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.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:57 pmThis 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.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.)
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?
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.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.