Mark 14 Footnotes

14:30,68,72 Rabbinic sources, which may not necessarily apply to conditions in the first century, both presuppose and disallow keeping poultry in Jerusalem. Thus, even if Jews could not keep their own poultry, roosters from outside the walls of the city could still be heard. In Mark, Jesus told Peter he would deny him “before the rooster crows twice.” In the other Synoptic Gospels, Jesus referred to only one crowing of a rooster (Mt 26:34; Lk 22:34).

14:53 According to the later Jewish rabbinical writings known as the Mishnah, capital cases could not be tried at night and required two consecutive days before verdicts could be rendered. If these criteria were used in the first century, either convention was flouted in this case for expediency’s sake or, more probably, this was not an official trial. The “trial” before the high priest seems to have been an ad hoc gathering of the ruling council demanded by the course of events (i.e., the opportunity afforded by Judas and the desire to do away with Jesus before the feast). Its purpose appears to have been to arrive at a consensus to deliver Jesus to the Romans with recommendation for execution. We must assume that Peter was informed of the proceedings by others in the high priest’s household and related the trial to Mark or that some present at the trial—perhaps Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea—later reported the proceedings to the early church.

14:63-64 Caiaphas probably did not take Jesus’s admission to be the Messiah as blasphemy. He did see as blasphemy Jesus’s claim to be the Son of Man who approaches God’s throne (Dn 7:13-14) and the one who sits at God’s right hand (Ps 110:1), sharing his authority. Later rabbis condemned such an understanding of the Messiah. Threatening the high priest was also related to the charge of blasphemy. According to rabbinic sources (m. San. 7:5), once the judge has heard blasphemy—a capital offense—he is to stand and tear his robes.