ISVfan

Isn't it kind of obvious they viewed Mark as History! Why would they waste there time writing their books if it was fiction. But we'll never know will we?

Amaleq13

I suggest you do because it is an excellent reason to consider the story fiction. IIRC, the closest you will get is an account of a governor who grants a stay of execution until after the emperor's birthday. This governor is described as one of the good ones.

There is no need for a "credible reason" since the situation as described in Mark is clearly fiction.

Why do you keep ignoring what I've written? Mark's story makes it very clear that Pilate did not actually consider Jesus to be a political threat. He doesn't take the title seriously and he sees no evidence from the crowd that the man is popular or well-followed.

Read my posts, Ted, I'm tired of repeating myself. I've clearly laid out several reasons to consider the story fiction and I have not just focused on one part of one of those reasons as you suggest here. My conclusion is based on the totality of the evidence that I've already explained.

Have you lost track of your argument because you've completely missed the point. In addition to the problem Diogenes pointed out, Josephus' story depicts a reluctance to engage in even this amount of dishonesty out of fear of the governor. This constitutes a second significant difference between the two accounts (ie Josephus and Mark) which argues against your attempt to use the former to support the historical credibility of the latter. Mark's Sanhedrin flagrantly violates Jewish Law unlike Ananus and Mark's Sanhedrin shows no fear of the governor unlike Ananus. Therefore, your argument is without merit.

TedM

Diogenes, I'm not sure why the burden rests on me. You've provided your argument and I've responded as to why it may be unrealistic, but without your agreement so I'm going to bow out at this time. The whole trial issue is a new one for me and I'll need more time to digest arguments on both sides. At this point I think I can only repeat myself.

take care,

ted

TedM

So, you won't consider the reasonableness of the behavior because you've already declared certain other aspects of the trial to be fiction? Why did you keep declaring how Pilate would have behaved if that doesn't even matter because the story is fiction? Do you want to discuss Pilate's behavior or not?

Here is something you wrote near the beginning of our exchange: Maybe I never understood what you really were saying. He wasn’t described as folding under non-existent pressure. The gospel clearly says he wanted to satisfy the crowd which the chief priests “stirred up� in front of Pilate and twice cried “crucify him�. Are you suggesting that the crowd didn't really apply pressure?

And you wrote The answer is easy. He didn’t need to. It was easier to stop their violence by killing one man, which obviously Pilate didn’t really care anything about.


I didn’t ignore anything. We’ve already gone over what you just repeated. I guess you are disagreeing with my characterization of Jesus as a “potential political trouble-maker�. I see the very existence of the trial as obvious evidence of that, and something that Pilate would take into consideration, but even if you are correct in saying that Pilate felt no threat from Jesus, isn’t it still clear that he felt a threat from the crowd? If so, then appeasing the crowd was the simple solution. If Pilate didn't execute Jesus, the crowd may have revolted. Pilate just did the easiest thing. Do you find that hard to believe?



[/quote]

I’m not convinced that they flagrantly violated Jewish Law, as one who is a ‘seducer’ of the nation can be tried under unusual circumstances, and is actually supposed to be tried no matter what the circumstances are. I’m not convinced that blasphemy was not subject to interpretation. And, I’m not convinced that the Sanhedrin wasn’t acting out of self-interest and emotion, which--like in the account in Josephus--could lead to taking some liberties beyond what they were really allowed. And I see no evidence that they showed no fear of the governor. Where did you get that?

ted

ynquirer

Half truth, no truth. Mark has Jesus quote the Psalms, right? Of course, in Hebrew. According to Mark, therefore, Jesus spoke in Hebrew.

False.

As he does not give the slightest indication that egô eimi was supposed to be read as a translation from any language either. But, again, it is false that there was [not] anything significant about it at all. There is, certainly, something significant about it all. After Jesus utters the statement translated into Greek egô eimi, “the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" (Mk 14:63-64). Therefore, egô eimi is somehow connected to the conviction of Jesus of blasphemy.

Wrong. Hayah, “I am,� uttered in what you call liturgical language, was blasphemy according to Ex 3:14, Hebrew Tanakh, – not Greek LXX, – and the Sanhedrin of course would have found it meaningful.

Now, to say hayah, whether in writing or in speech, is blasphemy, and this is a primary reason for Mark to write the Greek egô eimi in substitution for Hebrew hayah.

Why – because it renders Mark ignorant of the Mosaic law?

To the question, asked by the high priest, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (Mk 14:61), Jesus answers, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mk 14:62). And he is immediately convicted of blasphemy.

As regard the cause of the conviction, you make an arbitrary choice. On a priori grounds, there are three statements according to which Jesus’ Mark might have been convicted of blasphemy:

A) “I am,� uttered in Hebrew – hayah.

B) “I am,� as meaning “I am the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,� uttered in whatever language the Sanhedrin could understand – but not in Hebrew.

C) “…and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven"

My choice is A), which is sufficient reason to convict anyone of blasphemy.

Your choice is B), which, according to your own statements in this same thread, is not sufficient reason to convict anyone of blasphemy.

Jesus spoke Hebrew. “I am,� as uttered in Hebrew before the Sanhedrin was evidence of blasphemy. Jesus was convicted of blasphemy after saying “I am.� On the other hand, there was no other way to have Jesus convicted of blasphemy but by his saying “I am� in Hebrew.

Question: Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus said “I am� in Hebrew?

Answer: If you think that Mark was an intelligent writer writing for intelligent people, it is of course reasonable. If you assume that he was a fool writing for fools, – who needed everything be said in the minutest detail, for otherwise they did understand nothing, – of course it is not.

Not only is it off topic, but it also is idle talk.

Do you really think that there was a market for such novels wherever in the Hellenistic world? If only you had been a little more cautious and claimed that Mark was a Hellenized Jew writing for Hellenized Jews, well, that would have been a little more tenable. But a non Jew writing for non Jews? You here would need a little more background on the first-century Roman Empire in exchange for a little less background on tenth-century France.

For a Roman, let alone a Greek, Judea could not be more deprived of interest. It was real punishment for Roman officers and soldiers to be sent there. The Jewish society was, to be sure, parochial and not just boring but boring as hell. Only one god – what is fun in that? And what a god BTW! One that nobody might ever represent, thus uprooting the mere possibility of art. What painting, sculpture, architecture? And what about their barbarous customs as regard religious intolerance and – worse still – cruel punishments for natural behaviors? They said they hated crucifixion; most of crucified deserved the punishment. Yet the Jews stoned to death adulterous women – who quite frequently deserved a reward rather than such brutal treatment. They blamed on sex, drink – forty less one lashes for the drunken boy, can you believe that, Florus? – as well as all the excesses that make up the real joy of life. What was appealing in them? Absolutely nothing.

How many books on the Jews by non Jews are known to have been written in the first century? Oh, bingo: It seems that the gospel of Mark happens to be the only one.

Why would a sane Greek buy a novel on a heretic Jew that healed miserable people but proved unable to destroy his enemies? And why a sane Greek would have written such a mess?

Please don’t expect more from me than from a heathen to buy the whole mess, but now I understand that you believe Mark to be a complete fool, ready to have his Hero convicted for a real nothing. For only a fool could have written an absurd novel uninteresting for his time, to be read by no one but those – still more fool than he – that happened to mistake it for real history and thought it to be pretty good a starter for a stupid new religion.

All in all, the theory is not without merit. It is bound to highlight a new era in the history of bizarre interpretations of History: from conspiracy theories to the Big Misunderstanding. Not a small accomplishment, indeed.

Chris Weimer

Er, actually, you'll find the Hebrew of Psalm 22 to be different - Eli! Eli! Lamah azavtani!

There's been a thread at Ebla, my forum, and I believe here as well all discussing that - but it's definitely not Hebrew. Aramaic is presumed.

True!

Vorkosigan

Lots of Romans commented in great and small ways on the Jews. BTW, what makes you think Mark is about "the Jews?"

I think one problem in dialoguing with twisting bizarro-readings like this is that dialogue is not really possible. No one has made any of the claims you list above. The gospel of Mark is a fiction that uses the conventions of Hellenistic fiction in presenting a story about Jesus (is that a novel?). In Mark Jesus is not convicted for a "real nothing" (perhaps your copy of Mark is different from all other copies) but as part of a process that eventually brings him to resurrection. Obviously the novel was interesting to someone, for it was both produced and preserved, and incorporated into other popular texts, such as Matthew and Luke and John and the Gospel of Peter and various harmonies. The Gospel of Mark was not "a pretty good starter" for a new religion as Christianity was not new when it was written and it did not start Christianity. Whether it was "mistaken" for real history is a highly debateable point as we have no idea what its initial reception was. Certainly after it was incorporated into the canon it was treated as history.

