Elijah

Crowds start at Mark 2:2, 2:13, 3:7, 4:1, 5:21 the feeding of the thousands five and four, 10:1, 10:46.

Testing him in Mark 8:11 10:2 11:28 12:13

People talking about him and trying to figure out what was going on with him 1: 27; 6:14 with Herod and Jesus asking who they said he was of Peter in 8:27.

(There may be more, I just skimmed it and grabbed what caught my eye.)

If you want me to cite scripture that the religious authority thought their authority was threatened by the crowds then I don’t think I can do that.

Toto

gMark portrays the crucifixion of an innocent man.

If you assume that the basics of the story are correct, then there was no good reason for the crucifixion. Jesus was betrayed, set up by Jewish leaders to be crucified by the Romans. Pilate thought he was innocent but washed his hands. The only incident that would seem to warrant some Roman action was the Temple ruckus, but that would have been cause for instant execution and arrest, not some later action. So this incident is best classified as theological, not historical, and provides no motives for the Romans or the Jews to execute Jesus - not to mention that it was not brought up at the trial, as far as we are told.

But there seem to be a variety of alternative theories about a historical Jesus who was crucified under Pilate (or maybe some other governor in Judea) for some reason related to insurrection. If that rebel Jesus is the real historical core of the gospel Jesus, would you expect to find the reason for his crucifixion in Mark? Perhaps only as hidden hints - references to Zealots, Sicarii, the demons cast out of Legion into the swine who drowned themselves.

So I would answer your question no, we would have no particular reason to expect Mark to provide the real reason that the Romans decided to crucify Jesus.

Toto

THe basis for the Jewish religious authorities at the time was their relation to the Temple and sacrifices in particular; not their ability to best Jesus at some Q and A.

Elijah

It's not about besting Jesus, it's about having/keeping the people's attention. At the end of the day the people decide who they listen to. After a while people believing is what gives others the belief that there may be something going on with the person in question. Kinda like what happened with Obamamania.

GakuseiDon

I think Mark portrays Jesus as being crucified for not denying the claim that he was King of the Jews (Mark 15:2). This might be a trumped-up charge, but as Mark's Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah or son of David and therefore King, then that might be enough motivation to have him sent to Pilate.

Ben C Smith

Like what, for example?

Josephus implies that Ananus was trying to get away with something he could not normally do with a Roman procurator present. Acts imples that Stephen was executed on impulse, in a fit of fury.

I do not know about the Jews who allegedly lynched Stephen, but Ananus was prosecuted by Albinus just as soon as he arrived.

When exactly do you date this incident, and why? I ask because the Romans did not come into control of Judea until just over 100 years before the purported time of the crucifixion of Christ.

Mark and anything that helps to shed light on Mark. If it is evident from other sources that a reason for the crucifixion given in Mark cannot be historical, I certainly want to know.

Ben.

Vincent Guilbaud

Good question Ben!
And my answer: YES, of course.

If Jesus has existed and has been crucified,
there is no way Mark would have not explained why.

And he did it in:

"And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him:
for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine."
Mark 11:18

and

"Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."
Mark 14:61-64

Or didn't he?

Both scenes - temple incident and trial (that bear no Christian witness)- are historically laughable.
Don't need to come back on why, it is critical scholarship for several decades now.

So the best explanation for the fact that Mark canno't find or doesn't feel the need to give any good reason for the crucifixion of Jesus, must be that he is simply writing a fiction.

aa5874

If it is assumed that gMark is true, then Jesus did not really give much explanation to the disciples why he would or should be crucified.

But, if the words of Jesus can be taken as true, it would imply that Jesus would prove once and for all that he was really a God, in that even if he was killed he could come back to life.

Look at Mark 9.31-32
So, if it is assumed that gMark is true, then Jesus would have shown through his prophesied crucifixion that the Jews killed the son of their own God, but he would triumph over death and resurrect.

Amaleq13

I think the timing and location are important to any perceived sedition. Couldn't any of the above trouble-making have been considered seditious in Jerusalem during Passover?

Doesn't Josephus tell us about an apparent messianic claimant who got whacked because he was going to lead a bunch of people across the Jordan in a symbolic gesture?

dog-on

Mark tells us exactly why Jesus was crucified;

So no, not rebellion.

So not stealing, or smashing stuff or anything obvious. Damn this is going to be tough.

Nope, no temple stuff, which might have reminded the high priests of Jesus' alleged ruckus, but I guess not.


Blasphemy, of course...