stephan huller

From whom would I expect to get better knowledge of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great (x 20) grandfather? You, Ken Scaletti or your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great (x 17) grand-relative? But it goes beyond this. Clement had an unbelievable amount of material, tradition both oral and written which we no longer have access to. One could certainly make the case that Clement was born within a generation or two of the evangelist's death. Any scholar who cares anything about the truth would give up twenty years of his life to have access to the sources available to Clement.

stephan huller

Besides of course, he sat in the catechetical chair of instruction for the See of St Mark in Alexandria and spoke about Mark establishing the liturgy of his church. So not only is it like one ancient relative making reference to the work of another ancient relative who lived a hundred years before him but one who had access to a tradition about that common relative. It is reason why Shi'i Islam pays so much veneration to the family of Mohammed in order to have a definitive understanding of his work. The same understanding exists among the Ismalis. It's common sense. I can't believe that I have to argue for the value of Clement's witness

LegionOnomaMoi

Again, it is unclear if the author of mark meant his use of the term to be taken in the technical sense. However, once again we do have evidence in the Talmud that specifically addresses this issue. Twice (once in b. Hagigah, 14a, and once in b. Sanhedrin, 38b) rabbi Akiba is accused by Rabbi Jose [the Galilean] of "profaning" the divine presence (the Shekina) because he (supposedly) claimed that the throne was for a human, and no human could occupy such a position. Both Philo and Josephus also discuss how blaphemy included comparing yourself or putting yourself too close to god.

Diogenes the Cynic

But an angel isn't God, and neither was the Messiah, not even the more esoteric "son of man" conceptions.

Any case that Mark intends Jesus to be understood as God has to explain why Mark so often distinguishes them as separate entities with separate minds.

Diogenes the Cynic

I was musing on this question some more and had an additional thought.

In Mark's Gospel, Jesus' powers come from the Spirit (dog-on is right that Jesus the man is little more than a meat puppet for the Spirit in Mark), and Mark also indicates that the power of the Spirit, in turn, is dependent on faith. He can't do miracles in his hometown because the people have no faith. So Mark is saying the Gentiles have more faith than the Jews.

I think I could make this case better if I were able to somehow smuggle in the Q story of Jesus healing the Centurion's catamite.

LegionOnomaMoi

That's not the issue. We have evidence from the first century (Philo and Josephus) that one form of "blasphemy" was to put yourself too close to close to god (through comparison, metaphor, whatever), and even Akiba is rebuked for merely suggesting that the one sitting in the throne is a human, as this was to profane the divine. The point is that your interpretation of blasphemy is far too narrow, even in the more technical sense.

I don't think Mark intended any such thing. The concept of "son of god" has plenty of parallels in and around the first century, even in Jewish texts, and need not imply divinity at all, let alone some precurser to the trinity. But neither was this necessary for a charge of blasphemy. Nor is the link between a son of god and the messsiah (or a messianic figure) unique to christian texts (we find it in the qumran texts). The point though, is (again) that even if the author of Mark intended his audience to interpret "blasphemy" as "profaning the divine" rather than the more general use of the greek word, it is perfectly plausible to understand the high priest's response in this light based merely on Jesus' implication that a human (especially if Mark intended that this figure be understood as Jesus) was seated next to god.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think you're wrong that anything besides cursing Yahweh could be charged as blasphemy. That's what the Talmud says, and that's what is averred by modern Rabbinic Judaism.

I would have to see evidence of anything other than the Talmudic definition of blasphemy ever being charged in the 2nd Temple period.

LegionOnomaMoi

Even the mishnah wasn't recorded until ~200 CE. You're applying rabbinic commentary recorded centuries after this back on to the first century.

I uploaded an entire chapter/paper from an academic (edited and reviewed) volume on this. Did you read it?

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes, but it's the best we have, and we don't have anything contrary.
It's a speculative piece without hard evidence. The weight of scholarship is against Mark's conviction being valid or accurate under Jewish law.

Plus, Mark wasn't Jewish and got a number of things wrong about Jewish law, so why would he have some kind sophisticated, arcane understanding of this particular Jewish law (and not only that but expect his Roman, non-Jewish audience to know it too)?

There is nothing anywhere in Jewish tradition before the Christian era or afterwards that has ever identified the Messiah as God or ever stated that claiming to be any iteration of the Messiah is illegal.

On the other hand, it was illegal under Roman law to say you were the Messiah (i.e. King of the Jews), and that causing a stir in the temple would buy you a world of trouble (we have the Jesus, son of Ananias story in Josephus as well as other stories of riots and violent suppressions of inciters in the Temple).

Personally, I find it more parsimonious that Mark, being a Roman, not a Jew, just did not know Jewish law (as evidenced substantially elsewhere in his Gospel), and needing to fix blame on the Temple authorities, he contrived "blasphemy" thinking it a had a broader meaning in Jewish law than he did.

LegionOnomaMoi

We do. Even in the talmud the reference to the one seated on the throne interpreted as a human is seen as blasphemy.


What scholarship? Jewish scholars have spent the last 6+ decades pointing out how wrong it is to apply Talmudic standards to 2nd temple judaism. What scholarship of 1st century "jewish law" are you applying here?

This assumes a knowledge of what "Jewish law" was in the first century. However, our sources, christian or otherwise, indicate that the Law was interpreted in vastly different ways. The priestly elite rejected the "oral torah" which evolved into rabbinic judaism, and this was the group the author of Mark describes. So what "jewish law" are you referring to? The qumran documents indicate a very different intreptation of jewish law than that which is attributed to the priestly elie. Josephus further supports this differentiation. Vermes, Neusner, and other leading experts in Jewish studies reject the projection of later rabbinic law onto 2nd temple judaism you are using, and instead look to Josephus, the NT, Philo, and the so-called intertestamental literature.


That's about the same as saying "there is nothing anywhere in 17th century mathematics which offers formal (and adequatre) definition of limits." Our sources are simply too sparse. We have an independent Talmudic attestation that the reference in mark profaned God. We have similar indications from 1st century sources that Jesus' claim to an affinity to god would be considered blasphemy. What "Jewish traditions" do we possess which describe the criteria under which a given proposition would be considered blasphemy?

On the other hand, it was illegal under Roman law to say you were the Messiah (i.e. King of the Jews), and that causing a stir in the temple would buy you a world of trouble (we have the Jesus, son of Ananias story in Josephus as well as other stories of riots and violent suppressions of inciters in the Temple).

Possibly, but unlikely. His geographical ineptidue notwithstanding, the author's knowledge of aramaic is not indicative of a roman author.