Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
FJVermeiren
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:48 am
Contact:

Re: Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

Post by FJVermeiren »

I suggest to look in a different direction, as I already did in an earlier thread on this forum: Vespasian, the king in the parable of the ten pounds?

I concluded the OP as follows:

In my opinion this fragment of Luke discusses the Roman emperor Vespasian, his coming to power, his financial policy, his relation to the Jews and finally the execution of his major military opponent during the war, the chief Jewish rebel leader Simon bar Giora, the year after the fall of Jerusalem. The Gospel writer seems to be well informed on the political situation of his days.

For the execution of Simon: Josephus, War VII:153-154.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates.
James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance p. 139
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

Post by Michael BG »

Stefan

I can’t provide the answer you requested but I have these thoughts on the passage.

It comes from Q.

Matthews’ is the closest to the original Q version as the man gives five talents to one, two to another and one to a third (Mt 25:15). The first two double their money and the third doesn’t (Mt 25:20, 22 and 24). Luke states there are 10 servants (Lk19:13) but he only has three later on – the first (verse 16), the second (verse 18) and “another” or “next one” (verse 20). To me this seems to be evidence that the original only had the three servants as in Matthew.

Matthew does not have “λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι” “For I-am-saying to-you”. Therefore in the Matthean version it is still the Master who is saying, “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” It should be interpreted that the master is still speaking because of the reference to the worthless servant.

Therefore Jesus didn’t say “'But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence” it is a Lucan creation.
DCHindley wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 6:12 pm While I have heard it said that this is a story of Archelaeus going to Rome to receive his kingdom, in which there was a revolt which was suppressed by the Romans before he returned. The problem is that there is no account of Archelaeus exerting severe vengeance against those who revolted.
If so then Lk 19:12, 14 and 27 are seen as Lucan additions to the original Q story to link it to Archelaus. According to Josephus Archelaus removed the High Priest Joazar son of Boethus on his return (Ant. 17:13:1). Josephus describes his reign as “barbarous and tyrannical” (Ant. 17:13:2).
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 4:24 pm Stefan

I can’t provide the answer you requested but I have these thoughts on the passage.

It comes from Q.

Matthews’ is the closest to the original Q version as the man gives five talents to one, two to another and one to a third (Mt 25:15). The first two double their money and the third doesn’t (Mt 25:20, 22 and 24). Luke states there are 10 servants (Lk19:13) but he only has three later on – the first (verse 16), the second (verse 18) and “another” or “next one” (verse 20). To me this seems to be evidence that the original only had the three servants as in Matthew.

Matthew does not have “λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι” “For I-am-saying to-you”. Therefore in the Matthean version it is still the Master who is saying, “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” It should be interpreted that the master is still speaking because of the reference to the worthless servant.

Therefore Jesus didn’t say “'But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence” it is a Lucan creation.
I think you are right about there being an "aporia" in the account, the story of the talents intruding into the story of the man who goes abroad to receive his kingdom, returning triumphantly and despotically.
DCHindley wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 6:12 pm While I have heard it said that this is a story of Archelaeus going to Rome to receive his kingdom, in which there was a revolt which was suppressed by the Romans before he returned. The problem is that there is no account of Archelaeus exerting severe vengeance against those who revolted.
If so then Lk 19:12, 14 and 27 are seen as Lucan additions to the original Q story to link it to Archelaus. According to Josephus Archelaus removed the High Priest Joazar son of Boethus on his return (Ant. 17:13:1). Josephus describes his reign as “barbarous and tyrannical” (Ant. 17:13:2).
But Arch. doesn't seem to kill anybody.

Now his daddy Herod the Great did go abroad (Rome) to receive his kingdom, and also a Roman force sufficient to ensure that he could retake the capital and eventually the entire kingdom from the Parthian vassal Antigonus and his forces. As everyone knows, he killed folks right and left.

However, he had previously been a Roman Procurator working in tandem with the High Priest and Judean Ethnarch Hyrcanus II, as well as a "marshall" appointed by the governor of Syria to suppress Galilean outlaws who had been raiding southern Syria. He had juridical authority to put folks to death, and did so frequently, including a number of his sons. "It is better to be Herod's pig than his son."

However, Archelaeus was the Judean "Ethnarch" (titular head of the Judean people worldwide, as Hyrcanus II had been before his ear was cut off and he went into exile in Parthian territory), and may not have had the authority to put to death without pre-approval. I don't know for sure, as I am certainly no expert on the history of this period.

Like many who lurk here, I do like to read Josephus' works. These contain hundreds, maybe a thousand or more, accounts of notable figures which could be matched to sayings attributed to Jesus in the various gospels and other sources.

