Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus - Institute for ...

58
Bulletin for Biblical Research 17.1
only theologically motivated. By showing what Mark is doing, we can begin
to see what these concerns are and ask if the trial scene is only addressed
to these pastoral concerns. I pursue this question because for some
this is the key value of the event, namely, what it does for Mark theologically
and pastorally, not historically. I argue that Mark has two major concerns.
The nature of at least one of these concerns suggests a need for a
historical base to his account.
(1) There is Marcan interest in detailing how Jesus came to be executed.
What issues were at the center of the storm between him and the
Jewish officials? Mark does have a broad historical concern in his account
to show both Jesus’ innocence and the basis of his execution. Mark has
traced these concerns in his gospel. This is a macro concern for Mark. The
theme represents his attempt to detail the various disputes that undergirded
the ongoing tension between Jesus and the leadership during his
ministry. Issues such as the authority to heal and forgive sins, purity, legal
disputes, the tensions surrounding the temple, and the disputes of the last
days in Jerusalem fit in here. 8 Even viewed from the standpoint of a narrative,
they set the stage for this decisive meeting. There is even an interesting
kind of “Son of Man/blasphemy” inclusio in Mark. It binds the first
Jewish dispute with Jesus in Mark 2:1–12, which leads to a charge of blasphemy
against him for claiming to forgive sin, to the final dispute here in
the examination scene of 14:60–64. In this final text, the claim concerning
the Son of Man, among other terms, reappears with fresh force in terms
that speak of heavenly exaltation. But the very fact that the narrative slows
down to a crawl at this key point indicates Mark’s concern to communicate
some detail about these events. I will not develop this point, because it becomes
a burden of the rest of the essay. How careful Mark’s work was in
more detail is something that requires careful examination. Mark’s pastoral
concerns, which certainly also exist, do not necessarily rule out the
possibility that he possessed some historical concern. Too often the two
themes of pastoral theology and history are assumed to be in a kind of exclusive
competition, where the presence of one precludes the other. Could
the consistent narrative tension also reflect a historical concern? I hope in
this article to make a case for their union, at least in this section of Mark.
(2) Nevertheless, Mark was also interested in an important pastoral
point, portraying Jesus as the model disciple who is unjustly persecuted
while trusting God. 9 Disciples can study his experience to see how they
8. Many of these particular concerns are also topics addressed by the IBR Jesus Group in
other essays, namely, healing-Sabbath disputes, the temple scene, and other last week disputes.
The fact that such concerns are touched upon in Mark’s version rather obliquely versus
being injected as a summarizing literary theme in fact may well support a historical concern.
The indirect nature of allusions of this sort at an examination scene may be another indicator
of historicity.
9. A specific determination about the date and setting of Mark is part of a long, complex
debate that I cannot resolve here. The preponderance of the evidence, mostly external in nature,
does suggest that the gospel was written by a companion of Peter, John Mark, in Rome