Was Jesus a Violent Revolutionary?

[davidmartin]

I don't see 'violent revolutionary' being an appropriate term for Jesus
The violence seems to be only associated with his second coming and not anything he did while here?
When he was here, he didn't organise any armed group (as far as we know), paid his taxes, conversed cordially with Romans, preached in parables and claimed a spiritual kingdom not an earthly one and went around healing people
The violence is only associate with his return which as an issue of theology makes various different views about him believable, for the last 2000 years Jesus has been non-violent - and that makes him a notorious violent revolutionary?

[perseusomega9]

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. (Luke 7:36)

An invitation to eat in a Pharisee’s home? They did not grace just anyone with such an honor. And yet, it happened over and over again:

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. (Luke 11:37)

One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. (Luke 14:1)

Even though his teachings and behavior sometimes astonished them, it speaks volumes about the Pharisees’ perception of Yeshua that their elite circles welcomed him ...

That's making a lot of conclusions over assumptions that Luke is reporting anything factual here instead of making up stories. Modern scholarship is so blinded by it's implicit assumptions when doing any analysis.

[perseusomega9]

I'm now leaning towards the second option, and that Mark heard about this custom from Peter, who presumably "did understand the point of the circumlocution and the high priest's reaction."

There was no Mark secretary of Peter. why are you so credulous when it comes to these traditions?

[John2]

I don't see 'violent revolutionary' being an appropriate term for Jesus
The violence seems to be only associated with his second coming and not anything he did while here?
When he was here, he didn't organise any armed group (as far as we know), paid his taxes, conversed cordially with Romans, preached in parables and claimed a spiritual kingdom not an earthly one and went around healing people
The violence is only associate with his return which as an issue of theology makes various different views about him believable, for the last 2000 years Jesus has been non-violent - and that makes him a notorious violent revolutionary?

But that's a big "only." As I said in the OP, whatever passiveness Jesus exhibited while he was alive was only the first part of his agenda, to suffer and die before resurrecting and returning as a world conquering spiritual being. In other words, Jesus had the same goal as other Fourth Philosophers, to violently change the social order, but with a two part approach to it. And he believed that when he returned he would "send out the angels to gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" (Mk. 13:27) to help him do it. So whatever passiveness his followers had or have is in emulation of the first part of Jesus' agenda, with the second part being their participation in a violent revolution when he comes back as a spiritual being.

[John2]

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. (Luke 7:36)

An invitation to eat in a Pharisee’s home? They did not grace just anyone with such an honor. And yet, it happened over and over again:

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. (Luke 11:37)

One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. (Luke 14:1)

Even though his teachings and behavior sometimes astonished them, it speaks volumes about the Pharisees’ perception of Yeshua that their elite circles welcomed him ...

That's making a lot of conclusions over assumptions that Luke is reporting anything factual here instead of making up stories. Modern scholarship is so blinded by it's implicit assumptions when doing any analysis.

I think Luke (and Acts) may have been written by a follower of Paul (Epaproditus) who thus was in a position to know some things about early Christianity, such as the above (all the more so given that Paul had been a Pharisee). Not to say that he couldn't have made things up too, but the above at least fits with the other elements of Pharisaism in Christianity that I've mentioned (messianism, resurrection of the dead, Merkabah mysticism, tefillin, apparent awareness of the procedure for blasphemy in the Mishnah), which in turn fits with Josephus' statement that Fourth Philosophers (aside from their militancy and changes to some of the oral Torah) agreed with Pharisaic "notions."

[John2]

I'm now leaning towards the second option, and that Mark heard about this custom from Peter, who presumably "did understand the point of the circumlocution and the high priest's reaction."

There was no Mark secretary of Peter. why are you so credulous when it comes to these traditions?

Why do you think there was "no Mark secretary of Peter"?

For me, it's what the first person to mention Mark says (Papias, who I date c. 100 CE), who lived early enough to know (and claimed to have known) people who knew the earliest Christians and in a place with a sizable early Christian presence (Asia), and i think it explains the content of the gospel of Mark well.

[davidmartin]

But that's a big "only." As I said in the OP, whatever passiveness Jesus exhibited while he was alive was only the first part of his agenda, to suffer and die before resurrecting and returning as a world conquering spiritual being. In other words, Jesus had the same goal as other Fourth Philosophers, to violently change the social order, but with a two part approach to it. And he believed that when he returned he would "send out the angels to gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" (Mk. 13:27) to help him do it. So whatever passiveness his followers had or have is in emulation of the first part of Jesus' agenda, with the second part being their participation in a violent revolution when he comes back as a spiritual being.

OK now where getting somewhere
I was also thinking i do admit a certain amount of 'fighting' language associated with Jesus in his earthly life, confrontation, etc. I think it shows an interesting mix of idealism and realism in his teachings which have always fascinated me. I do however think he was against fighting the Romans and using violence to achieve his goal
But anyway, all i wanted to note was the idea of his returning to conquer and overthrow everything wasn't universally believed
Paul himself complains of those who thought the resurrection had already come so those people must have had different end time beliefs?
So the were different views of this at an ancient date i'm interested in all these different views

[John2]

But that's a big "only." As I said in the OP, whatever passiveness Jesus exhibited while he was alive was only the first part of his agenda, to suffer and die before resurrecting and returning as a world conquering spiritual being. In other words, Jesus had the same goal as other Fourth Philosophers, to violently change the social order, but with a two part approach to it. And he believed that when he returned he would "send out the angels to gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" (Mk. 13:27) to help him do it. So whatever passiveness his followers had or have is in emulation of the first part of Jesus' agenda, with the second part being their participation in a violent revolution when he comes back as a spiritual being.

