Steefen said
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.
Hi Trevor314,
Just checking in to see if YOU (not anyone else) had a comment.
Steefen
Also in Fredricksen’s When Christians Were Jews is her theory on how you get Jesus arrested and crucified but none of the other Jesus movement folks (when the Romans would tend to round up and crucify as many as they could as example). It dovetails with (but is distinct from) the sword/sacrificial knife theory.
I bring this up (a) because the explanation of why Jesus was crucified is an area where I know Godspell and I have differing views, and (b) it’s an area that bears on why the manner of arrest, in another ongoing thread.
But, in terms of the sacrificial knife and the armed question, I think I can find the scholarly articles from D Martin and P Fredricksen, so one can read those (vs the longer but fascinating book).
ETA –
** you do not have permission to see this link **
My own feeling is that the temple authorities wanted Jesus out of the way. Not necessarily dead, but gone. So they pointed him out to Pilate, and Pilate went with dead and gone, because that was his go-to. (Maybe he had doubts when he realized how harmless this Jesus guy was, but I think most of his hesitance is added on to the story later). But they all realized they’d overreacted, there had been no threat to civic order, so they just forgot about the disciples–and Jesus. There were many other much more real threats to focus on, and they figured it was all over and done with.
Amazing how often smart people figure wrong.
Jesus was killed by the decisions of a handful of Jewish and Roman authorities. Nobody else. The real question is, did Jesus want that to happen. Did he think he was going to trigger the Kingdom’s arrival through sacrificing himself? Did he think he had to die, or that God would intervene to save him?
And there’s no way we can ever know that. We can’t even know what’s going through the minds of people who get themselves killed now. There are limits to how well any one human can ever understand another. So it comes down to better understanding ourselves.
Query: Could a sacrificial knife of that time period be used to cut off someone’s ear?
Query: Could a sacrificial knife of that time period be used to cut off someone’s ear?
To whet the appetite to read it:
“Bearing Arms under Rome
Mark mentions that one of Jesus’ followers in Gethsemane wielded a μάχαιρα (‘sword’, Mk 14.47 NRSV). Martin observes that the Markan verses can be read as meaning that (most of? all of?) Jesus’ followers were armed, and that of these armed followers only one drew his weapon (2014: 5). Pointing to Luke’s editing of his synoptic source, Martin again correctly notes the later evangelist’s pacify- ing tendencies: the contrast brings out more clearly Mark’s unapologetic recount. Whether Mark or Luke gives us any historically reliable information about the night of Jesus’ arrest is another question, of course, quite independent of how we read their texts.
I will argue in closing – though for historical reasons, not for textual/literary ones – that Martin is most likely correct on this point: some of Jesus’ disciples, on the night of his arrest, probably did carry μάχαιραι.”
But there are differing explanations for this–they could have been hangers-on–in the earliest surviving account, the person drawing the sword is not named. There could have been some zealots who had been attracted to Jesus’ message, but weren’t part of the core group, because they wouldn’t go the nonviolent route. And Jesus could have told his followers to get a few swords, as I’ve posited, precisely so that he could say not to use them. Making a point. He did not have complete control over all the people around him, so that could have gotten briefly out of hand.
If there had been a real fight, why wouldn’t there have been more arrests? Now these weren’t Roman soldiers, but essentially guards employed by the temple. Fellow Jews. The Romans tried not involve themselves too much in internecine Jewish quarrels. (Of which there were many.) So to them, a lost ear was nothing to get upset about, since it wasn’t a Roman ear.
I would say that whichever argument you take up, it tends to collapse if you put too much weight on it. Probably early Christians argued over what happened too. Probably even people who were there disagreed on details. (Have you ever tried to figure out what really happened at the OK Corral?)
But the weakest of all is that Jesus was a violent ringleader himself. We’d have heard about that from Josephus, from later rabbinic sources, from Roman sources. No evidence of any uprising at all in Jeruslalem during that time period. There were some people biding their time, building their strength. Jesus was going a different way.
Now that was a very informative post. That as usual, when you dig into the details of scriptural accounts and their potential influences, leaves you knowing simultaneously more and less than you did before.
I think it’s pretty clear that there was disagremeent over what exactly happened when Jesus was arrested, and disagreement over what it signified. And there always will be.
