Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[lsayre]

But it was my understanding that Jesus could hardly get the message across to his disciples, and that to the crowds he spoke only in parables so they intentionally wouldn't understand. Nowhere is it mentioned that among the witnesses were any of Jesus 12 chosen inner circle. Unless perhaps it was Judas Iscariot who spilled all of the beans. I believe this is the essence of how Bart Ehrman sees it.

[hakeem]

.....But the scribes misunderstand, because they don't recognize that it is in fact God who acts through Jesus, just like they are used to God acting through the temple cult in the remission of sin. But interestingly everybody else at the scene understands that it is God's power which Jesus has wielded:
"And the paralytic stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”" (2:12)

How could the scribes mis-understand that God was acting through Jesus when the healing of the paralytic and all the supposed healing never ever happened?
No paralytic has ever been cured because a person spoke to them.

Ironically, they never saw anything like that.

The Bible story that Jesus was found guilty of death for blasphemy cannot be altered just like the story that Jesus transfigured cannot be changed.

The Bible stories of Jesus are not history.

[iskander]

In Mk 2: 7 , It is about the power of men and women to deal directly with a merciful God . The messianic secret is precisely that : we are truly the sons and daughters of God. Every man and woman must discover this secret by themselves in order to have an effect and hence his request for silence .

When he was dying the reformer said:

Re: The personification of the Shekhinah
Post by iskander » Wed May 10, 2017 10:00 am
The Christian interpretation of the execution of Jesus as an atoning death for the transgression of Adam and Eve is the interpretation of a Jewish convert to Christianity. The thinking of a mind trained to pay the price for sins committed.


But Luke 23:34 is the summary of the entire teaching of Jesus : 34Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.

There was no sacrifice .
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1828&p=69706#p69706

That is the secret of Mark namely , God is truly the father of us all, and gave us the freedom to use our intelligence as best we can. After death all of his children join their father in eternal bliss .

Can you understand that?
The Sanhedrin was the model for the Holy Inquisition: blasphemy! the inquisitors howl while they burn, lapidate, decapitate ...

[Stefan Kristensen]

All of this seems perfectly explicable if one takes the Mishnah somewhat seriously here: "A blasphemer is not guilty unless he mentioned the proper name of God." Blasphemy can mean all sorts of things, and Jesus gets accused of it earlier in his career (Mark 2.7) with no death sentence. Why? Because, as the Mishnah says, the only kind of blasphemy which counts in a capital case is the kind involving the divine name. Stephen apparently does not utter the divine name (he speaks of the "right hand of God," which is fine; and "God" is Stephen's usual circumlocution in Acts 7); therefore no verdict is laid against him. Instead, he gets swept out of court by officials turned vigilantes.

Not so with Jesus. The entire passion sequence in Mark is at pains to show that Jesus not only knew what was going to happen but indeed made it happen to some extent, making sure to be in the right place at the right time to be arrested, for example. At his hearing before the priests, which is not actually a hearing for capital blasphemy yet, he sees that a guilty verdict is not going to be rendered (it being too apparent that the witnesses were false, since their testimony did not agree), so he takes matters into his own hands and utters the divine name (thus explaining the circumlocutory use of "power" here for the one and only time in Mark; reports of this oral blasphemy would use a circumlocution, just like the Mishnah does; one key here is that "power" is not the usual circumlocution on Jesus' lips; "God" is, thus signaling to the savvy reader, along with the high priest's reaction, that something is different this time). That is all that anybody needs to hear. That is the one kind of blasphemy which automatically conveys a death sentence. There is now no need for witnesses, as the high priest points out, since the accused has committed the offense himself, right in front of everybody. Thus they all judge him "to be deserving of death."

Secondly, I think it's clear, that the reason the high priest asks Jesus of this, is because it can be considered a legal offense (in the eyes of the council) to do it, i.e. to claim to be "the Messiah, the son of the Blessed". If the high priest thought it wans't a punishable offense, then he surely wouldn't have asked him of this, in this manner.

So it is a punishable offense in the eyes of the high priest, this accusation against Jesus, that Jesus claims to be "the Messiah, the son of the Blessed". But why then does Mark have the high priest ask this question at this point? Why didn't they ask Jesus about this to begin with? Why didn't they have false witnesses 'testifying' to this to begin with?

