Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

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.

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.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

...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?

Michael BG wrote:I wrote this:

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.

John2 wrote:I lifted that from Andrew, and it said in whole:

"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."

I know I didn't write that, in any event.

But anyway, it looks like I did understand that you meant there could be a pre-Marcan text or tradition behind Mk. 14:62.

You wrote: "Neither cursing nor blaspheming the king is the same as claiming to be king."

But I'm suggesting that it is. What would be more blasphemous (or abusive or scurrilous, in the Greek sense: http://biblehub.com/greek/988.htm) against a king than to claim to be king during someone else's reign? But in any event, to do what Jesus did would have been worthy of punishment according to Paul ("it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience").

Michael BG wrote:I wrote this:

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.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

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.

This appears to me to be a change from your earlier position:

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.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

...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?

The case for the idea of there not being a “Jewish trial” is that Jewish authorities did not have the authority to put somebody to death at this time. Jewish law did not allow trials at night. I am sorry I don’t have to hand where scholars find these stated. There is of course the whole problem of how Christians would know what happened that night as none of them are stated as being present during this “trial” and therefore the whole scene is created.

Another argument put forward by Oral Law-believing Messianics is that Yeshua upheld the Oral Law by teaching it was permissible to heal on the Sabbath. They quote the Mishnah, Sabbath 22:5 as proof that the Oral Law teaches it is permissible to heal on the Sabbath but in fact that passage in the Mishnah says nothing whatsoever related to healing on the Sabbath. So what did the Pharisees believe about healing on the Sabbath? Modern Rabbinic law allows any and every sort of healing on the Sabbath, but ancient Pharisaic law had limitations on what was allowed and what was not allowed on the Sabbath. For example, Mishnah, Sabbath 18:3 declares that it is permissible to assist a woman in childbirth on the Sabbath. On the other hand, the laws relating to treating wounds are more complex and this is only permissible under certain circumstances:

'If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable [i.e. he has sinned]; if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt [from sinning].” (Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 107a [Soncino]).'

"It is really incredible that anyone would claim that Yeshua relied on the Oral Law for the issue of healing. In fact, the exact opposite is true! All one has to do is read the account in Luke to see that the Pharisees were the ones opposed to healing on the Sabbath:

'And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.” (Luke 6:7)'

Clearly what this is saying is that the Pharisees wanted to catch Yeshua healing on the Sabbath so they could accuse him of violating the Sabbath. This only makes sense if the Pharisees in that period believed that it was forbidden to heal (or at least forbidden to heal in the manner in which Yeshua was healing) on the Sabbath. Yeshua clearly did not agree with the Pharisees and according to Luke 6:8 he healed a man on the Sabbath despite the fact that the Pharisees were waiting for him to slip up by doing just this. So rather than this incident proving that Yeshua was obedient to Pharisee Oral Law, in fact it is a clear example where he opposed the Pharisees and their Oral Law! The fact that later Rabbinical Judaism changed its mind and today allows all forms of healing on the Sabbath cannot anachronistically be used as proof that Yeshua was a Pharisee!

John2 wrote:Ben wrote:

"I think that here the Mishnah has preserved much earlier tradition."

But in my view Mark was written post-70 CE. In that case, if Mark is reflecting the Oral Torah then it would be a post-70 CE version of it. So how can we be certain that the halakhah prohibiting pronouncing the divine name was in force earlier than this?

John2 wrote:Earlier than 70 CE.