But the fact that people who disagreed over what happened and what it meant still stuck to the bare bones of the story, while fleshing them out differently, indicates to me that the bones themselves are real enough.
Her theory, in whole and in parts, has a lot of explanatory power. Which makes it thought provoking. Does explanatory power confer truth? Not necessarily. The junkheep of history is replete with elegant and wrong theories…
Robert – Thanks a ton for that. As I understand it, her linguistic argument doesn’t isolate the Greek term to only sacrificial knives, but it would pick them up. The range of machxaira is wide (in concept and in translation), and picks up a number of Hebrew terms. However, the range of ma’ekelet is narrow (in concept and translation), and maps only onto machxaira. Is that correct?
Acknowledging Mark, in isolation, doesn’t tell us who struck, I do find it interesting how both Luke and Matthew interpret the tradition and feel compelled to explain away the issue. Not that this is dispositive, only interesting.
DIY slaughter is suggestive of either (a) someone in the party carrying an implement, or (b) Jesus’s crew likely didn’t sacrifice (sheer numbers plus poor), which would fit the silence around lamb at the meal. Btw, I’m just stirring the pot here – I don’t have a well-formed view.
Got it, awesome, thanks.
By the Biblical examples we have, the narrower Hebrew term is only mapped on the much looser Greek term. So, one could say with a straight face that on the other examples we have, the Hebrew term would have been rendered as such. As Dr Fredricksen does.
It’s clearly not dispositive, not by a mile, but it is an interesting epistemic-barring argument on account of the looseness in the Greek word. Like if I were to live in a condo high rise but whenever I spoke of it in French in emails, I’d only ever say bâtiment. Someone who discovered my (broken) French emails 2000 years hence would be barred later from being able to draw a strong line back to a condo high rise.
I may have asked you before, but I cannot find the answer, so apologies if redundant – do we (by which I mean you, since tzatziki is at least 33.3% of my Greek knowledge…) know how small of a knife the term machxaira could apply to? Meaning, would a small pocket knife fit, or does it need to be larger?
Robert said
Again, not really sure. At least as small as a dagger, but a dagger would not necessarily serve very well as a sacrificial knife. Sacrificial knives can be all different sizes, eg, small ones would be especially suited for birds.
Quite an interesting and detailed reflection on this topic. Thank you for that! I see that in my book “Antiquities of the Ehrman Blog” you will be called “Robert of Princeton” – not because I believe you are FROM Princeton, mind you, merely that I believe this is (possibly) the location where you were associated during the Ehrman Blog years.
As is so often the case, we are left by an unknown author with his unknown sources, his unknowable imagination and his desire to make a concise story from various bits of information. To me it is simply interesting that this act of violence comes at the end of Jesus’ ministry (you’d think Jesus might have been pretty shocked after years of telling them to turn the other cheek!) – and goes in the earliest version unremarked upon. That later writers then use this to again invert native Jewish anti-Roman collaborator sentiment into the “don’t hurt the Romans and their friends” is also interesting. Equally interesting is that Jesus immediately uses this to point out that he had been hanging out in Jerusalem for some time – at the temple – again raising questions about where his real ministry was centered.
But I also like the possible idea that excluding the chief priests from the Temple by maiming them is seen here. This would make quite a bit of sense, with the later versions undercutting it by healing the victim.
Your entire argument is based on either believing everything the four gospels say about the arrest or none of it. Neither option is logically tenable. Jesus was arrested. That’s a fact. And it would have been a tense moment. In moments of tension, people do things they might not normally do. And everyone remember such events differently–and may not clearly remember this or that person’s reaction.
Mark’s account is the least embellished–there’s probably some intentional symbolism there, whether it’s from him or earlier sources he’s drawing upon. But there are also probably some actual core memories there–the kinds of images that stick in the mind, like a young man running away naked.
John’s account should probably be dismissed out of hand. Luke’s is only slightly more credible. I think only Mark and Matthew are worth looking at as even attempts to relate actual events, and they are full of symbolism and retroactive explanations and justifications as well. But no doubt at all in my mind–there were actual events. With actual witnesses. And while this is the most famous dubiously legal arrest in all history (did the temple really have clear authority to arrest someone in a city under Roman rule?), it’s hardly the only one. There are untold thousands of similar accounts throughout history.
