Amaleq13

According to what Jewish law did Jesus commit blasphemy?

Asha'man

No idea. But then, we have no idea what he actually said, just that he was found guilty of it [according to the story]. (Mark 14:63-64)

On the other hand, what Roman law did he break? (Again, no idea, all we know is that he was found innocent [according to the story])

Rick Sumner

Mel Gibson has it right. 14:62 should be "I AM" in English, the only form of blaspheme there was according to the Rabbis--uttering the most venerable name. It's the only reading that makes sense given the priest's response in 14:63.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Notsri

A fair point, I think.


I would have to disagree on this point, in that it was not entirely unknown for a corpse to be taken down from the cross. Philo of Alexandria, for instance, writes in In Flaccum 83: The Catholic Encyclopedia also lists a handful of sources (e.g., Seneca, Cicero, et al.) which apparently indicate that, under certain stipulations in Roman law, a body could've been taken down from the cross. So when Pilate gave permission for Jesus to be buried, it was not necessarily against tradition, even though it may have been a fairly exceptional practice.


This point about the "cross" and the "tree" has, of course, been made before. But I think the proposed dichotomy is a false one. Given all of the clear NT references to the cross, I see little reason to assume that "tree" is not used figuratively on the four occasions you've mentioned, and that it does not refer to the cross. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas, e.g., also views the terms as virtually synonymous, taking certain OT references to a tree as types of the cross (4:1; cf. 12:1). And from non-Christian literature we find that Seneca uses exactly the same word (tree) to refer to the cross and crucifixion in his Epistle 101: In that light, then, there is no necessary link to the Jewish form of capital punishment. And incidentally, I would also note that the traditional form of Jewish capital punishment required only that one was hung on a post sunk into the ground, not necessarily from a tree (so Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6:4).


I would emphasize again that the NT Jesus is not openly associated with the Jesus of 100 BCE until the amoraic era. The earlier, tannaitic literature knows nothing of the latter's execution. It's not until the confused, amoraic passage from Sanhedrin 107b is incorporated into the Toledot Yeshu, that we hear of his demise; there he's unequivocally linked to the tannaitic reference to Jesus Christ's execution from Sanhedrin 43a. What I'm getting at is that you seem to place greater reliability on the late talmudic reference and the Toledot Yeshu, when suggesting that they hold some clue as to how Jesus Christ's story originated. It seems tenuous at best, though, to assume that later tradition carries more weight over earlier, far better attested material.

Amaleq13

So the blasphemy would have been speaking the name of God rather than claiming to be God?

Vorkosigan

Gibson may well be right, as I am sure you know. Some manuscripts of Mark do read "You say I am" there, as do Matt & Luke. The 'right hand of power' crap is a later formula that also crops up in hegesippus' account of James death and of course the death of Stephen in Acts. Robert Grant writes:

• "According to Alexandrian and 'Western' manuscripts, Jesus said, 'I am,' and went on to predict the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (14:61-2). Several questions arise here. (1) Caesarean manuscripts agree with Origen that the answer was less direct; they read, 'You have said that I am.' Do they preserve Mark's original reading, reflected in different ways in Matthew 26:64 and Luke 26:67-71? Or has the text of Mark been influenced by the later gospels?"

Nevertheless, Jesus did not utter the name of G-D and did not commit blasphemy. Claiming to be the messiah, son of god, was not blasphemy.

In any case the Sanhedrin trial is most probably a fiction. It is a doublet of the trial before Pilate, and violates many of the rules laid down for capital trials. Further, Mark does not know the name of the high priest, though he served for a decade. In fact that name is unstable in the tradition, a sure sign of a lack of historicity. Steve Mason writes:

• "In sum: on the one hand, it is remarkable that the Gospel authors unanimously and without equivocation know that the Roman governor at the time of Jesus' death was Pontius Pilate, and yet he is said by all of them to have been a mere pawn in the hands of the Jewish leaders. On the other hand, Mark does not even name the chief Jewish official; Matthew seems to have researched or recalled that his name was Caiaphas; Luke implies that he was Annas; and John makes Caiaphas an annually appointed high priest but places Jesus' significant trial before Annas."

The details are taken from the Psalms or OT (14:53,54,55,56,57,61,63,65) or else are entirely from Mark's hand. v58 encapsulates an OT messianic concept that the Temple will be destroyed to make way for God's perfect Temple. In other words, at every level, the trial is a literary construct that is historically implausible, lacks key information, and contains no independently verifiable historical information.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

You need to remember that it's been changed from Hebrew to Greek. YHWH is "I AM." If that's what Mark wants us to think he said, and if that's the context it was meant in, then he was definitely guilty of blashpeme.

What is God's name in Greek? I don't think we can rightly know--it may be that nobody ever rightly knew, so far as I know it's never been rendered, except as IHVH, by Origen, which is a little late to be much use. It's usually rendered "ho Kurios," which is "The Lord," which is of course a title, and not a name at all.

Doesn't Mark strike you as a little Jewish to be writing such a thing in his gospel? Perhaps Mark intends to imply that Jesus had uttered the name where Mark writes "power?" There is no reasonable connection between what Jesus is actually attributed with and the charge of blasphemy. One would think Mark knew that.

I wholeheartedly agree. Yet Mark nonetheless does exhibit a fairly impressive knowledge of scripture and Judaism. Perhaps not quite Paul or the Rabbi's impressive, but impressive enough that we should [edit: reasonably expect him to] know what blasphemy is.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Editted to add:
Apologies for editting while Vorkosigan was replying. I'm terrible for that--really need to start working from Notepad. . .

The Origen reference is wrong, which is what I get for being lazy and trying to work from memory. Origen wrote the Hebrew letters YHWH, which was apparently frequently misread for pipi, and something of a common practice.

http://jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm

There doesn't seem to be a Greek transliteration of YHWH.

Rick Sumner

If there is any continuity between the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus, and the Mishnah (and I think it's entirely unreasonable to presume that there was none, and all the signs seem to point toward this reading of Mark's gospel), there is no blasphemy except uttering the name of God. We find similar sentiments in the DSS, where uttering the most venerable name is the most heinous of sins.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Hmmm...I see what you are driving at. Perhaps Mark was engaged in a bit of wordplay. He's writing in Greek -- and wants the audience to make the mental leap back to Hebrew and see the bilingual pun.

However, the problem is that the original text may not have contained "I am" but simply "You say." In Matthew and Luke Jesus deflects the question of his identity, refusing to answer directly (Mt 26:64 ="Yes, it is as you say," Lk 22:67="If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not
answer." ).

Is this pun your own observation, Rick, or has some scholar made this argument?

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

Right.

But if this is the original reading, where is the blaspheme, and why isn't Mark aware of that problem?

I believe I saw it on X-Talk at some point, but don't quote me on it. In either event, I'm working from _The Passion of the Christ_, simply because it makes the most sense.

Regards,
Rick Sumner