Thread: the trigger for the crucifixion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028348
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
I am new here, and I have some problems with the trigger for the crucifixion in the gospels..the event/events which decided the Sanhedrin that Jesus had to die, more that Jesus had to be crucified.
But I don't want to waste people's time if this has already been discussed.
Has it been discussed?
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
I wouldn't worry about this being discussed before, Brigg60m; if it has it may have been part of a different topic, it may now be harder to find than the Higgs boson was, and in any event such a discussion may well have been limited. There's always room for more thought!
Can I check - are you focusing on the crucifixion as a judicial sentence? There gospels record instances where some of Jesus' opponents wanted to stone him (e.g. John 8:50), but that may have been an off-the-cuff crowd response rather than the more formal (if rushed) judicial process before the Roman court.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Welcome, Briggs60m, to Ship of Fools and to the Kerygmania board. If you have a topic to discuss that doesn't appear on one of our "live" threads, just jump on in. One of our helpful shipmates or hosts can always re-direct you if need be.
Kerygmania being the place for discussion of Biblical texts, it helps to get the conversation started if the OP (original post) cites a particular passage of scripture. Could you give us a verse or passage(s) that point to what strikes you as the "trigger" for the crucifixion?
Mamacita, Kerygmania Host
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on
:
Dear Brigg60m, welcome here!
Whereas the Ship is an excellent tool for wasting time, I wouldn't worry about causing involuntary time waste. You see, on the Ship we use an advanced time- and energy-saving device called a scroll wheel, putting each individual themselves in control of what they read and what discussions they contribute to.
This technique has proven very efficient both in order to save time and in order to empower each individual to exert passive aggression upon perceived foes without disrupting the general flow of discussion - all you do is "scroll" past the words, arguments or expressions of free speech that you do not wish to see, and you have saved that time and energy that forcing you to read it would have cost you. Whereas it is possible that this leads to somewhat lessened community-spirit as not all questions become equally discussed and not all posters are equally engaged, in general the upsides have been found to outweigh the downsides.
A common counter-technique to the scroll-wheel is to fill one's post with wit, especially found in the otherwise rather tedious Hell Board as well as in the one enforced reading (apart from the Board Rules), the Ship's Quotes File. If you deem this method to be too difficult and you still wish to receive a greater degree of attention, try challenge one of the Hell hosts to a belittling contest. You might not win, but your posts will be read with great expectations as people imagine what responses they shall receive.
Most of all, apart from showing respect to other posters, which you have already proven yourself exceedingly capable of, have fun and, as the legendary Gator head admin of yore had it, "Be yourself, unless you suck."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
In John, it was the raising of Lazarus:
quote:
John 11:45 Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. 48 If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”
49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us[e] that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
53 Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death. 54 Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there into the country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim, and there remained with His disciples.
In Matthew and the other synoptic gospels it was the triumphal entry and the multiple confrontations and provocations that went with it:
quote:
Matthew 21:45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.
Luke:
quote:
Luke 19:45 Then He went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house is a house of prayer,' but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”
47 And He was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people sought to destroy Him, 48 and were unable to do anything; for all the people were very attentive to hear Him.
It seems as though it was these provocations, Jesus' enormous popularity, and concerns about bringing the Roman authorities down on them, that led them to seek to have Him killed.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
...and when you get down to it, the final piece fell in place when Judas offered to betray Jesus away from the crowds.
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
thanks for the replies...
I find deeply contradictory messages. I know the gospels take a different approach to many events, even the synoptics within themselves (none of them even agree on the simple lettering above the cross!), but those differences are not contradictory.
But not so the trigger for the crucifixion, where the differing accounts betray fundamental problems both as to history and to faith, imho.
I thank Freddie above for the relevant quotations. To John, the raising of Lazarus seems to be the decisive event. It leads to the calling of the Sanhedrin, where it is decided that Jesus is much more threatening than the udual miracle workers and trouble-makers and must die. It presumably lies behind the large numbers of people who gather to greet Jesus in Jerusalem?? It presumably lies behind the decision to get the Romans to kill him (heretics were usually stoned to death in the Jewish community apparently, but sticking a man on a piece of wood was deeply serious, a Levitican symbol of being cast out from the tribe.
Yet none of the synoptics even mention Lazarus, certainly not in this context. Either John is making it up, or the disciples had no clue as to why Jesus was killed, which seems incomprehensible, if only for the fact that John (assuming John is the inspiration, at least of the Gospel) must have been on talking terms with the others (Leon Morris's explanation in the NICT Commentary on John 11 doesn't take this into account).
The synoptics claim, as Freddie says, that the decision to kill him was taken as a result of provocations, though this doesn't explain why he had to be crucified, as opposed to quietly ambushed on his way home. There were other characters around who disrupted the Temple, after all. It's assumed that it's the collection of disruptions and heresies during the Passover - anyway - Matthew doesn't give a precise trigger, merely saying that the Jewish leaders plotted to kill him (Mt 26 3-5). Luke (19: 45-7) points to Jesus's teaching in the Temple, and his chasing the moneylenders; Mark (almost certainly the first gospel in time) specifically points to the chasing of the Moneylenders (Mk 11:15-18.
But to John, this event didn't take place during the Passover of the Passion; it had happened two years before. Attempts to show that the event was repeated, without John recording it, strike me and many others as very forced, and still doesn't subtract from John's evidence that the raising of Lazarus was the trigger.
So - in terms of history (and history is very important - Jesus appeared in a certain time and place in history, which is what makes Christianity an outstanding religion - Mohammed made no claim to be Son of God, merely to be the greatest Prophet) - in terms of history, it was either the raising of Lazarus which led to Jesus being killed, so why did the synoptics not even mention Lazarus? or the Jewish leaders felt threatened by Jesus's attacks on them, especially the Temple, in which case why did John claim this occurred two years earlier?
The history is deeply theological. If it was the attacks on the Temple and the threat to Judaism which marked Jesus out for death, then the cause was political-religious - it was a challenge to the Pharisee/Sadducee leadership which was the focus of the problem. Or it was the Raising of Lazarus when he had been more than three days dead (Lord, he stinketh!). In which case the Pharisee/Sadducee leadership (esp the Sadducees, with their rejection of the Resurrection of the Dead) was threatened by an act which transcended the politico-religious discourse which they understood.
Which was right?
The reputable US Catholic historians (Raymond Brown, John Meier) claim it was the synoptics who were right, because there were three of them and John was only one (Meier calls this the criterion of multiple attestation). CH Dodd points to the historical veracity of John in his Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel) back in 1963 - the book is outmoded in some ways but still has its sway of the pro-Johannines like JAT Robinson (The Priority of John, 1985) and Richard Bauckham's The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (2007).