I have a different take on this, as well. The priests are not originally seeking to hang Jesus on blasphemy charges; they are seeking to charge him with something that Pilate and the Romans can sink their teeth into, like sedition (hence the false testimony about Jesus saying that he will destroy the temple). When those charges fail (due to the false witnesses having been insufficiently schooled beforehand, apparently), the high priest tries to prove his point indirectly by getting Jesus to admit that he was the Messiah. This is not a capital offense, but it would be a step in the direction of getting Jesus to confess to something that can be equated with sedition (since messianic claims can imply sedition when viewed in a certain light). But Jesus gives the high priest more than he asked for: he both admits to being the Messiah and utters the divine name. The blasphemy of the name is what leads directly and inevitably to the Jewish verdict of guilty (as well as to the stereotypical rending of garments), but before Pilate that will mean nothing, so the priests translate the messianic claim to which Jesus has confessed into the threat to the Roman commonwealth that they had been trying to lay against Jesus all along: Jesus, as King of the Jews, would be trying to overthrown Roman rule in Judea. Crucify him! (Even this is not enough, of course, since King of the Jews may be a mere title rather than a solid plot against Rome, which the priests had been unable to obtain, and it takes a bloodthirsty crowd to persuade Pilate to do the deed.)

I recognize, of course, that there are parallels between the Mishnah teaching and the 'trial' proceeding of Mark 14, so I think we must take that into account. At the moment, this is my take on it. Like you, I think Mark 14 reflects the actual legal prescription also witnessed in the Mishnah passage concerning the charge of blasphemy, with the rending of clothes. Iow, I think the reason Mark has the high priest rend his clothes is because he knew of the official legal prescription concerning blasphemy (perhaps he learned it from his sources). And I must admit that I have warmed considerably to the idea of the word 'power' being a special pious signal to the audience that here Jesus actually speaks the Name: ****! And if that is the case, then perhaps the circumlocution of the high priest, "the Blessed", which is also unique within gMark (but not unusual as such, of course), is meant to highlight the fact that nobody must utter the Name, because that would prepare the readers for Jesus' answer (where he does exactly that). Because the fact does remain indeed that in this scene the Name has no less than two different circumlocutions which are unique within gMark.

But (atm) I still hold this circumlocution explanation as a little too speculative, that is, when compared to certain other possible solutions. Especially I myself hold to what I'd describe as a more go-with-the-flow-of-the-story solution, where I think that the element of 'uttering the Name' would be a bit of a clumsy, or foreign, anti-climactic element in the story: I want to cast the concept of 'authority' as the key leitmotif in this whole thing. This concept is what binds the blaspheming in 2:7 together with the blaspening in 14:64, imo. I want to describe the escalating conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as a conflict concerning authority (seen already in Jesus' very first public appearance, 1:21ff, and his first confilct, 2:1ff), and in this way the reaction of the high priest and the council is their ultimate, final expression of the this very same anger, which have been building throughout: the anger over Jesus' claim to God's authority. The very authority which is bound to the temple establishment, according to the covenant with God. So in this perspective it seems anti-climactic that their anger is suddenly over this impulsive, rather random, element of uttering the Name? I think there is a consistency to the anger of the Jewish leaders towards Jesus, and it is about authority. Therefore I also thinks it's more natural that their charge of blasphemy is an expression of this very anger, the anger over Jesus' claimed authority. It is the final show-down, the sibling rivalry over God's favor, the two sons, Israel and Jesus: 'This covenant isn't big enough for both of us!' Pilate is more right than he thinks: The Jewish leaders are "jealous" (15:10). Daddy didn't give you the right of the firstborn, he loves me the most!

So, what the high priest hears from Jesus' answer, and in line with all Jesus' actions and provocations throughout the story, is: Your covenant with God is invalid, guys. I myself have all the authority, not God, and your Sinai covenant with God, the whole Law as he gave it to you, is invalid. I am God's agent. I am the Law!

Is this what Jesus is saying? Absolutely. God has decided a renewal of the covenant, which means a change in management. And in the new setup he has surrendered his authority. To me!

Does this make Jesus God? In some ways, yes.

