How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by John2 »

I'm with Ken on this. I think Luke used Mark and that this is reflected in Acts 6 (as Ken noted), but in any event, Jesus talks about the Temple (or Jerusalem, which of course includes the Temple) being destroyed in Lk. 19 (not by him, but doesn't he say that in Mark either), and I can see how people overhearing him or wanting to charge him with something could have the impression that one way or another he wanted the Temple to be destroyed.

And Lk. 23:5 says that "He stirs up the people all over Judea with his teaching," which presumably includes his remark about Jerusalem. And 23:10 says that "the chief priests and scribes stood there, vehemently accusing him," which could also include his remark about Jerusalem. And 23:14 says, "I have examined him here in your presence and found him not guilty of your charges against him," so there were multiple charges made against him, which could include his remark about Jerusalem, all the more so if we count Acts 6.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by Secret Alias »

There's a surprise. As I mentioned in a previous post, it can't just be about 'which interpretation of history suits our prejudices the best' but even something as basic as fleshing out WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE (because most of us simply follow the evidence and the interpretation as it has come down to us). Have we thought about the parallels between Hays work on prophetic reworking of the Jesus story and the early Marcionite claim (at least 160 CE-ish) that 'Judaizers' corrupted Paul's gospel? No we haven't. It is enough to simply connect the dots from:

1. what we suppose to be first century gospels (where this prophetic reworking is in evidence)
to
2. Papias and his preference for a Matthew gospel over a Mark gospel (which can't be our canonical texts especially not Mark)
to
3. Justin's supposed condemnation of Marcion in 1 Apology (which may have been corrupt)
to
4. Irenaeus, claiming to act in the name of Justin and borrowing (or manipulating) Papias's Matthew-Mark relationship to promote a Matthew then Mark ordering for the gospel (as well as a Luke gospel and John gospel)
to
5. the development of an anti-Marcionite critique (likely through Justin to Irenaeus to Tertullian) which assumes from Papias that any gospel exegesis has to be developed from the Jewish prophetic writings.

This has been our approach because the orthodox tradition has told us this is 'right belief.' But have we sought out other interpretations of how the gospel developed? No we haven't. Now that Christianity is an almost dead religion (at least in terms of its social relevance to most people) it might be a good time to start work on that.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by John2 »

But Jesus is also presented as predicting the fall of the ruling priests in Mk. 12:1-12 ("What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants, and will give the vineyard to others"), and this idea is in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QpHab 9:2-7).

And as for that which He said, "because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you" ... Interpreted this concerns the last priests of Jerusalem, who shall
amass money and wealth by plundering the peoples. But in the last days, their riches and booty shall be delivered into the hands of the army of the Kittim ...

The Temple Scroll also imagines a better Temple, which would presumably entail the destruction of the old one. I don't know if Evans mentions this, but since these writings predate 70 CE, the idea of the destruction of the ruling priests and possibly also of the Temple existed before 70 CE.

As Milgrom puts it in The Dead Sea Temple Scroll, "they [i.e., whatever group used the Scroll] would reenter the destroyed Jerusalem to rebuild its temple according to the divine blueprint of the Temple Scroll and inaugurate a pure and correct ritual in accordance with its teachings."


https://rsc.byu.edu/scriptures-modern-w ... ple-scroll
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by Ken Olson »

John2 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:44 pm But Jesus is also presented as predicting the fall of the ruling priests in Mk. 12:1-12 ("What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants, and will give the vineyard to others"),
I don't see why we should interpret the tenants to mean the ruling priests in particular. I think the others to whom the master will give the vineyard are the Christians, so the prior tenants are probably the Jews in general - except for those who become Christians.
and this idea is in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QpHab 9:2-7).
And as for that which He said, "because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you" ... Interpreted this concerns the last priests of Jerusalem, who shall
amass money and wealth by plundering the peoples. But in the last days, their riches and booty shall be delivered into the hands of the army of the Kittim ...
This refers to the Romans taking control of Judea from the Hasmonean high priests, which had already taken place when 1QHab was written.
The Temple Scroll also imagines a better Temple, which would presumably entail the destruction of the old one. I don't know if Evans mentions this, but since these writings predate 70 CE, the idea of the destruction of the ruling priests and possibly also of the Temple existed before 70 CE.
The Temple Scroll presents itself as instructions that God is giving to Moses, 'you shall allot to Aaron your brother' (XLIV), before the Israelites entered Canaan, 'When you enter the land which I give you' (LX). It concerns entering the land and building a temple to the God of Israel where none was before. It's not about the destruction of the Herodian temple, which is what Evans was writing about.
As Milgrom puts it in The Dead Sea Temple Scroll, "they [i.e., whatever group used the Scroll] would reenter the destroyed Jerusalem to rebuild its temple according to the divine blueprint of the Temple Scroll and inaugurate a pure and correct ritual in accordance with its teachings."

https://rsc.byu.edu/scriptures-modern-w ... ple-scroll
While Milgrom does say that in his article on the Temple Scroll, he is offering a composite sketch of the beliefs of the Qumran community there and not a description of what is in the Temple Scroll in particular.

Best,

Ken
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by John2 »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:59 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:44 pm But Jesus is also presented as predicting the fall of the ruling priests in Mk. 12:1-12 ("What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants, and will give the vineyard to others"),
I don't see why we should interpret the tenants to mean the ruling priests in particular. I think the others to whom the master will give the vineyard are the Christians, so the prior tenants are probably the Jews in general - except for those who become Christians.

I think the parable in Mk. 12:1-12 refers to priests because the end of Mk. 11 says:

11:27-33: After their return to Jerusalem, Jesus was walking in the temple courts, and the chief priests, scribes, and elders came up to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you the authority to do them?”

“I will ask you one question,” Jesus replied, “and if you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism—was it from heaven or from men? Answer me!”

They deliberated among themselves what they should answer: “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men’...” they were afraid of the people, for they all held that John truly was a prophet. So they answered, “We do not know.” And Jesus replied, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

Then comes the parable in 12:1-12.

12:1-12: Then Jesus began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard ... At this, they sought to arrest Jesus, for they knew that he had spoken this parable against them. But fearing the crowd, they left him and went away.

That the parable is not about the Pharisees seems clear from the next verse.

12:13: Later, they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch Jesus in his words.

And Lk. 20:19 says the same thing about the parable.

The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them ...

and this idea is in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QpHab 9:2-7).
And as for that which He said, "because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you" ... Interpreted this concerns the last priests of Jerusalem, who shall
amass money and wealth by plundering the peoples. But in the last days, their riches and booty shall be delivered into the hands of the army of the Kittim ...
This refers to the Romans taking control of Judea from the Hasmonean high priests, which had already taken place when 1QHab was written.

Maybe so, but it shows that the idea of the ruling priests coming to an end and the "vineyard" being given to others existed before 70 CE.


The Temple Scroll also imagines a better Temple, which would presumably entail the destruction of the old one. I don't know if Evans mentions this, but since these writings predate 70 CE, the idea of the destruction of the ruling priests and possibly also of the Temple existed before 70 CE.
The Temple Scroll presents itself as instructions that God is giving to Moses, 'you shall allot to Aaron your brother' (XLIV), before the Israelites entered Canaan, 'When you enter the land which I give you' (LX). It concerns entering the land and building a temple to the God of Israel where none was before. It's not about the destruction of the Herodian temple, which is what Evans was writing about.

But we know it wasn't really written by Moses, and it incorporates Ezekiel's four square temple idea (e.g., Milgrom: "The sacrificial altar is made of stone and follows Ezekiel’s blueprint"). Schiffmann describes it this way on page 10 of The Temple Scroll:

... the text is a polemic against the existing order, calling for radical change in the order of the day, putting forward reforms in areas of cultic, religious and political life.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover



And to me the construction of this ideal four square Temple implies the destruction or at least a radical alteration of the existing Temple.


As Milgrom puts it in The Dead Sea Temple Scroll, "they [i.e., whatever group used the Scroll] would reenter the destroyed Jerusalem to rebuild its temple according to the divine blueprint of the Temple Scroll and inaugurate a pure and correct ritual in accordance with its teachings."

https://rsc.byu.edu/scriptures-modern-w ... ple-scroll
While Milgrom does say that in his article on the Temple Scroll, he is offering a composite sketch of the beliefs of the Qumran community there and not a description of what is in the Temple Scroll in particular.

But his conclusion is in agreement with Schiffman, that the construction of this ideal Temple calls for "radical change in the order of the day," like in Mk. 14:58:

We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”
Last edited by John2 on Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by Secret Alias »

Back to this circle jerk line of reasoning. Anyway.

If Christianity is properly defined as a religious development from the prophetic literature then the gospels reworking of whatever Jesus said about the destruction of the temple is legitimate. It might be in keeping with the original principles of the religion. But if the Marcionites are right and the core documents of the religion was edited by 'Judaizers' - where 'Judaizing' is defined as IMPROPERLY developing Christianity as an outgrowth of prophetic literature or developed contrary to the original spirit of the religion of Paul (or whatever 'the apostle' was called) - then the gospels have been falsified, the letters of Paul have been falsified and the entire religion corrupted in the mid-second century. It is not a question of whether or not the Marcionites claimed such a falsification occurred. They did. It is recorded in Against Marcion Book 4, in Irenaeus, in De Recta in Deum Fide. The same understanding repeated over and over again.

That the such a corruption of a 'true religion' with prophetic texts COULD occur is almost demonstrable. The Jewish religion itself is such a corruption from the Samaritan point of view. The Samaritans point to Gerizim as the place specified in the Torah as the only sacred place. They see the prophetic literature of the Jews as a corruption of the true religion of Moses and as such it is not a question of COULD the Marcionite position have historical precedents but why mainstream scholars don't feel compelled to investigate them and weigh them against the familiar orthodoxy.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by davidmartin »

If the earliest Christianity was a relatively small sectarian movement then the later attempts of the church to interpret it as if it was completely mainstream are suspect. It's interesting to see that happen in say Luke/Acts where Jesus preaches in the temple, or partakes in the sacrificial system and attends religious feasts, and upholds the law and where Peter is extremely pious - none of these things are recommended any more for Christians yet it's essential to imagine Jesus to have followed them more zealously than the authorities did. But it would make more sense if Jesus had not done those things as a model for his later followers, and maybe he didn't. Perhaps that was a Marcionite position
But one doesn't have to accept the entire Marcionite package of beliefs applied originally and it's certainly not a binary choice between orthodoxy and Marcion, we are free to reconstruct it however we can imagine it!
My take is as a small sectarian movement, early Christianity was spiritualising away the burdensome aspects of the law and was likely against the sacrificial system that's what Jesus appears to be saying quite broadly including Thomas and the Odes and what SA says about corruption, well, maybe it doesn't appear the 2nd century orthodox had any understanding of what the earlier movement was teaching they just projected their own ideas onto it and they weren't the only ones to do that. It's very hard to make sense of all the variety of early Christianities
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Early Writings confirmation bias discontinued? Or not

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:58 am If the earliest Christianity was a relatively small sectarian movement then the later attempts of the church to interpret it as if it was completely mainstream are suspect. It's interesting to see that happen in say Luke/Acts where Jesus preaches in the temple, or partakes in the sacrificial system and attends religious feasts, and upholds the law and where Peter is extremely pious - none of these things are recommended any more for Christians yet it's essential to imagine Jesus to have followed them more zealously than the authorities did. But it would make more sense if Jesus had not done those things as a model for his later followers, and maybe he didn't. Perhaps that was a Marcionite position
But one doesn't have to accept the entire Marcionite package of beliefs applied originally and it's certainly not a binary choice between orthodoxy and Marcion, we are free to reconstruct it however we can imagine it!
My take is as a small sectarian movement, early Christianity was spiritualising away the burdensome aspects of the law and was likely against the sacrificial system that's what Jesus appears to be saying quite broadly including Thomas and the Odes and what SA says about corruption, well, maybe it doesn't appear the 2nd century orthodox had any understanding of what the earlier movement was teaching they just projected their own ideas onto it and they weren't the only ones to do that. It's very hard to make sense of all the variety of early Christianities
You're both right here, and all this will be common knowledge in a few years from now.
But early Chrestianity was Chrestianity indeed, and "Marcionism" as we understand it: a nice narrative like the synoptics, free from anything Judaic, especially anything positively expressing it

And the rest is hisotry, and mainly what SA just said - but it was a hostile take-over by Romans of Chrestianity what led to the gospels and Paul, and it still is very evident how that didn't get relabelled Christianity until 4th/5th CE (Check Bezae, Vaticanus, Sinaitucs for Acts 11:26, 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16, among others - not to forget the 35 counts of ChrEst-xyz in the NHL)

Needless to say, they kept rewriting their story over the centuries and Nestle-Aland attests to a part of that (yet certainly not the Chrestians - let's not forget that they are biased Christians themselves as well, which is also a reason for them to club all the Byzantine into 1 and make it look trivial)

Luke HAD TO STICK TO THOMAS, that's the answer to most questions about Luke: he was meant to address the Marcionite / Thomasine audience, and as such he is a lot closer to John than to his synoptic buddies.
But of course no Jesus ever existed, IS was a literary creation by Thomas, and so are all other characters, including John the Baptist, Matthew, Simon Peter - and Thomas, of course. Oh and Mary, or MariHam, Testifying to Need - which she does during all her Stage Performances: in logion 21 and 114

The Need to be right, to ruminate old ideas, to make relevant what is irrelevant and be unable to make irrelevant what seems relevant: the Disciples get everything wrong every single time and they are the opponents of IS even, representing Judaism to its core. Being a Disciple to IS or even aspiring to be one is one of the most negative acts that one can perform

B-bye again
Having said that, this is goodbye for the second time. I'll leave most of the people here to their own confirmation bias (David being one of the exceptions) and this will be an easy pointer for futre references
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by MrMacSon »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:58 am My take is as a small sectarian movement, early Christianity was spiritualising away the burdensome aspects of the law and was likely against the sacrificial system
Maybe

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:58 am Jesus appears to be saying quite broadly includ[es] Thomas and the Odes
And other texts

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:58 am maybe it doesn't appear the 2nd century orthodox had any understanding of what the earlier movement was teaching; they just projected their own ideas onto it and they weren't the only ones to do that. It's very hard to make sense of all the variety of early Christianities
I doubt there was a 2nd century orthodox movement before Irenaeus, and maybe not even then.

I think there were, as you say at the end there, lots of varieties of early Christianities, but I think most if not all of the early ones were Judaized 'gnostic' and 'mystery' sects and cults.

I think, as per Jorg Rupke, orthodox Christianity had a literary genesis with the formation of the canonical gospels after Marcion, as per Vinzent and Klinghardt, and, as Marcion, had done, their 'pairing' with the Pauline letters and the Catholic and Pastoral epistles
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

Post by davidmartin »

the main point is that orthodoxy is and of itself is always wrong by definition. whatever orthodoxy it is, it's always spectacularly wrong and manages to prove itself wrong time and again no matter how hard it tries. all the best things about any religion come from the stuff that the orthodox think are mistaken and even when they are right they are still wrong. i don't know about anyone else but this is very encouraging for me to see how wrong they are, it is liberating. the assumption is Jesus also saw the same basic thing and had had enough of it. he could see it wasn't going to end well and said so that's all it was about. some orthodoxy later thought he was on their side and failed to grasp that, that's so typical. i think Marcion is just a cypher for seeing it differently
Post Reply