From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 19 1995 - 09:27:59 EST
I may be wrong, but I think Rod's post was meant for the list, and this
will get it there and give me a chance to respond without taking up extra
bandwidth.
At 9:53 PM 12/18/95, Rod Decker wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>particular, however, is, I believe, an old one. The Synoptic gospels all
>>place the "Cleansing of the Temple" at the beginning of Passion Week,
>>whereas John puts it in Chapter 2. I think the usual harmonization is to
>>say that John has deliberately placed the events in chapter 2 of the
>>beginning (wedding at Cana) and of the end (Cleansing of Temple) of Jesus'
>>ministry. Your reading would appear to take the positioning of the
>>Cleansing of the Temple as indeed taking place historically three (or at
>>least two) years PRIOR to that last week in Jerusalem. I won't say this is
>>impossible--I obviously can't prove it is--but is it plausible that this
>>sort of challenge to the authority of the High Priesthood would have been
>>allowed to go unsanctioned for two successive years?
>>
>>
>I'm curious why there is a problem with TWO similar events? What makes an
>earlier event implausible? The hostility from the authorities throughout
>Jesus' ministry would certainly be intelligible in light of such an event.
>His popularity with the crowds, particularly in the early period could
>account for the fact that they were not able to take public action. Even
>after the second event they were very cautious--for fear of the Jews.
You catch me here, Rod, in my predilection for Ockham's Razor--entia non
multiplicanda, etc.. Do you, Stephen Moore, assume two "cleansings" of the
Temple?
There's a second question here,and, I guess, a second confession I'll have
to make. I try to keep an open mind on the historical reliability of the
accounts of opposition to and support for Jesus, but I really think that a
lot of it is tendentious in the narrative sequence. We are getting off the
issue of the Greek text as such here, but the proposal Stephen set forth
was a historical rather than a textual question. "Fear of the Jews" is
indeed the term used in these synoptic and Johannine accounts, but "Jews"
in John's gospel is a problematic term, and there's a question, for that
matter, of who is referred to by "Jews," "Herodians," and "Pharisees" in
any particular synoptic pericope. We like to make a point around Easter
time of the fickleness of "the crowd" that welcomed Jesus on Palm Sunday
and cried out "Crucify him!" on Friday. This raises what I think is a
question worth investigation--and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's
already been investigated: the OXLOS/OXLOI in the synoptics constitute(s)
an extraordinary narrative motif: they gather around him and Jesus does
confront them, but at times seems to want to distance himself from them
because they threaten to "crush" him. Is this a narrative motif in itself?
I suspect it is, but I'd like to know more about it.
At any rate, I am, in fact, skeptical about two "cleansings," and also
wonder whether it's plausible that such a violent (cf. ongoing discussion
on ELENCHUS) attack upon the authorities at the Temple would have gone
unanswered for two years and have to be repeated before action being taken
against Jesus.
A similar question about doubling concerns the whole group of events in
Mark 6-8 that appear to be cyclical repetitions: two feedings, two
lake-crossing, etc., etc. There are various ways of understanding this
phenomenon, but I tend to side with those who think that the doubling here
is a Marcan narrative procedure rather than a reflection of historical
sequence.
More than enough said, I fear. But I'm curious whether others really
envision two "cleansings" of the Temple two years apart?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT