How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[tabibito]

We cannot speculate on what the author might have intended, or what he really meant.

But you speculate that the author was referring to Roman soldiers when he explicitly states that the group arresting Jesus was "of the Jews." Further to that you state that the Temple had no military forces. The temple had a guard though, and it is not uncommon for a civil "police" force to use military terms of rank for its personnel. It is also a common practice to convert various words and terms to equivalents that the audience understands. Taking such things into account is known as assessing the text from the author's perspective.

We have to accept the text as it has come down to us.

Nope - we don't have do any such thing. It is merely the proper approach.

[Diogenes]

We cannot speculate on what the author might have intended, or what he really meant.

We have to accept the text as it has come down to us.

So can we speculate on what Plutarch might have meant? What about speculating what you might mean?

[rogue06]

John 18:12 So the cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him ...

Perhaps a little attention to detail is in order - {the cohort, commander, and officers} of the Jews. Precious little there to make a Roman contingent likely.

From LSJ
= θίασος , religious college or guild , gen. σπείρης IG 14.925 (Portus Trajani); dat. σπείρῃ ib.977 ( Rome ), Inscr.Perg. 319,320; nom. σπεῖρα AEM 14.28 ( Roumania ); Lat. spira , CIL 6.261 ( Rome ), al. (cf. σπειράρχης ).

So, the term speira could be used interchangably with thiasos.

Traditionally speaking hasn't it always been presumed to have been a detachment from the Temple guard who made the actual arrest. If they had been Roman, it's likely that Jesus would never have had time to chide Peter for striking off the ear of one of them with a sword in that they would have been instantly been cut down in reflexive response.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But you speculate that the author was referring to Roman soldiers

The word used is σπεῖραν. The same word used by Mark [chapter 15 verse 16] and Matthew [chapter 27 verse 27]. Or are you now going to suggest that those authors might likewise have intended another meaning?

when he explicitly states that the group arresting Jesus was "of the Jews."

The Greek in that specific verse does not include the phrase τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

Further to that you state that the Temple had no military forces. The temple had a guard though,

It was not a military force. The military was next door in the Antonia. And that verse also includes the word ὑπηρέτας.

and it is not uncommon for a civil "police" force to use military terms of rank for its personnel.

Once again you are retrojecting contemporary situations back to an entirely different society some two thousand years ago.

It is also a common practice to convert various words and terms to equivalents that the audience understands.

Are you seriously suggesting that a Greek speaking audience in the first century CE would not have understood the term σπεῖραν in that context?

Taking such things into account is known as assessing the text from the author's perspective.

This specific text is not a theological comment. It is a narrative detail and it is quite clear.

Nope - we don't have do any such thing. It is merely the proper approach.

Well your first sentence would lead to everyone interpreting the text to mean exactly what they want it to mean. However, your second sentence corroborates my remark.

[tabibito]

Traditionally speaking hasn't it always been presumed to have been a detachment from the Temple guard who made the actual arrest. If they had been Roman, it's likely that Jesus would never have had time to chide Peter for striking off the ear of one of them with a sword in that they would have been instantly been cut down in reflexive response.

^TM

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Traditionally speaking hasn't it always been presumed to have been a detachment from the Temple guard who made the actual arrest.

Only in Mark and Matthew. Luke just has a crowd.

So much for eye witness accounts!

[tabibito]

Only in Mark and Matthew. Luke just has a crowd.

So much for eye witness accounts!

But, as has been pointed out repeatedly - Mark is not an eye-witness and, possibly, neither was Matthew (a 50/50 proposition).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But, as has been pointed out repeatedly - Mark is not an eye-witness and, possibly, neither was Matthew (a 50/50 proposition).

And as has also been pointed out repeatedly none of these writers were eye witnesses to the events they purport to recount.

[tabibito]

And as has also been pointed out repeatedly none of these writers were eye witnesses to the events they purport to recount.

? Either that is mere speculation or you have access to information unavailable to anyone else.
Luke says himself that he was not an eyewitness but, by your accounts, his testimony is worthless.
Enough testimony is available from the early church to make it almost certain that Mark was not an eye-witness.
And Matthew seems to have been written around the same time as Luke, which would not eliminate the possibility that he was an eye-witness.

[rogue06]

? Either that is mere speculation or you have access to information unavailable to anyone else.
Luke says himself that he was not an eyewitness but, by your accounts, his testimony is worthless.
Enough testimony is available from the early church to make it almost certain that Mark was not an eye-witness.
And Matthew seems to have been written around the same time as Luke, which would not eliminate the possibility that he was an eye-witness.

In H_A's world only autobiographies can be trusted. Biographies written by others are utterly worthless. Well, only when it comes to Christianity that is.

[rogue06]

Only in Mark and Matthew. Luke just has a crowd.

So much for eye witness accounts!

A "crowd" doesn't contradict the more specific descriptions given by Mark and Matthew. In fact, it might even be more accurate when you consider that more than just soldiers could have been sent (such as officials going to record what took place for their bosses). In fact, both Luke and John indicate it was the high priest's servant that Peter lopped the ear off of, which demonstrates more than just a detachment of soldiers were sent.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

? Either that is mere speculation or you have access to information unavailable to anyone else.
Luke says himself that he was not an eyewitness but, by your accounts, his testimony is worthless.
Enough testimony is available from the early church to make it almost certain that Mark was not an eye-witness.
And Matthew seems to have been written around the same time as Luke, which would not eliminate the possibility that he was an eye-witness.

It is scholarly consensus based on assessing the different MSS. Even the influential Christian scholar Raymond E Brown accepted that consensus.

Although we must remember you seem to think you have access to information that is beyond the reach of mere academics

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A "crowd" doesn't contradict the more specific descriptions given by Mark and Matthew. In fact, it might even be more accurate when you consider that more than just soldiers could have been sent (such as officials going to record what took place for their bosses).

What do you think it was? A first century version of CSI Miami?

In fact, both Luke and John indicate it was the high priest's servant that Peter lopped the ear off of, which demonstrates more than just a detachment of soldiers were sent.

Isn't that what the texts of Mark, Matthew, and John suggest? However, only John mentions any soldiers.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In H_A's world only autobiographies can be trusted. Biographies written by others are utterly worthless. Well, only when it comes to Christianity that is.

These are not biographies in the modern understanding of that word.

[tabibito]

It is scholarly consensus based on assessing the different MSS. Even the influential Christian scholar Raymond E Brown accepted that consensus.

Although we must remember you seem to think you have access to information that is beyond the reach of mere academics

Scholarly consensus would have us believe that Luke said Jesus was crucified on the 15th Nisan, despite Luke's all but explicit declaration that it was the 14th, and Mark's record is consistent with Luke's. That information isn't beyond the reach of "mere academics." Scholarly consensus has it that the census of 6CE was conducted by Quirinius while he was governing/commanding in Syria. History shows that in 6CE, Quirinius was governor of Judaea. That information, likewise, is not beyond the reach of "mere academics."