Did Jesus really preach that sermon?

[Alchopwn]

On 11/26/2022 at 3:04 AM, eight bits said:

I walk dogs in the woods almost every day. If you look away for more than one second, you don't want to know what they've found and gobbled down.

Bottom line: hours every week contemplating dog butts. Can't say that I've ever found Jesus, though.

Well I read this and said "JESUS Eight Bit!"

[eight bits]

48 minutes ago, Ove said:

Bart Ehrman is a new testament scholar that doesn't understand Matthew chapters 5-7

Jesus is surrounded by jews who think they are righteous. I order to make them understand that they are not righteous, he says this: ... [Matthew 5:21, 48] ...

Bart Ehrman as most people thinks that Jesus wants people to do this. Whereas in fact, Jesus only wants people to be honest and admit that they are not righteous but sinners. That's the whole point with what he said, nothing else.

I wouldn't be so quick to assert what Ehrman does or doesn't understand. For one thing, he has a history of changing his mind as he learns more, and he consistently strives to do that, to learn more. That attitude is a big part of why I think he's interesting, even though so far we only agree on some things (e.g. we're both agnostic on the question of God and both "cultural Christians") and disagree strongly on others (he is nearly certain that Jesus was a real man who actually lived, and believes that evidence, not his faith journey, inspires his extreme confidence).

Matthew 5:21 is an interesting part of the "sermon." Mark has relatively few sayings of Jesus, but he does have the self-mutilation passages which you underlined (9:43-50). Interestingly, Mark's Jesus may be talking to himself at this point. The repositioning of the speeches to a public occasion is original with Matthew, at least in the extant literature.

I'm unsure whether Matthew intended his Jesus to be taken literally on this and other aspects of what you quoted. I am reasonably confident based on the context that Mark didn't intend his Jesus to be offering surgical advice, and maybe not advice to other people at all, or if to other people, then to his immediate disciples.

[Ove]

50 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I wouldn't be so quick to assert what Ehrman does or doesn't understand. For one thing, he has a history of changing his mind as he learns more, and he consistently strives to do that, to learn more. That attitude is a big part of why I think he's interesting, even though so far we only agree on some things (e.g. we're both agnostic on the question of God and both "cultural Christians") and disagree strongly on others (he is nearly certain that Jesus was a real man who actually lived, and believes that evidence, not his faith journey, inspires his extreme confidence).

Matthew 5:21 is an interesting part of the "sermon." Mark has relatively few sayings of Jesus, but he does have the self-mutilation passages which you underlined (9:43-50). Interestingly, Mark's Jesus may be talking to himself at this point. The repositioning of the speeches to a public occasion is original with Matthew, at least in the extant literature.

I'm unsure whether Matthew intended his Jesus to be taken literally on this and other aspects of what you quoted. I am reasonably confident based on the context that Mark didn't intend his Jesus to be offering surgical advice, and maybe not advice to other people at all, or if to other people, then to his immediate disciples.

Jesus exaggerates to make people understand

Luke 18:18 Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.’ “All these I have kept from my youth,” he said. On hearing this, Jesus told him, “You still lack one thing: Sell everything you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” But when the ruler heard this, he became very sad, because he was extremely wealthy. Seeing the man’s sadness,c Jesus said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus said, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

There is nothing you can do to in return get eternal life. That's the whole point with what he said, nothing else.

[+Desertrat56]

6 hours ago, Ove said:

But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell"

 

Is hell fire the same as fire of hell?  The translation in to english must be erroneous as jews did not have a hell.  They did not believe in hell and Jesus was a jew.   Do you see how manipulative the writers of the bible were?  And how manipulative the translators, and the preachers?   This is idiotic to even use this book in a discussion of anything some prophet named Jesus said or didn't say 2000 years ago.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Desertrat56

[cormac mac airt]

15 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Is hell fire the same as fire of hell?  The translation in to english must be erroneous as jews did not have a hell.  They did not believe in hell and Jesus was a jew.   Do you see how manipulative the writers of the bible were?  And how manipulative the translators, and the preachers?   This is idiotic to even use this book in a discussion of anything some prophet named Jesus said or didn't say 2000 years ago.