This is a problem, and has been for me since I first came across it while reading Dodd. The Catholics at Vatican 2 in 1964 allowed inconsistencies in the Bible to be acknowledged (opening the way for Raymond Brown and his successors), but contradiction as in this trigger for the crucifixion was not acknowledged. I think the contradictions within the Gospels, not merely the inconsistencies, have to be pursued if history and faith are to be taken seriously (and I do see history and faith as going together, not choosing faith instead of history, as Barth did).
Sorry, I've tried to compress many books into a single passage.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I may be accused of an unjustified attempt to harmonise the differing accounts, but ISTM that there is an overall picture across all four gospels of Jesus becoming a threat to the religious powers that be because his own exercise of authority/power becomes a challenge to their claim to authority. This is irrespective of which specific incidents are cited in the different gospels. If Jesus is the person who truly "speaks for God" where does that leave the religious powers that be?
Then there is the additional complicating factor of what they might think he is trying to do (?lead a religiously based insurrection against the Romans?), and what they think the Romans might think he is trying to do. How might the Romans react? What will that mean for the well-being of the people, or for the status of the religious powers that be?
All of these together drive a growing crisis, which combined with (among other things) Pilate's own political issues both in relation to the Jews, and in relation to his imperial master create a perfect storm which leads to the cross.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
So - in terms of history (and history is very important - Jesus appeared in a certain time and place in history, which is what makes Christianity an outstanding religion - Mohammed made no claim to be Son of God, merely to be the greatest Prophet) - in terms of history, it was either the raising of Lazarus which led to Jesus being killed, so why did the synoptics not even mention Lazarus? or the Jewish leaders felt threatened by Jesus's attacks on them, especially the Temple, in which case why did John claim this occurred two years earlier?
The history is deeply theological. If it was the attacks on the Temple and the threat to Judaism which marked Jesus out for death, then the cause was political-religious - it was a challenge to the Pharisee/Sadducee leadership which was the focus of the problem. Or it was the Raising of Lazarus when he had been more than three days dead (Lord, he stinketh!). In which case the Pharisee/Sadducee leadership (esp the Sadducees, with their rejection of the Resurrection of the Dead) was threatened by an act which transcended the politico-religious discourse which they understood.
Which was right?
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
All of these together drive a growing crisis, which combined with (among other things) Pilate's own political issues both in relation to the Jews, and in relation to his imperial master create a perfect storm which leads to the cross.
Brigg60m, I think BroJames is on the right track. We all have a tendency to look for "the" cause of historical events, but the dynamics of society and living within that society are geared to multi-causation. There is not just one factor that was the trigger but, as BroJames describes, a perfect storm of events.
Having said that, despite the complicated multi-causal trigger, there is also an inevitability about it all. Considering Jesus' message, was he going to come into conflict with the religious authorities? Sure. When you consider the people who clustered around him, was it likely that there would be one who would become disgruntled--who just doesn't get the message? Sure. Was it likely that local politics would be a mess? Absolutely (when is local politics NOT a mess???). Would there be tensions between competing power groups: Jesus' band, the established religious authorities, the political powers, the insurrectionists? Sure. It is not just cattlemen and sheepherders who get into shooting wars. Mix everything together and somebody is going to die, likely in a symbolic manner. You don't have to be an Austrian archduke for that to happen!
Looking for a single trigger misses the complex mix of factors. I think that is why the gospel accounts don't completely jibe: each of the writers was looking for a single trigger, too. And there wasn't one.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Oh for a keyboard! Lacking one, i will just ask here--is it a good idea to think of the Jewish leaders as a monolithic group? Because that's passing rare for any human group, and the Gospels name at least teo dissidents. There could easily be as many triggers as there were people to be triggered (in?off? ?..)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
John tends to craft his Gospel more in terms of the events and the monologues, so it's not really surprising that he places this last act - a kind of precursor to the resurrection itself - as the tipping/turning point and his emphasis being that the more good he does the more evil the peoples' intent gets.
The synoptics take a more difficult route, but to my mind, one that is probably much closer to the truth. Matthew and Luke (and Mark too, but with slightly differing emphasis) highlight the sheer injustice of it all. The fact that the Sanhedrin meets in the night when it shouldn't, the hurried nature of their deliberations, the inability to get reliable testimony against Jesus, the sham trial in front of Pilate, the washing of the hands, the whim of the crowd, it goes on and on. The point being, there is no point - it's all just a massively tragic injustice. Mark on the other hand brings in his secret adversary (or the devil) as part of the telling of the whole tale. It is as if evil is pressing in all the time to get its destruction. John picks up this too I think, in telling us that satan enters Judas to clinch the final act.
Ultimately, evil doesn't need a reason in our world. We live with that fact every day.
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
All except Lamb Chopped – I think you’re avoiding difficult issues, and in doing so missing crucial points about the importance of the trigger. It’s not merely a historical event, it’s a theological one. It’s not merely a cry against the injustice of life – I’m sure Jesus wasn’t the first innocent and good man to be crucified, nor the last. One thing which unites all of them is not the horror of the crucifixion, but the crucifixion – death - as a preparation for the Resurrection – hope.
It’s always possible to make a false harmony of the Gospels – we have it done for us at school with the Nativity plays with the Three Wise Men and the Shepherds looking over Ickle Jebus. I prefer a close reading of the Gospels, and the need to confront the difference between John and the synoptics. The synoptics are notoriously sloppy about time and space – their topography of Galilee is laughable; John’s topography seems very accurate. The old view that John was the devotional gospel and the synoptics the historical ones don’t really hold up – the synotpics are just as devoitional, and John’s pays great attention to time – his account of the day of the crucifixion is now becoming accepted in preference to the synoptic.
In time, John claims that Jesus went to Jerusmalem for three Passovers, and it was at the first that the moneylenders were chased out of the Temple. The one cause which seems to offend people here was the raising of Lazarus form the dead – I have read several accounts by scholars which pooh pooh this with the rhetorical question of how can it be possible to raise anyone from the dead(!!). You may not like a one cause, but in John (and probably in mark) there is one event which tips the scales. In John, there had been attempts to kill Jesus before but by local leaders – this was the first time the Sanhedrin met, and it wasn’t at night – that was the emergency trial. For the synoptic, Jesus went to Jerusalem for one Passover, where he preached parables, performed his miracles, and chased the moneylenders out.
Now the history is important. Jesus exited at a certain time, in a certain place, apparently claiming to be the Son of God. There is no way of proving the events – they happened a long time ago, and the BBC wasn’t around to film them so that we can sit back and show the blu ray to doubters. But we are able to disprove the events, and if we can’t disprove them then we have to test their credibility.. What happened in time has to be taken seriously, though it only takes us to the lip of faith. The fact that a credible case can be made out for Jesus’ execution (and John again provides the most credible account of Pilate’s being pushed into crucifying a man he regarded as innocent) does not prove Jesus was the Son of God. The fact that it was an injustice shows us only that there is injustice – I have experienced and known many example of that, as I’m sure all who read this know of them too. Something else was taking place, something special, where history and faith converged, and a different kind of proof is needed to cross the lip of history into faith. But the history is important, and the need to carefully parse the verse of each gospel, scrutinise the possibilities of when they were written is needed. Above all, what make this event so important – that unlike many other good men Jesus died to become the Resurrection has to be discussed carefully and humbly, without trying to rewrite the gospels to make them fit one another (they plumb don’t), and to get to what is valuable in each of them.
So – Jesus chased the moneylenders out as one of a number of events which led to his death for challenging the Jewish leadership (all of them!), or he didn’t chase them out because he’d done it two years earlier, but had raised Lazarus as a sign, the final sign, of what had to take place for men to see. You can’t have it both ways, and you can’t pretend there was no problem by turing your eyes away from what is written.
Lamb Chopped, the Jewish leaders aren’t all one, a you rightly say. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were bitterly divided; the former were the old ruling group, intellectually elitist, scorning ordinary people, rejecting the resurrection of the dead (the only time when Jesus mentions Resurrection as a general point is when asked by a Sadducee. The Pharisees were more populist, much more rigorous in their application of the laws, fervent in their support of the resurrection of the dead, seeking to win the leadership from the Sadducees. Caiaphas and Annas were both Sadducees – see John Meier A Marginal Jew Vol3, ch28-9.
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
I'm sorry for typos. I'm tired, and face a couple of heavy workdays. Forgive.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
quote:
the only time when Jesus mentions Resurrection as a general point is when asked by a Sadducee. The Pharisees were more populist, much more rigorous in their application of the laws, fervent in their support of the resurrection of the dead, seeking to win the leadership from the Sadducees. Caiaphas and Annas were both Sadducees
Perhaps it is the resurrection, not the crucifixion that is the key event. John does stress its importance more than any of the synoptics. It would also fit more appropriately into the time frame given to john of late first or early second century.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
What i was trying to say is that any group action is in fact the composite result of many individual decisions--choice goes on in individual brains, not some hyperconnected hive mind. This granted, it follows that each individual is going to have his own decision factors, his own "triggers" as you put it, which will vary with experience and psychological makeup. Thus it's a problem to ask "what is THE trigger" as if there were one true answer. This leader might be pissed off by the temple cleansing, while that one is much more alarmed by the Lazarus raising. All four Gospels could be historically correct with regards to different subgroups, and some individuals might well be in two groups.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The cry of injustice is the theological point though. Along with John's idea of the response to pure goodness and Mark's idea that evil seems to have an ever=spiralling compulsion to destroy. Jesus faces these things to highlight his innocence for a theological reason. It's a theological reasoned response to evil in Mark - it's satan's last hurrah without knowing that even in the supreme act of destruction a good is being unleashed on the world. It is the knowledge that God has entered our experience in history in his self-limiting to be subject to the same frustrations we have and to know every injustice. This isn't making a general point about history, it's stating a theological case in history.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
And more on the theological-historical link...
I don't think it matters when the gospels were actually written. To my mind the writing was simply the final act of the series of acts where the material was communicated, probably mostly verbally and mainly in 'preach' mode. There was a rather bizarre mental leap made in the last century, made often and loudly enough for it to become foundational at an unconscious level today, it seems, among many Christians, from “it was written” to “that was its starting point”. This still finds expression today when you hear something like: “This was a later editorial insertion” as a substitution for “This has no historical foundation in fact”.
What the written form does have for us of importance is an instance of an author using particular words in a particular way to influence an audience. It is a record of an intention to affect people by effecting change. An issue arose of sufficient importance for an author not to ignore it and that author spent resource on combating it. It is an instance of rhetoric, properly understood.
To this extent the writing is the same as the verbal: they are both historical and theological (it would have been impossible then to split those two aspects apart – that activity is a rather modern western fancy!). Consequently it really isn't possible to divorce, say, John's theological point that Jesus' raising of Lazarus was a test of belief in resurrection...
quote:
John 11:21-27
Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will grant you.” Jesus replied, “Your brother will come back to life again.” Martha said, “I know that he will come back to life again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” She replied, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who comes into the world.”
11:40
Jesus responded, “Didn’t I tell you that if you believe, you would see the glory of God?”
...from a physical raising of the said Lazarus and the consequent belief on the part of the Jerusalem authorities that such acts risked the objective of national survival:
quote:
John 11:47-48
So the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council [Sanhedrin] together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.”
An equally historic fact and one that we have more information on today, thanks to a renewed interest in the wider context of politics, sociology, and history. The Romans preferred to rule the sliver of land occupied by the Jews indirectly by way of local trusted leaders. Those leaders further delegated the responsibility to the authorities in Jerusalem. It was on the heads of those authorities that blame would attach (and axe fall, probably) if stability was not maintained.
So it seems to me that an audience listening to John's message (whether spoken from the written gospel or from previous 'preaching' events) would not have focussed on Lazarus' resurrection as an end in itself. I don't really think they would have batted an eyelid at that any more than they would have at the report of the Sanhedrin meeting and decision. Both were equally historical. What was at issue was God making a demanding call – for return to him – and that this call was for the whole world, leading to a reviving of God's family. Thus John could morph smoothly from the historical decision of the Sanhedrin to the theological overlap:
quote:
11:49-52
Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered.
Some English versions place that last sentence in brackets, but this is probably just another effect of modern western assumptions around a split between history and theology. John didn't bracket out his key points.
So if there was just one trigger, I wouldn't be looking for a specific act (like Lazarus' raising). At a high-level it was both theological and political. I'd look for it more in the background context. For example: God had promised a gift of land to his family, which would be a place where his people would fulfil their responsibilities within a covenant setting and would therefore live in peace and stability. This gift had been de-stabilised in the past and those in authority were extremely fearful about overseeing any other de-stabilising event. This trigger is common across all gospels.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
G'day Brigg and welcome to the Ship.
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
So – Jesus chased the moneylenders out as one of a number of events which led to his death for challenging the Jewish leadership (all of them!), or he didn’t chase them out because he’d done it two years earlier, but had raised Lazarus as a sign, the final sign, of what had to take place for men to see. You can’t have it both ways, and you can’t pretend there was no problem by turing your eyes away from what is written.
I'm having trouble following what your real question is but I think its in the paragraph above.
Why can't you have it both ways? That Jesus pissed people off by turning over the tables in the temple (whether it was in the first year of his ministry or the third) and pissed people off by raising the dead (e.g. Lazarus in the gospel of John and the young man in Nain from the gospel of Luke)?
Why does the trigger have to be one or the other?
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
Evensong, I’m not posing a question. I’m posing a problem and asking people if they want to share it with me, and to explore it together, working out where we differ in our understanding, and where we agree.
I’ve raised this with biblical literalists, where there is a very real problem, only to find myself subject to ridicule and marginalisation. I hope this site treats me differently. I can’t answer everybody’s point for fear of travelling too far away from the focus of the problem, but I read everybody, and I do find myself in agreement with most people.
It’s a serious problem identified by anyone who studies the Gospels seriously, and I guess I’m conceited enough to challenge the US Catholic historians who follow the decision by Vatican II in 1964 to accept inconsistencies in the Gospels. I’m saying tht fundamental contradictions arise when we read the only accounts of Jesus’ ministry and work, his passion culminating in his Resurrection, and that these may be important and certainly need to be addressed. The Catholic historians have not addressed them adequately in my view because of their felt need to avoid contradiction, but it’s precisely their high seriousness in approach which has led them to deny John because John differs from the three synoptic. Three against one means that three win – the criterion of multiple attestation used by John Meier throughout his powerful 4-volume (so far) biography of Jesus.
Evensong, (along with BroJames, Hedgehog, Lambchopped and Freddie in different ways) ask what difference it makes anyway – Jesus wasn’t exactly flavour of the month when he drove out the moneylenders form the Temple (whatever year it happened), and he also peed the Jewish leaders off in his raising of Lazarus. As Lambchopped says, when people get more and more annoyed, there isn’t necessarily one thing which tips the scales. There had been an increasing number of attempts to kill Jesus by stoning etc.
I absolutely agree with this, but the problem lies in the fact that two of the gospellers – Mark and John – do indicate that there is one actual trigger (the cleaning of the moneylenders in Mark 11:18, and the raising of Lazarus in John 11:47-57) while Matthew and Luke don’t raise the question, from which we can infer that it was an accumulation of events (though they don’t actually say this either).
The problem deepens when we find that according to John, the chasing of the moneylenders took place two years earlier. Perhaps more seriously, the raising of Lazarus isn’t even mentioned by any of the synoptic. Was Lazarus an invention of John’s, created to fit his theology (as Bultmann, the US Catholic historians and CK Barrett argue), or was it an actual event which symbolised an unusual power which electrified Jerusalem as it prepared for the Passover, and which alerted the Sanhedrin themselves to the need to utterly destroy this man by the ultimate fate for a dangerous heretic – hanging on a piece of wood, which needed the permission of a Roman authority which was fundamentally indifferent to Jewish heresies?
You can ignore the problem quite happily by picking and choosing from the gospels and then filling in the gaps with your own speculation and appeal to experience. Jesus was crucified and somehow resurrected (or not – many now use the unfamiliar word ‘hermeneutics’ to claim that the Resurrection was merely a symbolic event which never actually happened), and that’s that, let’s not delve too deeply.
But if you take the four gospels as a witness to God (not quite the same as the Word of God) then you need to be clear about the problem, and what it means. The four evangelists (or their communities) thought the events important enough to frame their parables/signs around them, and John at the very least took great trouble to record dates and places with care.
I don’t want people who’ve been contributing to this to think I’m ignoring them. I do read what they say carefully. As a comment on what other contributors have been saying –
Nigel, I agree with you on almost everything when it comes to your comments on the dating of the Gospels – they’re not books published for sale on Amazon, for which we can give precise dates, but they were written over time, and by more than one hand. There are redactions, mistakes, odd additions (John is riddled with them, and has two concluding chapters, one probably written after John’s death), but on the whole they are the accumulated work of many years of stories and sayings, with a purpose of communicating to those communities around them. My one quibble is that the communication of a new faith to potential and actual followers, and the veracity of events and places used to communicate that faith, are not alternatives – that why the gospels differ from epistles and prophecies which are very much communicative of a theology rather than a retelling of events.. They were telling it as it was, if you like, at least insofar as they had gathered it from oral testimony. Moreover, at least two of the accounts seem to be by eye-witnesses – Peter (as recounted to Mark) and John (who continually confirms his presence at the events described). The fact that John and Peter may not actually be eye-witnesses, but merely used by others, is at least a distinct possibility. This is part of what has to be weighed when looking at the problem of the trigger(s) for the crucifixion. There’s no definitive answer if only because of the sheer distance of time, but that can’t stop us from trying to construct a credible account of the gospel and the events they describe.
Fletcher Christian and Iconium Bound – again I agree with most of what you say about the different ways in which John and the synoptics and John approach these events. I would disagree with Fletcher about the meaning of these events. For both John and the synoptics evil is at work, and evil iss much more than injustice (though it incorporates injustice). The synoptics identify evil with the Jewish authorities, while John goes beyond this to identify evil with ‘the world’. The differences are on the interpretation of sin, and of God. The meaning of the Resurrection is bound up with those interpretations, but from them derive the three different traditions of the Petrine, Pauline and Johannine churches before they came together in the Great Church. The unity of Christ in that church is to be valued and worked for, but that unity isn’t threatened by a recognition of different understandings, nor by the recognition that there are contradictions, not just inconsistencies in the Gospels.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
I’m saying tht fundamental contradictions arise when we read the only accounts of Jesus’ ministry and work, his passion culminating in his Resurrection, and that these may be important and certainly need to be addressed.
Okay. So admitting inconsistency but not addressing contradiction is your problem?
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
I absolutely agree with this, but the problem lies in the fact that two of the gospellers – Mark and John – do indicate that there is one actual trigger (the cleaning of the moneylenders in Mark 11:18, and the raising of Lazarus in John 11:47-57)
I don't see why you think Mark and John identify actual triggers to the crucifixion rather than an accumulation of events.
Mark 11:18
quote:
Mark 11.18:
And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching.
The cleansing of the temple was the tip of the iceberg. The problem was the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching and this threatened the power of the chief priests.
If Jesus had no history before this particular incident then he would have had little popular power and the chief priests wouldn't have been interested in him.
Same problem in John
quote:
John 11:47-48
So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, ‘What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’
The raising of Lazarus was just another tip of the iceberg. Note "many signs" and "everyone will believe in him". It's a matter of his cumulative teaching and popular threat and fear of the Romans at the instability.
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
The problem deepens when we find that according to John, the chasing of the moneylenders took place two years earlier.
Not if it's a cumulative issue rather than a specific trigger.
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
Perhaps more seriously, the raising of Lazarus isn’t even mentioned by any of the synoptic.
You do get the raising of the widow of Nain's son in Luke. Same idea - raising the dead.
If you're worried about constructing an absolute literal history from oral tradition, I think you'll be hard pressed. But I don't really see how leaving out the raising of Lazarus is a contradiction rather than an inconsistency?
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
Mark 11.18 in my versions of the Bible don't have that translation, Evensong. The KJV says' "And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him" (11.18) The it is Jesus's statement about the Temple after throwing the moneylenders out. It's the present tense, not the aorist. The New American Standard Bible (reputed to be the closest translation of the original texts, says "The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to kill him" (11.18).
In John, it's the raising of Lazarus which sets the scene for the meeting of the Sanhedrin. If you read my post carefully enough, you'll see that I accept that an accumulation of resentments had been developing (the Pharissees had been chasing Jesus for quite some time), and was reported to the Jewish leaders at this meeting; but to decide to kill someone at such a high level, there seems to have been a trigger. A common occurrence when someone has been annoying you for some time, but then does something which crosses the line. That may well have been the reason why they had to hand him on a piece of wood.
The Widow of Nain story (peculiar to Luke) and the more widespread story of the daughter of Jairus (in all three synoptic gospels) are both stories about Jesus raising the dead. They have nothing to do with Lazarus, and attempts to link the two have been decisively refuted by most if not all critical Johannine commentators I recent decades. Both stories attest to the fact that Jesus was the normal healer - it was believed that you had three days to raise someone from death - after that they were daid, they stank. There seem to have been many such healers, so if your loved one kicked the bucket, you had three days to find one. If your loved one was really in a coma, a healer might bring them out of it, out of death.
The raising of Lazarus was something else. The three days had passed - "Lord, he stinketh". He was as dead as dead can be. To raise this man was the last sign, and one which caused genuine wonder - if it took place, of course.
I've said what the problem is, evensong. Read it more carefully. I'm not trying to construct a literal version, but neither am I trying to muddy the waters when a genuine problem of contradiction as well as inconsistency arises. Do you know of a good reason why the raising of Lazarus, given such prominence by John, isn't even mentioned in the synoptics - a clear reason, which avoids sophistry?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
Mark 11.18 in my versions of the Bible don't have that translation, Evensong. The KJV says' "And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him" (11.18) The it is Jesus's statement about the Temple after throwing the moneylenders out. It's the present tense, not the aorist. The New American Standard Bible (reputed to be the closest translation of the original texts, says "The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to kill him" (11.18).
They do say that but you're leaving out the pertinent bit of the text which both the KJV and NASB include too. Check out the Greek interlinear.
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
In John, it's the raising of Lazarus which sets the scene for the meeting of the Sanhedrin. If you read my post carefully enough, you'll see that I accept that an accumulation of resentments had been developing (the Pharissees had been chasing Jesus for quite some time), and was reported to the Jewish leaders at this meeting; but to decide to kill someone at such a high level, there seems to have been a trigger. A common occurrence when someone has been annoying you for some time, but then does something which crosses the line. That may well have been the reason why they had to hand him on a piece of wood.
The Widow of Nain story (peculiar to Luke) and the more widespread story of the daughter of Jairus (in all three synoptic gospels) are both stories about Jesus raising the dead. They have nothing to do with Lazarus, and attempts to link the two have been decisively refuted by most if not all critical Johannine commentators I recent decades. Both stories attest to the fact that Jesus was the normal healer - it was believed that you had three days to raise someone from death - after that they were daid, they stank. There seem to have been many such healers, so if your loved one kicked the bucket, you had three days to find one. If your loved one was really in a coma, a healer might bring them out of it, out of death.
The raising of Lazarus was something else. The three days had passed - "Lord, he stinketh". He was as dead as dead can be. To raise this man was the last sign, and one which caused genuine wonder - if it took place, of course.
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
I've said what the problem is, evensong. Read it more carefully. I'm not trying to construct a literal version, but neither am I trying to muddy the waters when a genuine problem of contradiction as well as inconsistency arises. Do you know of a good reason why the raising of Lazarus, given such prominence by John, isn't even mentioned in the synoptics - a clear reason, which avoids sophistry?
1) John made it up
2) John was aware of the story while the other evangelists were not (he certainly has other signs not included in the synoptics and the raising of Lazarus is but one of them)
3)John knew of the other raising of the dead stories (Nain etc) and used the idea but added the gloss of "three days" for Lazarus to clear up any doubts that Jesus could raise someone from the dead that had been dead longer than three days. And that God had that power too (as was testament in Jesus' own resurrection after three days).
Perhaps the deeper question is how does the gospel of John reconcile or not contradict the synoptics.
I don't see the raising of Lazarus as the only instance of this problem. Perhaps its just highlighted because (as you say) its something of a turning point in the events.
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
well, blow me down with a feather, evensong, someone who admits they can be wrong!! lol re the relationship between Lazarus and the Widow of Nain etc...
Leaving aside Mark (sorry, I genuinely didn't understand your point) for what I regard as the more important of your points -
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) John made it up
2) John was aware of the story while the other evangelists were not (he certainly has other signs not included in the synoptics and the raising of Lazarus is but one of them)
3)John knew of the other raising of the dead stories (Nain etc) and used the idea but added the gloss of "three days" for Lazarus to clear up any doubts that Jesus could raise someone from the dead that had been dead longer than three days. And that God had that power too (as was testament in Jesus' own resurrection after three days).
Perhaps the deeper question is how does the gospel of John reconcile or not contradict the synoptics.
I don't see the raising of Lazarus as the only instance of this problem. Perhaps its just highlighted because (as you say) its something of a turning point in the events.
The differences between John and the synoptics - in terms of theology as well as events - are very marked as you note. I chose this as a crucial incident for historical and theological reasons.
Your points are important. the first and third amount to the same thing. John made it all up, for whatever reason. This can't be ruled out. The authorship of John is very contested, there is evidence of redaction, and of the gospel being written over a lengthy period of time, and a lot of inferences can be drawn form this.
It's less credible that the synoptics just didn't hear of it. I know this is the recourse of many commentators - Schnackenburg for the Catholics and Leon Morris for the evangelicals both use this as an explanation. But the problem is why they didn't hear of it. It seems inconceivable that John didn't alert them to what he regarded as the crucial turning point in Jesus' mission, and the transition from that mission to the Passion. Did they not speak to one another? The omission from the synoptics seems to have a lot of implications for the eye-witness nature of the testimony from one side or the other.
so to focus on John as a total fibber just for the moment. The lies told would be monstrous, as the gospel claims that the events were true and witnessed by the author (whoever the author may be - I think it's John the Son of Zebedee, and there is evidence for it, but nothing conclusive). The stress on direct witness is present throughout the gospel (and the first Johannine epistle), and the comments of Jesus that if it were not true that there were many rooms in his father's mansion, he would not have said there were (Jn 14.2).
The reasons for believing John lie in the history. he places a lot of emphasis on time and place, and the accuracy of both seem well-vouched (many examples - I can refer you to books or to actual examples if you wish, but the day of the trial and crucifixion given by John as opposed to the synoptics is coming to be generally accepted. However, in the end we don't know, and John could be a liar (there was a contemporary story, after all, that Jesus offloaded his cross on some poor mug and did a runner - to return drunk as hell and point and laugh at the poor bum on the cross. Who's to say it's not the truth?)
My own bias is towards John, but that's my preference, my bias. I just feel that he wouldn't go to such pains to describe so many places and yet use it all to tell such a whopper. But he does seem to have been a brilliant story-teller (think of Mary and the gardener at the tomb).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As presented, the different stories of Jesus raising the dead do present significantly different impacts on the thinking of the Jewish leadership.
The Synoptics present the son of the widow of Cain, and Jarius' daughter. Both occur relatively early in the ministry of Jesus, and in Galillee. Events far away from Jerusalem, if reported to the Sanhedrin those would be stories passed down - it would be very unlikely an eye witness to them would be in Jerusalem until some considerable time after the event.
On the other hand, Lazarus is raised in a village just outside Jerusalem. And, in the approach to Passover when pilgrims were starting to gather in and around the city. There were eyewitnesses in Jerusalem, anyone interested could take a stroll to Bethany and see Lazarus walking around for themselves. The location and timing make the miracle much more immediate for the Sanhedrin.
I don't know why the raising of Lazarus isn't in the Synoptics. If it happened then it must have been a well known story. All the Apostles were there, as well as many of those who would later become leading figures in the Church. Matthew, Mark and Luke must have known the story and chosen not to include it. Why? I've no idea.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
John 21:25 has implications about why any particular story may not appear where we would expect it to:
quote:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
<snip>Leaving aside Mark (sorry, I genuinely didn't understand your point)<snip>
I think the point Evensong was making is that you are correct in identifying the "it" which Mark refers to the scribes and pharisees having heard of is the raising of Lazarus, but the reason Mark gives for them wanting to kill Jesus is because "they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching"
As for why an event might appear in one Gospel and not another, surely John 20.30 and 21.35 provide an adequate explanation. So also, for example, only Luke records the raising of the man from Nain (Luke 7.11ff, and John does not record the raising of Jairus's daughter.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I am afraid we are beginning to circle on this topic. Yes, certainly, the multiplicity of signs that Jesus performed can explain why some are recorded only in one gospel and not another. But I think that just brings us back to Brigg60m's original question/issue: In John's gospel, the raising of Lazarus is not "just another sign" but a key event that triggered the crucifixion. But if it was such a key event, then why wouldn't the others at least mention it.
The answer, it seems to me, is that John is the only one who thinks that it was the trigger. To the others, it was just one of many signs, of no greater import than any other. Now that just fits my previous view: that each viewer identified for themselves what they thought was "the" trigger (when, in fact, there was no single trigger, as discussed earlier). John truly believes it was the Lazarus Incident because of its temporal/geographical closeness to the crucifixion.
Luke, on the other hand, seems to have felt that, having already done 2 "raising the dead" stories, there was no need to do another. If he (and Mark and Matt) didn't think Lazarus was as key as John feels it was, then it is conceivable that they would not mention it. The difference is in how each perceives the importance of the event.
(Although the idea of the disciples rolling their eyes at Yet Another Miracle amuses me: "Awww, is he going to do that fish thing again?!?!")
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
<snip>The answer, it seems to me, is that John is the only one who thinks that it was the trigger. To the others, it was just one of many signs, of no greater import than any other. Now that just fits my previous view: that each viewer identified for themselves what they thought was "the" trigger (when, in fact, there was no single trigger, as discussed earlier).<snip>
Or, a variant of the above, each selected from available trigger events the one that best suited the themes that they felt are significant and that fitted the way they wanted to tell the story.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I would like to avoid the binary choice of "John's account of the raising of Lazarus is factual" and "John's account of the raising of Lazarus was made up (aka a fib)."
I think we need to appreciate the way John shapes his narrative to fit his theological vision. It seems to me that it can be argued that John took an account of the raising of someone from the dead (which other gospels had) and amended it for his purposes. This is NOT to conclude that John "lied", but that strict "historical accuracy" (in our 21st century understanding of it) was not his ultimate priority. If we consider other "evidence", such as the cleansing of the Temple and the Last Supper, I think it can be legitimately argued that John was never wedded to the "historical" account.
(Now that doesn't mean that there isn't anything of historical or factual value in John's gospel. Simply that providing historical or factual narratives wasn't his main aim)
I am more persuaded than ever that the "trigger" is what we see in the Synoptic accounts. Jesus - a known prophet and stirrer-up of trouble from the north - rolls into Jerusalem with the Passover crowds. He makes a deliberate messianic gesture in his entry and then cleanses the Temple. These actions are a direct challenge to the Jewish authorities, who (understandably!) react out of anger and fear. In some ways, they could do nothing else.
Did Jesus know what would happen afterwards? Personally, I doubt it. Not in detail. I see him as deliberately provoking a confrontation, in the confident faith that God would vindicate him in some way. His burning passion for justice and for God's love for all (especially the "sinners") would not allow him to be quiet any longer.
For me, the question is "why NOW?" What was it that triggered Jesus into making this challenge at this particular moment?
Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on
:
Thanks all, I've read carefully each contribution, and forgive if I don't mention all names - some of you make the same point in different ways.
Thanks to Bro James for explaining evensong’s point about Mark. It doesn’t seem to say anything new, though. Mark is saying pretty in Ch 11 vv15-18 that Jesus came to Jerusalem and threw out the moneylenders (vv15-16), and that he taught that the Temple had been made a robber’s den. (v17). Then comes the decisive v18. The chief priests and scribes met (presumably the Sanhedrin), and decided he must be killed – they began to look for ways of killing him – whichever the translation, it’s not in the aorist, there’s no continuing to try to kill him etc. It was a decision taken then. The verse concludes with the reason given that they were afraid of him, and the impact his teaching was having on the crowds. In other words, like John and the two other synoptics, Mark notes the rising perception of threat from Jesus’s teachings (parables, sermons, presumably miracles too). They must have been aware of this character from the sticks for some time – the local Pharisees had almost certainly reported him. The incident at the Temple was the turning point – it was a trigger for his death.
So my point holds – Matthew and Luke don’t give any reason whatsoever about a decision being made. It’s generally assumed, by us anyway, that it’s a cumulation of problems, and that imperceptibly a feeling had arisen hat he was to be killed. This is plausible, for sure – it doesn’t mean to say it’s right, but it’s plausible. Mark seems to hold that there was a trigger – the ruckus at the Temple and the popularity of Jesus teaching there. None of them can say why it was decided to crucify Jesus. Stoning would have been normal, or maybe better given his popularity with the hoi-polloi, an ambush on his way home. They had an informer in Jesus’s ranks – it could be done quickly with nobody knowing about it. Of course, hanging Jesus on a piece of wood may not have been of concern to them – that’s the way the Romans did it, and in the turmoil of Passover, it may be better to let the Romans take the can. So it’s plausible – why hedgehog should be so convinced that the ’synoptics’ (presumably Matthew and Luke) should be right rather than the others isn’t clear – it could equally have been John or Mark.
John did edit the teaching and signs of Jesus. He wrote two concluding chapters, and both make the same point that Jesus did and said much, much more – Jn20v30, Jn21 v25. It appears that Ch21 was added on at a later date, and possibly not written by John. What John wrote does not contradict the synoptics in the sense that if he was right, the synoptics must be wrong. They both contain invaluable records of the teachings and doings of Jesus.
But there are differences, and this was why there was such resistance to the Johannine gospel being accepted into the earliest non-Johannine communities and churches. It was only in the lae second century that it became increasingly accepted. The resistaqnce came fomr the fact that John diverged so sharply from the synoptics. Martin Hengel and R. Alan Culpeper have written on this, and some of the earlier scholars were arguing that John was much more precise than the rather sloppy attention to chronology of the synoptics.
We can all put in our own speculations, and then try to claim it’s the right one by adding our personal conviction. Alan Cresswell at least admits puzzlement. But he’s wrong to say all the apostles were there. According to Leon Morris, Peter wasn’t there, and that’s why it’s not recorded in Mark – Mark seems to have (debatable, I know0 taken down peter’s episodic memories down for his gospel, and Matthew and Luke used Mark along with the oral treasury of Jesus’s sayings, parables and miracles in writing their own gospel (Morris NIT Commentary on John, pp.473-6. John was there, the eyewitness – he claims, anyway, at various points in the Gospel. And if he wasn’t, then he’s telling whoppers, coz he’s not vague about his presence at the crucifixion, when all the other disciples had scarpered.
What makes John so reliable to me lies in the reasons given by C.H. Dodd (Historical Tradition and the Fourth Gospel, 1963) and Robinson’s corrections (The Priority of John 1985). He is precise – about topography and about time. The Temple cleansing is given a specific time – not just two years before the passion but 46 years after the building. The last Supper is there in John, but not with the details of the synoptic – both can be right there. But both can’t gbe right about the Temple incident being the trigger. Mark and John may be wrong about there being a single trigger, though their view is just as plausible as the vaguer Matthew and Luke. Both Mark and John can’t be right about the actual trigger. Only John provides a good reason why Jesus was crucified rather than stoned or ambushed.
I think in the end the history isn’t a substitute for faith – not faith that one chronicle is superior to another, but faith in the Resurrection, faith that Jesus was the Son of God. History takes us to the lip of faith, not over that lip. But the history is important – we have to accept inconsistencies, we have to accept contradictions even, and we have to accept that the evangelists regarded a setting down of the story to e important – as important as the teachings (?) because the story was bound up with the teachings. Jesus appeared at a certain time and a certain place – the history is there, and it is combined with faith in a series of events in Holy Week which can inspire Christians no matter which of the Gospels is right. But the history also lies behind the inspiration. John is very detailed on the passion – including the holding of the trial outside Pilate’s palace, and a more detailed account of how Pilate was pushed against his will into accepting the crucifixion (the synoptic stop at Barabbas, not John).
I have a bias, a prejudice, in favour of John’s account, That doesn’t mean we can ditch the synoptic – that would be wrong, disastrous even. But in the end, I don’t know. I’m glad Alan agrees with me on that – he doesn’t know. But let’s explore the differences, unafraid of we might come up against. Be of good cheer.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
There's a fairly obvious reason why stoning or ambush wouldn't have done--the Jewish leaders were not permitted to order capital punishment. In order to make stoning work, they would have to come up with a reasonable fake mob scenario that would stand up to scrutiny by pissed off Roman authorities. Not so easy to engineer, particularly if you (the authorities) are wishful to avoid a fullscale riot, as I'm sure they were. A wildfire is easy to set; a controlled burn, not so much, especially if you WANT it to look like a wildfire.
Then the ambush idea. It seems fairly clear that Jesus had been traveling for some time with large groups, or in very public ways where there were many others nearby. A quiet ambush would be difficult to set up, even with an informer to help. And that's problematic for the same reasons as the engineered stoning--they couldn't risk an ambush that could be traced back to the leadership, or that devolved into a riot.
Really, if Jesus had returned to Bethany Thursday night, instead of obligingly going out of his way to spend several hours in a quiet garden, even Judas would have likely been stumped. From what the leaders say, it appears they were not in fact expecting to be able to take him during Passover at all, and were pinning their hopes to some later action. Very reasonable, if their prey had not deliberately made himself available.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
I have a bias, a prejudice, in favour of John’s account, That doesn’t mean we can ditch the synoptic – that would be wrong, disastrous even. But in the end, I don’t know. I’m glad Alan agrees with me on that – he doesn’t know. But let’s explore the differences, unafraid of we might come up against. Be of good cheer.
For what it is worth, if I gave the impression that I was sure or certain about anything I wrote, I apologize. Years ago, when I first started posting here I would often put in lines about how "I could be wrong" and "possibly I'm mistaken"--but that got boring. Now I use short-hand: If I say "I think" or "it seems to me" you can pretty much assume I am saying "this a trial balloon and let's see how long it takes for it to be shot down." And I don't mind that--that's how we learn. I have learned much on this thread, and I thank you for it.
So, bottom line, add me to the "I don't know" crowd.
You are right, however, that just as you have a bias for John, I have a bias for Luke. I have admitted before and I can't really explain it in any way that would stand up to reasoned argument. But I do have a knee-jerk tendency to go to Luke first. It isn't rational and it invites errors on my part, I know. But, thanks be to the Ship, somebody will eventually correct me. Is this a great place or what?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
Alan Cresswell at least admits puzzlement. But he’s wrong to say all the apostles were there. According to Leon Morris, Peter wasn’t there, and that’s why it’s not recorded in Mark – Mark seems to have (debatable, I know0 taken down peter’s episodic memories down for his gospel, and Matthew and Luke used Mark along with the oral treasury of Jesus’s sayings, parables and miracles in writing their own gospel (Morris NIT Commentary on John, pp.473-6. John was there, the eyewitness – he claims, anyway, at various points in the Gospel.
Being wrong wouldn't be a novel experience.
But I'm not sure I follow the argument you reference from Leon Morris, I admit to not having come across that before. From the text, the only disciple named is Thomas (11:16), but as the passage says he spoke to "the rest of the disciples" it would take some quite considerable evidence from elsewhere to conclude that any of the 12 were absent, especially any of them who are later said to be present in the events that follow quite rapidly - though there is space in the text for several days or even weeks to pass before Jesus is anointed at Bethany, time for disciples who may have been elsewhere to rejoin the group.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, as an aside re: the nature of these boards. Over many years here the culture that has developed is one where the majority of people, and especially the majority of those who have spent a long time here, come to ask questions and test whether others agree with our ideas. People who sign up convinced they know an answer tend to find this an uncomfortable place and either leave or come to hold their ideas less surely.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's a fairly obvious reason why stoning or ambush wouldn't have done--the Jewish leaders were not permitted to order capital punishment.
{tangent alert}
I have always wondered about that in connection with the woman taken in adultery. If the Jewish authorities could not have her stoned, what could they do?
{/tangent alert}
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I suspect that, within reason, the Romans didn't care at all about the Jewish authorities exercising their laws. Including stoning people where the Law called for it. They probably would have been quite happy for the Sanhedrin to take care of a potential rebel leader themselves, it does indicate a certain level of loyalty to Rome after all.
But, for the Sanhedrin who are fearing a riot, there are advantages in getting the Romans to do their dirty work. If they can pull off something that looks sufficiently like a trial to convict Jesus of crimes under Jewish Law that many of the Jews have second thoughts about fighting to free Jesus, and get the Romans to convict him of a political crime and execute him - and do all of this while there aren't big crowds milling around potentially set to riot - then they could get rid of Jesus and avert a riot, and if there's discontent among the people justifiable claim "well, the Romans executed him".
The Sanhedrin certainly had no hesitation about stoning Stephen. They were willing to pick up those stones if they felt that was what was called for.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Sanhedrin certainly had no hesitation about stoning Stephen. They were willing to pick up those stones if they felt that was what was called for.
I think that this is an interesting point and one that I have not considered before. And I think it has particular importance when considering the haste with which the Sanhedrin wanted to move with Jesus.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Might be. Though both of those seemed a lot closer to actual mob violence than the attempt to take Jesus would have been. And therefore would have been easier to excuse to the Romans ("Hey, we tried, but you know how it is").
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And therefore would have been easier to excuse to the Romans ("Hey, we tried, but you know how it is").
AIUI it was Paul making the Gospel presentable to the Romans who excused them in Jesus' death . The portrayal of Pilate , a Roman governor renowned for brutality, as some sort of impotent pussy-cat washing his hands is pretty ridiculous when records show trouble makers were being dispatched at the drop of a hat by Roman authorities.
By throwing the blame back on the Jews the Gospel writers , esp. that of John, tragically set the stage for 2000 years of anti-semitic attitudes.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Paul? It was one of the Gospel writers who showed that tyrant with a human side. And I wouldn't call that softening--rather the very human face of a frightened tyrant who nevertheless has come up against two things that possess more power to frighten than his own--namely, the supernatural (the bit where he freaks about Jesus being possibly a son of the gods, and questions his already-unusual prisoner closely; add his wife's dream in here too) and second, the power of denouncers ("you are no friend of Caesar" to a man with ties to Sejanus--no wonder he crumbled).
I'm not painting Pilate as a good man at all; but fear can make even the worst men suddenly understandable.
But as to your main point--the point of the excuse I mentioned is not to be believed (yeah, right) but to make it clear to Pilate that there is enough plausible deniability that it isn't worth his pursuing the matter. Since, as you say, he is not dedicated to upholding the law or right and wrong or what-have-you, but is instead very familiar with realpolitik.
[ 04. May 2014, 13:27: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Paul? It was one of the Gospel writers who showed that tyrant with a human side.
Not wanting to go into to derailment mode but AIUI Paul, being literate, was one of the main architects of the NT -- Gospels included. Actually I was wrong to cite John, I've checked and discovered Matt Ch:27 v25 holds the unfortunate "His (Christ's), blood be on us, (the Jews): and on our children" quote.
The Crucifixion brought me to faith as it has done to many others I'm sure . It just strikes me as a great shame that history apportioned blame to something that was, at the very very least, a tool for martyrdom.
I take your point about Pilate unwittingly finding himself caught up in the supernatural, a powerful indicator of just how humbling an encounter it was , and of course still is.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, now I'm very confused. I have never heard that Paul was credited with much at all in the way of contributing to the Gospels. And the literacy thing is likely to be a red herring, I would be surprised if most, maybe even all, of Jesus' disciples were not literate. Several of them clearly came from business backgrounds where literacy would be important, and Judaism, of course, has always placed emphasis on the written Word of God and therefore on male (at least) literacy.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I think it would be quite difficult to show that Paul had much if any influence on the four Gospels. I just finished Ehrman's latest book on the history of Christology and he certainly doesn't see the influence.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I think it would be quite difficult to show that Paul had much if any influence on the four Gospels. I just finished Ehrman's latest book on the history of Christology and he certainly doesn't see the influence.
Isn't there a seam of scholarship that relates Paul to Luke/Acts?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I've certainly come across authors who equate Mark as the "sermon notes" of Peter. And, also (often the same) authors who see a similar relationship between Luke and Paul. Mark travelled with Peter and heard him repeatedly tell the stories of Jesus which he then formed into his Gospel. Luke travelled with Paul, and likewise heard Paul tell stories of Jesus which then contributed to his Gospel.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Don't most scholars suggest that Luke wrote neither the Gospel nor Acts?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There is that possibility of course. But, someone wrote them. And, Acts in particular, focusses so heavily on Paul it is highly likely that the author was associated with Paul, quite possibly travelling with him at some time or maybe the owner of a house Paul stayed in for an extended period (one of his periods of house arrest perhaps?). Someone with plenty of opportunity to hear Paul tell his stories about Jesus and his own ministry and record them for us.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0