Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

First, does Mark agree or disagree with the position of the Mishna? I would say, that Mark disagree.

3:28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”.

....

Third, in Mark's narrative is there another person guilty according to the „laws of Mark“? I would say, that the high priest is guilty because he blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.

Mark 13:11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Mark 14:63.64 And the high priest ... said, ... You have heard his blasphemy.

I believe that Mark (the master of subtle irony) wished to tell this story.

For the record, I love this analysis. The high priest is guilty of blaspheming the holy spirit.

[iskander]

"61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death."

There is no blasphemy in this statement.


In English law, the black cap was worn by a judge when passing a sentence of death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cap

The ' rending of the garments' in the this trial seems to function as the black cap was used in England when the death penalty was a legal punishment.
What was the crime meriting the death penalty in the NT trial? it is possible that the statement " and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. " made Jesus a false prophet.

The judge replies : we are mourning your death for being a false prophet.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But does it not look as if the story was originally meant to imply that Jesus uttered the divine name at the hearing? Does it not look as if the story was passed on by people who themselves, out of respect, did not use the divine name, and thus inserted Power at the proper moment?

I agree. There is just a little tiny step from Mark's story to a historical account that would make perfect sense. But if you accept the „story“, as I have explained it, the hurdle to make this little tiny step is very high.

[gmx]

On a slight tangent, what would the high priest mean by "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" Are the two halves halves of the question equivalent? Was "messiah" interchangeable with "son of the blessed one"?

[gmx]

Which brings me to an interesting question: does Mark himself understand what the blasphemy was?

That is a fascinating question. Mark's (lack of) knowledge of the geography of Palestine, his questionable Aramaisms, and his attribution of certain customs to "the Jews" (Mark 7:3) have been leaned upon to distance the author from being a "community insider" to the events described. This question in particular bears further examination.

[Ben C. Smith]

But does it not look as if the story was originally meant to imply that Jesus uttered the divine name at the hearing? Does it not look as if the story was passed on by people who themselves, out of respect, did not use the divine name, and thus inserted Power at the proper moment?

I agree. There is just a little tiny step from Mark's story to a historical account that would make perfect sense. But if you accept the „story“, as I have explained it, the hurdle to make this little tiny step is very high.

Whoa, there; the leap to "historical account" is the big one here. I said "story", not "historical account"! (But I am not arguing against historicity, either. It is simply not what I am evaluating, and "before Mark" does not equal "historical" in my book.)

But, even if we change "historical account" back to "original story", I guess I do not see it in the way you suggest. I see it at least potentially as both/and, not either/or. Mark inherited a story in which Jesus uttered the divine name at his hearing, but did not explain to his readers that "Power" is just the polite, reverent transcript of that hearing, not the word itself. Why not? Because he was interested, as you expertly point out, in making the high priest the blasphemer.

If this story did not originally start off with Jesus uttering the divine name, what are those elements doing in the story in the first place? If Mark is freely composing, why put them there at all? Why does he aim the bow, but not release the arrow?

[iskander]

But does it not look as if the story was originally meant to imply that Jesus uttered the divine name at the hearing? Does it not look as if the story was passed on by people who themselves, out of respect, did not use the divine name, and thus inserted Power at the proper moment?

I agree. There is just a little tiny step from Mark's story to a historical account that would make perfect sense. But if you accept the „story“, as I have explained it, the hurdle to make this little tiny step is very high.

Whoa, there; the leap to "historical account" is the big one here. I said "story", not "historical account"! (But I am not arguing against historicity, either. It is simply not what I am evaluating, and "before Mark" does not equal "historical" in my book.)

But, even if we change "historical account" back to "original story", I guess I do not see it in the way you suggest. I see it as both/and, not either/or. Mark inherited a story in which Jesus uttered the divine name at his hearing, but did not explain to his readers that "Power" is just the polite, reverent transcript of that hearing, not the word itself. Why not? Because he was interested, as you expertly point out, in making the high priest the blasphemer.

If this story did not originally start off with Jesus uttering the divine name, what are those elements doing in the story in the first place? If Mark is freely composing, why put them there at all? Why does he aim the bow, but not release the arrow?

"before Mark" does not equal "historical" in my book.

What would be "historical" for you?

[Ben C. Smith]

What would be "historical" for you?

In broad terms, eyewitness or earwitness testimony is to be preferred, with certain caveats. Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History, page 150:

The historian, however, is prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge, and jury all in one. But as judge he rules out no evidence whatever if it is relevant. To him any single detail of testimony is credible — even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness — provided it can pass four tests:

(1) Was the ultimate source of the detail (the primary witness) able to tell the truth?

(2) Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?

(3) Is the primary witness accurately reported with regard to the detail under examination?

(4) Is there any independent corroboration of the detail under examination?

Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author) that passes all four tests is credible historical evidence. It will bear repetition that the primary witness and the detail are now the subjects of examination, not the source as a whole.

There are other, more exotic tests, as well. Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, page 305:

Cumulative or converging evidence is virtually circumstantial. It is "a heaping up" (L. cumulus) of bits of evidence, individually never more than probable, and often only slightly so, until they form a mass of evidence, the net result of which is certainty. But, as already noted, the resulting certainty does not issue directly from the mass or cumulus of probabilities, since no number of mere probabilities added together can logically produce certainty. To produce such effect, one must invoke the "principle of sufficient reason," by arguing that the only possible explanation why so many bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact, is that the fact is objectively true.

Tradition can sometimes be used, again with caveats. Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, page 260:

For the reliability of the popular tradition of a historical fact, certain conditions must be fulfilled.

(a) Broad conditions: (1) Unbroken series of witnesses; (2) several parallel and independent series of witnesses.

(b) Particular conditions: (1) Content a public event of importance; (2) general belief for a definite period; (3) absence of protest during that period; (4) relatively limited duration; (5) influence of the critical spirit, and application of critical investigation; (6) absence of denial by the critically minded.

Ben.

[iskander]

What would be "historical" for you?

In broad terms, eyewitness or earwitness testimony is to be preferred, with certain caveats. Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History, page 150:

The historian, however, is prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge, and jury all in one. But as judge he rules out no evidence whatever if it is relevant. To him any single detail of testimony is credible — even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness — provided it can pass four tests:

(1) Was the ultimate source of the detail (the primary witness) able to tell the truth?

(2) Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?

(3) Is the primary witness accurately reported with regard to the detail under examination?

(4) Is there any independent corroboration of the detail under examination?

Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author) that passes all four tests is credible historical evidence. It will bear repetition that the primary witness and the detail are now the subjects of examination, not the source as a whole.

There are other, more exotic tests, as well. Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, page 305:

Cumulative or converging evidence is virtually circumstantial. It is "a heaping up" (L. cumulus) of bits of evidence, individually never more than probable, and often only slightly so, until they form a mass of evidence, the net result of which is certainty. But, as already noted, the resulting certainty does not issue directly from the mass or cumulus of probabilities, since no number of mere probabilities added together can logically produce certainty. To produce such effect, one must invoke the "principle of sufficient reason," by arguing that the only possible explanation why so many bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact, is that the fact is objectively true.

Tradition can sometimes be used, again with caveats. Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, page 260:

For the reliability of the popular tradition of a historical fact, certain conditions must be fulfilled.

(a) Broad conditions: (1) Unbroken series of witnesses; (2) several parallel and independent series of witnesses.

(b) Particular conditions: (1) Content a public event of importance; (2) general belief for a definite period; (3) absence of protest during that period; (4) relatively limited duration; (5) influence of the critical spirit, and application of critical investigation; (6) absence of denial by the critically minded.

Ben.

eyewitness or earwitness testimony , you say. Our beloved poster Adam is your man .

[theterminator]

And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

to be seated on right hand of power would not have been blasphemy?