TedM

If someone was claiming to be the Son of the Blessed, the Son of Man, the Christ, seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven, and able to rebuild the temple but not with human hands, and was known as the King of the Jews, it isn't really that much of a stretch to see how people might have perceived that he was claiming to be God, or nearly so. Matthew, who was more familiar with Jewish thought kept in the response by the high prist who says that Jesus was being blasphemous. It looks to me like there was plenty of reason people would have wanted him to suffer a death they believed to be repugnant.

ted

Amaleq13

If the prologue is legitimate, this was a personal correspondence between the author and Theophilus. The only way such a correspondence reaches the public is if Theophilus shares it. It seems to me that this should have resulted in a close connection between the text and Theophilus in early tradition.

If the prologue is not legitimate, our concerns about whether the author was lying in it disappear.

Annoying but true. Almost as annoying as the apparently limited number of names in use during the early 1st century. There are WAY too many "James" and "Johns" and "Simons" running around IMO.

TedM

No, it just means they didn't take his claim to be true.

In 15:12 Pilate says that the Jews called Jesus the "King of the Jews". This shows an awareness that Jesus had followers. Common sense says that even if Pilate thought Jesus was innocent of whatever charges the Jews brought, he still had a following, and it was enough to stir up the crowds. 15:14 says that Pilate acted because he wanted to 'satisfy the crowds'.

ted

Diogenes the Cynic

None of that stuff represents a claim to Godhood in Jewish tradition. The people would have understood all of that as allusions to Daniel. It was, at most, a claim to be the Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is not God and the claim would not have been perceived as such. Even the phrase "Son of God" was not a literal claim to divine descendency but a figurative phrase attributed to kings.

TedM

What about the charge that he said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days but not with human hands? And are you denying that anything he said in the trial in Mark would be perceived as blasphemy by the high priest?

Do you think crucifixion would not be perceived as unbefitting of one who said all of these things, and if so, why?

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark calls that charge "false witness." According to mark, Jesus didn't say that, he was falsely accused of saying it by someone else (and it's obviously not historical anyway, since the entire statement presumes knowledge that the temple would be destroyed).
Yes. The Talmud explicitly states that no one has committed blasphemy unless he utters the Tetragrammaton.
Yes, it's unbefitting. For one thing, crucifixion was forbidden under Jewish law. It did not exist as a Jewish legal option for capital crimes and it was despised a s a cruel Roman practice. For another thing the legal penalty for blasphemy (if Jesus ahd committed blasphemy which he hadn't) would have been stoning.

mata leao

<edit> The sanhedrin could not use capital punisment, only the Roman sovereign could, so stoning was not an offcial option. And any person who said the things Jesus said, including being the messiah, if the sanhedrin and the pharisees and sadduccees didnt believ ehim, would be at risk for ecclesiastical trial for blasphemy and whatever punsihment they could get away with, in this case, turning over to the Romans for execition by crucifixion.

Ben C Smith

Oh, I see what you mean. But I do not think that is correct. The selection of a patron by an ancient historian (or poet, for that matter) did not limit the history to the private sector, as it were. It was still a public work.

Agreed, for what it is worth. There is also the matter of the concerns of the prologue being apparently mirrored in Papias. But that would be another topic altogether.

:rolling:

Yes, there are. And Jesuses, if you read Josephus. Funny how our European sensibilities have turned Jesus into a sacred name when in antiquity they were dime a dozen. Interestinly, the Hispanic culture has retained Jesus as a common name.

Ben.

Diogenes the Cynic

What is your source for this claim?

Just out of curiosity, under what authority was the adulterous woman going to be stoned in John?
Claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy, was not a claim to Godhood and was not a crime under Jewish law.

ynquirer

Or else to imply it very clearly.

When asked in Mark by the high priest whether he is the Son of the Blessed, the Messiah, Jesus – in the Greek language of the gospel – answers ego eimi (Mk 15:62). This is a rather emphatic way to say “I am.� John 8:58 uses the same formula still in a clearer way: “… before Abraham was, I am.� Again, the Greek language for “I am� is ego eimi.

Jesus’ revelation here that he is before Abraham was confirms that the emphatic ego eimi is nothing but a shortened form for ego eimi ho ôn, which appears for the first time in the Septuagint, – Greek Old Testament, – Exodus 3:14. And Greek-language ego eimi ho ôn as well as English “I am that I am� or “I am who I am� both are proxy translations for the Tetragrammaton (Y-H-W-H) of the Hebrew Bible.

Mark’s conviction as regard the legitimacy of Jesus to use the Tetragrammaton is confirmed in Mk 1:2 (RSV)

In Mk 15:62 Jesus before the Sanhedrin just inures his right to use the name of God and is sentenced to death penalty accordingly.