Jeffrey Gibson

If this is the case when?

Jeffrey

aa5874

But why would anyone assume that the unknown author of gMark even knew anything about standard trial practices in Judaea. Who is the author of gMark? In what century did he live and in which country? Did this author use Josephus writings to fabricate his trial of this so-called Jesus?

According to Eusebius in Church History, the unknown author of gMark got his information from a single source, Peter, and wrote gMark while Philo of Alexandria was still alive, yet it now appears that Eusebius is in error and that gMark was written upto 40-50 years later. Philo never mentioned the gospel called Mark, Peter or Jesus in all of his extant writings.

Based on Josephus and even the NT to some extent, I would expect that Jesus, if he lived and was not a god, would have been beaten several times, imprisoned and then probably stoned or clubbed to death, like the so-called James as recorded in Antiquities of the Jews. However, in gMark, this Jesus appear to be predict his trial and death in advance up to the nearest hour and could determine the actions of Judas beforehand, even predicting his last supper before trial.

I cannot accept gMark's rendition of the trial of Jesus without any external non-apologetic source. gMark's trial of this Jesus seems bogus to me.

DramaQ

First: Please let me reiterate that I KNOW this is only AMark’s version of the story. But I would like to keep the discussion within that framework. I am not looking for a measure of its “reality”, rather an insight into the world as AMark saw it. (Or chose to describe it.)

Second: A tangential question occurred to me about the validity of the trial. And by this I mean, was it all “rigged” to begin with?

Mark 14:55 tells us “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.”

So they arrested him FIRST, and thought up charges later. And for whose benefit were the witnesses? If the Chief Priests AND THE WHOLE Sanhedrin intended to get Jesus, why bother with a trial? Why make up testimony? Unless spectators were present and they had to at least make a show of justice. And if that’s the case, it makes me wonder something about those spectators later…

Third: On the explanations for how Jesus’ words were blasphemous. (And I admit I am not through it all.) I must say Dr. Gibson, that your analysis for how Jesus’ words constituted a denigration of the All Mighty is impressive and well thought-out. It’s obviously complex. Very complex.

One might almost say “too complex”.

Let me explain: I realize that properly relating “meaning” can be a tricky process. And not knowing all the connotations and understandings “built in” to a given time and context can make it even more difficult, especially for a 21st century English-speaking Westerner like me. So it may take a bit to fill in that context.

But here’s the point: it was NOT complex for the Chief Priest. He “got it” instantly and clearly.

This man just spoke a blasphemy! It was so startlingly clear that the Chief Priest was ready to dismiss the rest of his (false) witnesses; his case was closed. It was equally clear to the Sanhedrin who convicted him. No one argued. No one said, “Wait a minute, he didn’t actually utter the sacred name” or “How was that denigrating, now?” or “Well you’re just saying its blasphemy because it was this JESUS who said it”. No spectators clamored for explanation. It was immediately and devastatingly apparent. To them. To everyone in the room. To AMark. And apparently to all of AMark’s readers (at the time), since he provides not one single follow up word of explanation. He evidently found such unnecessary, this was so obviously blasphemy.

And yet here were are now, struggling to understand. I am still going through the complex explanation for it. Is it because we are so far removed in time, place, and context?

But then if this is the case, we SHOULD see an indication of the stark clarity of the blasphemy in Jesus’ words from AMark’s readers of the time. Presumably, AMatt and ALuke should have read those same words and understood the finality of the blasphemy just the same.

Now, I am not a reader of ancient Greek, so I would have to rely on the expertise of others here. The NIV English translation of AMatt’s version is somewhat different than GMark, and so I assume is the original Greek.

Does this pack the same blasphemous punch as AMark’s version?

Does the High Priest’s version of the question - "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[e] the Son of God." - even contain the same nuanced contempt in the “YOU” that Lohmeyer and Taylor see in the Markan version?

If not, why not? Why wasn’t AMark’s show of blasphemy good enough?

Why did AMatt not see it with the same clarity, such that he felt he had to change the words?

