Steven Carr

Mark 14

57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

What does it mean to say that their testimony did not agree?

They clearly agreed that Jesus said 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'

How did the trial go?

Let's try a reconstruction.

Prosecuting attorney - 'What did you hear Jesus say?'

1st Witness 'Jesus said ' Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.', and then he said a bunch of other stuff and then he said ''I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'

Prosecuting attorney - 'Where did you hear Jesus say all this?'

1st Witness 'Jesus was on a mountainside'.


The second witness takes the stand



Prosecuting attorney - 'What did you hear Jesus say?'

2nd Witness 'Jesus said ' Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ', and then he said a bunch of other stuff and then he said ''I will destroy this temple and in three days will build another, made by God'

Prosecuting attorney - 'Where did you hear Jesus say all this?'

2nd Witness 'Jesus was on a plain'.

Would the defense attorney be correct in saying that the testimony of the witnesses 'agreed not together'?

What sort of contradictions did the author of Mark have in mind when he wrote that the witnesses agains Jesus agreed not together?

Peter Kirby

Given that "I will destroy this temple made with hands and within three days I will build another not made with hands" is not found as such in the Gospel of Mark on the lips of Jesus, and given that the testimony is called false, I have supposed (without much ado) that some denied that Jesus made such a claim.

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Judging by the placing of the 'their', Mark seems to be saying that those who did claim Jesus spoke that saying did not agree amongst themselves, rather than referring to other people who denied that Jesus said that.

Peter Kirby

"Many gave false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree."

"Some took the stand and testified falsely against him, alleging...
...even so their testimony did not agree."

Many said things in order to indict Jesus, but not the same things; only some of them made this specific allegation, but even then there was still disagreement.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

As Ludemann points out, the Sanhedrin trial is a doublet of the trial before Pilate....

Mark 14:53-65/Jesus before the Sanhedrin
Mark 15:1-20/Jesus Before Pilate
14:53a/15:1
14:55/15:3
14.60/15:4
14:61a/15:5
14:61b/15:2
14:62/15:2
14:64/15:15
14:65/15:16-20

...which would make these passages an invention of Mark, based on his longstanding theme of the authorities' hatred of Jesus', which he attributes to envy in 15:10.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Not every witness against OJ Simpson made exactly the same allegations, or reported him exactly the same things.

Surely it would be absurd to expect all the witnesses to make identical allegations.

As for those who made that specific allegation, and whose witness agreed not together, we don't know exactly what they said.

This is why I gave a 'dramatic reconstruction', as an example of witnesses whose testimony does not agree.

But Christian apologists would say that the testimony of those witnesses does agree!

This is why I am puzzled as to how Mark knew that the false witnesses testimony did not actually agree. Surely if they claimed to hear Jesus say that saying on different occassions and at different times, this just means that Jesus often repeated his teaching and perhaps tailored it for different audiences.

What does the Bible actually mean by saying that the witnesses testimony did not agree together? What could they have said to allow that conclusion to be drawn?

Peter Kirby

Ah, you're gunning for apologists.

I would think it's because the author wants to make the point that Jesus is innocent.

Because Christ is "a lamb without blemish or defect." (1 Peter 1:19)

Isaiah 53:7 is operative here:

"He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth."

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Of course, he does want to make the point that Jesus is innocent, but he raises interesting questions of methodology as to how we can know whether a saying of Jesus is authentic or not.

Mark claims the saying is not authentic, and we can tell because the witness to it is inconsistent in some way.

But the Gospel stories of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain appear to be equally inconsistent. So are those sayings authentic or not?

It is interesting that raising questions of methodology is a good way of appearing to be 'gunning for apologists' :-)

Peter Kirby

I was more going by your explicit comment, "But Christian apologists would say that the testimony of those witnesses does agree!"

Mark says that the witness is inconsistent in order to make the point that the "trial" did not convict Jesus in a valid way (because he is the suffering innocent). I have no idea what Mark thought such inconsistency involved, or if Mark even thought about it in such detail.

The question of how--and whether--we can know whether Jesus said this or that is interesting enough. I doubt we can.

best,
Peter Kirby

Chili

But you see, to hear it on a mountainside is to participate in the spirituality of Jesus' message and to hear it on a plain is to deny any such understanding or cooperative effort.

The mountainside and also the lake shore make reference to a spiritual insight.