Is "blasphemy against the holy spirit" a Markan invention?

[Charles Wilson]

CW i think peasant Jews with a folk understanding of spirituality would absolutely be aware that there is a holy spirit
this is a hallmark of indigenous and rural peoples to believe in this kind of spiritual reality as is seen to this day
i struggle to see why people seek the origins of Christianity in any kind of learned scholarship when all the evidence points to the countryside which don't get me wrong is just as valid as any other outlook!

Yes, but in the Jewish Milieu, Spirits were seen as Evil manifestations (See: Samuel). Ecclesiastes provides a Base from which the Jewish Members could reason. "You are your Body" and so you return to dust at the end of your life. Platonism was imposed and the Resurrection of the Dead played out in the minds and actions of the various people, Folk and otherwise.

The Approved Religious Practices were given and the Galilee was given to the Priests to provide Settlements for them. The Mishmarot Temple Service was the Cornerstone of the expression of the Jewish Religion. There were Calendar Wars and at Qumran you may find Documents that detailed how these "Rural" fighters were going to Institute the Divine Solar Calendar when they took over. They kept track of the corrupt Jerusalem Rulers and their Luni-Solar Calendar by following the Mishmarot Rotations (See: Eisenmann and Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered).

I ain't arguin' here. It is certainly possible that peasant Jews (In a Non-Pejorative sense!!!) would have had an idea of A Holy Spirit. I don't think it highly possible that the HS of the NT is in any way this HS. Transvaluation and all that.

You could be right. The History, however, would have to be unpacked - "Who you callin' a peasant - Tiny?"

CW

[davidmartin]

CW you paint a good picture but 'approved religious practices' what is this some committee? orderly i'm sure it was not! but what about mentions of the HS in Isaiah 'I will pour out my Spirit'. That right there's enough for a belief around it to spring up. Throw in some folks who say that they have it and choom, you're in business from your base in Galilee
Peasants are always overlooked when they're not revolting
I have this great book 'ecstatic religion' i think it's called. I'll never underestimate the folk element of religion after reading it
Case in point - In some African country men who become widowers are given to marrying certain spirits as their new wives
The book relates how younger women are dismayed these men do not fall for their charms so faithful are they to their spirit spouses!
That ain't gonna happen in New York city

[Charles Wilson]

DM --

Don't misunderstand here. You may be correct. All I am suggesting is that the Hasmoneans set up the Judaic Worship by controlling the Temple Worship Apparatus, even to the point of giving Galilean Settlements to the Mishmarot Priesthood. Their Rotations from these Settlements is not in question and some of this survives in the NT ("I will go ahead of you to Galilee...", for ex.).

Jannaeus comes along and Polarizes the Planet. He dies with a "Quartain Ague" and, as Salome begs him to provide for her at his death, Jannaeus gives her the method by which she may not only survive but RULE. This Rulership comes at a cost. The survivors (of the Tribulation), who pledged themselves to Jannaeus, are given the Fortresses for their survival. As time goes on, the Pharisees capture the power of the State (See: Josephus).

The Pharisees Politicize it all and it is the Priesthood (I believe...) that stands in their way. The Pharisees DO form "Some kind of committee" and it is the Priesthood and evidently a particular Priest that is the "Violent Revolutionary" (See other Thread on this Subject.) that provides the opposition to the Pharisees. As usual, I have to say: "John" is of Bilgah, the created "Jesus" character is of Immer.

I wish outhouse were still here Posting with some regularity. Hellenism rules the cities and the peasants rule the country and esp. Galilee.

Here's where you are probably correct though it is difficult to read it out of the Romanized NT.
That's what I'm trying to say...

Best,

CW

[mlinssen]

From my records:

Next is logion 44 where Thomas names the father, the son and the holy spirit: all three naturally leave out blasphemy against the father or son. Luke has an extremely short version of Thomas but gets full credit from Matthew for his 'Son of Man' introduction - blasphemy against the son is changed into "speaking against", apparently something that can be condoned. Matthew combines them both, swaps 'blaspheme' for 'speak against' and reiterates the sentence. 'Either in this age, or in that which is to come' is just grand:

(44) Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."

(Mark 3:28 "Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme; 29 but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.")

12:10 Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

(Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in that which is to come.)

Once more we witness the gospel-writers struggle from close-by: the triple blasphemy of Thomas is challenging them; which parts of that can be copied? Starting with the easy part, Mark feels confident to state that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't allowed, and doesn't dare take it any further. Luke feels that he can move closer to Thomas by stating that "speaking against" the Son is to be forgiven, refraining from using the word 'blasphemy' for that. The Father? Not going there. Matthew condones Luke's condoning and also doesn't dare to make any statement of going against the Father, but gratefully accepts Luke's find of 'Son of Man' and 'speaking against' and uses the latter on both occasions, once more avoiding typical Thomas words.

Old notes, and based on the usual Thomas translations, all of which are greatly deficient and biased. And of course based on biblical translation, in this case WEB, which are even more unreliable