Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by neilgodfrey »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:28 pm I think we are getting into unnecessarily overly numerous additional hypotheticals (both prior to Mark and within the creation of Mark itself) to suggest that Mark was also piecing together lots of micro-data in "the traditions".
Recall Wrede asking the question about the source of the first synagogue exorcism. Was Mark massaging a source or was he creating the story from scratch? By appealing to the sorts of indicators that we believe identify "raw source" material that the author has taken over, Wrede concludes that Mark had no source of a tale of an exorcism that he was building up into his own anecdote. The principles apply doubly for specific trial scenes, I would think.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

arnoldo wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:11 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:15 pm
arnoldo wrote: Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:06 pmAs far as the alleged internal contradictions in the gospel narratives are there any records of early christian apologists addressing this issue?
Which issue? The messianic secret? Or the one about the word against the temple?
I dunno. . . I guess the messianic secret. My hunch is that the early readers wouldn't necessarily find that there were any internal contradictions perhaps due to either cultural sensitivities or some parallel to the OT.
What I have found to be the case, in general, is that the really big differences between John and the synoptics were noticed by century II, but that the (usually) smaller differences amongst the three synoptics were not noticed by Christians for quite a bit longer; or at least they were not as often commented upon. Early in century III, Origen's extant commentaries on Matthew and John picked up on a few synoptic discrepancies, as most decent commentaries will, but tended to treat them as minor things, whereas the Johannine discrepancies were still considered major.

By the time of Eusebius, many more contradictions amongst all four gospels had come to the fore and been discussed. My suspicion is that the ecclesiastical discussion of these contradictions was driven by criticisms from those outside the faith (much like Christian discussions of the length of the Israelite monarchs' reigns in Kings and Chronicles would probably scarcely exist if skeptics did not find numerical/chronological discrepancies there).

Critics of Christianity like Celsus and Porphyry leveled criticisms from many different angles, including from issues of morality and sometimes from observations concerning discrepancies. But we do not possess their books in their entirety, so it is hard to say what they wrote that we no longer have access to.

Off the top of my head I do not know how much or to what extent anything related specifically to the messianic secret was discussed in the early church; I certainly do not recall reading anyone who wondered why an injunction to silence was being delivered in a crowd (for example), but I have never actively searched for such examples, either. It is a good question.

I can speculate, though. Early Christians were not form critics, of whom Wrede was basically the grandfather. Early Christians thought of the gospel of Mark as having derived directly from Peter's preaching as remembered and penned by Mark. Wrede and the form critics, on the other hand, thought of the gospel of Mark as having collected church traditions. Wrede's observations about the messianic secret were made with that template of the church passing on traditions firmly in place as a viable option; without that template, I doubt early Christians would have been inclined to make the same observations.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:32 am ... so the word about the temple falling could have been overheard. ... Do you think that is Mark's intention? That 14.57-58 is a garbled or falsified version of 13.1-2?
I'm not sure about that and at the moment, I'm more interested in other things of this pericope. That's why I came back to this fine thread. But Joe may be right about the „sources“ of the false witnesses.

As you surely know there are some different scholarly views on the decision of the Sanhedrin and different approachs to study this pericope, but according to almost all views ...

Jesus was guilty.

My impression is that in particular also rather conservative scholars are more interested in the historical reliability of Mark's account than in the innocence of Jesus. I must confess that – without studying the arguments - this fact amused me a bit. :D

Many Christian scholars think that the false witness of Mark 13:58 ("I will destroy this temple that is made with hands …“) was (against Mark's account) in fact a saying of the historical Jesus. But even more scholars think that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy.

At the moment I'm reading Darrell Bock's „Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus“ (pdf). Bock is one of the many „guilty“-scholars, but at least he grasps that there is a little problem.
... Mark does have a broad historical concern in his account to show both Jesus’ innocence ...

Nevertheless, Mark was also interested in an important pastoral point, portraying Jesus as the model disciple who is unjustly persecuted while trusting God.

Thus, the “blasphemy” theme in Mark, viewed strictly from a narrative standpoint, is an important one to which the trial scene contributes significantly. At the very minimum, then, this is how the scene functions for Mark. But the the difference of opinion about Jesus raises the question whether there is more to the account than mere narratological and pastoral-theological framing of the examination.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:33 pm At the moment I'm reading Darrell Bock's „Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus“ (pdf).
btw
Donald Juel states our problem and the current state of the discussion most clearly and succinctly as he reflects on the Jewish background. The mishnaic charge of blasphemy as recorded in m. Sanh. 7:5 requires pronunciation of the divine name for blasphemy to be present:

(Juel:) If this second-century conception of blasphemy is an appropriate reflection of early first-century legal standards, it is impossible that Jesus could have been legally condemned for this offence. In fact, his response to the question of the high priest contains clear indications of respectful avoidance of the name of God (“The right hand of power”). Most scholars insist, therefore, that the legal definition of blasphemy must have been considerably broader in the first century. The difficulty with such proposals is the lack of source material for reconstructing legal practice prior to a.d. 70. . . . Even if the broadest definition of blasphemy be accepted, however, the problem is far from solved. It is still unclear precisely what in the question of the high priest or Jesus’ response would constitute a blasphemous statement or claim.

Juel’s remark is stated with care. What we lack are sources that give us details of the legal practice before 70 c.e. However, we do have, as my earlier full monograph on the subject of blasphemy shows, a significant amount of material that describes Jewish views of blasphemy in this period as a cultural matter and with a consistency that suggests it was a widely held view, even among Judaism’s religious leaders.
Bock assumes that ancient opinions of Jewish lay persons are significant and helpful in understanding ancient Jewish law. As a jurist, I would say that only a lay person can hold such a view. Jurists are using legal terms in a way that neither the common man nor a philosopher uses. I suppose this has been the case since the times of Hammurabi.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

On Three Things The World Was Made

Post by JoeWallack »

ahl hah Torah
v'ahl hah avodah,
v'ahl geulot hashadim.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:21 pm 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.
I think "Mark's" (author) primary concern here is style, in this case rhythm, and a historical sounding narrative is secondary. In fact, a less historical sounding narrative increases style as Aristotle explained long ago (by the use of strange language):

14
55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not.
56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together.
57 And there stood up certain, and bare 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 made without hands.
59 And not even so did their witness agree together.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

Witness Testimony Negative Positive Commentary
(1) Chief priests and council None Could not find - The chief Priests and council start with the conclusion that Jesus is guilty. They look for true witness to support their conclusion but can not find any.
  • (2) False witnesses
Jesus will destroy the Temple and build a replacement Testimony did not agree - Because they can not find any true witness to convict Jesus they look for false witness. They have witness to convict Jesus but the witnesses do not agree. Under Jewish law the witness testimony must agree to be valid.
    • (3) High Priest
Jesus is not defending himself No response - The High Priest does not have any true or false witness to convict Jesus with. He asks Jesus for witness against himself (Jesus).
    • (1) High Priest
Jesus is Christ and son of god - Jesus agrees The Chief Priest who as Judge should be limited to judging witness testimony, himself provides the evidence. For the only time in the trial, Jesus answers and agrees, thereby convicting himself. Is it just a coincidence that the transliteration of the key word here is "martyr"? You be the Judge.
  • (2) True witnesses
Jesus on the right side cloud rider - The High Priest will be the witness The Ironic Twist, even by Markan standards. The High Priest himself will be the witness that acquits Jesus. That is as historically unlikely as a Democrat winning a ugely Republican district in Pennsylvania after The Republican President promises coal jobs.
(3) Chief priests and council Jesus committed blasphemy - All agreed The Chief Priests and Council could not find any true evidence against Jesus. They convict Jesus based on the holy spirit speaking through Jesus and thereby convict themselves eternally for blasphemy. Now what's that word I'm looking for?

Specifically Ben, regarding your objection to "their witness agreed not together", I think it is there primarily for the stylish literary effect demonstrated above, a negative to what preceded. What it is supposed to mean exactly to the narrative is secondary I think. You have the stylish rhythm of three statements ending in negatives followed by three statements ending in positives. As always this would be more noticeable to a native Greek, especially when heard where speaker tone would further distinguish positive from negative.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Nice table, but I wish I could be as confident about "(2) true witnesses" as you are. To my ear, "I am, and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven" sounds like a single affirmative line, whereas the next line, by the high priest, is more of a negative, technically: "What further need have we of witnesses?" The implied answer is none; we have no need for further witnesses. To take this line as a positive is a matter of interpretation, not of style or rhythm, whereas all of the other lines are either positives or negatives on their own merits, before interpretation even begins.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply