Just to say that I have listened to many debates on the internet by distinguished Rabbis on all the claims made by Christians about Jesus being the prophized Messiah and they tear them all down piece by piece and especially Isaaih 53. Unfortunately 99% of Christians won’t go there. But isn’t is obvious that the best people to interprete their OWN scriptures are these and not apologetics who know next to nothing about the Jewish scriptures and traditions?
@ MikeyS
You sort of miss the point. I doubt any Jew thought the messiah would instantly cause such things. Take the idea that the messiah
would be a great King like David. Certainly he would have to be born etc. Jesus was also a Jew and did not expect the kingdom to come instantly. He did seem to believe it would arrive in his own life time. I don’t see why your description
You’re a bit inconsistent here. On the one hand you want to say it’s all fiction, but then will rest your argument on what Jesus purportedly said.
I fail to see how your description of Jewish expectation: “It was an ‘earthly’ kingdom not an heavenly one” makes any difference for what Jesus may have said or how his death might be interpreted. Who has ever argued that ” Jews would believed differently?” Seems like your conflating modern thinking with that of the first century. My suspicion is that the idea of a heavanly kingdom came in long after the separation from Judaism.
Lewis’ options were Liar lunatic or lord Unfortunately, your description is consistent
with the second category.Delusion smacks too much of mental illness. But I do agree with the why have you forsaken me argument.
I think Ehrman is right the final option is legend.
@gavriel Thanks again. Illuminating material. Rough stuff, even in light of dark sites coming to light in Chicago. God forbid that Paul should “seem vile unto thee…The wicked is thy brother still.” An ancient function of religion: keeping everyone in line (without killing them if possible).
“Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” Upon this passage the Rabbis comment, saying: “The wicked is thy brother still” (Sifre 286; Mak. 22).
Which brings us back to Jesus stepping too far out of bounds for brotherly correction. When they turned to the Romans for the dirty work of capital punishment…they really had no love left for this “brother”. Then again (and not to put too much blame on the temple leaders at that moment), this was Passover week. And the message was incendiary, if not inciting revolt.
@gav
“The problem of understanding why Jesus alone was seized has been dealt with by critical scholars long ago. You need to address those explanations.”
Actually, Gav, I do not. Primarily because I was talking about that problem in the context of the
whole Paul as a Roman spy/provacature/policeman etc fantasia. The question then is why, if the negligible early christian movement was considered a threat to Rome, why weren’t the disciples
also arrested.
“Would it be possible for 20-30 guardsmen to seize 50 disciples? I’m guessing about the numbers”
Not sure why you’re guessing here or why your guess just happens to favor your argument. Not a shred of evidence for 50 disciples @ Gethsemane; yet the varying descriptions in the gospels
give the impression that there were mre than “20 or 30 guardsmen” on hand
Certainly if guards were dispatched they would anticipate how many were needed; particularly since they seemed to have an inside man (Judas). The traditional view is that the inner circle or the
remaining 11 disciples were the only ones present in Gethsemene ( I doubt there was more than 15 people there).
So if “the Romans showed a harsher reaction to larger organized groups” why wouldn’t this be the case with more than fifty people? and why was Jesus case minor( remember that the argument was
that Paul infiltrated this movement because it was considered a threat to Rome)? Why wouldn’t a group that would, lets say, make it difficult for 20 to 30 guardsmen to arrest them, make it hard for those same guardsmen to arrest their leader?
More importantly, it doesn’t much matter who the guards were unless you’re arguing that a.) they
were members of the Sanhedrin or b.) that the guardsmen would have recognized Jesus.
“the disciples understood the plot immediately and fled like young boys caught in scrumping.”
Making stuff up doesn’t help you.
The story is that a fight broke out( MARK 14:47, MATTHEW 26:51, lUKE: 22:49, jOHN 18:10 ), but do you mean to suggest that men running away couldn’t be caught somehow? That guards comming to arrest someone wouldn’t anticipate runners? Are you suggesting that Roman soldiers wouldn’t be dispatched to arrest people considered to be a threat to the empire?