The basic story is this. Jesus is in a garden at night with his followers. Laying low. He has some idea he might be arrested (perhaps in retaliation for his behavior at the temple courtyard). A crowd approaches, led by Judas–people attached to the temple, many of them armed. A posse, come to take him into custody. No Roman soldiers. Judas is there to point Jesus out–so they’re not coming for all of them–just him. Decapitate the cult. (As happened, quite literally, with Jesus’ teacher).
Jesus speaks calmly, asking why they never came for him when he spoke in public (the answer self-evidently being that they feared he had too much support among the people, and a riot might ensue at Passover). There are men present who are not his disciples but do support him. One of them draws a weapon, strikes one of the men trying to lay hands on him, get him out of there, away from his supporters.
This is obviously going to lead to momentary confusion, fear of an all-out fight between the two factions, and we shouldn’t assume any two people present would have had the same exact story of what happened afterwards. But the wound isn’t critical, and Jesus (perhaps fearing that some of his people will be hurt as well) gives himself up. Perhaps he always intended to do so. Perhaps not.
As to whether he was shocked–that’s a damn silly thing to ask. He knew very well how people can be when angry and frightened, even when not armed. He’d lived in a violent world all his life. Just because he’d mainly opted out of the violence doesn’t mean he thought it could never happen around him. Or to him. We have ample evidence he did not think his followers were perfect, and at least a little that he didn’t think he was either.
But let’s say he and his followers were armed. Let’s say he was a violent revolutionary. He’s got quite a few people at his back who are devoted to him, and one of them even jumped the gun, made a play. When that happens, why don’t they all draw their weapons and fight? Even if the other side is too numerous (and smaller factions with a strong leader often defeat larger ones without), Jesus and his disciples could escape in the confusion, leave the city, live to fight another day. That’s what Jesse James woulda done. Or Ned Kelly. The list is endless.
Might as well ask why Socrates stuck around to drink the hemlock, when we’re told he was given ample opportunity to escape. Hey, you could poke a million holes in that story. Which Plato and Xenophon were not witness to, nor do they tell us who they heard the story from. Want to bet there’s no symbolic flourishes and manufactured dialogue there?
It all makes sense–once you strip away the flourishes, get rid of the miracles, and the axe-grinding. This is precisely how such scenes often play out in reality. The only confusing thing is why Jesus just goes along quietly. And the only answer that comes to mind is that he believed this is what he had to do.
Here’s another scenario.
Jesus and his closest disciples go to Jerusalem for the Passover perhaps thinking that the time for the Kingdom to appear has come. As part of his Kingdom expectation Jesus goes to the Temple to perform a prophetic “acting out” similar to what some of the classical prophets did as part of their witness. Unfortunately the Passover is a charged time for the Temple observances. The Temple establishment is keyed up because the Romans have a heavy presence during the Passover and the security folks would have been on the look-out for any kind of disturbance especially one that interfered with the day to day functioning of the Temple.
Jesus begins his prophetic “acting out” and is almost immediately arrested because of the disturbance. (This also explains why he alone was arrested. His disciples are lost in the crowd.) Because of the heavy Roman presence it’s possible that the Temple Guard was instructed to immediately turn him over to the Romans but it’s also possible Jesus was interrogated before he was turned over. But turned over he was. The Romans care nothing about Jewish theology and interpret any disturbance in the Temple as a political act and so they sentence him to be crucified.
As the oral traditions developed and stories were told the stories about the incident in the Temple and Jesus arrest and crucifixion gradually became separated more and more, perhaps as a response to the claim that Jesus was merely executed as a political criminal. The trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate were invented to reflect Jesus’ special status. The figure of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus was invented to symbolize the Jewish rejection of Jesus.
Note how the trial becomes more and more elaborate as you go along in the tradition. Note how the Temple incident and the arrest become so separated that John actually moves the Temple incident to the beginning of his gospel.
It all makes sense–once you strip away the flourishes, get rid of the miracles, and the axe-grinding. This is precisely how such scenes often play out in reality.
And again–is there any evidence anything like this ever happened to anyone? If it’s standard operating procedure, it didn’t just happen once.
Has it occurred to you that the potential for creating precisely the unrest they are hoping to prevent would be increased by what you’re suggesting? That if they can’t identify Jesus’ disciples, that means they have no idea how many followers of his are there, and how much chaos might be unleashed if they lay hands on him in public? What he is recorded as saying at Gethsemane is correct–they had many opportunities to arrest him in broad daylight, and they could have pointed him out to the Romans, let them do the dirty work.
His disciples were lost in the crowd? They obviously would be close by, and objecting if Jesus was arrested–he’d have entered with them, they would be wearing similar poor clothing, look and act much like him, clearly associated. And the temple courtyard is an enclosed area. They have heavy security, but no one watching the exits? And why would Jesus only bring a few of his closest companions if he wanted to make a major demonstration, get his point across to as many as possible? Pretty lousy PR. Jesus certainly had a knack for publicity, not that they called it that back then. He’d want a lot of witnesses, and not just random passersby who wouldn’t even understand what was happening or why–possibly the disciples were supposed to explain it to confused onlookers.
Why not go from the courtyard scene to the trial?–which is, we would agree, heavily mythologized, because no Christians were there to witness it. But there are witnesses to what happened in the courtyard. What really happened to Jesus is sacred to them, and they are not going to just cover it up. It serves no particular theological purpose for them to do so, since Jesus is (as you say) acting in an established Jewish prophetic tradition. It would, from their point of view, work just as well as him being arrested later.
And if we must question everything, why assume the ‘cleansing’ happened at all? Maybe that’s the part that was made up. I don’t believe that, but it makes at least as much sense as anything you’re saying. While Jesus admonishing the money changers is only referenced in the gospels, the arrest in Gethsemane, and Judas’ betrayal, is also referenced in Acts 1:16. It’s actually better documented, and there’s no evidence any Christian or any opponent of Christianity, ever questioned it. Yes, the author of Luke also wrote Acts, but he’s quoting Peter there.
Why invent the tradition of Judas turning traitor, if Jesus was snatched in broad daylight, in a crowded public place, with no need for anyone to identify him?
And why would no one ever accuse Christians of lying, when an arrest in a crowded public place would have had hundreds if not thousands of witnesses, some of them highly influential persons?
We can ask all kinds of questions about Gethsemane, because that was a relatively private party. But you’re saying this is an event that occurred in a crowded area the size of ten football fields, that led to a crucifixion, and was certainly referred to many times by Christians, and history completely forgot about it ending in Jesus’ arrest, even though many who witnessed it were still alive when the Christians began telling their embellished stories of what transpired that Passover.
I don’t see means, motive, or opportunity here. You don’t have a case.
“Your entire argument is based on either believing everything the four gospels say about the arrest or none of it. Neither option is logically tenable. Jesus was arrested. That’s a fact. And it would have been a tense moment. In moments of tension, people do things they might not normally do. And everyone remember such events differently–and may not clearly remember this or that person’s reaction.”
Soooo. No. That is not what my entire argument is based on. My argument is based on 1) recognizing that the Gospels are deeply a-historical, 2) Admitting that – despite some excellent and frankly very fun scholarship – we don’t know who wrote them and therefore we don’t really know their intentions and 3) It therefore becomes very hard to Know with a capital K what if any of this is genuine memory – and if it is, how it has been altered by time and the Writer to suite his purpose.
“You never know what someone is going to do” is not really evidence based reasoning. It is true, but doesn’t really answer any questions.
As this thread shows, we are missing data on almost every point of the story – by which i mean not just the major characters, but background information like, “does the Temple have its own guards” (I vote that they have their own thugs, like Paul was, but YMMV). What rules were there concerning weapons (i’m guessing not friendly to non-Romans carrying them, but again, I can’t prove that).
All that said, you are absolutely right – I am more inclined to believe that there was an incident at the Temple – because such an incident fits the underlying claims of Messiahship as we understand it from Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. As does armed followers. All speculation that they would have done xyz when Jesus was arrested is just idle speculation on our part. It is much easier to perceive the symbolic and narrative function of specific details – two things that drive their inclusion – than to evaluate their actual reality.
But its true that the “cleasing” story may itself be made up. Or may be a tradition that was started because cleaning the Temple was one of the goals of Messianic Judaism, and so people attributed it to the Messiah. Or … it happened.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)