Abstract
Although re-examinations of accepted conclusions are to be welcomed, Dale Martin’s recent revisionist article, ‘Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous’, is here rebutted. Contra Martin, carrying a sword for self-defence was the default position, not subject to penalty, let alone a token of revolt. ‘Love of Enemies’ is the awkward original teaching of Jesus, read in the light of later interpretations of the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple as divine vengeance. The reduced Passover of the Last Supper accounts betokens later practice, not Jesus’ rejection of his people’s cult.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
