OneInFundieville

Andrew, in this historic scenario, are there any sub-scenarios developed where a resurrection myth yet emerges?

andrewcriddle

It's a long time since I read this but IMS Jesus eventually dies of disease and old age but his body is then mysteriously not found and claims about his continuing presence with his followers are made.

Andrew Criddle

storytime

* Jesus didn't have witness testimony on his behalf. False witnesses were employed - made their testimony of overhearing Jesus say he would destroy the Temple. However, Jesus was speaking of his body as THE Temple of the holy spirit[God].

* The Pharisees had previously sought to "catch Jesus in his words" so as to judge him worthy of death.

* Jesus made no attempt to defend himself other than ask those who arrested him 'why now?' when he had been preaching the same gospel among them for years. The High Priest accused Jesus of blasphemy - how defined?

* Jesus began his ministry as a martyr, giving the old prophets as example before him. He expected to suffer persecution and death, just as the old prophets before him. Jesus said he layed down his life and that no man took it from him.

* What did Jesus accomplish for the Jews? Anything? Nothing? If his purpose was to divide the Jews in their belief, how did he do so? Who was teaching the truth, Jesus or the Pharisees? And how was any Gentiles supposed to know the difference in these Jewish teachings as to which were true or false? And why would it matter to Gentiles anyway?

DCHindley

I don't know, Andrew.

Alternate scenarios like this remind me of one of the Star Trek movies. The Enterprise time travels back to 20th century Earth. Scotty and Bones are at the task of procuring a large amount of aluminum to transport a whale to the future so it can save the world. They find a source, but have no money. Instead of cash, Scotty shows the metallurgist how to produce transparent aluminum. As the metallurgist excitedly looks at his computer screen, Bones pulls Scotty aside and asks him if he isn't risking a "paradox." Scotty replies, "How do you know he didn't invent transparent aluminum?" Bones raises an eyebrow and cocks his head giving a "what have we got to loose?" look. World saved. Whew!

The scenario you described, though, does seem to portray Jesus as a Gandhi-like figure, destined to save the world regardless of circumstances. The author of it seems to cherish the "social gospel" model of Christianity. This model requires the adherent to select a subset of all the accounts about what Jesus did and taught (e.g., no telling the disciples to carry swords, resulting in Peter cutting off a servant's ear, just the turn the other cheek kind of thing), but in his retelling he is free to make Jesus conform to that ideal even more.

DCH

OneInFundieville

Somehow, the story's better when it sticks closer to the monomyth pattern.

Solo

Why was Jesus silent then when the question was put to him ? He was given the opportunity to speak, was he not ? (Mk 14:60-61)

There was a specific charge by the Pharisees in Mark inculpating Jesus for healing on sabbath. Matthew and Luke followed suit. In John the question whether sabbath healing should be seen as a sign of a man sent from God or of a sinner was left hanging until Jesus was condemned for raising Lazarus.

Preaching gospel among them for years ? Is that John ?

Again, we need to start with Mark: after Jesus silence on the accusation that he intended to destroy the temple, he is asked point blank if he is the Christ, the son of the blessed. He says, "I am" which seals his fate. The temple was the most sacred object to the Jews which housed the inner sanctum, the Holy of Holies. To stand accused of plotting to destroy or tamper with the structure was to stand accused of something slightly more than a parking meter violation. Jesus' self-imposed role of a malefactor becomes intolerable by his affirming that his grandeur is truly the Messiah's.

But surely, Mark is collecting sheets of a libretto for tragicomical opera here. The accusation is fake :

Mk 14:58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"

But it is not fake because of an intended falsehood by the accusers; it is fake because Mark fakes it for the naive reader: the accusation does not to relate to what Jesus said about the Temple but to Paul metaphoric casting of the Spirit:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cr 6:19)

Mark plots this as a misunderstanding which affirms Paul's teaching in two places :

One, 1 Cor 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this (God's wisdom that is Christ); for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Mark is ironically fulfilling Paul in vaticinium ex eventu. The accusers hear Jesus say, or some Pauline believers say about Jesus, that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it, and assume naively that it is meant literally. Because they don't understand what Jesus (in Pauline teachings) meant, their testimony does not agree. So they nail Jesus just as it was ordained ! This is a clever and insightful construction, not unlike Franz Kafka's comic quasi-conspiracies in which the subject is presented as a sufferer of injustice which he himself creates.

Two, 1 Cr 1:22-23 : For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

The Sanhendrin is playing its part in the two-brain defamation of Jesus as God's wisdom. The Jews' attachment to their God is emotional; the Gentiles (in the passion story personified by Pilate) are cooly rational. Both sides reject Paul's Messianic claim for Jesus.

Jiri

DCHindley

The only persons who would have access to lawyers were Roman citizens, and citizens of Greek cities that had been granted autonomous status by the Romans. Peasant tenant farmers would not have that luxury, nor would the majority of the city dwellers, unless they were of the previously mentioned elite classes.

For the latter classes, they would have summary examinations before the magistates, who may or may not hear witnesses, or interrogate the suspect under torture. Presumably, because the Jerusalem temple aristocracy ran the ethnarchy of the Jews, they would probably hold courts according to Jewish law as practiced by the elites. Since only the governor could pronounce a death sentence, they would have to hand him over to him for an examination. The governors' pretty much going to do what he feels like.

DCH

aa5874

But, Jesus had a very fair trial. He was exonerated by Pilate after examibning the evidence of the witnesses. It would appear that all the witnesses were false.

According to gLuke, Pilate repeated three times that Jesus not found guilty of any wrong doing.

It was after being found not guilty that the multitude of Jews started to ask that Jesus be crucified. The Jews wanted to have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. Jesus must die at any cost regardless of Pilate's non-guilty verdict.

Pilate appeared to have lost control of his court and perhaps faculties. He abandoned his own verdict and allowed the mob of Jews to determine whether or not Jesus should live.

storytime

Why was Jesus silent, not speaking out? I don't know, maybe Jewish law prevented him from speaking against the priest who held authority in judging. If Jesus had denied his statements there were witnesses who could testify against him as lying. If Jesus said "I am he" then blasphemy would be charged in his self defense. Either way it seems his statements convicted him of preaching against the commandments[law].

Was Jesus condemned for raising Lazarus? For healing on the Sabbath? Jesus gave reasons for both and was accepted by the Pharisees. However, with raising of Lazarus the Pharisees became more frightened of losing their authority due to more people believing Jesus had power from God. The raising of Lazarus was an amazing feat and something that Jesus wanted publicized to show the power of God through him. But this isn't the reason for the Pharisees wanting Jesus out of the way. The fear of Caesar seems to hold the clue. Caesar had the power to change authority figures in Jerusalem should the Jewish people desire a new governing body.

I agree with you, Jesus sealed his own fate.

Might Mk.14:58 be a reflection on Hosea 6:2-3 ?

JoeWallack

JW:
What I find interesting here is that "Mark" has a perfectly good reason to find Jesus guilty at the trial:

Mark 11

JW:
Any one of these probably would have been a capital offense, especially in connection with Passover. Yet at the trial "Mark" says:

Mark 14

Note that everything here looks backwards:

1 - Destroying the Temple with hands and rebuilding a Temple without hands is what "Mark" would want us to think Jesus said.

2 - The false witnesses would than be telling the truth.

3 - Either way, the false witnesses who did not agree, agreed.

4 - The false testimony which the Council is trying to get to convict Jesus is focused on what Jesus said which would not convict Jesus anyway.

5 - There is no apparent effort to consider what Jesus did which would get Jesus convicted. Legitimately.

Is "Mark" making a theological point here with irony or is he just trying to be entertaining, even amusing?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page