While your point stands, and without searching the specific words translated, I would assume the words used were likely “Gehenna” or “Tartarus”. 
 

cormac

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

While your point stands, and without searching the specific words translated, I would assume the words used were likely “Gehenna” or “Tartarus”. 
 

cormac

Neither of those places were places of fire were they?   I thought Gehena was a graveyard.  And Tartarus doesn't seem to indicate fire except maybe for someone who would be afraid of it, which would be torment.   I think more than just mistranslation was done here.  It is the whole point, you have to keep the people afraid of some place that will keep them in line, doing what they are told "god wants", etc.  Tartarus is similar, but that brings up the next thing.  Jesus was not greek, was he?   "Traditional Jewish thought is that only the very righteous go directly to heaven; all others must be cleansed of residual sin."  https://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-afterlife.html

That indicates that there is no belief in hell, there is belief in resurrection of a sort that happens after you are cleansed to go to heaven.  Totally contradictory to what "Jesus" says in the book of Matthew.   And where did the name Jesus come from?

"When this Hebrew name was transliterated in the Greek Septuagint (2,000 year old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) it was written as Ἰησοῦς (iesous). The Greek alphabet had no "Y" sound, so it used the "I" sound. The Greek alphabet has no consonant "H," or equivalent, so this sound is dropped. The Greek alphabet also had no "Sh" sound, so it used the "S" sound. Then, Greek male names end with "s," so the "s" was added. And this is how יהושע (yehoshu'a) became Ἰησοῦς (iesous) in the Greek."

https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/hebrew-names/from-where-did-the-name-jesus-come.htm

 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Neither of those places were places of fire were they?   I thought Gehena was a graveyard.  And Tartarus doesn't seem to indicate fire except maybe for someone who would be afraid of it, which would be torment.   I think more than just mistranslation was done here.  It is the whole point, you have to keep the people afraid of some place that will keep them in line, doing what they are told "god wants", etc.  Tartarus is similar, but that brings up the next thing.  Jesus was not greek, was he?   "Traditional Jewish thought is that only the very righteous go directly to heaven; all others must be cleansed of residual sin."  https://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-afterlife.html

That indicates that there is no belief in hell, there is belief in resurrection of a sort that happens after you are cleansed to go to heaven.  Totally contradictory to what "Jesus" says in the book of Matthew.   And where did the name Jesus come from?

"When this Hebrew name was transliterated in the Greek Septuagint (2,000 year old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) it was written as Ἰησοῦς (iesous). The Greek alphabet had no "Y" sound, so it used the "I" sound. The Greek alphabet has no consonant "H," or equivalent, so this sound is dropped. The Greek alphabet also had no "Sh" sound, so it used the "S" sound. Then, Greek male names end with "s," so the "s" was added. And this is how יהושע (yehoshu'a) became Ἰησοῦς (iesous) in the Greek."

https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/hebrew-names/from-where-did-the-name-jesus-come.htm

 

Both Tartarus AND Gehenna have fire associated with them and Gehenna (Valley of Hinnom) was a specific location outside Jerusalem where refuse was burnt and child sacrifices and such were performed. 
 

cormac

[+Desertrat56]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Both Tartarus AND Gehenna have fire associated with them and Gehenna (Valley of Hinnom) was a specific location outside Jerusalem where refuse was burnt and child sacrifices and such were performed. 
 

cormac

Ok.  My misunderstanding.   Still, Is there proof of any Yeshua who actually did chastise the rabbis in a big temple for allowing money changers in the temple?   All the godly things attributed to someone named Jesus, including the resurrection that allowed him to walk among the living in the same body he died in seems to be fabricated in order to give him the power of the old roman gods, and evoke fear in the people in order to manipulate them more easily.

[eight bits]

47 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

While your point stands, and without searching the specific words translated, I would assume the words used were likely “Gehenna” or “Tartarus”. 

The Greek is γέεννα - meaning Gehenna.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1067.htm

@Desertrat56 is correct, though, Christian translators of the New Testament often "de-judaize" Jesus, making his sayings less Jewish and more "Christian." There's currently awareness of this malpractice in the "guild," so maybe more recent and future translators will do better.

ETA:

Quote

Still, Is there proof of any Yeshua who actually did chastise the rabbis in a big temple for allowing money changers in the temple?

Even if there were proof that Jesus existed in the first place, what he did in the Temple, if anything, is difficult to believe or even understand. Imagine paralyzing an entire modern shopping mall by yourself or with at most twelve helpers. And get away clean. Not quite impossible, but not very likely, either.

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by eight bits

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Ok.  My misunderstanding.   Still, Is there proof of any Yeshua who actually did chastise the rabbis in a big temple for allowing money changers in the temple?   All the godly things attributed to someone named Jesus, including the resurrection that allowed him to walk among the living in the same body he died in seems to be fabricated in order to give him the power of the old roman gods, and evoke fear in the people in order to manipulate them more easily.

Can we with any specificity tie Yeshua Ben Yusef to a tale of the money changers, NO. Can we definitively say a man named Yeshua ben Yusef NEVER existed? ALSO NO, as Yeshua was a common name in 1st century AD Israel. Because the myth is impossible is no reason IMO to claim the man never existed. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Can we with any specificity tie Yeshua Ben Yusef to a tale of the money changers, NO. Can we definitively say a man named Yeshua ben Yusef NEVER existed? ALSO NO, as Yeshua was a common name in 1st century AD Israel. Because the myth is impossible is no reason IMO to claim the man never existed. 
 

cormac

It's just that the super powered demi-god Jesus didn't exist.

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

It's just that the super powered demi-god Jesus didn't exist.

^ That’s what I call ”Bible Jesus” as separate from Jesus the man. 
 

cormac

[+Desertrat56]

38 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The Greek is γέεννα - meaning Gehenna.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1067.htm

@Desertrat56 is correct, though, Christian translators of the New Testament often "de-judaize" Jesus, making his sayings less Jewish and more "Christian." There's currently awareness of this malpractice in the "guild," so maybe more recent and future translators will do better.

ETA:

Even if there were proof that Jesus existed in the first place, what he did in the Temple, if anything, is difficult to believe or even understand. Imagine paralyzing an entire modern shopping mall by yourself or with at most twelve helpers. And get away clean. Not quite impossible, but not very likely, either.

 

And the other question I have is why do some sects of christianity teach that Jesus was a rabbi.  He could not have been a rabbi as described and celibate since he did not follow the rule and marry to have children.   It is all a big bunch of embellishment and lies in order to "explain" questions that people, who will not look it up themselves, ask.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

33 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Can we with any specificity tie Yeshua Ben Yusef to a tale of the money changers, NO. Can we definitively say a man named Yeshua ben Yusef NEVER existed? ALSO NO, as Yeshua was a common name in 1st century AD Israel. Because the myth is impossible is no reason IMO to claim the man never existed. 
 

cormac

well, the man, as described in the bible, never existed, whether there was a Yeshua that did exist or not.   

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

And the other question I have is why do some sects of christianity teach that Jesus was a rabbi.  He could not have been a rabbi as described and celibate since he did not follow the rule and marry to have children.   It is all a big bunch of embellishment and lies in order to "explain" questions that people, who will not look it up themselves, ask.

Rabbi as a general word means a teacher, scholar, or counselor. Gospel Jesus isn't clergy, and was executed long before rabbi became the Jewish clergyman's title we still use today. There may well have been an expectation that he as a Jewish man should marry and have children, but that would be subject to economic reality. Gospel Jesus apparently had worked in the construction trades at some point in his life, but he seems to have lots of time on his hands in the months before his death.

The Greek New Testament sometimes has people calling Jesus "rabbi" (and variants like rabboni) transcribed into Greek letters and other times translated through to some Greek word for "teacher" or something similar. I think they're interchangeable.

 

[cormac mac airt]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

And the other question I have is why do some sects of christianity teach that Jesus was a rabbi.  He could not have been a rabbi as described and celibate since he did not follow the rule and marry to have children.   It is all a big bunch of embellishment and lies in order to "explain" questions that people, who will not look it up themselves, ask.

IIRC the term “Rabbi” wasn’t as strictly defined or used during the early centuries AD as it is now and could be applied then to any notable teacher. The marital laws for a Rabbi however DID apply to actual religious leaders who were, as often as not, members of the Sanhedrin. 
 

cormac

[Ove]

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Even if there were proof that Jesus existed in the first place, what he did in the Temple, if anything, is difficult to believe or even understand. Imagine paralyzing an entire modern shopping mall by yourself or with at most twelve helpers. And get away clean. Not quite impossible, but not very likely, either.

 

?? He just turned some tables

 

[eight bits]

26 minutes ago, Ove said:

?? He just turned some tables

Mark 11:15;16

They came to Jerusalem, and Jesus entered into the temple and began to throw out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers’ tables and the seats of those who sold the doves. He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple.

I don't see anything about "some," and he has stopped foot traffic. I was a sport and spotted him up to 12 accomplices, but they arent there on the page, either.

Cool pic, though.

[XenoFish]

25 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Mark 11:15;16

They came to Jerusalem, and Jesus entered into the temple and began to throw out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers’ tables and the seats of those who sold the doves. He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple.

I don't see anything about "some," and he has stopped foot traffic. I was a sport and spotted him up to 12 accomplices, but they arent there on the page, either.

Cool pic, though.

Just to add: https://biblehub.com/john/2-15.htm

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:40 PM, eight bits said:

Even if there were proof that Jesus existed in the first place, what he did in the Temple, if anything, is difficult to believe or even understand.

Thanks, you addressed something I wondered about concerning your quote from the OP: "Come on, Bart. We don't and can't know what he said, we do know that much of what Jesus supposedly did never happened because it's impossible ... aren't we all entitled to doubt whether the guy was ever here?".  Although there's plenty of the magic powers stuff that is essentially impossible I had wondered what if any of his earthly, non-divinely-powered activities were also tough to believe. I have always thought of this episode as more inconsistent for many reasons (the violence, why this real estate matters so ridiculously much while simultaneously 'this is not his kingdom', etc) but hadn't taken a step back to think about things like the improbability he apparently just walking away after this destructive tantrum. This ain't a drunk at the 7/11 checkout counter getting ticked off and swatting the chips display down, Jesus breaks out the cat-of-nine-tails and is driving people and livestock out, seems like that might draw a more immediate response.

I'd have to reread the whole Pilate interaction again and I admit my vibe of that whole exchange is also informed by Jesus Christ Superstar, but Jesus' attitude seems 180 degrees from the moneychanger incident.  He seems pretty aloof and evasive with Pilate, not sure why this wouldn't be the time to continue his preaching on the wrongness of money-changing in the temple if it's really so critical.  I can think of human reasons not to do so and to instead be quiet, but not Son-of-God-destined-to-die ones.

If we loosen up a little from the 'impossible' standard, would you say there are other non-magical activities of Jesus that don't make much sense or are also 'difficult to believe or understand' from a similarly historical standpoint? (edit: outside of the sermon on the mount, which Ehrman to me provides a lot of reasoning why it's at the least semi-contrived).

Edited November 29, 2022 by Liquid Gardens

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If we loosen up a little from the 'impossible' standard, would you say there are other non-magical activities of Jesus that don't make much sense or are also 'difficult to believe or understand' from a similarly historical standpoint? (edit: outside of the sermon on the mount, which Ehrman to me provides a lot of reasoning why it's at the least semi-contrived).

Well, it's an interesting situation. My first attempt to get anything peer reviewed by the guild (for the 2020 Society of Biblical Literature meeting which was to have been held in Boston that year) asked what the earliest canonical gospel writer's (Mark's) attitude to the "magical" activities really was. Because of COVID, the section I'd submitted to simply didn't happen. I may try that paper again somewhere sometime.

The bottom line was that Mark consistently leaves open a naturalistic explanation for things like the calming of the storm, or the transfiguration. I was able to show from Pliny's Natural History (written about the same time as the gospels) that educated people back then had enough knowledge to explain many of these things, and from Plutarch's Lives (written not very long after the canonical gospels) that "skeptics" existed in the early patristric times.

One of Plutarch's characters gives a speech that could have been posted here at UM today analyzing a ghost story (Brutus was supposedly visited twice by an "avenging spirit" for his murder of Julius Caesar). The character cites naturalistic aspects of the report (fatigue, bad light, no other witnesses, even setting-and-set psychology). The real pay-off is when you go back and look at how Plutarch told the ghost story in the first place. Of course, he had to insert all the things that his character would later mention in his speech.

The killer is that Mark does the same thing when he tells some of the miracles, especially those with few witnesses, often only members of the in-group. His description of the calming of the storm, for example, has all the elements of a then-known atmospheric phenomenon of short-lived local storms in some locations - locations like where the calming happens, and Mark makes sure we know what the location is like.

Since most of the other, more public, miracles are "feedings," healings, and exorcisms, it is entirely possible to read Mark as containing nothing unambiguously supernatural. Not even Mark's treatment of the resurrection is bullet-proof supernatural. Of course the other canonical gospels retell Mark and either ramp up the supernatural or add new incidents (the raising of the widow's dead son in Luke) or both (John's raising of dead Lazarus is a hamfisted rewrite of Mark's raising of Jairus's emphatically merely unconscious daughter).

Wait, you say, that isn't what I asked. I'm asking about impossible or unlikely unambiguously natural events. But the rub is, if I'm correct about Mark, then the coin has two sides: unusual natural events can always be interpreted as supernatural ones. For example, during an exorcism, Mark's Jesus causes a swine stampede. Pigs really can be driven en masse. You can always say that they became possesed by demons.

So could that stampede have really happened? Yes, but two thousand of them all at once? That's unlikely to have really happened. Speaking of thousands and feedings, sure you can gather a crowd by natural means, repeatedly even. But according to Josephus, the authorities take notice of such things. Both Pilate and Herod Antipas, who ran Galilee in Jesus's time, killed crowd gatherers - John the Baptist for that alone in Josephus. The first time Jesus encounters law enforcement is hours before his execution. It doesn't add up, even if it doesn't violate natural laws.

Mark's Jesus curses a fig tree in Jerusalem and the next day it is discovered dead and withered. Well, OK, could be a coincidence. But the story depends on Jesus having thought the tree was bearing fruit the day before. OK, he was mistaken, but ... seriously? He grew up among figs, he can't tell a dying one from a fruitful one just by looking? It doesn't really add up.

There are also some really small points where the supernatural doesn't even come up. The famous "render unto Caesar ..." is inspired by somebody giving Jesus a denarius coin. Denarii were rare in 1st Century Palestine I'm told. OK, it's festival time, people are in the city from all over (part of why there are Temple money changers in the first place), maybe somebody had one in their purse (even though Jesus specifically asks for a coin by which the Palestinians' taxes were paid - yet he clearly expected to get a non-Palestinian coin ...).

Like the fig tree, it's as if Mark has this clever speech he wants to place in Jesus's mouth, but then reaches just a little too far to set up the speech to fit into the story. Not that Mark violates physical law, just that he bends plausibility.

IMO, plausibility is cumulative. Lucky breaks and odd coincidences happen to everybody. There is, however, a limit when telling a story after which there are too many lucky breaks to take the story seriously as non-fiction. That, I think, is where Mark ends up. The other gospels lay on the supernatural even thicker.

[Davros of Skaro]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:46 PM, cormac mac airt said:

Can we with any specificity tie Yeshua Ben Yusef to a tale of the money changers, NO. Can we definitively say a man named Yeshua ben Yusef NEVER existed? ALSO NO, as Yeshua was a common name in 1st century AD Israel. Because the myth is impossible is no reason IMO to claim the man never existed. 
 

cormac

The Temple cleansing scene in Mark is sandwiched with a symbolic metaphor for Jerusalem no longer bearing spiritual fruit for God as Jesus is the new covenant. The meat of this literary artifice sandwich is an apologia for the Romans sacking the Temple in 70 CE in that God hasn’t failed, it's his people (as part of God's plan in Paul's OT based Gentile inclusion theology).

Also note that Mark time, and time again uses OT scripture to form narratives (this scene is just one example). In other words there's inside secrets, and, or deeper meanings not known to the non-Christian Gentile commoner (the looks to be the target audience of Mark). This is inline with Paul's claims of God's hidden plan now revealed (revealed through scripture, and dreams/visions just like the Pillars did).

