Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[John2]

I think it's interesting and not impossible, but it would mean that Mark was familiar with the Oral Torah (literally so, because it was not written down until c. 200 CE). How do you explain that? Are there other instances in Mark that indicate this awareness?

It looks like there are:

Mk. 2 re: plucking grain:

According to the Mishnah, "He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath...is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping." Rubbing the grain out was considered to be threshing-another violation. "In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing" [Jer. Shabbat 10a]. http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/ ... hteousness

Mk. 7:1-9 re: washing hands:

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

Well, what do you know. Hm.

[Adam]

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.

This "problem" is solved right in the text of John 18:15-16. The inside witness to the trial by my Thesis is John Mark, who was "Another disciple, the disciple known to the High Priest", distinct from (and not) "the Beloved Disciple". He and Peter went directly to the court of the High Priest from the arrest of Jesus at night.
By my Thesis the Passion Narrative in John is the closest to the underlying Aramaic original.

[iskander]

I think it's interesting and not impossible, but it would mean that Mark was familiar with the Oral Torah (literally so, because it was not written down until c. 200 CE). How do you explain that? Are there other instances in Mark that indicate this awareness?

It looks like there are:

Mk. 2 re: plucking grain:

According to the Mishnah, "He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath...is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping." Rubbing the grain out was considered to be threshing-another violation. "In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing" [Jer. Shabbat 10a]. http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/ ... hteousness

Mk. 7:1-9 re: washing hands:

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

Well, what do you know. Hm.

The Oral Torah is a record of the past and of the present.It is timeless.

"The Written Torah was given with an oral explanation. Moshe received this explanation of the written text at the same time that he received the Torah on Mount Sinai. Just as Moshe transmitted the Written Torah scroll, he also taught the oral explanation of the written text

It was only out of absolute necessity that the Oral Torah was first written down in the form of the Mishnah. Because of the weakened state of the Jewish people, due to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and exile, the Oral Torah was in danger of being lost.

Even though the Oral Torah was committed to writing, it was done so in a way that retained as much of the oral component of the information as possible. This conciseness eventually necessitated further elaboration in the form of the Talmud and its commentaries.

As such, it is the Oral Torah that transforms the Torah into a practical system for living."

The System of Halachah II

[Ben C. Smith]

I think it's interesting and not impossible, but it would mean that Mark was familiar with the Oral Torah (literally so, because it was not written down until c. 200 CE). How do you explain that? Are there other instances in Mark that indicate this awareness?

It looks like there are:

Mk. 2 re: plucking grain:

According to the Mishnah, "He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath...is guilty; and plucking corn is reaping." Rubbing the grain out was considered to be threshing-another violation. "In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered sifting; if she rubs the head of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherences, it is sifting out fruit; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing" [Jer. Shabbat 10a]. http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/ ... hteousness

Mk. 7:1-9 re: washing hands:

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

Well, what do you know. Hm.

Those are the two examples I would have used, yes, mainly because those are two of the three legal examples that Crossley uses in his book on dating the gospel of Mark, the third being the sayings on divorce in 10.2-12, which relate more closely to the behavior of Salome and Herodias than to the Mishnaic materials.

[Ben C. Smith]

Oh, and there is the dispute about healing on the Sabbath in Mark 3.1-6, as well. Mishnah, Yoma 8.6:

If one is seized with a pathological craving [for food], he is to be fed even with unkosher food, until he recovers. A person who is bitten by a mad dog must not be fed any of the dog's liver, but Rabbi Matya ben Charash permits it. Moreover, Rabbi Matya ben Charash said, If a person has a sore throat, it is permitted to put medicines into his mouth on the Sabbath, because of possible danger to his life, and whatever threatens to endanger life supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath.

[John2]

New day, up and at 'em.

If the Pharisaic prohibition against pronouncing the divine name was in force pre-70 CE (and was what Jesus was convicted of because he cited Psalm 110), why didn't the chief priests arrest him when they heard him cite Psalm 118:22-23 (which also mentions YHWH) in Mark 12:10-12?

Mk. 12:10-12: "Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

Their only complaint here is that he spoke a parable against them and not that he pronounced the divine name, even though the next verse specifically says they were trying to catch him in his words:

"Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words."

And why didn't they arrest him when he cited Psalm 110:1 in its entirety (in the temple courts, in front of a large crowd) in Mk. 12:35-37:

"While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:  ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' ... The large crowd listened to him with delight."

[Ben C. Smith]

New day, up and at 'em.

If the Pharisaic prohibition against pronouncing the divine name was in force pre-70 CE (and was what Jesus was convicted of because of he cited Psalm 110), why didn't the chief priests arrest him when they heard him cite Psalm 118:22-23 (which also mentions YHWH) in Mark 12:10-12?

Presumably because he did not use the divine name in that quotation; hence the highly typical circumlocution, "the Lord", in verse 11.

I sense that what you are missing in 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.

[Ben C. Smith]

To go back to my Woody Allen quotation, if I were to tell you that someone cut me off in traffic and that my response was to tell him, "Screw you!", you would probably take "screw you" as my actual words. But if I were to tell you that what I said was "Be fruitful and multiply", with a wink and a nudge, you would doubtless understand that I used a sexually charged expletive. The difference is that "screw you" and the actual expletive I have in mind are too close, too commonly interchanged, whereas "be fruitful and multiply" is a very rare substitute for either one of them.

The "right hand of Power" looks like that latter example to me. Had the text said "the right hand of God" or "the right hand of the Lord", I would assume that Jesus used the same kind of circumlocution that everybody else did. But using a rare or unique circumlocution has the natural effect of changing things up.

I suggest that, if you were a pious Jew who wanted to convey the story of Jesus' conviction of blasphemy, but without actually using the divine name yourself, some sort of circumlocution like "Power" or "Jose" would be just the ticket. There would probably be, I suggest, some different inflection in the tone of voice, or the equivalent of a wink and a nudge, in the retelling. That the passage in Mark has the rare circumlocution but lacks any explicit wink-and-nudge is precisely what makes me wonder whether Mark himself knew what was going on (much like a person for whom English is a second language passing on in all sincerity, but without understanding, the story that I told some rude motorist to "be fruitful and multiply").

[John2]

It seems absurd though to convict someone for pronouncing the divine name in Greek. If the Greek word for "power" was understood as a substitute for YHWH, how is this any different from his use of "Lord"? In both cases the Hebrew mentions YHWH.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems absurd though to convict someone for pronouncing the divine name in Greek.

That would be absurd, yes.

If the Greek word for "power" was understood as a substitute for YHWH, how is this any different from his use of "Lord"? In both cases the Hebrew mentions YHWH.

The Greek word for "power" is not, to my knowledge, typically understood as a substitute for Yahweh. "Lord", however, certainly is, and is used as such throughout the LXX and the NT.

I am not certain what you are objecting to in this post, actually.