I think everyone will be happy to talk with you when you are ready to deal with what is actually said, and not to misrepresent and fantasize about what others are saying. It's sad that bandwidth has to be wasted on carping like this.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. according to Mark, Jesus spoke Hebrew in that instance, but that instance is not historical and Mark does not indicate that Jesus spoke Hebrew before the Sanhedrin.
Really? Please indicate to me exactly where Mark says that Jesus spoke Hebrew to the Sanhedrin.
false. Or at least incomplete and misleading. The High Priest tore his garment after Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Mark indicates nothing about the blasphemy referring ego eimi in any manner which was discrete from the claim to be the Messiah, nor does he say that Jesus spoke in Hebrew.
Only if he said it, and Mark makes no claim that he did.
This is completely fatuous. If Mark wanted to indicate that Jesus had spoken the name of God, he could have done so. He didn't. You are simply engaging in a bit of tendentious eisogesis. You are assuming your own conclusion and then inserting words into the text to fit that conclusion.
Because claiming to be the Messiah is meaningful and saying "I am" in Greek is not. Also because Mark's non-Jewish audience would not have caught any allusion to the Tetragrammaton anyway.
Something which Mark makes absolutely no indication was done.
Your second sentence is correct. Your first sentence is completely unsupported.
Strawman, He didn't have to be a fool, he just had to be uneducated about Judaism. The author of Mark is anonymous. He shows a lack of knowledge of Jewish law and customs. He shows a woeful ignorance of Palestinian geography. He wrote his Gospel in a gentile language outside of Palestine for a gentile audience. He makes no claim anywhere in his Gospel that he is Jewish. If you want to assert that the author of GMark was Jewish, you're going to have to show some evidence as to why anyone should believe that.
Excuse me, but this is wrong on both counts. If you wish to rebut the analogy, rebut it but it was not off topic and it was not "idle talk."
I don't think it was a "novel" in the sense of a commercial entertainment. I think it was definitely a liturgical work. I'm not sure how to define the genre because I think the Christian gospels are a genre unto themselves. I think GMark represents an attempt to create a narrative history for a budding religious movement. He wrote it after the destruction of Jerusalem and he wrote it for gentile Christians. He used the OT for major parts of his narrative and he may have done so piously (that is, he may have sincerely believed that he could discover biographical information about Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. The success of the movement among gentiles and its failure among Jews is undeniable and it was already a predominantly gentile movement (at least in its Pauline form) before Mark wrote a word. The reasons why something which was perceived as an originally Jewish movement succeeded with a non-Jewish audience are very curious indeed and are the subject for an interesting discussion all its own, but the fact that it DID succeed with gentiles and failed with Jews is completely self-evident.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thank you. I should have caught this myself. Matthew uses the Hebrew "Eli" instead of "Eloi" but still transliterates lama sabachthani from Aramaic. I fell asleep at the wheel on this one. I knew better.

Amaleq13

It is because I don't consider the described behavior credible that I consider the story to be fiction.

It is because the described behavior of Pilate is not credible that I consider the story to be fiction.

I have nothing further to add. I do not find the Gospel depiction to be credible given other descriptions of Pilate's behavior.

Since the alleged pressure occurs in a clearly fictional scene, yes. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the notion of Pilate offering clemency to a convicted criminal for Passover is ridiculous. It is, perhaps, the most clearly absurd aspect of the entire trial story.

Yes and you were ignoring that I had already shown how Mark's story denies your description. Pilate has Jesus killed despite finding no legitimate reason to do so. If we accept the story, Pilate had Jesus killed because he was unpopular, not a "potential political trouble-maker".

You are confusing speculations about "what might have really happened" and what Mark tells us. This thread is about Mark's story and how subsequent Gospel authors considered that story.

Mark's story. He depicts them as unafraid to bring a falsely charged man before the governor. This contrasts significantly with Ananus who is depicted as acting quickly specifically to avoid the governor. The first shows no fear of the governor while the second shows, at the least, a sense of concern about pulling a fast one on the governor.