jesus death notes Flashcards
Evans on mark 14:61-64
- Mark 14:61-64
o JC affirms that he is ‘the Christ the Son of the Blessed’ whom Caiphas and company ‘will see’ as ‘Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven’ (Mark 14:61-2)
o Mark 14:64 – ‘blasphemy!’ - Claiming to be Messiah = not blasphemous
o Josephus does not accuse messianic pretenders etc. as blasphemous - Claiming to be Son of God = not necessarily blasphemous due to biblical precedent
o Psalm 2:7
o 82:6
o 2 Sam 7:14
joel marcus on mark 14:61
o JC’s claim of divine sonship ‘would have fallen on Jewish ears as a claim to commensurability with God’
o Perhaps correct – John 10 accusation of blasphemy comes from claims to sonship and unity with God
o John may be a reflection of ‘late first-century Christian polemic with the synagogue. If it does, then it may have been the post-Easter Christian understanding of the messiahship and sonship of Jesus that provoked from Jewish circles charges of blasphemy’ (408)
o Mark may rather reflect ‘later Jewish-Christian controversy and that therefore the cry of blasphemy attributed to Caiaphas is not authentic’ (408)
evans - blasphemy in bible and early judaism
o Ex 22:27 – Israelites commanded not to curse God
o Broken in Lev 24:10-16 – blasphemer is stoned
o Josephus translates it as ‘let him who blasphemed God be stoned’ (Ant 4.8.6 S202)
o Broad usage in NT
♣ JC is accused of blasphemy for proclaiming forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-7, Matt 9:2-3, Luke 5:20-21)
♣ JC warns of blasphemy against HS (Mark 3:28-30, Matt 12:31-2, Luke 12:10)
evans - blasphemy in JC answer
o Response of JC seems to cohere with Mishanic law
♣ Tearing of robes (Mark 14:63, precedent in 2 Kings 18:37)
♣ Rhetorical Q, ‘what further need do we have of witnesses’ (Mark 14:63)
♣ Claim of blasphemy (Mark 14:64)
♣ Condemning of JC as deserving death (Mark 14:64)
o However… JC does not proclaim divine name
♣ However… JC statement ‘I am’ is reminiscent of Yahweh ‘he is’
• Sanders rejects this, Jesus and His Story, 1960
♣ Gundry, Mark: A commentary, 1993
• Argues that JC did in fact utter the Tetragrammaton
o ‘I am (the Messiah, the son of the Blessed)
• views Mark 14:58 as indicating JC’s view of his divine prerogative in rebuilding temple
evans conclusion on blasphemy
- Evans argues that messianic claim was not blasphemous. Rather, JC’s blasphemy lay in his ‘combination of the phrases from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7’ (414)
o Self-designation of son of man
♣ Mark 14:62, son of man = judge. Used in similitudes
♣ Son of man could be generic aka. Just ‘I’
• Marshall, “The Synoptic ‘Son of Man’ sayings” in Schmidt, ‘to tell the mystery’, 1994
o ‘Jesus could and did use the phrase to refer to himself as the Danielic Son of man but in such a way that the phrase could also function as a form of self-reference that would not necessarily carry this full connotation every time he used it and to all his hearers’ (94)
♣ but, son of man = reminiscent of Dan 7
• 1 Enoch 62, son of man = on ‘throne of glory’
♣ depends on which interpretation of son of man you take
evans - seated in Mark 14:63
♣ Similarity to Dan 7 and Psalm 110
• Similar contexts
• Speak of subjugation of Israel’s enemies (Dan 7:14, Ps 110:1)
• Rule over people (Dan 7:14 and Ps 110:3)
♣ Combination of 2 passages in Jewish exegesis
• Mark 14:62 combines two passages
♣ Allusion to Danielic concept of divine throne
• Mark 14:62 is ‘understood as implying that Jesus anticipated sharing God’s chariot throne. Such a claim would surely have been scandalous, for the idea of a mortal sitting on God’s throne was unthinkable’ (421)
• Dan 7:9 – allusion to throne
mark 14:63 and embarrassment
o Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1978
♣ Unlikely that Church would have created saying about twelve thrones, since they knew one of the disciples betrayed JC
o Passage also parallels others where JC views himself as God’s son e.g. Parable of Wicked Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12:1-2)
♣ JC views himself as son
♣ JC viewed religious authorities as corrupt
♣ Quotation of Psalm 118:22-3 suggests that JC understood himself as having a role in reconstruction of religious authority
♣ This coheres with Mark’s trial scene
mark 14:63 and lack of authenticity
o Sanders
♣ Blasphemy charge = diversion from threat of cleansing of temple
♣ Mark is toning down the importance of that event
♣ H, evans argues that this is wrong as Mark has ‘emphasised the antagonism between Jesus and the Temple establishment, not toned it down’ (431)
o Editorial activity? H, this is overestimating Mark’s editorial ability
mark 10:45 - barrett
- Mark 10:45, ‘the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’
o How is son of man being used?
o Did JC foresee his death? - Background = Isaiah 53
o JC depicts himself as suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah - Recalls Dan 7 and Isaiah 52:13
- Son of man is usually a figure of glory, not suffering
o Dan 7:13
o Enoch 46:3
o 4 Ezra 13:13 - The son of man came to serve
o Image of Son of Man that came to be served is wrong - The son of man came to give his life
o Suffering = important part of son of man
rowland on JC death
- ‘It was the plot against Jesus when he travelled to Jerusalem…which led to his arrest and death’ (162)
o entry into Jerusalem = political (Luke 9:51, 13:33, John 7:3)
o ‘Jesus went up to Jerusalem as a prophetic act…to make his challenge in the metropolitan religious centre, an event which seems to have coincided with Passover. His arrival in Jerusalem was marked by a messianic demonstration on the part of his supporters and a prophetic act in the temple’ (162)
rowland and priestly faction
- ‘it would appear from the Gospel accounts that the initiative to kill Jesus was taken by the priestly group responsible for exercising authority in Jerusalem’ (162)
- plot to kill JC = priestly faction (mark 15:11)
o activity in temple
o entry into Jerusalem at Passover – high hopes for messianic figure
o uprisings at time – Mark 15:7
rowland - gospel of mark
o After arrest (Mark 14:43), JC is taken to High Priest, Caiaphas
o Meeting of Sanhedrin (14:55)
o Inconsistent testimony, quote JC from temple (13:2)
o JC affirms HP’s Q of whether he is the Messiah 14:62
o Accused of blasphemy, death penalty (14:64)
o Sanhedrin decide to take JC to pilate – probs on charge that JC was a self-proclaimed king (15:2)
o Pilate sends JC to be crucified (15:15)
rowland - gospel of Luke
o JC is lead to Sanhedrin (22:66)
o Evasive response to Q of Messiah (22:67-8)
o Followed by SofM statement
o Loosely confirms Son of Blessed One accusation (26:64)
o JC is taken to pilate and accused of:
♣ ‘Perverting the nation; forbidding the payment of tribute to Caesar; and saying that he is Christ a king (L 23:2); only the last of these has been ascertained at the recently completed hearing’ (163)
o Pilate finds no fault (23:4, 23:15)
o Chief priests and rulers say JC should be crucified (23:18)
rowland - gospel of John
- Gospel of John: most clear about plots to kill JC
o Plots – 5:18, 8:59, 10:31, 11:8
o Sanhedrin discuss before events of Passover happen (11:49)
♣ Discuss whether JC = threat to community
o JC = arrested by soldiers from chief priests (18:3)
o Taken to house of Annas, father in law of Caiaphas (18:13)
o Annas is concerned with teaching, not messianic aspect (18:19)
o JC = open about teaching
o Long convo between JC and Pilate – JC is in position of moral superiority
o Not lawful for Jews to put someone to death (18:31)
o ‘the fourth Gospel implies, as Mark does, that the Jews had brought a charge against Jesus of making himself a king and therefore a threat to Rome, but there is an implication in John that if the Jews did have the right to carry out a capital punishment, they would have used it’ (164)
rowland - comparison of accounts
o only mark mentions blasphemy (14:64)
o only mark portrays JC as answering clearly to HP’s questioning (14:62)
o in john, there is no mention of Sanhedrin hearing (perhaps in Luke it is an unofficial meeting)
o ‘only John tells us that the main reason for taking Jesus to the Romans was the lack of right to carry out the death sentence’ (18.31) p.164
rowland - problems with trial
o ‘some of the aspects of the story concerning the Romans have not found parallels in contemporary provincial legal procedure’ (165)
o John 18:31’s statement that Jews could not issue the death penalty has been challenged by NT and Jewish sources e.g. Acts 7:57 and John 8:59
o Release of Barabbas seems contrary to the Roman provincial legal procedure
o Portrayal of Pilate as easily swayed is unlike image of him elsewhere – Philo describes him as ruthless (embassy 299ff.)
♣ However… probably not that significant a contrast. Philo does not portray Pilate’s position as strong (War 2.169-75)
rowland - comments re. criticisms of gospel
o Cannot be sure if capital trial laid out in Mishnah was in practice at the time – Mishnah only written at end of 2nd cent CE
o The trial of JC may have been less formal than it is portrayed to be. This seems to be the case in Luke and John – it is Mark who makes it into a more official trial
o Can question the legitimacy of Mark’s explicit response with HP. Ambiguous response in Matt and Luke is more likely
o If JC is to be deemed charged for blasphemy, evidence is in SofM statements. However, if JC accused of messianic pretending, unlikely to be charged for blasphemy
rowland - what the trial most likely concerned
- can say that trial most likely concerned nature of teaching and his authority
o as seen in ref to Temple (Mark 14:58) and teaching (John 18:19)
o also seen in Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69 - ‘it is likely that Jesus said or did something which enabled the priestly faction to take him to the prefect on grounds which would persuade the prefect that Jesus was a political threat’ (170)
o JC refuses to deny messianic accusation
o Entry into JC
o Action in Temple
o Could have been deemed a threat to society
rowland - conc. re JC as political
- ‘Jesus’ teaching and prophetic vocation were intensely political, insofar as they not only pointed forward to the overthrow of the present order, but also the present attempt to bring this into effect. Even if Jesus renounced violence, his goal of a new age was deeply disturbing to those who preferred the compromises of the present age to the uncertainties of the new’ (170)
adna - historicity of cleansing of temple
o markan priority – Mark 11:15-7, matt 21:12-3, luke 19:45-6
o John 2:14-6 seems independent
o ‘A detailed analysis and comparison of these two passaged lead to the conclusion that (John and mark) both stem from the same origin, but that during the transmission process the pre-Johannine tradition added some dramatizing elements (particularly the introduction of oxen and sheep), while the version taken up by Mark is close to their common starting point’ (462)