Ben C Smith

For the purposes of this thread (please, no trolling and no hobby horses), let us assume that we can demonstrate (A) that Jesus existed and (B) that he was crucified under Pilate in Judea (IOW, that the Tacitean statement about Jesus is basically historically correct).

Let us also assume that Mark was the first gospel written, and that it was written sometime before the end of century I.

I would like to pursue the question: Are we entitled under these conditions to conduct a search in Mark for potential reasons for the crucifixion?

If not, why not?

If so, why? And which bits of Mark would offer the best hopes of discovering these reasons? And why are those bits more hopeful than others?

By reason, BTW, I mean any incident or combination of incidents that can be seen as having led to Jesus having been crucified (potential examples might be the triumphal entry, the temple incident, the alleged performance of miracles, disputes with the Jewish authorities... whatever we can find in Mark).

I have no particular direction I want this thread to go in; I am just interested in brainstorming the issue.

Ben.

mountainman

Dear Ben,

Assuming (A) and (B) as you have defined them,
are the NT apocrypha off-limits as sources?

Or is this a "Mark" only thread?

Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

The issue is finding a reason for the crucifixion in Mark; if the NT apocrypha help in that search, all the better. If not, then they are off topic.

Ben.

NoMansLand

When you say "reason", do you mean as to "why he would have been crucified"?

Ben C Smith

Yes. Any causes that would have led to his crucifixion, or any motives that his enemies might have had.

Ben.

show_no_mercy

I don't think there's any reason, in Mark, that Jesus was crucified. The temple incident, the entry into Jerusalem, miracles/healings/dispute with Jewish authorities... these are all internal Jewish problems. If anything, Jesus should have been hanged/stoned by the Sanhedrin - not handed over to the Romans. Why would the Romans care if they stoned/hanged a blasphemer?

Jesus Bar-Abbas had all the reason in the world for being executed by crucifixion. Jesus was supposedly so popular that the priests had to basically kidnap him and have a secret trial; yet all of the sudden when presenting the Nazarene or Bar-Abbas, the Nazarene is insanely unpopular. His arrest was supposed to cause an uproar but then his release was also supposed to cause an uproar.

The story as it goes simply doesn't make sense to have Jesus executed by crucifixion. The chief priests et al. could have just stoned/hanged him after the "trial" and left it at that.

Elijah

I think it was just the gathering of the crowds and them wondering if he was someone of note. The religious authority would need to be able to answer that question one way or another on who/what he was. So they test him trying to get him to slip up so they can rebuke him because if they can’t rebuke him then he becomes the new religious authority and they answer to him.

The religious authority's whole way of life was/is dependent on them being considered the authority, not a parable slinging peasant so discrediting or removing him was necessary. I don’t think anything he said or did upset anyone it was just the fact that the people were looking at him like he was something special that was taking power away from the religious authority of the time.

Ben C Smith

How would you respond to those who think that the Jewish authorities had no authority to execute prisoners (John 18.31), and that the exceptions (Stephen, James and company) were actually illegal lynchings?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

How would you support these statements from the gospel of Mark?

Ben.

show_no_mercy

I doubt John was written by someone who knew anything about Jewish customs and law, he gets a number of other things wrong.

Even if Stephen/James were illegal lynchings, it's still pretty inconsistent. Why not hand Stephen and James over to the Romans for execution? And if they were illegal, who were the Jews who executed them prosecuted by? The Sanhedrin didn't seem to have any problems hanging Yeishu the Notzri 100 years prior for sorcery and trying to lead other Jews astray.

But hey, I thought we were just sticking to Mark :Cheeky: