Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think the real question here is based on what "Mark" wrote, was Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and I think everyone agrees that he was not. Even you would have to add what "Mark" did not write. It's hard to believe that "Mark's" intent here was to show that Jesus blah blasphemized or that "Mark's" source did. Which is easier to believe:

• 1) "Mark" intended to show that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy (and therefore his sentence of death by the Priests was a just one).
  
  or
  
  2) The Priests falsely charged Jesus with blasphemy.

Oh, make no mistake: I do not think that Christians, including Mark (if he happens to know what this pericope means), would consider Jesus pronouncing the divine name to be blasphemy. Jesus is, after all, the son of God. This is similar to saying about being Lord of the sabbath: the rules change when Jesus is on the scene. (Mark has prepared us for that, as well, you know.)

But the high priest's reaction makes the most sense as a reaction to what we find in the Mishnah ("Power" being just as unique a circumlocution as "Jose", so as to distinguish between true blasphemy on the one hand and the accused himself having simply used a circumlocution, as well, on the other); it was blasphemy as far as he was concerned.

Sorry, but in my point of view, the Mishnaic connection is just too strong here. You yourself have staked a lot more on a lot less, textually speaking.

Ben.

[outhouse]

I do not think that Christians, including Mark (if he happens to know what this pericope means), would consider Jesus pronouncing the divine name to be blasphemy.

Ben.

For me its one thing to think of Hellenist who worshipped the Emperor as "son of a god" a week before being turned on to the good news. True no Blasphemy there.


But for say an Aramaic Galilean? Hell yes.


My opinion is he never held this title while alive, only after death that created the martyrdom.

[Ben C. Smith]

I do not think that Christians, including Mark (if he happens to know what this pericope means), would consider Jesus pronouncing the divine name to be blasphemy.

Ben.

For me its one thing to think of Hellenist who worshipped the Emperor as "son of a god" a week before being turned on to the good news. True no Blasphemy there.


But for say an Aramaic Galilean? Hell yes.

Again, I am not gunning for historicity here. Just for what Mark means and for whatever sources (if any) he may have used.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think "Mark's" main interest here, as usual, is at the subtext level, where it is the Priests who are guilty of blasphemy. Per "Mark" Jesus was prophesying via the holy spirit and the Priests than describe what the holy spirit said as blasphemy. As you indicate above, no need than to interpret/determine how the Priests' reaction was blasphemy. The holy spirit made a statement, the Priest's said the statement was blasphemy, no need for any witnesses to say what the Priests said. Also, the entire Gospel has demonstrated that Jesus is a prophet who has the holy spirit and at this exact moment his prophesy regarding Peter is realized (right under their noses, so to speak).

This runs parallel to my discussion with Kunigunde about the Passover. You and she both are taking an either/or approach, whereas I am taking a both/and approach. In her case, I agreed overall with her take on what Mark is up to, with one key exception, but then pointed out the following:

I think it seems pretty convenient that later gospels (those of John and Peter) would be handed a narrative which by one simple move — turning the Last Supper into a meal before the Passover rather than the Passover itself — could (A) turn Jesus symbolically into the Passover lamb in a direct way by having him crucified while the actual lambs are being sacrificed and (B) make the authorities' headlong rush not only more historically plausible but indeed also necessary from their own point of view, while (C) not losing any degree of irony, since the authorities are unwittingly fulfilling Jesus' timeline, and (D) not encountering any resistance from the Last Supper itself, since it was already bereft of uniquely Paschal features to begin with.

In your case, similarly, I agree overall with your take (and hers, since she mentioned it, too) on what Mark is up to, but then must point out how interesting it is that both the Mishnah and Mark use a rare, one-off sort of circumlocution for the divine name, followed by the rending of garments in the presence of witnesses. In order to argue that Mark had only Romans 1.4 in mind, and not Jewish legal protocols, you would have to dismiss this connection as sheer coincidence. And of course you are free to do so; I just will not be joining you on this one. The Mishnaic connections are stronger than the connection to Romans 1.4 (which, by the way, I do not blithely dismiss, despite suspecting that it is part of an interpolation into Paul).

1) The emphasis is on the Priests being guilty of blasphemy and GMark does explain why that is.

I agree with this, and it in no way conflicts with my other views on this passage.

2) The main reason "Mark" has the Priests accuse Jesus of blasphemy is to provide an ironic contrast to 1). I think this is once again contrivance, the conclusion is primary and the reason (how) is secondary.

I can go with this... until the contrivance starts to look more like a coincidence that I cannot overlook. In the case of the rejection at Nazareth, I think what I am left with is not much. I may be right, but I may be wrong. In the case of the Passover meal and this present case of the blasphemy, what remains is much more thickly intertwined with the possibility that Mark is drawing upon tradition or previous texts of some kind.

3) I think as GMark is written the Reader would understand the reason for the charge of blasphemy against Jesus as his claiming to be the Messiah. The connection between the Priests' conviction and the presentation to Pilate is:

15

2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.

It could be that the Priests convicted Jesus of blasphemy based on something like what you describe above and than added/changed the charge to Pilate of claiming to be King, but that is the more complicated explanation.

That would just be plausibility at work. Pilate is not going to give a rip about a charge of blasphemy (but a charge of potential insurrection is sure to catch his eye). Asking Mark to be stupid about the story he is telling is not fair; if he drops the ball at times, I will admit it; but if he does a good job of keeping things realistic, well, good for him.

Ben.

[outhouse]

Again, I am not gunning for historicity here..

Not the reason why I asked.

Just for what Mark means and for whatever sources (if any) he may have used

And I was curious if you think an Aramaic Galilean Jew might think the statements in question were blasphemous.

As I agreed the Hellenistic authors in the Diaspora obviously did not.

[Ben C. Smith]

And I was curious if you think an Aramaic Galilean Jew might think the statements in question were blasphemous.

Sure, I think that is likely.

[iskander]

duplicate . Please delete

[iskander]

Geza Vermes says, page 270

the utterance of the sacrosanct Tetragram was an absolute requisite for someone to be charged with blasphemy. " The blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the Name ( Mishnah Snanhedrin 7:5), Reviling a substitute name was disapproved of, but did not carry the death penalty. It is apposite therefore to underline that in all three Synoptic Gospels Jesus is presented as employing a substitute name for God in his answer to the high priest and speaks not of the right hand of God, but of 'the right hand of the Power' ( Mk 14: 62; Mt 26:64; Lk 22:69) . The alleged judgment of the Sanhedrin, ' You have heard his blasphemy' ( MK 14: 64) appears therefore precipitate.

Jesus: Nativity - Passion - Resurrection
Publisher: Penguin (4 Mar. 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0141046228
ISBN-13: 978-0141046228

[Michael BG]

I am happy to assume there was a pre-Marcan passion narrative, and it would take us closer to the historical events. A huge problem with the passion narrative is the two trials of Jesus. There is very strong tradition that Jesus was crucified by the Romans and not stoned by the Jews for blasphemy.

The Marcan passion narrative as we have it, seems clear that the charge of blasphemy is false –

[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
[56] For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.
[57] And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,
[58] "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"
[59] Yet not even so did their testimony agree.
[60] And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"
[61] But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
[62] And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
[63] And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?
[64] You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

(Mk 14:55-64 RSV)

There does not appear to be any clear divisions or breaks in this section to imply some of it is Marcan redaction and some of it a pre-Marcan source. It appears to me as whole cloth. (In the Septuagint the word “power” appears in Ps 109 (110) verses 2 and 3.)

If the pre-Marcan version was understood to mean that Jesus did in fact commit blasphemy I would expect there to be witnesses to testify in some way to this, but there isn’t.

In the account of the “trial” of Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:57) there are “false witnesses” (6:12) to Stephen’s blasphemy (6:11) and Stephen says something close to what Jesus says –

Acts 7:56-

and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.

If we assume that Luke is using a source here then it is very possible for such a source to contain false witnesses to blasphemy.

It has been suggested that the whole Jewish trial is a creation of Christians to remove the blame for Jesus’ death from the Roman authorities and place it on Jewish ones and this is assumed to have happened when the passion narrative was presented to gentiles rather than Jews. If we assume that Mark has not changed this section then even in the pre-Marcan narrative we don’t have any explanation for its gentile readers.

[iskander]

I am happy to assume there was a pre-Marcan passion narrative, and it would take us closer to the historical events. A huge problem with the passion narrative is the two trials of Jesus. There is very strong tradition that Jesus was crucified by the Romans and not stoned by the Jews for blasphemy.

The Marcan passion narrative as we have it, seems clear that the charge of blasphemy is false –

[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
[56] For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.
[57] And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,
[58] "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"
[59] Yet not even so did their testimony agree.
[60] And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"
[61] But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
[62] And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
[63] And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?
[64] You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

(Mk 14:55-64 RSV)

There does not appear to be any clear divisions or breaks in this section to imply some of it is Marcan redaction and some of it a pre-Marcan source. It appears to me as whole cloth. (In the Septuagint the word “power” appears in Ps 109 (110) verses 2 and 3.)

If the pre-Marcan version was understood to mean that Jesus did in fact commit blasphemy I would expect there to be witnesses to testify in some way to this, but there isn’t.

In the account of the “trial” of Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:57) there are “false witnesses” (6:12) to Stephen’s blasphemy (6:11) and Stephen says something close to what Jesus says –

Acts 7:56-

and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.

If we assume that Luke is using a source here then it is very possible for such a source to contain false witnesses to blasphemy.

It has been suggested that the whole Jewish trial is a creation of Christians to remove the blame for Jesus’ death from the Roman authorities and place it on Jewish ones and this is assumed to have happened when the passion narrative was presented to gentiles rather than Jews. If we assume that Mark has not changed this section then even in the pre-Marcan narrative we don’t have any explanation for its gentile readers.

There is an explanation for the charge of 'blasphemy' in the gospel of Mark. The explanation is that Mark wanted to assume that the high priest understood the title of , "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", to mean the same as the later Trinitarians understood this title to mean. That the high priest believed Jesus had claimed divinity made for a persuasive sales pitch.

The ' blasphemy' trial was inserted by Mark on an earlier ' tradition' in order to avoid a trial for heresy .