God Fearing Atheist

Let me just stress this point further: even if one were to grant that the Mishnaic procedures date back to the first century, Diogenes, it still wouldn't immediately follow that they were practiced by the Sanhedrian generally (e.g. if it were under Sadducean control) or specifically in the case of Jesus (e.g. if the trial was extralegal).

In other words, the issue is more complicated than I think you appreciate.

Jeffrey Gibson

And, as I note in my (apparently unread) article, Josephus gives us at least one example of just such (from the point of view of the Mishnah) "extra legal" trials actually taking place.

So the claim that a trial such as Mark describes could not or would not have happened -- and the conclusion that is based upon it, i.e., that Mark's story must be fiction -- also does not hold water.

Jeffrey

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark's trial is ludicrous as history. The proscriptions on the Passover and the Sabbath are well enough founded in 1st Century Judaism irrespective of the Mishna (which it seems is being discarded for no better reason than some people want Mark's trial to be true) that Mark's trial before the Sanhedrin can be dismissed out of hand as plausible history. Find me one other example of a trial taking place 1). at night 2). on the Sabbath 3.) on Passover 4.) away from the Temple and 5.) resulted in an immediate death sentence on the same day as a trial (for a charge that I will point out no one has proven would be considered blasphemous. All I've seen is pedantic ruminations on the definition of the Greek and informal applications of the word from Jewish sources. I have not seen evidence of an actual formal conviction without the utterance of the name and I certainly haven't seen that there is any precedent for accusing a self-proclaimed Messiah of blasphemy regradless of how scruffy that applicant might be).

It isn't necessary to meet all my conditions. I'd settle for one of them.

I'd also like to know exactly how Mark establishes himself as a credible historian in any way outside of his passion. Since Mark can be established as a fabulist elsewhere in his narrative, since his trial does not comport in anyway with what is known of Jewish legal procedures, or what is alleged by the Mishnah (or, for that matter, what is alleged by John), then why on earth should he be given any default assumption of historicity in his passion?

Jeffrey Gibson

And your evidence for this is what?

According to Mark, the trial takes place on the day before the Sabbath. But perhaps you are reading a different version of Mark than the rest of us have in our possession.

Jeffrey

God Fearing Atheist

And as already mentioned in the section of Brown I quoted, (first century) Philo seems to 1) make a distinction between naming the Name and blaspheming and 2) thinks that both warrent death.

aa5874

So, also a claim that the trial as described by gMark did happen and that the story is not fiction does not hold water.

Even in the NT, Stephen was stoned to death without a trial.

Acts 7.56 -60
Again, someone using the name "Paul" in the Epistles called 2 Corinthians claimed he received with 195 stripes, stoned once and beaten three times with rods, yet this "Paul" gave no details of any trial.

2 Corinthians 11. 24-25 In Josephus, the false Egyptian prophet was attacked by the miltary and hundreds were killed without any trial.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.6 .

Also in "Antiquities of the Jews", Jesus son of Ananus was beaten for crying out , "Woe , Woe unto to Jerusalem".

Antiquities of the Jews 6.5.3 Now, I find that the so-called Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in gMark was never beaten, stoned, attacked by the military, or imprisoned, even though he was regarded by the chief priests as a violator of the Sabbath, and was of the Devil. And at his trial the final judge found no fault and still allowed him to be executed.

Without any external corroboration of gMark by any non-apologetic writer of antiquity, I regarded the trial of Jesus as depicted by gMark as unrealistic and may have been fabricated using the story about Jesus the son of Ananus as described by Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.3.

Jeffrey Gibson

Not beaten? Have you actually read the Gospel of Mark?

Thank you for your learned contribution to the discussion of the question of why in the Gospel of Mark -- fiction or not -- the high priest charges Jesus with the crime of blasphemy.

Jeffrey

aa5874

Jesus was not beaten in gMark before his fictitious trial.

Jeffrey Gibson

And why do you assume that the treatment handed out to the other Jesus was standard trial practice. Even Josephus himself says it was mob violence. And Albinus was hardly one to follow trial rules.

But thanks again for hijacking the thread and using it as a springboard for reciting your mantra.

Jeffrey

DCHindley

Jeffrey,

I think I brought this up on Crosstalk2 many moons ago, but what about:

Leviticus 21:10 10 "The most exalted of the priests, upon whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the special vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his garments ..."

If this is the case, the HP would not be hearing cases involving blashphemy.

The person depicted in Mark, who is not named, is said to be an ARCIEREUS, or Chief Priest. Chief priests would not have any trouble rending a garment when hearing such a trial. Yet Matthew and John both say this chief priest was Caiaphas, who was indeed a High Priest.

Do you think this kind of inconsistency might call into question the historicity of the trial tadition in general?

DCH