Mark 11:12c-21

"12c ...he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it.

15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written,  'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? (Isa. 56:7) But you have made it a den of robbers." (Jer. 7:11) 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. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered."'

Hosea 9:1-17, 10:1-2, :8-10

"1 Do not exult as other nations do; for you have played the *****, departing from your God. You have loved a prostitute's pay on all threshing floors. 2 Threshing floor and wine vat shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail them. 3 They shall not remain in the land of the LORD; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and in Assyria they shall eat unclean food. 4 They shall not pour drink offerings of wine to the LORD, and their sacrifices shall not please him. Such sacrifices shall be like mourners' bread; all who eat of it shall be defiled; for their bread shall be for their hunger only; it shall not come to the house of the LORD. 5 What will you do on the day of appointed festival, and on the day of the festival of the LORD? 6 For even if they escape destruction, Egypt shall gather them, Memphis shall bury them. Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver; thorns shall be in their tents.

7 The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come; Israel cries, "The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!" Because of your great iniquity, your hostility is great. 8 The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim, yet a fowler's snare is on all his ways, and hostility in the house of his God. 9 They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah; he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins.

10 Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors. But they came to Baal-peor, and consecrated themselves to a thing of shame, and became detestable like the thing they loved. 11 Ephraim's glory shall fly away like a bird — no birth, no pregnancy, no conception! 12 Even if they bring up children, I will bereave them until no one is left. Woe to them indeed when I depart from them!

13 Once I saw Ephraim as a young palm planted in a lovely meadow, but now Ephraim must lead out his children for slaughter. 14 Give them, O LORD — what will you give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 Every evil of theirs began at Gilgal; there I came to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their officials are rebels. 16 Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they give birth, I will kill the cherished offspring of their womb. 17 Because they have not listened to him, my God will reject them; they shall become wanderers among the nations."

"1 Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars. 2 Their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt. The LORD will break down their altars, and destroy their pillars."

"8 The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed. Thorn and thistle shall grow up on their altars. They shall say to the mountains, Cover us, and to the hills, Fall on us. 9 Since the days of Gibeah you have sinned, O Israel; there they have continued. Shall not war overtake them in Gibeah? 10 I will come against the wayward people to punish them; and nations shall be gathered against them when they are punished for their double iniquity."

Psalm 37:35-36a

"35 I have seen the wicked oppressing, and towering like a cedar of Lebanon. 36a Again I passed by, and they were no more;"

Job 5:3

"3 I have seen fools taking root, but suddenly I cursed their dwelling"

Zechariah 11:2

"2 Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, for the glorious trees are ruined!"

Proverbs 12:12

"12 The wicked covet the proceeds of wickedness, but the root of the righteous bears fruit."

Ezekiel 19:11-14

"11 Its strongest stem became a ruler's scepter; it towered aloft among the thick boughs; it stood out in its height with its mass of branches.12 But it was plucked up in fury, cast down to the ground; the east wind dried it up; its fruit was stripped off, its strong stem was withered; the fire consumed it. 13 Now it is transplanted into the wilderness, into a dry and thirsty land. 14 And fire has gone out from its stem, has consumed its branches and fruit, so that there remains in it no strong stem, no scepter for ruling."

Sirach 6:2-3

"2 Do not fall into the grip of passion, or you may be torn apart as by a bull. 3 Your leaves will be devoured and your fruit destroyed,  and you will be left like a withered tree."

Zechariah 14:21c

"21c ...And there shall no longer be traders in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day."

Isaiah 56:6-8

"6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant — 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 8 Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered."

Jeremiah 7:11, 8:13, 26:4-6, :8-9

"11 Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? You know, I too am watching, says the LORD."

"13 When I wanted to gather them, says the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them."

"4 You shall say to them: Thus says the LORD: If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you, 5 and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently — though you have not heeded — 6 then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth."

