Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

[iskander]

And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

to be seated on right hand of power would not have been blasphemy?

Why ?

[Ben C. Smith]

eyewitness or earwitness testimony , you say. Our beloved poster Adam is your man .

Adam thinks that he has found 7 eyewitness accounts embedded in the gospels. I do not at present think that he has. So we may agree on the merits of eyewitness testimony, but we may also mostly disagree on how much of it we actually have for the gospels.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Whoa, there; the leap to "historical account" is the big one here. I said "story", not "historical account"!

Sorry, your criticism is justified. My remark was done unconsciously, because I think that the assuming of a historical account would make even more sense in this case than the assuming of a pre-Markan source.

I see it as both/and, not either/or. Mark inherited a story in which Jesus uttered the divine name at his hearing, but did not explain to his readers that "Power" is just the polite, reverent transcript of that hearing, not the word itself. Why not?

I don't know. For example, the Shabbat law in "Plucking Grain on the Sabbath" is also unexplained.

[JoeWallack]

In Mark 14.61b-64 the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of blasphemy:

61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

So what was this blasphemy? Of what exactly did it consist? By far the best answer I have read to this question comes from Robert Gundry in Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Gundry draws attention to the Mishnah section of the Talmud in Sanhedrin 7.6:

MISHNA VI: A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God. Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha: Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously -- i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: "I heard exactly the same as he told." And so also says the third witness. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... drin7.html.

To compare:

Mark 14.61b-64

Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.6

61b Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest says, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

MISHNA VI: A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God. Said R. Jehoshua b. Karha: Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously -- i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: "I heard exactly the same as he told." And so also says the third witness.

Mark 14.62 is a quotation of Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1), in which it is the right hand of Yahweh, and of course Yahweh is the divine name. But our text of Mark does not have Yahweh or even the usual circumlocution, Lord: it has Power, which in this position functions as a pseudonym for the divine name. Upon hearing this quotation, the high priests tears his clothes and pronounces Jesus deserving of death for blasphemy.

In the passage from the Mishnah, the trial of a blasphemer proceeds with a pseudonym (such as Jose) being used by the witnesses instead of the divine name which the defendant is accused of uttering disrespectfully, right up until the climactic moment when the star witness actually utters the exact words allegedly overheard, including the real divine name, and the judges rend their garments and pronounce the accused guilty.

It appears that we are supposed to understand that Jesus uttered the divine name at the hearing, at which point the high priest did just as he was supposed to do and tore his garments, exclaiming that no further witnesses were needed (since the defendant had saved them the trouble and implicated himself right on the stand). This scenario also fits in rather well with Jesus, despite a moment of understandable weakness in the Garden of Gethsemane, being totally in control of his own destiny (predicting it, for example, and rebuking any who would suggest otherwise): he himself intentionally speaks the divine name and gets himself condemned at his hearing. But in the story of his trial, as we find it in Mark, the divine name is covered, as per the custom, by a circumlocution. (Nowhere in the New Testament does the actual word Yahweh appear.)

As I said, I think this is by far the best interpretation of this passage that I have ever read; I find it hard to ignore the juxtaposition of a unique circumlocution for Yahweh ("Power") with the completely appropriate reaction of the high priest in tearing his clothing and dismissing the witnesses. The Mishnaic connection explains everything at a stroke.

JW:

14

60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

I think GMark's underlying source here is Romans 1

4 who was declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; [even] Jesus Christ our Lord,

As is typically/always? the case with "Mark" (author), he gives all the background you need in the previous chapter (as I think some have mentioned here):

13

11 And when they lead you [to judgment], and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.

I think "Mark's" main interest here, as usual, is at the subtext level, where it is the Priests who are guilty of blasphemy. Per "Mark" Jesus was prophesying via the holy spirit and the Priests than describe what the holy spirit said as blasphemy. As you indicate above, no need than to interpret/determine how the Priests' reaction was blasphemy. The holy spirit made a statement, the Priest's said the statement was blasphemy, no need for any witnesses to say what the Priests said. Also, the entire Gospel has demonstrated that Jesus is a prophet who has the holy spirit and at this exact moment his prophesy regarding Peter is realized (right under their noses, so to speak).

The text level here provides the climax of the irony in GMark with the main irony being that by condemning Jesus for his prediction that he will come back to condemn them, they condemn themselves. You also have the irony of the Priests making fun of Jesus for his lack of prophecy while his prophecy of Peter is being realized and his utterance of "I am" is exactly what he predicted would be the way to identify a false Messiah.

So I think you are on the wrong tractate here as to why "Mark" has the Priests convict Jesus of blasphemy. Per GMark:

• 1) The emphasis is on the Priests being guilty of blasphemy and GMark does explain why that is.
  
  2) The main reason "Mark" has the Priests accuse Jesus of blasphemy is to provide an ironic contrast to 1). I think this is once again contrivance, the conclusion is primary and the reason (how) is secondary.
  
  3) I think as GMark is written the Reader would understand the reason for the charge of blasphemy against Jesus as his claiming to be the Messiah. The connection between the Priests' conviction and the presentation to Pilate is:

15

2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.

