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 »

John2 wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:05 pm Stefan,

Thank you for the excellent response. I don't have any issues with or anything to add to what you said. Much appreciated.
Thank you also, and the pleasure is all mine! Indeed, Dan 7-12 seems to be a main supplier for the whole conceptual framework of NT christology etc., and I also find the concepts and ideas from Daniel in many places. I think one might also mention 1 Cor 6:2-3, 15:35ff (resurrection as shiny stars) and Rev 12. I think it’s clear that an important background for the Christian idea of this ‘son of God’ messiah king figure as a divine ruler in the heavenly sphere was the developing angelology, which is also witnessed clearly in Daniel, where the archangels are leaders and even ‘princes’ or ‘rulers’ (e.g. Dan 10,13), and they function like heavenly leaders for the earthly people, with Michael as the leader of Israel.

See also this article by John J. Collins (JBL, 1974), where he argues that the 'son of man’ figure in Dan 7 is a symbol for the angelic host of God and its leader, Michael, but also the faithful Israel insofar they were associated with the heavenly host, which seems to be the case. Collins lists several examples, he finds of heavenly savior figures of which the ‘son of man’ figure in Dan 7 according to him is a variant:

1. 1QM 17:6-8:
  • "He will send eternal support to the company of His redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael. By eternal light, He shall joyfully light up the covenant of Israel; peace and blessing for the lot of God, to exalt the authority of Michael among the gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh."
2. The Melchisedek figure in the Melchisedek Qumran fragment

3. Rev 12, where Daniel also battles the evil heavenly force (in this case Satan), but it is not Michael that receives the kingdom but instead Christ. In the Shepard of Hermes Christ is identified with Michael.

"The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263865

In Philo and Christianity and elsewhere we certainly find the idea that God is sharing his divine-ship with another entity in some way, but Boyarin’s specific claims that “the doubleness of Israel’s God" was a "very ancient religious view” is nonsense, if you ask me. At least when we look carefully at certain key ‘arguments’ of his.


But what I was wondering about, though, was all the (non-existent) citations from Daniel in the NT to match the massive import of ideas from this work. Where on earth are all the citations in the NT that we could expect from this most important book of Scripture?



John2 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:32 am Regarding 1 Peter (and other Christians writings) and the "right hand of God" imagery, while I don't doubt that is based on Ps. 110:1 ("The Lord says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' "), 1 Peter ties it to "angels, authorities and powers," and Jesus himself appears to have a quibble about Ps. 110:1 in Mk. 12:35-37:
"Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
As Acts 2:29-36 puts it:
Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' " Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.
It's the "angels, authorities and powers" and "heaven" and "resurrection" parts that makes me think the "sit at my right hand" imagery could (also) be tied in with the "son of man" in Dan. 7:9-13 and that the way Jesus got to heaven is by being resurrected. The resurrection, of course, is mentioned in Dan. 12:1-3 and is associated with the coming of the archangel Michael, and Jewish Christians believed that the "Christ" aspect of Jesus was an archangel.

Dan. 7:9-13:
As I looked, thrones were set in place ... In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
Regarding the "coming on the clouds" and the way Jesus got to heaven, have you noticed the ascension scene in the beginning of Acts:

When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, in this way he will come, in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.
(Acts 1:9-11)

For an unforgettable visual representation of this see here!
I also have a related hypothesis that partly involves all these things that I'll try and write a post about tomorrow.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

You're awesome, Stefan! Can't wait to hear more.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Stefan,

I recently looked into the Jesus = Michael idea and wrote about it on another thread, so I'll quote some things I said and cited there which seem similar to what you are saying ("In the Shepard of Hermes Christ is identified with Michael"):
It looks like I'm in the minority on the Jesus = Michael idea, but Hannah has a book that surveys the appearances of Michael in ancient writings and the evolution of the idea that Jesus is Michael from Lueken (1898) to Hannah's time (1999).

https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXV ... US&f=false

And I find myself in agreement with this argument in an online discussion of the issue here:

"Biblical basis that Michael is another name for Jesus are numerous. The belief that one of Jesus' many names is Michael by itself does not mean the rejection of Jesus' divinity or the Trinity.

1.Michael is referred to as "the great prince" (Dan 12:1), Gabriel told Daniel "except Michael your prince" (Dan 10:21). Angels are rarely referred to as princes, certainly not as our prince. However, Isaiah 9:6 states of Jesus, "His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"

2.Archangel means the chief of angels. The word Archangel is mentioned twice in the Bible (Jude 9, 1 Thess 4:16), one time applied directly to Michael, both times appearing in singular form. Gabriel actually is never specified as an Archangel in the Bible, only according to tradition. Further, Michael is never actually described in the Bible as an angel, only as Archangel and prince. No evidence in the Bible to show that Gabriel is his equal.

3.Jesus is called the Angel of the Lord in many instances of the Bible. Angel can also mean messenger. Neither names imply that Jesus is a literal angel or creation.

4.Joshua meets an unnamed Man who calls Himself the "Commander of the army of the Lord" in Joshua 5:14. Jesus is this commander and the army of the Lord are His angels.

14 So He said, "No, as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, "What does my Lord say to His servant?" 15 The Commander of the Lord's army said to Joshua, "Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy."

5.The original controversy in heaven was between Jesus and Satan. Satan wanted to be like the Most High. In such a pivotal battle, "Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought" (Rev 12:7). If this was not Jesus Himself, where was He? Is He not the commander of the Lord's army? Was He not at Joshua's battles?

6.Some Christians question why Michael would say in Jude 9 "The Lord rebuke you!" if he is God. But in Zechariah 3:2, God says the same words "The Lord rebuke you, Satan!"

7.Finally who will deliver us in the end? Is it not Jesus Himself?

(Dan 12:1) At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered.

Compare this with:

(Rev 19:11-14) Now I saw the heaven open, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on Him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war... And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean followed Him on white horses."

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... is-michael
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
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 »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:26 pm Stefan,

I recently looked into the Jesus = Michael idea and wrote about it on another thread, so I'll quote some things I said and cited there which seem similar to what you are saying ("In the Shepard of Hermes Christ is identified with Michael"):
It looks like I'm in the minority on the Jesus = Michael idea, but Hannah has a book that surveys the appearances of Michael in ancient writings and the evolution of the idea that Jesus is Michael from Lueken (1898) to Hannah's time (1999).

https://books.google.com/books?id=qKtXV ... US&f=false

And I find myself in agreement with this argument in an online discussion of the issue here:

"Biblical basis that Michael is another name for Jesus are numerous. The belief that one of Jesus' many names is Michael by itself does not mean the rejection of Jesus' divinity or the Trinity.

1.Michael is referred to as "the great prince" (Dan 12:1), Gabriel told Daniel "except Michael your prince" (Dan 10:21). Angels are rarely referred to as princes, certainly not as our prince. However, Isaiah 9:6 states of Jesus, "His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"

2.Archangel means the chief of angels. The word Archangel is mentioned twice in the Bible (Jude 9, 1 Thess 4:16), one time applied directly to Michael, both times appearing in singular form. Gabriel actually is never specified as an Archangel in the Bible, only according to tradition. Further, Michael is never actually described in the Bible as an angel, only as Archangel and prince. No evidence in the Bible to show that Gabriel is his equal.

3.Jesus is called the Angel of the Lord in many instances of the Bible. Angel can also mean messenger. Neither names imply that Jesus is a literal angel or creation.

4.Joshua meets an unnamed Man who calls Himself the "Commander of the army of the Lord" in Joshua 5:14. Jesus is this commander and the army of the Lord are His angels.

14 So He said, "No, as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, "What does my Lord say to His servant?" 15 The Commander of the Lord's army said to Joshua, "Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy."

5.The original controversy in heaven was between Jesus and Satan. Satan wanted to be like the Most High. In such a pivotal battle, "Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought" (Rev 12:7). If this was not Jesus Himself, where was He? Is He not the commander of the Lord's army? Was He not at Joshua's battles?

6.Some Christians question why Michael would say in Jude 9 "The Lord rebuke you!" if he is God. But in Zechariah 3:2, God says the same words "The Lord rebuke you, Satan!"

7.Finally who will deliver us in the end? Is it not Jesus Himself?

(Dan 12:1) At that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered.

Compare this with:

(Rev 19:11-14) Now I saw the heaven open, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on Him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war... And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean followed Him on white horses."

