Diogenes the Cynic

No. You have to say it. There is no way to "imply" the Teragrammaton. You either say it or you don't.
Yes, I know Greek.
Yes, "'ve seen this nonsense before. It's an ingenious bit of squirming, nothing more. The Mishna defines blasphemy thusly:
(Sanhedrin Tractate 7:6)

Ego Eimi is not the proper name of God, regardless of what the LXX says. If it's not in Hebrew, it doesn't count. What exacatly is your contention here anyway? Are you claiming that Jesus spoke to the high priest in GreeK? Or is it your contention that he said "I am" in Aramaic? Mark gives no indication that he said it in Hebrew.
The name of God is YHWH, not Ego eimi.

Amaleq13

Which means he was not considered a serious threat.

Appeals to clearly fabricated stories are generally not very good evidence. The idea of Pilate traditionally offering clemency at Passover to a convict is absurd. The idea of Pilate offering clemency to a man he considered a political threat is absurd. The idea of Pilate offering clemency to a convicted rebel is absurd (if we trust Luke). The idea of Pilate being intimidated by threats of reporting him to the governor are absurd.

Diogenes the Cynic

Even if it was Mark's intention to imply that the EGW EIMI was a circumlocution for the Tetragrammaton, it still would not be something that we be interpreted as such by palestinian Jews or by the High Priest. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I am going to have to ask for some kind of citation that anyone was ever accused or convicted of blasphemy for saying "I am" in Greek (or any other language but Hebrew).

Amaleq13

How did it actually get to the public if it was not up to the patron?

I have to admit that I tend to smile while writing psych reports after testing boys by that name. "Jesus was cooperative throughout testing" "According to his current scores, Jesus is currently functioning at an approximate mid 4th grade level".

mata leao

a fortiori, as if to say there was never a "lynch mob" in ancient times, and if the sanhedrin meeting late at night in secret session in an effort to silence someone who was threatenting their detente and elite position regadring the Roman tetrarchs and their enforcers....and why would the gospel writers write the trial out wrong? if they were making it up out of whole cloth as you argue then why not dot every i and cross every t and follow sanhedrin protocol to the letter? the earliest readers of the gospels , being jews, would know whether or not the report of the trial rang true or not. The sanhedrin continued to meet until the diaspora and they would know as well. Once again, the labor of complete fabrication makes no sense, far easier to say Jesus called Jehovah a pig or that he sacrificed a pig on the alter or somehting. It would take a "miracle" to get everything wrong in the gospels as you folks are saying!

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark got the trial wrong because he wasn't a Jew and didn't know anything about Jewish law. His audience wasn't Jewish either so it didn't matter. The audience for the Gospels were gentiles, not Jews.

mata leao

whoa! you may wish to check your facts again on how/where/to whom the earliest gospels were circulated, far more jews than gentiles read and copied and disseminated the earlist letters than gentiles, and if they were full of error or out of line or did not ring true they would have crashed and burned.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Gospels were written by gentiles for gentile audiences. They are anti-Jewish in their rhetoric. They are post-war and for the most part, post-expulsion. They were written outside of Palestine, they are full of factual mistakes about Palestinian geography and Jewish law. They misquote and misconstrue Jewish scripture and they redfine the Messiah in a way that no educated Jew would have accepted. The movement failed among Jews. By the time the Gospels came around, it was pretty much a gentile movement.

ynquirer

What is absurd? That there might be a riotous crowd basically against the Roman occupants – as I have said? That such crowd could be moved against Jesus, whose divisionism and lack of concern as regard the Roman occupation might be seen as an obstacle by the radical nationalists? That Pilate yielded before such movement? All?

Could you be more specific?

We lack information to say that Pilate responded to riotous Jews unreservedly with violence. What we know is that he was inclined to violence rather than to compromise, but the use of violence as a political means is always decided by tipping the scales. In such circumstance as a crowding Jerusalem just immediately before the Passover, Pilate’s decision might have been different from another situation in which the Roman troops easily outnumbered the rioters.

BTW could you be as kind as to explain that jargon to a Spaniard that happens to belong in the Hispanic culture?

ynquirer

Why not, especially is they wished to convict him anyway? The Tetragrammaton is sometimes implied in the OT, as in Exodus 3:14b – see below.

Do you really think that Jesus and the high priest might have engaged, before the Sanhedrin, in a dialogue in Greek? The Greek wording egô eimi is assumed to be a translation, isn’t it? If according to Mark Jesus was entitled to use the Tetragrammaton and wanted to use it before the Sanhedrin, as suggested in Mk 15:62, then he had simply to utter the Hebraic word hayah, which is used in Ex 3:14b as a synonym for the Tetragrammaton and finds an exact match in Greek language egô eimi.