blastula

"Are you awesome?"

Yeah, duh.

Amaleq13

Where do you get that? Mark 14:1-2 describes the conspiracy but there is no connection made between or even a mention of his earlier disruption of the temple.

God Fearing Atheist

Also, wouldn't the context indicate that the prohibition refers to the High Priest's special vestments and not necessarily his ordinary clothing?

Jeffrey Gibson

Try 11:18 and then note what the "witnesses" in 14:58 are brought in (and) attempt) to corroborate and in 14:63 are said to be redundant, since Jesus has provided a different reason than the one on which he was arrested for pronouncing him liable for death. See too 15:29.

In any case, Jesus is not brought to the Sanhedrin on charges of blasphemy.

Jeffrey

DramaQ

I was wondering about this too.

11:18 only tells us that the chief priests “began looking for a way to kill him”. At this point, they had no idea WHAT that way would be.

Then in 14: 55 we’re told “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.”

It sounds to me like, even at the trial, they were still on a fishing expedition (excuse the pun). They had yet to find the something they needed on him.

Then Jesus very obligingly gives them the testimony they need. The Chief Priest says "Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy.”

It’s interesting that you chose the word “redundant” to characterize the witnesses at this point. In the primary sense of the word, that would indicate to me that the testimony of the witnesses is merely a repetition of Jesus’ more damaging self-incrimination. But wouldn’t that mean that a) the witness testimony also suggests blasphemy, and b) this was the initial charge.

Moreover, I would like to know better how the sentence “You have heard the blasphemy” would sound to the ear in the original language. As it is translated, it sounds to me like the Chief Priest is saying “HERE is the blasphemy we were trying to prove.”

Had the point been that the original temple-attack charge was now SUPERSEDED by the more serious charge, I would have expected an expression more like “"Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard A blasphemy.”

dq

aa5874

Reality is all I care about right now, not speculation.

Amaleq13

Yes, I see that 11:18 explicitly connects the disruption of the temple with the conspiracy to kill Jesus. I missed that line. IMV, that make it even more strange that the incident isn't mentioned at the trial. Instead, the focus is on an incorrectly quoted statement about destroying the temple. The witnesses to that statement are called false apparently because Jesus only speaks that line in Matthew.

Mark tells us that Jesus' disruption of the Temple was witnessed by "the scribes and the chief priests" but they needed more witnesses at the trial and false witnesses at that?

Threatening to destroy the Temple wouldn't have been considered blasphemous?

Jeffrey Gibson

By attack I mean criticism as well as teachings in word and deed that the temple is no longer central or necessary for there to be forgiveness of sins or a guarantee of the God of Israel's presence in Israel or of his favour towards those who rule in his name from within it. All good Jeremiah stuff (see Jeremiah 7).

In any case, is it really true that Jesus does not "speak" the words of destruction in Mark? The Temple "cleaning" episode is one such "word". So is the opening of his "eschatological" discourse in Mk. 13. And if he didn't "speak" these words, why then do the "passers" by in Mk. 15: 38 taunt Jesus with them?

Please show me where in the evidence that we have about what was thought to constitute blasphemy that it was.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

And why -- on the basis your knowledge of what are the proper and improper ways for an ancient author or speaker to express things, let alone on the basis of your informed knowledge of what is actually being thought and said and depicted in Mk. 14:63 -- would you have expected this?

Why should your way of saying things be determinative of the way someone from another culture and time should say things, even if you are correct about what's going on in Mk. 14:61-64?

Jeffrey

John Kesler

Do you mean John (2:19)?