What did Jesus do whilst in Jerusalem and Temple on Sunday?........ or Monday?...... or Tuesday?

[oldbadger]

Many of us on Debating Christianity have read the gospels, maybe referring to them quite often.

Some time ago, whilst debating the life of Jesus with a Christian, I discovered that he didn't know what Jesus did in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday nor any of the first days of that last week. I didn't think much of it until it happened again, and then again, and again.

More recently, if Christians mentioned their knowledge of the gospels I would ask them what they thought that Jesus had done on Sunday, or Monday, etc. I never received a reply! Some might tell me how Jesus got to Jerusalem, or how he entered that city and all in splendid detail, but after that....... nothing.

And so, please would folks tell me what 'they think' Jesus did in Jerusalem and Temple during any of those days?

Me? My offering? My opinion and using modern speech, is that Jesus went sightseeing on Palm Sunday... that's what I think, and for those who wonder why I even bother to reason about that, my reply is that as a student of Historical Jesus that is most important.

OK? Over to you....... please...

[The Nice Centurion]

I'm half torn between a mostly mythical Jesus and a real Jesus who is very different from the Christian one, but whatever it is, the Gospel Jesus ain't real.

Interesting, that not only christians but also atheists, when it comes to Jesus, jump over each other to make false dichotomys and trichotomys !
Even if Gospel Jesus were real mostly or word by word, the Interpretation would still be open for several possibilitys.
Is it not possible too, for instance, that Jesus did miracles and magic without there being a christian god ???

[Goat]

I'm half torn between a mostly mythical Jesus and a real Jesus who is very different from the Christian one, but whatever it is, the Gospel Jesus ain't real.

Interesting, that not only christians but also atheists, when it comes to Jesus, jump over each other to make false dichotomys and trichotomys !
Even if Gospel Jesus were real mostly or word by word, the Interpretation would still be open for several possibilitys.
Is it not possible too, for instance, that Jesus did miracles and magic without there being a christian god ???

That depends, if you use mainstream Christianity vs some of the non-standard non-Trinity types.

However, there still is no objective evidence such an entity exists.

[Difflugia]

Goes to Bethany (perhaps via Jericho where bar - Timaeus hails him as son of David) arrives at Bethany (perhaps healing Lazarus with his followers all watching another miracle) supper with anointing on the head, not the feet, and by 'Mary' not by an anonymous woman.

This is kind of an aside, but the "Bartimaeus" thing cracks me up. All at once, it shows that the story is second-hand (i.e. Mark wasn't a witness) and that Mark didn't understand Aramaic as well as he tried to let on. The story became garbled in transition from Aramaic to Greek because "son of Timaeus" is "bar Timaeus," so his "full" name would be "Bartimaeus bar Timaeus." When Mark heard or read the story, it had already been translated into Greek and mangled in the process, but he somehow didn't notice, even though he is supposed to have understood both languages.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm half torn between a mostly mythical Jesus and a real Jesus who is very different from the Christian one, but whatever it is, the Gospel Jesus ain't real.

Interesting, that not only christians but also atheists, when it comes to Jesus, jump over each other to make false dichotomys and trichotomys !
Even if Gospel Jesus were real mostly or word by word, the Interpretation would still be open for several possibilitys.
Is it not possible too, for instance, that Jesus did miracles and magic without there being a christian god ???

Atheists as well as Christians, do not agree on everything. The way it shakes out is that Jesus is entirely made up and mythical or there was a Real Jesus who did at least something not unlike what is in the gospels.

I'm open, because there are persuasive arguments on both sides. At one time I was heavily inclined to the 'Passover Plot' hypothesis with (I have to say ) the 'Jesus scroll' hypothesis - that Jesus was a rebel zealot and there was a plan to save him from the cross. Popular - sensationalist stories though they may be, the more I dug into it the more support there was for both those ideas. If you credit the Gospel accounts.

But I much more doubt the gospel accounts. Much as John appears to give an account of a Lazarus that looks like a staged fake miracle, I can't dismiss that the synoptics ignore it. What's worse is that Luke actually has a resurrected man in the son of Nain in Galilee. So I have the nagging feeling that there was a 'floating story (TM ) 'Jesus brought a man to life', and they both incorporated that in different ways and John was a lot better at screenplay than I thought.. Also John has no blind bar -Timaeus. But he does have a blind man cured in Jerusalem followed by a whole mess of debate with the Priests that is surely and absolutely John's invention. And on top of that we have the man with Palsy 'Take up your pallet and walk' But in Jerusalem and the Synoptics have it in Galilee.

So there seems to be a case of basic miracle claims that get used in totally different ways and do not look like any reliable record. So I have to doubt any real Jesus there. Especially as history knows nothing of him. Other than Tacitus, and he may only be repeating what the Christians say.

On the other hand If it was all made up, why have him as a Galilean when he should have been born in Bethlehem, and why have him Crucified by Rome which the Gospels then have to do back flips to excuse.

So I have reasons to think there is a real Jesus but not as per the Christian fairy -tale, but there is a lot that is made up and I fear that it may be more than I'd like. Because I really like the Jesus conspiracy -theory

But after all, it's academic. If Jesus is not the Christian construct and the resurrection is not credible (and it isn't) that does for the organized religion and the Historical Jesus is just an academic historical puzzle.

[TRANSPONDER]

Goes to Bethany (perhaps via Jericho where bar - Timaeus hails him as son of David) arrives at Bethany (perhaps healing Lazarus with his followers all watching another miracle) supper with anointing on the head, not the feet, and by 'Mary' not by an anonymous woman.

This is kind of an aside, but the "Bartimaeus" thing cracks me up. All at once, it shows that the story is second-hand (i.e. Mark wasn't a witness) and that Mark didn't understand Aramaic as well as he tried to let on. The story became garbled in transition from Aramaic to Greek because "son of Timaeus" is "bar Timaeus," so his "full" name would be "Bartimaeus bar Timaeus." When Mark heard or read the story, it had already been translated into Greek and mangled in the process, but he somehow didn't notice, even though he is supposed to have understood both languages.

Interesting. I also took 'Bartimaeus' as the fellow's personal name and only realised that it was 'son of Timaeus', which is an odd name for either a Jew or a Greek. But only Mark uses the name, right?....(check..check..) Yes Luke and Matthew do not name the man. So (I say ) it was not in the original and Mark added the name. In fact it is without relevance in the story. though at one time I thought it significant that they knew who he was and he followed them. Of course, because he was one of Jesus' followers and had helped to put on the whole show. Especially as he doesn't call Jesus 'Master' or Healer' or even Lord - but Son of David which is the title Jesus wanted to validate to use in the procession to the Temple.

You see how a plan seemed to fit the narrative. But now i think that Mark added it, perhaps wanting to please a supporter as i suspect he might was to please Alexander and Rufus by showing their father carrying Jesus' cross. But that's debatable. What isn't, i think, is that Mark added it so it can reveal nothing about Jesus or what he was doing.

[Difflugia]

Interesting. I also took 'Bartimaeus' as the fellow's personal name and only realised that it was 'son of Timaeus', which is an odd name for either a Jew or a Greek.

I think that's how Mark took it, too. I'm guessing that the original in Greek was written or told as, "...and bar Timaeus ('the son of Timaeus')...," and one of the people repeating the story (or Mark himself) didn't realize that "the son of Timaeus" was intended to be parenthetical.

But only Mark uses the name, right?....(check..check..) Yes Luke and Matthew do not name the man. So (I say ) it was not in the original and Mark added the name.

I figured it went the other way and it was included in the story that Mark knew, but Matthew and Luke removed it because they realized how silly it was.

[TRANSPONDER]

Interesting. I also took 'Bartimaeus' as the fellow's personal name and only realised that it was 'son of Timaeus', which is an odd name for either a Jew or a Greek.

I think that's how Mark took it, too. I'm guessing that the original in Greek was written or told as, "...and bar Timaeus ('the son of Timaeus')...," and one of the people repeating the story (or Mark himself) didn't realize that "the son of Timaeus" was intended to be parenthetical.

But only Mark uses the name, right?....(check..check..) Yes Luke and Matthew do not name the man. So (I say ) it was not in the original and Mark added the name.

I figured it went the other way and it was included in the story that Mark knew, but Matthew and Luke removed it because they realized how silly it was.

Ah...right. This is the Mainstrean hypothesis (similar to 'Fatigue') which are various arguments as to why stuff was apparently left out of some gospels rather than suggesting that one gospel added it. It's similar to the Lazarus problem. If it was left Out, why? Had they never heard of it? If so it could only be because it never happened. I wondered whether they could have left it out because it was obviously fishy. But that doesn't work, because they would simply make it look less fishy. We even saw Luke rip the anointing out of Bethany and shift it to Galilee with a penitent woman slobberring over Jesus' feet, not Mary, anointing Jesus' head like he was a messiah and she was someone important enough to do the anointing. It was disguised because Luke saw what it looked like and wanted to ensure that we didn't see it.

Yes, if Matthew and Luke had seen Bar Timaeus, son of Timaeus, they would have corrected it. "Bar Timaeus, which being translated is Son of Timaeus" (1). I think the method is amend, not eliminate. As a general rule, I think in terms of individual items being additions, not eliminations. Consider the calling of the disciples and Matthew has the disciples abandon their dad, boat and nets and follow Jesus. For what it's worth, Luke (in one of those instances reflecting the original text) has them drop everything and follow Jesus. Mark however thought in his mind: "That's a bit inconsiderate" and explained that it was ok as Zebedee had hired servants so Jesus hadn't left him deprived of being able to earn his living.

I'm convinced that Mark is Not the original but amended (in a smaller way) as much as Matthew and Luke. And we can often guess why.

(1) and how many think 'Barrabbas' is his personal name rather than 'Son of Abbas'?

[oldbadger]

Thanks for your interest. I suppose that I should (and perhaps could) do what the topic asks and work out Holy Week, but I feel it is futile because:

I'm not sure any of it happened
The mixing up of timings means that I don't trust the 'Week'
people will point to me making wrong choices. For example if I opt for Luke and the temple cleansing as soon as he leaps from his donkey, someone will say "No, Mark says Jesus went home and only did the Temple cleansing next day'.

It's quite possible that you know more about (possible) details of that last week than most Christians, Transponder. But it amazes me that 'most Christians' haven't got a clue about what happened during the days of that week..... they don't! I've got a theory that many Christians are so involved with G-John's 'spiritual' stuff that they overlook such temporal details.

Let's try anyway...

Monday arrival at Bethany, (John) healing of Lazarus . Supper and anointing.
Tuesday Donkey ride in the morning, Temple cleansing, wrangles with Sadducees, talk on the mount of Olives
Wednesday day of preparation for Passover (Synoptics) Judas plots with the Sanhedrin to turn Jesus over.
Thursday last supper and arrest
Friday trial and crucifixion
Saturday Sabbath
Sunday resurrection.

Your guess is as good as any. My guess is that G-Mark is the closest to truth:-
Sunday:- Arrival at Jerusalem with Palm frond carpet etc, and then just looking about in the Temple.
Monday:- Mayhem in Temple, sacking of bureau-de-change tables and picketing the Temple Courts. (A large riot?
Tuesday:- Returned and did it all again. Priests asking 'Why?' and the great debate with coins etc thrown in.
Wednesday:- At Bethany
Thursday:- Went in to Jerusalem, last meal together. Late night arrest.
Friday:- Trials, meetings, ........ either released to save from massive riots or crucified/taken down early.
Meh....the release looks most likely...... Jesus Barabbas the man.

That's my tuppence worth.,

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks for your interest. I suppose that I should (and perhaps could) do what the topic asks and work out Holy Week, but I feel it is futile because:

I'm not sure any of it happened
The mixing up of timings means that I don't trust the 'Week'
people will point to me making wrong choices. For example if I opt for Luke and the temple cleansing as soon as he leaps from his donkey, someone will say "No, Mark says Jesus went home and only did the Temple cleansing next day'.

It's quite possible that you know more about (possible) details of that last week than most Christians, Transponder. But it amazes me that 'most Christians' haven't got a clue about what happened during the days of that week..... they don't! I've got a theory that many Christians are so involved with G-John's 'spiritual' stuff that they overlook such temporal details.

Let's try anyway...

Monday arrival at Bethany, (John) healing of Lazarus . Supper and anointing.
Tuesday Donkey ride in the morning, Temple cleansing, wrangles with Sadducees, talk on the mount of Olives
Wednesday day of preparation for Passover (Synoptics) Judas plots with the Sanhedrin to turn Jesus over.
Thursday last supper and arrest
Friday trial and crucifixion
Saturday Sabbath
Sunday resurrection.

Your guess is as good as any. My guess is that G-Mark is the closest to truth:-
Sunday:- Arrival at Jerusalem with Palm frond carpet etc, and then just looking about in the Temple.
Monday:- Mayhem in Temple, sacking of bureau-de-change tables and picketing the Temple Courts. (A large riot?
Tuesday:- Returned and did it all again. Priests asking 'Why?' and the great debate with coins etc thrown in.
Wednesday:- At Bethany
Thursday:- Went in to Jerusalem, last meal together. Late night arrest.
Friday:- Trials, meetings, ........ either released to save from massive riots or crucified/taken down early.
Meh....the release looks most likely...... Jesus Barabbas the man.

That's my tuppence worth.,

You could be right. But I think it is significant that only Mark has Jesus rubbernecking around the Temple. Nobody else has that and if we put the temple cleansing back where it belongs in John the Cleansing is right after the donkey -ride. And that's what Luke has, too. And so does Matthew. Yes, Mark and Matthew have the cursing of the fig tree on two days, but Matthew has the donkey ride and cleaning as connected acts. Mark is the only one to split the action over two days, and we might speculate why. What I think is reliable beyond speculation is that Mark has altered it to make the two events (donkey ride and temple cleansing) on two different days. I would bet your pension that mark is an alteration and the other three show that it was all one connected event.

I don't believe the release. No such custom is known. If it was I'm sure we'd have Christians) even if the Jews were cagey about it) pointing to it as evidence that the Bible was reliable. My 'special theory') which one other critic also spotted) is that (as I have been peddling often enough) is that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person (Barabbas is called Jesus Barabbas somewhere, I recall, and Barabbas isn't ts far from Bar Abba - son of God). The apologetics debate about Barrabbas being an insurrectionist and 'robbers' being 'lestes' or 'bandits, which really means rebels and we are looking at a zealot being released to the Jews and the Christian Jesus being killed. Then the Jesus moping over Jerusalem not letting herself be saved and the damning of the Fig tree because it wasn't the right time to produce fruit and we get the metaphor. The Jews rejected Jesus and the Romans took away the Priestly perks and parking spaces as John has the Sanhedrin predict (John 11.48). Matthew underlines this in red pencil as the Jews not only get Jesus killed but eagerly accept the guilt for it, while Pilate washing his hands excused himself (and thus the Romans) of all responsibility.

I'm pretty confident that the exchange was invented very early (in all 4 gospels) in the concoction of the story to show that the Jews rejected 'Christian' Jesus and opted for the zealot instead, and they were destroyed as their punishment, just as Jesus predicted , even if some stones were still standing up as a wall.

[oldbadger]

You could be right. But I think it is significant that only Mark has Jesus rubbernecking around the Temple. Nobody else has that and if we put the temple cleansing back where it belongs in John the Cleansing is right after the donkey -ride. And that's what Luke has, too. And so does Matthew. Yes, Mark and Matthew have the cursing of the fig tree on two days, but Matthew has the donkey ride and cleaning as connected acts. Mark is the only one to split the action over two days, and we might speculate why. What I think is reliable beyond speculation is that Mark has altered it to make the two events (donkey ride and temple cleansing) on two different days. I would bet your pension that mark is an alteration and the other three show that it was all one connected event.

G-John has Jesus ransacking the money changers at the very beginning of his 'mission' and without a donkey ride beforehand.
Yes, Matthew and Luke wouldn't include such a telling information about how Jesus was so unfamiliar with the Temple as to want to go looking at everything.
It's true, I think that G-Mark does have edits, alterations and fiddles, but it's the most honest record imo.

I don't believe the release. No such custom is known. If it was I'm sure we'd have Christians) even if the Jews were cagey about it) pointing to it as evidence that the Bible was reliable. My 'special theory') which one other critic also spotted) is that (as I have been peddling often enough) is that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person (Barabbas is called Jesus Barabbas somewhere, I recall, and Barabbas isn't ts far from Bar Abba - son of God). The apologetics debate about Barrabbas being an insurrectionist and 'robbers' being 'lestes' or 'bandits, which really means rebels and we are looking at a zealot being released to the Jews and the Christian Jesus being killed. Then the Jesus moping over Jerusalem not letting herself be saved and the damning of the Fig tree because it wasn't the right time to produce fruit and we get the metaphor. The Jews rejected Jesus and the Romans took away the Priestly perks and parking spaces as John has the Sanhedrin predict (John 11.48). Matthew underlines this in red pencil as the Jews not only get Jesus killed but eagerly accept the guilt for it, while Pilate washing his hands excused himself (and thus the Romans) of all responsibility.

Agreed. Barabbas, 'son of the father', was a simple but effective way of including stories about Jesus but by hiding all this in plain sight by using Eastern Aramaic. Early on the bible (don't know which gospel) did name him as Jesus.
I don't think that Pilate wanted Jesus dead....... and being taken down after a few hours, not having his legs bust, the lancing of his lung (??) and his disappearance from the tomb to be seen by all his mates afterwards suggests that Jesus could have lived.

I'm pretty confident that the exchange was invented very early (in all 4 gospels) in the concoction of the story to show that the Jews rejected 'Christian' Jesus and opted for the zealot instead, and they were destroyed as their punishment, just as Jesus predicted , even if some stones were still standing up as a wall.

Inventing gospel stories where the hero can do wonderful things as a rejection of a bloke..... I don't think that, although the basic story sure did get hyped massively.