Deus Ex

Or Mark was simply writing for a Pro-Roman, Gentile audience, and he wanted to lessen Rome's guilt for killing the Messiah.

Petergdi

I've frequently seen it claimed that the gospel writers were doing this. I've yet to see a good argument that the text actually does this. I think the people who make this claim think it is obvious, but it sure isn't obvious to me.

If "I am innocent of this blood" was a normal part of an ancient Roman death sentence, then it is a colossal mistake to read such a meaning into it.

Peter.

Killjoy

My own view, derived not only from Mark but from all the Gospels, is that Jesus was innocent of any crime. So there was no legal reason at all to have him punished in any way. So why have him not only executed but, specifically, crucified?
Here it gets speculative. The Jewish leaders (and probably only a few of them - Gospel stories of the "multitude" baying for his blood are probably an exaggeration) wanted to prove that he had no connection with God at all - which is what he was claiming. So they did something that would bring God's curse upon him - namely crucifiction.
They did not realise that early Christians - specifically Paul - would use precisely this fact as the basis of their new theology and the doctrine of the atonement.

fromdownunder

I would be very interested as to how what is in Mark specifically as you quoted constitutes blasphemy under 1st Century Sanhedrin law. Here is a hint... I don't think that it does.

Norm

DCHindley

Interesting, that. When the Parthians invaded during the power struggles between Antigonus and Hyrcanus, and reinstalled Antigonus as High Priest, didn't Antigonus cut off Hyrcanus' ears to prevent him from being reinstalled by popular revolt after the Parthians left? Who is this "servent" (literally, doulon "slave") of the HP? That would be a deliberate act to keep someone from officiating as a priest, a political act. "Slave" cannot but a put-down of someone, as no slave would be officiating as a priest. And why would Jesus' disciples be using swords to achieve a political goal?

DCH

Antiquities of the Jews 14:365-366 365 And thus was Antigonus brought back into Judea by the king of the Parthians [and reinstalled in his office], and received [from the Parthians] Hyrcanus and Phasaelus for his prisoners ... 366 but being afraid that Hyrcanus, who was [still at that point] under the guard of the Parthians, might have his kingdom restored to him by the multitude [once the Parthians left], he cut off his [i.e., Hyrcanus'] ears, and thereby took care that the high priesthood should never come to him any more, because he was maimed, while the law required that this dignity should belong to none but such as had all their members entire.

spamandham

Let us start by assuming that everything that Church tradition tells us is true except for the miraculous parts. Let us further assume that the miraculous parts are not the result of fabrication, but are instead the result of the eyewitness author's not being close enough to see what was really happening, and misunderstaning it.

Under these assumptions, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

andrewcriddle

One can IMO find a plausible reconstruction of the hearing before Pilate. (Plausibility not necessarily involving historicity.)
1/ The initiative for the prosecution of Jesus came from the religious leaders.
2/ Pilate was initially concerned that he might be being manipulated by one religious faction into killing the leader of another religious faction, and was very reluctant to become involved in this sort of controversial decision.
3/ It becomes clear, however, that the crowd asking for clemency would very much like Barabbas spared but are indifferent to Jesus (ie they might have been quite happy to have Jesus and Barabbas both released what they object to is Jesus being released instead of Barabbas).
4/ Pilate now realises that there is no risk of unpopularity in executing Jesus and readily agrees to pass the death sentence.

On the issue of the trial of Jesus by night, the rules in the Mishnah prohibiting such trials may not have been in force in the early 1st century CE. However, on common-sense grounds a rushed night-time trial feels dodgy and irregular.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on

Seems that the author, for the purposes of his story, doesn't share your view...

DCHindley

Elements of the accounts of the trial before Pilate are similar to those in accounts of the trials of later Christian martyrs before magistrates, and this suggests to me that some actual account of a real trial is behind the Gospel accounts, but it does not necessarily have to be Jesus' actual trial, although I think it probably was. However, that being said, all the various motives that the Gospel writers attributed to the various parties involved, both in word or deed, (e.g., envy, washing of hands, etc), are suspect as nothing more than part of the authors "explanation" for the trial. However, I do not think there can be any doubt that the trial ultimately boiled down to a conviction for, at very least, claiming to be "king of the Jews."

Perhaps we should look for analogues to the way that many 3rd world countries, especially puppet governments controlled by colonizers, handle issues of justice. There is often a great distance between what was legally called for and what actually happens. How many folks were convicted by informal courts in places like (pre Sandinista) Nicaragua or Guatemala, or even a country like Mexico if you look in the more remote states? In addition, who usually caries out the sentence, especially of it involves an issue of national security? The occupiers. Look at Soviet controlled Afghanistan, or the smaller regions within the USSR? I dare say, even American controlled Afghanistan.

DCH

the_cave

A few comments—

First, I’m inclined to agree that Jesus is portrayed in Mark as an innocent man, but I’m not completely sure about this--the author may nevertheless think that Jesus did technically deserve death by stoning, under Jewish law.

The author does seem to think that the civil charges made against Jesus are trumped-up. So it looks to me like the author has written a story about how the Sanhedrin use the Romans to do their dirty work, indicting both parties and multiplying the layers of guilt for the deed: not only are the Sanhedrin’s laws unjust, but Jesus’ method of execution wasn’t even legal (and was made in collusion with the occupiers). Mark seems to be making a point here about the injustice of both the religious and civil authorities, and about their collusion.

It does seem as though the author is trying to work in a charge of insurrection—the first charge laid on Jesus is that he said “'I will destroy this temple made with hands” (Mk 14:58). However, this charge is made before the high priest, not Pilate, so this may be more a charge of blasphemy than insurrection.

Note, however, that this charge does not stick, and even his messianic claim isn’t what pushes him over the edge—what seals his guilt is his claim that the Son of Man is a power in heaven (Mk 14:62). This seems to me to put Mark in the context of the Two Powers controversy—Jesus is seen as guilty of teaching that there is a power in heaven equal to YHWH/Elohim. (We see Stephen being stoned in Acts for the same reason—Stephen is not stoned until he claims he can see “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”.) That’s what the Sanhedrin is so upset about—what they’re actually persecuting, from the author’s perspective.

Pilate, of course, chases after the insurrection charge again—so the author of Mark knows that this is what the Romans need to consent to his execution. The author makes Pilate a deeply ironic figure, both civil persecutor and religious prophet. In accusing Jesus of messianic pretensions, he’s wrong (in that Jesus has not made the claim) and yet he’s also right (in that Jesus does happen to be the messiah!). So Pilate also ends up carrying a complex two-fold guilt himself: he’s wrong to kill Jesus for bogus charges, but he’s also wrong to kill him because, ironically, Jesus is the messiah! (He is who Pilate falsely says he says he is, if you can follow that.) Pilate ends up betraying his own (unwitting) prophecy.

Pilate is wise to things, though (Mk 15:10), and at first wants to let Jesus go. It’s the crowd that convinces him otherwise. Historically, of course, this may very well be ridiculous—the idea that a Roman governor would crucify on popular demand alone. But is there maybe a suggestion that Pilate feared insurrection if he didn’t acquiesce to the crowd’s demands? (I wonder if this is also a subtle move by the author to suggest that Jesus bore the sins of his people—that is, does the author think that the Jews sinned in rebelling against the Romans forty years later? Because that did lead to the destruction of the temple! Pilate’s fear of the crowd is a foreshadowing of the revolt, and their guilt in crucifying Jesus is a foreshadowing of the destruction of the temple.) This may well be an equally ridiculous scenario historically, but remember we’re looking for the author’s reasons for Jesus’ execution. So he creates a corrupt Sanhedrin and a cowardly Pilate in collusion with one another.

We need to consider the possibility that Barabbas is an instance of Markan irony—that the crowd is not in fact demanding his crucifixion. Recall that in some manuscripts of Matthew, Barabbas is “Jesus Barabbas”, suggesting that it was so in Mark originally as well. It’s possible that the original author wrote of a crowd who demanded 1) the release of “Barabbas”, i.e. bar-Abbas, i.e. Jesus! and 2) the crucifixion of “the king of the Jews”—possibly a reference to Barabbas the revolutionary! Making Pilate's execution of Jesus a kind of horrific mistake--he has misunderstood the crowd's demands. Possibly.

Now, the fact that Barabbas did deserve death by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans suggests to me that Jesus and Barabbas were actually same individual. Mark is trying to make a fancy point by splitting them into two characters—but he’s working from a story which identifies Jesus and Barabbas. IMO we see the trace of the original story in the Slavonic Josephus, where Jesus is arrested by Pilate, released, then arrested again. This is however speculative.

I should note that the Slavonic Josephus, too, also gives us reasons for Jesus’ crucifixion. In the Slavonic version of the TF, the people ask Jesus to become a militaristic messiah, but he turns it down. The Jewish authorities, however, worry that if Pilate hears about this, he’ll start a crackdown that they want to avoid—but if they go to him first, then they’ll have no worries. Indeed, this is echoed in Jn 11:47-48. (Caiaphas then makes the reasoning explicit in Jn 11:49-50.) Thus the plan is hatched to arrest Jesus. As noted above, in the Slavonic TF, this at first does not succeed, and Jesus returns to his ministry. This time, the Jewish authorities return to Pilate, “struck with envy”. The Volokolam manuscript adds “Again” at the beginning of the sentence, suggesting that the first request to Pilate was motivated by envy as well. Since it rather seems motivated by fear (as described above), we wonder if the Volokolam manuscript contains interpolations. It then takes bribery to win Pilate over a second time (though it’s unclear whether he then lets them crucify Jesus themselves, or just lets them arrest him again).

I’m not sure where this leaves us, but I think all of this is evidence that the original author of Mark did try to explain the reasons for Jesus’ execution—even if they were bad ones. IOW, he was aware of the issues. Narratively, he knows he needs the Sanhedrin to carry the guilt, but the Romans to do the deed. So Jesus needs to be seen as guilty of both blasphemy and insurrection (even if the author of Mark thought he was guilty of neither).

As for my personal opinions, under the assumptions of the OP, I find both trials unlikely historically--but I don't find it implausible that the Romans might have executed a rebellious element. Whether this would have been done by crucifixion is possible, but uncertain, due to the absence of any mention of Jesus in War of the Jews. It's rather plausible, however, that assuming a historical Jesus, he would have been seen as a blasphemer and a revolutionary, which I think is what the author Mark is aiming to portray.