Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 6:18 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:38 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:58 pm But the temple accusation itself is interesting in its own right. What do you think is going on in Mark specifically with reference to it? Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
Mmh. It seems to me that the "natural" understanding of Mark 13:1 would be that the admiring statement of the disciple was spoken aloud, so that other people could hear the conversation. (“Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”) The verses Mark 13:1-2 are not part of the Olivet discourse and the "private conversation" started with Mark 13:3 on the Mount of Olives.
Agreed. But Jesus' statement, the nearest one to the (falsely) incriminating statement at his trial, comes only in verses 3-4, during the private session.
What do you mean? At first glance it seems that nothing in Mark 13:3-4 is related to Mark 14:57-58.

14:57 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.’” 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:44 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:18 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:38 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:58 pm But the temple accusation itself is interesting in its own right. What do you think is going on in Mark specifically with reference to it? Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
Mmh. It seems to me that the "natural" understanding of Mark 13:1 would be that the admiring statement of the disciple was spoken aloud, so that other people could hear the conversation. (“Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”) The verses Mark 13:1-2 are not part of the Olivet discourse and the "private conversation" started with Mark 13:3 on the Mount of Olives.
Agreed. But Jesus' statement, the nearest one to the (falsely) incriminating statement at his trial, comes only in verses 3-4, during the private session.
What do you mean? At first glance it seems that nothing in Mark 13:3-4 is related to Mark 14:57-58.

14:57 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.’” 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

I mean that I responded without thinking or looking up the verses again, and I goofed. :oops:

Okay, so the word about the temple falling could have been overheard. Good point. Do you think that is Mark's intention? That 14.57-58 is a garbled or falsified version of 13.1-2?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Or perhaps the information is supposed to have come from Judas, who would presumably have still been on the scene in verses 1-2?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Secret Alias »

Gospel of Nicodemus:

And Pilate left Jesus in the judgement hall and went forth to the Jews and said unto them: I find no fault in him. The Jews say unto him: This man said: I am able to destroy this temple and in three days to build it up. Pilate saith: What temple? The Jews say: That which Solomon built in forty and six years but which this man saith he will destroy and build it in three days.

εἶπαν Οὗτος ἔφη Δύναμαι καταλῦσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκοδομῆσαι.

Curious that Book 1 of Against Celsus begins:

At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace."

Book 2:10

But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let Celsus produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either from misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish stories, that he thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or against ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, "We both found him guilty, and condemned him as deserving of death," let them show how they who sought to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be guilty. Was not the great charge against Jesus, which His accusers brought forward, this, that He said, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to raise it up again?" But in so saying, He spake of the temple of His body; while they thought, not being able to understand the meaning of the speaker, that His reference was to the temple of stone, which was treated by the Jews with greater respect than He was who ought to have been honoured as the true Temple of God--the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth.

Book 3

And He "took His life," when He manifested Himself to His disciples, having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," and "He spake this of the temple of His body;"

But if you read the gospel as a 'harmony' it would seem that Jesus said 'Destroy this temple' (i.e. John) which is remembered in Matthew as 'I am able to destroy the temple of God' - which is in turn explained in a manner in keeping with what is written in John - i.e. the temple of the body is meant. Celsus seems to know the allegorical interpretation when he ridicules Christians with the insult 'Doctors don't destroy those they are supposed to cure.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I said it. I said it again

Post by JoeWallack »

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. See the Markster outline "witnesses" for The Passion based on who he thinks would/should have been the important relative (so to speak) groups:
  • 1) "The Jews"

    2) The Jewish Religious Leaders

    3) The Roman authority
In a successful trial the witnesses want to convict the accused with true witness that proves the accused is guilty. Greek Tragedy is based on Irony so the most ironic literary structure here would be all the witnesses want to convict the accused with true witness but their true witness proves the accused is innocent and the true witness proving the accused is innocent is used to conclude that the accused is guilty. The further irony is that at the text level it is Jesus who is on trial but at the sub-text level it is the "witnesses" who are on trial and convicted (as is Peter):

Witness Testimony Source Text Explicit as to Witness Source? Commentary
14 "The Jews"
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.
13:2 And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.
10:34 and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.
No 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. The irony is that they are contrasted with The Disciples who did actually hear all this but never testified to it as opposed to the False witnesses who never heard it but did testify to it. Understand dear reader? This False/True testimony also just happens to be the most important assertion of the author, Jesus' sacrifice was responsible for the destruction of the physical Temple and replacement with a spiritual temple. Q to KK's observation about how "hear" is used in GMark.
15 The Jewish Religious Leaders
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?
8:29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
9:7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.
No 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. The High Priest gives true testimony which Jesus confirms as true which makes Jesus innocent yet the High Priest and Council treat the testimony as false and use it to convict Jesus. Now, after "The Jews" confirmed what Jesus did, the Jewish Religious leaders confirm who that makes Jesus, Christ and son of god.
15 The Roman authority
2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.
12:37 David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
No 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. At the conclusion "Mark's" Jesus is kind enough to point out that it was Pilate who made the confessional statement and not Jesus, "You said it". This is true of all the testimony, while Jesus was mostly silent in his own defense, it was Jesus' accusers, who wanted to convict Jesus, who supplied all the true testimony proving Jesus was innocent, which was used to convict Jesus. This is an attorney's dream, using your opponent's testimony to prove your case (right KK). Right out of Barry Masonic. The final thematic statement of the author is thus made, after what Jesus did proves who Jesus is, the conclusion is what Jesus will be, king of The Jews.

The lesson of The Parable of The Hearer then my Skeptical friends is not trying to figure out where the witnesses heard the evidence but to understand that "Mark's" (author) thematic point is the opposite, they never heard it via the narrative while The Disciples that did did not testify.

Ni!


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:58 pm Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
William Wrede answered these sorts of questions in principle in The Messianic Secret. The gospel of Mark was never written as a coherent narrative. Such questions only arise when we read Mark as if it is something it is evidently not.
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: I said it. I said it again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: I said it. I said it again

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:21 pm
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.
William Wrede's resurrection (The Messianic Secret) is long overdue here! Such inconsistencies -- Pilate not hearing x, the disciples being forbidden from witnessing x -- it's all been addressed, and long forgotten (sometimes even misremembered/misrepresented), sadly.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by arnoldo »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:20 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:58 pm Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
William Wrede answered these sorts of questions in principle in The Messianic Secret. The gospel of Mark was never written as a coherent narrative. . .
Actually, Wrede writes that is was written as a coherent narrative.
Wrede wrote: We must not suppose that the evangelists were merely fishers and handicraftsmen. They were in a way literary men who as such belonged to the more cultured members of the Church. At least that is true of the author of Mark, more of that of Matthew, and especially of that of the Gospel of Luke. The latter prefaces his work with an introduction such as we find usual with educated men in the literature of the period, in which he speaks of predecessors, mentions the order of events, is interested in chronology, in short, he makes it clear that he is following a certain historical plan. Of course, this is not to be denied of the other two : their intention is not merely to preach about Christ, but to tell of Him in narrative form.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:21 pm Actually, Wrede writes that is was written as a coherent narrative.
Wrede wrote: We must not suppose that the evangelists were merely fishers and handicraftsmen. They were in a way literary men who as such belonged to the more cultured members of the Church. At least that is true of the author of Mark, more of that of Matthew, and especially of that of the Gospel of Luke. The latter prefaces his work with an introduction such as we find usual with educated men in the literature of the period, in which he speaks of predecessors, mentions the order of events, is interested in chronology, in short, he makes it clear that he is following a certain historical plan. Of course, this is not to be denied of the other two : their intention is not merely to preach about Christ, but to tell of Him in narrative form.
I think you missed the key word in my comment even though you copied it into your own. And then you falsely attribute that keyword to Wrede's account of the narrative.

There is a difference between "narrative" pure and simple, whether full of contradictions or not, and a "coherent narrative". Wrede's entire theme in Messianic Secret is that there is no narrative coherence between the admonitions by Jesus to silence re his miracles/identity and the fact that his miracles were nonetheless widely visible, etc. Wrede's whole argument is that Mark lets the contradictions stand without being apparently bothered by them or attempting to somehow reconcile them.

Mark let the incoherence, the contradictions, sit. He made no effort to smooth over the contradiction.

Mark makes no sense read literally or as history. It is full of nonsense circumstances, sayings and actions that can only be interpreted as "realistic" by a reader who imagines Mark is writing a lot more than he actually does and that he is writing a quite different gospel from the one we are reading.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply