Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

In canonical Mk. the title "son of David" first appears in 10.47 (the Bartimaeus story) and is difficult to explain there. People had not been saying that Jesus was the Messiah (Mk. 6.i4f; 8.28). Only Peter had guessed it (8.29) ; and he and the others who heard him had been warned to keep it secret (8.30). How, then, did the title indicative of this secret get into the mouth of the beggar Bartimaeus, outside Jericho (10:47)? This question was asked by Ebeling (Messiasgeheimnis 92) with the confidence that it would be historically insoluble. The longer text does not supply a historical solution, but it does present a sequence of facts from which historical imagination can create an understandable sequence of events. For between Peter's confession and Bartimaeus' appeal it puts first the use of the title by one of the women of a family with which Jesus was intimate (Jn. 1 1.5) and then a visit by this woman to Jericho, where (or before which) she had some sort of difference with Jesus such that he did not "receive" or "welcome" her and her companions.

Secret Alias wrote:Morton Smith brings up another interesting point which points to an altered existing text of Mark:

In canonical Mk. the title "son of David" first appears in 10.47 (the Bartimaeus story) and is difficult to explain there. People had not been saying that Jesus was the Messiah (Mk. 6.i4f; 8.28). Only Peter had guessed it (8.29) ; and he and the others who heard him had been warned to keep it secret (8.30). How, then, did the title indicative of this secret get into the mouth of the beggar Bartimaeus, outside Jericho (10:47)?

Secret Alias wrote:Morton Smith brings up another interesting point which points to an altered existing text of Mark:

In canonical Mk. the title "son of David" first appears in 10.47 (the Bartimaeus story) and is difficult to explain there. People had not been saying that Jesus was the Messiah (Mk. 6.i4f; 8.28). Only Peter had guessed it (8.29) ; and he and the others who heard him had been warned to keep it secret (8.30). How, then, did the title indicative of this secret get into the mouth of the beggar Bartimaeus, outside Jericho (10:47)? This question was asked by Ebeling (Messiasgeheimnis 92) with the confidence that it would be historically insoluble. The longer text does not supply a historical solution, but it does present a sequence of facts from which historical imagination can create an understandable sequence of events. For between Peter's confession and Bartimaeus' appeal it puts first the use of the title by one of the women of a family with which Jesus was intimate (Jn. 1 1.5) and then a visit by this woman to Jericho, where (or before which) she had some sort of difference with Jesus such that he did not "receive" or "welcome" her and her companions.

How? אֵיךְ, אֵיכָה; בַּמָּה (by what? Gen. 15:8); how not? אֵיךְ לֹא, 2 S. 1:5 אֵיךְ יָדַעְתָּ כִּי־מֵת שׁ׳ how dost thou know that Saul is dead? 2 S. 1:14 how not? Deu. 18:21, Jud. 20:3, 1 K. 12:6, 2 K. 17:28, Ru. 3:18. These particles are used in remonstrance, Gen. 26:9, Jer. 2:23; repudiation or refusal, Gen. 39:9; 44:8, 34, Jos. 9:7; the expression of hopelessness, &c., Is. 20:6. The form איכה how! usually raises the elegy, Is. 1:21, Lam. 2:1; 4:1; but also איך, 2 S. 1:19, 25, 27.

Ben C. Smith wrote:This thread is inspired by another one that I posted a while ago: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2397.

Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1) reads:

Yahweh [יְהוָ֨ה, ὁ κύριος] says to my Lord [לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, τῷ κυρίῳ μου]: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This text is quoted or alluded to many times in the NT, but I find it interesting that, while the quotations follow it pretty well, the allusions almost never use the circumlocution "Lord" for Yahweh; instead, it is almost always "God".

A direct quotation may be found in Matthew 22.44 = Mark 12.36 = Luke 20.42; here "the Lord" is used, just as we find in the LXX. Acts 2.34 is another direct quote using "the Lord".

On the thread linked to above, we discussed Matthew 26.64 = Mark 14.62 = Luke 22.69, in which a different circumlocution is used: "the right hand of Power". Another interesting circumlocution is found in the epistle to the Hebrews; 1.3 uses "the right hand of Majesty", while 8.1 has "the right hand of the throne of the Majesty". Finally, Revelation 5.1, 7 has "the right hand of him seated upon the throne"; referring back to 4.8, 11, we find that this figure is called the "Lord God Almighty" or our "Lord and God".

But more common either than direct quotations with "Lord" or than different circumlocutions like Majesty or Power is the simple term, "right hand of God". This expression, or a variant of it, can be found in Mark 16.19; Acts 2.33; 5.31; 7.55-56; Romans 8.34; Ephesians 1.20 (refer back to 1.17); Colossians 3.1; Hebrews 1.13 (refer back to 1.5); 10.12; 12.2 (right hand of the throne of God); and 1 Peter 3.22.

The stats are as follows, counting synoptic parallels as multiple instances in parentheses but as single instances outside of them:

Direct quotations with "Lord": 2 (4).
Allusions with a circumlocution besides "Lord" or "God": 5 (7).
Allusions with "God": 11 (11).

I conservatively counted the two instances from Revelation 5 in that middle category ("him who sat on the throne"), but they could also reasonably be placed in that last category (that figure is "Lord" and "God").

There are no otherwise direct quotations of the entire verse (or at least most of it) which substitute anything in for "the Lord": when our authors quote the verse, they quote it. Acts 2.33-34 is intriguing in this regard: the passage is first paraphrased with "God", but then quoted with "the Lord"! But, when they are not quoting it, they seem to prefer "God" to "the Lord" by a fairly wide margin. Why? Is it possible that this is a measure taken to distinguish God the Father from Jesus, who is himself commonly called Lord? Or do you think there is some other explanation?

Ben.