It could be that the Priests convicted Jesus of blasphemy based on something like what you describe above and than added/changed the charge to Pilate of claiming to be King, but that is the more complicated explanation.

I think the real question here is based on what "Mark" wrote, was Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and I think everyone agrees that he was not. Even you would have to add what "Mark" did not write. It's hard to believe that "Mark's" intent here was to show that Jesus blah blasphemized or that "Mark's" source did. Which is easier to believe:

• 1) "Mark" intended to show that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy (and therefore his sentence of death by the Priests was a just one).
  
  or
  
  2) The Priests falsely charged Jesus with blasphemy.

Brown in his classic Death goes James Snapp on the idea that "Mark" intended to show Jesus' blasphemy here on page 520. I think Brown's main motivation here was as a Catholic Priest he wanted to defend Jesus against a charge of blasphemy but I think his argument is convincing. Mainly, blasphemy of the time was based on misuse of The Name and not utterance of The Name and there are no contemporary examples of "blasphemy" (the underlying Greek) being based on only utterance of the name. So "Mark" was not trying to describe a Jesus' blasphemy.


Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 2

[theterminator]

And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

would it be blasphemy to say that a human sits on the right hand of power? the jews say that yhwh does not share his power with anyone.

[Ulan]

And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

would it be blasphemy to say that a human sits on the right hand of power? the jews say that yhwh does not share his power with anyone.

No. The blasphemy would be to speak the name of God. Which would have to be in Hebrew I guess (as much as a name can qualify as "Hebrew"). In Greek, you cannot blaspheme, if I see this correctly.

It's funny that Mark still sees the need to use the descriptive word "power" though. Why would he do so if the original text of the story was not in Aramaic?

I guess this classic lecture should clear everything up: https://youtu.be/FQ5YU_spBw0

[neilgodfrey]

The Gospel of Peter, 15:

[15] But is was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living. [For] it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said: 'Give him to drink gall with vinegary wine.' And having made a mixture, they gave to drink. [17] And they fulfilled all things and completed the sins on their own head. [18] But many went around with lamps, thinking that it was night, and they fell. [19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"Mark 14.62 is a quotation of Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1), in which it is the right hand of Yahweh, and of course Yahweh is the divine name. But our text of Mark does not have Yahweh or even the usual circumlocution, Lord: it has Power, which in this position functions as a pseudonym for the divine name. Upon hearing this quotation, the high priests tears his clothes and pronounces Jesus deserving of death for blasphemy."

I thought Mk. 14:62 was an allusion to Dan. 7:13 ("In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence"). Though it doesn't mention the "right hand" or "power," it's essentially what Jesus is saying in Mk. 14:62, and like Mark it doesn't use the term YHWH and the "Ancient of Days" is presented as sitting with multiple thrones in Dan. 7:9 ("As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat").

However it may be, I wonder if the fact that it was a crime to blaspheme a ruler (or king) could be relevant here.

"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people" (Ex 22:28).

"But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them bring charges that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death" (1 Kings 21:10).

"Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God" (Is. 8:21).

Mark 6:14 refers to Herod Antipas as a king (and uses the same word for "power" as in Mk. 14:62):

"And king Herod heard thereof; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him."

Maybe it was considered blasphemy in the eyes of Herodians and their supporters to claim any sort of royal power in the Herodian era. Maybe this (and any) kind of messianic talk was viewed (however conveniently) as blasphemy against the king. And the Herodians wanted to kill Jesus in Mk. 3:6 ("Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus") and were in cahoots with the chief priests in Mk. 12:12-13 ("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. Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words").

[Ben C. Smith]

I see it as both/and, not either/or. Mark inherited a story in which Jesus uttered the divine name at his hearing, but did not explain to his readers that "Power" is just the polite, reverent transcript of that hearing, not the word itself. Why not?

I don't know. For example, the Shabbat law in "Plucking Grain on the Sabbath" is also unexplained.

Well... to show the disciples doing something and then have the Pharisees ask why they are breaking the Sabbath (Mark 2.24) is explaining; at least, it is a lot more explanation than we get for the charge of blasphemy, where it is all too easy for the reader to walk away with precisely the wrong notion about what constituted the blasphemy.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

"Mark 14.62 is a quotation of Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1), in which it is the right hand of Yahweh, and of course Yahweh is the divine name. But our text of Mark does not have Yahweh or even the usual circumlocution, Lord: it has Power, which in this position functions as a pseudonym for the divine name. Upon hearing this quotation, the high priests tears his clothes and pronounces Jesus deserving of death for blasphemy."

I thought Mk. 14:62 was an allusion to Dan. 7:13 ("In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence").

It is, of course, both.

Though it doesn't mention the "right hand" or "power"....

Right. Those elements come from Psalm 110.1.

However it may be, I wonder if the fact that it was a crime to blaspheme a ruler (or king) could be relevant here.

"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people" (Ex 22:28).

I think a lot of things could be called blasphemy. But the Mishnaic passage that I quoted describes what constitutes blasphemy that is worthy of death.