I can respect that, but the internet is not, in my opinion, where Jesus would have wanted us to reach out to others. (Geez, imagine trying to even explain it to him. He probably never even wrote anyone a letter, though I think he could probably write a bit).
It is useful for exchanging ideas, information. But the exchange has to be in more than one direction to be fruitful. I wish you luck with that. And I freely confess that I have been equally guilty of persisting, with people vastly worse than Bren, who is just a bit pigheaded—I spent long hours debating the existence of a historical Jesus with a deeply stupid, rabidly atheist and openly racist Trump supporter. On the Internet Movie Database. Not kidding. Thank God those forums have been been taken down, and those epic rants lost to history forever. Not everything we write deserves to survive.
Robert said
You’ve now given up all pretense of trying to understand Mark’s text on its own merits and in its own historical context. By not following the ‘rules’ you yourself agreed to, you’ve proven yourself incapable of a disciplined discussion. Just make up whatever you want. Again, just because a text does not make sense to you, does not in any way mean that it did not make sense to its author, his original audience, and others who try and succeed in understanding his text on these terms.
Yes you can try to understand a text on its own merits but it doesnt mean its always possible. Especially if that text is an edited version.
Mark Goodacre would say one cant understand Matthew’s use of “tetrach” and “king” in chapter 14 on its own merits because the explanation for the use of different terms is editorial fatigue in the copying of Mark.
I’ve attempted to understand Marks gospel on its own merits until it was no longer possible and was forced to conclude his choices were influenced by what Matthew had written
No one said Pilate was jealous of Jesus’ kingship, but that Pilate knew the Jewish leaders turned him over out of envy.
Yes I know, neither do I, but discussing peoples opinion of peoples opinions can be difficult to make clear. If Jesus is King Pilate wouldnt accuse chief priests of being merely envious if he is not King he wouldnt think they have anything to be envious of.
If John reads Mark builds upon and intensifies Mark’s meaning, that does not mean that a more subtle form of this meaning did not exist already in Mark’s text.
Yes possibly but the point is the line about envy wouldnt make sense for either one. It only makes sense in Matthews gospel, only he could be the original writer.
That Mark and Matthew both introduce Barabbas in one way and Luke and John, in reducing mention of Barabbas to a single verse, introduce him in another way, after the crowd asks for him, does not mean that one way is correct and another way is different. They all have different ways of telling the story.
but Marks story matches Luke and Johns versions.
Matthew’s is different, Matthew is the one who needs the introduction placed where it is in Matthew/Mark. Mark should have it were Luke/John have it.
This is precisely the kind of things you look for in edited texts.
You’re not even being logical at this point. But I hope you’re having a happy Easter anyway.
A late happy Easter to you too!
godspell said
When Bren responded to something I said about the woman taken in adultery by saying the Jewish leaders tried to stone Jesus–which does not happen in any version of that story–and I called him on it–he didn’t admit he’d made a mistake. Yes, there are stories in the gospels about people taking up stones to throw at Jesus when he says something they don’t like, but not in that story.
I don’t think it’s malicious. He’s in the grip of a compulsion. What motivates that compulsion is hard to say.
And we’re enabling him. Which is doing him no good at all.
He started this thread. Let him finish it.
I never said it was part of the pericope aduterae I said it was part of the story.
chapter 8 begins with a crowd of jews wanting the stone the woman and ends with them wanting to stone jesus.
the first 11 lines were removed but its all part of the original story.
The point I was making was that part of the story had been removed (wanting to stone the woman) and part had remained (crowd wanting to stone Jesus), and thats why its essential the pericope was put back.
brenmcg said
godspell said
When Bren responded to something I said about the woman taken in adultery by saying the Jewish leaders tried to stone Jesus–which does not happen in any version of that story–and I called him on it–he didn’t admit he’d made a mistake. Yes, there are stories in the gospels about people taking up stones to throw at Jesus when he says something they don’t like, but not in that story.
I don’t think it’s malicious. He’s in the grip of a compulsion. What motivates that compulsion is hard to say.
And we’re enabling him. Which is doing him no good at all.
He started this thread. Let him finish it.
I never said it was part of the pericope aduterae I said it was part of the story.
chapter 8 begins with a crowd of jews wanting the stone the woman and ends with them wanting to stone jesus.
the first 11 lines were removed but its all part of the original story.
The point I was making was that part of the story had been removed (wanting to stone the woman) and part had remained (crowd wanting to stone Jesus), and thats why its essential the pericope was put back.
Chapter 8 didn’t originally begin with the pericopae adulterae. The oldest and best versions of John we have don’t include that story, and there are many other reasons why scholars agree it wasn’t in the original. I get that you don’t care what scholars say, unless they agree with you, but let’s look at that chapter a bit more closely.
Jesus comes to the temple courtyard to teach. People are listening with interest. The scribes and the Pharisees, jealous of the attention he’s getting, bring the woman there and ask him what they should do with her. He gives the answer we all know. They are flummoxed, and walk away, leaving him alone with the woman.
Where did all his original audience go? Why did they leave as well? They aren’t scribes and Pharisees. Jesus just kicked the eggheads’ asses in debate, solved the seemingly insoluble dilemma they had presented him with. The crowd would want to hear more. But we’re told it’s just him and the woman, no one else.
Then he talks to them again–to whom? The woman? He told her to go and sin no more, and you can’t really think she hung around there after what just happened–get while the getting’s good. So he’s standing there all by himself, and all of a sudden he’s talking to a bunch of people again. Obviously there’s been a break in the action. Perhaps a fairly long one.
How long a break? How many? How many of these stories in Chapter 8 are actually separate accounts from earlier sources John has stitched together? With the story of the woman being inserted long after the fact. And sticking out like a sore thumb, because the Scribes and Pharisees John writes about wouldn’t have been satisfied with Jesus’ answer. Chapter 8 is a series of stories, some of which match up better than others, but all of which feel like they were originally told in isolation from each other.
Yes, the chapter ends with people trying to stone him, but who, exactly? “The Jews who believed in Jesus”–not the scribes and Pharisees who we’re told brought the woman there to discredit him. John is saying the original receptive audience Jesus had attracted with his teachings were still there (which doesn’t track with Jesus being left alone with the woman), and then the Scribes and Pharisees came back, and he thwarted them some more. And then he started insulting his fellow Jews who have listened respectfully to what he had to say, and THEY begin to throw stones at them–which is not any kind of attempt at formal execution, but more like them saying “Scram, ya lousy bum!” Like getting the hook out in vaudeville. Or that clown with the broom at the Apollo Theater. He had them, and then he lost them. Threw them away, really. Nobody to blame but himself.
This makes no sense on any level. These are potential converts to Jesus’ take on Judaism, they were on his side, and he calls them Children of Satan. This is basically John saying “All the Jews who were not followers of Jesus by this point in time were beyond saving, beyond reaching.” It’s a bit of an anachronism to call it anti-semitic, but it really does come across as more than just anger at Jesus’ critics among the Jewish authorities. It is absolutely an attack on Jews AS A GROUP. And Jesus separating himself from them. They are Children of Satan, and he is Son of God.
I think that story at the end of Chapter 8 is entirely John’s invention. And that John would never, under any circumstance, agreed to having the pericopae adulterae, as we have it there, put into his gospel. It’s not a story he would have liked. And it doesn’t belong there.
And let me ask one final question–Chapter 8, which you are assuming is all one continuous episode taking place over the course of a short period of time, begins with Jesus telling a fellow Jew who was caught in the act of adultery, and has expressed no repentance (she barely even gets to speak) that he does not condemn her. Implying, in the context of what has just happened, that he has no right to condemn any sinner, since he is a sinner himself.
Chapter 8 ends with him telling off other fellow Jews, ordinary people there to observe the Passover–not the religious leaders he has been so critical of throughout the gospel story. The very people he is most concerned with reaching (far more than the gentiles), who have been sympathetic to his teachings, who are potential converts to his take on Judaism, to his message about the Kingdom. And he tells them, out of the blue, with no provocation whatsoever, that they are the Children of Satan, which is by any standard a very severe condemnation.
How do you explain that?
Robert said
Brenmcg: “If Jesus is King Pilate wouldnt accuse chief priests of being merely envious ….”
The issue for the character Pilate in Mark’s story is not whether or not Jesus is in fact king, approved by the Roman Senate. That would be impossible for him to believe. He is judging the accusations made against Jesus. He questioned Jesus directly, but to no avail, and yet the chief priests continue to accuse him, again to no avail. Pilate then shrewdly asks the crowd (implicitly if they recognize Jesus as their king and) if they would like him released. They do not want him released, but Pilate has manipulated them into this mock sedition … ‘the one you call king’. In reality it is Mark, of course, who has cleverly placed on the lips of all present in this drama that Jesus is the king, but ironically none of the characters actually believe him to be king. Mark tells us very plainly that Pilate does not even believe that Jesus claimed to be king for he knows that the high priests only handed him over out of base motives and he argues with the people that Jesus has done nothing wrong.
Mark’s Pilate is not playing games – he’s not mocking the crowd and tricking them into sedition. He wants to satisfy the crowd (probably being afraid of a riot) and he’s willing to flog and crucify a man he believes to be innocent to achieve this.
There’s no outrage or denial from the crowd when Pilate claims they call Jesus king of the jews. This is clever writing its editorial.
As an additional note. Even if the impossible were in fact the case, and Pilate did believe Jesus to be the actual king of the Jews, he still would indeed expect the sunedrion to be envious. That was indeed their job description as given them by Rome, to replace or temper the authority of the king.
Right but he wouldnt think they had handed him over merely out of jealousy. He’d think they were being loyal subjects of Rome.
Brenmcg: “If Jesus … is not King he [Pilate] wouldnt think they have anything to be envious of.”
Historically, the sunedrion would indeed jealously guard its authority given by Rome even and especially against any royal claimant. But that is not the meaning here since Pilate argues that Jesus has done nothing wrong.
More importantly for this context, ‘envy’ in Greek need not be based on an actual good thing or office possessed by another. It is oftentimes simply associated with malice and strife, and considered the most base of emotions. Etymologically, most literally, it can simply denote a desire or effort to denigrate or diminish someone. Your attempted paradox seems to be be based on your own peculiar and exaggerated understanding of an English translation, not on Mark’s Greek nor on the sociopolitical dynamics of the sunedrion that Mark was writing about in his story.
Fine but the same principle still applies – if Jesus is king, the chief priest are being loyal allies of Rome in handing him over to Pilate. Its not simply out of envy or a base desire.
By the way, you may not realize it yet, but Matthew’s account would also fail on the this latter horn of your false paradox. For Pilate in Matthew also does not consider Jesus to be king (Christ cf 25,11.17) and yet he also knows that the high priests and elders accused him out of envy (25,18).
Matthew’s Pilate describe’s Jesus as the one called the Messiah. Being called the Messiah isnt a crime so the line “they handed him over out of jealousy” makes sense.
Finally, with respect to the introduction of Barabbas, both Mark and Matthew introduce Barabbas relatively early, while both Luke and John introduce him after the fact, each with his own purpose. Mark’s introduction of a rebel, subsequently chosen by the people and high priests is good drama and mirrors Mark’s own historical context. Matthew has simplified the story, taking away most of its original drama and irony, which you find so difficult to understand. Perhaps he had readers like you in mind.
Perhaps.
But Matthew does not introduce Barabbas early. Like Luke and John he introduces Barabbas when he’s needed. The introductory phrasing comes when Pilate offers a choice to the crowd of Barabbas or Jesus.
Only Mark introduces Barabbas early and before he’s needed, and only Mark’s placement of the introduction matches with the appropriate placement in another author’s gospel.
godspell said
brenmcg said
godspell said
When Bren responded to something I said about the woman taken in adultery by saying the Jewish leaders tried to stone Jesus–which does not happen in any version of that story–and I called him on it–he didn’t admit he’d made a mistake. Yes, there are stories in the gospels about people taking up stones to throw at Jesus when he says something they don’t like, but not in that story.
I don’t think it’s malicious. He’s in the grip of a compulsion. What motivates that compulsion is hard to say.
And we’re enabling him. Which is doing him no good at all.
He started this thread. Let him finish it.
I never said it was part of the pericope aduterae I said it was part of the story.
chapter 8 begins with a crowd of jews wanting the stone the woman and ends with them wanting to stone jesus.
the first 11 lines were removed but its all part of the original story.
The point I was making was that part of the story had been removed (wanting to stone the woman) and part had remained (crowd wanting to stone Jesus), and thats why its essential the pericope was put back.
Chapter 8 didn’t originally begin with the pericopae adulterae. The oldest and best versions of John we have don’t include that story, and there are many other reasons why scholars agree it wasn’t in the original. I get that you don’t care what scholars say, unless they agree with you, but let’s look at that chapter a bit more closely.
Jesus comes to the temple courtyard to teach. People are listening with interest. The scribes and the Pharisees, jealous of the attention he’s getting, bring the woman there and ask him what they should do with her. He gives the answer we all know. They are flummoxed, and walk away, leaving him alone with the woman.
Where did all his original audience go? Why did they leave as well? They aren’t scribes and Pharisees. Jesus just kicked the eggheads’ asses in debate, solved the seemingly insoluble dilemma they had presented him with. The crowd would want to hear more. But we’re told it’s just him and the woman, no one else.
Then he talks to them again–to whom? The woman? He told her to go and sin no more, and you can’t really think she hung around there after what just happened–get while the getting’s good. So he’s standing there all by himself, and all of a sudden he’s talking to a bunch of people again. Obviously there’s been a break in the action. Perhaps a fairly long one.
How long a break? How many? How many of these stories in Chapter 8 are actually separate accounts from earlier sources John has stitched together? With the story of the woman being inserted long after the fact. And sticking out like a sore thumb, because the Scribes and Pharisees John writes about wouldn’t have been satisfied with Jesus’ answer. Chapter 8 is a series of stories, some of which match up better than others, but all of which feel like they were originally told in isolation from each other.
Yes, the chapter ends with people trying to stone him, but who, exactly? “The Jews who believed in Jesus”–not the scribes and Pharisees who we’re told brought the woman there to discredit him. John is saying the original receptive audience Jesus had attracted with his teachings were still there (which doesn’t track with Jesus being left alone with the woman), and then the Scribes and Pharisees came back, and he thwarted them some more. And then he started insulting his fellow Jews who have listened respectfully to what he had to say, and THEY begin to throw stones at them–which is not any kind of attempt at formal execution, but more like them saying “Scram, ya lousy bum!” Like getting the hook out in vaudeville. Or that clown with the broom at the Apollo Theater. He had them, and then he lost them. Threw them away, really. Nobody to blame but himself.
This makes no sense on any level. These are potential converts to Jesus’ take on Judaism, they were on his side, and he calls them Children of Satan. This is basically John saying “All the Jews who were not followers of Jesus by this point in time were beyond saving, beyond reaching.” It’s a bit of an anachronism to call it anti-semitic, but it really does come across as more than just anger at Jesus’ critics among the Jewish authorities. It is absolutely an attack on Jews AS A GROUP. And Jesus separating himself from them. They are Children of Satan, and he is Son of God.
I think that story at the end of Chapter 8 is entirely John’s invention. And that John would never, under any circumstance, agreed to having the pericopae adulterae, as we have it there, put into his gospel. It’s not a story he would have liked. And it doesn’t belong there.
And let me ask one final question–Chapter 8, which you are assuming is all one continuous episode taking place over the course of a short period of time, begins with Jesus telling a fellow Jew who was caught in the act of adultery, and has expressed no repentance (she barely even gets to speak) that he does not condemn her. Implying, in the context of what has just happened, that he has no right to condemn any sinner, since he is a sinner himself.
Chapter 8 ends with him telling off other fellow Jews, ordinary people there to observe the Passover–not the religious leaders he has been so critical of throughout the gospel story. The very people he is most concerned with reaching (far more than the gentiles), who have been sympathetic to his teachings, who are potential converts to his take on Judaism, to his message about the Kingdom. And he tells them, out of the blue, with no provocation whatsoever, that they are the Children of Satan, which is by any standard a very severe condemnation.
How do you explain that?
Jesus is teaching in temple courtyard which is full of people. When he’s left alone with the woman the idea is not that the temple courts have emptied but that Jesus and the woman have been left by themselves. It may not be great writing but chapter 8 all takes place within the temple courts and is intended to be a continuous set of events.
The point with the Jews who believed Jesus as he was speaking is that its not enough to just believe but you must also follow his teaching. They may believe Jesus but they are slaves of sin and so children of Satan. John’s is the only gospel which has disciples abandon Jesus because of difficult teachings.
This may have been written for a later audience who believed it was enough to believe and not follow the teachings of Jesus, but I dont see how its relevant to the pericope adulterae being original or not?
Whether it’s great writing or not is beside the point–for the record, I think John’s gospel is beautifully written (certainly in much better Greek than Mark, if the scholars are to be trusted). It’s just not very truthful writing. It’s great writing harnessed to ideology and prejudice. Which happens more often than we’d like to think.
I never said the gospel claims the courtyard emptied out–it was a very large place, and most people there wouldn’t be paying any attention to Jesus in the first place. But clearly the people who were listening to him sympathetically wouldn’t walk away after he scored such a resounding victory over the scribes and Pharisees. They’d want to hear more. The original story (not written or used by John) wasn’t meant to be included in this extended narrative of Jesus’ visit to the temple courtyard. It’s been retooled a bit. But again, not by John. By somebody long after John.
Yes, it’s intended to be a continuous set of events, but the way it’s written tells us that John is in fact EDITING stories together–events that may have happened on different days, or not at all. So in that sense, inserting the pericopae adulterae is very fitting, since the chapter is just a collection of stories to begin with.
The point about the final story is that they are evil because they believe what all Jews believed–that they have a special relationship with God through Abraham, Moses and the prophets. There is ample indication in the gospels–and certainly in Matthew–that Jesus himself believed this relationship existed, though he came over time to accept gentiles as potentially being worthy of the Kingdom, as some Jews would not be. Why does he never call gentiles children of satan, when they’re the ones sacrificing to idols? Why does he never say this to Pilate? Why ONLY to Jews? And only in John.
He has no basis for making any conclusion about the faith or behavior of all these people who are listening to him, and it beggars imagination that he’d actively insult them, when he was making real headway. That’s John’s hatred of all Jews–a deep chasm in his nature, since he adores the memory of a very devout Jew–bleeding through, and corrupting the narrative. John is looking for a way to separate Jesus from his own people.
The pericopae isn’t original for a lot of reasons (some of which are beyond the ken of non-scholars like you and me). Until recently, I didn’t even know that scholarship had concluded it’s a later addition–but the moment I learned of this, the pieces fell into place. That story never belonged in John’s gospel. It’s a story about forgiveness and acknowledging that we are all slaves of sin. And therefore, we have no right to attack others for it. But that’s what John’s gospel does, over and over, more than any of the other gospels, even Matthew’s.
Jesus says only one is truly free of sin has the right to condemn this Jewish woman–who is herself a slave of sin, or why is she there in the first place?–and by saying he won’t condemn her, he is admitting to be a slave himself–just more aware of his shackles. Can you imagine John’s Jesus admitting any personal flaw? “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” John’s Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God–a divine being, not human at all. Without flaw. Without sin.
It doesn’t fit the chapter, because that chapter ends with Jesus condemning the onlookers–who had done nothing but listen attentively to him–of being children of Satan. For what? For being like him, the woman caught in adultery, and all of us?
For being Jews who didn’t convert to a non-existent religion, the moment they laid eyes on Jesus. John the Baptist becomes Jesus’ follower in John the moment he sees him. That’s the ideal for John, and ONLY Jews who just instantly see who Jesus is, and follow him without question are saved. Gentiles get more of a pass. John’s audience is entirely composed of gentiles, naturally. Can you imagine a Jewish convert reading this with anything but horror?
It’s a deeply original story–but not to John’s gospel. And I continue to believe it’s a preserved memory of Jesus himself, however altered from the actual event. Because there is no other explanation for its existence that makes any sense. It’s truer to Jesus than everything else in John combined.
godspell said
I never said the gospel claims the courtyard emptied out–it was a very large place, and most people there wouldn’t be paying any attention to Jesus in the first place. But clearly the people who were listening to him sympathetically wouldn’t walk away after he scored such a resounding victory over the scribes and Pharisees. They’d want to hear more. The original story (not written or used by John) wasn’t meant to be included in this extended narrative of Jesus’ visit to the temple courtyard. It’s been retooled a bit. But again, not by John. By somebody long after John.
But the crowd are all willing to participate in the stoning – Jesus hasnt just scored a resounding victory over the Pharisees he’s also given the crowd a guilty conscience – difficulty teaching losing Jesus disciples is common in John as opposed to the synoptics.
Yes, it’s intended to be a continuous set of events, but the way it’s written tells us that John is in fact EDITING stories together–events that may have happened on different days, or not at all. So in that sense, inserting the pericopae adulterae is very fitting, since the chapter is just a collection of stories to begin with.
If this is true then there’s every reason to think the PA is original. If editing discontinuities are common in ch 8 you cant use it as grounds for claiming the PA isnt original.
The point about the final story is that they are evil because they believe what all Jews believed–that they have a special relationship with God through Abraham, Moses and the prophets. There is ample indication in the gospels–and certainly in Matthew–that Jesus himself believed this relationship existed, though he came over time to accept gentiles as potentially being worthy of the Kingdom, as some Jews would not be. Why does he never call gentiles children of satan, when they’re the ones sacrificing to idols? Why does he never say this to Pilate? Why ONLY to Jews? And only in John.
He’s talking to people who know god and should know that he has been sent by god. The gentiles and Pilate havent heard the gospel yet. This general idea is common in all the gospels.
He has no basis for making any conclusion about the faith or behavior of all these people who are listening to him, and it beggars imagination that he’d actively insult them, when he was making real headway. That’s John’s hatred of all Jews–a deep chasm in his nature, since he adores the memory of a very devout Jew–bleeding through, and corrupting the narrative. John is looking for a way to separate Jesus from his own people.
I think you’re reading later christian antisemitism into johns gospel. Jesus is talking here to those who dont follow his teachings – not all Jews. John’s Jesus says “You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” Hardly displays John’s hatred of all Jews.
The pericopae isn’t original for a lot of reasons (some of which are beyond the ken of non-scholars like you and me). Until recently, I didn’t even know that scholarship had concluded it’s a later addition–but the moment I learned of this, the pieces fell into place. That story never belonged in John’s gospel. It’s a story about forgiveness and acknowledging that we are all slaves of sin. And therefore, we have no right to attack others for it. But that’s what John’s gospel does, over and over, more than any of the other gospels, even Matthew’s.
John 8:15 “You judge by human standards; I judge no one” directly referencing the PA. What John’s gospel is about is that before Jesus everyone was ignorant of truth and could be forgiven. But anyone who hears the truth but rejects is a child of Satan. The PA fits in fine with this.
Jesus says only one is truly free of sin has the right to condemn this Jewish woman–who is herself a slave of sin, or why is she there in the first place?–and by saying he won’t condemn her, he is admitting to be a slave himself–just more aware of his shackles.
Its a possible reading but I dont think so. I think its saying she shouldnt be condemned. Stoning is not a just punishment and those who teach it are hypocrites.
Can you imagine John’s Jesus admitting any personal flaw? “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” John’s Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God–a divine being, not human at all. Without flaw. Without sin.
John is the only gospel writer to admit to Jesus making a mistake. John 7:21/22 “Jesus said to them, I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs)“
Also I dont think “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” is an admission of flaw in Mark/Luke. Its the same construction and intention as “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”. The reader is supposed to answer both questions.
There is no mention at all of the crowd being willing to participate in the stoning. None. After all, what good is the trap they’ve supposedly set if Jesus can get out of it so easily? The problem is that Jesus is screwed either way–if he says let her go, or if he says stone her. He wins by turning the accusation back on her accusers. There was, in fact, scriptural support for his argument, as I’ve made clear already. They were discomfited by his argument, and left. (Bear in mind, it’s a risky thing in the first place, performing an execution when only Pilate is supposed to have the authority to do that, as is made clear elsewhere in the gospels–they might get away with it, they might not–they may, for all we know, have been hoping Jesus would talk them out of it, and take the rap for their failing to follow through).