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... is-michael
Quite early on there were imagined to be seven angels of the presence:

Tobit 12.15: 15 ἐγώ εἰμι Ραφαηλ εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἁγίων ἀγγέλων οἳ προσαναφέρουσιν τὰς προσευχὰς τῶν ἁγίων καὶ εἰσπορεύονται ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ ἁγίου. / 15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.

1 Enoch 20.1-8: 1 These are the names of the angels who watch. 2 Uriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over clamor and terror. 3 Raphael, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirits of men. 4 Raguel, one of the holy angels, who inflicts punishment on the world and the luminaries. 5 Michael, one of the holy angels, who, presiding over human virtue, commands the nations. 6 Sarakiel, one of the holy angels, who presides over the spirits of the children of men that transgress. 7 Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over Ikisat, over paradise, and over the cherubim. 8 Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise. [Codex Panopolitanus adds, in Greek, "The names of the seven archangels."]

Testament of Levi 3.5-6: 5 In the heaven next to it are the angels of the presence of the Lord [several Greek manuscripts have "the archangels"], who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the ignorances of the righteous; 6 and they offer to the Lord a reasonable sweet-smelling savor, and a bloodless offering.

4 Baruch 9.5: 5 And may Michael, archangel of righteousness, who opens the gates to the righteous, be my guardian (?) until he causes the righteous to enter.

Jude [1.]9: 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Revelation of Ezra/Esdras 1.3: 3 And when it was night, there came an angel, Michael the archangel, and says to me: O Prophet Esdras, refrain from bread for seventy weeks.

I am not sure when exactly they came to be called the seven archangels, as a group, but once Michael was given that title it would seem natural to extend it to the other six, I should think.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:59 pm You're awesome, Stefan! Can't wait to hear more.
Haha, cheers! I'm truly glad if I can inspire :cheers:
Merry Christmas to you. And to you all :)
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:46 am
iskander wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:07 am
iskander wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:35 am 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
Jesus did not blaspheme. Quoting Daniel was the act of a pious Jew who trusted the prophet Daniel.
The Sanhedrin was the Holy Inquisition of the Judaic religion and it displayed a mastery of the plausible that has been imitated by many other evil religious tribunals .

Following the example of the execution of one recalcitrant reformer, the man Jesus, the servants of God joined the Sanhedrin in their holy wrath: Blasphemy ! the Sanhedrin howl while dragging the innocent man towards the secular exacutioner that will commit sacred murder to defend God.

Blasphemy!! The clerics shout in defence of the ugly little gods everywhere, and programmed men cleanse the earth of all that which is offensive to the ugly little gods everywhere.
Hashem is a very ugly mean god and his servants were evil inventors of the plausible.
blas.PNG
blas.PNG (733.81 KiB) Viewed 10937 times
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark
The temple saying & traditions before Mark

1) Isn't it interesting that there are two charges in the trial before the Sanhedrin and that both charges differ slightly from what we know from GMark and Mishna 6 tractate Sanhedrin 7.

a) The false witnesses claimed that Jesus said something, but according to Mark 13:1-2 it was different.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 19, 2016 1:28 pm My question is more about what Mark thinks of the accusation that Jesus said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. This exact prediction is placed only here in the gospel, and it is placed on the mouths of false witnesses. The saying in Mark 13.1-2 lacks anything about rebuilding the temple, and does not predict that Jesus himself will destroy it (or the Herodian buildings, or anything); furthermore, it is presented as a private conversation between Jesus and his disciples.

14:57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”


b) The high priest claimed that Jesus spoke a blasphemy, but according to Mishna 6 tractate Sanhedrin 7 Jesus' saying was not sufficient to be a blasphemy.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon May 16, 2016 5:12 pm In Mark 14.61b-64 the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of blasphemy:
...
So what was this blasphemy? Of what exactly did it consist? By far the best answer I have read to this question comes from Robert Gundry in Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Gundry draws attention to the Mishnah section of the Talmud in Sanhedrin 7.6:
...
To compare:

Mark 14.61b-64
Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.6
61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 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.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.MISHNA VI: A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God. Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha: Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously -- i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: "I heard exactly the same as he told." And so also says the third witness.

Mark 14.62 is a quotation of Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1), in which it is the right hand of Yahweh, and of course Yahweh is the divine name. But our text of Mark does not have Yahweh or even the usual circumlocution, Lord: it has Power, which in this position functions as a pseudonym for the divine name. Upon hearing this quotation, the high priests tears his clothes and pronounces Jesus deserving of death for blasphemy.

