I have been arguing that that are many political and social issues that many of us care deeply about that, surprisingly, Jesus apparently did not. Another passage that illustrates Jesus relative indifference to governmental policies and economic systems is his discussion with Simon Peter about paying the “temple tax,” a story found only Matthew (17:24-27).
They have come to the town of Capernaum and some collectors of the “two drachma” temple tax ask Peter if his teacher pays the tax or not. Peter replies that he does, but when he goes back home, Jesus talks to him about it, asking whether kings tax their own children or only other people. Peter naturally replies that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Have there been any significant movements in Christianity to think of beliefs as recommendations rather than requirements? In other words, this or that belief might be helpful, eg, what some Buddhists call “skillful means” (for salvation/happiness?), but, if not, just let it go?
Maybe some beliefs themselves are a way of crystallizing what experience has shown to be helpful for many people? The beliefs could simply be ways of stimulating or remembering actual spiritual experiences?
Nearly all our sources for Christian belief/doctrine tend to be insistent that these are not good suggestoins but more like requirements.
For other than fundamentalists and evangelicals, would something like “be a good person and go to heaven” be a good summary of the actual beliefs and values of a great many-maybe a majority-of (American?) Christians?
Don’t know. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
Was the stater a Tyrian silver shekel, which bore the image of Melqart (a pagan god), and the coin normally accepted for payment of the Jerusalem Temple tax? If so, why was it acceptable to pay the Temple tax with this coin, while pilgrims had to exchange their coins with the infamous money changers at the Temple to buy animals for sacrifice?
I’m not sure. I need to look into it.
It seems odd to take this as Jesus being unconcerned about governmental policies and economic systems. As you have pointed out, the earlier gospels show Jesus as being someone who thinks that he is the Moschiach rather than divine; he was expecting for the Son of Man to come down and hand him the kingdom. This suggests that he didn’t see the need to fight this directly – it would be done for him – but he would be very concerned about such things once he ruled. What Jesus taught would be preparation for his Earthly kingdom he expected to be handed; his followers would be forced to make it about personal growth in the context of him not being handed that Earthly kingdom. You seem to be explaining Christian teachings rather than thinking about what Jesus himself was actually teaching. What he taught would have been political because he expected something completely different than what happened to him: he was to rule Israel. This is how Israel would be ruled by him.
My point is really the one you make — that God would intervene to accomplish these things. Jesus did not promote social reform because it wasn’t needed.
Okay. That may have been lost on all but Biblical scholars. As someone nearing my PhD in political theory I certainly didn’t read that – though I did construct it from things you have said before. Might be interesting if someone used the things your field has about what we know is legitimate or is not legitimate about what he taught and tried to build a political philosophy of Jesus from that.
It’s not too horribly far removed from Socrates and Plato who built it upon the quest for the just and the good which is a reference to the Egyptian deity Ma’at, which we know from a line in Plato’s Gorgias where Socrates’ repeating line of “by the dog” extended into “by the dog-headed god of the Egyptians.” Anubis, of course, weighed the heart of the dead against Ma’at.
Jesus would be more revelatory from Jewish scripture, but I think a coherent political theory could be drawn from it. It’d be a short one though.
But, thanks for the response.
But then, I did want to put a question out.
I was thinking about how the story of Jesus saying “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone” was added accidentally to the Bible. This is what? the 300s? One thought that comes to my mind a lot when hearing it is “Jesus was calling dibs on throwing the first stone” as he is supposedly without sin. But this story arose and the writer was unconcerned that people would think Jesus was calling dibs – and he would be following scripture if he were.
From that, I’m concluding that Christians likely didn’t think Jesus was without sin yet at that point. If I’m not off, when did that belief start coming about and why?
Interesting observation. But I’d say it’s important to note that Jesus does not say “Anyone who has never sinned must cast the first stone.” He says to those who want to stone her that the one “among them” who is without sin should initiate the action. When they all realize they have sinned, they leave.
The fish (as Ichthys arc) becoming a common symbol for Jesus may also be a hint. No, it wasn’t in known usage until after the the usual dates given to the gospels, but in them fish stories abound. I wondered, then, if there may be something in the story besides the explicit. I looked up stater coin; originally Lydian, then Greek, then Roman, all coins with an official government seal, often a face. The Greek word also means standard, and comes from weight measurements, so also the idea of balance. Thus a fish with a stater in its mouth is an image of Jesus speaking for balance, for weighing what you do in the face of great power. Is the face on the coin more important than the kingdom of God as here, now? No? Then simply pay it and let it go.
Another factor is that Matthew 17:24-27 demonstrates that Jesus was not anti-Temple. Even post-70, many would still see an attack on the Temple as being anti-YHWH. In Mark 11:15-17, Jesus violently, aggressively attacks the money-changers and animal-sellers in the Temple during Passover. And that incident opens the Jewish trial against Jesus (Mark 14:55-59), before the HP shifts the accusations to be about Jesus’ identity (Mark 14:60-65).
Matthew repeats Mark regarding the Temple attack, except Matthew downplays it by adding positive elements to counter the negativity. Matthew 21:14 says Jesus healed blind and lame (both plural) in the midst of the Temple attack. And Matthew 21:15 has innocent children praising Jesus. So Matthew is clearly downplaying what Mark has described without skipping what Mark described. And this coin-in-fish’s-mouth episode–unique to Matthew–further shows Jesus was not anti-Temple.
Luke does a similar thing. Luke 19:45-46 abbreviates the Temple attack to only 28 words and omits the violence. And noticeably in Luke 2:41-42, Jesus is shown to be raised in a very pro-Temple Jewish family which goes annually from Nazareth to Jerusalem for Passover. And then Acts 2:44-47 shows what Jesus intended for the Temple, giving and sharing, not a den of robbers.
Thoughts?
Just a couple of thoughts. 1. Certainly devoted temple worshippers would see it as an attack on their God, or at least their understanding of God; but the attack is consistent with prophetic denunciations of the temple (Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah), and they certainly were not opposed to YHWH. 2. Being willing to pay the temple tax doesn’t show a support for the temple per se any more than paying the Roman tax shows support of the imperial apparatus (or cult). 3. It makes sense that over time some Christians would downplay Jesus’ violent actions, jsut as it makes sense in another (anti-Jewish) vein others would heighten it (John 2).
Thanks.
1. True, but according to Mark, Jesus did far more than just offer a prophetic critique (ala Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah), he violently attacked Temple establishments. That would quickly make him the enemy of Romans and Jews, not unlike the golden eagle incident in 4 BCE.
2. True, but Matt 17:24-27 is more than just paying the Temple tax. Jesus explains he’s essentially exempt, and yet still paid the Temple tax in a unique and extraordinary way. So when he interrupts business in the Temple, he’s not against the Temple tax per se. Matthew didn’t include this new and odd episode arbitrarily; it served a purpose in his book, probably so Jesus doesn’t come across anti-Temple.
3. John doesn’t really heighten the violence (compared to Mark), except the mention of a whip. Instead, John distances the event to be 2-3 years earlier, which disconnects the event from the Jewish rejection of Jesus leading to his death. Instead, John has the Lazarus episode and the crisis of belief to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, unlike the Synoptics.
Btw, what do you think is “the insurrection” in Mark 15:7? I’ve wondered if it’s Jesus’ attack on the Temple.
1. Yup
2. I used to read it that way too, as a self-reference; but I think now that he is instead referring to Jews as the sons of God who don’t really need to pay taxes for God (some commentators suggest this is Matthean redaction, with reference to not needing to pay the fiscus judaicus
3. I’d say that’s a big “except”!
4. I don’t think so. If anyone would have been arrested onthe spot for that (and for murder?) it would have been Jesus. It appears to have been some kind of uprising. I doubt if it’s historical — it’s just a chance to explain who this person is to contrast him with Jesus.
Regardless if Barabbas is historical or fictional, what puzzles me about Mark 15:7 is that the definite article is used, “the insurrection.” Seems like if any old uprising were being referenced, it would be “an insurrection.” To me, the definite article means the author is referencing a specific insurrection that the readers should exactly know about. So Pilate and the shields or Pilate and the aqueduct funds don’t really work because there’s no reason the readers would connect Barabbas to either of those tumults in those times.
There are only two possible insurrections in Mark: (1) Jesus attacking the Temple; (2) the Jewish revolt (referenced in Mark 13:2), which would be fresh on everyone’s mind if Mark is written just after 70 CE.
It’s possible that “the insurrection” refers ahead to 70 CE as prolepsis. In other words, these prisoners end up surviving somehow and then eventually did more violence in THE insurrection (66-70 CE).
Or it’s possible that Jesus’ attack on the Temple resulted in a bigger skirmish than Mark describes, and others turned more violent and were captured and imprisoned to be executed. And Mark is separating Jesus from that to show Jesus’ innocence in the matter.
Mark seems to assume his readers know what he’s talking about, but I’d say we just don’t. I think if the temple incident wsa a huge deal Josephus would hae mentioned it along with the others that he talks about (esp. since in this case, unlike most of the others, he’s talking about ones that happened to a figure that he mentions)
Of course, we don’t know what Josephus actually said about Jesus. Some think the whole Testimonium is a replacement (maybe by Eusebius?) of something different that Josephus had reported. It is interesting that Josephus’ description of Pilate’s administration in Antiquities 18 is a series of tumults, uprisings, and calamities, except for what he says about Jesus. And it’s also interesting that in the very next paragraph after the Testimonium, Josephus says “another” terrible disturbance took place among the Jews. So maybe he originally did report Jesus as a disturbance among the Jews. Whatever Josephus knew about Jesus’ death, he probably knew from very secure sources, probably his own parents. He was born into an elite priestly family in Jerusalem only about seven years after Jesus died. Good chance his own parents witnessed the rejection and death of Jesus or knew people who did.