Not sure why your understanding of the arrest is relevant to the discussion.
Agitation at the temple? Why is it that you want to explain what the Romans would do,but have already told us that ” most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards”
Which is it Gav? Did the Romans arrest Jesus or not? If they did. why is it ” most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards”
Hi Spiker.
Its difficult to be consistent as we can’t know what the whole truth is or even part of the truth is because of the lack of information and the differing accounts and then thinking what ‘may have happened’ etc. Most Christians assume all the words coming from the mouth of Jesus are exact as though he was being recorded and we know that is impossible even if we try and recall what we did ourselves yesterday exactly. We are led to believe that the Gospels were written by highly intelligent greeks, none who were eye witnesses to any event or speech by Jesus. Could someone remember the Sermon on the mount, word for word? Or they just assumed that is what he was likely to have said?
Its impossible to know what words he used and especially in Aramaic and so we use the Gospels for the sake of discussion which does lead to plenty of assumptions one way or the other.
Jesus ‘supposed’ to have said to the Sanhedrin “My Kingdom is not of this world” that was before he was killed. Who was there to record that whole testimony or who did they tell afterwards? The Messiah is where a lot of misinformation is used then as now by Christians. So I listen and read what the Messiah was ‘supposed’ to be about. New Temple, New Kingdom. Peace on the whole earth and Jesus reigning as King aka King David and why he was to have descended from him. So why did Jesus and his disciples think he was the Messiah? Because the Temple was still standing which had just been finished by Herod and the Roman Occupation was in force and so he could not be THE Messiah as foretold in the OT. And anyway THAT Messiah was not about redemption, forgiving sins, atonement and heaven. Its why I say all that was an earthly kingdom and not a heavenly one.
So they ALL needed a cover story. They made so he had to die for the sins. not just the Jews, but the whole world. John 3:16 and then he was coming back a second time to be, guess what? The REAL Messiah! When all the things that were prophized would take place. But odd that its still a return to Earth again according to the Book of revelation after the judgement has taken place apparently. So where does heaven and eternity come in? After the 1000 year reign? Jesus will do what exactly? Rule for centuries on earth while people lived and die in a normal lifespan?
It all sounds too fanciful. Jesus didn’t return in that generation. The sun didn’t fall out of the sky or the earth stop rotating etc etc.
Its a great Hans Christian Andersen novel where Christian’ is the clue! 
As I keep saying. Its a great pity that thousands had to die for such beliefs and imv died in vain and for a lie, to be blunt!
“Its difficult to be consistent as we can’t know what the whole truth is or even part of the truth is because of the lack of information and the differing accounts and then thinking what ‘may have happened’ etc.”
This makes no sense. consistency isn’t about how much knowledge you have. You’ve expressed the idea
that It’s all fiction. That’s a judgement about the veracity of information; not a lack of it.
Second, resting any argument on something you describe as fiction(whatever Jesus reportedly said)
is a failure of intellectual honesty not missing information. Lack of knowledge doesn’t cause inconsistency. Agendas and sloppy thinking cause inconsistency: Your inconsistency is that you want to describe it all as fiction in one breath then act as if it’s true in the next. Making excuses doesn’t advance the cause or extend knowledge.
People deal with lack of information and differeing accounts all the time.
I’m willing to believe Jesus was born in Nazareth, that he was an itinerant preacher,
that he had a group of followers and that he might have considered himself the messiah
or at least someone with a very special relationship with Yaweh and that he was crucified for
treason or sedition against Rome.
Now there’s absolutely no
messianic tradition seeing the messiah as King David. I’m not following your whole temple
argument. It seems to rely on a bizzare belief that something would happen immediately. Trying
to force interpretation one way isn’t any better than Christians forcing it the other.
Spiker,
Look up the word ‘veracity’ AND ‘inconsistency’ and then revisit your reply to me..
