Ship of Fools: The last Days of Jesus

Thread: The last Days of Jesus Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020149

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Having watched a TV prog. on channel 5, I was going to post in the Historicity of the Resurrection thread but thought it might make a topic of it's own.

It was a interesting new take on the person Jesus, his life, status, Movement, and ultimate demise.
Using historical Roman records, together with several tantalising clues that lie in the 4 Gospels, it pieced together a convincing account of conspiracy, power play and connections which may have helped the itinerant Preacher get as far as He got before the rug was pulled.

The most intriguing thing, which did make quite a lot of sense to me, was that Holy Week did in actual fact span a period of 6 months, and that in all likelihood Jesus would have been incarcerated for a considerable amount of that time.

Any thoughts? Hoping of course the chief thought isn't of me putting a spoiler on something that looked well researched and by no means a blunt attempt at discrediting the Christian Story.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh for fuck's sake. Please tell me this is not the bloody fakumentary that has had various people asking me anxiously whether it's true that Jesus could not have ridden into the Jerusalem at Passover time because the freaking PALM TREES wouldn't have had leaves at that time. (therefore somehow leading to the idea of his six months' imprisonment)

If it IS, rest assured that there are no palm species which are deciduous, and there would be plenty of palm fronds available for use whatever time of the year he chose to enter Jerusalem.

Sheesh. I grew up in California where palms were a menace at times, and the idea of them behaving like respectable, proper maples or oak and decorously dropping their leaves once a year is just [Killing me]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Channel 5. I ask you.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I was driving through the Texas panhandle one day, and stopped on a radio preacher for some reason. He was arguing that Jesus must have been killed on a Wednesday, because he was in the grave for three days, and if he rose on a Sunday, that had to have been Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

I haven't seen the documentary at issue, so I can't really comment on the authenticity.

I know a professor at a local University who specializes in translating gnostic texts. He likes to call the tendency of popular media to run a cover story this time of year that presents these theories as "new ground-breaking research that will shake Christianity to its core!" the "Easter Surprise". He was especially annoyed by the Gospel of Judas a decade or so ago, since from his perspective, it was simply something that fit clearly into the Gnostic tradition.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was driving through the Texas panhandle one day, and stopped on a radio preacher for some reason. He was arguing that Jesus must have been killed on a Wednesday, because he was in the grave for three days, and if he rose on a Sunday, that had to have been Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

I haven't seen the documentary at issue, so I can't really comment on the authenticity.

I know a professor at a local University who specializes in translating gnostic texts. He likes to call the tendency of popular media to run a cover story this time of year that presents these theories as "new ground-breaking research that will shake Christianity to its core!" the "Easter Surprise". He was especially annoyed by the Gospel of Judas a decade or so ago, since from his perspective, it was simply something that fit clearly into the Gnostic tradition.

He was not in the grave for 3 days - on the 3rd day he rose - quite different, and whoever said that either can't say any of the Creeds very often; or says them as a bit of rote learning; or both.

A lot of truth in your last paragraph.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
He was not in the grave for 3 days - on the 3rd day he rose - quite different, and whoever said that either can't say any of the Creeds very often; or says them as a bit of rote learning; or both.

My guess is that for this radio preacher, creeds are something that Bible-believing Christians eschew and ignore totally.

That said, I don't know how he deals with the Gospel texts that make clear that the day after the crucifixion was the Sabbath.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Channel 5. I ask you.

I know, I know. Should have gone out and heard the correct version of events.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh for fuck's sake. Please tell me this is not the bloody fakumentary that has had various people asking me anxiously whether it's true that Jesus could not have ridden into the Jerusalem at Passover time because the freaking PALM TREES wouldn't have had leaves at that time. (therefore somehow leading to the idea of his six months' imprisonment)

And those churches that use actual palm fronds on Palm Sunday have their own private TARDIS in the vestry I suppose ...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Three things -

1.Nobody knows
2.Rather like the birth stories
3.Does it matter?

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I heard a Jewish Rabbi describe Jerusalem Legal System at the time of Jesus. He said there were 3 levels of Courts, and someone like Jesus would have been tried at the first insignificant level first. For Jesus to go through all 3 levels and then go to the Roman Governor must have meant the 3 Courts found him 'Not Guilty'. He was surprised that all 3 hearings could have been done so quickly. It would appear that Caiaphas had 'appealed' the 3 verdicts and taken them to as high a Court as he could. Manipulating Crowds in Roman times was an 'Art Form'. It consisted of having Friends, Relatives, Slaves and 'Paid People' to start the clapping and cheering and to keep it going. I presume it could also be taken round the other way to start the shouts of derision. Any moe information is welcome.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I learned the other day that my chaplain general is of the opinion Jesus may have been held in custody for a period of about a year, an opinion I doubt he got from a Channel 5 documentary. I haven't investigated further yet.

And my late father-in-law believed Jesus was crucified on the Wednesday or Thursday.

The more I dig into these accounts, the more I see editorial intervention. I do not see this as undermining the truth of the text but as requiring discernment as to what the truth they are actually seeking to attest to is.

I still stand by an actual resurrection of Christ, though.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I heard a Jewish Rabbi describe Jerusalem Legal System at the time of Jesus. He said there were 3 levels of Courts, and someone like Jesus would have been tried at the first insignificant level first. For Jesus to go through all 3 levels and then go to the Roman Governor must have meant the 3 Courts found him 'Not Guilty'.

For an irreverent take on the legal proceedings which those familiar with criminal justice may find fun, see here: Jesus had a terrible public defender.

[ 15. April 2017, 08:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

At the end of the day nothing matters all that much whether we be secular, religious or somewhere in the middle.

It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.

Although this programme was titled 'The last Days...' presumably to catch the viewer it did actually go back to the young Jesus aged 12, making the suggestion He did not arise from a peasant background.
The role of John the Baptist was also examined. Even reading the Gospel account of his ministry, arrest, incarceration and execution it is hard to believe that something dark and political wasn't afoot at that time.

[ 15. April 2017, 08:37: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Channel 5. I ask you.

I quite like LC's "fakeumentaries". Alternative narratives uncovering "the real Jesus" or "what really happened" or "why traditional beliefs don't hold water".

There must be an audience out there, and at one time I used to be a part of that audience, out of curiosity. But not any more. Reminds me of a couple of lines from an old Moody Blues song.

"I sit down and lend an ear
But I hear nothing new".

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I heard a Jewish Rabbi describe Jerusalem Legal System at the time of Jesus. He said there were 3 levels of Courts, and someone like Jesus would have been tried at the first insignificant level first. For Jesus to go through all 3 levels and then go to the Roman Governor must have meant the 3 Courts found him 'Not Guilty'.
For an irreverent take on the legal proceedings which those familiar with criminal justice may find fun, see here: Jesus had a terrible public defender.

Just read it. Quite interesting - and raises a lot of questions about the reporting and the legal system. The Gospels obviously tell us very little.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Having recently re-read "Misreading Scripture through Western Eyes"* I can see some of what's involved in the mystery of why things happened as they did in the conviction of Jesus.
The gist of the authors' discussion is the fact that 21st Century readers assume a background to a bible story from the only culture they are familiar with; the biblical authors leave out details from their own culture because 'everyone knows how it goes so you don't need to spell out obvious details'.
An example that struck me in my own reading: the pretty Christmas cards showing Joseph, Mary and the donkey heading for Bethlehem are nonsense: the whole extended family, the whole village, would be going at the same time, being of the same descent and history. (Apart from the fact that if the Romans had wanted a census their only interest anyway would have been in listing people where they lived, worked and paid their taxes).
Garden Hermit's link might be frivolous but there could be some truth in it.
Jesus had to be got rid of one way or another, and publicly; in an honour/shame culture he had attracted honour by his smart answers that shamed the authorities.

*E. Randolph Richards, Brandon J. O'Brien

GG

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh for fuck's sake. Please tell me this is not the bloody fakumentary that has had various people asking me anxiously whether it's true that Jesus could not have ridden into the Jerusalem at Passover time because the freaking PALM TREES wouldn't have had leaves at that time. (therefore somehow leading to the idea of his six months' imprisonment)

If it IS, rest assured that there are no palm species which are deciduous, and there would be plenty of palm fronds available for use whatever time of the year he chose to enter Jerusalem.

Sheesh. I grew up in California where palms were a menace at times, and the idea of them behaving like respectable, proper maples or oak and decorously dropping their leaves once a year is just .

We even have palm trees here in Northern Ireland, all year round. And I've seen them in the northerly reaches of the mid-highlands of Scotland in people's front gardens. [Ultra confused]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Three things -

1.Nobody knows
2.Rather like the birth stories
3.Does it matter?

In my opinion, it matters only if children are told that it is absolutely true that the death and resurrection of Jesus happened as conventionally told, instead of, yes, telling the whole story, but adding a proviso always that this is what people do not know for certain but believe.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

The story of Jesus is an Enigma (maybe deliberately so) so that in trying to find him, you find yourself. After 1000s of years and 1000s of scholars input, the Story at the moment is the best Humans can come up with. That's because no Human Brain can ever understand God or the Universe's purpose. I actually don't believe its right, I feel its right and fits my experience of Human Behaviour perfectly.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Deliberated by whom?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The story of Jesus is an Enigma (maybe deliberately so) so that in trying to find him, you find yourself. After 1000s of years and 1000s of scholars input, the Story at the moment is the best Humans can come up with. That's because no Human Brain can ever understand God or the Universe's purpose. I actually don't believe its right, I feel its right and fits my experience of Human Behaviour perfectly.

How can any universe have a 'purpose'?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.

Why not? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me, especially if you factor in that the make-up of the "masses" on Sunday may not have been identical to that of Thursday/Friday. (The powerless vs the powerful?). Plus as noted, there's the real possibility of crowd manipulation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can any universe have a 'purpose'?

It has dolphins, so why not?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Honestly you lot worry and argue about the strangest things.
If you are going to worry about the holes in it, you shall never get to eat the cheese

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Heh heh heh ... Nice one.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.

I should think that reality TV should have made us realise that this is not only possible, but highly credible.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The story of Jesus is an Enigma (maybe deliberately so) so that in trying to find him, you find yourself. After 1000s of years and 1000s of scholars input, the Story at the moment is the best Humans can come up with. That's because no Human Brain can ever understand God or the Universe's purpose. I actually don't believe its right, I feel its right and fits my experience of Human Behaviour perfectly.
How can any universe have a 'purpose'?

Because there is no exception in physics to causality.

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :

I, too, watched the programme and promptly penned a letter to Channel 5 about it. Said letter started thus:

I’ve just watched your programme, ‘The Last Days of Jesus’ with interest and some amusement.

Few will disagree, even most Christians and Christian Biblical scholars, that the Gospels can be complex and even seemingly contradictory – but the programme seemed to ask its audience to do precisely what many Christian leaders and Biblical scholars have been accused of doing over the years – namely cherry-picking passages that suit their way of thinking.

In my view, there were large chunks of Gospel evidence that were conveniently ignored by the 'scholars' - such as the fact that Jesus predicted his death long before the establishment/collapse of any Sejanus/Herod plot; and the fact that Jesus made it pretty clear that he wasn't overly enamoured with the Romans, any more than he was of the Jewish religious leaders.

I also asked how the theory posited in the programme in any way begins to explain the events that culminated in the sacking of the Temple and Jerusalem in AD 72.

Enjoyable entertainment, all the same, in the same way that Poirot or Morse, Bones or NCIS are enjoyable.

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can any universe have a 'purpose'?

Could the same question be asked of your own existence, Susan? Having studied both the humanities and the sciences during my life, I am increasingly dubious about the suggestion that 'purpose' doesn't exist.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.
I should think that reality TV should have made us realise that this is not only possible, but highly credible.

I was thinking of Politics

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.
I should think that reality TV should have made us realise that this is not only possible, but highly credible.

"Reality" TV is highly maniputated when it isn't fake. Are you sure this is the comparison you wish to make?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

AndyHB:

There are very few facts in the Bible. And Jesus story isn't verifiablely any of them. This is why it is called faith.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
.....Plus as noted, there's the real possibility of crowd manipulation.

Everyone, from Gospel writers to modern day documentary producers, seem agreed that the crowd was manipulated in one way or another.
Something that points massively at the authorities, both Jewish and Roman being hellbent on exonerating themselves from the responsibility of Jesus' death. So again it appears the whole situation was dynamite and not something that was going to be quickly brushed under the carpet in 24 hours.

On the matter of Reality TV being a comparison for the turning of the crowd? I'm thinking brexit (dare to mention it), being a better example of how grievance combined with disillusion builds slowly and is then exploited by those with an interest to do so.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:

In my view, there were large chunks of Gospel evidence that were conveniently ignored by the 'scholars' - such as the fact that Jesus predicted his death long before the establishment/collapse of any Sejanus/Herod plot; and the fact that Jesus made it pretty clear that he wasn't overly enamoured with the Romans, any more than he was of the Jewish religious leaders.

So you're saying it is impossible for there to be a story added after the event to the text?

Is your argument that the gospel text is a whole and that if it says x happened before y, then it did?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I learned the other day that my chaplain general is of the opinion Jesus may have been held in custody for a period of about a year, an opinion I doubt he got from a Channel 5 documentary. I haven't investigated further yet.

And my late father-in-law believed Jesus was crucified on the Wednesday or Thursday.

The more I dig into these accounts, the more I see editorial intervention. I do not see this as undermining the truth of the text but as requiring discernment as to what the truth they are actually seeking to attest to is.

I still stand by an actual resurrection of Christ, though.

My take is the historical Jesus probably ticked off Pilate more than what we are led to believe in the Gospel texts. By the time the gospel texts were written, the blame of Jesus's death were already moving from the Roman authorities to the Jewish leaders.

What is striking to me is the grand bargain between releasing Jesus and Barabbas, a known bandit, i.e. a revolutionary figure. For Pilate to release Barabbas, would have been incompetence of an unheard magnitude, it would be like the US President releasing a known terrorist from prison. Pilate's head would have been on Caesar's platter if that actually happened.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.
I should think that reality TV should have made us realise that this is not only possible, but highly credible.

Indeed. All the more since we have no way of knowing (in spite of years of sermons!) that this crowd was in fact the same people who greeted Jesus with pleasure on Palm Sunday. In fact, evidence suggests the opposite--the first crowd arose on the road leading over Mt. Olive, a camping place for tons of Passover pilgrims, and it's logical to suppose it was in fact made up of those pilgrims; the second crowd turns up very early in the morning at Pilate's palace on the far side of Jerusalem when the pilgrims ought all be sleeping or just having breakfast at their campsites on the Mount. How would they have gotten word about the unusual early morning happenings at Pilate's, at least in time to get there while the decision making was going on? Which I take to be no later than 7:30 a.m.

On the other hand, it's very easy for the high priests etc to realize that the whole trial is going south the minute Pilate says grouchily "What charges do you bring against this man?" thus signalling that he intends to reopen the whole case instead of just rubber stamping as they hoped; and at that point to send a few underlings off with instructions to roust out their families and those of other temple servants and get them to the palace in double-time to support whatever the Jewish leaders said. No doubt they lived close to the temple, which would put them close to Pilate's place as well. And manipulating them would be the easiest thing in the world, since their family jobs were involved.

Obviously nobody has to accept that last idea; but it is the kind of thing human beings have been known to do. But even a spontaneous crowd gathering at that early hour at that location would tend to be filled with hangers-on of the temple and its hierarchy; that was the neighborhood.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Re the palm fronds--I know it's a stupid tiny item, but to have it turn up on a public TV show is evidence that nobody has done a damned thing to fact check anything, and I ... lose faith? I need a more violent term... in the ability of the producers to say anything worthwhile at all.

Full disclosure: I've been a bloody fact checker for years and years, and I know the value of them in preventing idiocy.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It wasn't just the thing with the palm fronds LC but the dramatic shift in the sentiment of the masses from -- Hail the King of the Jews, to String him up. Not something that was likely to happen in the space of a week.
Why not? It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me, especially if you factor in that the make-up of the "masses" on Sunday may not have been identical to that of Thursday/Friday. (The powerless vs the powerful?). Plus as noted, there's the real possibility of crowd manipulation.

We need to understand that there were two "crowds". First of all, there was the crowd of pilgrims entering Jerusalem with Jesus. These would mostly have been from Galilee and so have known all about Jesus. As pilgrims they were also likely to be highly volatile and so when they saw Jesus riding on a donkey it is understandable that they would have been very excited.

Secondly, there was the crowd on Good Friday, in the morning. The pilgrims from Galilee would probably have still been outside the city itself. Like Jesus and the disciples, they would have stayed in nearby villages as there was no room for them in the city. So the Good Friday crowd was probably locals who knew little of Jesus other than that he had come into the city at the head of a rabble and had then caused a rumpus in the Temple. It would have been easy for the Sanhedrin to have manipulated them against Jesus.

The more I read the gospel accounts, the more convinced I am that what we read is highly credible in terms of the time scales. When Jesus entered Jerusalem in the way he did and then "cleansed" the Temple, there is no way that the Sanhedrin could let that go. They had to act - and act whilst Jesus was still around. To have let him escape to Galilee again would have been a sign of weakness.

Having acted and arrested Jesus in the middle of the night, there was then an inevitability about what followed. These things take their own course. They wanted Jesus out of the way as soon as possible, to avoid the chance of an uprising. Pilate was conveniently in the city (he normally stayed on the coast), so normal procedures went out the window. A hurried "trial" before the High Priest and then straight on to Pilate.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
but adding a proviso always that this is what people do not know for certain but believe.

A proviso which probably ought to be added to our understanding of any historical event in the distant past.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Reading latest posts, I see this is probably going to sound like a bit of a tangent - for which apologies!

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can any universe have a 'purpose'?
It has dolphins, so why not?

Yes, certainly, h2g2 said it all! Of course, dolphins and all other creatures are The current ends of their particular lines of evolution, not pre-designed by the universe!! A purpose is a goal to be reached in this sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can any universe have a 'purpose'?
Because there is no exception in physics to causality. [/QB]

Okay, but the results of the cause could have changed because of many unexpected and random events, so I think it is impossible to say there was a purpose.

quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can any universe have a 'purpose'?
Could the same question be asked of your own existence, Susan? Having studied both the humanities and the sciences during my life, I am increasingly dubious about the suggestion that 'purpose' doesn't exist.

I cannot imagine how this could be so. It cannot be an idea floating in space waiting to enter a brain, for instance. Animals like elephants and whales may possibly be able to form a purpose in their minds and communicate it to their group, and providing a random event does not prevent it, they will do as they intend. The same applies to humans, except that we can articulate our plans to try to achieve a purpose.

Unless there is a better explanation, a purpose requires a thinking brain to formulate it, doesn’t it? The universe happened – and still happens – because, as physics has discovered, that was inevitable. The univers could not make a decision to do something entirely different!!

[ 15. April 2017, 16:45: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Having been to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, I think it is pretty unlikely that there were no palm leaves due to the time of year.

I don't know which species of tree in particular is being referred to, but as far as I could see, tree leaves and branches were readily available in the surrounding countryside.

Fwiw, I like the idea that the crowd was of the same people and that they were cheering the arrival of a radical who was going to overthrow the occupier but rapidly got disencharted when he didn't play by the rules. Even if it didn't exactly happen like that, it is a very powerful narrative device.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I was in a Crowd in London recently on the Underground. Some were protesting about Brexit, there was a large number of Chelsea Football Fans and I was trying to hide my Arsenal Football Shirt. One crowd or 3 ? All with a different Agenda. None of them shouting the same thing.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh for fuck's sake. Please tell me this is not the bloody fakumentary that has had various people asking me anxiously whether it's true that Jesus could not have ridden into the Jerusalem at Passover time because the freaking PALM TREES wouldn't have had leaves at that time. (therefore somehow leading to the idea of his six months' imprisonment)

If it IS, rest assured that there are no palm species which are deciduous, and there would be plenty of palm fronds available for use whatever time of the year he chose to enter Jerusalem.

Sheesh. I grew up in California where palms were a menace at times, and the idea of them behaving like respectable, proper maples or oak and decorously dropping their leaves once a year is just .

No, they didn't say this.

I found it an interesting programme, although like all documentaries these days it was horribly drawn out, making you watch interminable scenes of goats and deserts while you wait for the next tiny nugget of information; it was a twenty minute programme stretched out for two hours.

The point about palms was that Jesus's entry into Jerusalem seems to have gatecrashed another event, and the obvious candidate is the Feast of Tabernacles which involves walking to the Temple (or round the synagogue) with greenery such as palm branches and singing hoshana. It seems right to me that the pilgrims were already prepared. If you saw a man on a donkey and then went to the fields to get some branches, he would be long gone.

Tabernacles is an autumn festival, so you get a six month Holy Week.

The programme described the choice of 12 disciples, symbolic of the tribes and, they suggested, widely representative - Zealot, tax farmer, fishermen, etc. - as a government in waiting, suggesting that Jesus intended a serious coup.

They offered evidence that he was tactical in spending time away from large towns and Judaea for fear of arrest, until he suddenly decided to go straight to Jerusalem.

They then built a huge amount on the fact that Jesus was accompanied, perhaps funded, by Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod's steward (taken as a sort of prime minister).

They suggested that Jesus was covertly supported by Herod (this is Antipas) as part of a manoeuvre to promote himself as a political Messiah with Jesus as a spiritual one, during the Roman power vacuum when Tiberius was in Capri and Sejanus was poised to seize control.

This support was why Jesus was not arrested at the cleansing of the Temple, but Sejanus's sudden condemnation pulled the rug from under Herod and Rome recovered its nerve and Jesus was arrested.

They threw in a little nugget about Manaen, a teacher in the church in Antioch, who was something like Herod's foster brother, showing further the close ties between Herod and Jesus.

A massive amount of conjecture on slender evidence, but all the best theories are like this.

It was interesting for its interpretation of the Herod, Baptist, Jesus triangle, for the elongated Jerusalem period, and for the idea that Jesus and the 12 had serious ambitions and that Herod would have wanted to get close, may have had an inside figure in Joanna, and that deals and talks were plausible.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Reading the interpretations, criticisms, and sleuthing on a thread like this, it is easy to come to the conclusion that Christians do not know how to tell stories. And have never truly paid attention to those who do.

Time and details are loose. Even when telling true, eyewitness events, not every bit will be accurate. Not human nature and not the point.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

And Pilate said to his Soldiers 'We will have to let Barrabus go then. But the Emperor will not like it. But make sure you follow him round the corner, and when the crowd is not watching, arrest him again. Make sure he resists arrest so that you have the excuse to dispatch him. And it was done as Pilate requested.

Are there any other verses that didn't make it into the finished version of the Gospels ?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless
They then built a huge amount on the fact that Jesus was accompanied, perhaps funded, by Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod's steward (taken as a sort of prime minister).

There is Biblical support for this. Here is the beginning of Luke 8:

quote:
Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.

Of course, Joanna was not the only one who followed and supported him.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

I found it an interesting programme, although like all documentaries these days it was horribly drawn out, making you watch interminable scenes of goats and deserts while you wait for the next tiny nugget of information; it was a twenty minute programme stretched out for two hours.

Yes, I loathe this format also.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The point about palms was that Jesus's entry into Jerusalem seems to have gatecrashed another event, and the obvious candidate is the Feast of Tabernacles which involves walking to the Temple (or round the synagogue) with greenery such as palm branches and singing hoshana. It seems right to me that the pilgrims were already prepared. If you saw a man on a donkey and then went to the fields to get some branches, he would be long gone.

If you look at the four texts for Palm Sunday, it's clear that Jesus' ride started on or before the Mt. of Olives, and certainly continued on it en route to the gates of Jerusalem. In other words, they were out in "the fields" the whole time. There would be no trouble at all in grabbing branches from the roadside. So the whole business of dragging in Tabernacles is unnecessary. Passover is certainly sufficient to make up the other phenomena such as large crowds, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

The programme described the choice of 12 disciples, symbolic of the tribes and, they suggested, widely representative - Zealot, tax farmer, fishermen, etc. - as a government in waiting, suggesting that Jesus intended a serious coup.

The 12 were virtually all from Galilee (bar Judas, apparently from Kerioth in Judea) and far more than was fair were fishermen. I mean, four out of twelve? As for a government in waiting, [Killing me]

(which is not aimed at you, by the way, but at the program makers) The only less sensible attempt at a government I have ever seen is Trump's. Look at their behavior!

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
They offered evidence that he was tactical in spending time away from large towns and Judaea for fear of arrest, until he suddenly decided to go straight to Jerusalem.

Well, this is non-arguable, and as far as I know, non-argued. Everybody AFAIK admits that Jesus avoided Jerusalem at the very end for just that reason until his hour was come; then "he set his face to go toward Jerusalem," and indeed, the disciples were rather pressed to keep up.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
They then built a huge amount on the fact that Jesus was accompanied, perhaps funded, by Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod's steward (taken as a sort of prime minister).

As Moo pointed out, it is well known that several prominent women funded Jesus' ministry, Joanna among them. That does not necessarily implicate Chuza himself, and in any case, a steward is a household manager. However grand the household might have been, Chuza was not at all in charge of state matters, any more than the person in charge of catering, cleaning, repairs, etc. at the White House is in charge of such matters. It is a support role.

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
They suggested that Jesus was covertly supported by Herod (this is Antipas) as part of a manoeuvre to promote himself as a political Messiah with Jesus as a spiritual one, during the Roman power vacuum when Tiberius was in Capri and Sejanus was poised to seize control.

This support was why Jesus was not arrested at the cleansing of the Temple, but Sejanus's sudden condemnation pulled the rug from under Herod and Rome recovered its nerve and Jesus was arrested.

They threw in a little nugget about Manaen, a teacher in the church in Antioch, who was something like Herod's foster brother, showing further the close ties between Herod and Jesus.

A massive amount of conjecture on slender evidence, but all the best theories are like this.

Sigh. Well, best if you want something like mental chewing-gum--no nutritional value, but it keeps the jaws flapping.

Look, there isn't a chance in hell that Herod would have trusted a woman to do political wheeling and dealing for him, much less the wife of his steward. I suspect Joanna got away with her travels with Jesus precisely because women (and in particular, wives of servants, however valued) are Just.Not.Worth.Noticing.

As for the Sejanus theory, which sounds very involved--

a. I thought Sejanus had already fallen by that point? Not long before, perhaps, but still, it was a done deal. Which might indeed explain some of Pilate's nervousness, as his ties with the former favorite meant he was no longer dealing from a position of power.

b. The theory as described (temple incident, fall of Sejanus, news arrives in Jerusalem, arrest of Jesus) appears to presuppose the kind of very quick communications we have today. Unless we're going for a major coincidence. Can you even run such a theory with communication taking weeks at best?

As for Manaen, all we know is that he was "brought up" with Herod, which phrase is commonly used for children of palace servants who are raised and sometimes educated with royal heirs. The purpose seems to be to provide the young prince with playmates and in some cases competition as a spur to study. Such children may benefit from the connection later in life, or may find themselves totally out in the cold, depending on political events and the fortunes of their own parents. As you say, an extremely slender connection to build a theory on.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The arguments and counter arguments made over this documentary are very interesting although, as has been said, nothing really matters much, well not to me personally other than finding it quite intriguing.

No one is suggesting that the Church should change it's format or annual pattern of celebration over new ideas and theories as to how the Christian faith was born.

Many aspects of this new account were plausible. Maybe it is time to move into the modern age now that the peasant class and feudal systems are largely a thing of the past.
For Centuries Jesus has been portrayed as the lowly peasant. A useful device for a powerful Christian institution trying to keep the poor happy with their lot. Fortunately that time is long gone, it could be now that an educated entrepreneur Jesus can better connect with modern day people and their modern day problems.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I'm not sure I've ever heard of Jesus being a peasant, but a tradesman.

M.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It's also difficult to map modern societal status onto the ancient world. For one thing, there was an entire layer of people below the classes we know: slaves. The slaves were really at the bottom of the heap in the Roman Empire, expendable bots to be worked out and then discarded.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's also difficult to map modern societal status onto the ancient world. For one thing, there was an entire layer of people below the classes we know: slaves. The slaves were really at the bottom of the heap in the Roman Empire, expendable bots to be worked out and then discarded.

For the most part. There is evidence of some freed slaves getting quite wealthy. The House of the Vettii in Pompeii is believed to have been owned by freed slaves. It is famous for a painting of Priapus weighing part of his anatomy. Judging by tombstones they weren't the only ones.
But yes, mostly slaves were pretty badly off. More so if their masters set them free once they'd reached retirement age and couldn't work or earn a living.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

A quick glance through the historical record shows you that slaves were -vastly- in worse shape that almost everybody now alive today (except possibly for people who are still enslaved, like those boat people in Libya). If you were a Roman citizen, you could not only own slaves. You could have sex with them, at will. You could lend them to friends and relatives or lease them to brothels (and keep their fees). You could not only beat and abuse them while working them to death, but murder them outright. You could sell the hair off their heads to wigmakers, and (when they had babies) sell their children off as slaves.
We have progressed. A little.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I guess the one thing most can agree has been airbrushed out of Scripture is just how dispicable, cruel and sordid the oft since revered Romans actually were. The coded text of Revelation is the nearest anyone at that time could get to calling out Roman culture as evil.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Probably it's not quite fair to say 'airbrushed.' Because that was just how life was. Nobody had known anything other than Roman culture and its undergirdment with slave labor. Recall that Paul doesn't suggest that slaves deserve better, or that they should rise up and seize their status as real human beings. He abjures them to obey their masters. There was no other way to be.
We, a couple of millennia later, can hardly climb back into that mindset.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I guess the one thing most can agree has been airbrushed out of Scripture is just how dispicable, cruel and sordid the oft since revered Romans actually were. The coded text of Revelation is the nearest anyone at that time could get to calling out Roman culture as evil.

The Romans get good press because people confuse them with the ancient Greeks, particularly the Athenians, so they get the reputation of being enlightened and progressive.

Come to think of it, Athens wasn't really that progressive, either. [Big Grin]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm not sure I've ever heard of Jesus being a peasant, but a tradesman.

M.

I've read, or had it pointed out to me,that carpenter in this context was almost certainly someone who had lost or had taken away the last of what remained of the family's land (debt, unscrupulous tax-collectors) and who survived by doing small carpentry jobs for neighbours as well as day labouring work.

GG

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I've never heard that before. Is that just a view as to what 'carpenter' implied? Or anything more specific? I need to up my reading.

M.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I ran into this yesterday too, by somebody to whom "artisan" meant simply "peasant pushed off his land and forced into even lower status work making stuff." That doesn't sound right to me. Presumably there have always been fifth sons, etc. who grew up expecting to make their way doing something other than farming land that would go to their elder brothers. There would also be those who just didn't want to be farmers or who were physically or temperamentally unfitted to it. A skilled and prudent craftsman can make pretty good money if he(she) manages his time and supplies well, takes orders ahead, and so forth. There's more flexibility than in farming where the bulk of the work is constrained by natural limits. All in all, I'd expect craftsmen like carpenters to be on basically the same level as the farmer families they originally came from, though most likely they'd be living in villages or towns.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And even a society of farmers needs stuff. Houses, roofs, plows. Tables, benches, cups, plates. In every preindustrial culture the mainstay of life (farming or fishing or whatever) is supported by many craftworkers or artisans or handypersons.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I ran into this yesterday too, by somebody to whom "artisan" meant simply "peasant pushed off his land and forced into even lower status work making stuff." That doesn't sound right to me. Presumably there have always been fifth sons, etc. who grew up expecting to make their way doing something other than farming land that would go to their elder brothers. There would also be those who just didn't want to be farmers or who were physically or temperamentally unfitted to it. A skilled and prudent craftsman can make pretty good money if he(she) manages his time and supplies well, takes orders ahead, and so forth. There's more flexibility than in farming where the bulk of the work is constrained by natural limits. All in all, I'd expect craftsmen like carpenters to be on basically the same level as the farmer families they originally came from, though most likely they'd be living in villages or towns.

I would think you're right. However, in times of economic stress, it would be those without land who were most vulnerable. Too many of them competing for too few jobs and there would be destitution. I believe peasant, i.e. land owning families would do their best to keep the farm in one parcel and not split it up. The prodigal son story comes to mind.

Some scholars have suggested that the time of Jesus with both Herod and the Romans taxing heavily would have seen an increase in former peasants reduced to selling their labour.

It's a bit of a mystery to me why Jesus is described as a carpenter, because the word tekton seems to mean builder.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Finally put my finger on what was bothering me about it. Getting kicked off one's land does not automatically endow one with the skill to create tables, build houses, etc. which is what a craftsman does. Anyone kicked off the land who did not make very full and fine preparation for it would most likely end as a day laborer, which is indeed a step down. But being a craftsman is not.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am half way through.

Melodramatic music foreboding…nothing we didn’t know already.

Same old, hackneyed ‘scholars’ who are television whores trying to out-sensationalise one another rather than to contribute to serious, academic study.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Tabernacles is an autumn festival, so you get a six month Holy Week.

Not necessarily - for the 4th gospel, it was the Raising of lazarus which started off the plotting to get rid of Jesus.

And the closely-linked cleansing of the temple takes place 3 years earlier - but that doesn't imply a 3 year holy week.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0