The crowd are made up of ordinary Jews, who would not in the main be sympathetic to the notion of killing someone for such a common sin–her husband could just divorce her–and stoning isn’t known to have been a penalty for a married woman committing adultery (adultery with a non-Jew, possibly).
Yes, at the end of the chapter we read that they pick up stones to throw at Jesus, but Jesus walks away unharmed. Obviously there are no stones large enough to kill someone there in that area of the carefully kept courtyard. They would be taking her to another place for the stoning. That isn’t stoning, that’s just forcible heckling, and well-deserved at that.
No, the fact that John was editing stories together for this chapter is not proof that he edited this one in as well, because this one doesn’t fit his theme. Jesus begins by saying don’t condemn a woman for committing a very grave sin under Jewish law–then he condemns the crowd for no discernible sin at all (other than being unconverted Jews, which makes no sense, since Jesus was an unconverted Jew himself–Christianity doesn’t exist yet–nobody can convert to it).
I wouldn’t be the first to read anti-semitism into John, and of course it’s not the same as the anti-semitism that came later, but it’s getting closer here. How can you say John is consistent when Jesus is condemning the crowd for saying the same thing he said earlier? In any event, Samaritans were (and are) semites, and simply followed a more primitive form of Judaism–it’s an internal quarrel. Jesus is accused many times in John of consorting with Samaritans–probably John stuck that in there to defend him from the charge. (And probably Jesus really did say things like that about Samaritans in general, even while allowing that individual Samaritans might be better than some Jews–I don’t think every story John puts in his gospel is inaccurate, or that most of the stories in there that aren’t in the synoptics are original to his gospel–he had sources the other gospel authors did not).
At no point in the chapter are we told any of the crowd reject what Jesus has said. “The Jews that believed in Jesus.” How hard is that to follow? They just react badly to being abused. Wouldn’t you?
Saying it’s wrong to condemn others caught in the act of sinning when you are a sinner yourself, then condemning others for hypothetical sins is hypocrisy incarnate. But it’s not entirely John’s fault, since he never used that earlier story–nor would he have done. Thanks for making that more clear.
See, the problem for John is that he believes Jesus is not human, and is incapable of sin. So he does have a right to condemn these people–and would have had the right to condemn the woman caught in adultery. The Jesus in the original story is human, well aware of his own sinfulness, and wants to make a point that John would never make in this way, because of the very high Christology John holds to. The stories don’t match. Honestly, serious scholarship is unanimous that the pericipae adulterae wasn’t originally in John. It’s silly to for two non-scholars who don’t know Greek to argue about it, but here we are anyway.
If John is the one who wrote that parenthetical clarification about circumcision (perhaps someone knows the scholarly consensus on this?), it’s interesting–perhaps another well-known story John was copying, and he knew it was wrong, and felt he had to correct it. John would not be the first anal-retentive know-it-all in the bible to argue with his God. It’s okay for HIM to do it. We all know the type. (Perhaps some of us ARE that type).
Jesus is very clearly saying he is himself a sinner in Mark. Mark had a much lower Christology than John. What Jesus says in Mark makes no sense if he’s anything other than a mortal man with ordinary human failings like everyone else. He has risen to a higher state by faith alone, and anyone else could do the same. John doesn’t believe that.
You’ve done your usual fine job of obfuscation, and trying to lose the truth in a maze of details. But here’s the thing you can’t run away from–Jesus says “Don’t condemn anyone for sin, even if you know they’re guilty” at the start of chapter 8–and then, supposedly just a short time later, he condemns a crowd of people who had been sympathetic to him–collectively! So individual condemnation is wrong, but collective condemnation is kosher?
This is the precise opposite of what Jesus taught.
Robert said
You seem to be ignoring two undeniable facts of the text: 1) Pilate manipulates the crowd into acknowledging that Jesus is the one whom they call the king of the Jews, and 2) the crowd expresses its denial extremely strongly in telling Pilate to crucify Jesus.
I think this is a very generous reading of Mark. One should look for a consistent interpretation first, and I dont think we should read Mark’s Pilate as being both a skilled manipulator of the crowd and someone who wants to satisfy the crowd 15:15.
Pilate wants to release Jesus but the crowd get their way – its the chief priests who have manipulated Pilate.
Mark 15:9 and Matthew 27:17 should be read as literally as possible unless you’ve good reason to think otherwise. Only one of these literal readings is consistent with the “jealousy” line. In Matthew it is others who claim Jesus to be the Messiah.
Thank you for acknowledging your error. You presented a false paradox, based on two false dichotomies. Now that I’ve exposed it as such, you are trying to revive an individual element outside of a sensible context. Yes, as I’ve pointed out, if we are speaking of actual historical events around 30 CE, Pilate would expect the sunhedrion to hand over a messianic claimant, and if they were being loyal to Rome, they would have done so. But we are dealing with Mark’s text, written around 70 CE, and not with actual events of 30 CE. It is an undeniable fact of Mark’s text that in this literary context the character Pilate believes they handed over Jesus out of some kind of base motivation, not out of loyalty to Rome, and that Pilate does not believe Jesus to have been guilty of claiming to have been king of the Jews (“Why, what evil has he done?”). And in the historical context of Mark writing his text, the Judean leadership and crowds of Jerusalem were in violent rebellion against Rome, the complete opposite of loyalty to Rome.
The historical context is not necessarily relevant to the text. What’s more important is consistency. Mark is not necessarily consistent in what he says. If the literal interpretation of Mark/Matthew shows only Matthew to be consistent then this is evidence for Matthean priority. It may be we need to take a non-literal interpretation of Mark to show consistency and support Markan priority but this is begging the question.
Matthew’s “Jesus who is called the Messiah” is consistent in a literal interpretation with “handed over out of jealousy”; Mark’s “king of the jews” is not.
You are also ignoring Matthew’s text. As I pointed out to you already, in Matthew, exactly as in Mark, Jesus is handed over as a messianic claimant, specifically to being the king of the Jews. This should be clear to you from Mk 15,2 and Mt 27,11:
Mk 15,2 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων;
Mt 27,11 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμὼν λέγων· Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων;
Thus, ‘though you still do not realize it, the text of Matthew would fail the same false dichotomy to which you tried to subject Mark’s text.
Mk 15:2 and Mt 27:11 are non answers to the question. In neither Mark nor Matthew does Pilate believe Jesus to be guilty of a crime.
You’re mistaken. Matthew introduces Barabbas in exactly the same spot as Mark, immediately after mention of the custom of releasing a prisoner:
Mk 15,6-7: Κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν ἀπέλυεν αὐτοῖς ἕνα δέσμιον ὃν παρῃτοῦντο. 7 ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον
Mt 27,15-16: Κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν εἰώθει ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἀπολύειν ἕνα τῷ ὄχλῳ δέσμιον ὃν ἤθελον. 16 εἶχον δὲ τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον λεγόμενον Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν.
Yes, exactly the same spot that’s the point. It isn’t early for Matthew. Nor Late. Luke’s and John’s introductory phrase is neither early nor late, its where it should be for them.
But Mark’s, in exactly the spot as Matthew, is early. The introductory phrasing isn’t needed for a few lines.
You can subjectively prefer Marks placing if you like, but if we are to be as objective as possible we should take Luke and John as a base-line and see whether Mark or Matthew’s introduction has a reason to be different.
It is true that Matthew has condensed Mark’s account by referring to Barabbas merely as ‘(in)famous’ and it is also true that by inserting an additional, more plausible (for Matthew) yet somewhat contradictory reason for why Pilate would want to release the prisoner (his wife’s dream and warning Mt 27,19), that Matthew will need to have Pilate repeat the question to the crowd (Mt 27,21) before getting an answer, but those are hardly signs of his text being more original. Quite the contrary. Hence the overwhelming consensus of scholars is that Matthew’s text is secondary to Mark’s. It’s a shame that you cannot see that.
Mt 27:21 isnt relevant here. What’s important is 27:17 “So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” This is why Matthew places the introduction where it is. And by removing this choice between Barabbas and Jesus, the introduction should also get moved. Luke has moved it, Mark hasnt.
As an additional point Mt 27:22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!“
makes sense – the one’s calling for him to be crucified arent the one’s calling him Messiah.
Mk 15:12,13 doesnt make sense “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. “Crucify him!” they shouted.“
does not make sense – they are calling for the one they call king to be crucified.
Literal readings only of course.
godspell said
There is no mention at all of the crowd being willing to participate in the stoning. None. After all, what good is the trap they’ve supposedly set if Jesus can get out of it so easily?
In the PA after hearing what Jesus said they go away one by one starting with the eldest until Jesus is left alone with the woman. The idea being each one contemplated being the first to throw a stone before giving in to their conscience. At which point they leave Jesus. And this includes the original group being taught as Jesus was left alone.
This fits in well with the rest of Chpt 8 where the crowds show some initial acceptance of what Jesus is saying before rejecting him.
I wouldn’t be the first to read anti-semitism into John, and of course it’s not the same as the anti-semitism that came later, but it’s getting closer here. How can you say John is consistent when Jesus is condemning the crowd for saying the same thing he said earlier? In any event, Samaritans were (and are) semites, and simply followed a more primitive form of Judaism–it’s an internal quarrel. Jesus is accused many times in John of consorting with Samaritans–probably John stuck that in there to defend him from the charge. (And probably Jesus really did say things like that about Samaritans in general, even while allowing that individual Samaritans might be better than some Jews–I don’t think every story John puts in his gospel is inaccurate, or that most of the stories in there that aren’t in the synoptics are original to his gospel–he had sources the other gospel authors did not).
There was probably not a sharp distinction between Jew and Christian when John was writing. John was calling those who didn’t accept Jesus as son of God, sons of the devil. Whether they were Jew or Gentile. Later the distinction between those who accepted Jesus and those who didnt became the distinction between Jew/Christian which led to antisemitism, but this shouldnt be read back into the gospel of John.
At no point in the chapter are we told any of the crowd reject what Jesus has said. “The Jews that believed in Jesus.” How hard is that to follow? They just react badly to being abused. Wouldn’t you?
But they don’t react badly to being abused – they continue having a conversation. Its only when Jesus claims to be “I am” before Abraham was born that they pick up stones to throw at him.
If John is the one who wrote that parenthetical clarification about circumcision (perhaps someone knows the scholarly consensus on this?), it’s interesting–perhaps another well-known story John was copying, and he knew it was wrong, and felt he had to correct it. John would not be the first anal-retentive know-it-all in the bible to argue with his God. It’s okay for HIM to do it. We all know the type. (Perhaps some of us ARE that type).
The point about feeling a need to correct it is that he would do just that – correct it. Changing “Moses” to “Patriarchs”. The fact that he leaves the mistake in but adds an editorial note is extremely strange. No later scribe would do it.
What’s more if the author of John’s gospel is just hearing the story second hand, he’d correct the mistake too.
Its one of the strangest verses in the whole new testament.
Jesus is very clearly saying he is himself a sinner in Mark. Mark had a much lower Christology than John. What Jesus says in Mark makes no sense if he’s anything other than a mortal man with ordinary human failings like everyone else. He has risen to a higher state by faith alone, and anyone else could do the same. John doesn’t believe that.
Mark doesnt believe it either. Mark believes Jesus is the “Lord” of Isaiah 40, and that John the Baptist is a messenger/angel who will prepare the way for the Lord.
Mark’s Jesus does not admit to sinning. A man calls him good and Jesus asks him why he does if god alone is good.
You’ve done your usual fine job of obfuscation, and trying to lose the truth in a maze of details. But here’s the thing you can’t run away from–Jesus says “Don’t condemn anyone for sin, even if you know they’re guilty” at the start of chapter 8–and then, supposedly just a short time later, he condemns a crowd of people who had been sympathetic to him–collectively! So individual condemnation is wrong, but collective condemnation is kosher?
This is the precise opposite of what Jesus taught.
No he says those who are guilty of sin cant be responsible for condemnation and punishment on others.
He tells the crowd “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Its those who don’t realize they are a slave of sin who will remain in sin and be condemned.
The part about going away, one by one, starting with the elders clearly refers to the group who showed up with the woman in tow. Not the crowd of sympathetic listeners who were there already. The conflict comes from the fact that the story has been shoehorned in there. Why would there be ‘elders’ in a casual crowd of listeners? The elders would be the ones who recognized the validity of his argument and left first–the younger among them would follow in the elders’ wake. They were never a ‘crowd’–they were a handful of people who entered an already-existing crowd. Looking to embarrass Jesus, or to make an accomplice of him in their flouting of the Roman monopoly on capital punishment.
I don’t want to get too bogged down here, but when you say there was no sharp distinction between Jews and Christians when John was written–clearly after the Temple was destroyed–and LONG LONG after Paul said you could be a Christian in good standing without following the Jewish dietary laws, being circumcised, or having any knowledge of the Jewish scripture, whether from reading or by going to synagogue–that’s not a serious argument, and I don’t take it seriously. Most Christians were gentile converts by then, and their only knowledge of Judaism came from Christian writings, which were increasingly hostile to Jews.
We agree that passage about the patriarchs and Moses is weird, but not really an argument for either side.
Mark’s Jesus is baptized by John. He is very clearly subordinate to John. Mark believes he is the one John has prophesied, but John is prophesying the Messiah, not God’s Begotten Son. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Mark’s Jesus is human and a sinner and he knows it.
He condemns the crowd, fellow Jews, for nothing more than not agreeing with every word he says for no reason other than that he’s said it–as if they’re supposed to just KNOW who he is. And he is clearly saying this of ALL of them, which is why they pick up small stones to throw at him.
He won’t condemn a fellow Jew who has been caught in the act of adultery, never expressed any remorse, never showed any interest in his teachings. It’s a glaring disconnect, and one of many reasons why it’s impossible John put this story in there.
The story was problematic for all Christians of this period, you see. That’s why it took so long to get into any gospel. The woman never admits her guilt, never expresses any repentance, never says anything to Jesus other than that the men who wanted to kill her have left. And he simply tells her to go and sin no more. There is no indication she ever became a follower of Jesus–we have no idea if she mended her ways.
This is fine in the context of a radical rabbi making a point about hypocrisy–but for early Christians, it was like issuing a license to just do whatever you wanted, and later you could stop. They didn’t like adultery and fornication either. (Some of them, like Paul, weren’t too crazy about married sex.)
The story is deeply embarrassing to early Christians. That’s why John didn’t include it–and that’s why some version of it probably did happen. It was too powerful a story to forget. And thankfully it was preserved. Pity it had to be in a gospel so full of hate.
Robert said
Actually, it is merely a literal reading of Mark’s text, which cannot be read in any other way. Because Pilate asks the question in this way, the crowd in responding directly, is necessarily responding to the terms used in Pilate’s question:
Mk 15,12 Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!”
To read this in any other way, the crowd would have to respond differently. They could say, “we do not call him the king of the Jews” or “We reject the premise of your question.”
They could say “we have no king but Caesar”.
So a literal reading of Mark has the crowd accepting Jesus as king. Which is ridiculous, unless we say Pilate is manipulating them into saying it, which is also ridiculous given that its Pilate being manipulated in crucifying someone he thinks is innocent.
Aside from whatever you may want to imagine Pilate wants to do, all we can say for sure from the text is that Pilate wants to do what for the crowd wants. The custom of releasing a prisoner is introduced as releasing “anyone for whom they asked” (15,6). Pilate literally asks them ‘if they want him to release for them the king of the Jews’ (15,9) and subsequently asks the crowd what they want him to do with the they call the king of the Jews’ (15,12). Pilate does argue with this choice, clearly attesting to his view of Jesus’ innocence (Mark’s primary point here), but again it is said that Pilate wants to satisfy the crowd (15,15).
Yes he has agreed to release the prisoner they want but he can set Jesus free. He crucifies Jesus because the crowd calls for that also. Pilates desire to do what the crowd wants extends to crucifying an innocent man – so we shouldnt read this passage as Pilate manipulating the crowd.
If you think Mk 15,9 must be read literally in the sense that Pilate thinks Jesus is in fact the king of the Jews, that’s plainly absurd. Pilate certainly does not consider Jesus to be the king of the Jews. Rather when speaking with the crowd, he plainly says, “whom you call the King of the Jews” and he further affirms that Jesus has done nothing wrong, whereas Jesus claiming to be king would certainly be wrong in the eyes of Pilate, the emperor, and the Roman Senate. But when Pilate questioned Jesus regarding this claim, he did not accept this title, and thus Pilate considered him innocent of this charge. This is what the text says. For you to imagine that Pilate literally considers Jesus to be the king of the Jews, is to completely ignore the Markan text.
Its not ignoring the Markan text, its accepting the possibility of error in the Markan text. If a literal reading of synoptic produces absurdities and a literal reading of the corresponding point in another synoptic does not produce absurdities, that’s evidence for posteriority.
brenmcg said
Yes, exactly the same spot that’s the point.If that was your point, try to make your points more clearly in the future. That way I won’t need to waste my time proving to you the correctness of my points with which you nonetheless pointlessly argue.
I dont understand. This was the point from the very beginning. Matthew and Mark place the introduction in exactly the same spot, but it only belongs in that spot in Matthew’s version.
Mt 27,21 is indeed relevant toward demonstrating the fact that Matthew’s insertion of an additional rationale for why Pilate was motivated to propose the release of Jesus delays a response from the crowd to Pilate’s question, necessitating that Matthew repeat the question again. All of these edits of Mark’s text by Matthew are consistent with each other and clearly demonstrate the secondary character of Matthew’s text. He deletes Mark’s text which would argue strongly against Pilate proposing the release of Barabbas and adds an additional reason for why Pilate would propose and prefer the release of Jesus. But by making these changes to Mark’s text, he has delayed the response of the crowd so he has to add Pilate’s a second version of Pilate’s question to the crowd.
I don’t think so.
Mt 27:20 “But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.” is explicitly described in the Mt 27:21,22
“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
I think this is the intention of 27;20. In Mark’s version “and have Jesus executed” is removed and we never get to hear the crowd actually call barabbas’s name.
Don’t think it clearly demonstrates either Mark or Matthew as secondary.
The difficulty of the crowds hailing Jesus as the Messiah and Palm Sunday and clamoring for his crucifixion later that week is a dilemma introduced in Mark’s gospel and retained in all the gospels. It is not really resolved by Matthew’s minor change of wording here. Mark resolve the difficulty by having the high priests instigating the crowds to ask for Barabbas release and Matthew repeats this as well.
In Matthew its the crowds following him to Jerusalem that hail him as the messiah but the city itself is stirred and asks “who is this?” Its the crowd in the city that call for the Jesus who is called the messiah to be executed. This is lost in Mark’s telling.
Markan scholars recognize Mark’s literal use of irony, a common technique in ancient Greek literature. It would be stupid to read Mark without an appreciation for this literal aspect of his text. I refuse to engage in a stupid reading of Mark’s text.
Mark as an author may use irony but he doesn’t have his characters use it intentionally.
Robert said
brenmcg said
They could say “we have no king but Caesar”.
Of course, as I said, they could reject the premise of his question, but that would not be a direct answer to the question as posed by Pilate. Do you not understand?
I’m saying Mark is an editor and in editing brings in problems with the text. By not rejecting the premise of the question the crowd is implicitly accepting Jesus as their king. Which is ridiculous. Matthew’s text doesnt have these kinds of problems.
I am seriously concerned about your lack of reading comprehension. No, the crowd does not accept Jesus as their king. Instead they call for him to be crucified.
They do both. Contradiction in the story is evidence of posteriority.
As I’ve already demonstrated to you, Mark’s text emphasizes that Pilate wants to do what the crowd asks, which is the custom and is his consistent purpose throughout the story. Mark’s Pilate is not all that anxious to release Jesus. Yes, he does think he is innocent in questioning the crowd about what wrong he has done, but Mark does not portray Pilate as overly concerned about releasing Jesus to be crucified. It seems you’re trying to impose a Matthean or Johannine reading on Mark.
The custom is only about releasing a prisoner not executing one the crowd select. Pilate is going further than custom in trying to please the crowd. He’s the one being manipulated. The crowd are also supposed to select the prisoner themselves. Pilate is the one who suggests Jesus, a man he believes to be innocent. When they call for him to be crucified he asks “why?”, this shows resistance to the idea.
Mark makes plenty of errors, but you’re always trying to impose on Mark’s text the most idiotic and absurd meanings to support your your view that he did not understand the text he was supposedly copying. Not only is that an entirely circular argument for Mark being secondary but it completely ignores all of the sensible readings of Mark’s text put forward by scholars and ordinary readers who do not share your agenda. It is a ridiculous line of argument and it convinces no one. I’m sorry to say this, truly I am, but it only makes you look stupid, ie, unable to understand the text of Mark.What you are calling a literal reading of Mark’s text is very much biased by your own agenda and does not take into account sensible readings.
I’m not imposing any meanings on the text, I think Mark is an editor and his editing has meant his text can be understood in a consistent and sensible way. If we take it literally we get absurdities and if we try to understand Pilate through irony it doesnt fit in with the manipulation of Pilate by the chief priests.
In the very next scene, we see Mark’s use of irony regarding the kingship of Jesus being magnified to such a level that perhaps even you cannot deny it:
Mk 15,17 They put a purple cloak on him and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 18 They began to salute him: “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Then they knelt down and paid homage to him. 20 When they had finished mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and …
Or are you going to try and tell us that these soldiers literally believed Jesus to be the king and that is why they behaved in this way?
No this is clearly sarcasm from the soldiers – the idea of Jesus being king is ridiculous to them.
But the point is you could never follow this with a line like “the soldiers did this knowing Jesus was handed over out of jealousy”.
If that was your point all along, why would you have argued with me when I pointed out to you that both Mark and Matthew introduce Barabbas prior to Pilate’s questioning of the crowd, whereas both Luke and John introduce Barabbas after Pilate’s question? Your view that it doesn’t belong where it is in Mark’s story is merely your own view. I think it is perfectly fine for Mark to introduce the character where he thinks it will have a more dramatic effect, especially given his whole purpose in telling the Barabbas story.
I didnt argue against that.
In Mark, Luke and John, Barabbas enters the story when the crowd call for him to be released. In Matthew he enters when Pilate gives the choice between him and Jesus. The introductory phrasing about who Barabbas is matches up with this placing in Luke, John and Matthew but not in Mark. The fact that the incorrectly placed introductory phrasing in Mark appears in exactly the same place as the correctly placed introductory phrasing in Matthew suggests Mark editing Matthew.
It’s pretty obvious to everyone else who looks at this text objectively; sorry you can’t see it. You’ve already admitted that you are not aware of any scholar who has ever advanced this ‘argument’ of yours to support Matthean priority. The reason they do not is that it is not a good argument. You seem to be the only person in the world to think that you have come up with a good argument here. I still haven’t heard your explanation for why the crowd does not answer Matthew’s version of Pilate’s question in 27,17 but rather waits until Pilate questions them again in 27,21.
The line “But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed” appears after Pilate’s first question and suggests some discussion among the crowd about who to choose. They don’t simply call out with one voice to his first question but get persuaded by the priests. Pilate after waiting for their response asks them again.
Matthew’s story contains more elements than Mark and the fact that they all fit together without problem suggests he’s not adding his own ideas on top of someone else’s.
brenmcg said
In Matthew its the crowds following him to Jerusalem that hail him as the messiah but the city itself is stirred and asks “who is this?” Its the crowd in the city that call for the Jesus who is called the messiah to be executed. This is lost in Mark’s telling.
This would seem to be a good indication of Matthew’s secondary redactional tendency. He keeps Mark’s explanation and even builds upon it.
But Mark doesnt have the explanation. In Mark crowds hail Jesus as the Messiah and crowds call for his execution. There is ambiguity and an explanation for this ambiguity is a seemingly insignificant edit on the arrival into Jerusalem. Mark changing to the anti-climatic
Mk 11:11 “Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.“
brenmcg said
Mark as an author may use irony but he doesn’t have his characters use it intentionally.
So you really are going to try and tell us that the Roman soldiers in Mark’s account literally believed Jesus to be the king and that is why they behaved in this way?
Mk 15,17 They put a purple cloak on him and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 18 They began to salute him: “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Then they knelt down and paid homage to him. 20 When they had finished mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and …
This is sarcasm – the soldiers and not aware of the irony.
We can read Pilate as being intentionally sarcastic but it doesnt fit the “handed over out of jealousy line” or with the fact the chief priests are manipulating Pilate.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert