Michael BG wrote:If you are now saying that the pre-Marcan author received the story with “power” and not Yahweh this seems to me to weaken your point about the author understanding that Jesus said Yahweh.
"Now" saying? It has been my position all along, without exception, that the divine name "Yahweh" was never uttered in the recounting of this story. (Just one example from a post of mine on the first page of this thread: "Does it not look as if the story was passed on by people who themselves, out of respect, did not use the divine name, and thus inserted Power at the proper moment?" You can also see there by the plural "people" that I was always envisioning, at least potentially, multiple storytellers in this scenario; I have not changed on that score.)
It was simply understood amongst its original tradents that "Power" stood for "Yahweh", since the original tradents understood exactly what constituted blasphemy. They told the story in much the same way a group of pious churchgoers would speak about someone who used an extreme expletive: nobody would actually say the expletive, but they would use code words for it. (I grew up in such circles; maybe that is why some are finding it so hard to imagine what I am saying; maybe they are not used to how people react to words they truly consider taboo.) This is why the
usual circumlocutions for Yahweh were not employed; they would make it sound as if Jesus said "God" (for example), because that is how
most people said it. That, doubtless, is why the usual circumlocutions for Yahweh were not employed at trial according to the Mishnah, too.
Later tradents, possibly/probably including Mark, did
not understand what constituted blasphemy, and did
not understand that Power was just a stand-in for Yahweh, and this is why, despite explanations on other, more trivial matters, Mark does not offer one here; he assumed (as do so many still today) that there was something about the claim itself that was blasphemous.
This is an example of where Marcan usage comes into play; I still do not know what you were trying to demonstrate with your list of Jesus' usages in Mark of the term Father, in contexts not even connected with the scriptures, but what
I was trying to demonstrate is that Power is a unique circumlocution for Yahweh in the gospel (as well as rare overall), thus making it stand out from the other circumlocutions. When one is evaluating whether an author is using a source, finding something unique or different about the alleged source compared to the rest of the work is standard practice, and counts as supporting evidence. I hope that much at least is clear now.
Your point about power being associated with the coming of the son of man thrice in the gospel of Mark is interesting; yet in 14.62 it is not associated with the coming; it is associated with the sitting at the right hand. Also, the other two examples demonstrate just how easy it is to say that the coming (of the son of man in one case, of the kingdom in the other) is with power; yet that does not happen in 14.62; instead, Power becomes the pseudonym for the divinity at whose right hand the son of man is to be sitting.
Your all-embracing method is why you have to continue to restate your position.
No, I think it is because you have never really grasped the entirety of my position, and
that may well be because I am not explaining well. But it is not a direct consequence of some all-embracing viewpoint of mine, since the basic idea is actually really simple.
Mk 14:62 is not a quote from the Old Testament and the phrase we are discussing is not in the Old Testament.
It is a paraphrase of Psalm 110.1, which has been called the scriptural verse most frequently alluded to in the New Testament. I doubt a reference Bible exists that does not recognize the connection here. If you are trying to persuade me that Mark 14.62 is not an allusion to Psalm 110.1, I am sorry, but that is not likely to happen. Here is how allusions to that verse are handled elsewhere:
Acts 2.33-34: "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand."'"
Acts 5.31: "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Acts 7.55-56: But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
Romans 8.34: Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Colossians 3.1: If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
1 Peter 3.22: ...who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
In addition, Hebrews mixes it up a bit, with phrases that include the right hand of God, the right hand of the Lord, the right hand of the Majesty, the right hand of the throne of Majesty, and the right hand of the throne of God. Now, these are unusual circumlocutions, right? Yet (A) they are not accompanied by protestations of blasphemy and (B) these unusual circumlocutions are attested throughout the epistle. This is why my discussion of Marcan usage matters; Mark normally uses the "typical" circumlocutions for Yahweh (God, Lord) when referring to passages from the Hebrew scriptures that involve the divine name. Yet in 14.62 he departs from his usual custom and uses "Power" instead. Why? The Mishnaic connection explains this easily.
Ben.