What had happen' was.....: Was Jesus violent? | True Freethinker
Anderson made the following comment.
Of course Jesus was violent, see John 2:15. And Marino's rationalization of that verse is particularly weak. He focus on the harmless σχοινίων and completely ignores the lethal φραγέλλιον. He's essentially arguing that a robber was harmless, because he had a flash suppressor and you couldn't really ever hurt anyone with a flash suppressor. Never mind that the flash suppressor is attached to the end of a pistol.
Here's a project for you, take some very soft rope or cord, and try to "drive" everyone out of your local mall, and then hold the mall for several days*. Let me know how that works out.
*I imagine this would be easier to accomplish, especially the holding part, if you had twelve guys with swords to help you. :)
As I understood Anderson's argument, he thinks that the whip Jesus used was lethal and thereby proves that Jesus was violent. But he knows that the text does not support that, so instead he invents the idea suggesting that Jesus held the temple in some military operation with his disciples being armed. Unfortunately for him, nothing in the text remotely supports his conjecture. Let's look at the John 2:15 speak by looking at two translations.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (NIV)
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (KJV)
Now look at Ryan's analogy with the gun and the flash suppressor. If you are shot in the heart, you are just as dead no matter if the gun has a flash suppressor or not. A whip made of small cords is not the same things as a φραγέλλιον. A better analogy would be a gun that fires bullets and a tazer. Ryan and I went back and forth several ways and meandered about until the following exchange. I'm going to make new comments in red.
After a day of looking this over, I think this is where I lost Ryan. He most likely will not accept this but I really thought he understood what I wrote but I don't think he did.
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
I did post an interlinear Greek text for John 2:15 above and as I already stated I made a mistake plain and simple. But look at what my mistake was: I was trying to make a point about σχοινίων and pasted the wrong word in my text. I ask forgiveness to anyone who was confused. But that doesn't mean my argument or Mariano's argument about σχοινίων is refuted because of a typo.
Let me recap: Ryan Anderson wants to argue that Jesus was violent because he used lethal force to drive out the merchants from the Temple. As I understand his argument, Ryan is saying that it doesn't matter if the whip was made of small cords, a phragellion is a phragellion and it's cruel to use it. However he ignores these facts.
1. phragellions that the Romans used (as in John 19:1) did indeed has bits of metal hooks, glass, and what not at the ends with the intention of ripping flesh from bone to cause maximum pain and suffering as possible. They were not made of small cords.
2. There is nothing in John 2:15 even remotely telling us that Jesus used lethal force.
3. Jesus broke no law in cleaning the temple. He actually forced them to follow it. He wasn't arrested because he did nothing wrong and they all knew he did the right thing.
4. Instead of Ryan explaining how Jesus is proven to be violent by John 2:15, he instead focuses on my typo that doesn't prove his argument.
Again I freely admit that I made a mistake. The thing is my mistake doesn't help Ryan make his point at all and it doesn't negate my points. Also I missed it at first but now I see that I did indeed make a copy-paste typo and again I apologize. I hope Ryan Anderson will also apologize for his poor exegesis.