When Jesus is arrested in the garden, one of his followers takes out a sword and cuts the ear off one of the members of the mob who came to arrest Jesus. Why would Jesus permit his followers to carry weapons when he supposedly preached non-violence (‘live by the sword, die by the sword’)? If Jesus had followers carrying weapons, then it becomes even clearer why the Romans would be concerned about this new movement. Could it be that Jesus was not as peaceful as the gospels would have us believe?
It wasn’t illegal to for free men to buy and carry weapons for self defense–after the slave uprisings, it was specifically forbidden for slaves, which proves that Rome was pretty easygoing in general about people carrying swords in general, citizens or not.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
We have zero indication from the gospels, however, that any of Jesus’ followers were armed, prior to coming to Jerusalem that Passover, and one story indicates Jesus told them to buy swords–which they did without much difficulty–but they only got two. And he said that was sufficient.
If the entire contingent of disciples and hangers-on had been heavily armed, naturally that wouldn’t have sufficient for an uprising of any kind. So why was he happy to learn they’d only bought two? Was Jesus trying to be provocative, precisely in order to be arrested? (Please note, not even John’s gospel has him using any weapon other than a whip of cords, and the earlier gospels say he was unarmed).
Or was he trying to make a point? “We could have resisted, but we didn’t.” Theater. He had them carry swords for the precise purpose of telling them to put them up, stand down. Why didn’t they put up more of a fight? Their courage can hardly be doubted, given what they endured later. But he was actively discouraging them from such a course.
Another possibility is that some of Jesus’ followers had connections to the Zealot movement–we’re specifically told one of them was known as ‘Simon the Zealot.’ His ideas attracted people who didn’t share his devotion to non-violence, and they were hoping that he was going to be the Messiah in the more commonly accepted use of the term–a military leader.
It’s pretty clear he had no intention of being anything of the kind.
But if he was–what took the authorities so long? He actually asks this question himself–they had plenty of chances to arrest him. And when they did come, it was apparently the temple guards, not Roman troops.
The Romans don’t seem to have viewed Jesus with any concern–I see no evidence they were paying any attention to him. He had to be pointed out to them as a potential problem, before they took any action. Because there were always a lot of firebrand preachers in Jerusalem at Passover, and the Romans did not have much of an intelligence network (if any).
The idea that Jesus was a firebrand apocalypticist (like his mentor John) and that the “love and peace” stuff was secondary to the tradition has always been an interesting minority view. One could see the radical pacifism coming out of the Christian response to he First Revolt. But I don’t really buy it. As far as the “sword” thing, I suspect that, as well as the Barabbas episode, were included to address the revolt.
My pet historical hypothesis however is that Jesus was arrested because of the Temple incident and immediately turned over to the Romans. The episodes between the Temple incident and the crucifixion, the betrayal and arrest in the garden, the trial before the Sanhedrin and the interview with Pilate, were all theological inventions (and good story telling).
Amazing how much ‘good storytelling’ happens in real life. Or hadn’t you noticed?
I would agree that the Temple incident would have been at least part of the reason for the arrest–perhaps the only reason–entirely possible that if he hadn’t done that, he would have been left alone (could that be why he did it?)–but I find it highly unlikely that the arrest happened then and there. Do we have any record of anyone ever being arrested there for overturning tables?
Nor do I see why they wouldn’t have just said as much if it had happened that way, since that way you wouldn’t have all the stuff about how sleepy, violent, and ultimately disloyal the apostles were, and the same basic theological purposes are served, as long as Jesus is martyred.
What’s the brief mention in Mark relating to the young man who ran away naked when they grabbed his garment about? What theological purpose does that serve, and why do none of the later gospels use it? Probably because there was a memory of that happening, and it’s a vivid detail. The theological glosses, if any, came later. But Matthew and Luke didn’t really see the point of it, which you’d expect them to do, if there was one.
One of the reasons people are always more complicated than you expect them to be is that they are always sillier than you expect them to be.
I would be so impressed if anyone here could identify the source of this quote.
😉
No search needed godspell. I’m not a Westlake fan but I am a quote collector and I got it from Harlan Ellison who was very much a Westlake admirer. Have you read this ** you do not have permission to see this link **?
Ok I’m going to quote the relevant passage here in Mark 14 (NRSV).
Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” All of them deserted him and fled. A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
Something that has always struck me (pardon the pun) is that if you removed verse 47 it would have absolutely no effect on the narrative. There is no recorded response to this overt act of violence and the next verse would seem to flow quite naturally from the one before it. I asked Prof Ehrman about the question of v47 being interpolated and he of course took the textual scholar’s view and pointed out that we have no manuscripts without it. But it is interesting that the authorities are explicitly described as being armed and then, when met with violent resistance, what happens? The conversation continues as if nothing had happened.
But there is another aspect that I’ve never heard addressed. Why do we assume that “one of those who stood near” was one of the disciples? First because it was the slave of the high priest who was struck and the presumption is that he would have been with the arresting party. And of course Matthew’s and Luke’s expansions on the story make that assumption. But what if Mark intended it the other way round? The slave was part of Jesus’ group and it was one of the armed crowd who attacked him? That might make more sense in context. At any rate a loose end in a gospel full of loose ends.
Another loose end is the anecdote about the “young man” who ran away naked. Another figure who appears out of nowhere and is never seen again. (Or is he? Did Mark intend no identification between this young man and the other one mentioned at the empty tomb?)
Mark has a lot of weirdness in his gospel. One explanation for that weirdness is that it was intended for the internal use of Mark’s community and some of the difficult passages reflect shared assumptions not obvious to the uninitiated outsider (like us). Maybe we weren’t intended to “get it”. With Mark I’ve never been able to shake myself of the suspicion that there’s something we’re missing. Anyway you can see why Matthew and Luke felt the need to take it and expand it and tweak it.
Ellison was a huge admirer of Westlake’s, so even though your knowledge of the quote doesn’t stem from reading the book, I am duly impressed. (Though had I not known of Ellison’s admiration, I would say that was a likely story.)
I spoke to Ellison back in the 80’s when he wrote a short story in the window of a Midtown Manhattan bookstore (something he did on occasion to demystify writing), and there was a Q&A afterwards. Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
I could ask which gospel you think doesn’t have weirdness in it, but leaving that aside, you could undoubtedly take all kinds of lines out of modern works of literature and it wouldn’t substantially impact the flow.
I’ve been trying here and there to memorize a poem by A.E. Housman (the one that references Mithridates)–I’ve mainly got it, but my trouble is that I keep skipping over lines that actually interrupt the flow of the work–that seem a bit superfluous, but they are in there anyway. In some cases, I feel the poem would work better without them–if I were to try and recite the whole thing aloud, good bet that only people with tremendous memories (who have read the poem) would even notice. But we have no reason to doubt they were meant to be in there.
Mark was compiling at least as much as composing–we don’t have his sources, but he certainly did have them, and is looking for a way to bend them to his specific purposes. He’s part of a larger Christian community, who were already familiar with many stories relating to the arrest of Jesus. No reason to assume he’s at liberty to just make up anything he likes. He does have to include details familiar to his audience, even if he also sticks in things that are new.
So I can’t say I find this argument convincing. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was stupid stuff.
I agree we shouldn’t assume that the one who struck the blow was a disciple–Mark would have surely mentioned who, if the tradition he was working from provided the name–but neither can we assume that the disciples were the only followers of Jesus who were present. As to the young man, the very randomness of the story tends to lend it more credibility, not less.
(This is a fairly decent conversation, btw. Why can’t it be like this all the time?)
Trevor314
When Jesus is arrested in the garden, one of his followers takes out a sword and cuts the ear off one of the members of the mob who came to arrest Jesus. Why would Jesus permit his followers to carry weapons when he supposedly preached non-violence (‘live by the sword, die by the sword’)?
Steefen
The biblical Jesus taught non-violence. The biblical Jesus is a fiction. There was a historical Jesus in Galilee who did have his followers carrying weapons.
Why would there be a non-violent version of Jesus in a post-Jewish Civil War, post-Jewish Revolt era?
Because the rebel ideology needed to end. So, propagandize Jesus not as he was but as Emperor Vespasian and General Titus wanted him to be: not a military problem for Rome as he actually was.
Trevor314, read, or re-read The Wars of the Jews by Josephus.
Trevor314
If Jesus had followers carrying weapons, then it becomes even clearer why the Romans would be concerned about this new movement. Could it be that Jesus was not as peaceful as the gospels would have us believe?
Steefen
Already answered above.
Your answers don’t make any sense, but they work great as conspiracy theories. Hey, maybe a movie!
Steefen, you’ve said the Romans made Jesus up.
Now you’re saying they killed him for leading an uprising. Then propped up his corpse to serve as the basis of a religion that eventually took over Rome.
Those must be some really good drugs.
😉
I’ve always wondered: how would an itinerant band of communal, known nonviolent folks (some of whom were “ministering” – had some money – while others controlled the communal purse) move continuously from town to town and then pilgrimage across the country and never be attacked on the road, especially if they were unarmed?
Well, they moved around in groups. That helps. And they owned very little. You got nothing, you got nothing to lose.
And holy people–don’t laugh, I’m being serious–often do have a knack for pacifying violent ones. Because there’s a part of us that wants to stop being violent, looks for another way. If you’re not giving off anger, or even fear–it can be quite disarming. Have you ever seen The Flowers of St. Francis? Rossellini film. Probably comes much closer to what it was like than any of the films actually about Jesus and his disciples.
(But you know, give a bit of credit to the Romans for keeping order.)
I had not seen. Thanks.
The persuasiveness of religious speech to bandits and marauders is a partial function of being able to speak and be heard during such an attack. An unarmed group of nonviolent men and women traveling on foot through the back country is an easy target, whether the goal of an attack is their monetary or otherwise.
Dr Fredricksen argues that, at least on the Passover pilgrimage when Jerusalem swelled, the men would likely have been carrying knives – there would not have been enough hands or time at the Temple to ritually slaughter a lamb for each family there. A traveling group of pilgrims then would be presumed to be lightly armed with slaughtering knives.
But not during the general roving ministry.
I’m not sure where I come down on this armed/not armed debate, but the fact that we don’t have stories of meaningful attacks (aside from the Good Samaritan parable) I find interesting. Because if Jesus or Peter or whomever in the group talked them down, it would seemingly have been interpreted a sign of their rightness before God, and therefore been as memorable at least as much as some of the minor stories we actually have.
Speculative, but interesting.
You know, they could carry staves for walking, and those could serve as weapons.
But probably, if anyone said ‘stand and deliver’ they just handed over the few coins they had in the common purse. And what else would a thief want?
There’s always an element of fortune to it–if you want to call it that–my girlfriend has described things she did as a young woman that should have gotten her killed (or other things) and came through it okay, and I could mention a few dumb things I did. And apparently God had other plans for us.
I think more than two grown men, poorly dressed, would be considered a very poor target.
I hear you completely. Some is luck/fortune/fate, but if it was 3 years of roaming, with unaccompanied women ministering (bankrolling) to them (which is a bit speculative in itself), that’s a lot of luck in rural Galilee and Judea – when on the streets of urban America today (and in rural areas), where there are actual police, people are mugged and worse at a frequency inline with human nature and incentives (and neither has changed much in 2000 years).
Speculative topic, but fun food for thought.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert