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 »

iskander wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:04 amStephen 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).
But Jesus is also "deserving of death" because he claimed the exact same thing? How's that different?
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
I don't know Bickerman's full argument concerning the Greek terms for "blasphemy/blaspheming" used in gMark, but as the text stands I really think it is very difficult to see it in another way than Jesus insults God when he says that he himself personally ("the son of man") has God's authority - "he blasphemes" (And as such I think it is the same motif at the trial, where "son of man" perhaps also is understood by the high priest as simply "me".)

2:7 "Why does he speak like that! He blasphemes! Who is able to forgive sins except God?"
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.
But how is unforgivable "calumny against divine inspiration" different from blasphemy (=literally "calumny") against God?
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:08 pm
iskander wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:04 amStephen 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).
But Jesus is also "deserving of death" because he claimed the exact same thing? How's that different?
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
I don't know Bickerman's full argument concerning the Greek terms for "blasphemy/blaspheming" used in gMark, but as the text stands I really think it is very difficult to see it in another way than Jesus insults God when he says that he himself personally ("the son of man") has God's authority - "he blasphemes" (And as such I think it is the same motif at the trial, where "son of man" perhaps also is understood by the high priest as simply "me".)

2:7 "Why does he speak like that! He blasphemes! Who is able to forgive sins except God?"
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.
But how is unforgivable "calumny against divine inspiration" different from blasphemy (=literally "calumny") against God?
Jesus was claiming to be the King Messiah , He merited death because he was a false messiah.
1. In future time, the King Moshiach [1] will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will rebuild the [Beis Ha]Mikdash and gather in the dispersed remnant of Israel. Then, in his days, all the statutes will be reinstituted as in former times. We will offer sacrifices and observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars set forth in the Torah
http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

Jesus was a false messiah, because he was the adversary of the law and the enemy of all the Jewish parties-- he dares to pose as messiah and to announce that he will come with the clouds of heaven!. Jesus was a false prophet.

But by claiming to be the King Messiah he becomes also a political problem and that is why he was transferred to the Roman power.
2. Our Sages taught: [Berachos 34b] "There will be no difference between the current age and the Era of Moshiach except [our emancipation from] subjugation to the [gentile] kingdoms."
The Sanhedrin found that ' he merited death' and he was transferred to the Roman authority
"Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Moshiach and was executed by the court was also spoken of in Daniel's prophecies [Daniel 11:14], "The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble."
Stephen was one follower of a traitor who had been executed, He maintained that Jesus was the true prophet and he was killed there and then as a heretic.


Mk 2:7 is not insulting God, but it is the outrageous claim of a man. The man says I have the authority to change religion and that is outrageous to believers .


Mk 3:28 , Divine inspiration is not the same as God.
The scribes declare that Jesus drives out the demons by the power of Beelzebub and Jesus replies as in 3:28. When it is translated as 'blasphemy ' the exegetes must torture their brains to grasp the difference between the two supposed classes of blasphemers. To speak against any man could be forgiven, but to speak against the vicar of God when he is speaking ex cathedra could not.


My Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary and the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Dictionary both of them list speak against, slander, insult. Bickermam translates as ' blasphemy' only when God is the explicit objet of the insult.
Blasphemy , this Greek word does not express the idea of an offense committed against the divinity, this Greek word meant only an ordinary insult, which may be addressed to anyone at all. Blasphemy signifies an attack on the divine majesty only if it is accompanied by a specific indication.

Blasphemy in Mk 14:63 must be translated in keeping with its general meaning of "outrage ".
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: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:40 pm Mk 2:7 is not insulting God, but it is the outrageous claim of a man. The man says I have the authority to change religion and that is outrageous to believers .
If Bickerman argues that the noun βλασφημια can mean "outrage", then what about the verb used here in 2:7? According to the dictionaries which you refer to, the saying of the scribes must be translated:
"He insults!"
"He slanders!"
"He speaks against!"

Would Bickerman say it can mean "speak an outrage" or something?
... Blasphemy signifies an attack on the divine majesty only if it is accompanied by a specific indication.
I don't agree: Blasphemy signifies an attack on the divine majesty also if the direct object is lacking (and it makes sense in the context). Or perhaps rather, an attack on the 'name' or 'reputation' of God and therefore an attack on his honor. The word βλασφημια contains the morpheme "phem-", "reputation" (related to the English word 'fame'). The other morpheme, βλασ-, most likely comes from the same as βλαπτω, "to hurt", if I'm not mistaken. So someones' good name is being hurt with "βλασφημια". There has to be a specific victim.
Blasphemy in Mk 14:63 must be translated in keeping with its general meaning of "outrage ".
But that is not the general meaning of that noun.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:24 am
iskander wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:40 pm Mk 2:7 is not insulting God, but it is the outrageous claim of a man. The man says I have the authority to change religion and that is outrageous to believers .
If Bickerman argues that the noun βλασφημια can mean "outrage", then what about the verb used here in 2:7? According to the dictionaries which you refer to, the saying of the scribes must be translated:
"He insults!"
"He slanders!"
"He speaks against!"

Would Bickerman say it can mean "speak an outrage" or something?
... Blasphemy signifies an attack on the divine majesty only if it is accompanied by a specific indication.
I don't agree: Blasphemy signifies an attack on the divine majesty also if the direct object is lacking (and it makes sense in the context). Or perhaps rather, an attack on the 'name' or 'reputation' of God and therefore an attack on his honor. The word βλασφημια contains the morpheme "phem-", "reputation" (related to the English word 'fame'). The other morpheme, βλασ-, most likely comes from the same as βλαπτω, "to hurt", if I'm not mistaken. So someones' good name is being hurt with "βλασφημια". There has to be a specific victim.
Blasphemy in Mk 14:63 must be translated in keeping with its general meaning of "outrage ".
But that is not the general meaning of that noun.
We are translating a Greek text written some 2000 years ago, What blasphemy means now is not to be considered.

Mk 2: 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven"
There is no blasphemy here
6 ) Now some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,
They were quietly evaluating what they heard and they kept quiet

7) Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who is able to forgive sins except God alone?”
Finally they conclude that their dogma tells that ' only god can forgive' and that his behaviour is a fraud and offensive to good morals , They are shocked , disgusted , outraged, and worried for the people who are being cheated by this charlatan. And in the text the scribes do nothing; they remain calm.


Jesus said , " child , your sins are forgiven " this phrase does not exclude God as the one who does the forgiving. And therefore it could never be taken as offensive to God. All what this phrase does is to exclude those people who would keep God in the Holy of Hollies or will put God in a confessional booth for them to sell the mercy of God , The scribes are dogma-bound

Is Jesus evil here, as in "blasphemy"? If evil is wanting to be like god, then the most evil people of them all must be the ones who claim to represent god on this earth and to have a god-like power ---what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,

All professional religious people in charge of religious organizations make similar claims. They assert to have the god-like power to decide who deserves to be punished in life and in death and the power to reward the obedient one with happiness in life and in death.



outrage, a feeling of anger and shock, insult, an act that violates accepted standards of behaviour or taste , the anger and resentment aroused by injury or insult , like someone speaking against a person....
Bickerman uses ' outrage ' because the only ones offended by the words and actions of Jesus are the scribes . It is an excellent translation.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by lsayre »

How did the Sanhedrin know to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah? And how did the Romans (Pilate) know to ask Jesus if he was the King of the Jews?
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: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:41 am Jesus said , " child , your sins are forgiven " this phrase does not exclude God as the one who does the forgiving. And therefore it could never be taken as offensive to God. All what this phrase does is to exclude those people who would keep God in the Holy of Hollies or will put God in a confessional booth for them to sell the mercy of God , The scribes are dogma-bound
I guess I agree on this and think this is sort of what Mark wants to say. Except that for Mark there is a new temple (and Holy of Holies) and a new confessional booth, and it is in the 'house' of Jesus, i.e. the spiritual Christian community. But the special connection between God and Jesus (and by extension the Christian community) is the interesting concept of 'authority', εξουσια, 'permission'. So Jesus (or "the son of man") has 'authority' or 'permission' on earth from God to forgive sins (2:10), but what does that mean? Is it still God who forgives them, and Jesus simply has the authority to make it happen? Authority (εξουσια) is a very special concept here.

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)
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 »

Going a little more detailed into the 'blasphemy' of 2:7, I think it's interesting that there seems to be a temple/blasphemy-theme, and I see this theme also in this case in 2:1-13. I think what the scribes are meant to be thinking in this scene is that forgiveness of sins must happen through the temple up in Jerusalem, at the house of God, in the name of God (which resides in the temple), i.e. in God's authority. Any faithful prayer of healing and salvation is to be directed at the house of God (1 Kings 8:27ff; Mark 11:14), not at this guy Jesus.

But Mark seems to me to indicate through certain hints in the narrative that the temple is superfluous now with the "holy" Jesus around (1:24). First he cleanses the man in the synagogue from his unclean spirit, seemingly by the "new teaching with authority" (1:27), his very word. Next he cleanses a leper, again with his very word, and he tells the leper to go to the temple to make the sacrifices according to the Sinai covanant, but instead the cleansed leper "proclaims (i.e. preaches) alot and spreads the word (i.e. the Word)" (1:45). So there is a movement away from the temple there, and God's house up in Jerusalem seems superfluous now. Then comes the scene in the house of Jesus, in this case in Capernaum, with the Healing of the Paralytic, and again Jesus, in his own house, performs one of the functions of the temple in Jerusalem.

At the trial, where Jesus ends up being charged with blasphemy, Mark chooses to let us know a single one of the many false accusations against Jesus: The one with the new temple "after three days". The witnesses don't agree, however, and so the blasphemy charge connected with Jesus' answer to the high-priest in 14:62 ends up felling Jesus. I wonder, though, in Mark's mind, if the witnesses had agreed about the temple saying, would that have led to a charge of blasphemy as well? If the scribes reacts with thinkink "he blasphemes", when Jesus acts as a personal Temple-mobile, wouldn't also the accusation about the destroying and rebuilding the temple consitute blasphemy? (Had the witnesses agreed, of course).

Again, it is interesting to look at the Stephen case. Because here it also consitutes a form of blasphemy, "slanderous words against Moses and God", that Stephen "never stops speaking words against this holy place and the Law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.” These things, which "this Jesus of Nazareth" has apparantly said, according to Stephens false accusers, seems to me to be exactly what Jesus does (also in gMark) in the eyes of his Jewish opponents. They think it constitues blasphemy to speak against the temple and Moses and God and wanting to destroy the temple and change the customs of the Law of Moses. The law of Moses was the product of the holy spirit, everyone agreed, which means that this could be considered slander of the holy spirit and God, or "blasphemy against the holy spirit". Stephen accuses the Jews themselves of "opposing the holy spirit" (7:51).

I would conclude that the anger of Jesus' Jewish opponents has to do with the temple being the center point of the covenant of God with Israel. The whole stewardship of Israel, which God has given to this special people among all the peoples of the earth, is centered on the temple. The Law, the "customs", etc. It is all centered in Jerusalem and the temple. It is the Evil Tenants who stand to lose the "vineyard". And this is the anger, which provokes Jesus' Jewish opponents, imo. This "vineyard" image is good, because it symbolizes at once both Israel, the temple, but also the very covental service, the special service to God, which the people of Israel has been generously granted by the creator. They are his favorite, special servant among the humans, and this is symbolized by the "vineyard". With Jesus, this is taken away from them. The new vineyard is Jesus.

This is why, I think, the one false accusation we get to hear from the narrator in the trial scene, is the one about Jesus being the new temple. Because that is the real reason for the Jews to be angry. And these two things are purposely being connected at the trial scene: Jesus as the new temple, and Jesus as the son of man sitting at the right hand of power. The Jews are indeed "jealous" of Jesus' rulership (15:10), Jesus being handed the vineyard, which they thought they should have. I hypothezise that it is intended to be just like Satan's jealousy of Adam's rulership, which Adam was granted over all creation (including Satan and all the angels; Wisd 2:24; Ps 8; Gen 1:26-28).
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 »

lsayre wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:11 pm How did the Sanhedrin know to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah?
Good question indeed. If we look carefully at the details of the scene, the question you mention is only by the high priest, and it comes at a point in the trial where they have tried and tried and tried to find some accusation that can lead to a charge. Then it seems like the high priest loses his patience, or becomes desperate or something: "And the high priest stood up among them ...."

Considering the first thing the high priest says, "have you no answer?", it seems that Jesus is given the opportunity all the way through to answer all the accusations being levelled against him, but he has apparantly remained quiet all the way through, and at the same time none of the witnesses agree.

And so "the high priest stood up among them ...."

Now, what makes the high priest ask this question?

First of all, at the Triumphal Entry (11:1-10) I think we must understand that Jesus is now openly being regarded as "the Messiah" by his followers, perhaps even some local Jerusalem crowd. Therefore the high priest would know this, that he was being regarded as the Messiah. But does this also mean "the son of God" (or "son of the Blessed")? Perhaps. Because there is nowhere in the story, where the high priest would logically have gotten the idea that Jesus was 'also' the son of God. So I think the high priest and the other Jews are operating with this kind of messiah-concept, that the Messiah spoken of in Scriptures, the King of Israel, God's annointed, was in some way the 'son of God'. So I think it makes sense, that when the high priest thinks of the Messiah, he naturally also thinks of the 'son of God'. But, crucially, not in the same way the Christians would understand it (some sort of Dan 7 heavenly type figure kind of way). So I think Mark wants us to understand that the high priest has a different (and wrong) understanding of the Messiah as the son of God.

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?

1. This is just one more, perhaps one last, desperate, attempt at some accusation which more or less impulsively comes to the mind of the high priest, i.e. that Jesus claims to be "the Messiah, the son of the Blessed". And to their big surprise Jesus actually answers this time, and affirmatively.

or

2. This is in fact the main accusation that they have on Jesus, but they figure that he won't confess to this and would deny it, and also there are no witnesses that have seen or heard this claim on Jesus' behalf (because Jesus has kept his identity secret). So they don't bring up this accusation as the first thing. Only when all the 'easier' options have been exhausted, the high priest just goes on and asks him directly of this main accusation, not expecting him to answer this one main accusation, of course.

or

3. ??



And how did the Romans (Pilate) know to ask Jesus if he was the King of the Jews?
Well, they consult before they hand him over to Pilate (15:1), so that probably means they give the formal charge of royal-pretender. And also they further "accuse him of many things" (15:3).
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: Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:37 amAgain, it is interesting to look at the Stephen case. Because here it also consitutes a form of blasphemy, "slanderous words against Moses and God", that Stephen "never stops speaking words against this holy place and the Law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.” These things, which "this Jesus of Nazareth" has apparently said, according to Stephens false accusers, seems to me to be exactly what Jesus does (also in gMark) in the eyes of his Jewish opponents. They think it constitutes blasphemy to speak against the temple and Moses and God and wanting to destroy the temple and change the customs of the Law of Moses. The law of Moses was the product of the holy spirit, everyone agreed, which means that this could be considered slander of the holy spirit and God, or "blasphemy against the holy spirit". Stephen accuses the Jews themselves of "opposing the holy spirit" (7:51).
It seems significant to me that the proceedings against Stephen do not end the way that those against Jesus end:

Acts 7.54: 54 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him. 55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse. 58 When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

This is basically a lynch mob by this point. No verdict ever gets handed down, nothing to correspond to what we find in Mark: "And they all condemned him to be deserving of death."

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.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

lsayre wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:11 pm How did the Sanhedrin know to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah? And how did the Romans (Pilate) know to ask Jesus if he was the King of the Jews?
4) The Sanhedrin examines the suspect

The Sanhedrin hear the evidence of the accusers, but it consider this evidence insufficient without confirmation.

The judiciary investigation of the Sanhedrin is a fair and correct legal procedure that resists the inclination to find guilt in anyone accused of a grave crime. The accusers testify that Jesus was behaving as a false messiah, but the tribunal cannot exclude exaggeration, misunderstanding or hostile invention in the conflicting evidence given by the accusers.

They seek confirmation from Jesus ---In a Roman trial Jesus would have been represented by legal advisor who would have advised him to remain silent and would have resulted in a not proven ( not guilty ) verdict.
RE: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=539&p=9806&hilit=verrem#p9806
Re: Crucifixion Roman Empire
Post by beowulf » Mon May 05, 2014 1:55 pm
Hi,
Why Cicero In Verrem?
Cicero is used extensively in the book
In Verrem is about a criminal trial in 70 BCE.
When a Roman magistrate formally sentenced a convicted criminal to death by crucifixion in around the first century--Did anyone know what he meant?



The Trial
Criminal Procedure in the Gaius Verres Case
Complaint In the case of Gaius Verres, representatives of the plundered cities appeared in Rome to bring an action de Repetundis against their former provincial governor. By joint resolution, they authorized their case to be prosecuted by Cicero. A case formally began with the postulatio, an application to the praetor for redress against the accused.
Cicero was the Prosecutor
The Jury
Composition of the Jury Since 81 B.C., a governor of a province (such as Gaius Verres) faced a jury consisting exclusively of men of his own rank, including senators who might themselves have been guilty of exploiting the provinces. This control of the courts by the senate is called the prerogative of the judicium
Evidence Gathering Cicero, accompanied by his cousin, traveled extensively around the island of Sicily for about fifty days gathering evidence and statements from witnesses that might be used in the prosecution of Verres. Verres examined public records in all major towns and took the testimony of hundreds of persons injured by Verres or his henchmen. In almost all cases, Cicero was enthusiastically received by the people. (The major exception was at Messana, the city where Verres stored many of his stolen treasures, and a city to which he extended favorable treatment during his governorship.) Efforts were made by the new governor of Sicily, Metellus, to hinder Cicero's efforts, but to little avail
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edure.html
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=539&p=9806&hilit=verrem#p9806
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edure.html


But there is no legal advisor in the trial of Jesus and he chose to answer questions put to him. One of the questions seeking to confirm he had claimed to be the King Messiah was : "61 Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
The Blessed One is an accepted legal innocent name for the Ineffable prohibited name, other such innocent names were Hashem, Adonai , Good and POWER among many others

62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Power is a legal innocent name for the Ineffable and could never be interpreted by the Sanhedrin as the forbidden name of the Ineffable. The Son of Man , aka the King Messiah.


Mk 14:53 They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled.
Jesus had been arrested by the municipal police on a warrant issued by the Sanhedrin because he was accused of being the adversary of the law and the enemy of all the Jewish Commonwealth -- he dares to pose as messiah and to announce that he will come with the clouds of heaven!. Jesus was a false prophet., an apostate, a charlatan, a deceiver , revolutionary , even a terrorist ...


.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.
Jesus confirmed the evidence of his accusers. The high priest was indignant , outraged, shocked.

65 Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ The guards also took him over and beat him.
The members of the tribunal remind ' blind' Jesus of what the prophets and the people expected from the Redeemer of the Israel.

Finally the Sanhedrin transfers Jesus to Pilate with a copy of the findings of the Sanhedrin and make themselves available to Pilate as accusers of the would be King Messiah of the Jews
Post Reply