The whole bible is inconsistent and lacks veracity and so for 2000 years people have been trying to understand what its all about and when its studied vs the facts and claims. It then comes very close to being a work of fiction and should be labelled AND taught as such. The people who are really the most intellectual dishonest are those that study the bible and then try and convince the rest that its the inerrant word of God. The Church has been doing this for 2000 years and indoctrinating children with lies and is child abuse!
Lack of knowledge doesn’t cause inconsistency?
What planet to you live on?
Just to add another comment.
This is a newish board and is very good with very knowledgeable posters who are very respectful of each others views, even when they may disagree or even when they drift off topic and so, I will try and avoid ANY personal attacks on anyone and just try and enjoy the topics.
To get back to the opening question.
Were there any eye witnesses to Jesus’s life?
The only answers we have are within the NT itself and a reference by Josephus external to that. I’m not sure there are any other external sources although many people think there was similar named men in that era. eg Christus. The problem as we all know is nobody can be certain that all these ancient writings have not be tampered with and there are good points on either side in that IF they were to any degree, the evidence from them would be stronger etc.
Although I say the bible is full of fictional events that really wasn’t the question. Its whether the people like Abraham, Isaac, David, the Prophets, actually existed along with Jesus. I’ve heard biblical historians say they didn’t or maybe they mean there is no ‘evidence’ they did, other than ancient writings written hundreds of years after the events described and in some ways Jesus ‘could’ be in that category. Other Historians claim that as the Gospels were written within a few decades after the events, the evidence is pretty compelling and especially the writings of Paul etc.
I think Prof Erhman one time said there was no ‘evidence’ that Jesus had lived but came around to the ‘likelyhood’ that he did based on what we know from the Gospels and Paul’s letters. As the whole scenario would be like a comic opera had it all been around a fictious man.
Now where is my book on Hercules and the Gods on Mount Olympus.
MikeyS said
Spiker,Look up the word ‘veracity’ AND ‘inconsistency’ and then revisit your reply to me..
The whole bible is inconsistent and lacks veracity and so for 2000 years people have been trying to understand what its all about and when its studied vs the facts and claims. It then comes very close to being a work of fiction and should be labelled AND taught as such. The people who are really the most intellectual dishonest are those that study the bible and then try and convince the rest that its the inerrant word of God. The Church has been doing this for 2000 years and indoctrinating children with lies and is child abuse!
Lack of knowledge doesn’t cause inconsistency?
What planet to you live on?
@MikeyS
First, you should not take my lack of diplomacy as a personal attack. I do believe you have a valuable contribution to make. Now as to your remarks,
Veracity means:
1.) habitual observance of truth in speech or statement; truthfulness:
2.) conformity to truth or fact; accuracy:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
consistency, for my purposes, perhaps it would have been clearer if I said, contradictory”
con·tra·dic·to·ry mutually opposed or inconsistent.
Now, how can I say your being inconsistent or contradictory?
You want to describe the gospels as fictitious, but you use something Jesus said (drawn from
these fictitious gospels and by extension fictitious, in your thinking, as the basis for an argument. An argument based on, in this case, Jesus words, assume those words are true and therefore not false or if you like, fictitious.
Either the words are true and the gospels are not completely fictitious or the words are false and basing an argument or claim on them makes no sense. Further, I never claimed the gospels
don’t contain discrepancies, contradictions etc. Personally, I consider Matthew’s narrative to be
driven by prophecy shopping; yet that is different from what I can show evidence for or what
scholarship has to say about it. Further, even if I could s Gospels how this to be true, it does not rule out that Matthew may contain elements of historical fact. As Ehrman pointed out the Gospels, like any other historical, source should be critically examined and not simply dismissed out of hand. Only a careful critical assesment can provide clear and solid evidence. Ehrman’s
work, for example shows clear and solid evidence that the Bible is not inerrant. Christians can kick and scream alll they want, but at the end of the day they still can’t change that. the evidence is way too solid. Non of that was obtained by oversimplification or wholesale dismissal.
Hi Spiker, no problems, I can see where you are coming from.
Its rather difficult discussing scripture without quoting what the text says. eg Jesus said this or said that. We all know its virtually impossible for writers decades later to reproduce accurately what anyone has said and that was before all the technology we have nowadays. Even so, people will claim they meant something differently. ie sometimes you have to be there to really get the gist of what someone says. The claim is the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses which compounds all these problems as we know.
Its why i have difficulty with repeating what the text said. As you said its only people like Bart Erhman that enables us to say this as most believers did and still do, believe the Gospels were written contemporaneously by eye witnesses/disciples.
But its not just the historical record that is important. Its the claims made within them. Miracles, why none today? Epilepsy vs demons? Answers to prayer, re ask anything in my name and God will do it etc? Adam and Eve/the fall vs evolution? The Flood, Tower of Babel, Stoning Gays, Adulterers and Children. The list is endless as why do people still believe the bible is the word of God and therefore inerrant, despite the evidence before our very eyes?
One perfect example is the Catholic Church on divorce. Because Jesus said there was no other grounds apart from Adultery then Catholics cannot get a divorce in their eyes no matter what other grounds there are. Physical and Mental abuse, drunkeness, gambling the kids food money away etc etc. No, these are not valid in their eyes because Jesus didn’t mention them. Not just that though, remarriage is not allowed as they were/are committing adultery with their new partner. Now all this is just because of a claim that Jesus said so..What if he didn’t? What if Catholics and other Christians treated Jesus as just a Jewish Preacher and not God? Just think how many wives had to put up with all that abuse because of these rules. They had the keys to the Kingdom remember?
Jihad is in the Quran. Muslims are killing other Muslims and non Muslims today because of the same reasons. They too believe the Quran was/is the word of God. Until the whole world converts to Islam, Jihad will continue.
Some distinguished writers say, UNLESS all these religious texts and holy books are placed on the history shelf gathering dust and filed under fiction, then nothing will change. One death due to religious bigotry is one too many surely?
spiker said
@gav
“The problem of understanding why Jesus alone was seized has been dealt with by critical scholars long ago. You need to address those explanations.”
Actually, Gav, I do not. Primarily because I was talking about that problem in the context of the
whole Paul as a Roman spy/provacature/policeman etc fantasia. The question then is why, if the negligible early christian movement was considered a threat to Rome, why weren’t the disciples
also arrested.“Would it be possible for 20-30 guardsmen to seize 50 disciples? I’m guessing about the numbers”
Not sure why you’re guessing here or why your guess just happens to favor your argument. Not a shred of evidence for 50 disciples @ Gethsemane; yet the varying descriptions in the gospels
give the impression that there were mre than “20 or 30 guardsmen” on hand
Certainly if guards were dispatched they would anticipate how many were needed; particularly since they seemed to have an inside man (Judas). The traditional view is that the inner circle or the
remaining 11 disciples were the only ones present in Gethsemene ( I doubt there was more than 15 people there).So if “the Romans showed a harsher reaction to larger organized groups” why wouldn’t this be the case with more than fifty people? and why was Jesus case minor( remember that the argument was
that Paul infiltrated this movement because it was considered a threat to Rome)? Why wouldn’t a group that would, lets say, make it difficult for 20 to 30 guardsmen to arrest them, make it hard for those same guardsmen to arrest their leader?More importantly, it doesn’t much matter who the guards were unless you’re arguing that a.) they
were members of the Sanhedrin or b.) that the guardsmen would have recognized Jesus.“the disciples understood the plot immediately and fled like young boys caught in scrumping.”
Making stuff up doesn’t help you.
The story is that a fight broke out( MARK 14:47, MATTHEW 26:51, lUKE: 22:49, jOHN 18:10 ), but do you mean to suggest that men running away couldn’t be caught somehow? That guards comming to arrest someone wouldn’t anticipate runners? Are you suggesting that Roman soldiers wouldn’t be dispatched to arrest people considered to be a threat to the empire?Not sure why your understanding of the arrest is relevant to the discussion.
Agitation at the temple? Why is it that you want to explain what the Romans would do,but have already told us that ” most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards”Which is it Gav? Did the Romans arrest Jesus or not? If they did. why is it ” most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards”
1. I don’t think the small movement was considered a threat to Rome. It was considered a threat to public order during the festival, by the High Priest and the Sadducee priesthood in general, sparked by the table overturning performed by Jesus. The Romans brought an armed unit into Jerusalem during festivals to prevent public disorder and uprising. Josephus has some telling stories about unrest during festivals and how easily they could trigger disasters.
2. The earliest sources make it clear that no Roman unit was involved in arresting Jesus. As to the size of the unit, that depends on whether they wanted to round up everyone or just the ringleader and possibly a couple more. The festival was a busy and large operation, how many could be assigned to the task? Since only the ringleader was caught, that must have been the purpose. Compare the arrest of John. Besides, they now had insider information and a way of seizing the ringleader without much public fuss.
3. The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled.”
4. Number of disciples. The gospels make it clear that during Jesus’ ministry , he had followers beside the 12 apostles. It is hard to detect the historical core here, but in any case, the total number must have been small, or else an arrest would be difficult without bringing in a large Roman unit.It also makes sense that he had a meal in the house of a local supporter, including only the twelve, and later returning to the group. Or else, why did they not spend the night in the house?
spiker said
@ MikeySLets not forget religious bigotry is only one form of it.My guess is without religious bigotry they would kill for some other form of it: racial, tribal, ideological etc.
Absolutely right.
I would ask all religious believers if they were starting out now, ie without any guidance from holy text, would they act and think differently? I just give one example as I alluded to..
Would they really think its acceptable to have to stay married to someone that physically and mentally abuses their spouse or children, maybe for years and years? Would they think they should not get married again and in church if they wished if they fell in love again and think that would be adultery? Indeed in any of these situations, do they REALLY their marriage was made in heaven and so should stay married until death do they part? That last comment was part of the marriage ceremony here in the UK and when I got married a long time ago but believe that bit has been removed as is the one about ‘obeying’ their husband/wife.
Very few Christians now believe that Adulterers, Gays and Children should be stoned to death so why go with any other religious text? Its all because they made Jesus, God, that’s why. They conveniently forget that by doing so, it was Jehova that gave the Jews, all these laws in the Torah in the first place and so should they not still believe they are applicable? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow is the claim.
Its frustrating that believers take a pick and mix approach without thinking it through. Of course fundamentalists do believe they still apply.
gavriel said
spiker said
@gav
“The problem of understanding why Jesus alone was seized has been dealt with by critical scholars long ago. You need to address those explanations.”
Actually, Gav, I do not. Primarily because I was talking about that problem in the context of the
whole Paul as a Roman spy/provacature/policeman etc fantasia. The question then is why, if the negligible early christian movement was considered a threat to Rome, why weren’t the disciples
also arrested.“Would it be possible for 20-30 guardsmen to seize 50 disciples? I’m guessing about the numbers”
Not sure why you’re guessing here or why your guess just happens to favor your argument. Not a shred of evidence for 50 disciples @ Gethsemane; yet the varying descriptions in the gospels
give the impression that there were mre than “20 or 30 guardsmen” on hand
Certainly if guards were dispatched they would anticipate how many were needed; particularly since they seemed to have an inside man (Judas). The traditional view is that the inner circle or the
remaining 11 disciples were the only ones present in Gethsemene ( I doubt there was more than 15 people there).So if “the Romans showed a harsher reaction to larger organized groups” why wouldn’t this be the case with more than fifty people? and why was Jesus case minor( remember that the argument was
that Paul infiltrated this movement because it was considered a threat to Rome)? Why wouldn’t a group that would, lets say, make it difficult for 20 to 30 guardsmen to arrest them, make it hard for those same guardsmen to arrest their leader?More importantly, it doesn’t much matter who the guards were unless you’re arguing that a.) they
were members of the Sanhedrin or b.) that the guardsmen would have recognized Jesus.“the disciples understood the plot immediately and fled like young boys caught in scrumping.”
Making stuff up doesn’t help you.
The story is that a fight broke out( MARK 14:47, MATTHEW 26:51, lUKE: 22:49, jOHN 18:10 ), but do you mean to suggest that men running away couldn’t be caught somehow? That guards comming to arrest someone wouldn’t anticipate runners? Are you suggesting that Roman soldiers wouldn’t be dispatched to arrest people considered to be a threat to the empire?Not sure why your understanding of the arrest is relevant to the discussion.
Agitation at the temple? Why is it that you want to explain what the Romans would do,but have already told us that ” most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards”Which is it Gav? Did the Romans arrest Jesus or not? If they did. why is it ” most likely Jesus was seized by a unit of temple guards”
1. I don’t think the small movement was considered a threat to Rome. It was considered a threat to public order during the festival, by the High Priest and the Sadducee priesthood in general, sparked by the table overturning performed by Jesus. The Romans brought an armed unit into Jerusalem during festivals to prevent public disorder and uprising. Josephus has some telling stories about unrest during festivals and how easily they could trigger disasters.
2. The earliest sources make it clear that no Roman unit was involved in arresting Jesus. As to the size of the unit, that depends on whether they wanted to round up everyone or just the ringleader and possibly a couple more. The festival was a busy and large operation, how many could be assigned to the task? Since only the ringleader was caught, that must have been the purpose. Compare the arrest of John. Besides, they now had insider information and a way of seizing the ringleader without much public fuss.
3. The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled.”
4. Number of disciples. The gospels make it clear that during Jesus’ ministry , he had followers beside the 12 apostles. It is hard to detect the historical core here, but in any case, the total number must have been small, or else an arrest would be difficult without bringing in a large Roman unit.It also makes sense that he had a meal in the house of a local supporter, including only the twelve, and later returning to the group. Or else, why did they not spend the night in the house?
Gavriel: I have a follow-up relating to #3, I’m not clear on. Are you saying that you think the Markan tradition relates an eyewitness’s account of a drawn sword by a disciple (who incredibly had one?!) and was foolish enough not to see the futlity of resistance and tried to use it? Or are you saying that that bit must be an apologetic defense for what never happened, because the storyteller of the tradition knew they’d all been cowards and fled, but didn’t like how that sounded, so they dressed it up as fulfillment of prophecy?
Re Peter with the sword cutting off the ear?
How does that equate with the peace and non violence ethos of that faith? Why was he carrying a weapon and what happened to turning the other cheek? Or indeed loving your enemies? Did Jesus love the Pharisees whom he called ‘evil’ cos they had reasons to doubt his credibilty as the Messiah?
Its difficult to see if it was the Romans who arrested Jesus, they wouldn’t have arrested anyone else too, especially Peter who used his sword?
SWerdal said
gavriel said
1. I don’t think the small movement was considered a threat to Rome. It was considered a threat to public order during the festival, by the High Priest and the Sadducee priesthood in general, sparked by the table overturning performed by Jesus. The Romans brought an armed unit into Jerusalem during festivals to prevent public disorder and uprising. Josephus has some telling stories about unrest during festivals and how easily they could trigger disasters.2. The earliest sources make it clear that no Roman unit was involved in arresting Jesus. As to the size of the unit, that depends on whether they wanted to round up everyone or just the ringleader and possibly a couple more. The festival was a busy and large operation, how many could be assigned to the task? Since only the ringleader was caught, that must have been the purpose. Compare the arrest of John. Besides, they now had insider information and a way of seizing the ringleader without much public fuss.
3. The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled.”
4. Number of disciples. The gospels make it clear that during Jesus’ ministry , he had followers beside the 12 apostles. It is hard to detect the historical core here, but in any case, the total number must have been small, or else an arrest would be difficult without bringing in a large Roman unit.It also makes sense that he had a meal in the house of a local supporter, including only the twelve, and later returning to the group. Or else, why did they not spend the night in the house?
Gavriel: I have a follow-up relating to #3, I’m not clear on. Are you saying that you think the Markan tradition relates an eyewitness’s account of a drawn sword by a disciple (who incredibly had one?!) and was foolish enough not to see the futlity of resistance and tried to use it? Or are you saying that that bit must be an apologetic defense for what never happened, because the storyteller of the tradition knew they’d all been cowards and fled, but didn’t like how that sounded, so they dressed it up as fulfillment of prophecy?
I think the sword story is part of the apology. Mark wants to show that his disciples were opposed to the arrest, but that they were disarmed by the words of Jesus, who says that this is the fulfillment of Scripture. It is not very likely that members of a pacifist religious group were carrying arms. The ear-cutting story in itself is incredible: It is is very difficult to hit someone with a sword and cut off the ear only. That would be a master stroke. Most likely the story of Peter’s denial is apologetic too, and the purpose is to show that anything that goes against God’s plan as stated in Scripture is futile. That is not to say that it is wholly legendary. Once the disciples had fled, and somewhere in temporary safety, they may have made some attempts to approach the Jerusalem scene to hear what was going on. But on the whole they are hereafter absent from the consecutive happenings in the gospels until Jesus’ death. The one exception is some female disciples who could feel safe, and who possibly were not among the itinerant group of disciples.
The reason for dressing it up as fulfillment of prophecy is probably not made up by Mark, but was created very early on. Mark perhaps just recounts a story from tradition. In any way, the idea that the fleeing was according to Scripture must have been very convenient. Maybe Mark tries to do both: They did not flee cowardly, but made some attempts, and also that they had to flee because Scripture said so.
Basically then, they fled like scared rabbits, (according to my guess) because they knew the seriousness of the situation created in the temple area. Judas knew it even more and even earlier, so he defected initially to save himself.
Thanks guys- as always a fascinating exetical exploration and interpretation (if I recall the art of exegesis correctly and have used the term appropriately). So in effect we have less “eyewitness” material here than meets the eye, so to speak. Mostly we have the raw material that led to Mark’s oral tradition strand. An explanation/defense of why it all unfolded this way instead of that, because it was part of the divine revelation in (was it Daniel? I understand the Hebrew canon is still a few centuries hence, but at this time the apocalpyptics already hold certain books sacred). Why do I hear the voice of Eric Idle suddenly channeled in my head saying,
“Well it COUL’ ‘ave ‘appened ‘at way, mate!”
@Gav
I don’t know of any prophecy governing how many men would come to arrest him or whether someone would engage in sword play. Now you want to claim (Is there even a spec of evidence?) that the sword play was apolgetic and by implication, made up. Apologetics don’t disprove historicity; yet one guy using a sword during the arrest is rather lame apologetic. Yea we all ran away but Peter used his sword to cut off some guys ear. It does next to nothing to mitigate their situation. One might argue that such a tactic could make them look worse: Cowards and incompetant.
Further, one of Mark’s main themes is abandonment. Therefore, if we continue entertaining pure speculation as fact, we can say the disciples fleeing is completely consonant with Mark’s narrative. Thus, following your strange logic, we would have to assume Mark made it, the disciples fleeing, up.
“I don’t think the small movement was considered a threat to Rome. It was considered a threat to public order during the festival, by the High Priest and the Sadducee priesthood in general, sparked by the table overturning performed by Jesus.”
Leaving aside the problem with whether this (overturning the tables) happend at the begining of his ministry or at the end (John 2:11-12), I don’t see how “a threat to public order during the festival was not also a threat to Rome; particularly since as you conceed “The Romans brought an armed unit into Jerusalem during festivals to prevent public disorder and uprising.” and then note “how easily they could trigger disasters” Further, Considering he was tried by the Roman Governor
for treason (or was it sedition?), I suspect the involvement of Roman soldiers makes alot of sense; however, I’ll concede the Gospels do not specify Roman involvement in the arrest. Finally, and again these issues have to be considered in the specific context in which they were raised: That Paul was a Roman mole/provaceture within the early Christian movement.
If you’re going to argue “the small movement was[n’t] considered a threat to Rome”
then it’s hard to explain why the Romans would want a mole/provaceuter in this “small movement”
Your other arguments are problematic as well, but since they don’t adress the issue in question,
I don’t see their relevance.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert