SirP said
IF: Jesus was non-violentTHEN: What do we make of references to sell a cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22) and the disciple cutting off the servants ear in Gethsemane?
Maybe historical Jesus had some followers who carried swards and had a desire to use them for political revolution. I recall reading an article by Dale Martin (a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of Ehrman) on Mark 14:47 and, as I recall, he drew this conclusion.
Using a sword can be an act of mercy, for instance, using it on someone to put him out of misery.
The word “non-violent” has a modern meaning and does not apply to historical o mythical figures of the first century.
Mahatma Gandhi invented the term “non-violent” while he was fasting.
That’s why everyone should have, at least, a good breakfast before speaking.
I’m sure we live in different worlds. Perhaps, in the world I’m living in, formal logic still has a meaning. If you proceed from a false statement, no matter how refined is your reasoning, the conclusion cannot be right.
Let’s say, for the sake of the argument, that the historical Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet who preached an eschatological message about an imminent change. In Matthew, he says: “And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” (1)
Do you think we should be concerned about a sword?
(1) Matt 3:10
That’s a very interesting point about logic. I hadn’t thought about it that way. If I am understanding you correctly, I am asking the wrong question and so the answer cannot be true.
Would you say that thought exercises, like my IF/THEN above, are unhelpful if the IF clause contains a false statement? Perhaps this is logic 101 but something they don’t teach in public school…
I ask because you have to start somewhere when asking questions, right? We all have our assumptions, however flawed, but that doesn’t stop us from our research. And just because we can’t verify that our IF clauses’ are true, doesn’t stop us from moving ahead. Because sometimes it’s impossible to verify they are true. How can anyone be exactly right from the get-go? I hope you follow me.
I have two remarks.
The first:
1) “if then else” is a statement used in programming to control the flow of the code, but in logic has different implications. Whoever uses the functional programming approach will ask you out of it.
Normally the statement is expressed as “if p then q”, where p and q are both predicates. The problem with logic is that, for instance, F⇒F is true. Also, F⇒T is true.
So the implication is true even if both predicates are false.
Just look up at the truth table to understand that.
In other words, logical truth is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions. So any analytic statement of the sort does not contain any information (truthfulness) about anything at all.
And we are lucky to be content of the true and false.
We don’t want to go into a space of probability [0,1] where to pick an estimation of some truth or some falsehood, as in fuzzy logic!
Given that, I was referring to, in my comment, to a much more “common sense” logical consequence, so a sub-set of the “if p then q” proposition, where the implication is valid only if all the statements are true.
When you say: “I ask because you have to start somewhere when asking questions, right?” you are stating that the assertion is true since any relation is a priori, so there is no need to prove it.
Now, do you see how problematic this is?
Second:
2) The real predicament here is not about logic, but about linguistic. I was referring to the term “non-violent” since this word bears no meaning in the first century since its definition has been invented in modern times (Gandhi.) A word is nothing other than an agreement, a convention, usually used unconsciously by speakers in a society.
Do you know what “sausade” means in the English language? It’s Portuguese and is some kind of melancholic longing for a place or a person far away. There is no translation in English since there is no linguistic frame and no experience to which you can relate to.
Affirming that Jesus was “non-violent” does not make any sense.
Also, I showed, for instance in the Gospel of Matthew, how Jesus is violent in his words, in his deeds, even if he never drew a sword!!!
Infact the idea that he is not violent (different from non-violent) is just a later projection. As many many others. Read for instance THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY – HOW A FORBIDDEN RELIGION SWEPT THE WORLD of Bart D. Ehrman.
Robert said
That’s a really fine point, SirP. We all have to start somewhere and then continue to evaluate not only our original starting point but also wherever we stand currently.I am not at all opposed to Dale Martin’s viewpoint (or its polar opposite), but from my current perspective, I’m not so sure this pericope tells us all that much about the attitude of the historical Jesus or his disciples towards violence.
Matthew clearly interprets Mark’s story as Jesus teaching his disciples to avoid violent resistance: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Luke also imagines that the disciples were prepared to resist with force: “They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ … And when those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’”
But I’m not so sure we should interpret Mark’s story, the original version, in this way. In Mark, there is no indication that the disciples had prepared for battle or that Jesus discourages their use of violence. We are only told that the crowd who came from the chief priests, scribes, and elders had swords (14,43.48). In Mark’s version, Jesus does not even speak to his disciples. All we are told about Jesus’ disciples in this scene is that they deserted Jesus, just as scripture and Jesus himself had prophesied at the beginning of this scene: “You will all become deserters; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered’ (Zech 13,7). The only action taken by the disciples in this scene is to flee; one young follower of Jesus even abandons his cloak and ran away naked!
While it is easy to understand why the other evangelists, dependent upon Mark, might have imagined it was one of Jesus’ disciples who wanted to defend his teacher from arrest, there’s no reason to think Mark thought of it this way. I’m not arguing that Mark thought it was one of the crowd who came out against him that accidentally cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. That’s possible, of course, but so far as we know, Mark did not think it was important who cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. For Mark, it was only important that the ear of the high priest’s servant was cut off and that the disciples fled, in fulfillment of scripture.
So where does the sword come from in Mark’s story? Perhaps it comes from the very same verse of scripture already quoted in Mark’s story: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate,” says the LORD of hosts. …” (Zech 13,7).
And why is it important that it is the ear of the servant of the high priest that is cut off?
Maybe it is just a bare fact that has been maintained in the historical record. Possible; but, even if historical, why was this fact preserved when so much else is left unsaid by Mark?
Perhaps it was because henceforth the high priest’s servant would now be ineligible and thus prevented from serving in the temple. (One cannot help but think of Antigonus biting off the ears of Hyrcanus, his uncle, thus rendering him permanently ineligible for the priesthood [Judean War, 1,279]). Similarly, at the death of Jesus, the curtain of the temple will be torn in two. Both of these events may serve primarily in the story of Mark as omens of the destruction of the temple that has recently taken place when Mark is writing his gospel circa 70 CE. Mark has just recounted Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple in his immediately preceding, long final discourse in Mk 13, where it is said that those left behind after Jesus’ followers abandoned Jerusalem would see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory, alluding to Daniel 7. And immediately following Jesus’ arrest, he will be on trial before the high priests, in part because of some mangled saying about the destruction of the temple, and he tells the high priests, again citing Daniel 7: ” … ‘you (plural) will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’.” I suspect this too refers to the destruction of the temple. So maybe Mark’s story of the high priest’s ear being cut off at Jesus’ arrest is just an omen of the temple’s ultimate destruction, which has recently occurred while Mark is imagining and writing his gospel.
Thank you! Very helpful.
35 He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”
if you remove the highlighted text, it reads
35 He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”
“Lord, should we strike with the sword?” 50 Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple police, and the elders who had come for him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit?
please explain to me how any of this makes any sense?
why is luke making re-use of “Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit? ” ?
and what is the job of authorities? they are suppose to carry swords and clubs to protect again those who were told to purchase swords.
isn’t that the job of the police to keep a look out for people making use of weapons ?
To say that the Jesus movement was not political is to misunderstand the world that Jesus lived in. First of all, politics and religion were deeply intertwined in the Jewish culture; one could not suggest (or proclaim, as I think was likely) that he was the messiah, the “anointed one”, and expect it to be seen in strictly theological terms. A movement claiming to be lead by the messiah, by a scion of David, was an expressly political movement. Just how militant the movement was is difficult to say; by the time the gospels were being written it would have been necessary to tone down any hint of militancy, or rebellion, in an effort to make the religion palatable to the Roman world they (early Christians) were spreading into. However, being a political movement did not, necessarily, demand that his followers go about armed; that said, since what he was preaching was so incendiary, on a political level, it seems likely that an occasional scuffle would have been par for the course, and thus the carrying of a sword (or two) would not have been unusual.
There have been scholars who suggested that the “love and mercy” pacifistic stuff was secondary to the tradition. A minority position certainly but provocative. It would have served as a way to distinguish the Christian movement from the Jewish insurrectionists in the Revolt. You have to wonder, if the ideas encapsulated in the “Sermon on the Mount” are so primitive how come our earliest gospel Mark never heard of them?
The sentiments expressed in Paul’s pre-Revolt authentic letters would go against this idea but maybe the original apocalyptic view was “love for our friends” and to hell with our enemies!
Just for the record Gandhi derived his principle of non-violence, ahimsa, from Jainism, a non-Vedic Indian religion whose origins can be traced back to the 10th century BCE. They have an extremely interesting ** you do not have permission to see this link ** which is how I came to know of them. Ironically given their ethics, one of their central iconic symbols is the swastika, which tends to freak out westerners whose only association is with the unhappy history of Europe in the twentieth century. And to end with an irrelevant factoid, apparently Jainism is the fastest growing religion in Japan. Why that would be true I have no idea.
Robert said
I completely agree, Norman. My remarks above pertain to the texts, not to the history behind them. Once we perceive the profound degree of authorial involvement in the texts, that opens up a wider range of possibilities as to what may have actually happened 40-90 years prior to the writing of these texts. Thus, I think SGF Brandon’s (and others’) view of a potentially militant component to Jesus’ apocalyptic perspective is completely plausible, even if it was not important to (or even purposefully downplayed by) Mark’s account of the Gethsemane story. Perhaps both Matthew and Luke may have read Mark’s story as implying swordplay initiated by a disciple because they were still aware of these implications of militant apocalypticism but still sought to downplay it, each in their own way.The ugly truth about the gospel creation process is perhaps completely misunderstood. Suppose there was indeed an itinerant teacher who got into a fight once, got caught, tried and crucified. But what will be left of it if anyone can write a story about him? Very very little. He cannot be ascribed anything unique as a victory over Darius, a victory in Gaul, ruling the world or even a nation, writing an important book. His real biography disappears, covered with competing fictional stories that will be more reflective, more attractive, surprising and interesting. Created by different people, written down and edited. Due to the competition for meaning and the desire to achieve success, what significance do historical stories vs imaginary stories have? What matters is the audience’s reaction, better justification of one’s theology, not historical truth. Calvin and Hobbes was invented and drawn by Bill Waterrson. Small pericopes, stripes with four drawings. Collected in a book, then more books, they are still little stories. Which of them is real? Imagine there is no copy-rights. These stories will be supplemented by others willing to earn money or to contribute their ideas out of love for Calvin. Someone else will start mixing them with those created by Bill. Obvious forgeries will be rejected, but there will be plenty of skilled plagiarists. What can I say – Thorgal, another hero was drawn by 4 artists and invented by 4 authors under the license granted to them. So all these journeys in search of the historical Jesus are doomed to failure. “Buy a sword” is just a last monday’s strip. Who knows? BTW It is – spoken 2 times a year in the catholic churches.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)