sign in sign up
<<
Home , Blasphemy, Mark 2

CHAPTER ELEVEN

IN WHAT SENSE ""? BEFORE IN :61-64

Jesus' response to the question of Caiaphas, in which he affirms that he is "the the Son of the Blessed," whom Caiaphas and company "will see" as "Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of " (Mark 14:61-62), provokes the cry of "blasphemy!" (Mark 14:64). Many scholars have wondered why, and for good reason. Claiming to be Israel's was not considered blasphemous.! Although disparaging them as impostors and opportun• ists, Josephus never accused any of the many would-be kings and deliverers of first-century Israel as blasphemers. Perhaps a more telling example comes from rabbinic tradition. Aqiba's procla• mation of Simon ben Kosiba as Messiah was met with skepticism, but not with cries of blasphemy (cf. y. Ta'an. 4.5; b. Sanh. 93b.) Even

W. L. Lane (The of Mark [NIC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974] 536) argues that "anyone who [was in prison and deserted by his followers, but nevertheless still] proclaimed himself to be the Messiah could not fail to be a blasphemer who dared to make a mockery of the promises given by God to his people." This is no more than an assumption. There is no evidence that a claim to be Messiah, under any circumstances, was considered blasphemous (pace J. C. O'Neill, "The Silence of Jesus," NTS 15 [1969] 153-67; idem, "The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus' Trial before the ," in E. Bammel [ed.], The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour ofe. F. D. Moule [SBT 13; London: SCM, 1970] 72-77). According to O'Neill, "it was an understood maxim of the law that the man who claimed to be Messiah in so many words was guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death" ("The Charge of Blasphemy," 77). Where is the evidence for this? The statement in Matt 11 :27 could be relevant: "No one knows the son, except the Father." See also Pss. Sol. 17:22: "Behold, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of , in the time that you know, God, to rule over Israel your servant." That is, no one knows who the Son of God (i.e. the Messiah) is, except God who will, in his own good time, make him known. Jesus' affirmation, in response to the question of Caiaphas (Mark 14:61-62), could have been perceived as presumptuous for affirming what only God was to disclose. But would such a confession have been considered blasphemous? 408 JESUS AND IDS CONTEMPORARIES claiming to be son of God was not necessarily blasphemous, for there is biblical precedent for such an expression (Pss 2:7; 82:6; 2 Sam 7: 14).2 Admittedly, later rabbinic and targumic traditions tend to shy away from this title, possibly as a reaction to (see 2 Sam 7:14 and 1 Chr 17:13 in the Targum; and Exod. Rab. 29.5 [on Exod 20:2], where God says, "I have no son"; cf. y. Ta 'an. 2.1). But these traditions do not necessarily reflect first-century thinking. Recently Joel Marcus has suggested that Jesus' claim of divine son• ship "would have fallen on Jewish ears as a claim to commensurability with God."3 Marcus could be correct, for the charge of blasphemy in John 10 was occasioned by claims of sonship and unity with God: "Do you say, 'You blaspheme,' because 1 said, 'I am the son of God'?" (John 10:36). Otto Betz has argued similarly: "Jesus blasphemed God because, despite his powerlessness, he would be equal to him."4 But the Johannine version may very well reflect late first-century Christian polemic with the synagogue. If it does, then it may have been the post• Easter Christian understanding of the messiaship and sonship of Jesus that provoked from Jewish circles charges of blasphemy. If this is the case, then one could argue that the charge of blasphemy in Mark likewise reflects later Jewish-Christian controversy and that therefore the cry of blasphemy attributed to Caiaphas is not authentic. This is in fact the conclusion reached by E. P. Sanders in a recent study, in which he repeats and refines points made in an earlier work.5 If Caiaphas' cry

2 An Aramaic fragment found at Qumran (Cave 4) reads: "[He] shall be great upon the earth, [0 King!] ... he shall be called [son of) the [g]reat [God], and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High (J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX [AB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981] 347). To whom reference here is being made is not clear, but there is no hint that calling this person [Messiah?] "son of God" is inappropriate. See further discussion of this text in chap. 3 above. 3 Joel Marcus, "Mark 14:61: 'Are You the Messiah-Son-of-GodT ," NovT 31 (1989) 125-41, quote from p. 141. 4 O. Betz, "Probleme des Prozesses Jesu," ANRW 2.25.1 (1982) 565-647, quote from p. 636. Betz also argues that "such a false messianic claim, of course, also endangers the Temple and the Holy City." 5 E. P. Sanders, Jesus and (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 309-18 (with notes on pp. 409-11); idem, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) 57-67 (with notes on pp. 338-39). In the latter study, Sanders (p. 61 and p. 338, n. 14) cites M. Hengel (Studies in the [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 37- 38) as supporting his view that the two passages in Mark (:5-7; 14:61-64),