DCHindley

I have to agree with you that the restrictions were associated with grieving for the dead. It was the comments about wives and daughters that got me thinking this was more like a laundry list of "don'ts." Objection withdrawn.

On the other issue, the author of gMark seems to say one thing and do another. It may not be set up in the narrative as a blasphemy trial, but it does seem he wanted to emphasize that the HP (and perhaps by extension all Jews) considered Jesus' confession to be the Christ as somehow blasphemous. Like Ben, I am troubled by all the odd language substituted for YHWH. The phrase "Son of the Blessed One" used by the HP in gMark's narrative is not a term that Christians apply to Jesus elsewhere, although "Son of Man" in Jesus' response certainly is. Also, referring to YHWH as "Power" (rather than KURIOS "LORD" as in Brenton's edition of Ps 109.1 Lxx) does seem odd. In movies and novels, everything in a scene has a function, and I suppose this is generally true of most narratives. Why not here?

DCH

DramaQ

I’m perfectly aware that trying to eke out nuanced meanings in a translation of a text is fraught with peril.

Clearly I have never professed any “informed knowledge” of ancient authors, nor am I dictating what I feel is a “proper” way for them to express themselves.

I can (and did) only remark on how it sounds TO ME.

And if there is no hope of one garnering the meaning without first becoming fluent in ancient Greek then I suppose we all ought to give up on this, and chuck out all the translations of this book.

Now I will be happy to go (back) over why - in English and to my ear the words - “You have heard the blasphemy” follows more logically when it is blasphemy that the chief priest had been looking for in the first place.

And if you, or anyone else here with knowledge of the original language would like to explain why this is or is not valid reasoning, and/or doesn’t work in the Greek, I would be delighted to hear.

If you have no interest in or time to explain that to me then I certainly understand.

But I would ask that you refrain from the condescending sarcasm.

It adds nothing to anyone’s knowledge and I (like most people) respond poorly to it.

dq

Ben C Smith

A few random observations on this issue....

I completely agree with Jeffrey that the trial is not set up as a blasphemy trial. Either the temple incident or the so-called (and highly controversial) temple word is the pretext for the gathering. (Or both in combination.) I do not think that speaking against the temple would be considered blasphemy by itself, though it would of course win you precious few friends in high places. When Jesus son of Ananus raised a voice against Jerusalem and the temple in Wars 6.5.3 §300-309, nobody cried blasphemy, but he was horsewhipped.

It is odd that Mark nowhere tells us what it was that Jesus actually said that inspired witnesses, however false, to claim that he predicted the overthrow of the temple. John certainly tells us, as does Thomas, but both seem to reinterpret it away from a political statement. Here are the instances of this so-called temple word for convenience:

Matthew 26.61:

...ειπαν· Ουτος εφη· Δυναμαι καταλυσαι τον ναον του θεου και δια τριων ημερων οικοδομησαι.

...[two witnesses] said: This man said: I can destroy the temple of God, and after three days build it up.

Mark 14.58:

Ημεις ηκουσαμεν αυτου λεγοντος οτι, Εγω καταλυσω τον ναον τουτον τον χειροποιητον και δια τριων ημερων αλλον αχειροποιητον οικοδομησω.

We heard him say: I shall destroy this temple made with hands, and after three days I shall build up another not made with hands.

Matthew 27.39-40:

Οι δε παραπορευομενοι εβλασφημουν αυτον κινουντες τας κεφαλας αυτων και λεγοντες· Ο καταλυων τον ναον και εν τρισιν ημεραις οικοδομων, σωσον σεαυτον. ει υιος ει του θεου, καταβηθι απο του σταυρου.

And the passersby were blaspheming him, wagging their heads, and saying: You who would destroy the temple and in three days build it, save yourself! If you are the son of God, come down from the cross.

Mark 15.29-30:

Οι παραπορευομενοι εβλασφημουν αυτον κινουντες τας κεφαλας αυτων και λεγοντες· Ουα ο καταλυων τον ναον και οικοδομων εν τρισιν ημεραις, σωσον σεαυτον καταβας απο του σταυρου.

The passersby were blaspheming him, wagging their heads, and saying: Ha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself and come down from the cross!

Luke 19.43-44:

...ηξουσιν ημεραι επι σε και παρεμβαλουσιν οι εχθροι σου χαρακα σοι και περικυκλωσουσιν σε και συνεξουσιν σε παντοθεν, και εδαφιουσιν σε και τα τεκνα σου εν σοι, και ουκ αφησουσιν λιθον επι λιθον εν σοι, ανθ ων ουκ εγνως τον καιρον της επισκοπης σου.

...the days will come upon you, and your enemies will cast up a barricade against you and encircle you and hold you in on every side, and they will level you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone on another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.

John 2.19-21:

Απεκριθη Ιησους και ειπεν αυτοις· Λυσατε τον ναον τουτον και εν τρισιν ημεραις εγερω αυτον. ειπαν ουν οι Ιουδαιοι· Τεσσερακοντα και εξ ετεσιν οικοδομηθη ο ναος ουτος, και συ εν τρισιν ημεραις εγερεις αυτον; εκεινος δε ελεγεν περι του ναου του σωματος αυτου.

Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple and in three days I shall raise it up. So the Jews said: This temple took forty-six years to build, and you will raise it up in three days? But he was speaking of the temple of his body.

Acts 6.14:

Ακηκοαμεν γαρ [Στεφανου] λεγοντος οτι, Ιησους ο Ναζωραιος ουτος καταλυσει τον τοπον τουτον και αλλαξει τα εθη α παρεδωκεν ημιν Μωυσης.

For we have heard [Stephen] saying that this Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses delivered to us.

Thomas 71:

Jesus said: I will destr[oy this hou]se, and no one can build it....

As for the blasphemy versus a blasphemy, I think the former is by far the most natural, both in Greek and in English. The idea is the blasphemy that was just spoken, and there is no implication in this that blasphemy is exactly what the priests were looking for. I think they were, as DramaQ said, fishing a bit. (Compare an expression like of all the nerve, which means the nerve that you just displayed, not necessarily the nerve that I thought you had all along.)

Which brings me to another point. It may be overdone to call these proceedings a trial. Did Jesus son of Ananus get a trial? My impression is that what Josephus tells us about one Jesus and Mark about another implies an informal process, not at all the due process we are used to in the modern world.

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, Matthew's quote is closest. John's has Jesus telling his opponents to tear down the temple so that he might rebuild it.

ETA: Actually the "quote" in Matthew is also from someone other than Jesus.

Amaleq13

Gotcha. It seems to me that the shape-shifting statement placed in the mouth of Jesus and associated with his subsequent execution may represent an effort to condense that teaching into a single statement.

There is no question whether Mark ever places those words in the mouth of his Jesus. He simply does not.

Perhaps but, despite telling us that chief priests witnessed it, Mark never introduces it at the trial.

Good question but it begs the question. If he did speak those words, why didn't the author write a scene in which he said them? Perhaps they heard it subsequent to the trial from those who condemned him.

I asked you a question, Jeffrey. I did not make a claim. Given your substantial background knowledge, does it seem likely to you that threatening to destroy the Temple (literally or even metaphorically) would have been considered or, at least, characterized as blasphemous by the chief priests of the 1st century?

DramaQ

Thank you Ben. I admit I was hasty in just sticking in an “a” instead of “the” to make my point.

I was trying to avoid doing just what I got scolded for: dictating how it “should have” been written.

The point I tried to make (poorly) was that saying “You have heard the blasphemy” only sounds natural (TO ME) if blasphemy is what the chief priest was looking for or expecting in the first place.

Had Jesus been before the council for some other reason, on some other charge (the temple incident for instance) and THEN quite obligingly provided the chief priest with all the ammunition he (the priest) needed to condemn himself (Jesus) – a new and even more damaging charge of blasphemy – then why do the chief priest’s words sound like a vindication?

“See? You heard the blasphemy. I TOLD you he was blasphemous!”

As opposed to “Forget the other charge, this guy just spoke BLASPHEMY!”

Also, as long as we’re also looking at this in terms of the difficulty appreciating the nuance because of the translation, what do you make of the Contemporary English Version (from here) of Mark 14.64 which it renders as:

Mark (dq)

Ben C Smith

I guess what I am saying is that is sounds natural (to me) both ways. It sounds natural if that is what the chief priest is looking for already, and it sounds natural if this is a new development, an unexpected surprise.

Consider the following example:

Bob (to Ted): Oops, there goes my golf ball, out on the interstate.
Ted (clapping): Oh, well done, Tiger.
Bob (to other people standing around): Do you hear the sarcasm?

Notice how sarcasm need not have ever been raised by either party before this point. The phrase hear the sarcasm means, in this case, hear the sarcasm that was just now uttered.

I do not think they (necessarily) sound like a vindication. I think the definite article is used because there is a definite instance of blasphemy.

That is a very interpretive translation, which I would class as a paraphrase in this case; it fills out the exact content of the charge rather than just translating the word. (It would be sort of like translating murdered his wife as bludgeoned his wife with a baseball bat until dead. Admittedly, that would be murder, but not all murder involves bludgeoning.)

If you want to see how I myself would translate this verse, refer to my synopsis of this pericope. On these synopses I try to be very literal and stick as closely to the Greek as possible.

Ben.

Amaleq13

But no specific or formal charge is offered to warrant the punishment so it seems a leap to assume that he wasn't punished because the "eminent" Jews considered him to be blaspheming against the temple. What else would these angry men call his statements?

Would it surprise you if Josephus did tell us that this Jesus was beaten because what he said was considered blasphemous?

Good point.

DramaQ

Fair enough. I'll buy that.

Actually this discussion (and whether the initial charge brought against Jesus was blasphemy) is a bit of a tangent anyway, so I wouldn't want to belabor it.


I assumed that might be the case, thank you for verifying. Interesting how the connotations can affect the translation (or even the understanding in the original language.)

And so this takes me back to where I started. I have heard compelling arguments that the blasphemy was NOT because Jesus "claimed to be God". And yet the translator(s) of the Contemporary English Version are apparently telling me that's exactly the issue.

So how does one determine which is correct? We are told it is poor form to read more into the text than is there. But Mark doesn’t seem to be explicitly telling us here. All the explanations I’ve seen have had to read at least some understanding into it.

Let me ask it this way: in your opinion, is it at least plausible that the charge of blasphemy on the part of the chief priest was because he heard Jesus claim to be God?

Thanks again,

Mark

Toto

Jesus son of Ananias

The penalty for blasphemy was not to be beaten. It appears that he was whipped for being a public nuisance.

I initially thought that he might have been beaten as primitive mental health measure, to beat the devils out of him, but the Romans gave up when they decided that he was just insane.