# Would Christ have died from the scourging? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152 "2006-04-10T22:26:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/41 "2006-04-12T22:27:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I will also repeat that there was nothing very remarkable about claiming to be he Messiah at that time. Josephus claimed that Judea was crawling with self-proclaimed Messiahs at the time and named some of them. Crawling with them? There may have been a few; however, I haven’t seen any place where Josephus described Judea as crawling with self-professed Messiahs. (He did list a number of individuals who claimed to be prophets or who sought to incite rebellion, but that’s not the same thing.) Some say that Josephus cited Theudas, for example. He certainly did; however, the only quotations that I’ve seen from the writings of Josephus describe him as a prophet, rather than a self-professed Messiah. There may be other references to that effect, but I haven’t seen them. And even if Judea were truly crawling with so-called Messiahs, why should we expect the Jewish mob or the Romans to respond to each one in the same manner? It’s entirely possible that they would pay less attention to the more minor offenders, while inciting violence toward those that they deemed particularly offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/42 "2006-04-12T22:27:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Doesn’t it seem odd that whoever wrote Mark’s Gospel would not have known what was and wasn’t considered blasphemous? In that case, if he was trying to shift blame to the Jews, why not have Jesus actually say something that was blasphemous? It isn’t odd at all. Mark was a Gentile Christian writing to a Gentile audience. His Gospel is chock full of errors about Jewish laws, customs and Palestinian geography. He just didn’t know what he was talking about a lot of the time. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/43 "2006-04-12T22:33:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Depends on which Gospel you trust. I believe that “I and the Father are one” line is found only in John. Elsewhere Jesus draws a clear distinction between God and himself. Matthew 19:17: “Wherefore callest thou me good? One there is who is good.” Jesus’ claim to divinity rests on [more than just that single line from John’s gospel](http://www.thelife.com/explore/whowasjesus.html). As for Matthew 19:17, note that Jesus never denied that he was good. Rather, he was asking why this person concluded that Jesus was good. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/44 "2006-04-12T22:42:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It isn’t odd at all. Mark was a Gentile Christian writing to a Gentile audience. His Gospel is chock full of errors about Jewish laws, customs and Palestinian geography. He just didn’t know what he was talking about a lot of the time. Can anything that Jesus said in any of the 4 canonical Gospels can be seen as blaspemous? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/45 "2006-04-12T22:44:00Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Jesus’ claim to divinity rests on [more than just that single line from John’s gospel](http://www.thelife.com/explore/whowasjesus.html). That site is thoroughly confused. The “Son of Man” is **not** a divine figure, not even in Daniel. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son\_of\_man#Hebrew\_Bible](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man#Hebrew_Bible) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/46 "2006-04-12T22:48:55Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Crawling with them? There may have been a few; however, I haven’t seen any place where Josephus described Judea as crawling with self-professed Messiahs. (He did list a number of individuals who claimed to be prophets or who sought to incite rebellion, but that’s not the same thing.) Some say that Josephus cited Theudas, for example. He certainly did; however, the only quotations that I’ve seen from the writings of Josephus describe him as a prophet, rather than a self-professed Messiah. There may be other references to that effect, but I haven’t seen them. And even if Judea were truly crawling with so-called Messiahs, why should we expect the Jewish mob or the Romans to respond to each one in the same manner? It’s entirely possible that they would pay less attention to the more minor offenders, while inciting violence toward those that they deemed particularly offensive. [/QUOTE] I know there is a passage (which I’m currently trying to find) in which Josephus complains about the number of would-be Messiahs who infested Judea in the last few decades before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition the Theudas, Josephus also names Judas the Galilean and someon just called “the Egyptian.” You have to understand that any ambition to be king of Israel was a _de facto_ claim to Messiahship. So anyone who tried to lead a revolt was a “would=be Messiah.” It did not involve any claim to supernatural powers or special birthright. Messiahship is defined by _accomplishment_, not by birth. Anyone who tried to drive out the Romans was seen as trying to fulfill Messianic expectations. There is no evidence that “Jewish mobs” ever responded anything but favorably to aspiring Messiahs. They weren’t rooting for those guys to lose. The Romans DID treat them all the same. They killed them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/47 "2006-04-12T22:51:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can anything that Jesus said in any of the 4 canonical Gospels can be seen as blaspemous? No. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/48 "2006-04-12T23:25:23Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Jesus’ claim to divinity rests on [more than just that single line from John’s gospel](http://www.thelife.com/explore/whowasjesus.html). As for Matthew 19:17, note that Jesus never denied that he was good. Rather, he was asking why this person concluded that Jesus was good. I looked at the site, and followed the first of the links that should show that Jesus had claimed that he was the I AM of the old testament. And its just a short bit about him going up to a mountain… ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/49 "2006-04-12T23:34:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It isn’t odd at all. Mark was a Gentile Christian writing to a Gentile audience. His Gospel is chock full of errors about Jewish laws, customs and Palestinian geography. He just didn’t know what he was talking about a lot of the time. I don’t believe it’s conclusive that Mark was a Gentile, is it? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/50 "2006-04-12T23:37:48Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t believe it’s conclusive that Mark was a Gentile, is it? Nothing can be “conclusive” about the authorship of the Gospels, but it’s likely. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel\_of\_Mark#Authorship\_and\_Provenance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship_and_Provenance) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/51 "2006-04-12T23:46:20Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No, Mark claims his answer was _Ego Eimi_, which is Greek and which is not the Tetragrammaton. > > Presumably, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic to the Sanhedrin, but again, saying “I am” in Aramaic is still not the Tetragrammaton. It’s only the name of God if you say it in Hebrew and even then, it’s not actually blasphemy unless you _curse_ the name. I don’t believe that’s true. I think that name has been rendered in many languages and still represents [God’s name](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm): > [@](#): > > On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Ex., iii, 6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: “If they should say to me: What is his [God’s] name? What shall I say to them?” In reply, God returns three several times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb “to be”; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: “I am who am” (Vulg.), “I am who is” (Sept.), “I shall be {who] shall be” (Aquila, Theodotion), “the Eternal who does not cease” (Ar.); only the above-mentioned Targums see any reference to the creation of the world. The second time, God uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb “to be”; here the Syriac, the Sumaritan, the Persian versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem retain the Hebrew word, so that one cannot tell whether they regard the imperfect as a qal or a hiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause; but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum of Jonathan suppose here the imperfect qal: “He Who Is, hath sent me to you” instead of "I Am, hath sent me to you: (Vulg.); “ho on sent me to you” (Sept.); “I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you” (Targ. Jon.). Finally, the third time, God uses the third person of the imperfect, or the form of the sacred name itself; here the Samaritan version and the Targum of Onkelos retain the Hebrew form; the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac version render “Lord”, though, according to the analogy of the former two passages, they should have translated, “He Is, the God of your fathers, . . . hath sent me to you”; the Arabic version substitutes “God”. Classical exegesis, therefore, regards Jahveh as the imperfect qal of the Hebrew verb “to be”. Why would we assume that Greek rendering removes that connotation when it did not in any of these other translations? Would you expect a Greek translation to revert to Hebrew for this connotation to be maintained? Do you have a cite for that? Jesus says, “I am,” and the high priest tears his clothes and charges him with blasphemy. Seems obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/52 "2006-04-12T23:52:50Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t believe it’s conclusive that Mark was a Gentile, is it? Not conclusive, no, but it’s the most likely conclusion from the evidence we have. Some of the main points in favor of this conclusion are that: 1. The author never claims to be Jewish. 2. The book is anti-Jewish in its polemic. 3. The audience is Gentile. 4. The author shows a great deal of unfamiliarity (or misunderstanding of) with Jewish laws and customs as well as with Palestinian geography. The latter, of course, does not mean he couldn’t have been a Hellenistic Jew but it’s problematic for the tradition that Mark got his info from Peter. In short, there is really no positive evidence that Mark was Jewish and the evidence that we do have points away from it. It’s not impossible that he was Jewish but it does seem unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/53 "2006-04-12T23:55:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nothing can be “conclusive” about the authorship of the Gospels, but it’s likely. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel\_of\_Mark#Authorship\_and\_Provenance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship_and_Provenance) I read it quickly, but I don’t see where they say it was likely. Here’s another [cite](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm): > [@](#): > > In the preface to his Gospel in manuscripts of the Vulgate, Mark is represented as having been a Jewish priest: “Mark the Evangelist, who exercised the priestly office in Israel, a Levite by race”. Early authorities, however, are silent upon the point, and it is perhaps only an inference from his relation to Barnabas the Levite (Acts 4:36). Papias (in Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxix) says, on the authority of “the elder”, that Mark neither heard the Lord nor followed Him (oute gar ekouse tou kurion oute parekoluthesen auto), and the same statement is made in the Dialogue of Adamantius (fourth century, Leipzig, 1901, p. 8), by Eusebius (“Demonst. Evang.”, III, v), by St. Jerome (“In Matth.”), by St. Augustine (“De Consens. Evang.”), and is suggested by the Muratorian Fragment. Later tradition, however, makes Mark one of the seventy-two disciples, and St. Epiphanius (“Hær”, li, 6) says he was one of those who withdrew from Christ (John 6:67). The later tradition can have no weight against the earlier evidence, but the statement that Mark neither heard the Lord nor followed Him need not be pressed too strictly, nor force us to believe that he never saw Christ. Many indeed are of opinion that the young man who fled naked from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51) was Mark himself. Early in the third century Hippolytus (“Philosophumena”, VII, xxx) refers to Mark as ho kolobodaktulos, i.e. “stump-fingered” or “mutilated in the finger(s)”, and later authorities allude to the same defect. Various explanations of the epithet have been suggested: that Mark, after he embraced Christianity, cut off his thumb to unfit himself for the Jewish priesthood; that his fingers were naturally stumpy; that some defect in his toes is alluded to; that the epithet is to be regarded as metaphorical, and means “deserted” (cf. Acts 13:13). Seems less than conclusive. The other cites mention errors regarding local culture and topography, but I didn’t see anything suggesting any inconsistencies were attributable to someone who coudln’t have been a Jew. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/54 "2006-04-12T23:58:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic: > No, Mark claims his answer was Ego Eimi, which is Greek and which is not the Tetragrammaton. > > Presumably, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic to the Sanhedrin, but again, saying “I am” in Aramaic is still not the Tetragrammaton. It’s only the name of God if you say it in Hebrew and even then, it’s not actually blasphemy unless you curse the name. I have a somewhat unrelated question. Do non-believing jews, who are brought up with good education in the faith, still don’t like to pronounce the tetragrammaton? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/55 "2006-04-12T23:59:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not conclusive, no, but it’s the most likely conclusion from the evidence we have. Some of the main points in favor of this conclusion are that: > > 1. The author never claims to be Jewish. > 2. The book is anti-Jewish in its polemic. > 3. The audience is Gentile. > 4. The author shows a great deal of unfamiliarity (or misunderstanding of) with Jewish laws and customs as well as with Palestinian geography. The latter, of course, does not mean he couldn’t have been a Hellenistic Jew but it’s problematic for the tradition that Mark got his info from Peter. > > In short, there is really no positive evidence that Mark was Jewish and the evidence that we do have points away from it. It’s not impossible that he was Jewish but it does seem unlikely. Do the other Evangelists claim to be Jewish? I don’t agree it’s anti-Jewish. It’s anti-Jewish bureaucracy. Everyone depicted favorably in that gospel also happens to be Jewish. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/56 "2006-04-13T00:09:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t believe that’s true. I think that name has been rendered in many languages and still represents [God’s name](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm):Why would we assume that Greek rendering removes that connotation when it did not in any of these other translations? Would you expect a Greek translation to revert to Hebrew for this connotation to be maintained? Do you have a cite for that? Jesus says, “I am,” and the high priest tears his clothes and charges him with blasphemy. Seems obvious. It’s only blasphemous if you pronunce the specific four letter Hebrew name for God (and even then, only if you curse it). There is no prohibition in Jewish law against saying “I am” in other languages. You might even hear them say it English once in a while. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/57 "2006-04-13T00:19:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s only blasphemous if you pronunce the specific four letter Hebrew name for God (and even then, only if you curse it). There is no prohibition in Jewish law against saying “I am” in other languages. You might even hear them say it English once in a while. Diogenes, this defies a simple reading of the text. Perhaps Jesus said it thusly, and it was translated. Nonetheless, he says, “I am,” and the high priest has a bird and charges him with blasphemy. It’s pretty straightforward. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/58 "2006-04-13T00:24:49Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Do the other Evangelists claim to be Jewish? No, and probably none of them _were_ (though a case could be made for Matthew). > [@](#): > > I don’t agree it’s anti-Jewish. It’s anti-Jewish bureaucracy. Everyone depicted favorably in that gospel also happens to be Jewish. The only Jew really depicted favorably in Mark is Jesus himself. The book portrays even the apostles as idiots and cowards who never understand his teachings, who abandon him when he is arrested, who are never redeemed for their betrayal and who are never made aware of the resurrection. The book is even more anti-apostolic (and anti-Petrine) in its rhetoric than it is anti-Jewish. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/59 "2006-04-13T00:32:02Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Diogenes, this defies a simple reading of the text. Perhaps Jesus said it thusly, and it was translated. Nonetheless, he says, “I am,” and the high priest has a bird and charges him with blasphemy. It’s pretty straightforward. I think it’s pretty straightforward that the priest is responding to Jesus’ claim to Messiahship. Mark gives no indication that Jesus said the name in Hebrew and his Gentile audience could not have been expected to know that _Ego eimi_ could be construed as a translation of the Tetragrammaton anyway. Furthermore, just saying the name isn’t enough. You have to _curse_ the name. Having said that, even if you want to read the High Priest as responding to Jesus saying 'I am," in Greek (or Aramaic), it would only show that Mark did not understand what constituted blasphemy. He’s wrong either way. Neither interpretation would make Jesus guilty of blasphemy. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152/60 "2006-04-13T02:22:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I know there is a passage (which I’m currently trying to find) in which Josephus complains about the number of would-be Messiahs who infested Judea in the last few decades before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition the Theudas, Josephus also names Judas the Galilean and someon just called “the Egyptian.” You have to understand that any ambition to be king of Israel was a _de facto_ claim to Messiahship. That strikes me as putting words in their mouths. “Ah! He wants to lead the nation! He must think he’s the Messiah!” Sheesh. Moreover, there’s a huge difference between inciting a revolt and claiming to be king – much less the Messiah. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence that “Jewish mobs” ever responded anything but favorably to aspiring Messiahs. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct. You’re saying that because they responded favorably to these other (alleged) self-professed Messiahs, they would have responded favorably to ANYONE who claimed that title. Do you not see the fallacy behind that line of reasoning? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-christ-have-died-from-the-scourging/352152.md?page=4)