Question: Was Theudas seditious or pacifist?

[Giuseppe]

Your (and Ben's) approach is atomistic if you think that the Theudas's passage can be read without comparing it with the (evidently similar) passage about the Samaritan false prophet, where the followers were armed. The reason Josephus talks about a more generic "kteseis" (property) and not about arms is that probably the followers of Theudas believed that they could reply the miracle of Joshua, i.e. to cross the river without getting wet. Hence their "possessions" would be safe during the crossing.

But just as the Israelites following the OT Joshua beyond the Jordan river carried possessions and arms, so the followers of the "new Joshua", Theudas, carried probably arms, too.

[John2]

Your (and Ben's) approach is atomistic if you think that the Theudas's passage can be read without comparing it with the (evidently similar) passage about the Samaritan false prophet, where the followers were armed. The reason Josephus talks about a more generic "kteseis" (property) and not about arms is that probably the followers of Theudas believed that they could reply the miracle of Joshua, i.e. to cross the river without getting wet. Hence their "possessions" would be safe during the crossing.

But just as the Israelites following the OT Joshua beyond the Jordan river carried possessions and arms, so the followers of the "new Joshua", Theudas, carried probably arms, too.

If Josephus thought Theudas and his followers were armed he would have said so, like he does for the Samaritan prophet. Just like if he thought all Fourth Philosophers were "magicians" he would have said so. But only some Fourth Philosophers were magicians, and only some were armed. And Theudas was taking his followers away from Judea, and Josephus doesn't say it was to gather on the other side of the Jordan to come back later and use weapons against the Romans. And since he claimed to be a prophet, I suppose he expected to receive divine assistance there, like Jesus in Mt. 26:53.

[Giuseppe]

What do you do about the fact that both the Samaritan false prophet and Theudas were posing as "New Joshua"?
Doesn't this say us that their followers were in arms precisely because they were posing as the followers of the OT Joshua (who were in arms according to OT scriptures) ?

[John2]

The Samaritan prophet is likened to Moses, not Joshua. At least, Moses is the only biblical figure Josephus mentions in the passage.

He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them.

The Samaritan equivalent [of the Messiah] is the Taheb, the Restorer-prophet "like Moses" announced in Deuteronomy 18.15-18.

https://www.livius.org/articles/religio ... n-prophet/

As for Theudas, sure, dividing the Jordan is like Joshua, but in reverse since he was leading his followers away from Judea. And other Fourth Philosophers spent time at the Jordan, like John the Baptist and Jesus, and they weren't armed either.

[John2]

Having swords and using them for sedition are two different things. In both passages his followers have swords, and in Matthew he says to "put your sword back in its place," not to get rid of it.

In Luke, having swords was only to symbolically "fulfill" the OT verse, "He was numbered among the transgressors," with two being enough (22:38).

But I am arguing that Jesus (and Theudas) was both seditious and pacifistic, so any overlap like this seems fitting to me.

I agree that the historical Jesus was seditious - I'm less sold on his pacificism. The gospels attempted to fulfill the "he was numbered among the transgressors" prophecy by crucifying him next to a couple of bandits (or they attempted to excuse an embarrassing fact by claiming it was in fulfillment of prophecy). Having his disciples carrying around sheathed swords doesn't seem to me a necessary way of fulfilling this prophecy.

Well, his disciples having swords appears to be at least part of it, since that's the context of his citation of Is. 53:12. I think Jesus just wanted (or is presented as wanting) to symbolically appear to be like violent Fourth Philosophers by appearing to be associated with "transgressors" for the sake of "fulfilling" Is. 53:12. His pacifistic approach seems to be based on the Suffering Servant figure and the "cut off" Messiah in Dan. 9:26, but claiming to also be Daniel's "son of man" figure negates all that to me (as per Dan. 7:14: "He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, that the people of every nation and language should serve him").

So Jesus wanted to accomplish the same thing that "transgressors" did (i.e., that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth"), but he had a particular way of making it happen, first by being pacifistic like the Suffering Servant and the cut off Messiah, then (after his death) by being seditious like the "son of man." And in the big picture, it all seems like Fourth Philosophic nonsense to me (just like Theudas' thing does).

[Giuseppe]

As for Theudas, sure, dividing the Jordan is like Joshua, but in reverse since he was leading his followers away from Judea.

there is no evidence of the direction taken by Theudas in Josephus, so the comparison with OT Joshua makes it more probable that Theudas was going to enter in Judea and not to exit from it.

And other Fourth Philosophers spent time at the Jordan, like John the Baptist and Jesus, and they weren't armed either.

there is no evidence in Josephus (assuming, and not conceding, the related passage as genuine) that John the Baptist was pacifist. Surely he was not pacifist at least in the eyes of Antipas.

In general, your defense of Jesus's (and Theudas's) pacifism resembles strongly the way how Christian apologists defend it.

[John2]

As for Theudas, sure, dividing the Jordan is like Joshua, but in reverse since he was leading his followers away from Judea.

there is no evidence of the direction taken by Theudas in Josephus, so the comparison with OT Joshua makes it more probable that Theudas was going to enter in Judea and not to exit from it.

Theudas and his followers were chased down by soldiers sent by the procurator of Judea, Cuspius Fadus, which indicates to me that Theudas' "wild attempt" to divide the Jordan began in Judea.

However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

And other Fourth Philosophers spent time at the Jordan, like John the Baptist and Jesus, and they weren't armed either.

there is no evidence in Josephus (assuming, and not conceding, the related passage as genuine) that John the Baptist was pacifist. Surely he was not pacifist at least in the eyes of Antipas.

John the Baptist is not said to have been armed and is called a "good man" and was killed because people were "very greatly moved by hearing his words." No, he was not pacifistic in the eyes of Antipas because of his words, and neither was Theudas in the eyes of Fadus because of his words, or Jesus in the eyes of the "established order" of his time because of his words, even though all of them were unarmed.

In general, your defense of Jesus's (and Theudas's) pacifism resembles strongly the way how Christian apologists defend it.

But I'm arguing that Theudas (and Jesus) was seditious and pacifistic. He was pacifistic in the sense of not being armed, and he was seditious in the sense of using his "speech ... toward rebellion against the established order."

[Giuseppe]

What about the the two lesthai crucified with Jesus? (I am assuming a historical Jesus only in this thread) Were they two followers of Jesus?

If your answer is that the two lesthai are derived midrashically from the Psalm passage "enumerated among the evildoers" or from the the tree of good and evil in Genesis 1, then it is clear that you are absolutely persuaded that Jesus was never connected with the use of violence.

What about the attack to the temple? Was it only an isolated example of mere religious fanatism or a real violent collective attack?

I may continue with the list of what prof Bermejo-Rubio calls disiepta membra of violent sediction in Mark. You know: the logion of the two swords, the entire cohort coming to capture Jesus, etc.

[Giuseppe]

See for example Mark 11:11

Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve

Was Jesus testing the presence of soldiers in the Temple area? Was he planning a violent attack?

[John2]

What about the the two lesthai crucified with Jesus? (I am assuming a historical Jesus only in this thread) Were they two followers of Jesus?

They don't appear to have been since they berated him, in keeping with what Josephus says about Fourth Philosophers hating each other (Ant. 18.1.1: "the madness of these men towards one another"; Mk. 15:32: "And even those who were crucified with him berated him").

If your answer is that the two lesthai are derived midrashically from the Psalm passage "enumerated among the evildoers" or from the the tree of good and evil in Genesis 1, then it is clear that you are absolutely persuaded that Jesus was never connected with the use of violence.

The "enumerated among the evildoers" verse is from Is. 53:12 and pertains to Jesus' followers.

What about the attack to the temple? Was it only an isolated example of mere religious fanatism or a real violent collective attack?

It looks like both to me, according to Mk. 11:15-17:

... Jesus entered the temple courts and began to drive out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves. And he would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. Then Jesus began to teach them, and he declared, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”

I may continue with the list of what prof Bermejo-Rubio calls disiepta membra of violent sediction in Mark. You know: the logion of the two swords, the entire cohort coming to capture Jesus, etc.

Well, some of Jesus' followers had swords and Jesus taught against the established order and had messianic pretensions, so it's no surprise to me that he was arrested and executed. But he doesn't appear to have been armed himself, and he doesn't appear to have wanted his followers to use their swords and he wanted to be executed because of his interpretation of Isaiah's Suffering Servant and Daniel's cut off Messiah, so he did some things that would make that happen.