Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

As for 1 Kings 21.8-14, Naboth was accused of cursing the king, not claiming to be king.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fVA ... y.&f=false

iskander wrote:

iskander wrote:Geza Vermes says, page 270

the utterance of the sacrosanct Tetragram was an absolute requisite for someone to be charged with blasphemy. " The blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the Name ( Mishnah Snanhedrin 7:5), Reviling a substitute name was disapproved of, but did not carry the death penalty. It is apposite therefore to underline that in all three Synoptic Gospels Jesus is presented as employing a substitute name for God in his answer to the high priest and speaks not of the right hand of God, but of 'the right hand of the Power' ( Mk 14: 62; Mt 26:64; Lk 22:69) . The alleged judgment of the Sanhedrin, ' You have heard his blasphemy' ( MK 14: 64) appears therefore precipitate.

Jesus: Nativity - Passion - Resurrection
Publisher: Penguin (4 Mar. 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0141046228
ISBN-13: 978-0141046228

Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5
The blasphemer
http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedri ... arLang=all

as interpreted by others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:6
The idolator
http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedri ... arLang=all

Ben C. Smith wrote: ...................................................................

If the pre-Marcan version was understood to mean that Jesus did in fact commit blasphemy I would expect there to be witnesses to testify in some way to this, but there isn’t.

Not sure what you mean here. There are (false) witnesses at the trial in Mark, but the whole point, if Jesus uttered the divine name at the trial, is that no witnesses are actually needed after all, because the defendant has implicated himself.

I am not assuming that the original witnesses were there in order to convict Jesus of blasphemy; they babble on instead about weird threats to the temple (which to my mind is another question worth exploring: what does Mark intend the reader to understand about Jesus having spoken or not spoken such a saying?). But, once Jesus uttered the divine name (perhaps precisely because a conviction was not a sure thing, in keeping with him having predicted all of this in the first place), blasphemy was all that it took to secure the Jewish pronouncement of guilt.

Ben.

This blog post does-marks-jesus-prophesy-the-destruction-of-the-temple may possibly be relevant to Mark's views about Jesus and the temple.

Andrew Criddle

Michael BG wrote:I am happy to assume there was a pre-Marcan passion narrative, and it would take us closer to the historical events. A huge problem with the passion narrative is the two trials of Jesus. There is very strong tradition that Jesus was crucified by the Romans and not stoned by the Jews for blasphemy.

The Marcan passion narrative as we have it, seems clear that the charge of blasphemy is false –

[55] Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
[56] For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.
[57] And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,
[58] "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"
[59] Yet not even so did their testimony agree.
[60] And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"
[61] But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
[62] 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."
[63] And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?
[64] You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

(Mk 14:55-64 RSV)

There does not appear to be any clear divisions or breaks in this section to imply some of it is Marcan redaction and some of it a pre-Marcan source. It appears to me as whole cloth. (In the Septuagint the word “power” appears in Ps 109 (110) verses 2 and 3.)

If the pre-Marcan version was understood to mean that Jesus did in fact commit blasphemy I would expect there to be witnesses to testify in some way to this, but there isn’t.

In the account of the “trial” of Stephen (Acts 6:8-7:57) there are “false witnesses” (6:12) to Stephen’s blasphemy (6:11) and Stephen says something close to what Jesus says –

Acts 7:56-

and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.

If we assume that Luke is using a source here then it is very possible for such a source to contain false witnesses to blasphemy.

It has been suggested that the whole Jewish trial is a creation of Christians to remove the blame for Jesus’ death from the Roman authorities and place it on Jewish ones and this is assumed to have happened when the passion narrative was presented to gentiles rather than Jews. If we assume that Mark has not changed this section then even in the pre-Marcan narrative we don’t have any explanation for its gentile readers.

There is an explanation for the charge of 'blasphemy' in the gospel of Mark. The explanation is that Mark wanted to assume that the high priest understood the title of , "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", to mean the same as the later Trinitarians understood this title to mean. That the high priest believed Jesus had claimed divinity made for a persuasive sales pitch.

The ' blasphemy' trial was inserted by Mark on an earlier ' tradition' in order to avoid a trial for heresy .

This is how G. A. Chadwick understands Jesus' reply , " I am..."

Well then, if anything in the life of Jesus is beyond controversy, it is this, that the sinless Man, our ideal representative and guide, the greatest religious genius of the race, died for asserting upon oath that He was the Son of God.
...
As Jesus spoke the fatal words, as malice and hatred lighted the faces of His wicked judges
with a base and ignoble joy, what was His own thought? We know it by the warning that He added. They supposed themselves judges and irresponsible, but there would yet be another tribunal, with justice of a far different kind, and there they should occupy another place. For all that was passing before His eyes, so false, hypocritical and murderous, there was no lasting victory, no impunity, no escape: “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

G. A. Chadwick. The Gospel of St. Mark
https://ia600502.us.archive.org/0/items ... aduoft.pdf

duplicate , please delete. Sorry

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Michael BG wrote:There does not appear to be any clear divisions or breaks in this section to imply some of it is Marcan redaction and some of it a pre-Marcan source. It appears to me as whole cloth.

I agree. The issue for me is not whether anything has been interpolated or maneuvered around here; it is, rather, whether Mark himself understood what the blasphemy consisted of. If not, there are interesting implications for the ultimate origins of the story.

Your answer here implies that you think that Mark did not add the word “power” but that it was in the pre-Marcan version. Later you seem to have made it clear

Ben C. Smith wrote:No, I do not posit that an earlier text or tradition had the divine name. Rather, it had a circumlocution, as is proper, and a rare circumlocution so that the ear will be attuned to what is going on,

Perhaps my final point was not very clear.
It is sometimes suggested that the pre-Marcan narrative was composed in Palestine. If you assume that we have the pre-Marcan text the question of who it was written for becomes more problematic. It could be that it was written for Jewish Christians and they understood that Jesus used the name of God, but that the author had changed it to “power”. However it has been suggested that the trial before Jewish authorities was created for its gentile readers and to lessen the involvement of Roman authorities. If it was written for gentile readers then it seems unlikely that what the author wrote was meant to be interpreted as Jesus committing blasphemy.

Adam wrote:

Michael BG wrote:I am happy to assume there was a pre-Marcan passion narrative, and it would take us closer to the historical events. A huge problem with the passion narrative is the two trials of Jesus. There is very strong tradition that Jesus was crucified by the Romans and not stoned by the Jews for blasphemy.

As "I am" (blasphemous Joke], but for me the pre-Marcan passion narrative is nothing like Mark. My seven-eyewitness-account Thesis holds that for the Passion Narrative the best exemplar for the source is in John. The Source according to Howard M. Teeple (and likewise the completed John) fails to suggest any blasphemy.
Not to lose heart, however, I also hold that the Passion Narrative source under John is the same Aramaic source under the Synoptics. As I argue Lucan primacy, let us look at Luke 22:66-71, which concludes as the Synoptics agree "Then they said, 'What further need have we for testimony? Whe have heard it from his own mouth."(NAB)

I am not convinced that Luke had any source other than Mark. And I am not convinced that John had any source other than the Synoptics.

Michael BG wrote:It is sometimes suggested that the pre-Marcan narrative was composed in Palestine. If you assume that we have the pre-Marcan text....

Just to be clear, I do not assume that we have the text that came before Mark. I suggest that the circumlocution came before Mark. Some, much, or all of the remaining wording may have been changed.

...the question of who it was written for becomes more problematic. It could be that it was written for Jewish Christians and they understood that Jesus used the name of God, but that the author had changed it to “power”. However it has been suggested that the trial before Jewish authorities was created for its gentile readers and to lessen the involvement of Roman authorities. If it was written for gentile readers then it seems unlikely that what the author wrote was meant to be interpreted as Jesus committing blasphemy.

What is the basis for arguing that the Jewish trial was invented for Roman or gentile readers? I mean, the suggestion makes sense so far as it goes, but what is the evidence?

Ben wrote:

"If the pre-Marcan version was understood to mean that Jesus did in fact commit blasphemy I would expect there to be witnesses to testify in some way to this, but there isn’t."

That's what made me think you meant there was a pre-Marcan text or tradition behind Mk. 14:62.

But I think there are two problems with your idea overall. In the text as we have it, not only does Jesus not mention the divine name, even if he did (or if we are to understand that he did), it is only forbidden in the Pharisee Oral Torah rather than the written Torah, and there is no way of being certain the former was in force prior to the compilation of the Mishnah c. 200 CE. It isn't a crime in the OT to mention the name YHWH in the manner you are supposing Jesus does in Mark 14:62.

For examples:

"God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD [YHWH], the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' "This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Ex. 3:15).

"Fear the LORD [YHWH] your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name" (Dt. 6:13).

"And if they learn well the ways of my people and swear by my name, saying, 'As surely as the LORD [YHWH] lives'--even as they once taught my people to swear by Baal--then they will be established among my people" (Jer. 12:6).

"In that day you will say: "Give praise to the LORD [YHWH], proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted" (Is. 12:4).

The word for "proclaim" here is qara, to call or read (even shout).

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7121.htm

This is confirmed by Jer. 44:26, where YHWH only forbids Egyptian Jews from mentioning the divine name:

"But hear the word of the Lord [YHWH], all you Jews living in Egypt: ‘I swear by my great name,’ says the Lord [YHWH], ‘that no one from Judah living anywhere in Egypt will ever again invoke my name or swear, “As surely as the Sovereign Lord [YHWH] lives.”

This would have no meaning if it was forbidden in the written Torah to pronounce the divine name.

So you not only have to assume that Jesus did pronounce the divine name (and I agree that you have good reasons), you have to assume that the Pharisee Oral Torah forbidding it was in force in the first century CE (and it may well have been, since Josephus says the Oral Torah held sway then and that even Sadducee judges deferred to it).

Regarding blasphemy vs. cursing, I view them as synonyms. Ex. 22:28 says, "Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people," and the word translated as "blaspheme" here is qalal, which means curse (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7043.htm), and the word for "curse" here is arar, which also means curse (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/779.htm).

And Lev. 19:12, which mentions putting a blasphemer to death ("anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death ... when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death") uses naqab, which can also mean curse (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5344.htm). So I don't see much difference here.

So we don't know for certain if the halakhah forbidding pronouncing the divine name was in force in the first century CE (or if Jesus even said it), but thanks to Rom. 13 we know that the halakhah regarding the divine sanction of rulers was in force (and certainly Ex. 22:28 was).

John2 wrote:Ben wrote:

"If the pre-Marcan version was understood to mean that Jesus did in fact commit blasphemy I would expect there to be witnesses to testify in some way to this, but there isn’t."

I did not write that. You did.

That's what made me think you meant there was a pre-Marcan text or tradition behind Mk. 14:62.

Well, yes. I suspect there was a pre-Marcan text or tradition behind Mark 14.62.

But I think there are two problems with your idea overall. In the text as we have it, not only does Jesus not mention the divine name, even if he did (or if we are to understand that he did), it is only forbidden in the Pharisee Oral Torah rather than the written Torah, and there is no way of being certain the former was in force prior to the compilation of the Mishnah c. 200 CE.

The fit is too clean, in my judgment. I think that here the Mishnah has preserved much earlier tradition.

It isn't a crime in the OT to mention the name YHWH in the manner you are supposing Jesus does in Mark 14:62.

Granted. The superstitions about the name postdate the OT.

So you not only have to assume that Jesus did pronounce the divine name (and I agree that you have good reasons), you have to assume that the Pharisee Oral Torah forbidding it was in force in the first century CE (and it may well have been, since Josephus says the Oral Torah held sway then and that even Sadducee judges deferred to it).

Agreed. That is my position.

Regarding blasphemy vs. cursing, I view them as synonyms.

I do too. I believe the Mishnah in places regards them as synonyms, as well. But that is not what is at issue. Neither cursing nor blaspheming the king is the same as claiming to be king.