Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I assumed you would understand that Abba is translated into Father in Greek –
Mk 8:38, 10:40, 11:25, 11:26, 13:32
Of course. But I thought that it was the Marcan habit we were discussing, and I thought the unusualness was what we were discussing. Back translating "father" into Aramaic is unusual; Mark does it only once.

I am no longer sure what you are tracking.
Mark 1:3 and 11:9 are not Jesus speaking!
Right. I thought we were tracking Marcan usage.
I was never tracking Mark.
I wrote:
Therefore it is possible than the author even if not Mark didn’t want to use “Lord” as he might have felt his readers might misunderstand and the word “power” came to him because of its use in the next two verses. I am not sure how often Jesus uses the word “Lord” for God I think he uses “Abba”.
Bold added.

To be clear I have assumed that we are discussing the pre-Marcan version. I am sorry I didn’t make this clearer.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote: So we have Jesus using Abba / Father for God six times in Mark, but never referring to God as Lord unless quoting the Old Testament
And Mark 14.62 is a reference to the Old Testament. It is a combination of Psalm 110.1 and Daniel 7.13.
I don’t see Mk 14:62 as the same as 12.11, 29-30, 36-37, which are correct Old Testament quotes. Mk 14:62 is a mishmash and reworking of two Old Testament verses.

I thought I had pointed out that the phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” does not appear in Ps 110 (or Daniel 7). Therefore I am not seeing Mk 14:62 the same as your three OT examples.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Your option B is possible especially if the author is reading back into Jesus’ trial the charges made against Christians in his day. However this seems to weaken your idea regarding the linkage between this passage and Sanhedrin 7.6.
Not from the priestly point of view. Reporting that someone else called something blasphemy is not the same as reporting that you agree with the charge.
I thought your point about linkage was that the pre-Marcan author had changed “Yahweh” to “power” while expecting his readers to understand that Jesus said Yahweh but I am suggesting this makes less sense (that is to change the word) if he wanted to make clear that saying Yahweh was not blasphemy. Also I would expect an explanation somewhere about Jesus giving Christians a different understanding of blasphemy than the Pharisees.

I think you are moving very far from what is possible in your rejection of the possibility that “power” was used because Jesus didn’t normally use Lord for God, but Father (when talking about God and not directly and accurately quoting the OT); and here Father can’t be used; so the author picked up “power” from the verses below Ps 110:1.
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Tenorikuma »

Since I'm on a Robert Fowler kick, let me offer another viewpoint: the sentence "And you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" is parenthetical and aimed at the reader, not the high priest. This is defended by pointing out that similar statements throughout Mark are also parenthetical, and they, like this one, have no uptake in the story. They seem not to affect anyone interacting with Jesus. (Here, the affirmative answer "I am" is sufficient to incite the high priest's charge of blasphemy.)

Further evidence comes from the syntax of the statement: καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως. The use of the plural you is somewhat awkward if Jesus is replying to the high priest.

Further evidence comes from the observation that most of Mark's scriptural quotations, like this one, operate at the discourse level to provide interpretive guidance for the reader. The reader is supposed to connect this statement with Mark 8:38-9:1 and 13:26, suggesting unitary authorship of the pericopes involved.
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Tenorikuma »

There is also some affinity between Mark's statement and LXX Psalm 88(89):14, another Messianic psalm, which speaks of God's right hand of power.

LXX 88:14: σὸς ὁ βραχίων μετὰ δυναστείας κραταιωθήτω ἡ χείρ σου ὑψωθήτω ἡ δεξιά σου

Mark 14:62: … τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:I thought I had pointed out that the phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” does not appear in Ps 110 (or Daniel 7). Therefore I am not seeing Mk 14:62 the same as your three OT examples.
Mark 14.62 is paraphrastic rather than a direct quote, sure. But it is still a reference to Psalm 110.1, and in that verse it is still Yahweh's right hand that is in view.
Mk 14:62 is a mishmash and reworking of two Old Testament verses.
It is therefore not a good parallel, say, to the Gethsemane prayer. Because it is a reworking of Old Testament texts, one can still independently see whose right hand is in view: Yahweh's.
Michael BG wrote:Therefore it is possible than the author even if not Mark didn’t want to use “Lord” as he might have felt his readers might misunderstand and the word “power” came to him because of its use in the next two verses. I am not sure how often Jesus uses the word “Lord” for God I think he uses “Abba”.
To be clear I have assumed that we are discussing the pre-Marcan version. I am sorry I didn’t make this clearer.
I assumed you meant how often Jesus uses the word "Lord" in Mark. Without a separate argument for the authenticity (or at least the pre-Marcan nature) of each and every one of those instances of "Father" or "Lord" (an argument that I do not recall you making), what can a list of Marcan verses tell us about anything besides Marcan usage??
I thought your point about linkage was that the pre-Marcan author had changed “Yahweh” to “power” while expecting his readers to understand that Jesus said Yahweh but I am suggesting this makes less sense (that is to change the word) if he wanted to make clear that saying Yahweh was not blasphemy.
I suspect the change from Yahweh to Power was purely mental; I doubt anybody recounting the story actually uttered the name Yahweh, out of respect.