Still, I must say, I'm also attracted to the circumlocution explanation. And in a way, these two understandings, the authority-blasphemy explanation and the name-blasphemy (the circumlocution explanation) are not mutually exclusive but instead actually enforcing eachother. Because one's authority has everything to do with one's name. God's authority is tied up with the temple, according to the Sinai covenant, because it is the house inhabited by his name. Jesus has been given God's authority, which is his special name, so in Jesus' name is salvation. When Jesus expresses his special authority as God's son at the Trial, it makes sense that Mark would also have him utter the Name. God's name is his authority. The son of man being granted God's "authority" in Dan 7 is thus the same as Jesus being granted the "name above all names" in the Philippian Hymn (Phil 2:9).

And also, while we're at it, the same "son of man" granted glory and rulership in Ps 8, and also the pre-fall Adam of Gen 1:26-28, whom Satan made to fall from his rulership throne because of sibling jealousy (Wisd 2:24). The younger son, Adam, gaining the favor of daddy at the expense of the elder son, Satan. At least according to the literature we know concerning Satan. Maybe this was also Mark's view?

[Stefan Kristensen]

.....But the scribes misunderstand, because they don't recognize that it is in fact God who acts through Jesus, just like they are used to God acting through the temple cult in the remission of sin. But interestingly everybody else at the scene understands that it is God's power which Jesus has wielded:
"And the paralytic stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”" (2:12)

How could the scribes mis-understand that God was acting through Jesus when the healing of the paralytic and all the supposed healing never ever happened?
No paralytic has ever been cured because a person spoke to them.

Ironically, they never saw anything like that.

The Bible story that Jesus was found guilty of death for blasphemy cannot be altered just like the story that Jesus transfigured cannot be changed.

The Bible stories of Jesus are not history.

Hi Hakeem. You misunderstand our discussion here: We are not treating gMark as an historical account, but as a narrative with literary characters. The literary characters of the scribes misunderstand in the story, within the narrative. But is it historical? That's another question. (Of course it is not.)

[Stefan Kristensen]

But it was my understanding that Jesus could hardly get the message across to his disciples, and that to the crowds he spoke only in parables so they intentionally wouldn't understand. Nowhere is it mentioned that among the witnesses were any of Jesus 12 chosen inner circle. Unless perhaps it was Judas Iscariot who spilled all of the beans. I believe this is the essence of how Bart Ehrman sees it.

I don't think we are meant to understand that Judas or any other disciple were among the witnesses. Either the high priest just equates 'messiah' with 'son of God', which wouldn't be totally out of place, I think. Or else there is another explanation for the high priest's question.

There has actually been one instance where Jesus has implied to the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders that he is the son of God, and that is the parable of the Evil Tenants (12:1-12). They have just questioned him, "who gave you this authority", and as an answer he points (implicitly) to his baptism "from heaven" (11:30) where we know he received the spirit from heaven and was declared the son of God by God's heavenly voice (1:9-11). And then he tells this parable where he casts himself as the son of God, but only if they understand so much of the parable, of course. But in fact, this time they do understand at least some of the allegorical characters within this parable by the end of it: "And they sought to arrest Jesus and they feared the crowd, because they knew he spoke this parable against them". I think it's a reasonable possibility that Mark wants us to understand that through this particular parable they realize that Jesus is claiming (or teaching) he is the son of God.

[John2]

Stefan wrote:

I want to cast the concept of 'authority' as the key leitmotif in this whole thing. This concept is what binds the blaspheming in 2:7 together with the blaspening in 14:64, imo. I want to describe the escalating conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as a conflict concerning authority (seen already in Jesus' very first public appearance, 1:21ff, and his first confilct, 2:1ff), and in this way the reaction of the high priest and the council is their ultimate, final expression of the this very same anger, which have been building throughout: the anger over Jesus' claim to God's authority.

I'm very influenced by Boyarin at the moment, and he argues that this "authority" is based on the "authority" that is given to the "son of man" in Dan. 7:14 ("He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him"). I recall that both LXX Dan. 7:14 and the NT in these instances use the same word (which escapes me at the moment). I'm consequently seeing Christianity as very Danielic at it's core. It seems to be everywhere I look now, and I see it as being the reason for Jesus' blasphemy charge as well, since the "son of man" is a divine figure.

I was re-reading Helms for the first time in about twenty years the other day and noticed that he sees Jesus' tomb as being based on Daniel in the lion's den, and there are some interesting correlations there as well. And as I've said elsewhere, this interest in and use of Daniel would be in keeping with the context of the times, since Josephus was also a big Daniel fan and the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem he mentions are arguably Danielic as well (the world ruler, the square temple, the soldiers in the clouds), and because of the opposition by Rabbinic Judaism to groups (including Christians) that subscribed to the Two Powers in Heaven ideology that was based on Daniel.

