. “I know something you don’t know.” Who killed JFK. Where Bigfoot is. Global warming isn’t real. Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Dogs flew spaceships. The Aztecs invented the vacation. Your brain is not the boss. There’s a seeker born every minute.
This is a mild variant, to be sure. But it’s still part of that general matrix. “I want secret knowledge.” It’s one thing to speculate about motives, stuff that isn’t in the source material, but you’re going right past all the source material, and all the scholarship.
Why wouldn’t they have arrested him the moment he came into the city, reportedly acclaimed by the multitudes?
Why didn’t Antipas arrest him the moment he realize this was another John the Baptist?
Because that’s not what happened.
godspell said
You think nobody could turn over a few tables in the temple courtyard (the size of ten football fields, absolutely packed with people) without being arrested, tried, and crucified?Can you cite any sources to document this contention?
Like one would be nice.
Let’s examine the sources, shall we?
Mark 11:15-16
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.
Matthew 21:12
Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
Luke 19:45
Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there…
John 2:13-15
The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
“a few tables in the temple courtyard”, godspell? I have cited the sources per your request. It would appear that not only have you not adequately considered what the sources actually say but that you also haven’t considered the conditions that would have been in play in the Temple, at Passover, at a time when the Romans were in town with a heavy presence.
But anyone seriously dealing with the text has to consider these things. And whether you think this episode is historical or legendary certain questions naturally arise. Perhaps you haven’t really taken the time to think about it.
Steve Clark said
And here’s a BOGO !John the B
Matthew 3.2
and then Jesus
Matthew 4.17
both saying:
Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand
We don’t really have any hard and fast evidence that Jesus didn’t lift his entire message from John. The only difference is that Jesus’ followers thought he was the Messiah. There are hints that maybe Jesus thought so too but of course that just might be what the writers of the NT want us to think. If Jesus was the Messiah then certainly he would have known it, right?
We have recorded for us only the perspective of the NT writers who already assume Jesus is superior to John and special. We have absolutely no idea what John thought. Or whether he even recognized Jesus at all.
Stephen said
We don’t really have any hard and fast evidence that Jesus didn’t lift his entire message from John. The only difference is that Jesus’ followers thought he was the Messiah. There are hints that maybe Jesus thought so too but of course that just might be what the writers of the NT want us to think. If Jesus was the Messiah then certainly he would have known it, right?
We have recorded for us only the perspective of the NT writers who already assume Jesus is superior to John and special. We have absolutely no idea what John thought. Or whether he even recognized Jesus at all.
Um, several points here–we have good reason to think John’s followers did claim he was Messiah, since his cult persisted quite a long time after his death (and you are in a bad position to deny that, with your ramblings about the Mandeans), and the gospels are increasingly determined to minimize John’s importance relative to Jesus, while still always including him in the story. Why make John identify Jesus as Messiah? Because there were those saying John really had been. For all we know, John’s followers were proclaiming John’s impending return from the grave while Jesus was still alive.
If you’re going to claim Jesus lifted everything from John, then you’re back to affirming Jesus and John were closely connected (otherwise what’s he going to do in order to get all John’s material–read John’s latest book?)–and you’re at a loss to explain why John wouldn’t simply denounce Jesus as an imposter, instead of asking him questions.
You’re just trying to do what the gospels did in reverse–make John larger, Jesus smaller. No evidence John told parables, or healed anyone. And no evidence Jesus did baptisms. And you know, John would have had teachers as well. He didn’t invent Apocalyptic Judaism. You are still mired in this false concept of originality. Nobody is 100% original.
Marcus’ book has a pretty good explanation of the master/student relationship there, and how the student (as they tend to do) became progressively distinct from the master, while still maintaining a connection.
You know, Bart Ehrman had a teacher too, came to disagree with him about a lot of things, has become a great deal more widely known–and yet still reveres him. It could be argued that in pure scholarly terms, Metzger is more influential in the field. But Ehrman has developed a level of fame Metzger never approached. He made the material more accessible, and took more controversial positions.
You waste so much time trying to make Jesus smaller. The more you talk about anyone, the larger he looms. Can’t you see that?
When are you going to just Ecce Homo, already?
Steve Clark said
I’ve always thought the whole extended pericope where John the Baptist has some of his followers sent to ask if Jesus really is…The Mansounded very awkward
in light of all that had supposedly gone on before…
Not compared to the passage in John where The Baptist points at Jesus and tells his followers “This is The One.” (Jesus is not a man at all in John’s gospel). And yet somehow The Baptist’s followers mainly went on being his followers. Not very attentive listeners, one surmises.
And again, this is because the Cult of John still had a lot of influence when the four gospels were written. Probably more influence among Jews than the Christians ever had. That being said, Jesus must have spent a lot of time talking about how great John was, and even more after his beheading. So there was genuine reverence for John among Christians. They had to balance it all out, and say John was great, Jesus greater still.
John probably did think Jesus was his most impressive student. And as Joel Marcus suggests, may have seen Jesus as Elisha to his Elijah. It’s an interesting question–supposed John hadn’t been killed? What would have happened then?
Steve Clark said
I’ve always thought the whole extended pericope where John the Baptist has some of his followers sent to ask if Jesus really is…The Man
Yes, I found it also interesting that the precise language given back to John’s followers is quoted from a Qumranic text (Tabor did an exegesis on this), not the Hebrew Scriptures.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)