Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

I agree. The issue for me is not whether anything has been interpolated or maneuvered around here; it is, rather, whether Mark himself understood what the blasphemy consisted of. If not, there are interesting implications for the ultimate origins of the story.

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.

Not sure what you mean here. There are (false) witnesses at the trial in Mark, but the whole point, if Jesus uttered the divine name at the trial, is that no witnesses are actually needed after all, because the defendant has implicated himself.

I am not assuming that the original witnesses were there in order to convict Jesus of blasphemy; they babble on instead about weird threats to the temple (which to my mind is another question worth exploring: what does Mark intend the reader to understand about Jesus having spoken or not spoken such a saying?). But, once Jesus uttered the divine name (perhaps precisely because a conviction was not a sure thing, in keeping with him having predicted all of this in the first place), blasphemy was all that it took to secure the Jewish pronouncement of guilt.

Ben.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"I think a lot of things could be called blasphemy. But the Mishnaic passage that I quoted describes what constitutes blasphemy that is worthy of death."

It appears to me, though, that M. San. 7.5 is referring to blasphemy against God since it says that it qualifies as such only if you pronounce "the proper name of God," and this would not be applicable to the crime of cursing a ruler. And the Mishnah was written down c. 200 CE when there were no Jewish rulers or kings to curse.

Second, punishing someone with death for cursing a king is used for the sake of political convenience in 1 Kings 21:9-13:

"'Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people. But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them bring charges that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.' So the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city did as Jezebel directed in the letters she had written to them. They proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth in a prominent place among the people. Then two scoundrels came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying, 'Naboth has cursed both God and the king.' So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death. Then they sent word to Jezebel: 'Naboth has been stoned to death.'"

And one of the specific charges against Jesus after his trial in Mk. 15 is claiming to be a king (and not for pronouncing the proper name of God):

"Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. 'Are you the king of the Jews? asked Pilate. 'You have said so,' Jesus replied. The chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him, 'Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.' But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed ... 'Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?' asked Pilate, knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead ... 'What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?' Pilate asked them. 'Crucify him! they shouted' ... The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, 'Hail, king of the Jews!'

And it is the charge that is put on his cross:

"It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the Jews."

"Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, 'So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!' In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. 'He saved others,' they said, 'but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.' Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him."

That is the charge that was put on the cross and what he confesses to in Mk. 14:62, claiming to be a king (in the sense of being the Son of Man of Daniel or the Messiah), and I am speculating that it was not cool to claim this when the Herodians were in power. After all, even Paul, who was once a Pharisee who persecuted Christians (like those who colluded with Herodians to kill Jesus in Mark 3:6 and 12:12-13), says in Romans 13:1-2:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

[Ben C. Smith]

It appears to me, though, that M. San. 7.6 is referring to blasphemy against God since it says that it qualifies as such only if you pronounce "the proper name of God," and this would not be applicable to the crime of cursing a ruler.

Yes, I quite agree. Gundry's analysis, which I accept, rather depends on it applying to blasphemy against God.

And one of the specific charges against Jesus after his trial in Mk. 15 is claiming to be a king (and not for pronouncing the proper name of God).

Agreed. A Roman prefect is not going to care one whit about charges of blasphemy, so obviously the indictment before Pilate will have to be for something that the Roman authorities would care about.

That is the charge that was put on the cross and what he confesses to in Mk. 14:62, claiming to be a king (in the sense of being the Son of Man of Daniel or the Messiah), and I am speculating that it was not cool to claim this when the Herodians were in power.

I agree it was not a "cool" thing to do. But it was also not blasphemy, at least not the kind that carried a sentence of death.

The sequence that I get from the story is: (A) Jesus is brought up on various charges that do not stick very well, (B) Jesus actually pronounces the divine name in the proceedings against him, which carries a sentence of death by Jewish law, and (C) the context in which Jesus pronounced the divine name carried implications of potential kingship, and therefore insurrection against Rome, which could be leveraged to get him condemned before Pilate, as well.

Ben.

[Adam]

As "I am" (blasphemous Joke), but for me the pre-Marcan passion narrative is nothing like Mark. My seven-eyewitness-account Thesis holds that for the Passion Narrative the best exemplar for the source is in John. The Source according to Howard M. Teeple (and likewise the completed John) fails to suggest any blasphemy.
Not to lose heart, however, I also hold that the Passion Narrative source under John is the same Aramaic source under the Synoptics. As I argue Lucan primacy, let us look at Luke

22:54-23:3, which has the further virtue of being recognized as part of Marcion's Gospel. The best place I found to study this is Reuben J. Swanson's 1975 Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels. (1971 RSV 2)
My method is to pick mostly the Lukan, as the Johannine is too skimpy. Where the latter fails I switch to Mt and Mk.
L 22:54 "Then they seized him and led him to the high priests."
Certainly Marcionite is Luke 22.63-23.3
L 22:63 "Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and"
J 18.22 When he had said this, one of the officers standing by

