Solo

I think both.

There is definitely something going on here with the 'amnesia' of the authorities about the cleansing incident. To begin with, it is highly doubtful that Jesus would have been able to get out of the temple area which was heavily guarded. But for him to be going back and teach there afterwards, and then during his arrest point to the free pass he had in the temple after messing up the decor, that looks like something ...not possible with men, only possible with God. I think that is what Mark might be driving at. Matthew appears to have read it that way (26:53-54).

Miraculous escapes have always been the hallmark of sages and holy men. Moses had one; Buddha's enlightment was theologically grasped as an escape from the Samsara; Paul found his way out of Aretas' governor power; Muhammad beat the price of a hundred camels on his head when escaping from Mecca. The Báb's miraculous escape during his first execution is Baha'i's religion most cherished legend.

Mark might have had the tradition of Jesus escaping a hail of stones in the temple (John 8:59, Egerton Fragment) which would have been the most primitive narration of Jesus dignified 'escape' from the place. But for Mark's theology this would not have worked. Mark, a Paulinist, drafts a Jesus who could be touched by "sinful flesh" or who would seek to evade confrontation with it. He only surrenders to the powers- that-be to complete his messianic tour of duty.
It is for this reason, I think, that the temple incident is not exhibited during the trial. It would have placed Jesus "under the law" but the Paulines believed that the spiritual man cannot be judged by anyone. So, Mark prefers to keep the principal charge against the Nazarene Jesus essentially a misunderstanding, and motivated by base motives.

Jesus prophecy of the destruction of the Temple is fulfilled in 70CE. To Mark, Jesus had nothing to do with it, but it had everything to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.

Jiri

Solo

The judge asks Jesus directly: 'What is it that these men testify against you ?' (Mk 14:60) Jesus does not answer which defies the authority of the court.


But he did say he was the Christ.

Stop and think about it for a minute. Yes, the raising of Lazarus, if credited as true miracle would have had, as you say the effect of frightening the priests and Pharisees. But it was not a fear of losing their power to Jesus. It was not even the fear of the legions. Jesus was the dude who witnesses said raised a stinking corpse to life.

Now, I know if I was sitting in the Sanhendrin and a report like that came in, and it had even a small chance of being true, my sphincter would have been in knots if other members of the council would have voted to act against Jesus. Hell, if he can raise people from the dead, the first thing before trying to beat up on this Jesus, guys, one would want to assure he can't do other neat tricks like turning his enemies - that would be us - into a heap of stones. Get it ? That certainly would have been the first consideration if I did not like the looks of this peasant but had two brains left in my head. The same thing with the Roman legions. Maybe Jesus could turn them into heaps of stones. Obviously, if this dude makes happy campers out of cadavers, he might be very useful to us. So, why don't we talk to him and see what he can do for Israel.

But naturally, if I sat in the Sanhendrin and believed, like the complainers, that Jesus was desecrating tombs with his novices for some magic that messes up their heads (experiments with sensory deprivation), I would have voted to nail him.

That would be quite likely.

Jiri

storytime

But didn't the writers make Jesus the scapegoat? It was necessary that one man die instead of a whole nation? So within this portrayal is the fear of the Pharisees in losing their name and place of authority at Jerusalem?

Who might the Pharisees have feared in replacing themselves and their ruling government? Maybe the sons[disciples] of John the Baptist in that same ideology as that of Jesus? After the death of John, his disciples began following Jesus. I think it says some did before John's death also.

Solo

The Lazarus tale appears only in John. And all I am saying is that the story of John does not add up. The Sanhendrin could not have acknowledged that Jesus performed mighty miracles and then just decided to kill him.

Jiri

storytime

I'd say none of the stories add up.

andrewcriddle

Do you mean it would be an offense for which the Jewish authorities could execute on their own authority ? If so then we get into the general question of how far the Jewish authorities retained the right to impose the death penalty under Roman occupation.

Or do you mean that Pilate would have regarded it as an offense meriting death ?

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

Seems like the Jewish authorities had no problem with this issue:

JoeWallack

JW:
Let me get this straight. You find "Mark" plausible when Jesus receives the death penalty for doing nothing but you question whether Jesus would have received the death penalty for doing something?


Joseph

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

andrewcriddle

Stephen was accused of advocating the end of temple worship. Jesus' actions were a vigilante attempt to reform temple worship. I think these would have raised different issues.

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

The historical Pilate would have probably executed Jesus (without trial) for not much less.