What had happen' was.....: Aug 22, 2011

I have been discussing a post on my blog recently regarding an article that Mariano Grinbank has written answering the stupid charge that the New Testament portrays Jesus as violent. Ryan Anderson of course is does not oppose Mariano directly so he comments on my blog. The post in which I linked to Mariano's article is as follows

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.

Ryan Anderson said...: What does φραγέλλιον mean to you?; August 20, 2011 7:49 AM

Marcus McElhaney said...: John 2:15 refers to whip made out of small cords. φραγέλλιον (strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek) is not referring to the same lethal tool that the Romans scourged people with - like the one used on Jesus before his crucifixion. Look up 4979 if you want to know that the whip that Jesus used in John 2:15. Compare John 19:1 "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him." "scourged" here and "scourge" in John 2:15 are not even close to the same word and has way more painful and lethal connotations than your new favorite word "φραγέλλιον". James White was right, a little Greek is dangerous when you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know what kind of a whip the Romans used on Jesus and their prisoners? Not the same at all as the one Jesus used made of small cords in John 2:15. Are you sure you read Mariano's article. doesn't look like you did. August 20, 2011 8:10 AM
Marcus McElhaney said...: I should have asked if you "understood" because I think that's where the disconnect is.; August 20, 2011 8:10 AM

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.

Here is the verse in the King James version with the words hyperlinked to an online lexicon. Just click on the word to see it.

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;

Ryan Anderson said...: strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek You'd be wrong. I'm better at Latin, but I read Koine. Can't tell Ryan gets oh so many things wrong. "scourged" here and "scourge" in John 2:15 are not even close to the same word You know the difference between a verb and a noun, right?; August 20, 2011 10:45 AM Yes. A flogging is a noun. Flog is verb. See how that works in English? Here is a problem. The fact that John 2:15 is talking about a tool Jesus used to cleanse the temple and John 19:1 is referring to an action does nothing to refute my argument or support his.
Ryan Anderson said...: Plus, you are confused, φραγέλλιον if 5416, not 4979. σχοινίων is 4979 (since you apparently don't know how to use a concordance). John 2:15 uses both words. 5416 is the word for the Roman Scourge, 4979 just describes what the Scourge is made out of. See me flash suppressor example.; August 20, 2011 10:59 AM And here is where I confused Ryan. I made a mistake and he caught it. I meant to say that σχοινίων was 4979 so we actually agree on this point. I was copying and pasting the Greek text and made a mistake. I still think that he has made a very poor analogy to the gun and flash suppressor because Jesus was not holding a Roman Scourge in his hand in John 2:15 and should not be confused with one.
Ryan Anderson said...: A little entomology for you, μαστιγόω (mastigo) is to flog or scourge (verb). We use the word masticate today (chew up) and it's totally unrelated to the noun "scourge" or φραγέλλιον. φραγέλλιον is the Roman flail or scourge. And is a greek word of Roman origin. Scorpio in Latin because the bits on the end hurt like a scorpion sting. You're welcome.; August 20, 2011 11:06 AM

I agree. and thank Ryan for the entomology lesson but it's unnecessary. because the text tells us what kind of whip it was. It did not have the "bits on the end". Those bits would rip the flesh right off the bones of the victim and would rip open the very bowls of a human being. That is the kind of whipping Jesus received in John 19 but not what he gave in John 2:15.

Ryan Anderson said...: HAHAHAHAHAAHAH, I just typed φραγέλλιον into google and one of the first headings that comes up makes it appear that φραγέλλιον is entry 4979 in Strongs (no doubt because both φραγέλλιον and σχοινίων are in John 2:15 which is linked to 4979). If you don't click further, I can see how one would think φραγέλλιον was entry 4979. You've really got to be more thorough than that Marcus, it helps to have a hard copy of Strong's handy. F- for you.; August 20, 2011 11:22 AM Nope a simple everyday mistake in typing. I didn't use Google. I used MySword on my Android Tablet for the initial comment and didn't look carefully enough at the Geek text I used in the comment. Definitely my mistake and confused Ryan. But my mistake doesn't make Ryan's argument work.