And ALuke goes even further afield.

Luke seems to have totally missed the obvious in GMark. (Like me.) In fact, he seems to be interpreting what he read in GMark as definitely pointing to a God/Son of God context in Jesus words. They even give him a chance to clarify this, just so there’s no misunderstanding!

So how could ALuke, who was in a much better position to understand the meaning in GMark, have relayed the story with no hint that the charge hinged on denigration (or utterance) of the divine name, or was based on the contempt of the High Priest for Jesus, but instead on Jesus’ direct connection with God? (As the Christ.)

As I’ve admitted, the words directly do not (always) carry the full meaning. There is a lot of context and nuance.

I’ve been reading an impressive explanation of that context. But evidently ALuke read a different meaning in GMark or chose to pass a different meaning along to his readers. So how can I know which interpretation is… closer to the mark?

dq


P.S.

That does not mean that "Mark" thought the Sanhedrin was adoptionist, and does not tell us whether (in his view) they believed the Messiah was God (or not).

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" is motivated by a literary Ironic contrasting style. Therefore, Conclusions are first in "Mark" and the related reasons are secondary. Reasons than are not necessarily compelling, logical or even plausible in "Mark". The above is a prime example as whether you are amateur or professional there is no clear reason in "Mark" as to why the Sanhedrin would have convicted Jesus of blasphemy. The result though is extremely Ironic as in response to Jesus quoting Scripture:

"the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

the High Priest takes this as blasphemy. So the High Priest is treating the Sacred as blasphemous (understand dear Reader). Oh hell, I can't even be subtle here. "the High Priest is treating the Sacred as blasphemous". What else that is Sacred is the High Priest treating as profane? I submit again that a possible explanation for the difficulty here in finding a compelling, logical or even reasonable explanation for the blasphemy charge based on the text is that it does not exist.

Supporting my Ironically contrived charge above is that pretty much everything the Sanhedrin does here is Ironic:

1) "Mark" has a major theme regarding Jesus' ID -

Christ = Wrong

Son of God = Right

Throughout "Mark" Jesus is shadowed by a Heavenly duck who is
constantly quacking "El-flock". Baptism, "You are my son." El-flock.
Transfiguration, "This is my son." El-flock. After the "veil" is torn, Roman
(understand dear Reader) centurion, "This was God's son." El-flock. Son
of God = Right

Peter IDs Jesus as Christ and is IDed as Satan. Jesus predicts that many
will falsely ID Christ. Christ = Wrong.

In the story at hand the High Priest has inadvertently correctly IDed
Jesus:

""Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

Since the correct identification has been made Jesus responds
affirmatively, "I am" (I find the attempted solution that this response
was the divine name and the reason for the blasphemy charge the most
bizarre of all).

So the High Priest, not believing that Jesus is the Messiah, has correctly
identified Jesus as the Messiah.

2) The Sanhedrin wants to avoid having Jesus' Passion made public but ends
up having the Passion climax on the most public day of the Jewish year.

3) The Sanhedrin has a perfectly good reason to condemn Jesus, the Temple
disturbance, but no one can remember it.

4) The job of the High Priest is to anoint the Messiah but this is instead done
by an anonymous woman (who will always be remembered).

5) Jesus, the man of Peace, is arrested like a Rebel.

6) The Sanhedrin arranges for false testimony against Jesus but every false
witness can not agree with any other false witness.

7) Finally, false witness agrees with true testimony (Jesus said he would
destroy the Temple) but this witness does not agree and is false (even
though it agreed and was true)

8) While the Sanhedrin is mocking Jesus to prophesy, under their noses Jesus'
prophecy regarding Peter comes true.

9) The job of the Sanhedrin is to identify the Messiah. They correctly identify
the Messiah but don't realize it. They are supposed to Anoint the Messiah
but instead condemn the Messiah. They think they are preventing Jesus
from being the Messiah but they are actually Enabling Jesus to be
the Messiah. They just don't realize it.

Now what's that word I Am looking for to describe all this?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

John Kesler

Whether Luke was unaware of the blasphemy charge--or left it out for a reason--I don't know. It is interesting to note, however, that Luke's account of Stephen's arrest includes some of the aspects of Jesus' trial in Mark, so perhaps Luke knew Mark's version but thought that some of it better fit with Stephen:

aa5874

But is this a version of a true or real event? If it cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy that the trial actually occurred, then gMark's story cannot be properly analyzed.

It is absolutely fundamental that we know whether there was a trial of Jesus or if gMark is just propaganda to promote some new religion.

DCHindley

I'm not sure I follow you here, Jeffrey. Are you suggesting that because Leviticus was the law laid down long before the 1st century CE, that a 1C high priest would simply disregard a direct instruction from God himself, contained in the Pentateuch - which most would today agree was part of sacred scripture to a Sadducee - as not pertaining to himself?

If I recall correctly, the sources you have referred to do not actually say the High Priest himself acted as a judge in a blasphemy trial. Yes I've read your article, no I have not read the others you cited. I ask because you have researched this, and I am seeking your opinion. I do realize that in later periods Rabbinic law sometimes allows one precept to supersede another should they come into unexpected conflict, and this might also have applied in 1C practices of the high priests and blasphemy trials.

If it cannot be proved that Jewish tradition indicated that the HP presided at blasphemy trials, and a commandment from God himself says he should not rend his garments, then whoever was judging this trial (assuming it was actually for blasphemy) may have only been a chief priest.

The next question would be, Did the author of Mark think the High Priest himself was the judge of this trial (as gMatt & gJohn specifically state)?

This poses a paradox. Would not these circumstances call the whole trial story into question? I'm not saying there was no trial, but am suggesting some of the details may have been occasioned by polemic, rhetorical flourish, whatever (I don't care).

DCH (on lunch, in case my boss asks)

DramaQ

Fundamental to whom? Are you dictating what is “fundamental” to me? Or everyone else participating here?

I guess I must have wasted a lot of time in literature class discussing “A Tale of Two Cities”. After all, those events never “really” happened.

And I wasted even more time in playwrighting class discussing Miller, Williams, and Bill S.

Except that ALL of those works were discourses on the human condition (as seen by the author) in the time and place they either took place, or were written in.

Discussing and analyzing what people write gives us tremendous insight into people and culture. Regardless of the level of accuracy or “reality”.

So with all due respect, please give this a rest. I want to understand this STORY. I don’t CARE right now if it’s “real”.

dq

DramaQ

Thanks Joe. I always love to read your insights.

And speaking of Irony (mine is still on the board), I was curious about your take on something.

Earlier, Ben C. Smith (Sorry, Ben, I forgot to thank you for this earlier) pointed out:

It’s an interesting point, which is that the unique usage here indicates a (pardon me for paraphrasing) “nudge” on AMark’s part to the reader to clue him in that Jesus really did speak the divine name right here.

What I am wondering is, given Mark’s penchant for irony, is there some other explanation? I truly wish I knew ancient Greek. But could Mark be doing one of his ironic winks with this particular usage in this particular place?

As for the idea that I am searching in vain for the source of the blasphemy, you may be right. Mark may have been a great writer, but if I had used some of his plot devices in playwrighting class they would have crucified me.

dq

Jeffrey Gibson

I was asking whether Leviticus 21:10 -- or more importantly, the first century understanding of Leviticus 21:10 -- actually says that there are no circumstances under which the High Priest might/should tear his clothing.

And looking at it now I see that the prohibition is given in the context of not being defiled by dead bodies and applies to the High priest when someone close to the him dies. That is to say, the prohibition you mentioned is concerned only with preventing the High Priest from engaging in customary mourning practices after someone has died. This text says nothing about the High Priest (LXX = great priest) being forbidden to rend his garments when he hears blasphemy.

But the trial in Mark is not a blasphemy trial. The charges upon which Jesus was arrested and brought to trial are grounded in his (real or perceived) attack on the temple.

Jeffrey