Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[outhouse]

I think that the blasphemy trial in Mark is fiction.

Agreed.

A trial to me is rhetorical in nature to build authority that this peasant was special enough that he met with the highest officials of the land.

A trouble making peasant would not get a trial. These were primitive savages that had no quarrels about severe punishment.

[John2]

If I recall correctly, the Talmud says there were no capital punishment cases between 30 and 70 CE, and it appears that the discussion of the issue may have only been academic anyway.

Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile and took its seat in the trade Halls. (in respect to what law [is this stated]? — Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi, To teach that they did not adjudicate in laws of fines. 'The laws of fines' can you think so! But say: They did not adjudicate in capital cases (Shab. 15a). http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_15.html

It is of extreme difficulty to determine whether the modes of capital punishment ... reflect actual practice, or whether they were academic discussions, as, for instance, are the detailed discussions on the sacrifices. Thus the law of the "stubborn and rebellious son" covers five mishnayot (Sanh. 8:1–5) and four folios of the Babylonian Talmud (68b–72a), and it is laid down that he is put to death by stoning and then hanged (ibid., 46a). Yet it is stated that "It never happened and it never will happen" and that the law was given merely "that you may study it and receive reward" (for the pure study; Tosef., Sanh. 11:6; Sanh. 71a), though on the other hand in the talmudic passage R. Jonathan protests "I saw him and sat on his grave." The same statement is made in the case of the death penalty for communal apostasy (Tosef., Sanh. 14:1) and the same reason given for its study. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 03929.html

In fact, off the top of my head the only trials I can think of in the first century CE are James' in Antiquities 20, Paul in 2 Cor. 11:23-25 ("I have ... been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones...") and Stephen in Acts 5-7.

Regarding the issue of cursing (or blasphemy) against Jewish leaders, I just noticed that Acts 6:11 uses the word blasphemy in regards to Moses: "Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God" (and Stephen was killed).

[Michael BG]

"And Gotholia tore her own clothes and shouted, 'Conspiracy! Conspiracy!' ... For the priest said, 'Indeed she should not die in the Lord’s house.' And they laid hands on her, and she entered by way of the horses’ entrance of the king’s house, and she died there." (4 Kings 11:14-16) (aka 2 Kings)

Gen 37:29 29 When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he tore his clothes

Gen 44:13 12He searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest; and the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack. 13At this they tore their clothes. Then each one loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city.

1 Sam 4:12 12 A man of Benjamin ran from the battle line, and came to Shiloh the same day, with his clothes torn and with earth upon his head

2 Sam 13:31 31The king rose, tore his garments, and lay on the ground; and all his servants who were standing by tore their garments.

2 Sam 15:32 32 When David came to the summit, where God was worshipped, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat torn and earth on his head.

Certainly the tearing on one's clothes was a well-known tradition in the face of adversity and perfidy. Perhaps Mark needed no specific parallel from the scriptures, or other previous traditions, to craft his line ---- "At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, 'Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy."

It was a trial, witnesses were required, and the (false) witnesses were established in the preceding lines. The false charge of blasphemy was a critical point for Mark, with the earlier context pointing to the high priest as the actual blasphemer. And the tearing of clothes was a common Jewish reaction in such circumstances.

With regard to the rendering of clothes further down in the Mishnah section of the Talmud at Sanhedrin 7.6:

"Rend," etc. Whence is this deduced? From [II Kings, xviii. 37]: "Then came Elyakim the son of Chilkiyah, who was superintendent over the house, and Shebuah the scribe, and Yoach the son of Assaph the recorder, to Hezekiah, with their clothes rent; and they told unto him the words of Rabshakeh."
"Not to be mended." Whence is this deduced? Said R. Abuhu: From an analogy of expression--"rent." It reads here: "With their clothes rent"; and [ibid. ii. 12]: "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and their horsemen. And be saw him no more; and he took hold of his clothes and rent them in two pieces." Why the word "pieces"? Is it not self-evident that when he rent them in two, they became pieces? Hence this term means that they should remain pieces and never be mended.
The rabbis taught: There is no difference if one hears it from the blasphemer himself or from the witness who heard it from the blasphemer--he must rend his garments. However, the witnesses themselves are not obliged to rend their garments gain, as they already did so when they heard the blasphemy. But supposing they have already rent? Do they not hear this now? Hence they should rend again? This cannot be supposed, as it reads [Ibid., ibid., 19]: "And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes." Hence Hezekiah rent, but they who told him did not rend again.
…

… my argument is the fact that neither "Power" nor "Jose" is one of the typical circumlocutions; that is a signal. The typical ones include "God" and "Lord". Choosing an unusual one probably means something.

I note that my point that the author (Mark?) has the word “power” instead of God, because while not in Daniel 7:13 or Ps 110 (Sept 109):1, it is used in the Septuagint version (Ps 109) verses 2 and 3, even if the “power” is given to David, has been lost. It is therefore possible that the author (Mark) used the word “power” for “God” from the Psalms use of that word a little later.

The sequence that I get from the story is: (A) Jesus is brought up on various charges that do not stick very well, (B) Jesus actually pronounces the divine name in the proceedings against him, which carries a sentence of death by Jewish law, and (C) the context in which Jesus pronounced the divine name carried implications of potential kingship, and therefore insurrection against Rome, which could be leveraged to get him condemned before Pilate, as well.

This seems to assume we have an historical account. However if we assume that everything about the charges is made up by Christians then the whole point of both trials is that Jesus was not found guilty of anything, he is innocent. His innocence is part of the theology of his “death for us” and it is necessary that he is an innocent sacrifice.

[outhouse]

If I recall correctly, the Talmud says there were no capital punishment cases between 30 and 70 CE, .

Its just such a terrible source for what we study. I find the value in it for much of the first century, has to be taken with a grain of salt and coaxed out.


There is plenty of stoning deaths mentioned in earlier text, and I have no problem believing these events took place.


There were all violent primitive people who lived terrible lived in political turmoil that often resulted in war.

[Ben C. Smith]

I note that my point that the author (Mark?) has the word “power” instead of God, because while not in Daniel 7:13 or Ps 110 (Sept 109):1, it is used in the Septuagint version (Ps 109) verses 2 and 3, even if the “power” is given to David, has been lost. It is therefore possible that the author (Mark) used the word “power” for “God” from the Psalms use of that word a little later.

So Yahweh is power because he has power? That seems rather less likely than Gundry's proposal.

The sequence that I get from the story is: (A) Jesus is brought up on various charges that do not stick very well, (B) Jesus actually pronounces the divine name in the proceedings against him, which carries a sentence of death by Jewish law, and (C) the context in which Jesus pronounced the divine name carried implications of potential kingship, and therefore insurrection against Rome, which could be leveraged to get him condemned before Pilate, as well.

This seems to assume we have an historical account.

It most certainly does not. Not in any way. It assumes an original story with that storyline; it makes no claim as to whether the story is historical or not.

However if we assume that everything about the charges is made up by Christians then the whole point of both trials is that Jesus was not found guilty of anything, he is innocent. His innocence is part of the theology of his “death for us” and it is necessary that he is an innocent sacrifice.

In the series of events that I am suggesting, Jesus is completely innocent in the story (from a Christian point of view). My powers of explanation must be failing me, however, since I have lost count of the number of posters on this thread who assume otherwise.

[Michael BG]

I note that my point that the author (Mark?) has the word “power” instead of God, because while not in Daniel 7:13 or Ps 110 (Sept 109):1, it is used in the Septuagint version (Ps 109) verses 2 and 3, even if the “power” is given to David, has been lost. It is therefore possible that the author (Mark) used the word “power” for “God” from the Psalms use of that word a little later.

So Yahweh is power because he has power? That seems rather less likely than Gundry's proposal.

And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
RVS Mk 14:62

The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit on my right, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”.
A rod of your power the Lord will send out from Sion. And exercise dominion in the midst of your enemies.
With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendours of the holy ones. From the womb, before the morning-star, I have brought you forth.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-ps-nets.pdf

The phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” does not appear here. The word “Lord” when used by early Christians means Jesus. Therefore it is possible than the author even if not Mark didn’t want to use “Lord” as he might have felt his readers might misunderstand and the word “power” came to him because of its use in the next two verses. I am not sure how often Jesus uses the word “Lord” for God I think he uses “Abba”.

We can agree that the normal word to use is “Lord” but I don’t think you have made a case that “power” is never used.

The sequence that I get from the story is: (A) Jesus is brought up on various charges that do not stick very well, (B) Jesus actually pronounces the divine name in the proceedings against him, which carries a sentence of death by Jewish law, and (C) the context in which Jesus pronounced the divine name carried implications of potential kingship, and therefore insurrection against Rome, which could be leveraged to get him condemned before Pilate, as well.

This seems to assume we have an historical account.

It most certainly does not. Not in any way. It assumes an original story with that storyline; it makes no claim as to whether the story is historical or not.

However if we assume that everything about the charges is made up by Christians then the whole point of both trials is that Jesus was not found guilty of anything, he is innocent. His innocence is part of the theology of his “death for us” and it is necessary that he is an innocent sacrifice.

In the series of events that I am suggesting, Jesus is completely innocent in the story (from a Christian point of view). My powers of explanation must be failing me, however, since I have lost count of the number of posters on this thread who assume otherwise.

I know that you have said that from Mark’s point of view Jesus is innocent, but that is because he doesn’t understand that Jesus did say Yahweh. However if there is an author before Mark you have stated that he would have known what he was doing.

It appears that we are supposed to understand that Jesus uttered the divine name at the hearing, …

(B) Jesus actually pronounces the divine name in the proceedings against him, …

If the pre-Marcan author wants his readers to understand that Jesus said Yahweh how can he also expect his readers to believe that Jesus didn’t commit blasphemy?

[Ben C. Smith]

I note that my point that the author (Mark?) has the word “power” instead of God, because while not in Daniel 7:13 or Ps 110 (Sept 109):1, it is used in the Septuagint version (Ps 109) verses 2 and 3, even if the “power” is given to David, has been lost. It is therefore possible that the author (Mark) used the word “power” for “God” from the Psalms use of that word a little later.

So Yahweh is power because he has power? That seems rather less likely than Gundry's proposal.

And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
RVS Mk 14:62

The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit on my right, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”.
A rod of your power the Lord will send out from Sion. And exercise dominion in the midst of your enemies.
With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendours of the holy ones. From the womb, before the morning-star, I have brought you forth.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-ps-nets.pdf

The phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” does not appear here. The word “Lord” when used by early Christians means Jesus. Therefore it is possible than the author even if not Mark didn’t want to use “Lord” as he might have felt his readers might misunderstand....

And yet, in Mark 12.36, "Lord" is used of Yahweh even when the resulting sentence is confusing!

36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, "The Lord said to my Lord [εἶπεν κύριος τῶ κυρίῳ μου], 'Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.'"

...and the word “power” came to him because of its use in the next two verses. I am not sure how often Jesus uses the word “Lord” for God I think he uses “Abba”.

Lord: Mark 1.3; 11.9; 12.11, 29-30, 36-37; 13.20.
Abba: 14.36.

We can agree that the normal word to use is “Lord” but I don’t think you have made a case that “power” is never used.

My position is that it is rarely used (and when it is used, it may be due to Mark 14.62 itself!) overall, and never used elsewhere in Mark. In Mark the pattern for references to Jewish scriptural passages that use the name of Yahweh goes Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Power.

I know that you have said that from Mark’s point of view Jesus is innocent, but that is because he doesn’t understand that Jesus did say Yahweh. However if there is an author before Mark you have stated that he would have known what he was doing.

I also stated before that an author may well have considered Jesus innocent of blasphemy on the grounds either that (A) as the son of God he is allowed to speak the personal name of his father or that (B) blasphemy in the scriptures is not simply saying the name but rather entails some degree of slander against God, and elsewhere in the tradition we find Jesus resisting contemporary interpretations of the scriptures that are more stringent than the scriptures themselves would appear to be. Or a combination of both.

Ben.

[John2]

Outhouse wrote:

Its just such a terrible source for what we study. I find the value in it for much of the first century, has to be taken with a grain of salt and coaxed out.


There is plenty of stoning deaths mentioned in earlier text, and I have no problem believing these events took place.

I wouldn't say it's a "terrible" source, but yes, information in the Talmud about the first century CE should be taken with a grain of salt.

Can you think of any examples of stoning deaths in the first century CE besides James in Antiquities 20 and Stephen in Acts 7? I can't off the top of my head. And James' trial was illegal and the person who assembled the Sanhedrin was removed from office because of it, and I see Stephen's trial and stoning (not to mention his existence) as fictional. Also, what about John 18:31?

'You take Him and judge Him by your own Law,' Pilate told them. 'We are not permitted to execute anyone,' the Jews replied."

[Michael BG]

So Yahweh is power because he has power? That seems rather less likely than Gundry's proposal.

And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
RVS Mk 14:62

The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit on my right, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”.
A rod of your power the Lord will send out from Sion. And exercise dominion in the midst of your enemies.
With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendours of the holy ones. From the womb, before the morning-star, I have brought you forth.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-ps-nets.pdf

The phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” does not appear here. The word “Lord” when used by early Christians means Jesus. Therefore it is possible than the author even if not Mark didn’t want to use “Lord” as he might have felt his readers might misunderstand....

And yet, in Mark 12.36, "Lord" is used of Yahweh even when the resulting sentence is confusing!

36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, "The Lord said to my Lord [εἶπεν κύριος τῶ κυρίῳ μου], 'Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.'"

...and the word “power” came to him because of its use in the next two verses. I am not sure how often Jesus uses the word “Lord” for God I think he uses “Abba”.

Lord: Mark 1.3; 11.9; 12.11, 29-30, 36-37; 13.20.
Abba: 14.36.

I assumed you would understand that Abba is translated into Father in Greek –
Mk 8:38, 10:40, 11:25, 11:26, 13:32
Mark 1:3 and 11:9 are not Jesus speaking!
Your next three are quotes from the OT on the lips of Jesus
13.20 Mark has it on the lips of Jesus, but Mark has inherited this from his Jewish source.

So we have Jesus using Abba / Father for God six times in Mark, but never referring to God as Lord unless quoting the Old Testament

We can agree that the normal word to use is “Lord” but I don’t think you have made a case that “power” is never used.

My position is that it is rarely used (and when it is used, it may be due to Mark 14.62 itself!) overall, and never used elsewhere in Mark. In Mark the pattern for references to Jewish scriptural passages that use the name of Yahweh goes Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Power.

No we have Father, Father, Father, Father, Father, Father, Power when not quoting a correct quote from the OT.

Of course this is Mark’s use, but we have no idea about the pre-Marcan source’s author's use!

I know that you have said that from Mark’s point of view Jesus is innocent, but that is because he doesn’t understand that Jesus did say Yahweh. However if there is an author before Mark you have stated that he would have known what he was doing.

I also stated before that an author may well have considered Jesus innocent of blasphemy on the grounds either that (A) as the son of God he is allowed to speak the personal name of his father or that (B) blasphemy in the scriptures is not simply saying the name but rather entails some degree of slander against God, and elsewhere in the tradition we find Jesus resisting contemporary interpretations of the scriptures that are more stringent than the scriptures themselves would appear to be. Or a combination of both.

Your option A is unlikely. I don’t think that the author of the pre-Marcan source would have created a story where Jesus says Yahweh, but wants his readers to understand this, while changing “Yahweh” to “power” and then expects his readers to understand that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy because his Jewish judges did not understand that Jesus can’t blaspheme!

Your option B is possible especially if the author is reading back into Jesus’ trial the charges made against Christians in his day. However this seems to weaken your idea regarding the linkage between this passage and Sanhedrin 7.6.

[Ben C. Smith]

I assumed you would understand that Abba is translated into Father in Greek –
Mk 8:38, 10:40, 11:25, 11:26, 13:32

Of course. But I thought that it was the Marcan habit we were discussing, and I thought the unusualness was what we were discussing. Back translating "father" into Aramaic is unusual; Mark does it only once.

I am no longer sure what you are tracking.

Mark 1:3 and 11:9 are not Jesus speaking!

Right. I thought we were tracking Marcan usage.

So we have Jesus using Abba / Father for God six times in Mark, but never referring to God as Lord unless quoting the Old Testament

And Mark 14.62 is a reference to the Old Testament. It is a combination of Psalm 110.1 and Daniel 7.13.

This is how far apart we are: my original list of instances of "Lord" gave 8, but my "pattern" list gave only 7: Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Lord-Power, precisely because I removed Mark 13.20, since it was not an apparent reference or allusion to the Hebrew scriptures!

No we have Father, Father, Father, Father, Father, Father, Power when not quoting a correct quote from the OT.

Mark 14.62 is a reference to Psalm 110.1 and Daniel 7.13.

Again, I have completely lost track of your argument.

Your option B is possible especially if the author is reading back into Jesus’ trial the charges made against Christians in his day. However this seems to weaken your idea regarding the linkage between this passage and Sanhedrin 7.6.

Not from the priestly point of view. Reporting that someone else called something blasphemy is not the same as reporting that you agree with the charge.

Ben.