Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:57 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pm The charge of blasphemy could've been chosen by Mark in order to convey irony and then the pure legal logic of it all would matter less for Mark's story: The blasphemy is on the part of the council themselves who deny Christ, and even goes on to torture and kill this 'son of the Blessed One'. So there is blasphemy here, indeed! But it is the the stewards of Israel contradicting God's proclamation, i.e. their contradiction of 'the gospel', their contradiction of the teaching of Jesus as the Christ, son of God. That is the real blasphemy and this is the unforgivable sin which is exactly what Mark is talking about in chapter 3: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The one who argues against, and denies, the "Gospel's" saving message, "the Word" concerning Jesus as God's son, "blasphemes against the holy spirit" (3:29).

The appellation of the high priest for God, "the blessed", is a well known appellation for God, but the meaning of the word itself also happens to be the exact opposite of the meaning of the word blasphemy. Coincidence? The former literally means "well-spoken-of", the latter can be reconstructed as "hurtfully-spoken-of" (carries the meaning of "slandering"). So the high priest who calls God the "blessed" (well-spoken-of) goes on to blaspheme God (speak hurtful of God) by denying his son, and while charging his son with this very crime. This scene is also about blasphemy, i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For the first time, the Word is out in the open, Jesus has broken the secrecy, the Holy Spirit is doing its work, and the council is blaspheming against it. (One could argue that Peter, problematically, is also guilty of this same unforgivable sin in the parallel scene of his denial.)
This is all good stuff, and I agree with most (if not all) of it. Mark has also stated in chapter 13 that a believer standing before the authorities will be given the words to say by the spirit, and Jesus is here standing before the authorities; we must presume, given the overall Marcan context, that Jesus is speaking by the spirit, and thus the blasphemy against the spirit in which the high priest engages is direct and pointed.
Nice observation. I think the passion narrative is constructed carefully by Mark as a parallel to the 'Olivet Discourse' in Mark 13 (or vice versa) precisely in order to line up Jesus' destiny with the church's/missionaries' destiny (again, the 'son of man', according to Mark's interpretation of Dan 7, being simultaniously the heavenly messiah, Jesus, and the earthly people of God, the Christians). The preaching activity by the holy spirit of the missionaries in Mark 13 is also their "witness" (Greek 'martyrion') in front of the authorities, their trials. Therefore the false witnesses at the trial serve to frame Jesus' confession as a "witnessing" of the Gospel message, i.e. martyrdom. So the martyrdom of Jesus is preaching activity, and the rejection of Jesus by "the scribes that had come down from Jerusalem" in Mark 3:22, called by Jesus "blasphemy against the holy spirit" (3:29), corresponds to the rejection of Jesus by the Jerusalem authorities at the actual trial scene, where the 'witness' of Jesus is called "blasphemy". They tell him to "prophesy" after this trial, which is exactly what we would expect one to do, if he speaks by the holy spirit. Hitting a man that is possessed by the holy spirit is a very concrete symbol of blasphemy against the holy spirit.

And perhaps we see here also a reference to another passage: Jesus' rejection as "a prophet" by his "own homeland, his kin and his house", i.e. Israel, 6:4. After this rejection of Jesus by Israel, what happens next? He sends out the apostles. So what happens after the rejection of Jesus by Israel in 14:62? The mission begins. So 6:1-13 is a foreshadowing of this whole thing. The rejection of Jesus as "a prophet" is necessarily the rejection of the holy spirit of God (which is what defines a prophet).

Also consider the first martyr of the church, Steven, narrated by Luke who frames this event exactly as Israel's rejection of the holy spirit (explicitly Acts 7:51). And the vision of Steven at his martyrdom: "I see the heavens opened and the son of man standing at the right hand of God" (7:56). The 'son of man'? Is Steven speaking about himself?
But... this analysis does not deal with the glaringly strong parallels between Mark and the Mishnah. Both passages involve (A) an accusation of blasphemy (B) in a trial setting in which a verdict of guilty leads to execution and (C) in which, upon hearing the proof of blasphemy from witnesses (or from the accused himself in Mark, rendering witnesses explicitly unnecessary), (D) the judge tears his clothing. But the Mishnah insists that such a verdict cannot stand unless the holy name was uttered (that is, the only kind of blasphemy which merits a death sentence is one involving the name), and it gives a euphemism ("Jose") in the standing text for that name. But lo and behold, the corresponding euphemism in Mark is "power," which in its scriptural context would stand in for Yahweh (the holy name) in Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1). This has to mean something. I do not think that your analysis (which lines up with mine) and dealing with the Mishnah parallels are mutually exclusive enterprises.
I don't know, it is always a little perilous to use mishnaic and talmudic material to try and interpret NT writings, and in this case I would tend to downplay the degree of the parallellarity. But it could be that Mark here knows of this kind of legal procedure and so sets up the narrative like this (on the surface level, that is). We have established an interpretation of the deeper level of meaning for this scene. This mishah teaching could explain the surface level of meaning in this scene.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:02 am and

bick11.PNG


Continued from bick11
the scandal of the cross is a mere fiction and that Jesus was killed by stoning. Others are astonished that the man from Nazareth was condemned contrary to the Mishnaic rule ( Sanh. 7.5) that a blasphemer is guilty if he pronounced the name of God-- something Jesus did not do.
I am afraid that all these difficulties are fictitious, and that they owe their origin to a misunderstanding by the translators.
Fictitous possibly, but this is likely no misunderstanding by any translator here, if you ask me. These could possibly be very carefully crafted words in Greek: "What need do we have now for witnesses! Listen to the blasphemy! What does it seem (φαινω) to you?" (14:64). There is a play here with a very heavy Christian conception, martyrdom and preaching, the work of the holy spirit, that God has now initiated here in the end times, the message about his son, the Messiah, that Jesus is 'witnessing' here (= martyrdom). "Listen to the blasphemy! What does it seem to you?" Here Mark asks ironically, is this a blasphemy or God's witness. The word φαινω, "to seem", properly means "to shine". What has just happened is Jesus that has made himself "φανερως", "revealed", or properly "shining", the exact thing he prevented the spiritual beings from doing througout the story: "They shouted 'you are the son of God!', but he rebuked them, so they wouldn''t make him revealed (φανερως)" (3:11-12). The Word must not be preached, only starting in 14:62, for the gospel message by the holy spirit is like "a lamp" that has come, its purpose is to shine although it is hidden: "there is nothing hidden that is not to be revealed (φανεροω), and there is nothing hidden except for it to come to light (φανερος)" (4:21-23). This "light" now shines for the first time at the trial. And how does this message of the holy spirit of God "shine" for the Jewish authorities, "What does it seem (φαινω) to you?" (14:64). Blasphemy! No need for "witnesses", i.e. martyrs. "Be careful what you hear!" (4:24).

One wonders if there is some connection with the "light" (φως) by which Peter warms himself outside in the court as the gospel "shines" and "lights" inside at the trial.

Also, when the apostles have been sent out in Mark 6, the consequence is that Jesus' "name had become revealed φανερον", probably a foreshadowing of the gospel-lamp shining by the missionaries' preaching after Jesus rejection (death, 6:4 / 14:65). Mark has people wonder if the resurrected John's powers work in Jesus, when in fact the reality of Mark is that it is the resurrected Jesus' powers which are at work in the apostles.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:14 am
iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:02 am and

bick11.PNG


Continued from bick11
the scandal of the cross is a mere fiction and that Jesus was killed by stoning. Others are astonished that the man from Nazareth was condemned contrary to the Mishnaic rule ( Sanh. 7.5) that a blasphemer is guilty if he pronounced the name of God-- something Jesus did not do.
I am afraid that all these difficulties are fictitious, and that they owe their origin to a misunderstanding by the translators.
Fictitous possibly, but this is likely no misunderstanding by any translator here, if you ask me. These could possibly be very carefully crafted words in Greek: "What need do we have now for witnesses! Listen to the blasphemy! What does it seem (φαινω) to you?" (14:64). There is a play here with a very heavy Christian conception, martyrdom and preaching, the work of the holy spirit, that God has now initiated here in the end times, the message about his son, the Messiah, that Jesus is 'witnessing' here (= martyrdom). "Listen to the blasphemy! What does it seem to you?" Here Mark asks ironically, is this a blasphemy or God's witness. The word φαινω, "to seem", properly means "to shine". What has just happened is Jesus that has made himself "φανερως", "revealed", or properly "shining", the exact thing he prevented the spiritual beings from doing througout the story: "They shouted 'you are the son of God!', but he rebuked them, so they wouldn''t make him revealed (φανερως)" (3:11-12). The Word must not be preached, only starting in 14:62, for the gospel message by the holy spirit is like "a lamp" that has come, its purpose is to shine although it is hidden: "there is nothing hidden that is not to be revealed (φανεροω), and there is nothing hidden except for it to come to light (φανερος)" (4:21-23). This "light" now shines for the first time at the trial. And how does this message of the holy spirit of God "shine" for the Jewish authorities, "What does it seem (φαινω) to you?" (14:64). Blasphemy! No need for "witnesses", i.e. martyrs. "Be careful what you hear!" (4:24).

One wonders if there is some connection with the "light" (φως) by which Peter warms himself outside in the court as the gospel "shines" and "lights" inside at the trial.

Also, when the apostles have been sent out in Mark 6, the consequence is that Jesus' "name had become revealed φανερον", probably a foreshadowing of the gospel-lamp shining by the missionaries' preaching after Jesus rejection (death, 6:4 / 14:65). Mark has people wonder if the resurrected John's powers work in Jesus, when in fact the reality of Mark is that it is the resurrected Jesus' powers which are at work in the apostles.
Thank you Stefan.
This thread has already examined which words of Jesus could have constituted ' blasphemy ' and found no such words.


Bickerman says that , "Bickerman says that βλασφημίας did not mean blasphemy to the listeners then, but only outrage : 63 And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage! What do you think?”11 And they all condemned him as deserving death". And he explains why he translates βλασφημίας as outrage.

What say you?
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 »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:37 amI don't know, it is always a little perilous to use mishnaic and talmudic material to try and interpret NT writings, and in this case I would tend to downplay the degree of the parallellarity. But it could be that Mark here knows of this kind of legal procedure and so sets up the narrative like this (on the surface level, that is). We have established an interpretation of the deeper level of meaning for this scene. This mishah teaching could explain the surface level of meaning in this scene.
It seems arbitrary to me to embrace some clear parallels and downplay others.

There seems to be for some people a sense of security in never using material purportedly later than the document at hand to interpret that document, but that approach is guaranteed to overlook connections, simply because we know that we are working with only a fraction of all the materials which were actually committed to writing or transmitted in other ways during that time period. In the field of etymology, for example, it is not common, upon tracing the earliest usage of a word, to claim that the author of the document in which that earliest usage is found actually coined the word (this does happen, but it is the exception); we know that in most cases this will not be so, that in most cases we no longer have access to the document or real-life circumstance in which the word first arose; it is also going to be the case in ancient societies (far more so than today) that a lot of words circulate orally before being written down.

And the same goes for customs, legal procedures, rumors and stories, and so on. It is of no use to pretend that we have all the materials we need in order to reconstruct the course of events in the chronological order of the documents we possess. That is seldom possible in ancient history (though it may be more possible in modern history).

Thus we are often left with internal indications rather than external ones. In this case, the idea that Jewish trial protocols were based on a narrative from a Christian text is ludicrous. Therefore the arrow must point in the opposite direction: Mark (or a tradent) was basing the story on Jewish trial protocols. But, given the strength of all the other connections, this obvious step has direct consequences for the meaning of the euphemism "power" in the Marcan story. I accept both these consequences and the results of the Marcan literary analysis which brings in parallels from chapters 3 and 13 and so on. Why? Because both sets of parallels are compelling.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:29 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:14 am
iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:02 am and

bick11.PNG


Continued from bick11
the scandal of the cross is a mere fiction and that Jesus was killed by stoning. Others are astonished that the man from Nazareth was condemned contrary to the Mishnaic rule ( Sanh. 7.5) that a blasphemer is guilty if he pronounced the name of God-- something Jesus did not do.
I am afraid that all these difficulties are fictitious, and that they owe their origin to a misunderstanding by the translators.
Fictitous possibly, but this is likely no misunderstanding by any translator here, if you ask me. These could possibly be very carefully crafted words in Greek: "What need do we have now for witnesses! Listen to the blasphemy! What does it seem (φαινω) to you?" (14:64). There is a play here with a very heavy Christian conception, martyrdom and preaching, the work of the holy spirit, that God has now initiated here in the end times, the message about his son, the Messiah, that Jesus is 'witnessing' here (= martyrdom). "Listen to the blasphemy! What does it seem to you?" Here Mark asks ironically, is this a blasphemy or God's witness. The word φαινω, "to seem", properly means "to shine". What has just happened is Jesus that has made himself "φανερως", "revealed", or properly "shining", the exact thing he prevented the spiritual beings from doing througout the story: "They shouted 'you are the son of God!', but he rebuked them, so they wouldn''t make him revealed (φανερως)" (3:11-12). The Word must not be preached, only starting in 14:62, for the gospel message by the holy spirit is like "a lamp" that has come, its purpose is to shine although it is hidden: "there is nothing hidden that is not to be revealed (φανεροω), and there is nothing hidden except for it to come to light (φανερος)" (4:21-23). This "light" now shines for the first time at the trial. And how does this message of the holy spirit of God "shine" for the Jewish authorities, "What does it seem (φαινω) to you?" (14:64). Blasphemy! No need for "witnesses", i.e. martyrs. "Be careful what you hear!" (4:24).

One wonders if there is some connection with the "light" (φως) by which Peter warms himself outside in the court as the gospel "shines" and "lights" inside at the trial.

Also, when the apostles have been sent out in Mark 6, the consequence is that Jesus' "name had become revealed φανερον", probably a foreshadowing of the gospel-lamp shining by the missionaries' preaching after Jesus rejection (death, 6:4 / 14:65). Mark has people wonder if the resurrected John's powers work in Jesus, when in fact the reality of Mark is that it is the resurrected Jesus' powers which are at work in the apostles.
Thank you Stefan.
This thread has already examined which words of Jesus could have constituted ' blasphemy ' and found no such words.


Bickerman says that , "Bickerman says that βλασφημίας did not mean blasphemy to the listeners then, but only outrage : 63 And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage! What do you think?”11 And they all condemned him as deserving death". And he explains why he translates βλασφημίας as outrage.

What say you?
βλασφημία ,two examples of usage:
When the Judeans were dissatisfied with Cumanus they insulted t him ;Josephus (Ant 20.108)
If the author wishes to express the idea of insulting the divinity, he must specify this either explicitly or at least by mean of the context (Ant 4.202)


The same is true in the Greek Testament ( aka N.T.)
Paul 1 cor 10:30
The letter to Titus (Tit 3:2)
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

1) The arrest of Jesus by the municipal militia.

Mk 14:48 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit?.

It seems that Mark is thinking in terms of a local militia recruited for the task.
Under the Roman empire, even in Egypt where there was no municipal organization in the strict sense of the term, public security was largely the responsibility of the municipalities. The inhabitants of the town were conscripted for this task. The militia recruited in this way looked like a 'band '. Mark also mentions that these troops included a ' slave of the high priest' .


2) Jesus is handed over to the high priest.

Mk 14:53 They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled.

if the 'warrant' for his arrest had been issued by Pilate, the municipal police would have had to bring the criminal to him, but it was the Sanhedrin which had ordered the arrest of Jesus, and hence this body was the first to examine the defendant. The Sanhedrin was the local authority with responsibility for public security.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:27 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:37 amI don't know, it is always a little perilous to use mishnaic and talmudic material to try and interpret NT writings, and in this case I would tend to downplay the degree of the parallellarity. But it could be that Mark here knows of this kind of legal procedure and so sets up the narrative like this (on the surface level, that is). We have established an interpretation of the deeper level of meaning for this scene. This mishah teaching could explain the surface level of meaning in this scene.
It seems arbitrary to me to embrace some clear parallels and downplay others.

There seems to be for some people a sense of security in never using material purportedly later than the document at hand to interpret that document, but that approach is guaranteed to overlook connections, simply because we know that we are working with only a fraction of all the materials which were actually committed to writing or transmitted in other ways during that time period. In the field of etymology, for example, it is not common, upon tracing the earliest usage of a word, to claim that the author of the document in which that earliest usage is found actually coined the word (this does happen, but it is the exception); we know that in most cases this will not be so, that in most cases we no longer have access to the document or real-life circumstance in which the word first arose; it is also going to be the case in ancient societies (far more so than today) that a lot of words circulate orally before being written down.

And the same goes for customs, legal procedures, rumors and stories, and so on. It is of no use to pretend that we have all the materials we need in order to reconstruct the course of events in the chronological order of the documents we possess. That is seldom possible in ancient history (though it may be more possible in modern history).

Thus we are often left with internal indications rather than external ones. In this case, the idea that Jewish trial protocols were based on a narrative from a Christian text is ludicrous. Therefore the arrow must point in the opposite direction: Mark (or a tradent) was basing the story on Jewish trial protocols. But, given the strength of all the other connections, this obvious step has direct consequences for the meaning of the euphemism "power" in the Marcan story. I accept both these consequences and the results of the Marcan literary analysis which brings in parallels from chapters 3 and 13 and so on. Why? Because both sets of parallels are compelling.
I'm all for using all kinds of sources to try and make sense of the text, both earlier and later sources, including the Mishnah (and other rabbinic writings), which might very well witness to very early traditions, even before the time of gMark. Of course, if we think that the parallels in this case are so strong that there must be dependance one way or another, then I'd agree with you, the dependance would almost definately have to be by gMark on the halakha that appears in the Mishnah. But are the parallels really that strong? Maybe they are. I havn't read this thread through, I must admit, but there are so many interrelated and difficult questions concerning this trial scene.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:29 am Bickerman says that , "Bickerman says that βλασφημίας did not mean blasphemy to the listeners then, but only outrage : 63 And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage! What do you think?”11 And they all condemned him as deserving death". And he explains why he translates βλασφημίας as outrage.

What say you?
I think Bickerman points to an important tension in the story, which is not so easy to explain, that the Jewish authorities are pissed off and frustrated by Jesus for some(!?) reason, but this reason (whatever it is) apparantly does not correspond to any formal legal charge. Because until the high priest asks that fatal question, they have tried and tried and tried to find some charge against him leading to execution, any charge at all.

But I disagree with Bickerman about the word βλασφημια here in this passage, that it cannot mean blasphemy (offense to God). First of all, Mark uses the word in this exact sense in Mark 2:7, and secondly, as far as I know the word in itself implies that there is a slander or deriding against someone particular, which the word 'outrage' does not cover. Βλασφημια means that someone particular is getting insulted, if I'm not mistaken, and when there is no explicit object for this 'insult', it simply means 'blasphemy', i.e. insulting God.

For me, the charge at this pseudo-trial is the charge of blasphemy (insulting God), since the word βλασφημια is absolute, and since the context doesn't clearly rule it out. But the question is then, blasphemy for what? The only answer I can see as logical is a claim to some form of divinity. Just like in 2:7. I think Mark wants the story here to be, that the high priest takes Jesus' answer about being the "son of God" to be a claim on divinity, not just your everyday messianic pretendership. And then he (the high priest) seizes this answer of Jesus as the long awaited opportunity to charge him with a capital offense, in this case blasphemy.

I'm think that Mark probably wants the reaction of the high priest to Jesus' answer to be the same as the reaction of the Jews in general to the "gospel" of the Christian church. Hearing a message about God having given his authority to this crucified man, Jesus, and seated him in heaven as his divine son, who now must rightfully be worshipped, would probably be pretty close to blasphemous. Jesus' answer here in this trial scene must be understood as the "gospel" preached by Mark's contemporary fellow Christians, and the high priest in this night time scene must be understood as a type for the everyday Jews of Mark's time who rejected the Christian teaching. Or, the type for "Israel", or the arch-hardhearted-Israelite. This is what determines Mark representation of the high priest in this scene, imo.

Bickerman speaks of the earliest exegetes, but speaking of early interpreters, it seems like to me that Luke understands the scene as the council trying to find some way to accuse him specifically of blasphemy (against God). Not just anything, but blasphemy. Because this is what happens at the scene which is a parallel to Jesus' martydom, the Stephen passage in Acts 6-7: "Then they secretly made some men say, 'We have heard Stephen speak slandering words (ρηματα βλασφημα) against Moses and God'" (Acts 6:11). Also, when Paul describes his persecution of the Christians, Luke has Paul say: "And by torturing them in many ways in all the synagogues I was trying to force them to blaspheme" (Acts 26:11). Does this 'blasphemy' refer to the Christian confession which would be blasphemous in the mind of the pre-converted Paul? In Luke's own version of the trial of Jesus, however, the word βλασφημια is not used in connection with Jesus' "confession".

If we look at the way this word is used in gMark this includes also the 'modern' understanding of offense to God (2:7). The words "blasphemy" and "blaspheme" is used in some different ways i gMark:

1. slander/derision of God, or 'blasphemy':
- 2:7; perhaps also 3:28? (permissable blasphemy?)

2. slander/derision of the "holy spirit" (mayby the same as the above category, blasphemy proper):
- 3:39 (non-permissable offense to God)

3. slander/derision in generel:
- 7:22; 15:29; maybe 3:28 belong here?

Maybe Mark redefines the concept of blasphemy (in the sense of 'offense to God') in Mark 3:29?

There is of course also the important aspect of the divine name. But if this has something to do with it, I think it is more likely the "I am" part of Jesus' answer, than the "right hand of power" part.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:03 am
iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:29 am Bickerman says that , "Bickerman says that βλασφημίας did not mean blasphemy to the listeners then, but only outrage : 63 And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage! What do you think?”11 And they all condemned him as deserving death". And he explains why he translates βλασφημίας as outrage.

What say you?
I think Bickerman points to an important tension in the story, which is not so easy to explain, that the Jewish authorities are pissed off and frustrated by Jesus for some(!?) reason, but this reason (whatever it is) apparantly does not correspond to any formal legal charge. Because until the high priest asks that fatal question, they have tried and tried and tried to find some charge against him leading to execution, any charge at all.

But I disagree with Bickerman about the word βλασφημια here in this passage, that it cannot mean blasphemy (offense to God). First of all, Mark uses the word in this exact sense in Mark 2:7, and secondly, as far as I know the word in itself implies that there is a slander or deriding against someone particular, which the word 'outrage' does not cover. Βλασφημια means that someone particular is getting insulted, if I'm not mistaken, and when there is no explicit object for this 'insult', it simply means 'blasphemy', i.e. insulting God.

For me, the charge at this pseudo-trial is the charge of blasphemy (insulting God), since the word βλασφημια is absolute, and since the context doesn't clearly rule it out. But the question is then, blasphemy for what? The only answer I can see as logical is a claim to some form of divinity. Just like in 2:7. I think Mark wants the story here to be, that the high priest takes Jesus' answer about being the "son of God" to be a claim on divinity, not just your everyday messianic pretendership. And then he (the high priest) seizes this answer of Jesus as the long awaited opportunity to charge him with a capital offense, in this case blasphemy.

I'm think that Mark probably wants the reaction of the high priest to Jesus' answer to be the same as the reaction of the Jews in general to the "gospel" of the Christian church. Hearing a message about God having given his authority to this crucified man, Jesus, and seated him in heaven as his divine son, who now must rightfully be worshipped, would probably be pretty close to blasphemous. Jesus' answer here in this trial scene must be understood as the "gospel" preached by Mark's contemporary fellow Christians, and the high priest in this night time scene must be understood as a type for the everyday Jews of Mark's time who rejected the Christian teaching. Or, the type for "Israel", or the arch-hardhearted-Israelite. This is what determines Mark representation of the high priest in this scene, imo.

Bickerman speaks of the earliest exegetes, but speaking of early interpreters, it seems like to me that Luke understands the scene as the council trying to find some way to accuse him specifically of blasphemy (against God). Not just anything, but blasphemy. Because this is what happens at the scene which is a parallel to Jesus' martydom, the Stephen passage in Acts 6-7: "Then they secretly made some men say, 'We have heard Stephen speak slandering words (ρηματα βλασφημα) against Moses and God'" (Acts 6:11). Also, when Paul describes his persecution of the Christians, Luke has Paul say: "And by torturing them in many ways in all the synagogues I was trying to force them to blaspheme" (Acts 26:11). Does this 'blasphemy' refer to the Christian confession which would be blasphemous in the mind of the pre-converted Paul? In Luke's own version of the trial of Jesus, however, the word βλασφημια is not used in connection with Jesus' "confession".

If we look at the way this word is used in gMark this includes also the 'modern' understanding of offense to God (2:7). The words "blasphemy" and "blaspheme" is used in some different ways i gMark:

1. slander/derision of God, or 'blasphemy':
- 2:7; perhaps also 3:28? (permissable blasphemy?)

2. slander/derision of the "holy spirit" (mayby the same as the above category, blasphemy proper):
- 3:39 (non-permissable offense to God)

3. slander/derision in generel:
- 7:22; 15:29; maybe 3:28 belong here?

Maybe Mark redefines the concept of blasphemy (in the sense of 'offense to God') in Mark 3:29?

There is of course also the important aspect of the divine name. But if this has something to do with it, I think it is more likely the "I am" part of Jesus' answer, than the "right hand of power" part.
Thank you Stefan, I am only examining a neglected explanation for the death of a Jewish reformer. There is no blasphemy in what Jesus said to the high priest. And there is no blasphemy in Mk 2:7.


3) The chief priests plot the removal of Jesus.

Mk 14: 1-2, It was two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; 2for they said, ‘Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.’

The confrontation between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities has resulted in a decisive break . The Sanhedrin was mostly made up of Sadducees who perceived it was their duty that they should act with haste to get the matter over and done with, since the arrest of Jesus could have stirred a revolt among the crowds of visitors who had come for the feast.

On your marks, get set, go! : A swift snatch brings a dangerous suspect to a waiting investigative tribunal , with the accusers of the suspect already waiting to give evidence.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:21 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:03 am
iskander wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:29 am Bickerman says that , "Bickerman says that βλασφημίας did not mean blasphemy to the listeners then, but only outrage : 63 And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage! What do you think?”11 And they all condemned him as deserving death". And he explains why he translates βλασφημίας as outrage.

What say you?
I think Bickerman points to an important tension in the story, which is not so easy to explain, that the Jewish authorities are pissed off and frustrated by Jesus for some(!?) reason, but this reason (whatever it is) apparantly does not correspond to any formal legal charge. Because until the high priest asks that fatal question, they have tried and tried and tried to find some charge against him leading to execution, any charge at all.

But I disagree with Bickerman about the word βλασφημια here in this passage, that it cannot mean blasphemy (offense to God). First of all, Mark uses the word in this exact sense in Mark 2:7, and secondly, as far as I know the word in itself implies that there is a slander or deriding against someone particular, which the word 'outrage' does not cover. Βλασφημια means that someone particular is getting insulted, if I'm not mistaken, and when there is no explicit object for this 'insult', it simply means 'blasphemy', i.e. insulting God.

For me, the charge at this pseudo-trial is the charge of blasphemy (insulting God), since the word βλασφημια is absolute, and since the context doesn't clearly rule it out. But the question is then, blasphemy for what? The only answer I can see as logical is a claim to some form of divinity. Just like in 2:7. I think Mark wants the story here to be, that the high priest takes Jesus' answer about being the "son of God" to be a claim on divinity, not just your everyday messianic pretendership. And then he (the high priest) seizes this answer of Jesus as the long awaited opportunity to charge him with a capital offense, in this case blasphemy.

I'm think that Mark probably wants the reaction of the high priest to Jesus' answer to be the same as the reaction of the Jews in general to the "gospel" of the Christian church. Hearing a message about God having given his authority to this crucified man, Jesus, and seated him in heaven as his divine son, who now must rightfully be worshipped, would probably be pretty close to blasphemous. Jesus' answer here in this trial scene must be understood as the "gospel" preached by Mark's contemporary fellow Christians, and the high priest in this night time scene must be understood as a type for the everyday Jews of Mark's time who rejected the Christian teaching. Or, the type for "Israel", or the arch-hardhearted-Israelite. This is what determines Mark representation of the high priest in this scene, imo.

Bickerman speaks of the earliest exegetes, but speaking of early interpreters, it seems like to me that Luke understands the scene as the council trying to find some way to accuse him specifically of blasphemy (against God). Not just anything, but blasphemy. Because this is what happens at the scene which is a parallel to Jesus' martydom, the Stephen passage in Acts 6-7: "Then they secretly made some men say, 'We have heard Stephen speak slandering words (ρηματα βλασφημα) against Moses and God'" (Acts 6:11). Also, when Paul describes his persecution of the Christians, Luke has Paul say: "And by torturing them in many ways in all the synagogues I was trying to force them to blaspheme" (Acts 26:11). Does this 'blasphemy' refer to the Christian confession which would be blasphemous in the mind of the pre-converted Paul? In Luke's own version of the trial of Jesus, however, the word βλασφημια is not used in connection with Jesus' "confession".

If we look at the way this word is used in gMark this includes also the 'modern' understanding of offense to God (2:7). The words "blasphemy" and "blaspheme" is used in some different ways i gMark:

1. slander/derision of God, or 'blasphemy':
- 2:7; perhaps also 3:28? (permissable blasphemy?)

2. slander/derision of the "holy spirit" (mayby the same as the above category, blasphemy proper):
- 3:39 (non-permissable offense to God)

3. slander/derision in generel:
- 7:22; 15:29; maybe 3:28 belong here?

Maybe Mark redefines the concept of blasphemy (in the sense of 'offense to God') in Mark 3:29?

There is of course also the important aspect of the divine name. But if this has something to do with it, I think it is more likely the "I am" part of Jesus' answer, than the "right hand of power" part.
Thank you Stefan, I am only examining a neglected explanation for the death of a Jewish reformer. There is no blasphemy in what Jesus said to the high priest. And there is no blasphemy in Mk 2:7.


3) The chief priests plot the removal of Jesus.

Mk 14: 1-2, It was two days before the Passover and the festival of Unleavened Bread. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; 2for they said, ‘Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.’

The confrontation between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities has resulted in a decisive break . The Sanhedrin was mostly made up of Sadducees who perceived it was their duty that they should act with haste to get the matter over and done with, since the arrest of Jesus could have stirred a revolt among the crowds of visitors who had come for the feast.

On your marks, get set, go! : A swift snatch brings a dangerous suspect to a waiting investigative tribunal , with the accusers of the suspect already waiting to give evidence.
Stephen in Acts is completely different , he is stoned because he affirms that Jesus, the one who was condemned for leading the people astray, is standing at the right hand of god ( Acts 7:55).

In Mk 2:7, it is the behaviour of Jesus that which is outrageous , insulting , offensive to good people ; as in walking about stark naked or copulating in public

Mk 3:28 all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, but whoever makes offensive remarks against the holy spirit never has forgiveness.
Jesus is saying here is that every calumny will be forgiven human beings, with the exception of calumny against the divine inspiration.
Post Reply