Mark 14:57

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 40px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; margin-left: 20px; padding-left: 15px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
ul ul { list-style-type: circle; }

The Function of the Agentless Passive in Mark’s Gospel: An Exegetical Study of False Testimony in Mark 14:57-59

This exegetical study of ‘Agency and Passive Voice, Mark 14:57-59 False Testimony’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Jun 5 2001. The initial contribution highlights Marius Reiser’s argument regarding the interpretation of true passive constructions in biblical texts. Reiser posits that when the agent of a passive verb is left unspecified, it is often an intentional authorial choice to downplay the issue of agency. Consequently, making assumptions or drawing definitive conclusions about the unstated agent is exegetically unsound, as it may contradict the author’s original intent.

The central exegetical issue explored herein concerns the interpretation of agentless passive constructions in Mark’s Gospel and their potential for misunderstanding, particularly in the context of false testimony against Jesus. The discussion grapples with how the deliberate omission of an agent by Jesus in certain statements (e.g., concerning the temple’s destruction or the forgiveness of sins) could be exploited or misconstrued by his adversaries. It examines whether the accusations leveled against Jesus in Mark 14:57-59, specifically concerning his purported threat to destroy the temple, stem from an intentional or unintentional misattribution of agency to Jesus in his own prophecies, contrasting this with instances where Jesus’s implied agency was, retrospectively, understood to be accurate by onlookers (e.g., Mark 2:5-10).

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

57 καὶ ἀναστάντες τινες ἐψευδομαρτύρουν κατ’ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες,
58 ὅτι Ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος, ὅτι Ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω.
59 καὶ οὐδὲ οὕτως ἴση ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ μαρτυρία.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Verse 57: Nestle 1904 reads ἀναστάντες τινες, whereas SBLGNT 2010 presents τινὲς ἀναστάντες. This is a minor stylistic variation in word order, bearing no significant impact on the semantic meaning or the exegetical points raised in this study.
• Verse 59: Nestle 1904 includes καὶ at the beginning of the verse (καὶ οὐδὲ οὕτως), while SBLGNT 2010 omits it (Οὐδὲ οὕτως). This omission of the coordinating conjunction does not alter the core meaning of the verse regarding the inconsistency of the testimony.
• No other substantive textual variants that would alter the interpretation pertinent to agency or the false nature of the testimony are noted between these two editions for these verses.

Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The textual apparatus of NA28 shows no significant variants for Mark 14:57-59 that would impact the discussion of agency or the false nature of the testimony. The primary interpretive challenge lies in the semantic and pragmatic implications of the chosen vocabulary and grammatical constructions, particularly the passive voice.

• ἐψευδομαρτύρουν (Mk 14:57): This imperfect verb, meaning ‘they bore false witness,’ clearly establishes the deceptive nature of the accusations. The prefix ψευδο- (pseudo-) denotes falsehood.
• καταλύσω (Mk 14:58): The false witnesses claim Jesus said, “I will destroy.” This future active verb is a direct and definitive claim of agency, which stands in contrast to the agentless passives discussed elsewhere.
• χειροποίητον (Mk 14:58): This adjective, meaning ‘made with hands,’ is critical to the false testimony. It specifies the nature of the temple Jesus supposedly threatened. While not explicitly found in Mark 13:2 or other Synoptic accounts of the temple’s destruction, it aligns with broader theological themes in the New Testament (Acts 7:48; Heb 9:11) distinguishing between human-made structures and divine, spiritual realities. The inclusion of this term by the false witnesses suggests a conflation with other teachings or a deliberate fabrication to emphasize the blasphemous nature of Jesus’s alleged claim. This term is significant enough that its inclusion is noted as a strong link to John 2:19 by some scholars, suggesting a conflation of various sayings.
• ἀχειροποίητον (Mk 14:58): This contrasting adjective, ‘not made with hands,’ further elaborates on the nature of the temple Jesus supposedly claimed he would rebuild. It highlights the divine or spiritual nature of the new temple, implicitly connecting to Jesus’s body or the Church, thereby underscoring the theological depth behind the misrepresentation.
• The term “divine passive” is a key concept, referring to instances where God is understood to be the implied agent of a passive verb, often to avoid explicit mention of the divine name. However, as noted in the discussion, scholarly views differ on the extent to which NT authors consistently employed this convention, with some arguing that many agentless passives are intentionally ambiguous, even when God’s involvement might seem obvious. The semantic range of the passive voice in Greek allows for downplaying agency for various rhetorical and theological reasons, not solely for reverence towards God.

Translation Variants

The grammatical structure of the passive voice, particularly when agentless, presents significant interpretive and translational challenges. The discussion emphasizes Reiser’s view that neglecting the author’s intent to suppress agency can lead to exegetical errors. This is particularly salient in Mark 14:57-59 when juxtaposed with Mark 13:2 and Mark 2:5.

• Mark 2:5: Jesus declares to the paralytic, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (your sins are forgiven). Here, the perfect passive verb ἀφίενται (have been forgiven) is agentless. The scribes, however, infer Jesus to be the agent, leading to their accusation of blasphemy. While Mark 2:10 later indicates Jesus does have authority to forgive sins, the initial passive construction leaves the agent unspoken, challenging the scribes to interpret. This demonstrates how a seemingly obvious agent can still be suppressed for rhetorical effect, forcing the audience to consider the implications.
• Mark 13:2: Jesus predicts the temple’s destruction with the agentless future passive verb καταλυθῇ (will be thrown down): οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ (not one stone will be left here upon another that will not be thrown down). The agent of destruction is left unspecified. This prophetic idiom, common in apocalyptic literature, intentionally leaves agency open, often implying divine action without explicitly naming God. The false witnesses at Jesus’s trial, however, conflate this statement with others (like John 2:19, where Jesus says “I will destroy this temple”) and explicitly attribute the agency of destruction to Jesus in Mark 14:58, saying, Ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον (I will destroy this temple). This grammatical shift from passive to active voice, with Jesus as the explicit agent, transforms a nuanced prophecy into a direct, threatening claim.
• Mark 14:57-59 False Testimony: The testimony in Mark 14:58 combines elements that distort Jesus’s original sayings. The phrase τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον (this temple made with hands) likely alludes to John 2:19 and broader theological concepts, while attributing an explicit destructive agency to Jesus regarding the physical temple. The contrast with ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω (I will build another not made with hands) further highlights the spiritual nature of Jesus’s true claims, which the false witnesses twist into a literal, blasphemous threat. The rhetorical function of this false testimony is to portray Jesus as a destructive force against sacred institutions, providing grounds for his condemnation. The discussion highlights that while Mk 13:2 was semi-private, its contents could easily have become part of public rumor, facilitating the conflation and distortion by the false witnesses.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis underscores the critical importance of understanding the authorial intent behind the use of the agentless passive in Mark’s Gospel. Marius Reiser’s principle, that the omission of an agent is often intentional and should not be arbitrarily filled, proves valuable for interpreting passages like Mark 2:5 and 13:2. The false testimony in Mark 14:57-59, therefore, represents a deliberate or accidental misinterpretation of Jesus’s statements, capitalizing on the inherent ambiguity of agentless passives by supplying Jesus as the agent where the author (and Jesus) may have intended otherwise, or for specific rhetorical and theological purposes. Furthermore, the discussion of Mark 14:62 raises the possibility that Jesus’s self-identification as the Son of Man coming with clouds and seated at the right hand of Power might have been understood by the High Priest as an implicit claim of agency in eschatological judgment, thus providing a perceived, albeit distorted, basis for the false accusations regarding the temple’s destruction.

Here are three translation suggestions for Mark 14:57-59, aiming to capture the nuances of the false testimony and its distortion of Jesus’s original sayings:

1. “Then some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, ‘We heard him declare, ‘I will demolish this temple, built by human hands, and in three days I will construct another, not built by human hands.” Yet, even so, their testimony was not consistent.”
   This translation maintains a literal rendering of the false testimony, emphasizing Jesus’s purported active agency (“I will demolish,” “I will construct”) while retaining the specific, loaded terms “built by human hands” and “not built by human hands,” which underscore the theological nature of the accusation. It highlights the direct claim of destructive agency attributed to Jesus by his accusers.

2. “And certain men arose and falsely testified against him, alleging, ‘We heard him say, ‘I myself will utterly destroy this temple, that which is made with hands, and after three days I will erect another, not made with hands.” Even then, their witness did not agree.”
   This version uses stronger verbs like “utterly destroy” and “erect” to convey the severity of the false charges. The phrase “I myself” (from Ἐγὼ) emphasizes the personal agency attributed to Jesus, making the alleged threat more direct and personal. “That which is made with hands” clarifies the nuance of χειροποίητον.

3. “Some individuals came forward and bore false witness against him, stating, ‘We heard him announce, ‘I am going to tear down this temple, a hand-made structure, and within three days I will build a different one, not made by human hands.” But even with this, their testimony did not correspond.”
   This translation uses more colloquial phrasing for “tear down” and “hand-made structure” to convey the likely common understanding of the accusation. It emphasizes the announcement (λέγοντος, saying/announcing) of Jesus’s alleged plan, highlighting the supposed future intent. The final clause underscores the crucial legal point of the testimony’s inconsistency.

“`