"8 And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, "You shall die! 9 Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD, saying, 'This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without inhabitant'?" And all the people gathered around Jeremiah in the house of the LORD. "

"In other words, the beginning and end of the fig tree story is wrapped around (and contains within its center) the clearing of the temple. We saw Mark do this before, when he took the tale of the raising of Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter and wrapped that around a symbolically related story of the woman who had bled for twelve years. The purpose of this structure (called intercalation) is to communicate that the one story illuminates the meaning of the other. Mark uses this device repeatedly. In this case, 'the tree is a symbol of the sacrificial system whose time is now passed, hence 'it was not the season for figs' any more; therefore 'may no one eat fruit of you again'. Which finally, and perfectly, explains this strange story."

Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 434

 

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

 

Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, :15-17, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9).

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Like the fig tree, it's as if Mark has this clever speech he wants to place in Jesus's mouth, but then reaches just a little too far to set up the speech to fit into the story. Not that Mark violates physical law, just that he bends plausibility.

Thanks and excellent examples of both supernatural and non-supernatural cases.  In the sense that Mark reaches a little 'too far' I'd guess that is tempered by the fact I think that we don't know exactly what Mark's intention was; even though he's conservative on the supernatural stuff, a fact which I think is very interesting and has many implications, I'm not taking it for granted that Mark was approaching this like he was recording history, so the expectation that he should hew to perfectly realistic natural goings-on to me doesn't necessarily apply any way. 

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Both Pilate and Herod Antipas, who ran Galilee in Jesus's time, killed crowd gatherers

One thing I think I've seen from you and others here is that there are multiple Herods in play around the time of Jesus.  On this one I'm only informed by Superstar and because it's a show there's obviously a big grain of salt, but is that the same Herod you mention above?  I could of course look it up but that'd be boring, but I thought the Herod, safely the most colorful character in the musical, was 'King Herod' but I don't know offhand what his kingdom encompassed.  I may be totally on the wrong track here and mangling history but regardless I wondered also how realistic it is for seemingly higher-ups to have face-to-face interactions with people/"criminals" at Jesus' level.  We start to get into that Goldilocks tension of 'famous/notorious enough to personally meet leaders but not important enough for us to have any better evidence of or warrant more contemporary mentions', and I acknowledge that there is all the political/diplomatic stuff of the Jews being under Roman occupation overlaying all this, but was it customary for people who were potentially up for execution to get personal audiences with someone like Pilate?  At least again in JCS the Herod interaction is a little different, I believe Pilate tries to offload Jesus' fate to Herod but he seems more interested in Jesus doing his magic tricks for him, so maybe that's a different and more unusual situation.

[Davros of Skaro]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks and excellent examples of both supernatural and non-supernatural cases.  In the sense that Mark reaches a little 'too far' I'd guess that is tempered by the fact I think that we don't know exactly what Mark's intention was; even though he's conservative on the supernatural stuff, a fact which I think is very interesting and has many implications, I'm not taking it for granted that Mark was approaching this like he was recording history, so the expectation that he should hew to perfectly realistic natural goings-on to me doesn't necessarily apply any way. 

My two cents.

Mark has a motif of what's called the "Messianic Secret" in that Jesus tells demons, people he healed, and even his disciples to clam up about it (note the other Gospels do not have this theme especially John). The historicist view is that it's a way to explain why many people did not know he was the Messiah before the ressurection. But by going with the very Pauline Mark it outlines what Paul wrote about God's secret plan that was enacted before the ages now revealed (Peter being the first contact with a ressurected Jesus) through scripture, visions, and, or dreams. Jesus even tells his disciples that he talks in parables to outsiders while giving secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven to insiders. Keep in mind that the Pauline Epistles are ripe in language used by many mystery cults of the era where lower rank, or outsiders are told one thing while higher initiates are told another (usually something embellished to better understand, and, or believe vs deep spiritual/imaginative philosophy).

Just look at Philo's philosophical outlook on scripture (Gen. 1:1-8) for example (the earliest Xtians could have been doing the same thing in secret, but now lost):

ON THE CREATION

"IX ...after the shining forth of that light, perceptible only to the intellect, which existed before the sun, then its adversary darkness yielded, as God put a wall between them and separated them, well knowing their opposite characters, and the enmity existing between their natures. In order, therefore, that they might not war against one another from being continually brought in contact, so that war would prevail instead of peace, God, burning want of order into order, did not only separate light and darkness, but did also place boundaries in the middle of the space between the two, by which he separated the extremities of each. For if they had approximated they must have produced confusion, preparing for the contest, for the supremacy, with great and unextinguishable rivalry, if boundaries established between them had not separated them and prevented them from clashing together, and these boundaries are evening and morning; the one of which heralds in the good tidings that the sun is about to rise, gently dissipating the darkness: and evening comes on as the sun sets, receiving gently the collective approach of darkness. And these, I mean morning and evening, must be placed in the class of incorporeal things, perceptible only by the intellect; for there is absolutely nothing in them which is perceptible by the external senses, but they are entirely ideas, and measures, and forms, and seals, incorporeal as far as regards the generation of other bodies."

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not taking it for granted that Mark was approaching this like he was recording history, so the expectation that he should hew to perfectly realistic natural goings-on to me doesn't necessarily apply any way. 

There's almost no chance, IMO, that Mark thought he was recording history in any sense like "recording a factual narrative." He's riffing off the Jewish Bible and the letters of Paul to make a riveting story, maybe using some oral tall tales that were being told about Jesus, too. What was Mark trying to accomplish? He simply doesn't say.

@Davros of Skaro has some ideas; I have a few guesses; many in the guild have their own theories. It would take a thread to cover and evaluate just the major contenders and personal favorites. I hope someday Davros and I do a road show - but regardless of what Mark's ultimate goal was, I think he invented much of what he wrote, or else used material which he knew or firmly suspected not to be factually accurate.

One thing we do know is that his gospel was written, which at the time would mean that at least some of his target audience were educated people. Educated people back then knew that tired true believers sometimes see and hear strange things, or that there were highly local weather phenomena including some that were transient hazards to navigation. Mark makes sure that these people are accommodated when he tells a gee-whiz story. That's at least a piece of the puzzle, IMO, about what Mark was trying to do.

Quote

I could of course look it up but that'd be boring, but I thought the Herod, safely the most colorful character in the musical, was 'King Herod' but I don't know offhand what his kingdom encompassed.

The Herod of Superstar (and the Passion narrative of Luke) is indeed Herod Antipas, the killer of John the Baptist. He is the son of Herod the Great (also a character in Luke and Matthew, in their birth narratives), who actually held the title of king recognized by Rome. Herod the Great was survived by four sons, all named Herod, three of whom received portions of their father's territories to rule as clients of Rome with the titles ethnarch (the son who got Judea and a few other pieces) or tetrarch (Antipas and his brother). None of the sons were "kings" as far as Rome was concerned, although Mark uses that title for Antipas.

In addition to some other bits, Antipas ruled Galilee in Jesus's time and that's basically how Luke justifies Pilate sending Jesus off for trial to Antipas ("Herod's race, Herod's case" as the song has it). This doesn't leap off the page as being especially plausible. It rings too much of Roman citizens having the right to be tried by the Roman emperor - I don't think Galileean citizens arrested in Judea could expect a trial by Galileean officials.

Trial by Pilate, as occurs in different forms in all four canonical gospels? Some kind of hearing at least? Hmm. Pilate is a big deal locally, but his social rank (and hence in his time a "glass ceiling" on his military rank) was equestrian ("knight"). Not really a mover and shaker. He might have seen some prisoners personally. Maybe.

He and the high priest Caiaphas were on good working terms. Caiaphas would very plausibly have had Pilate's ear and had face-to-face meetings with him. Might Caiaphas have dragged along a bound prisoner one morning and asked Pilate to kill him? Maybe. Something similar seems to have happened a generation later with a different Jesus. (The Roman procurator then flogged that prisoner, but declined to proceed any further).

Of course, I don't have any hard answers, because nobody knows how much of any of this is factual.

ETA: Before he was emperor, Vespsian was of equestrian rank, but had broken through the glass ceiling to become the commander of a large force. According to Josephus, Vespasian dealt directly with POW Josephus. Josephus was a fairly important person, a prize prisoner. Comparable with Jesus? Who knows?

Edited November 29, 2022 by eight bits