OK now where getting somewhere
I was also thinking i do admit a certain amount of 'fighting' language associated with Jesus in his earthly life, confrontation, etc. I think it shows an interesting mix of idealism and realism in his teachings which have always fascinated me. I do however think he was against fighting the Romans and using violence to achieve his goal
But anyway, all i wanted to note was the idea of his returning to conquer and overthrow everything wasn't universally believed
Paul himself complains of those who thought the resurrection had already come so those people must have had different end time beliefs?
So the were different views of this at an ancient date i'm interested in all these different views

For me, Jesus shakes things up like Josephus says other Fourth Philosophers did. The only difference is that Jesus did it in his own way, based on his interpretations of OT passages like the "one like a son of man" and the Suffering Servant and such. He may not have even been unique in that respect though either, considering what Josephus says about Fourth Philosophers "not value[ing] dying any kinds of death" and "the resolution they show when they undergo pain."

I think this element of the Fourth Philosophy is reflected not only in Jesus' own willingness to suffer and die for his cause of conquering the world as a spiritual being, but also in what he expected and predicted of his followers, in their case for the cause of being allied with Jesus when he returns as a world conquering spiritual being and living forever in glory, as per Mk. 13:9-13 and 13:26-27:

You will be delivered over to the councils and beaten in the synagogues. On my account you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all the nations. But when they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand what to say ... You will be hated by everyone because of my name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.And he will send out the angels to gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Hanging over all this are the facts that one of the founders of the Fourth Philosophy was a Pharisee and that Fourth Philosophers were in agreement with Pharisaic "notions." This is the case for Christianity not only in that it too exhibits Pharisaic "notions" (resurrection of the dead, etc.), but one of its founders (Paul) had likewise been a Pharisee. In other words, there is a similar pattern here in the big picture right from the get go.

And Josephus says things about Fourth Philosophers that sound like what Jesus says in Mark 13.

... exhorted the nation to assert their liberty, as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same ...

What are Jesus' teachings about the Kingdom of God, the coming of the "son of man" and persevering to the Messianic Age in the face of suffering if not exhortations to Jews to "assert their liberty" and assurances of a "greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity"? Jesus and his followers simply believed these things in their own particular ways, but their goal (the Kingdom of God) and the "resolution" they showed when they underwent pain were one and the same in spirit (literally and figuratively).

Josephus then says that "this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree," and Acts 21:20 notes "how many thousands of Jews have believed." And what were Jesus' rabble rousing and suicide-by-cop philosophy and the suffering and violence of his followers if not some of the "misfortunes [that] also sprang from these men" (whether Josephus was aware of Jesus or not)?

Josephus goes on to say that because of the Fourth Philosophy, "there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people."

What do you call the actions of the Christian extremists who try to murder Paul and start a riot in Jerusalem in Acts 21-23 if not attempted "murder of our principle men ... done in pretense indeed for the public welfare" that "fell on those of their own people"?

Acts 21:27-32:

... Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches everywhere against our people and against our law and against this place. Furthermore, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. While they were trying to kill him, the commander of the Roman regiment received a report that all Jerusalem was in turmoil. Immediately he took some soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd. When the people saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

For reference and future commentary I append Josephus' two main descriptions of the Fourth Philosophy.

Ant. 18.1.1 and 6:

1. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction...

6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain.

[John2]

I see Jesus as being similar to the type of Fourth Philosophers Josephus describes in War 2.13.4:

These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

I think Jesus likens himself to this type of people in Mk. 13:3-6:

While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Jesus began by telling them, “See to it that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many."

And just like the above, Jesus too was destroyed by the authorities in his time who "thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt."

[John2]

Everything Josephus says about Fourth Philosophers in the last part of Ant. 18.1.1 seems applicable to Christianity to me. Changing "the customs of our fathers" was what Jesus was known for doing, like in Mk. 7:1-5 ("Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?"). And their behavior "added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction" and "laid the foundations of our future miseries," like Jesus is accused of doing and predicted would happen in Mk. 14:55-59 ("We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another that is made without hands’”) and 13:1-2 ("Do you see all these great buildings?” Jesus replied. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down”).

Jesus prepares his followers for such "future miseries" throughout Mark 13 ("So be on your guard; I have told you everything in advance"; "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened").

And I think what Josephus says about Jews being "unacquainted" with the teachings of the Fourth Philosophy is reflected in the impact of Jesus' teachings right off the bat in Mk. 1:27-28 ("All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, 'What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!' And the news about Jesus spread quickly through the whole region of Galilee").

And I think the way that Fourth Philosophic teachings had "spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it" and "brought the public to destruction " is reflected in the behavior of the "zealous" Christian extremists in Acts 21-23, and Jesus himself was fairly young according Lk. 3:23 ("Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry").



Ant. 18.1.1:

Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction ...

Mk. 7:1-5:

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus, and they saw some of His disciples eating with hands that were defiled—that is, unwashed.

Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.b

5So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands.”

Mk. 14:55-59:

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they did not find any. For many bore false witness against Jesus, but their testimony was inconsistent.

Then some men stood up and testified falsely against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another that is made without hands.’ ” But even their testimony was inconsistent.

Mk. 13.1:2:

As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, look at the magnificent stones and buildings!”

“Do you see all these great buildings?” Jesus replied. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."