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.
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.
Jesus’ claim to divinity rests on more than just that single line from John’s gospel. 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.
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.
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…
I don’t believe that’s true. I think that name has been rendered in many languages and still represents God’s name:
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.
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:
The author never claims to be Jewish.
The book is anti-Jewish in its polemic.
The audience is Gentile.
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.
I read it quickly, but I don’t see where they say it was likely. Here’s another cite:
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, and probably none of them were (though a case could be made for Matthew).
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.
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.
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.
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?