Marcus McElhaney said...: You prove my point: the whip used in John 2:15 is not of the same kind in John 19:1. You are trying to conflate them in order to make it appear that here was not a difference and there is. Your problem is that the context of John 2:15 tells us what the whip is made of and it is not the same thing as the Roman's tool for plublic flogging used on Jesus in John 19:1. The attempt at accusing me of not being able to use a concordance is a red herring at best. Bravo. Sam Harris would be proud. I doubt you know what you are talking about because a concordance without a lexicon is like a brain without a mind. Explains you very well, however. I don't have the time to answer all of what I want say now but a specific response showing how you cannot exegete your way out of a paper bag is coming soon Don't try to thank me all at once. You are more than welcomed.; August 21, 2011 6:53 AM


Ryan Anderson said...
: the whip used in John 2:15 is not of the same kind in John 19:1. Actually, if you were honest (or understood grammar) you'd admit that the type of whip in John 19:1 is not described per se, but since it was a Roman solider doing the μαστιγόω, it's likely it was a φραγέλλιον, but that would be "adding to the text" now wouldn't it? But in John 2:15 we at least know that the author is saying that Jesus used a "scourge" and used the word to describe the Roman Punishment version. We know from history what kind of whip was used by the Romans when they flogged someone. It's not going beyond to the text to assume that it was that kind of whip in John 19. I mean do we really want to argue that Pilate tried to placate the Jewish leaders by basically trying to beat Jesus with a "wet noodle" when they wanted Pilate to execute him? Really? That's not the same thing as making up that the disciples had swords in John 2:15 and Jesus held the temple for a time as in a military occupation. And Ryan accuses me of dishonesty. The attempt at accusing me of not being able to use a concordance is a red herring at best. And what was your attempt at accusing me of not being able to read Koine? I proved that that Ryan has an exegetical problem with your analysis. Ryan seems to think you can just ignore what the text says. He didn't fill in a blank spot, he erased what was there and rewrote it and worse came up with really misfit analogy to try to
"shoe-horn" his point. Sam Harris would be proud. I have no idea what that means, and don't care really. For something that Ryan doesn't care about, he made sure to mention it. In Sam Harris' debate with William Lane Craig (And I know Ryan says he saw it because he vehemently disagreed with my post on it) he made use of red herrings, just like Ryan did on the comment thread I'm commenting on now and Ryan doesn't even seem to be able to see it. I doubt you know what you are talking about because a concordance without a lexicon is like a brain without a mind. I use an old copy of Thayer.But using google as a replacement for both is like what? Whatever it is, it should be extremely embarrassing. Too funny!!!!; August 21, 2011 8:27 AM

Again, I didn't use Google by doing a search on σχοινίων or φραγέλλιον. Just made a mistake and I should have taken my time. If Ryan isn't embarrassed by his argument, I sure have no reason to be embarrassed by a typo.

Ryan Anderson said...: Also, if you truly doubt what I'm talking about, you should scan and post the pages from your copy of Strong's and show that I'm wrong about φραγέλλιον being entry 5416 and σχοινίων being 4979. Or you could just admit you were playing fast and loose and turned out to be wrong.; August 21, 2011 8:31 AM

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.

What had happen' was.....

Monday, August 22, 2011

Create Your Free Twitter Data Infography « TechNews Blog

Multi-Verse - Mariano Grinbank - YouTube

A Visual Explanation of Crowdsourcing [Infographic]

Kinect-carrying drone automatically builds 3D maps of rooms (Wired UK)

Response to Ryan Anderson on John 2:15

Monday, August 22, 2011

Create Your Free Twitter Data Infography « TechNews Blog

Related articles

Multi-Verse - Mariano Grinbank - YouTube

Related articles

A Visual Explanation of Crowdsourcing [Infographic]

Related articles

Kinect-carrying drone automatically builds 3D maps of rooms (Wired UK)

Response to Ryan Anderson on John 2:15