Compare the passage with Ascension of Isaiah 9:14:
The Catholic corrector replaced «against his son» by «against the son of god», to distinguish the god of which Jesus is son from the «god of that world».
Hence, the Ascension of Isaiah (AoI) implies the presence of an analogous Gnostic text from which our versions of AoI are derived, and in this Gnostic text the demiurge was the killer of the his son.
But also Paul was doing the same thing: he adored as supreme god just the god who had required and ordained Jesus to die on the cross.
For Paul, the archons didn't know who they were killing. But for Paul, the supreme god knew who the archons were killing.
|for the Gnostics||for Paul||for Mark|
|the demiurge (Yaldabaoth) knew that the his son Sabaoth was the Serpent Jesus||the supreme god knew that Jesus was the his son||the sinedrites knew that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah|
|the archons didn't know who was the Jesus killed by them||the archons didn't know who was the Jesus killed by them||Pilate didn't know who was the Jesus crucified by him|
|the demiurge knew who he was killing: the his son.||the supreme god knew who he was killing: the his son.||the sinedrites knew who they were killing: the Jewish Messiah|
Hence in Mark 14:62-64, the sinedrites are scandalized by the words of Jesus :
...not because they denied that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but for the second proposition of Jesus:
By talking about himself as the Son of Man in a context of a future immediate Revenge, Jesus is already assuming that he is the Risen Son of Man. The «blasphemy» in question is not the words:
but the words:
The blasphemy was that Jesus is the son of the god who had to kill him.
The sinedrites's reaction allegorizes the historical reaction of the Jews against the assimilation of the Serpent Jesus (adored by the Gnostics as the «Son of the Father», the supreme god, and of which the myth of celestial crucifixion was already known) with the son of the Jewish god. An assimilation done by the Pillars, by Paul and by the pauline «Mark».