We Have Two Swords

[Diogenes]

We have to remember that the narratives we have are looking at the figure[s] of Jesus and his society through the lens of Hellenism. However, insofar as the evidence permits some of his behaviours and teachings would not have been out of place based on what we know of the framework of his society in the late first century BCE and early first century CE, particularly with regard to charismatic Judaism. Various men of God were believed to be capable of working miracles and controlling the forces of evil and darkness, [i.e. the devil and sickness] and two things invariably interlinked. Jesus' teachings on repentance, trusting in God, the permanence of the Torah, as well as both the working towards, and expectation of, the kingdom of God would therefore have been recognised in a society that held eschatological hopes.

None of that details how you distinguish authentic glimpses from inauthentic glimpse.

Not in the generally accepted understanding. His was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, although the Jews would "take to the barricades" a few decades later. There was also a perception within the ancient world that revolution led to chaos.

So, Jesus constantly speaking of the kingdom of heaven/God or telling his disciples to buy swords were not attempts to rouse support for overthrowing the Roman occupation as you seem to wish have us believe? When did I say anything about a dictatorship of the proletariat? So you're attributing later rebellions to Jesus?

[tabibito]

Please put the hobbyhorse back into the toy cupboard.

It is a glaringly obvious fact. That it passes unrecognised by Western academic theologians is lamentable.

My emphasis. You need to make up your mind. You wrote here:

It is passing strange then, that Matthew and Mark should agree with Paul.

Hardly a contradiction. They have the same attitudes: they do not draw on the writings of each other. The Synoptic gospel's authors do draw on each other's work, or on the same sources.

Hardly surprising given that if we accept the Christian tradition, he was dead before any of them put ink to papyrus!

The same people who tell us that tell us other really strange things, like, Jesus' family seized him and said he had a demon before they arrived at the venue.

Historians do not deal with ideas about prophecies except when considering the contemporary beliefs held by the authors of those texts that are under consideration.

There are historians who tell us that the 13th century kamikaze could not have been typhoons because it was the wrong season for typhoons.

Who has "pointed" this out and on what evidence?

It has been mentioned on this forum previously.

Are you comparing the Romans to the Babylonians?

How could you think I was doing that? The two sieges followed roughly the same pattern. The temple was destroyed in much the same way. Jesus did not speak of the fall of the second temple with enough detail to show the differences between the two events.

Have you read Josephus' account of the siege of Jerusalem?

It is Jesus' description that is relevant to what Jesus said - there wasn't a whole lot of difference between what he described and Babylon's siege of Jerusalem a few centuries earlier. Josephus records the siege of Jerusalem.

Antipas was not a "king" he was tetrarch of Galilee. Only Rome, as the contemporary power-broker, could confer the tiles of kings, although Antipas had, within his own territories, all the powers of any monarch.

Antipas was not a “king” he was tetrarch of Galilee. Only Rome as the contemporary power-broker could confer the titles of Kings, Although Antipas had all the powers within his own territories of any monarch.

Antipas was not legally a "king". See above

Antipas was indeed a "king" even though he wasn't a king. The technicality of whether a ruler of the region was a king or a co-regent or some other technically correct title is not relevant to the practical conditions.

Understandably. They knew which side their idiomatic slice of bread was buttered. It was their role to maintain the status quo and for that end they worked in collaboration with the Roman authorities [i.e. the Prefect of Judaea].

Why they did it does not change the fact that they did it.

Why?

The nation was held to account for the sins of the king.

I do not understand what point you are trying to make; although if a prophet was unnecessary why are you so exercised about Jesus' alleged prophecies and what relevance dAo they have in this context?

Do you consider weather forecasts to be prophecy? The relevance is to the claims that Jesus could not have prophesied, ergo the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem. What the record says about Jesus' comment has none of the earmarks of prophecy. The authors don't make a fuss about a fulfilled prophecy - they don't even bill the comment as prophecy - not the author of Hebrews, nor the authors of the gospels.

It seems you are already in denial.

I won't deny what I have done.

Like others you have an unfortunate tendency to caricature what I have written. The ancient world was suffused with various belief systems, cults, and superstitions. By detailed examination of these, parallels may be drawn,.

A contagious technique that regrettably has been transmitted from you.
The examination of parallels is reasonable, but it is the differences that tell a more complete story. An examination of the practices of one culture can't be undertaken by examining the practices of the neighbouring culture, and typifying the early Christian culture as Hellenistic is way off the mark. Looking at Christianity through a Hellenistic lens won't tell you anything about its connections to Judaism.

Please define what you understand by the phrase "devout Yahwist".

A person who worships YHWH devoutly. The meaning should have been obvious, it's a common enough term.

You have lost me again. What do you mean?
and what they "believed" and what was actually "true" were not necessarily one and the same thing.

People act on what they believe, whether the belief is right or wrong. A prophet whom the "king" acknowledged to be a prophet was executed on the "king's" order. To Joe Bloggs, who believes that God will retaliate, the fall of the temple would be inevitable. That is readily apparent in Josephus' account of the fall of Jerusalem, which he attributes to the murder of James the Just. (I think it was James, anyway.) The death of John the Baptist would have produced the same expectation.

So do yours.

That you don't reject the documented evidence as evidence speaks to your acting on your beliefs.

Coming from someone who admits to a belief in prophecies and miracles that is rather amusing.

It is no source of amusement to anyone who suffers the consequences of being shown to be right.
.

[rogue06]

You have a tendency to suddenly make comments that reference what has been written by your chum.

Again, you don't realize it wasn't me that he sought to help.

As he made clear, I'm doing fine. It's the one who is flailing that he was offering advice to.

[rogue06]

Incorrect.

You wrote:

point-and-laugh.gif

Gracious.

You deny that you asked for highly specific answers while providing a quote where you demanded which "specific Greek texts that these monks copied" (emphasis in original).

H_A, petard. Petard, H_A. Let the hoisting commence.

You've made it clear that you aren't interested in what Cahill wrote, but rather are only interested in haranguing me for details I cannot possibly provide more than 20 years after reading the book. Which is a shame. The book is a delightful read in that Cahill is a superb story teller (which explains why a book on such an esoteric topic written by a previously unknown author was such a smash best seller).

[rogue06]

Do you consider weather forecasts to be prophecy? The relevance is to the claims that Jesus could not have prophesied, ergo the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem. What the record says about Jesus' comment has none of the earmarks of prophecy. The authors don't make a fuss about a fulfilled prophecy - they don't even bill the comment as prophecy - not the author of Hebrews, nor the authors of the gospels.

That they weren't treating it as prophesy or boasting how it was a prophecy fulfilled is yet another strong indication that it was recorded before Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D.

[tabibito]

That they weren't treating it as prophesy or boasting how it was a prophecy fulfilled is yet another strong indication that it was recorded before Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D.

Added to which is the incident with the pigs. All four gospels, with varying frequencies, have texts showing the territory of Gadara or of Gerasa as the site. The most likely trigger for the records to show a change of venue occurred during the 40s. It is however, a particularly tenuous connection.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

None of that details how you distinguish authentic glimpses from inauthentic glimpse.

The comments made by Jesus in the gospels have to be considered in the light of the situation prevailing in the region at the time and its recent history, all of which he would have been entirely aware; and that history had often been brutal and oppressive. We see repeated references to the conflict between the rulers and the ruled and the rich and the poor, with the poor being lauded over the rich. Even the so-called Lord's Prayer has a reference to the need for food in its opening lines.

However, in those same gospel accounts there are distinct contradictions. For example, why did Jesus declare that the good news was to be proclaimed solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and then at a later point wish it to be taken to all the nations of the earth? Why did he announce that that the kingdom was imminent and due in his lifetime and then at a later point maintain that it would be postponed until some unknown point in the future?

The only rational explanation is that he changed his mind. However, nothing in the Synoptics suggests that his convictions ever altered on the essential points. Furthermore, and given what we are told about the duration of his ministry it seems extremely unlikely that such an about turn could have been effected in such a short time; unless of course, the three Synoptic writers all condensed the duration of that ministry

So, Jesus constantly speaking of the kingdom of heaven/God or telling his disciples to buy swords were not attempts to rouse support for overthrowing the Roman occupation as you seem to wish have us believe? When did I say anything about a dictatorship of the proletariat?

The remark was intentionally facetious and was prompted by the rest of your post which I cannot believe was written with any serious intent.

However, while Jesus' comments on the kingdom of God may be located within Jewish apocalypticism it does not necessarily follow that he perceived the kingdom resulting from some cosmic catastrophe. His concerns may have been to perceive it as an expectation and hope for a divinely effected revolution against the prevailing corrupt and unjust imperial power, and the establishment of a just society under the rule of God. His teachings on the kingdom and justice clearly appealed to, and engaged, many of those village communities and might also be viewed as a form of speaking truth to power. There is, after all, a tradition with Judaism of prophetic pronouncements and the symbolic acting out of God's condemnation towards exploitative rulers and rulings institutions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is a glaringly obvious fact.

Only to you.

That it passes unrecognised by Western academic theologians is lamentable.

Only to you.

Hardly a contradiction. They have the same attitudes: they do not draw on the writings of each other.

And you know this to be a fact, precisely how?

The same people who tell us that tell us other really strange things, like, Jesus' family seized him and said he had a demon before they arrived at the venue.

In first century Judaism demonic possession was regularly attributed as the cause of what we now know to be mental illnesses

There are historians who tell us that the 13th century kamikaze could not have been typhoons because it was the wrong season for typhoons.

Some citations would be useful.

It has been mentioned on this forum previously.

By whom and what precise evidence did they present?

How could you think I was doing that?

To what else were you referring?

The two sieges followed roughly the same pattern.

No they do not. The Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem after the king they had appointed did as he predecessor had done and again reneged on treaty obligations. Judaea in 66 CE was rebellious province

The temple was destroyed in much the same way.

Only insofar as it burned down. And in 70 CE that appears to have been an accident. Titus wanted the building preserved.

Jesus did not speak of the fall of the second temple with enough detail to show the differences between the two events. It is Jesus' description that is relevant to what Jesus said - there wasn't a whole lot of difference between what he described and Babylon's siege of Jerusalem a few centuries earlier.

Are you suggesting that Jesus "prophesied" an event that took place some five hundred years or more previously? Anyone can do that!

Josephus records the siege of Jerusalem.

And the length of time involved.

Antipas was indeed a "king" even though he wasn't a king. The technicality of whether a ruler of the region was a king or a co-regent or some other technically correct title is not relevant to the practical conditions.

Antipas was a client ruler and only had jurisdiction within his own territories. Should he wish to engage in activities beyond those territories required the approval of Rome.

Why they did it does not change the fact that they did it.

Ruling elites will protect their interests.

The nation was held to account for the sins of the king.

What king? Is this some cryptic reference to Antipas and John the Baptist?

Do you consider weather forecasts to be prophecy?

Why? Do you?

The relevance is to the claims that Jesus could not have prophesied,

According to my understanding of your previous comment he appears to have been prophesying an event from the distant past.

ergo the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem.

Of course one could surmise that for the gospel writers to prove that what Jesus prophesied concerning the Temple had come to pass they would need to have been written after the event he prophesied in order to prove he prophesied it!

However, the comment in Mark is decidedly vague, although the warning of being "led astray" may be an echo of Paul's concerns about "false teachers". Matthew's comment on the "king" sending troops to "destroy the murderers" could possibly be a reference to the Roman forces and the murders of the Antonia garrison as well as Ananias and Hezekiah. Certainly Luke's account accurately described what happened after the siege was over. Apart from those passages there also remains the fact that Paul appears to have no knowledge of any writte accounts concerning Jesus' life.

A contagious technique that regrettably has been transmitted from you.

It seems you are without sin!

The examination of parallels is reasonable, but it is the differences that tell a more complete story.

In what specific instances and examples?

An examination of the practices of one culture can't be undertaken by examining the practices of the neighbouring culture,

Again in what specific examples? Do you imagine the Israelites had nothing culturally in common with the Canaanites? Or that the French and Italians do not share cultural similarities?

and typifying the early Christian culture as Hellenistic is way off the mark.

How early? The men who knew Jesus of Nazareth were, like him, Galileans. Paul was from the Greek speaking world [and so the author of Luke tells us came from Tarsus] that is a considerable distance from Galilee.

Looking at Christianity through a Hellenistic lens won't tell you anything about its connections to Judaism.

From Paul onwards Christianity is Hellenistic. He takes his gospel to the gentiles who have had no cognizance of Palestinian Judaism. The word Christ [which he is the first to employ] is the Greek for the Hebrew messiah and gives the religion its name. However, it is clear from Paul's authentic letters that he did not consider that his theological construct of Christ bore any comparison to a mere man or a possible Jewish messianic figure.

A person who worships YHWH devoutly.

Are you including Samaritans? Judaeans and indeed Jesus might have taken issue with you over that.

The meaning should have been obvious, it's a common enough term.

Only as one of the recognised scribal sources for the Pentateuch.

People act on what they believe, whether the belief is right or wrong.

Not always.

A prophet whom the "king" acknowledged to be a prophet was executed on the "king's" order. To Joe Bloggs, who believes that God will retaliate, the fall of the temple would be inevitable.

To who are you referring? Or are you suggesting that the execution of John the Baptist at the order of Antipas was seen by the ordinary Galilean in the street as a portent for the destruction of the Temple?

That is readily apparent in Josephus' account of the fall of Jerusalem, which he attributes to the murder of James the Just. (I think it was James, anyway.) The death of John the Baptist would have produced the same expectation.To Joe Bloggs, who believes that God will retaliate, the fall of the temple would be inevitable. That is readily apparent in Josephus' account of the fall of Jerusalem, which he attributes to the murder of James the Just. (I think it was James, anyway.) The death of John the Baptist would have produced the same expectation.

You would do better to actually read Josephus rather than make completely erroneous remarks from the top of your head. The events that led to the First Jewish War had nothing to do with the deaths of either James or John the Baptist.

That you don't reject the documented evidence as evidence

Pardon?

It is no source of amusement to anyone who suffers the consequences of being shown to be right.
.

Your monstrous conceit is duly noted.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You deny that you asked for highly specific answers while providing a quote where you demanded which "specific Greek texts that these monks copied" (emphasis in original).

That you referred to these Irish monks copying them I assumed you had some titles.

However, all you offered was Cahill's text which deals solely with the West and texts. So we must assume that all those temples, shrines, artefacts, statues [not to mention texts] were destroyed by happenstance.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Added to which is the incident with the pigs. All four gospels, with varying frequencies, have texts showing the territory of Gadara or of Gerasa as the site. The most likely trigger for the records to show a change of venue occurred during the 40s. It is however, a particularly tenuous connection.

Where does John's gospel mention the Gadarene swine?

[Diogenes]

The comments made by Jesus in the gospels have to be considered in the light of the situation prevailing in the region at the time and its recent history, all of which he would have been entirely aware; and that history had often been brutal and oppressive. We see repeated references to the conflict between the rulers and the ruled and the rich and the poor, with the poor being lauded over the rich. Even the so-called Lord's Prayer has a reference to the need for food in its opening lines.

However, in those same gospel accounts there are distinct contradictions. For example, why did Jesus declare that the good news was to be proclaimed solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and then at a later point wish it to be taken to all the nations of the earth? Why did he announce that that the kingdom was imminent and due in his lifetime and then at a later point maintain that it would be postponed until some unknown point in the future?

The only rational explanation is that he changed his mind. However, nothing in the Synoptics suggests that his convictions ever altered on the essential points. Furthermore, and given what we are told about the duration of his ministry it seems extremely unlikely that such an about turn could have been effected in such a short time; unless of course, the three Synoptic writers all condensed the duration of that ministry

So I take it you don't have a source the rightly differentiates authentic glimpses of Jesus from inaccurate ones.

The remark was intentionally facetious and was prompted by the rest of your post which I cannot believe was written with any serious intent.

You are the one who seemingly wants me to be of the belief that Jesus' (accurate or inaccurate who knows) references to the kingdom of heaven were in fact referring to a temporal kingdom that would have entailed the overthrowing of the Roman occupation. I see no reason hold such a belief.

[tabibito]

Where does John's gospel mention the Gadarene swine?

You are correct. It is the three Synoptic gospels that have the record. There was some obvious redaction of the location.

[tabibito]

]And you know this to be a fact, precisely how?

While there is general agreement expressed with Paul's concepts in the gospels, there is a complete lack of evidence that the gospel writers drew on Paul's writings for information

In first century Judaism demonic possession was regularly attributed as the cause of what we now know to be mental illnesses

In general terms, I would agree.

No they do not. The Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem after the king they had appointed did as he predecessor had done and again reneged on treaty obligations. Judaea in 66 CE was rebellious province

So - on both occasions, Israel rebelled. General terms. The base causes were not referred to in my comments - which were directed at a siege and sacking, which in general terms wasn't much different. The depiction by Jesus was not detailed enough to identify differences.

Only insofar as it burned down. And in 70 CE that appears to have been an accident. Titus wanted the building preserved.

The Roman troops, known for their discipline, completely ignored that order. A strange occurrence indeed.

Are you suggesting that Jesus "prophesied" an event that took place some five hundred years or more previously? Anyone can do that!

Jesus may easily have extrapolated from past events to produce a forecast of future events.

Antipas was a client ruler and only had jurisdiction within his own territories. Should he wish to engage in activities beyond those territories required the approval of Rome.

Imagine that - a king who has no jurisdiction outside the territories under his control.

According to my understanding of your pquote]revious comment he appears to have been prophesying an event from the distant past.

I am saying that Jesus' prediction could easily have been nothing more than a forecast, based on events that he knew about with the expectation that history might repeat itself.

Of course one could surmise that for the gospel writers to prove that what Jesus prophesied concerning the Temple had come to pass they would need to have been written after the event he prophesied in order to prove he prophesied it!

A prophecy spoken is not significant - it becomes significant when the event comes to pass or is averted. If the forecast/prophecy had been fulfilled at the time of writing, nothing would have prevented the authors from saying as much. You don't want to consider the possibility of predicting future events on the basis of extrapolation from past events, according to the expectations of the person doing it.
That's understandable.

However, the comment in Mark is decidedly vague, although the warning of being "led astray" may be an echo of Paul's concerns about "false teachers". Matthew's comment on the "king" sending troops to "destroy the murderers" could possibly be a reference to the Roman forces and the murders of the Antonia garrison as well as Ananias and Hezekiah. Certainly Luke's account accurately described what happened after the siege was over. Apart from those passages there also remains the fact that Paul appears to have no knowledge of any written accounts concerning Jesus' life.

How quaint - you acknowledge Paul's lack of familiarity with the gospels, but you don't acknowledge the gospels' authors lack of familiarity with Paul, and invent "possibilities" into the bargain.

Again in what specific examples? Do you imagine the Israelites had nothing culturally in common with the Canaanites? Or that the French and Italians do not share cultural similarities?

There would have been some similarities - the differences are more significant. The process you recommend would have it that the Canaanites ate pork, therefore the Jews ate pork, or that the less than devout Judahites did not eat pork, therefore the less than devout Samaritan Jews did not eat pork.

How early? The men who knew Jesus of Nazareth were, like him, Galileans. Paul was from the Greek speaking world [and so the author of Luke tells us came from Tarsus] that is a considerable distance from Galilee.

The Greek speaking world was right next door to Galilee, with a significant number of Jews living in the cities. Nazareth was less than an hour's walk from a Greek speaking city.

Are you including Samaritans? Judaeans and indeed Jesus might have taken issue with you over that.

Samaritans? They consider themselves Yahwists, they consider the Pentateuch the word of God, they follow the Old Law. Why would I not include them as Yahwists; And Beta Israel along with them.

To who are you referring? Or are you suggesting that the execution of John the Baptist at the order of Antipas was seen by the ordinary Galilean in the street as a portent for the destruction of the Temple?

If they thought of John as a prophet, his execution would have been seen as inviting repercussions: Jesus would have been far more likely to consider it as inviting repercussions, and a more specific process.

You would do better to actually read Josephus rather than make completely erroneous remarks from the top of your head.

What? (having checked) Attributing the primary cause of Jerusalem's fall to the death of James was in a citation by Origen of a work by Josephus that is not extant. Hegesippus made a similar claim, stating that it was an opinion generally held by Jews immediately after the fall of Jerusalem.

The events that led to the First Jewish War had nothing to do with the deaths of either James or John the Baptist.

That has no relationship with what people thought of as the primary cause; which gets back to what you are pleased to call the superstitious beliefs of the time.

[rogue06]

That you referred to these Irish monks copying them I assumed you had some titles.

The same logic would produce the assumption that we can produce all of the names of the soldiers killed in a famous ancient battle.

However, all you offered was Cahill's text which deals solely with the West and texts. So we must assume that all those temples, shrines, artefacts, statues [not to mention texts] were destroyed by happenstance.

Goodness gracious! Look at those goalposts fly! Clear across the field, out of the stadium and all the way to another city.

goalpost.gif

So is it now safe to presume that you finally abandoned the idea where Christians busy were destroying old books when the evidence shows that they are the ones responsible for preserving what survived? And with that you've moved the goalposts to shrines and temples. smiley snicker.gif

Funny thing about things like that. Even building that people would have worked to preserve still get lost.

• Researchers Unearth a Nearly 900-Year-Old Church in England in Buckinghamshire, England
• Lost Medieval Church Discovered Beneath Parking Lot in Leicestershire, England
• Lost Medieval Church Discovered in York in York, England
• Medieval Church Discovered in Bulgaria that's the 16th one recently found in the country
• Medieval church built for Otto the Great found in Germany one for the home team
• “Once-in-a-generation discovery”: Early Medieval Monastery found in England Anglo-Saxon, in Berkshire, England
• Medieval Monastery Uncovered in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Medieval Site May Mark Lost Monastery in Aberdeenshire, Scotland
• 'Long-lost' medieval monastery in Gloucester rediscovered
• ETC...

A couple of years ago the remains of the original Capitol building in Maine was discovered by some guy with a metal detector

earlystehse1 (1).jpg

So while Christians did build over some shrines and temples, many of them were also simply lost to time in the same way that major churches and the like were also lost.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So I take it you don't have a source the rightly differentiates authentic glimpses of Jesus from inaccurate ones.

Alas he did not have a film crew following him and recording everything he said.

You are the one who seemingly wants me to be of the belief that Jesus' (accurate or inaccurate who knows) references to the kingdom of heaven were in fact referring to a temporal kingdom that would have entailed the overthrowing of the Roman occupation. I see no reason hold such a belief.

I am putting the historical figure into his known contemporary context. Nor was the belief in the kingdom of God unique to Jesus of Nazareth this was a wide-spread contemporary hope.

Put aside all the later theological ideas and consider what the kingdom of God meant to contemporary Jews in the early first century CE and then ask yourself which is more likely.

1. A temporal society of justice that was under the law of God?
2. Or some airy-fairy place floating around in the clouds?