L 22.64 "beat him they also blindfolded him and asked Prophesy"
j 18.22 struck Jesus with his hand saying 'Is that how'

L 22.65 "who is it that struck you? And they spoke many other
J 18.23 you answer the high priest?' Jesus answered 'If I have spoken

L 18 56 "words against him, reviling him"
J 18.23 wrongly, bear witness to the wrongs

L 22.66 "When day came the assembly of the"
Mt 27.1 When morning came the chief priests and the
Mk 15.1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests with the

L 22.66 "elders of the people ..... and scribes"
Mt 27.1 elders of the people
Mk 15.1 elders of the people and scribes

L 22,66 "and they led him away to their council"
Mk 15.1 the whole council

(At that point comes a non-source insertion in the text)
Mt. 27.1, Mt 26.59-63
and
Mk 15.1 Mk 14;55-71
(back to the Pre-Markan source)
l 22:66 "and they said"
Mt 26.63 and the high priest said to him I adjure you by the living
Mk 14,61 Again the high priest asked

L 22.67 "If you are the Christ, tell us But he"
Mt 26.64 God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God
Mk 14.63 are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed

L22.68 "said to them If I tell you you will not believe, and if I ask you you will not answer"
Mt 26.64 said to him You have said so
Mk 14.62 said I am

L 22.68 "But from now on the Son of Man"
Mt 26.64 But I tell you hereafter you will see the Son of Man
Mk 14.62 and you wil see the Son of Man

L 22.69 "shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God"
Mt 26.64 seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds
Mk 14.62 seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds

L 22.70 "and they all said"
Mt 26.63b of heaven and the high priest said to him I adjure you by the
Mk 14.61b of heaven Again the high priest asked him

L 22.70 "Are you the Son of God, then?"
Mt 26.63 living God, tell us Are you the Christ, the Son of God?
Mk 14.61 Are you the Christ, the So of the Blessed?

L 22.71 "And he said to him you say that I am And they"
Mt 26.64a,65 Jesus said to him you have said so Then the high priest
Mk 14 62,63 And Jesus said to him I am And the high priest
EDITED TO ADD (May 31)
Unfortunately the above use of Swanson's Synopsis is largely useless because he picked the best popular translation, the RSV2, but he should have chosen Young's Literal or the Concordant Literal New Testament. I'll be checking the English Standard Bible I have on order to see if it works as well as my Concordant Literal. See my further comments today in this thread.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"The sequence that I get from the story is: (A) Jesus is brought up on various charges that do not stick very well, (B) Jesus actually pronounces the divine name in the proceedings against him, which carries a sentence of death by Jewish law, and (C) the context in which Jesus pronounced the divine name carried implications of potential kingship, and therefore insurrection against Rome, which could be leveraged to get him condemned before Pilate, as well."

I agree with A, but what B and C have going against them is that Jesus does not actually mention the divine name in Mark, as you point out (and for which you posit an earlier text or tradition). In his statement as we have it there is no mention of the divine name, nor is there in the allusion to Daniel, which forms the largest part of the statement and, unlike Ps. 110, pertains to the charge of being a king.

"I agree it was not a "cool" thing to do. But it was also not blasphemy, at least not the kind that carried a sentence of death."

What would be more blasphemous against a king than to declare yourself a king during someone else's reign (especially among rulers like the Herodians and a sect like the Pharisees who did not appreciate messianic claimants)?

"Cognate: 988 blasphēmía (from blax, "sluggish/slow," and 5345 /phḗmē, "reputation, fame") – blasphemy – literally, slow (sluggish) to call something good (that really is good) – and slow to identify what is truly bad (that really is evil). Blasphemy (988 /blasphēmía) "switches" right for wrong (wrong for right), i.e. calls what God disapproves, "right" which "exchanges the truth of God for a lie" (Ro 1:25). See 987 (blasphēmeō)."

http://biblehub.com/greek/988.htm

1 Kings 21:8-13 is precedence for killing someone for blasphemy against a king (and for an equally convenient reason).

And again, what Paul says in Rom. 13 (while also bearing in mind his possible references to Herodians in the same letter) seems relevant to this:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves ... For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good ... They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

How does he reconcile this with his new found devotion to Jesus? By saying that, "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." He even backs this up with scripture: "However, as it is written: What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived —the things God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Cor. 2:8-9).

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree with A, but what B and C have going against them is that Jesus does not actually mention the divine name in Mark, as you point out (and for which you posit an earlier text or tradition).

No, I do not posit that an earlier text or tradition had the divine name. Rather, it had a circumlocution, as is proper, and a rare circumlocution so that the ear will be attuned to what is going on, just like the Mishnah has a rare circumlocution for the same reason. (Had the circumlocution been the usual God or Lord, no one would have suspected that the divine name necessarily underlay the statement in its wording on the defendant's lips.)

In his statement as we have it there is no mention of the divine name, nor is there in the allusion to Daniel, which forms the largest part of the statement and, unlike Ps. 110, pertains to the charge of being a king.

The reference both to Daniel and to the Psalm is absolutely secure in this Marcan verse; you are not going to talk me down from that one. That is raw data, unless you want to argue for an interpolation. (Whence would you derive the concept of being seated on the right hand of divinity?)

[John2]

Ben,

Sorry for the misunderstanding about Mark. Circumlocution. Got it now.

You wrote:

"The reference both to Daniel and to the Psalm is absolutely secure in this Marcan verse ... Whence would you derive the concept of being seated on the right hand of divinity?

I've never thought about this stuff until now so I'm just thinking out loud at work.

I suppose it could allude to both Daniel and Ps. 110, but how certain is the allusion to Ps. 110? Isn't "right hand" imagery fairly common? Mk. 10:37-40, for example, uses it too.

"They replied, 'Let one of us sit at your right hand and the other at your left in your glory.' 'You don’t know what you are asking,' Jesus said ... "to sit at my right hand or left is not for me to grant.'"

And the "power" in Ps. 110:2 belongs to David ("The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion"), unlike Mk. 14:62 (where it is a circumlocution for YHWH), and more like Ex. 15:6, where it belongs to YHWH ("Your right hand, LORD, was majestic in power"). Could Mk. 14:62 allude to Ex. 15:6 instead?

And Jesus already quotes Ps. 110 in Mk. 12:36 ("David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: ''The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'" Does Mark or other NT writings repeat OT references like this?

But Dan. 7:9 says that the Ancient of Days was sitting amid multiple thrones:

"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat."

And 7:13 says, "“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

So Dan. 7 uses a circumlocution for YHWH (like Mk. 14:62 and M. San. 7.6) and mentions multiple thrones and the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven.

I have to go offline now. I'll sleep on this tonight and check for any responses from you tomorrow.

[Ben C. Smith]

Sorry for the misunderstanding about Mark. Circumlocution. Got it now.

No problem. I am reminded of Woody Allen's quip: "Some guy hit my fender, and I told him, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' but not in those words."

I've never thought about this stuff until now so I'm just thinking out loud at work.

I suppose it could allude to both Daniel and Ps. 110, but how certain is the allusion to Ps. 110? Isn't "right hand" imagery fairly common? Mk. 10:37-40, for example, uses it too.

The right hand of a ruler is pretty common imagery. But this is the right hand of God/Power/Yahweh (unless you think Power means somebody other than Yahweh here), and that generally means Psalm 110.1. I just looked it up in several reference Bibles, and they all make the connection at this verse to Psalm 110.1.

Honored people sit at the right hand of the ruler; the ruler him/herself sits at the right hand of divinity.

Ben.

[John2]

Ben,

Where did Pilate get the idea that Jesus claimed to be a king if not from the people who tried him?

"Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. 'Are you the king of the Jews?' asked Pilate. 'You have said so,' Jesus replied. The chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him, 'Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of' (Mk. 15:1-3).

And why did the people who tried Jesus think that he claimed to be a king if not because of Mk. 14:62?

And was this not a time period when there were kings in power with the support of the Pharisees? And wasn't Paul once a Pharisee? And doesn't he say that the ruling authorities were agents of God and that whoever rebels against them "is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" and that "it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience" in Rom. 13:1-5? Is this not an example of the Pharisee policy "that the law of the country is binding, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law" and that "it is the will of God that Jews should obey the laws of their rulers"?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... 05228.html

Isn't this the position that Josephus (who was also a Pharisee) takes too, that God favored the Romans (e.g., "So the Romans, having now assistance from God, returned to their camp with joy")?

And again, what would be more blasphemous against a ruler and God (both of which are forbidden and tied together in the Torah and punished with death in 1 Kings) than to claim to be a king during the reigns of people who were installed by the Romans?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,

Where did Pilate get the idea that Jesus claimed to be a king if not from the people who tried him?

"Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. 'Are you the king of the Jews?' asked Pilate. 'You have said so,' Jesus replied. The chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him, 'Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of' (Mk. 15:1-3).

And why did the people who tried Jesus think that he claimed to be a king if not because of Mk. 14:62?

Exactly so. Jesus claimed to be king at the Jewish hearing. You and I agree on that. But claiming to be king is not blasphemy, at least not the kind that carries an immediate sentence of death.

Claiming to be king gave the authorities fuel for the Roman hearing before Pilate, but is not what led to the high priest rending his garments, dismissing the witnesses, and proclaiming Jesus a blasphemer. That is my position.

And again, what would be more blasphemous against a ruler and God (both of which are forbidden and tied together in the Torah and punished with death in 1 Kings) than to claim to be a king during the reigns of people who were installed by the Romans?

The answer to that question is easy: uttering the divine name would be more blasphemous. I return to the Mishnah:

MISHNA VI: A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God. Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha: Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously -- i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: "I heard exactly the same as he told." And so also says the third witness.

Not all Judeans necessarily thought alike, but I think you would need some up-to-date discussions of what blasphemy means in order to make your case.

Ben.