No Robots

It's almost identical to the case of Socrates: a pain-in-the-ass is gotten rid of as expediently as possibly, with all due appearance of justice, on the basis of rather belaboured charges.

Diogenes the Cynic

That would include Mark is adoptionist. Mark's Jesus doesn't become the "son of man" in waiting until after he's dead.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Romans wouldn't have cared about either of those things. Crucifixion was reserved only for slaves and for crimes against the state.

Furthermore, the Priests could have stoned Jesus for religious crimes themselves if they wanted.

Claiming to be the King of the Jews would have done it. So would merely causing a tumolt at the Temple during passover. That would make him a public threat if there was any potential for riot.

Josephus talks about other riots and violent battles between the Romans and Jews in the Temple, and about a time when thousands of people were crushed in a stampede trying to escape the courtyards during some kind of melee.

A ruckus at the Temple was a legitimate threat with a legitimate potential for large scale violence.

Both the Temple authority (which was a Roman puppet anyway) and the Romans would have had no compunction about putting down a firestarter like that immediately.

No Robots

Under the Romans, the Jews did not have authority to carry out capital sentences.

stephan huller

I am trying to engage in an open minded discussion of the possibilities and already Diogenes is engaging in partisanship. We have already established that there is a difference between what Mark was portraying as the truth and whatever historical circumstances there may or may not have been behind that account. Diogenes goes back to what the Roman state would have crucified Jesus for. But this argument is based on a false premise. The Romans did not bring the charges against Jesus in Mark's account. It was the Jews who prompted Pilate to carry out the act. The idea here is that Pilate and the Jews were wicked. It doesn't matter whether or not a governor was supposed to do this or that. Pilate was understood to be a 'bad egg' - at least by Philo and perhaps Josephus. The basic premise of the gospel is that bad people conspired to kill Jesus. The question is what was the blasphemy that Mark portrays the Jews as reacting against. We can already discount the likelihood of it being his claim to being king or the messiah for reasons already touched upon. But also notice the way the charge is handled by Pilate:

The idea here is that the Jews know that he is not a king and try to use this to get Pilate to crucify Jesus. Yet at the same time Mark makes clear that the real reason the Jews wanted to kill him is because he blasphemed the temple. This becomes clear after he is crucified.

The Jews clearly knew that Jesus wasn't the messiah, they just used this to give an excuse to Pilate. Pilate is also portrayed as knowing that the charge is untrue. So we are left with the blasphemy being related to (a) him calling himself Son of God (b) his claim to destroy the temple or (c) the Marcionite bit about him leading the people to apostasy.

The fact that the Son of God charge isn't mention here makes it unlikely that this was the basis to the anger. The Jews knew that Jesus said that he was the Son of God but Mark makes it seem as if they were more upset with 'blasphemy' which is hard to associate with Jesus some lunatic claiming to be son of God. That leaves (b) and (c) and I think (b) is more likely as it comes up first in the accusations of the people as illustrated.

stephan huller

You keep repeating the same points as if you are not hearing what else is being said here. YOU SAID that Jesus only becomes the Son of Man after he is dead. Then you tried to act as if Daniel wasn't implying the existence of a heavenly being. The rest of us have shown that Mark has Jesus says 'I am' the Son of God. This is Clement's point. It has been demonstrated in many different ways here and you keep going back to what you want to hear - or perhaps - just entertaining your own presuppositions and not listening to what else is being said here. At a certain point if you can't respond to the 'I am' statement, there isn't much point in discussing the rest of this.

EarlDoherty

Why are you ignoring the words which follow "the Messiah", "the son of the Blessed One (ho huios tou eulogetou), which is a clear reference to God? It doesn't matter whether Jews regarded the expected Messiah as part of God, some kind of divinity, I'm sure they didn't. But Mark, using the phrase to modify "Messiah" apparently did. I'm not sure he 'misrepresented' Jewish thought, or was mistaken about it. It is based on his own creation. His Gospel shows that he lumped all three titles, Son of God, Messiah, and Son of Man, together and applied them to his Jesus character. We can see that in 14:61-62, where he squeezed them all into those two verses, quite awkwardly. There is no question that Son of Man referred to a divine figure, especially when it appeared in Q, and it stayed that way when it was applied to Jesus in the Gospels in the apocalyptic sense.

And it is absurd to try to link "I am" with some other statement earlier than the High Priest's immediately preceding question.

Earl Doherty

Diogenes the Cynic

I think we need to clarify what we both mean by the word "divine." It's my position that there is a difference between "divine" and "celestial." That is, I think Mark could have seen his Son of Man figure as a supernatural one, like an angel, but not as personally divine as in not God himself. A created entity, not a coequal one. Do you regard an angel as a "divine" entity?

Also, if Mark thought Jesus and God were identical, then why did he say they had different wills?
I wasn't trying to link it with anything. If I gave that impression, I didn't mean to. I was trying to say that the Tetragrammaton, when vocalized alone, is not blasphemy. Despite popular conception, it wasn't automatically a crime to say "Jehova." The crime of blasphemy only applies to a single, two word Hebrew phrase.

Moreover, Mark does not say Jesus vocalized the Tetragrammaton. Ego eimi is not the name of God.

stephan huller

The 'I am' formula is often associated with a pre-existent divine being:

John 8:58 'before Abraham was born, I am'

Two of the four names of God [Mimar Marqe 2.9] are 'I am.' The four Names are:

Elah [God] (Exod 7:1);
Ehyeh asher ehyeh [I am who I am] (Exod 3:14),
Anaki [I am] (Exod 3:15), and
YHWH (Exod 6:3).

In case anyone is interested, the passage in Marqe reads in full:

Lifted up is Moses, the great Prophet,
whom his Lord clothed with his name [cf. Exod 7:1]!
He dwelt in hidden things and was surrounded with Light.
The Truth was revealed to him and he gave him the writing of his own hand.
He gave him to drink from ten precious springs, seven above and three below.
Deity drew for him the waters of Life [mayah chayyah] which watered his heart, until it produced that which gives life.
Prophecy drew for him the waters of Life which purified his soul, until it made every soul great.
Truth drew for him the waters of Life which made his spirit great, until it was able to illumine.
And the four Names [of God] drew for him the waters of life, so that he might be lifted up and glorified in every place.
--- Marqah, Memar 2.9, 12

More on the 'I am' formula associated with the divinity in Marqe:

A Restorer [Taheb] will come in peace;
he will rule the places of the perfect and reveal the Truth.
Heed and hear! Stand in Truth! Clear your arguments!
"For YHWH will judge his people" (Deut 32:36a):
The "people" of YHWH is Jacob, the branches and the chief root,
and the branches from fathers to sons;
from Noah, the root, even to the Restorer, the branch...
The word of Truth will penetrate and illumine the world,
in which he will come to dwell.
How great is the hour when one comes to hear the voice of God
walking throughout the world;
and all creatures shall be in order and bow their heads;
their hearts will shiver and their eyes droop
and their limbs shake from fear on the day of Judgment.
And the mouth of Deity will speak:
-- "Now see that I, I am he [ani ani hu]!" (Deut 32:39a)
Those who rest and know this will then be saved.
-- "See, I have taught you rules and judgments" (Deut 4:5).
-- "Only be on your guard" (Deut 4:9)!
I, I am he who stands above creation and above Mount Sinai!
I, I am he who is and there is none beside me!
I, I am he who is without time and without place!
I, I am he who who is the life of the world [chayyei 'olam]!
I, I am he who suspended and split by my power!
I, I am he who planted the Garden and uprooted Sodom!
I, I am he who uprooted and stripped away!
I, I am he to whom all belongs and to whom (all) return!
I, I am he who puts all the living to death and makes all the dead live!
I, I am he who encircles my foes with vengeance!
And now it is good for us to rely on the Truth
and to tremble because of his might!
Perhaps we will find the way of prosperity!
--- Marqah, Memar 4.7, 12

Diogenes the Cynic

It's only the name of God in Hebrew.