Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

Charles Wilson wrote:Yeah, I had an idea or 2 about it, about 300 pages worth. ISBN 1491228385.

Great thing Charles

Are there others here with us beside me which haven't written a book?

I haven't but maybe I should.

Not "maybe". You must

Agreed. There are Digital Publishers such as Create Space that will get the job done, soup to nuts. It's on a "per copy" basis so that when someone in New Zealand buys your book, it gets printed and sent. "No more tiresome exercises..."

CW

I kind of believe on principle that I should get a degree first. At least a double major in History. Something.

Actually ... that is what I intend to do. Math and History.

Charles, are you saying there are other allusions to Archelaus's temple slaughter in the NT?

1. Write your book PK. Do whatever else you want but write the book.

2. To the Original Post:

Luke 19: 11 - 28 (RSV):

[11] As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
[12] He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return.
[13] Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten pounds, and said to them, `Trade with these till I come.'
[14] But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, `We do not want this man to reign over us.'
[15] When he returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading.
[16] The first came before him, saying, `Lord, your pound has made ten pounds more.'
[17] And he said to him, `Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.'
[18] And the second came, saying, `Lord, your pound has made five pounds.'
[19] And he said to him, `And you are to be over five cities.'
[20] Then another came, saying, `Lord, here is your pound, which I kept laid away in a napkin;
[21] for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man; you take up what you did not lay down, and reap what you did not sow.'
[22] He said to him, `I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?
[23] Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest?'
[24] And he said to those who stood by, `Take the pound from him, and give it to him who has the ten pounds.'
[25] (And they said to him, `Lord, he has ten pounds!')
[26] `I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
[27] But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.'"
[28] And when he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

This Story is intentionally deceptive on a variety of fronts:

1. The first verse leads one to believe that the Disciples and followers were to be Transported into the Kingdom Of God - or whatever. Here is deception. The "Realm of Heaven" (From Moffatt. I like the sound of it...) is a place in Antonia where the Priests gather for their Mishmarot Service. It is ONLY for those of Rank higher than the Scribes and Pharisees. Already we are being set up for Metaphysics.

2. This Story is NOT about Archelaus. The second verse tells of a Nobleman going to receive a Kingdom and - HEY! - that has to be Archelaus, correct? " 'N Charlie, most of your work is centered around Archelaus and the Passover where he came to power, so what's wrong?"

Ant..., 14, 16, 4:

"Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family..."

If Herod was a "King" it was by appointment by the Romans, saith Josephus. Archelaus had the language of Kingship spoken around and of him but he was no King. This second verse is concerning someone else.

3. To realize the subject matter, we must look at the last 2 verses:

[27] But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.'"
[28] And when he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

Alexander Jannaeus.

Mark 13: 17 (RSV):

[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

Ant..., 13, 14, 2:

"...after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes. This was indeed by way of revenge for the injuries they had done him..."

There is Forger's Tremble and there is also a correlate here. The Source is NOT about "Jesus" but it is difficult to keep it all straight. Many see "Enter through the Narrow Door" and "Enter through the Narrow Gate as something like Oral Tradition getting garbled in the telling. No, not with those 2 Stories. They are as different as night and day. Here we have a tale of Jannaeus, King and High Priest. He is to be rewritten as the Righteous Savior and the background certainly has some bloody moments. "But...would Jesus ask people to bring his enemies in front of him to watch them get slaughtered?"

Uh-Oh...

Anyway, this is one of the Jannaeus Stories.

CW

Tenorikuma wrote:Charles, are you saying there are other allusions to Archelaus's temple slaughter in the NT?

Anywhere, everywhere, all over the place.

Start with early Mark:

You have to understand Mishmarot Temple Service, from which the Stories were stolen. "John" is from "Bilgah", "Jesus" is from IMMER. "Immer" is a HEBREW word play on "Lamb" as in "Lamb of God". (See Jewish Encyclopedia)

[24] and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."

There are some rewrites here but read this with a different intentionality. "Have you come to destroy us?..." These people know this person from something that happened 12 years ago.

Go to chapter 3: The Man with the Withered Hand. "What can a man with a withered hand NOT be able to do? WRITE. The Scribes have been ordered to not tell what they know of the Temple Slaughter. The "Withered Hand" Story is written around 8/9 CE looking back. (There's a reason for this Time Line and this "Looking Back".)

Mark 4 begins some of the Deep Stuff:

[35] On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side."
[36] And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him.
[37] And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.
[38] But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?"
[39] And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

This is the Great Passover Slaughter right here.

Mark 5 opens with "The Lunatic" and this is Jannaeus who seeks a reunited Greater Israel. The Lunatic, ends up clothed and in his proper senses. Clothes are the Symbols of the Priesthood. "The Lunatic" was a Priest.

What follows is most important. It is Jairus who convinces "Jesus" (A Priest) to save his daughter. She is nearly - or already is - dead. Jairus convinces this Priest to try one more time to summon God to Re-Dedicate the Temple and cast out the Herodians and the Romans. They are interrupted by a Woman with a 12 Year Issue of Blood. 12 years, 12 years, 12 years, what is it about 12 years? Simply this: Immer is on duty for Passover in 4 BCE and also 12 years later in 9 CE.

The end of the Slaughter of the Passover is found at the end of Chapter 6. Why did God not stand with the Priests as he promised in Leviticus 26? It must be because in 12 years, a more perfect opportunity will arise!

And on and on and on and on... It's everywhere, all over the NT.
Let me leave you again with a thought experiment:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Glorious, marvelous moment of Jesus' Ministry, correct? Do this, after telling your friend about what you are about to do:
Get a good sized rock that will fit in the palm of your hand. Tell your friend to ask you to "Keep your buddies over there quiet!!!".

Hold the rock under your friends nose, shaking it as you yell, "If I told my friends to be quiet this stone would shout!!!..."

Has a different Intentionality doesn't it? A different meaning. Now, go find Josephus and get to Wars..., 2, 1, 3:

"...At this Archclaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so..."

Read the whole passage. You are on the floor of the very Temple just before 3000 are to be Murdered. Not the cheery little Jesus Story you heard in Sunday School was it? 'N there's a lot, lot more...

CW

One possible answer to the initial question might be that Luke was intent on correcting the morally dubious action of Jesus in Matthew. Matthew's Jesus throws into hell the servant who was too fearful of Jesus to work productively; Luke tones that down by having Jesus merely remove his responsibility from him. We are left to imagine that this fearful servant remained in the household but without any great reward.

Luke then may be driving his point home by stressing to anyone who had read Matthew that Jesus does not send to hell faithful servants who achieve little but rather exercises his wrath on the rebellious citizens who reject his rule totally.

The author knew his Josephus and the action of a ruler leaving for a foreign land to receive a kingdom (as he read in Matthew) naturally brought to mind the Archelaus episode. Luke drew upon it to make his point that the violence of Jesus in Matthew was over the top and to replace it with a more justifiable butchery.

Several of the differences between Luke and Matthew are open to similar revisionist explanations.

The above manner in which Luke corrects the theodicy found in Matthew also coheres with canonical Luke-Acts more general anti-Jewish stance: God/Jesus massacring the Jews who reject Jesus replaces Matthew's Jesus consigning an insignificant Christian to hell.

Thanks for the thoughts, Neil. So you would agree then, that comparing the post-Parousia Jesus to a king known for his cruelty was not a problem for the writer/redactor of this passage, but in fact enhanced the intended message.

As for Luke correcting Matthew, the more I study this passage, the more convinced I am that it's the other way around. Matthew is spiritualizing Luke's parable; instead of slaves becoming rulers of cities (a typical Lucan role-reversal), Matthew has them "enter into the master's joy" — whatever the hell that means. Just like how the poor "in spirit" are blessed according to Matthew (who finds the extolling of poverty somewhat distasteful). There are other inconsistencies in Matthew's version too.

Tenorikuma wrote:Thanks for the thoughts, Neil. So you would agree then, that comparing the post-Parousia Jesus to a king known for his cruelty was not a problem for the writer/redactor of this passage, but in fact enhanced the intended message.

As for Luke correcting Matthew, the more I study this passage, the more convinced I am that it's the other way around. Matthew is spiritualizing Luke's parable; instead of slaves becoming rulers of cities (a typical Lucan role-reversal), Matthew has them "enter into the master's joy" — whatever the hell that means. Just like how the poor "in spirit" are blessed according to Matthew (who finds the extolling of poverty somewhat distasteful). There are other inconsistencies in Matthew's version too.

JW:
Ah, Tenorikuma, good to have you back. Guessing what GMark's sources were is subjective since as far as we know it is the original Gospel narrative. Commenting on the differences between subsequent Gospels and GMark is relatively more objective since we have both. In this unholy Thread the offending part is "Herod (tetrarch)". Best to look at, compare and consider ALL differences in invocation between GLuke and GMark:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... spanend=49

The objective observation is that the offending "Herod" has received an expanded role in GLuke. Again, this observation is objective because we have both parts to compare. My own explanation, explanations move towards the subjective, is that GMark is primarily interested in style and there everyone is opposed/resists/doesn't get Jesus. So Herod does not stand out. GLuke is much more interested in presenting the appearance of history and in historical writings there is usually one main enemy.

As to the question of this Thread than, why does "Luke" (author) present his Jesus as Abing Josephus' "Herod Archelaus" by predicting that upon his return his enemies will be brought before him and slain? "Luke" is presenting Herod as the physical King who is the primary enemy of Jesus and "Luke" of course is predicting that Jesus will replace Herod as King. But while Herod Archelaus physically killed his enemies on his return, Jesus will spiritually kill his enemies on his return.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki