JoeWallack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:16 am
I said it. I said it again
JW:
4
11 And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:
12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them.
Then Joseph explained to KK and Ben the Mystery of The Parable of the Hearer:
You're looking in the wrong place (normal textual evidence) for answers as to why the "witnesses" say what they do. GMark is Greek Tragedy so the flow is literary structure leads to narrative and not verses-vice.
Thanks, Joe, for a very good response.
I have an issue with the following:
The "False Witness" testimony is true. Jesus did say that he would be responsible for the destruction of the physical Temple and after three days he would raise a spiritual temple. The false part is that these witnesses never heard Jesus say it.
This observation, I think, succumbs to what Kunigunde was saying about it being "close, but no cigar." Mark 13.1-2 attributes no actual responsibility to Jesus; it merely makes a prediction. This difference is one of the things that I am exploring.
When in Mark 8.14-21 Jesus recalls the feedings of the 5000 and the 4000, the details retroactively line up (five loaves and twelve baskets, seven loaves and seven baskets). When Jesus thrice (or even four times) predicts his death in chapters 8-10, the details line up with the passion, right down to the spitting and the scourging. But here, when the witnesses "recall" what Jesus said, their testimony is not what the disciples heard: not exactly. "Close, but no cigar." Moreover, the witnesses are said to disagree with each other (14.59). So we are given one version of the saying, which does not agree with what Jesus actually said, and are told that there are other versions we are not being given which also disagreed amongst themselves. I cannot help but think that something else is going on here; but I am not sure what it is yet.
Again, this testimony is true. Jesus is the Christ and the son of god as testified by god herself. Again, the High Priest never heard this, The Disciples did. It's the Disciples who should be witnessing but instead it is the High Priest.
In the gospel of Mark itself the disciples should
not be witnessing to Jesus being the Christ. Jesus forbids it (Mark 8.30). I think you mean that they should be announcing it in the apostolic "now," after the resurrection, but your point in your table seems to go beyond this kind of dispensational approach.
And more true testimony. Jesus is king of The Jews. Pilate never heard it but says it as opposed to The Jews who heard it but won't say it.
I am not so sure that we are supposed to understand the Jews as not having told Pilate anything about Jesus being the king of the Jews; in 15.3 they accuse Jesus "of many things" before Pilate, and it looks very much like "king of the Jews" is how they translated "the Messiah/Christ, son of the Blessed One" (14.62), for Pilate's benefit. You insist that certain people did
not hear certain things, but Mark does not say that they did not, even when them having heard it (as in the case of Pilate receiving charges against Jesus) would be all too natural.
But there is much to think about in what you said, to my mind. It is just that I think that something else may be going on.