|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When exegesis clashes with homiletics: the Crowds
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In seminary, I learned early on that the crowd which praised Jesus on Palm Sunday was not the crowd that called for his death on Good Friday. The conflation of the two crowds is a "homiletic strategy, not good history."
The argument is that the crowd on Palm Sunday would be the peasants and common folk while the crowd on Good Friday would be the elite.
Bad history, good homiletics? What does anything think? I especially will like responses from preachers who will preach on Holy Week.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In seminary, I learned early on that the crowd which praised Jesus on Palm Sunday was not the crowd that called for his death on Good Friday. The conflation of the two crowds is a "homiletic strategy, not good history."
The argument is that the crowd on Palm Sunday would be the peasants and common folk while the crowd on Good Friday would be the elite.
Bad history, good homiletics? What does anything think? I especially will like responses from preachers who will preach on Holy Week.
Your seminary professor had it wrong -- and probably got this wrong idea from Marcus Borg ... I love Marcus Borg, but there are days I would really like to slap him up-side his head!(*)
As a biblical scholar, I am pretty fed up with this tendentious appeal to "good history" to undermine the Palm Sunday tradition of equating the crowds. On my reading, in which I am far from alone, the relevant Gospels do present the "crowd" as one and the same in both events. Whether the Gospels got their "historical facts" right is another matter (see the thread I started about the date of the Last Supper and crucifixion). But when it comes to our use of the stories they tell, current Palm Sunday practice correctly reflects what the Gospels express.
This Sunday, I will be taking part in the two-part "program" without any exegetical or historical anxiety. "Hosanna in the Highest!" ... "Crucify Him!"
At my "shack" we don't get a sermon on Palm/Passion Sunday -- the very long and elaborate Passion Gospel takes its place. So, I never have to worry about Borg-influenced preachers messing with the story!
(*) Borg is responsible for at least two other false "facts" now widely bandied about: shepherds were ritually unclean, and the woman with the hemorrhage would have been shunned as impure (and defiled Jesus by touching him).
Being a Star Trek fan, I always imagine people being assimilated by Dr. Borg into his collective! Resistance is futile! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
If the crowd calling for Jesus to be crucified was a crowd of the elite, then it must have been a small crowd, as "elite" is highly selective.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who says that Borg was wrong?
I do! And I did! I'm perfectly qualified to make such a judgment. [The problem here is that I "like" my "anonymity"; so, it's difficult for me to present my qualifications.]
quote:
Passover attracted loads of visitors from all over Israel who may never have met or even heard of Jesus and the were easily manipulable by the Sanhedrin, unlike the much smaller crowd on Palm Sunday who were locals.
You're doing what Borg does. You're performing exegesis on a historical reconstruction of "what actually happened" rather than on the actual biblical stories.
The distinction between "visitors from all over Israel" and "locals" is simply not made in the Gospel narratives.
Our ritual practices should be based on the biblical stories, not on scholarly reconstructions of historical events, not least because such scholarly reconstructions are always open to correction, revision, and outright rejection.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Sorry, this will likely end up as a double-post....
To clarify the point I am trying to make about the exegetical issue here, I did a quick check of Matthew's Gospel for the word ὄχλος ochlos (plural, ὄχλοι ochloi). Matthew uses the word a lot! As far as I can tell, it always just means something like, "a big, undifferentiated crowd of people," that is "crowd."
Here are some references I see as relevant to the specific issue:
Matthew 21:8-9: "A very large crowd (or: Most of the crowd) spread their cloaks, etc. ... The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting, 'Hosanna to the Son of David!' ...."
There is nothing here about the specific composition of the "crowds." If that had mattered to Matthew, he surely could have specified.
Matthew 23:1: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples...." We then get Jesus' tirade against the scribes and Pharisees. Clearly, "crowds" here refers to all of the people who were there to hear Jesus let the scribes and Pharisees have it!
Matthew 27:20: "Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas...." (+ verse 24, where Pilate worries about a riot and washes his hands "before the crowd"). There isn't the slightest hint here that Matthew sees this "crowd" as distinct from the "crowds" earlier in the narrative.
In fact, his use of the very same word, without any qualifications, strongly suggests that he intended his readers to see "the crowd" or "crowds" as the same "mob" all the way through. His textual image is of a "mob" that follows Jesus, hails him, listens to him, and then is manipulated into turning against him. It's all the same people -- just like the Israelites in the Old Testament, who see God deliver them at the Sea, sing a hymn of praise and thanksgiving, and then turn against Moses as soon as they get a bit thirsty! As is widely recognized, Matthew had the great Jewish ancestral stories at the front of his mind while composing his Gospel.
So, his story actually provides very strong support for just what we do on Palm/Passion Sunday. Putting ourselves into the role of the Jewish "crowds," our ancestors in faith, we hail Jesus as Messiah, and then we betray him and call for his death. And then he saves us. And then he rises from the dead. And then we can shout ... um ... okay ... hold off on that!
[ 11. April 2014, 17:22: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Marcus Borg isn't the only scholar to think the two crowds were different. The temple authorities had a very large number of employees, so a created mob can't be ruled out. It's also questionable that the crowd on Palm Sunday was that big as a very large crowd would probably have got more attention from the Roman authorities. I don't think we have enough information to be dogmatic either way.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
Marcus Borg isn't the only scholar to think the two crowds were different. The temple authorities had a very large number of employees, so a created mob can't be ruled out. It's also questionable that the crowd on Palm Sunday was that big as a very large crowd would probably have got more attention from the Roman authorities. I don't think we have enough information to be dogmatic either way.
I'd be interested in the names of other scholars who agree with Borg. I'd like to do a bit of double-checking on the arguments. (I recall now that Crossan, I think, agrees with Borg -- they co-authored a book about Jesus' final week, which I read a few years back.)
Borg's (and others') historical reconstructions could be correct. Sure. They could, maybe, possibly, be correct. But, I'll repeat, we have to distinguish between what the Gospels actually present and historical reconstructions of "what actually happened."
Almost nothing of what you refer to in your post is even hinted at in the Gospel narratives. For example, Matthew doesn't give a "hoot" about whether Jesus attracted the attention of the Roman authorities. In Matthew, the Romans just show up as "bit players" who do the crucifying the Jewish leaders need done.
I should, perhaps, not be blaming Borg for the problem here -- but rather clergy and others who fail to maintain the proper distinction between "history" and "story," and who then mess with liturgy on the basis of necessarily-tentative scholarly historical reconstructions.
Really -- we need to base ritual on the "set" stories of our tradition, not on scholarly theories. I say this as a scholar. I don't want anyone screwing about with the liturgy because of something I wrote -- which I might revise next year!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
If the two narratives of Palm Sunday and the trial before Pilate were next to each other in the Gospels, then I would be more persuaded that the writers expected us to automatically assume the two crowds were the same, but so much goes on between the incidents, that I still think that dogmatism is unwise. I think it is as much an assumption to say that they are the same as that they are different people. The information to be sure simply isn't there IMHO. Interestingly, the Fourth Gospel presents the Chief Priests and the guards rather than an anonymous crowd calling for Jesus' crucifixion before Pilate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
I agree that "dogmatism is unwise." But this applies also to the dogmatic insistence that the "crowds" were distinct (as if this were a certain fact), which is gaining undue influence, as far as I'm concerned, with respect to how people deal with Palm/Passion Sunday. People are being told that the popular ritual sequence in which the congregation acts as the Palm Sunday "crowd" and the Good Friday "crowd" is wrong on the basis of scholarly historical reconstructions. And the wonderful hymn, "My Song is Love Unknown," is being "critiqued" for its alleged historical inaccuracy, because it says, quote:
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.
What I'm arguing is that we shouldn't change what we're doing liturgically because of the literary and historical speculations of a few scholars, who actually happen to be disagreed with by other scholars.
I just consulted the ICC commentary on Matthew by W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison (Vol. III, pg. 588), and they (hardly minor figures in the study of Matthew) equate the two crowds and explain the role this element plays in Matthew's story.
So, by all means, let's freely debate the historicity of the Gospel narratives, and pay attention to their various differences. But let's not let our fallible historical reconstructions dictate our ritual practices.
This is an especially important issue this year, because those of us following the RCL will have Matthew as our Gospel, which means that Matthew's "crowd" will be front and center, shouting both "Hosanna!" and "Crucify!"
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It seems to me that there are actually three groups of people.
There is a crowd comprising residents of Jerusalem and pilgrims from elsewhere. The crowd may, or may not, have been composed of the same people on both occasions. I would hazard to suggest that the Palm Sunday crowd would have had a larger proportion of pilgrims - those who were entering Jerusalem at that time (for exactly the same reason Jesus and the disciples were there). There wouldn't be any great reason for residents of Jerusalem to be outside the city in great numbers. On the otherhand, the crowd before Pilate would more likely to have a higher proportion of residents of Jerusalem, pilgrims (especially those from outwith Judea) would have little interest in what was essentially a local political meeting (if you were visiting Paris, would you go and hear what the French President has to say about a French criminal case?)
But, I also don't think it matters very much who those people in the crowd actually were. They function as a mob, individual identity of members is lost in a mob. Both crowds are probably relatively small in relation to the population of Jerusalem and the number of visitors in the city.
Which brings me to the other two groups of people, who are much more important and clearly identified in the narratives.
The first are the disciples of Jesus. They are the ones who see the significance of Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem. It's the group of people who have accompanied him from Galilee who start the cheering, a celebration that quickly spreads to the other people present.
The other group are the priests, pharisees and scribes. They are the group who lead the calls for Jesus to be crucified. Like the celebrations on Palm Sunday, the call to crucify him is contagious and is taken up by the mob.
Yes, the stories can be taken as an illustration of the fickleness of mobs. Perhaps one could say that the crowd on Palm Sunday was expecting Jesus to fulfil the role of Messiah in a particular way to restore the nation of Israel (and, in clearing the Temple started Holy Week on that more conventionally recognised path by purifying religious practice), but by Good Friday had been disillusioned as Jesus failed to do anything about ousting Roman rule.
But, the focus is on the disciples and the Jewish religious leaders. They are the ones who lead the mob in different directions at different times.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
What intrigues me about the Palm Sunday story is the contrast of how Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Contrast that to how Pilate would have entered the city with full military honors: troops, banners, buglers, a white horse.
Not sure if it is Borg who says both men probably entered the city on the same day, but at different gates. Pilate would have used the main entrance, known as Herod's gate, since that is the gate that leads to Caesarea which was the Roman capital of Israel. Pilate would have come into Jerusalem to monitor the Jews who were coming together for Passover.
Jesus would have used the Eastern gate, which is more like a side entrance into Jerusalem.
Not sure if they would have entered the city on the same day, but the contrast is still interesting.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Is there any documentation for where Pilate was during that spring? I had always assumed that Jerusalem was his headquarters, so to speak. And therefore that he was likely already in residence at the time of the Passover, and had no need to make a grand entrance. (Would that even be wise? I could see some sort of low key reminder of Roman power, just to keep the crowds under control--but not a full-blown flaunting of it, which might incite violence on this most Jewish of Jewish holidays.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Your seminary professor had it wrong -- and probably got this wrong idea from Marcus Borg ... I love Marcus Borg, but there are days I would really like to slap him up-side his head
I heard this idea LONG before I had ever heard of Borg - I don't think it's by any means original to him.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
What intrigues me about the Palm Sunday story is the contrast of how Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Contrast that to how Pilate would have entered the city with full military honors: troops, banners, buglers, a white horse.
Not sure if it is Borg who says both men probably entered the city on the same day, but at different gates. Pilate would have used the main entrance, known as Herod's gate, since that is the gate that leads to Caesarea which was the Roman capital of Israel. Pilate would have come into Jerusalem to monitor the Jews who were coming together for Passover.
Jesus would have used the Eastern gate, which is more like a side entrance into Jerusalem.
Not sure if they would have entered the city on the same day, but the contrast is still interesting.
Borg is the one who argued that (well Borg and Crossan). I think that in this case, Borg and Crossan are making a literary splash, there is no evidence that Jesus' procession occurred the same time as Pontius Pilate's procession.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
(*) Borg is responsible for at least two other false "facts" now widely bandied about: shepherds were ritually unclean, and the woman with the hemorrhage would have been shunned as impure (and defiled Jesus by touching him).
Well - I don't know about "ritually unclean", but Borg is by no means the first person to point out that shepherds were at the bottom of the pile, socially speaking. Jeremias certainly pointed out that shepherds were among the categories of people whose witness could not be accepted (as they were regarded as far too dishonest to ever be trusted).
And the bit about the woman with the hemorrhage - well, I doubt that Borg was the first to make that claim. And I would be interested to see the refutation of it. A woman who was menstruating would have been regarded as impure, surely?
Anyway - I would agree broadly with the line that Alan takes about the crowds. As I see it, the crowd on Palm Sunday are predominantly the pilgrims entering Jerusalem for the Passover. It is likely that Jesus and the disciples had been travelling with a crowd from Galilee, where Jesus would have been known and seen as "one of us". That this crowd reacted in such a way is not that surprising.