My issue with this is that when the authors/editors of the various NT/Christian sources were crafting things to have Jesus say, it seem (to me anyways) that they were splicing together several unrelated accounts of historical events in the process.

Now I'm sure they genuinely believed that the "real" Jesus would have said exactly those things put in his mouth, in response to his opponents statements/actions. However ... I do not believe that Jesus had assistants and close allies who were busy documenting everything he said verbatim. There may have been personal note books kept by Jesus himself or his associates. These notebooks were commonplace among important figures in the period, recording the keepers' daily actions. These were used as evidence if the keeper was arrested and charged with something by the authorities. They did not record everything the keeper said, but did contain brief summaries.

DCH - to bed ... :shh:
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 8:48 pm But Arch. doesn't seem to kill anybody.

Like many who lurk here, I do like to read Josephus' works. These contain hundreds, maybe a thousand or more, accounts of notable figures which could be matched to sayings attributed to Jesus in the various gospels and other sources.
Perhaps it is only a generic account and doesn’t refer to anyone in particular.
DCHindley wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 8:48 pm My issue with this is that when the authors/editors of the various NT/Christian sources were crafting things to have Jesus say, it seem (to me anyways) that they were splicing together several unrelated accounts of historical events in the process.

.. I do not believe that Jesus had assistants and close allies who were busy documenting everything he said verbatim.
It is possible that Jesus’ followers remembered particular things Jesus said, in the same way as some things said by politicians were remembered by people. So I only have real issues when from the context it seems unlikely anyone would have been there to remember the words, such as when Jesus is taken before the Jewish and Roman authorities or when all the witnesses were asleep when Jesus prays at Gethsemane.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Well, I've looked further and I've still not found any Christian or scholarly interpreters who understands Luke 19:27 as the words of Jesus to his disciples. It's only when read completely out of context that it can be seen as such.
Michael BG wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 4:24 pm Stefan

I can’t provide the answer you requested but I have these thoughts on the passage.

It comes from Q.

Matthews’ is the closest to the original Q version as the man gives five talents to one, two to another and one to a third (Mt 25:15). The first two double their money and the third doesn’t (Mt 25:20, 22 and 24). Luke states there are 10 servants (Lk19:13) but he only has three later on – the first (verse 16), the second (verse 18) and “another” or “next one” (verse 20). To me this seems to be evidence that the original only had the three servants as in Matthew.

Matthew does not have “λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι” “For I-am-saying to-you”. Therefore in the Matthean version it is still the Master who is saying, “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” It should be interpreted that the master is still speaking because of the reference to the worthless servant.

Therefore Jesus didn’t say “'But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence” it is a Lucan creation.
Hi Michael

If I were a believer in Q, I would probably agree with you all the way. But since someone did make up the Parabe of the Talents, and if it wasn't Jesus (which it surely wasn't), then why not Matthew, is what I'd say.

Here's my broader take on the interrelationship. Matthew knew from gMark the Parable of the Sower and even appropriates it including the saying connected to it "To him who has will be given ..." (Mark 4:25/Matt 13:12). And he also knew the Parable of the Watchful Servants (Mark 13:33-37) and these two parables are closely connected through a dominant theme in the NT: the effort which is required of the Christians, God's 'servant', in the interim period before judgement day, or the preparation period. And this effort is on the basis of the things that have been given to the Christians. The Sower parable is about the job which is mission with the Christians having been given the Word, the "seed", the "secret of God's kingdom", and the Watchful Servants parable is apparantly more generally about the job of caretaking of God's "house", even through all the tribulations (Mark 13:1-27), with the Christians having been given management of the Christian fellowship.

These two parables share this common theme, then, the Christians have been given things and so an effort is required until judgement day, and as Matthew appropriates also the Parable of the Watchful Servants from gMark, he even expands the theme and teaching into four sections (Matt 24:42-25:46):
- the Watchful Servants
- the Ten Bridesmaids
- the Talents
- the Great Judgement

Watch how the man who travels abroad in Mark's Parable of the Watchful Servants is removed by Matthew to be used instead in his Parable of the Talents and then expanded by Luke in his Pounds parable (so now it's a nobleman travelling to aquire a kingship).

And we should not be surprised that Matthew inserts the saying from the Sower parable, Mark 4:25 ("To those who have will be given..."), into the Parable of the Talents, because it is all about the theme of the effort of the Christians, and the eventual accorded reward/punishment. The Parable of the Talents is an expansion of the Parable of the Watchful Servants, and it's all deeply connected thematically with the Parable of the Sower.

Likewise, not surprisingly, we find that when Luke appropriates the section in gMatt with the Watchful Servants and the Ten Bridesmaids (Matt 24:42-25:13 ~ Luke 12:35-48) he comes up with this new version of the giving-saying: "From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."
Post Reply