Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 12/25/98 12:56:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBR AT sprynet.com
writes:

<< > Why is it unlikely that the narrator had a record of the events?
 
 ^^Because there is no indication that written records were kept, or that any
but 
 a very few individuals were present. ^^


Dear Lewis:

I believe you are begging the question: You are assuming that Mark's account
was not taken from a record of sorts. Also, when you say that "but a few
individuals were present" you grossly understate the matter. The whole
Sanhedrin was there, and it could be that some members were among those Jews
who later converted to Christianity, as recorded in the book of Acts, who in
turn communicated what they witnessed to persons like Mark, Luke, etc. Also,
the witnesses that were brought in to accuse Jesus were likely still present.
In any event, more than a "few" were there, according to the available
records. 


 
 > Of course, the Jewish religious leaders who opposed Jesus hardly needed an 
 > explicit statement in their law to condemn Jesus, after all, what law did 
 > they have to justify their intention of killing Lazarus? (John 12:10) 
 


 ^^At this point, I believe, we are going beyond the purview of this list.  I
will 
 point out gain that you  are assuming that biblical accounts can be treated
as 
 if they are the functional equivalent of modern histories.^^


I am assuming no such thing. I am merely pointing to what we find in the text
and using that as a basis for my interpretation. You are the one who questions
the records that we have and who raised the issue of Jewish law on this
matter, in the first place. I am merely responding with a point from the text
that calls into question your objection.

 
 > Also, it is not at all far-fetched to think that a claim to the office of 
 > Messiah, by a man whom they perceived to be demonized, would be considered 
 > blasphemous. 
 

^^ Given first-century Jewish concepts of Messiahship, it is rather far-
fetched.  ^^


Please, then, articulate your view of first century Messianism among the
different Jewish sects, but particularly and most importantly for our
discussion, that of the Pharisees. 

So far you have only stated that such and such is far-fetched without offering
any support for your view. Again, I believe it is quite clear that texts from
Qumran (such as 4Q246) and other first century documents that the Messiah was
a royal, God-supported figure, and for a man whom the Pharisees perceived to
be demonized to have claimed this office, and to have stated that he was prior
to Abraham, their "father," was blasphemous. 

Of course, we are not left with guesses only, as the account in Mark 14:60-64
makes it quite clear, and so far you have not made a legitimate case against
the accuracy of that account. 


^^ It would not be blasphemous to claim that office, if indeed Jesus did so.
^^



According to the records, he did. If you are going to call those records into
question, more than mere questioning would be appreciated.



^^ And  if it were blasphemous, then Jesus could have been punished under
Jewish law, while Jesus suffered a Roman execution for a violation of Roman
law. ^^



Well, no, Lewis. The Romans, according to the available records, could not
find any fault with him, and so the mob outside the Roman governor's palace
stated that he was seditious. But we know from the accounts of Jesus' trial
before the Sanhedrin that this was not the actual reason for their wanting to
have him killed. 


^^ There  were others who claimed to be Messiahs in the first century.  An
analogy - if  someone today were to claim to be the Pope, would that be
blasphemy?
 
 Lewis Reich ^^



Actually, that is a false analogy. A better analogy might be if someone had
claimed to be the Pope during the 13th, 14th or even the 15th centuries. Then
we might have a similar situation!

Anyway, thanks for your input. If you wish to continue this discussion, and if
it fits within the guidelines of the list (though it should be noted that I am
merely responding to _your_ questions about the records previously under
discussion in relation to 'ehyeh/EGW EIMI [note the title of this thread]),
then please support your questioning of the aforementioned documents with
facts, and not questions only.

Sincerely,

Greg Stafford