[iskander]

In Mk 2: 7 , It is about the power of men and women to deal directly with a merciful God . The messianic secret is precisely that : we are truly the sons and daughters of God. Every man and woman must discover this secret by themselves in order to have an effect and hence his request for silence .

When he was dying the reformer said:

Re: The personification of the Shekhinah
Post by iskander » Wed May 10, 2017 10:00 am
The Christian interpretation of the execution of Jesus as an atoning death for the transgression of Adam and Eve is the interpretation of a Jewish convert to Christianity. The thinking of a mind trained to pay the price for sins committed.


But Luke 23:34 is the summary of the entire teaching of Jesus : 34Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.

There was no sacrifice .
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1828&p=69706#p69706

That is the secret of Mark namely , God is truly the father of us all, and gave us the freedom to use our intelligence as best we can. After death all of his children join their father in eternal bliss .

Can you understand that?
The Sanhedrin was the model for the Holy Inquisition: blasphemy! the inquisitors howl while they burn, lapidate, decapitate ...

Exodus 20:16
They said to Moses, 'You speak to us, and we will listen. But let God not speak with us any more, for we will die if He does.'
Exodus 20:16, that verse is ' βλασφημίας ' .



God is in the heart of every man and woman.
John 10:30
30 The Father and I are one

[Stefan Kristensen]

Stefan wrote:

I want to cast the concept of 'authority' as the key leitmotif in this whole thing. This concept is what binds the blaspheming in 2:7 together with the blaspening in 14:64, imo. I want to describe the escalating conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders as a conflict concerning authority (seen already in Jesus' very first public appearance, 1:21ff, and his first confilct, 2:1ff), and in this way the reaction of the high priest and the council is their ultimate, final expression of the this very same anger, which have been building throughout: the anger over Jesus' claim to God's authority.

I'm very influenced by Boyarin at the moment, and he argues that this "authority" is based on the "authority" that is given to the "son of man" in Dan. 7:14 ("He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him"). I recall that both LXX Dan. 7:14 and the NT in these instances use the same word (which escapes me at the moment). I'm consequently seeing Christianity as very Danielic at it's core. It seems to be everywhere I look now, and I see it as being the reason for Jesus' blasphemy charge as well, since the "son of man" is a divine figure.

Boyarin is such a compelling author. And I think his focus on the Book of Daniel and its role in early Christianity is justified. I agree to some extent with his understanding, that the Christian notion of Jesus as this unique, heavenly, divine 'son of God'-figure has its basis in Dan 7. But I don't agree that there already was such a 'binitarian Judaism', with 'two powers' in heaven, which is then supposed to be witnessed in some older layer within Dan 7, as he claims.

And I'm suspicious of his mode of argumentation. He presents his most important basic hypothesis, the one that with one fell swoop explains the entire existence of Christianity, this he presents very subtly not as an hypothesis or as a theory of his, but as known fact. The way he does this borders on misleading, imo. He discusses his theory that the author of Daniel himself found his source offensive, i.e. the purported older layer of Dan 7, and then changed it a little into the Dan 7 we posses. So Dan 7 was at first an older, 'binitarian' Jewish source with two gods, which the editor then changed, because he found this idea of two powers offensive. And then he writes:

We know that other Jews adopted wholeheartedly, or simply inherited, the doubleness of Israel's God, the old Ancient of Days and the young human-appearing rider on the clouds. These [Jews] became the progenitors of the Judaism of Jesus and his followers. (Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 45-46

What? No, we don't "know" that at all. Which "other Jews" exactly is he talking about? This is not something "we know", this is instead Boyarin's own completely undocumented claim. This makes me highly suspicious of Boyarin's argumentation.

As I see it, there is no need to explain Dan 7. It is a vision, most likely influenced by ancient mythology, which is typical of apocalypticism, but as a vision its figures are symbolic, not some Jewish 'double-gods' or something. That these figures are symbols whom God uses to illustrate to Daniel certain future events in a cryptic manner, is not just to be expected - considering the whole concept of the story of Daniel and his coded, symbolic revelations - but it is even explicitly explained immidiately afterwards by the angelus interpretes. The beasts are symbols of evil kingdoms and the human-figure is, quite logically, a symbol of the good kingdom, i.e. the kingdom of God's people, the pious core of Israel. No double-gods here. Of course, this doesn't exclude that people later on (such as the Christians) got the idea, that this symbolic human-like figure, was actually also in a way a literal existing figure. Kind of like people interpreting the parable of the Sower, so that the sower himself suddenly is a literal figure also, instead of merely a symbol. And it might be that the beasts and the human-like figure are in fact to be understood literally, i.e. as beasts and an archangel respectively (maybe Michael), but this doesn't change the fact that they are still symbols, not separate god-figures, as Boyarin claims.

I was re-reading Helms for the first time in about twenty years the other day and noticed that he sees Jesus' tomb as being based on Daniel in the lion's den, and there are some interesting correlations there as well. And as I've said elsewhere, this interest in and use of Daniel would be in keeping with the context of the times, since Josephus was also a big Daniel fan and the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem he mentions are arguably Danielic as well (the world ruler, the square temple, the soldiers in the clouds), and because of the opposition by Rabbinic Judaism to groups (including Christians) that subscribed to the Two Powers in Heaven ideology that was based on Daniel.

I think the Book of Daniel must have gained new relevance with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. It is very significant that the author of gMark describes his own present reality, i.e. in Mark 13, as the prophecies found in the Book of Daniel. This tells us alot about his high regard for this work. I havn't read Helms' Gospel Fictions, but I have also arrived at the conclusion that Mark most likely has found inspiration in Daniel for the passion narrative and the empty tomb scene. I think there is a really strong parallel between the jealousy of Daniel's fellow "presidents and satraps" (Dan 6:4) and Jesus and his 'fellow Israelite rulers' (the chief priests and elders). The way they try and force king Darius into having Daniel killed is a strong parallel to the Jewish authorities forcing Pilate into having Jesus killed. And also, several of the main themes of the whole Book of Daniel I find extremely relevant when trying to research the NT and early Christianity. Most of all the notion of the authority of God and the 'kingdom of God'. (And it is the same word, εξουσια, that appears in Dan 7 and the NT, especially gMark.) It is surprising that Daniel is not cited more in the NT than it is. Especially in Paul. But I think it is because it is so cryptic, particularly Dan 7-12, that it was considered too mystical for open exegesis. But I think we have to read Dan 7 as important background for a passage such as 1 Cor 15:20-28.

[iskander]

In Mk 2: 7 , It is about the power of men and women to deal directly with a merciful God . The messianic secret is precisely that : we are truly the sons and daughters of God. Every man and woman must discover this secret by themselves in order to have an effect and hence his request for silence .

When he was dying the reformer said:

Re: The personification of the Shekhinah
Post by iskander » Wed May 10, 2017 10:00 am
The Christian interpretation of the execution of Jesus as an atoning death for the transgression of Adam and Eve is the interpretation of a Jewish convert to Christianity. The thinking of a mind trained to pay the price for sins committed.


But Luke 23:34 is the summary of the entire teaching of Jesus : 34Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.

There was no sacrifice .
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1828&p=69706#p69706

That is the secret of Mark namely , God is truly the father of us all, and gave us the freedom to use our intelligence as best we can. After death all of his children join their father in eternal bliss .

Can you understand that?
The Sanhedrin was the model for the Holy Inquisition: blasphemy! the inquisitors howl while they burn, lapidate, decapitate ...

Exodus 20:16
They said to Moses, 'You speak to us, and we will listen. But let God not speak with us any more, for we will die if He does.'
Exodus 20:16, that verse is ' βλασφημίας ' .



God is in the heart of every man and woman.
John 10:30
30 The Father and I are one

In the Greek Testament Jesus never blasphemes. His opponents were using words to explain their murderous opposition to his preaching.
If any insult could be construed as being directed against any god then, the religious-minded people would chose to understand it as a criminal offense against God as the way to justify intolerance to any dissent.

Blasphemy allows religious authorities to legally commit holy murder , but in the case of Jesus it has no scriptural base whatsoever.
Should anyone bother to point this out ?
The Embarrassing Case of the Blasphemer
Did God Really Want Him Dead?
Dr. Serge Frolov

blasphemy.PNG (726.6 KiB) Viewed 14598 times