In the passage from the Mishnah, the trial of a blasphemer proceeds with a pseudonym (such as Jose) being used by the witnesses instead of the divine name which the defendant is accused of uttering disrespectfully, right up until the climactic moment when the star witness actually utters the exact words allegedly overheard, including the real divine name, and the judges rend their garments and pronounce the accused guilty.

It appears that we are supposed to understand that Jesus uttered the divine name at the hearing, at which point the high priest did just as he was supposed to do and tore his garments, exclaiming that no further witnesses were needed (since the defendant had saved them the trouble and implicated himself right on the stand). This scenario also fits in rather well with Jesus, despite a moment of understandable weakness in the Garden of Gethsemane, being totally in control of his own destiny (predicting it, for example, and rebuking any who would suggest otherwise): he himself intentionally speaks the divine name and gets himself condemned at his hearing. But in the story of his trial, as we find it in Mark, the divine name is covered, as per the custom, by a circumlocution. (Nowhere in the New Testament does the actual word Yahweh appear.)

As I said, I think this is by far the best interpretation of this passage that I have ever read; I find it hard to ignore the juxtaposition of a unique circumlocution for Yahweh ("Power") with the completely appropriate reaction of the high priest in tearing his clothing and dismissing the witnesses. The Mishnaic connection explains everything at a stroke.

If this interpretation is correct, it may entail certain consequences. I am not 100% certain of the following points yet, and you are free to dissuade me (which is why I am posting this in the first place), but let me outline what I think this interpretation might imply about there being traditions before Mark.

It is by no means clear to me that the average reader should be expected to realize what is happening in the pericope. The earliest (and often gentile) readers of Mark do not necessarily seem to have caught on:
...
Which brings me to an interesting question: does Mark himself understand what the blasphemy was? ...
Two times close, but no cigar.


2) Another thing that occurs in this pericope twice is the word „hear“ in direct speech.

The false witnesses claimed that they „heard“ it from Jesus and the high priest claimed that the members of the Sanhedrin „heard“ the blasphemy from Jesus.

If I have not overlooked something the word „hear“ in direct speech is used beyond this pericope in GMark only by Jesus or by the voice from heaven, but in this pericope two times by other persons.
14:55 Now the chief priests and the whole council6 were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”7 61 But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.


Couldn't it be possible that one of Mark's favorite topic plays an important role in this pericope: People, with eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear?
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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:24 pmTwo times close, but no cigar.
As you may know, in my reading of the passage, the Mishnah parallels have nothing to do with the temple accusation. In my reading, Jesus realizes that the witnesses against him, false ones at that, are not going to be able to convict him, so he does the one thing that will seal his fate immediately: he utters the divine name.

But the temple accusation itself is interesting in its own right. What do you think is going on in Mark specifically with reference to it? Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:58 pm But the temple accusation itself is interesting in its own right. What do you think is going on in Mark specifically with reference to it? Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
Mmh. It seems to me that the "natural" understanding of Mark 13:1 would be that the admiring statement of the disciple was spoken aloud, so that other people could hear the conversation. (“Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”) The verses Mark 13:1-2 are not part of the Olivet discourse and the "private conversation" started with Mark 13:3 on the Mount of Olives.
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 »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:38 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:58 pm But the temple accusation itself is interesting in its own right. What do you think is going on in Mark specifically with reference to it? Why does the only possible saying to which it could be related, whether falsely or truly, come in a private conversation with Jesus' disciples? If we are supposed to understand the witnesses as simply making something up from scratch, why make it something close to what we find elsewhere in the gospel, but, as you say, no cigar? On the other hand, if they are meant to be passing on a saying that they misunderstood, why is there no mechanism in the gospel of Mark (as there is in the gospel of John) whereby they could have heard the saying?
Mmh. It seems to me that the "natural" understanding of Mark 13:1 would be that the admiring statement of the disciple was spoken aloud, so that other people could hear the conversation. (“Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”) The verses Mark 13:1-2 are not part of the Olivet discourse and the "private conversation" started with Mark 13:3 on the Mount of Olives.
Agreed. But Jesus' statement, the nearest one to the (falsely) incriminating statement at his trial, comes only in verses 3-4, during the private session.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply