I don’t actually see any reference to the women traveling with them. That’s a pretty big leap. Sometimes, maybe. Not most of the time.
People would have banded together for protection–caravans. You just travel with whoever else is traveling, and you have an opportunity to reach more people that way. And the Romans did their best to make the roads safe, because good for the economy, more tax income.
I don’t think this is as big a problem as you imagine.
I do not think it is the problem you think it I think it is. Ha. I’m only pointing out I think it is interesting. And devil’s advocating to make it a two-sided conversation…
If you take the violent crime incidence of any moderately populated US city as the lower bound of the probability per annum of suffering a violent crime in rural Galilee or Judea, it would have been undeniably lucky for it to not have happened. More so when you consider areas of the current developing world, even those with telecommunications.
And the female followers are part of a traveling party. Speculative yet moderately evidenced, yes. Bulletproof, no, but neither is it a big leap. But the bigness of leaps are in the eyes of the beholders in any event.
I don’t believe they did, no.
Look into the much better documented history of religious orders in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Plenty of robbers then, travel no easier. Probably worse in many ways. But they still managed to get by without going around in armed bands. In a religious country, people who devote themselves to religious service are much less likely to be attacked. You get a bad reputation with the common people (where most robbers come from, and go to when they need to hide out), and you don’t get much actual money.
And these are not people who have physical safety and comfort as their first priority. That they’re doing this at all says they’re putting physical safety on the back burner. They saw what happened to John the Baptist, and they still went around with his pupil, who had a very similar message.
There is the story of Jesus telling the disciples to buy swords in Jerusalem. And they show him two, and he says that’s fine. And then he tells them not to use them when he’s arrested. But the real takeaway is that they don’t already have them.
Weapons very often make you more of a target, you know. A sword is itself a thing a robber would like to have–just as people often have their houses robbed by criminals looking for guns.
I’ve lived in New York City a long time. I’ve been mugged twice, though not recently. I carried pepper spray a while, and one of those telescoping clubs–and never had the occasion to use them. As the saying goes, only a man who carries a gun ever needs one. That’s from a John Wayne movie. That Wayne himself produced. 😉
One more thing–they are preaching nonviolence, to people who know how dangerous the world they live in can be. They are saying turn the other cheek. They are saying there is no justification for violence, ever.
And then they’re carrying swords, daggers, clubs, to protect themselves?
It would totally undercut their credibility, and yes, that would matter.
So why would Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords at the very end?–too few for an insurrection, and no problems with brigands in a city crammed with soldiers, where thieves are crucified on a regular basis.
To make a point–“We could have defended ourselves and we didn’t.” He who lives by the sword…….
godspell said
One more thing–they are preaching nonviolence, to people who know how dangerous the world they live in can be. They are saying turn the other cheek. They are saying there is no justification for violence, ever.And then they’re carrying swords, daggers, clubs, to protect themselves?
It would totally undercut their credibility, and yes, that would matter.
So why would Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords at the very end?–too few for an insurrection, and no problems with brigands in a city crammed with soldiers, where thieves are crucified on a regular basis.
To make a point–“We could have defended ourselves and we didn’t.” He who lives by the sword…….
You can only claim this if you believe that gospel narratives written late for Gentile audiences are an accurate representation of the movement as it existed initially and directed at Palestinian Jews.
You also have to decide that a movement that believes that God is about to send his Holy Ones with the Messiah at the head to physically obliterate your enemies is a philosophy of non-violence. Perhaps you are advising your followers not to take up arms themeselves because God is gonna take care of it. Perhaps you are telling them its ok to have the weapons so you are ready when the holy ones arrive. Who knows? Still not all love and roses. Especially given the relatively incendiary situation generally that has the Romans from time to time crucifying messianic types as a reminder to everyone.
You can only claim this if you believe that gospel narratives written late for Gentile audiences are an accurate representation of the movement as it existed initially and directed at Palestinian Jews.
Precisely. By the time of the gospel writers the Palestine of Jesus had been swept away forever by the First Jewish Revolt. Mark, the earliest gospel, is even dodgy on the geography.
You also have to decide that a movement that believes that God is about to send his Holy Ones with the Messiah at the head to physically obliterate your enemies is a philosophy of non-violence. Perhaps you are advising your followers not to take up arms themeselves because God is gonna take care of it. Perhaps you are telling them its ok to have the weapons so you are ready when the holy ones arrive. Who knows? Still not all love and roses. Especially given the relatively incendiary situation generally that has the Romans from time to time crucifying messianic types as a reminder to everyone.
The idea that Jesus stands for universal brotherhood is a product of gospel spin and two thousand years of church interpretation. The historical Jesus, like the good apocalypticist he was, actually preached love and mercy for the “saved”, and damnation and destruction for everyone else. Let’s not forget the goats and the sheep or the wheat and the tares.
It’s not a question of assuming everything in the gospels is accurate. It isn’t. But Bali, you’re trying to say it’s all made up. I think that’s a way bigger stretch. It’s basically a conspiracy theory, and I laugh at those on a regular basis. People who think they’ve got the straight dope–that they pulled out of their asses. You’re just peddling warmed-over Reza Aslan here. At least he got paid for it.
And what you’re missing is that the point is to leave everything to God–“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”. Because in taking vengeance, you’d become the same as the ones you’re taking vengeance upon (I know, it’s trite, but truth often is).
Nobody who uses violence to get to paradise will deserve paradise. We’d bring the seeds of violence with us, and corrupt it. The point is to leave all that behind–and God isn’t destroying people for not believing as they should. He’s destroying them for not behaving as they should. Meaning they brought their fates upon themselves–and whether God exists or not, Karma sure as hell does. Or hadn’t you noticed? Waiting for all of us, kiddo.
And of course Jesus was right. The seeds of violence corrupted Christianity, just as they corrupt everything. He was wrong about many things, but not about that. He wasn’t trying to create a new religion–he was just trying to teach people how to behave as if they were living in a good world, and then the good world would exist. It really would! Except……
And we can at least give him credit for the things he got right. He wasn’t God. He wasn’t perfect. But he was trying to be something more. And couldn’t we try a little harder?
And Stephen, I really think you need to stop quoting Bart Ehrman at me, since youv’e basically just taken a crap on everything he’s ever said about Jesus and early Christianity.
You’re not interested in the study of history. You just came here looking for weapons of your own.
Good luck with that.
I agree – not everyone who roamed about was attacked, not in first century Palestine, not in medieval Europe, not in current NYC. But in the first two, we have a serious survivorship problem – we are wildly unlikely to hear of those attacked without a centralized crime database, and the stats of those attacked (especially those killed) in a vast majority illiterate and undocumented society are lost to history. And applying any reasonable violent crime incidence stats would suggest it reasonably likely they met some sort of issue across a three year wandering mission – not bulletproof, clearly, but suggestive. And they would have been easy prey, not just for their roaming, nor just for perhaps moving with female followers, nor just for moving with the communal purse, nor just for their nonviolence itself – but also because of the conspicuousness of their nonviolence, on public display in speeches in village after village. Perhaps, if it wasn’t light arms that dissuaded bandits, it was Jesus’s reputation for supernatural deeds that warded off attack. If, obviously, it wasn’t just a blind ambush…
Dr Fredricksen’s theory (I paraphrase, probably poorly) is that the word translated as swords is also the word for sacrificial knife, and that the swords in question were sacrificial knives for the Passover. It’s a really interesting theory, and one that has a lot of explanatory power (though that doesn’t thereby make it true). You should definitely read it – I think you’d enjoy it.
godspell said
It’s not a question of assuming everything in the gospels is accurate. It isn’t. But Bali, you’re trying to say it’s all made up. I think that’s a way bigger stretch. It’s basically a conspiracy theory, and I laugh at those on a regular basis. People who think they’ve got the straight dope–that they pulled out of their asses. You’re just peddling warmed-over Reza Aslan here. At least he got paid for it.And what you’re missing is that the point is to leave everything to God–“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”. Because in taking vengeance, you’d become the same as the ones you’re taking vengeance upon (I know, it’s trite, but truth often is).
Nobody who uses violence to get to paradise will deserve paradise. We’d bring the seeds of violence with us, and corrupt it. The point is to leave all that behind–and God isn’t destroying people for not believing as they should. He’s destroying them for not behaving as they should. Meaning they brought their fates upon themselves–and whether God exists or not, Karma sure as hell does. Or hadn’t you noticed? Waiting for all of us, kiddo.
And of course Jesus was right. The seeds of violence corrupted Christianity, just as they corrupt everything. He was wrong about many things, but not about that. He wasn’t trying to create a new religion–he was just trying to teach people how to behave as if they were living in a good world, and then the good world would exist. It really would! Except……
And we can at least give him credit for the things he got right. He wasn’t God. He wasn’t perfect. But he was trying to be something more. And couldn’t we try a little harder?
Poor Aslan. All he ever wanted was to make his mother proud, and now you’ve gone and compared him to poor me.
But in any case, you misrepresent my position. I believe like many here that there is a historical layer in the gospels and Acts. However, I take seriously the hand of the writers here, who are highly ideologically motivated. It is no more conspiracy than, let’s say the Russian Revolution – or the French Revolution even. People write with a purpose – the more ideological the more they may restate, rewrite, or invent the material they have. The problem is the writers have done well – and other materials are long gone, so reconstructing the truth is not easy.
We do, however, have other sources that are helpful – Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Pauls 7 letters, and the particular scriptures (Daniel, Maccabees etc) that underlie and describe the Jewish apocalyptic tradition in some detail, and the political situation and in the case of Paul, clearly show how he is already beginning to re-write the story – much to the irritation/anger of the Church leadership.
In any case “vengeance is the Lord’s” is only peaceful if that vengeance is some far off event. If you expect it tomorrow, then you really see your current enemies being destroyed in front of you more or less – and replaced by it. It’s a very different vibe then “God will sort it out after we all die”
Yes, if Jesus (and even his disciples) had a rep for supernatural abilities, that would explain why they weren’t attacked more often (not that everyone would have heard of them).
But you know, most of the local banditry would just say “Your money or your life.” Then “This is all you have?”
I bet some of them ended up making contributions. 😉
The sacrificial knife thing is interesting, but I believe it was temple functionaries who sacrificed the paschal lamb. Is Fredricksen saying that Jesus wanted to do it himself, because of his contempt for the temple authorities?
There’s so much context we’re missing, so we provide it ourselves, and it’s a bit like early paleontologists putting dinosaur skeletons together and imagining the bodies. And I’m not assuming we’ve got those right now.
Dr Fredricksen’s theory partly hinges on the size of the population swell at Passover – that there was neither enough people nor sufficient time for the Temple authorities to do the overwhelming number of sacrifices, so many pilgrims must have brought their own knives to DIY. It’s more nuanced than that.
The image of the pitying marauder contributing to the communal purse made me laugh.
And the analogy with paleontology and reconstructing dinosaurs reminded me of the classic Calvin & Hobbes when they dug up a coke bottle and plastic utensils in their yard:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But then why not tell us that’s what the swords/knives were for? Good metaphor for Jesus sacrificing himself. And also good in terms of convincing the Romans Christians really are nonviolent (except to sheep).
And I would actually like Robert to show up now and tell us if the words for sword and sacrificial knife were identical. That strikes me as the source of many dangerous misunderstandings.
You’d want a very specific term–like ‘thagomizer’.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps because it was common knowledge to those pre-70? I myself don’t have a great an answer to why not tell us, the same as many many other points in NT which remain wrapped in weirdness and silence.
She does a fairly deep linguistic analysis of the term, and takes it back to the knife that Abraham held for Isaac – an analysis which I can understand (in English) but not do first-hand. It would take someone with Robert’s level of knowledge to weigh in here.
NB – I miss the Far Side…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)