By the time of Good Friday, we would have a very different crowd at Pilate's palace. For a start, a lot of the pilgrims didn't actually stay in Jerusalem (hence Jesus and the disciples staying in Bethany). So many of the people who shouted Hosanna would probably have not even been in the city at the time of the trial. I suspect that many of them would not have known about the trial and Jesus' crucifixion until it was all over.
Secondly, it is likely that - once Jesus had been arrested - anyone who had been associated with him would have avoided the Temple and the city. Certainly the disciples went to ground. There is a good chance that the people who had shouted Hosanna on Palm Sunday may have feared that they would get caught up in a crack down on "dissidents" and so they would have kept a low profile. If they were staying outside the city, it would seem unlikely that they would risk re-entering the city and the possibility of arrest.
So I come to the conclusion that the crowd on Palm Sunday was a very different one from Good Friday.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
<snip>Anyway - I would agree broadly with the line that Alan takes about the crowds. As I see it, the crowd on Palm Sunday are predominantly the pilgrims entering Jerusalem for the Passover. It is likely that Jesus and the disciples had been travelling with a crowd from Galilee, where Jesus would have been known and seen as "one of us". That this crowd reacted in such a way is not that surprising.
What is the evidence for this? quote:
By the time of Good Friday, we would have a very different crowd at Pilate's palace. For a start, a lot of the pilgrims didn't actually stay in Jerusalem (hence Jesus and the disciples staying in Bethany). So many of the people who shouted Hosanna would probably have not even been in the city at the time of the trial.
What is the evidence for this? I can see why they might not have been in the city during the night, but the hearing before Pilate was during the day wasn't it? quote:
I suspect that many of them would not have known about the trial and Jesus' crucifixion until it was all over.
Secondly, it is likely that - once Jesus had been arrested - anyone who had been associated with him would have avoided the Temple and the city. Certainly the disciples went to ground. There is a good chance that the people who had shouted Hosanna on Palm Sunday may have feared that they would get caught up in a crack down on "dissidents" and so they would have kept a low profile. If they were staying outside the city, it would seem unlikely that they would risk re-entering the city and the possibility of arrest.
What is the evidence for this? If they were just randomly caught up in a transient enthusiasm for a possible Messiah, maybe they were there at the trial before Pilate and keen in that context to distance themselves from any suspicion of involvement in Messianic hopes especially when the supposed Messiah had 'failed' - hence their enthusiastic shouting for his execution. I'm not saying my reconstruction is right, but it's at least as consistent with what we know, and better fits the story 'Matthew' is telling quote:
So I come to the conclusion that the crowd on Palm Sunday was a very different one from Good Friday.
I think the best that can be said is "might have been a very different one from Good Friday"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
<snip>Anyway - I would agree broadly with the line that Alan takes about the crowds. As I see it, the crowd on Palm Sunday are predominantly the pilgrims entering Jerusalem for the Passover. It is likely that Jesus and the disciples had been travelling with a crowd from Galilee, where Jesus would have been known and seen as "one of us". That this crowd reacted in such a way is not that surprising.
What is the evidence for this?
I think it's almost certain that Jesus was travelling with a relatively large group of people - certainly more than just the 12 apostles. It's also almost certain that other pilgrims would have travelled in large groups, if we look at the first story we have of Jesus at the Passover the group was large enough that Mary and Joseph hadn't even noticed his absence and spent considerable time searching among the group. All those groups would have arrived over a relatively short period of time. So, there would have been large groups of Gallileans entering Jerusalem at that time more or less together, plus others as well of course. Whether they'd have automatically been more enthusiastic about Jesus as "one of us" is a different question.
quote:
quote:
By the time of Good Friday, we would have a very different crowd at Pilate's palace. For a start, a lot of the pilgrims didn't actually stay in Jerusalem (hence Jesus and the disciples staying in Bethany). So many of the people who shouted Hosanna would probably have not even been in the city at the time of the trial.
What is the evidence for this? I can see why they might not have been in the city during the night, but the hearing before Pilate was during the day wasn't it?
I get the impression Jesus was brought before Pilate fairly early in the morning. The priests wanted Jesus crucified, and dead and buried before the Sabbath. They'd have wanted Pilate to order that as soon as possible, which would have meant coming before Pilate as early in the morning as they could get away with. That would have been the time pilgrims staying in Bethany and similar villages were just coming into Jerusalem, and only if they had reason to come in.
I would suggest that the balance of probability is that most pilgrims staying outside Jerusalem would have been unaware of the audience with Pilate until it was over. If some of the disciples had fled to Bethany when Jesus was arrested they may have known of the arrest, but it's difficult to see how they'd have known of the rushed trial.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
My understanding is that Pilate offers the mob a choice between Barrabas & Jesus and evryone one cries Crucify Jesus . Agreed in John's account it's the high priests et al who do the screaming.
But I believe that the mob is symbolic of all believers /all people . I know if i had been there well I'd have shouted crucify. Would I have believed on the Sunday morning ? I wonder
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's almost certain that Jesus was travelling with a relatively large group of people - certainly more than just the 12 apostles. It's also almost certain that other pilgrims would have travelled in large groups, if we look at the first story we have of Jesus at the Passover the group was large enough that Mary and Joseph hadn't even noticed his absence and spent considerable time searching among the group. All those groups would have arrived over a relatively short period of time. So, there would have been large groups of Gallileans entering Jerusalem at that time more or less together, plus others as well of course. Whether they'd have automatically been more enthusiastic about Jesus as "one of us" is a different question.
I agree with all of this. My comment about them being likely to support Jesus is really a supposition based on the following:
a) Galileans (like most regional people) like to support their own. Jesus was, I suspect, well-known to them and had a favourable reputation. When did a prophet last come from Galilee??
b) Large groups of pilgrims are liable to be more excitable. It happens today in Mecca or any other centre for pilgrimage - especially when the pilgrims have been travelling together for some days. It is not hard to imagine how such a group could easily get caught up in the emotions of the moment.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I get the impression Jesus was brought before Pilate fairly early in the morning. The priests wanted Jesus crucified, and dead and buried before the Sabbath. They'd have wanted Pilate to order that as soon as possible, which would have meant coming before Pilate as early in the morning as they could get away with. That would have been the time pilgrims staying in Bethany and similar villages were just coming into Jerusalem, and only if they had reason to come in.
I would suggest that the balance of probability is that most pilgrims staying outside Jerusalem would have been unaware of the audience with Pilate until it was over. If some of the disciples had fled to Bethany when Jesus was arrested they may have known of the arrest, but it's difficult to see how they'd have known of the rushed trial.
Again, I agree with this. One extra factor to consider is that this was the morning after the Passover Feast. I suspect (but have no evidence to prove) that for many people, the feast would go on long into the evening. There may also have been a certain amount of wine imbibed. Therefore, it is not difficult to see how people who were staying outside the city would have been slow to rise that morning and certainly slow to enter the city (even if they had reason so to do).
From the viewpoint of the authorities, it was ideal timing. They could have Jesus taken in front of Pilate and condemned well BEFORE any of his Galilean supporters could object.
Let's not forget that a considerable amount of the concern of the authorities was that Jesus was about to lead an uprising. He had entered Jerusalem as Messiah and then cleansed the Temple - all in a city packed with pilgrims and in an extremely volatile state. The last thing they wanted was for the Galileans (who would have been regarded as his natural followers) to start trouble and try and rescue Jesus.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Lamb Chop, Pilate's headquarters was in Cesearea Maritama, which was on the coast to the north of Jerusalem. It was built in 6 AD. Some say this was were Joseph plied his trade, and probably Jesus learned the craft of carpentry there.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look we are talking of crowds and therefore I suspect the discussion on whether this is the same crowd or separate crowds is irrelevant. A change in a small number of people can lead crowd that behaves very differently.
The important thing is not exactly who is there but that these are crowds.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Look we are talking of crowds and therefore I suspect the discussion on whether this is the same crowd or separate crowds is irrelevant.
In one sense you are correct.
But as the OP makes clear, it is a common experience that preachers make a link between the two crowds. "The people who were shouting hosanna were, just a few days later, shouting crucify." They then often use this as a way of berating the congregation for THEIR similar fickleness.
So I do think it is important to think about whether it was the same people in the two crowds or if we are talking about two different sets of people.
It may be legitimate to ask "are you in the crowd that shouts hosanna or in the crowd that shouts crucify?" To quote a great song by Arlo Guthrie - "Which side are you on?" But I am not sure it is legitimate to say "you are just like the crowds that one day say hosanna and the next day crucify".
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Look we are talking of crowds and therefore I suspect the discussion on whether this is the same crowd or separate crowds is irrelevant.
In one sense you are correct.
But as the OP makes clear, it is a common experience that preachers make a link between the two crowds. "The people who were shouting hosanna were, just a few days later, shouting crucify." They then often use this as a way of berating the congregation for THEIR similar fickleness.
So I do think it is important to think about whether it was the same people in the two crowds or if we are talking about two different sets of people.
It may be legitimate to ask "are you in the crowd that shouts hosanna or in the crowd that shouts crucify?" To quote a great song by Arlo Guthrie - "Which side are you on?" But I am not sure it is legitimate to say "you are just like the crowds that one day say hosanna and the next day crucify".
It's basically a group version of simus justus et peccator.
We are both a mix of good and bad.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I've actually been at a service where the priest used the 2 different crowds version to preach that the congregation (representing the Church) was like those who shouted 'Hosanna' but that that other crowd (the one that shouted 'Crucify!') represented the Jews, who were thereby indicating just where they stood in the economy of salvation.
[ 14. April 2014, 15:16: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
How does that differ from crowds behave like this and we are all at times part of the crowd?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I think if you look at the whole passion story you get a sense that in a week Jesus practically turned everyone against him. He certainly did not have the Pharisees on his side. He angered the Priests when he cleanse the temple. If the people thought he was going to overthrow the Roman oppressors, they were sorely disappointed.
It would not have taken too much to turn a crowd against Jesus. Barrabas would be the better choice.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've actually been at a service where the priest used the 2 different crowds version to preach that the congregation (representing the Church) was like those who shouted 'Hosanna' but that that other crowd (the one that shouted 'Crucify!') represented the Jews, who were thereby indicating just where they stood in the economy of salvation.
Good. Grief. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How does that differ from crowds behave like this and we are all at times part of the crowd?
Jengie
Radically. About as far as one thing can differ from another. It suggests that 'we' don't behave like this and 'they' do. 'We' would not have crucified Him. 'They' did, and therefore upon their heads be it, and upon their children's.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I get the impression Jesus was brought before Pilate fairly early in the morning. The priests wanted Jesus crucified, and dead and buried before the Sabbath. They'd have wanted Pilate to order that as soon as possible, which would have meant coming before Pilate as early in the morning as they could get away with. That would have been the time pilgrims staying in Bethany and similar villages were just coming into Jerusalem, and only if they had reason to come in.
I would suggest that the balance of probability is that most pilgrims staying outside Jerusalem would have been unaware of the audience with Pilate until it was over. If some of the disciples had fled to Bethany when Jesus was arrested they may have known of the arrest, but it's difficult to see how they'd have known of the rushed trial.
I completely agree Alan. The "crowd" that was there before Pilate is much more likely to have been a rent-a-mob pulled together by the Temple authorities as quickly as possible to make sure Jesus' unpopularity is confirmed for the governor. Whilsy obviously some of the same people could've been in both ISTM that the composition of people of the two days is likely to have been very different (and probably different sizes too - a huge crowd of pilgrims one day and a smaller (hastily collected) crowd nearly a week later?
PS. Referring to Lamb Chopped's earlier question about Pilate's residence - there was an official Roman governor's residence overlooking the Temple area. Pilate would've come for Passover time. Nothing to do with Jesus it was just traditionally the most likely time for trouble to rear its head from the Jews. So a good time to proactively show a bit of Roman force. There is likely to have been an increased military presence during major festivals to keep the peace as far as I can tell.
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
As the OP makes clear, it is a common experience that preachers make a link between the two crowds. "The people who were shouting hosanna were, just a few days later, shouting crucify." They then often use this as a way of berating the congregation for THEIR similar fickleness.
So I do think it is important to think about whether it was the same people in the two crowds or if we are talking about two different sets of people.
Yes ... and no. The Evangelists don't seem to be interested in making a distinction between Crowd A and Crowd B even though they must have known they were made up of different people. I think we need to think in terms of a collective but impersonal "character" in the drama, one which reacts in certain ways.
Think, if you like, of the "chorus" in a Greek drama (and I know the Gospels are far from that model) - the individuals who make up the chorus are irrelevant, and the chorus may appear in a variety of situations during the play. But it is still "the Chorus", just as the group of people in the Gospels are always "the Crowd".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Even if you think there were two separate crowds, as someone today interpreting the story for yourself (general "you" here), I think it's essential to realize you might have been in either crowd. Maybe look to parts of your life that feel more like the Hosanna crowd -- but be honest and face up to the parts which feel more like the Crucify crowd.
In the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector praying, I see this mistake of refusing to face up to the ways we are like the less likable characters: people are often glad to respond by saying how much they are like the tax collector which is good in its way, but is excessively ironic when it's phrased essentially as: "thank goodness I am not like that Pharisee over there."
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
