The Gospel of John

[RJM]

However it is true that the Gospel of Mark alone has Jesus going straight to the temple as soon as he gets into Jerusalem, and having a look around. It could be he didn't like the trading he saw going on there, and which decided him to come back the next day to clear out the money lenders?

This would imply it was his first visit to the temple in Jerusalem, because if he had visited several times before, he would have already seen the traders there.

It might mean John and Mark differ on the issue. It could also mean the trading Jesus saw on this visit was increased and getting out of hand, perhaps because of the the importance of the feast -- or something else. It does not have to imply that Mark's account means this was Jesus's first and only visit to the temple in Jerusalem?

(edited to add)

 

[Thomas]

However it is true that the Gospel of Mark alone does have Jesus going straight to the temple as soon as he gets into Jerusalem, and having a look around.

Yes.

What He was thinking, is known only to Him, I would suggest. So I'm not arguing His looking round, but I do think it's not aimless, or mere sightseeing.

t could be he didn't like the trading he saw going on there, and which decided him to come back the next day to clear out the money lenders?

If it happened on His final visit.

Thus would imply it was his first visit to the temple in Jerusalem, because if he had visited several times before, he would have seen it already?
This means John and Mark differ on the issue?

I'm pretty sure John is more reliable on that point. Most able men would go to the Temple for major feasts.

It's not a case of difference, just importance, according to the text.

John has Jesus cleanse the temple at the start of His ministry, the Synoptics at the end. It can be seen as the scribe utilising his materials to make his testimony, as ever, we moderns get caught up in dates and the forensic detail, whereas the sacred scribe is using the materials to paint a picture.

 

[RJM]

@Thomas
I had made an edit to my post, to add. Sorry. I know it's an annoying habit of mine It may not affect your above response

 

[RJM]

John has Jesus cleanse the temple at the start of His ministry, the Synoptics at the end.

Thank you. It's the first time I realized! Am not a comparative gospel scholar like you guys, lol

 

[RJM]

That changes things a lot ...

 

[badger]

Ummm .. I would have thought that they went to the temple for worship.
Worship is not limited to "a service", particularly in the most important "synagogue" of all..
i.e. Jerusalem.

Hello.....the gospel of Mark tells us what they did.

 

[badger]

And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
(Mark 11:11 KJV)

Perhaps they first went to the temple to pray and then went sightseeing around Jerusalem? I'm still not sure of the significance?

Very significant to hj researchers, clearly not massively significant to some others

 

[badger]

Quite! Pilgrims performing Hajj (is that a right way of putting it?) might do a bit of sightseeing, but that's not the primary reason.

....looked round about upon all things ...

 

[badger]

Quite. I think when 'he looked round about' there was a lot more than sightseeing going on.

An infrequent visitor? Not quite as described in G-John?

I have never had a straight answer to that simple question and when shown, folks want to dismiss it.

 

[badger]

However it is true that the Gospel of Mark alone has Jesus going straight to the temple as soon as he gets into Jerusalem, and having a look around. It could be he didn't like the trading he saw going on there, and which decided him to come back the next day to clear out the money lenders?

This would imply it was his first visit to the temple in Jerusalem, because if he had visited several times before, he would have already seen the traders there.

It might mean John and Mark differ on the issue. It could also mean the trading Jesus saw on this visit was increased and getting out of hand, perhaps because of the the importance of the feast -- or something else. It does not have to imply that Mark's account means this was Jesus's first and only visit to the temple in Jerusalem?

(edited to add)

First visit? No!
Infrequent visitor

 

[badger]

What He was thinking, is known only to Him, I would suggest. So I'm not arguing His looking round, but I do think it's not aimless, or mere sightseeing.

That account is simply honest, no agenda, no angles......just telling what he did

If it happened on His final visit.

It happened on the day if his arrival, just looking about.

I'm pretty sure John is more reliable on that point. Most able men would go to the Temple for major feasts.

No. Jews went to all of he feasts, not just the major ones, but about 4-500,000 would attend a major feast.

John has Jesus cleanse the temple at the start of His ministry, the Synoptics at the end. It can be seen as the scribe utilising his materials to make his testimony, as ever, we moderns get caught up in dates and the forensic detail, whereas the sacred scribe is using the materials to paint a picture.

The authors of G-John had s mass of reports, accounts and anecdotes but didn't know where to place them and wanted to extend the timeline, I think.
Also, they didn't want Jesus arrested for creating mayhem in the temple, not a good story

The gospel removes lots of less special miracles as well...... casting demons was just not de-rigeur...... is my opinion of John's account.

 

[RJM]

Also, they didn't want Jesus arrested for creating mayhem in the temple, not a good story

Perhaps it's the other way around: opponents of John do want to make a good story of it? It's not important enough to be come up at Jesus's trial before Pilate. Whatever doesn't fit the agenda needs to be dismissed ...

 

[RJM]

Anyway, it's not true that there aren't any Christians aware of Mark 11:11?

 

[badger]

Perhaps it's the other way around: opponents of John do want to make a good story of it? It's not important enough to be come up at Jesus's trial before Pilate. Whatever doesn't fit the agenda needs to be dismissed ...

Creating mayhem in the Temple, busting up ALL the money changers and sacrifice sellers was absolutely huge.
But not huge enough for the authors of John, 70 odd years later on.
....is how I see it.

 

[badger]

Anyway, it's not true there aren't any Christians aware of Mark 11:11?

You need to quote what I wrote, rather than anything else, I think.
I wrote that I've never met a Christian who has known about it...... possibly because their focus is elsewhere

 

[RJM]

You need to quote what I wrote, rather than anything else, I think.
I wrote that I've never met a Christian who has known about it...... possibly because their focus is elsewhere

C'mon @badger
How many Christians have you met? Very few, by your own admission

Anyway. The point can now be put to bed?

 

[badger]

C'mon @badger
How many Christians have you met? Very few, by your own admission

Anyway. The point can now be put to bed?

Just a sec....... You need to quote my words, I think
There are no Christians around here, my home, only social ones, apart from two that I do know.
I have been discussing and debating with Christians all over the world for may many years ....

That point is just one among many, and if discussion about that last week is happening you might notice it many more times . It was all about Palm Sunday after entering Jerusalem.

 

[RJM]

Just a sec....... You need to quote my words, I think
There are no Christians around here, my home, only social ones, apart from two that I do know.
I have been discussing and debating with Christians all over the world for may many years ....

That point is just one among many, and if discussion about that last week is happening you might notice it many more times . It was all about Palm Sunday after entering Jerusalem.

Well, you said you haven't met any Christians who ...

No worries @badger
Peace
But you do seem to address the subject of Christians with an ill concealed air of derision? Fair enough, if they're allowed to respond to correct it, lol?
Probably I'm wrong

Mark's account is very terse and almost rushed. Matthew's is fuller, Luke's fuller still -- and John's is a deeper condideration of the significance of the incarnation. Muslims don't like John either, for that reason. Same for Paul

There are always going to be infinite opinions about the gospels. Problem I have is using one part of a gospel passage to reinforce an argument, and then dismissing another passage from the same gospel -- sometimes the very next line of the passage in question -- that does not support the point.

But I think I have had my turn here and should give over to folks more knowledgeable on the subject to carry on?

 

[RJM]

I'm not a Bible fundi
I get tired with scripture wrangling

 

[badger]

Well, you said you haven't met any Christians who ...

No worries @badger
Peace
But you do seem to address the subject of Christians with an ill concealed air of derision? Fair enough, if they're allowed to respond to correct you, lol?
Probably I'm wrong

But on this point it was a pagan correcting Christians, wasn't it?
And the response to that is usually a total failure to acknowledge the knew knowledge.
Maybe it's just put to bed?

Mark's account is very terse and almost rushed. Matthew's is fuller, Luke's fuller still -- and John's is a deeper condideration of the significance of the incarnation. Muslims don't like John either, for that reason.

There are always going to be infinite opinions about the gospels. Problem I have is using one part of a gospel passage to reinforce an argument, and then dismissing another passage from the same gospel -- sometimes the very next line of the passage in question -- that does not support the point.

Please do show me an example of that.
I only ignore passages which have appeared after the earliest copies that we have.

But I think I made my points here and should give over to folks more knowledgeable on the subject to carry on?

It's best to take part, I think.
The only way that I learned anything about early 1st century Galilee and Jesus was by being shown, corrected, informed, debated etc......
I never put anything that I learned 'to bed'.