You are specifying a pre-Marcan author far more than I ever have. It could be an author, but it could also be a story recounted orally. In either case, I believe I am also envisioning a far richer matrix of ideas and cultural assumptions than you are. You seem to be imagining a pre-Marcan author being followed by Mark, and not a lot else. I am thinking, at least potentially, of a current of stories and storytellers telling them.
Also I would expect an explanation somewhere about Jesus giving Christians a different understanding of blasphemy than the Pharisees.
If Mark misunderstood the point of the story, then any such explanation is not to be expected in his gospel. It is to be expected in a preceding text or tradition that is, by definition for our purposes, no longer extant. The whole reason for suggesting that Mark missed the point, after all, is that he did not explain it to his apparently gentile readership as he does in other, more trivial cases.
I think you are moving very far from what is possible in your rejection of the possibility that “power” was used because Jesus didn’t normally use Lord for God, but Father (when talking about God and not directly and accurately quoting the OT); and here Father can’t be used; so the author picked up “power” from the verses below Ps 110:1.
Mark 14.52, slightly altered: "And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Father, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon May 30, 2016 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Tenorikuma wrote:Since I'm on a Robert Fowler kick, let me offer another viewpoint: the sentence "And you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" is parenthetical and aimed at the reader, not the high priest. This is defended by pointing out that similar statements throughout Mark are also parenthetical, and they, like this one, have no uptake in the story. They seem not to affect anyone interacting with Jesus. (Here, the affirmative answer "I am" is sufficient to incite the high priest's charge of blasphemy.)
The parenthesis at 13.14 is unexpected, but it is clearly parenthetical. For one thing, it addresses the reader, and there is no book in the scene, nor anybody reading. For another, it is syntactically unconnected to what comes before or after. The statement in Mark 14.62, on the other hand, is connected with a καὶ back to the "I am" statement. The statement in 14.62 is easy to punctuate as part of the sentence; the aside in 13.14 is virtually impossible to punctuate as part of the sentence; it requires parentheses or dashes. It takes effort to read 14.62 as parenthetical, whereas it takes even greater effort not to read 13.14 as parenthetical.
Further evidence comes from the syntax of the statement: καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως. The use of the plural you is somewhat awkward if Jesus is replying to the high priest.
Jesus and the high priest are not alone:

53 They led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gather together.

Further evidence comes from the observation that most of Mark's scriptural quotations, like this one, operate at the discourse level to provide interpretive guidance for the reader. The reader is supposed to connect this statement with Mark 8:38-9:1 and 13:26, suggesting unitary authorship of the pericopes involved.
Yes, these statements are supposed to be connected. I think part of the point of the Marcan intercalation here is to show Jesus' prediction about Peter coming true outside in the courtyard, thereby certifying his prediction inside to the priests and elders (not to the reader, which would pull the prediction outside of the story and ruin the parallel). But the connection does not have to have originated with Mark. These statements can also connect to Didache 16.6-8, 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17, and many others. The parousia of Jesus Christ was a Christian thing, not just a Marcan thing.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Michael BG »

Tenorikuma wrote:Since I'm on a Robert Fowler kick, let me offer another viewpoint: the sentence "And you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" is parenthetical and aimed at the reader, not the high priest. This is defended by pointing out that similar statements throughout Mark are also parenthetical, and they, like this one, have no uptake in the story. They seem not to affect anyone interacting with Jesus. (Here, the affirmative answer "I am" is sufficient to incite the high priest's charge of blasphemy.)

Further evidence comes from the syntax of the statement: καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως. The use of the plural you is somewhat awkward if Jesus is replying to the high priest.

Further evidence comes from the observation that most of Mark's scriptural quotations, like this one, operate at the discourse level to provide interpretive guidance for the reader. The reader is supposed to connect this statement with Mark 8:38-9:1 and 13:26, suggesting unitary authorship of the pericopes involved.
The two coming Son of Man sayings do not appear as parenthetical and addressed to the reader, while 13:26 is addressed to a future “them” unlike 8:38-9:1 and 14:62 which are addressed to those present.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I thought I had pointed out that the phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” does not appear in Ps 110 (or Daniel 7). Therefore I am not seeing Mk 14:62 the same as your three OT examples.
Mark 14.62 is paraphrastic rather than a direct quote, sure. But it is still a reference to Psalm 110.1, and in that verse it is still Yahweh's right hand that is in view.
Mk 14:62 is a mishmash and reworking of two Old Testament verses.
… Because it is a reworking of Old Testament texts, one can still independently see whose right hand is in view: Yahweh's.
You seem to have missed my point.
Mk 14:62 is not a quote from the Old Testament and the phrase we are discussing is not in the Old Testament. Therefore it was created either by Jesus if you think it is historical or Mark or the pre-Marcan author or (to please you) the earlier Christian community.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:
To be clear I have assumed that we are discussing the pre-Marcan version. I am sorry I didn’t make this clearer.
I assumed you meant how often Jesus uses the word "Lord" in Mark. Without a separate argument for the authenticity (or at least the pre-Marcan nature) of each and every one of those instances of "Father" or "Lord" (an argument that I do not recall you making), what can a list of Marcan verses tell us about anything besides Marcan usage??
It was you who listed Marcan usage and me who responded. My original point was a thought not a case.

However we can consider Mark’s use of sayings about the coming Son of Man:
… of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."
RSV Mk 8:38-9:1
And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
RSV Mk 13:26
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."
RVS Mk 14:62
In all three there is linkage with “power” and the coming Son of Man.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Mark 14.52, slightly altered: "And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Father, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"
We have not discussed Jewish usage of either “power” or “father” for Yahweh, but as a Christian creation your creation is fine except it has no power; how about?


“I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Father, and coming in the clouds of heaven with power.”
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I thought your point about linkage was that the pre-Marcan author had changed “Yahweh” to “power” while expecting his readers to understand that Jesus said Yahweh but I am suggesting this makes less sense (that is to change the word) if he wanted to make clear that saying Yahweh was not blasphemy.
I suspect the change from Yahweh to Power was purely mental; I doubt anybody recounting the story actually uttered the name Yahweh, out of respect.
If you are now saying that the pre-Marcan author received the story with “power” and not Yahweh this seems to me to weaken your point about the author understanding that Jesus said Yahweh. Now you have to ask not only did Mark understand what was going on, but did the pre-Marcan author also understand it. Then I assume you will need to not only deal with the question, did Mark change it to “power”, but did the Pre-Marcan author do it or was it done by someone in the Christian community at the oral stage. Also you will need to consider if before it was “power”, was it something else apart from “Yahweh”. You are burying yourself in possibilities and questions – good luck!
Ben C. Smith wrote:You are specifying a pre-Marcan author far more than I ever have. It could be an author, but it could also be a story recounted orally. In either case, I believe I am also envisioning a far richer matrix of ideas and cultural assumptions than you are. You seem to be imagining a pre-Marcan author being followed by Mark, and not a lot else. I am thinking, at least potentially, of a current of stories and storytellers telling them.
Your all-embracing method is why you have to continue to restate your position. I am trying to engage with you and at the moment I have concentrated on the pre-Marcan option.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Also I would expect an explanation somewhere about Jesus giving Christians a different understanding of blasphemy than the Pharisees.
If Mark misunderstood the point of the story, then any such explanation is not to be expected in his gospel. It is to be expected in a preceding text or tradition that is, by definition for our purposes, no longer extant. The whole reason for suggesting that Mark missed the point, after all, is that he did not explain it to his apparently gentile readership as he does in other, more trivial cases.
I note you didn’t quote:
… but I am suggesting this makes less sense (that is to change the word) if he wanted to make clear that saying Yahweh was not blasphemy.
My point is that if the aim of the author was to report that someone else called something blasphemy does not make it blasphemy. Then the author needs to be specific about what was said or the reader will not understand, which is where we started. :D
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:If you are now saying that the pre-Marcan author received the story with “power” and not Yahweh this seems to me to weaken your point about the author understanding that Jesus said Yahweh.
"Now" saying? It has been my position all along, without exception, that the divine name "Yahweh" was never uttered in the recounting of this story. (Just one example from a post of mine on the first page of this thread: "Does it not look as if the story was passed on by people who themselves, out of respect, did not use the divine name, and thus inserted Power at the proper moment?" You can also see there by the plural "people" that I was always envisioning, at least potentially, multiple storytellers in this scenario; I have not changed on that score.)

It was simply understood amongst its original tradents that "Power" stood for "Yahweh", since the original tradents understood exactly what constituted blasphemy. They told the story in much the same way a group of pious churchgoers would speak about someone who used an extreme expletive: nobody would actually say the expletive, but they would use code words for it. (I grew up in such circles; maybe that is why some are finding it so hard to imagine what I am saying; maybe they are not used to how people react to words they truly consider taboo.) This is why the usual circumlocutions for Yahweh were not employed; they would make it sound as if Jesus said "God" (for example), because that is how most people said it. That, doubtless, is why the usual circumlocutions for Yahweh were not employed at trial according to the Mishnah, too.

Later tradents, possibly/probably including Mark, did not understand what constituted blasphemy, and did not understand that Power was just a stand-in for Yahweh, and this is why, despite explanations on other, more trivial matters, Mark does not offer one here; he assumed (as do so many still today) that there was something about the claim itself that was blasphemous.

This is an example of where Marcan usage comes into play; I still do not know what you were trying to demonstrate with your list of Jesus' usages in Mark of the term Father, in contexts not even connected with the scriptures, but what I was trying to demonstrate is that Power is a unique circumlocution for Yahweh in the gospel (as well as rare overall), thus making it stand out from the other circumlocutions. When one is evaluating whether an author is using a source, finding something unique or different about the alleged source compared to the rest of the work is standard practice, and counts as supporting evidence. I hope that much at least is clear now.

Your point about power being associated with the coming of the son of man thrice in the gospel of Mark is interesting; yet in 14.62 it is not associated with the coming; it is associated with the sitting at the right hand. Also, the other two examples demonstrate just how easy it is to say that the coming (of the son of man in one case, of the kingdom in the other) is with power; yet that does not happen in 14.62; instead, Power becomes the pseudonym for the divinity at whose right hand the son of man is to be sitting.
Your all-embracing method is why you have to continue to restate your position.
No, I think it is because you have never really grasped the entirety of my position, and that may well be because I am not explaining well. But it is not a direct consequence of some all-embracing viewpoint of mine, since the basic idea is actually really simple.
Mk 14:62 is not a quote from the Old Testament and the phrase we are discussing is not in the Old Testament.
It is a paraphrase of Psalm 110.1, which has been called the scriptural verse most frequently alluded to in the New Testament. I doubt a reference Bible exists that does not recognize the connection here. If you are trying to persuade me that Mark 14.62 is not an allusion to Psalm 110.1, I am sorry, but that is not likely to happen. Here is how allusions to that verse are handled elsewhere:

Acts 2.33-34: "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand."'"
Acts 5.31: "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Acts 7.55-56: But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
Romans 8.34: Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Colossians 3.1: If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
1 Peter 3.22: ...who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

In addition, Hebrews mixes it up a bit, with phrases that include the right hand of God, the right hand of the Lord, the right hand of the Majesty, the right hand of the throne of Majesty, and the right hand of the throne of God. Now, these are unusual circumlocutions, right? Yet (A) they are not accompanied by protestations of blasphemy and (B) these unusual circumlocutions are attested throughout the epistle. This is why my discussion of Marcan usage matters; Mark normally uses the "typical" circumlocutions for Yahweh (God, Lord) when referring to passages from the Hebrew scriptures that involve the divine name. Yet in 14.62 he departs from his usual custom and uses "Power" instead. Why? The Mishnaic connection explains this easily.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Adam »

I have today edited two old posts of mine in this thread on pages 5 and 11 (May 18th and 22nd I believe) to dissociate myself from my pretensions regarding sources in the blasphemy trial of Jesus. The exacting 1975 Synopsis by Reuben Swanson was wasted on an inadequately literal translation, the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version (the one now used by Roman Catholic conservatives for their RSV-2CE). Already available were Young's Literal and the Concordant New Testament, but the grammar of these is awkward and the text used was the Textus Receptus or Majority Text (but the Concordant with variata noted in the superscript).
Hopefully a happy compromise has since been achieved. The 1971 RSV2 was used as the basis for the English Standard Version, but aiming to translate the original language word with always the same English word. I have it on order, and I already have the Concordant. And what does this Wikipedia footnote 1 mean" ^ Clontz (2008, Preface) ranks the English Standard Version in sixth place in a comparison of twenty-one translations, at 83% correspondence to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed." That there are five versions more literal? Or five versions less tied to the Textus Receptus?
Even lacking such exacting resources, it is clear to me that the Passion Trial in Mark expanded from sources.
Last edited by Adam on Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:If you are now saying that the pre-Marcan author received the story with “power” and not Yahweh this seems to me to weaken your point about the author understanding that Jesus said Yahweh.
"Now" saying? It has been my position all along, without exception, that the divine name "Yahweh" was never uttered in the recounting of this story. (Just one example from a post of mine on the first page of this thread: "Does it not look as if the story was passed on by people who themselves, out of respect, did not use the divine name, and thus inserted Power at the proper moment?" You can also see there by the plural "people" that I was always envisioning, at least potentially, multiple storytellers in this scenario; I have not changed on that score.)

It was simply understood amongst its original tradents that "Power" stood for "Yahweh", since the original tradents understood exactly what constituted blasphemy. They told the story in much the same way a group of pious churchgoers would speak about someone who used an extreme expletive: nobody would actually say the expletive, but they would use code words for it. (I grew up in such circles; maybe that is why some are finding it so hard to imagine what I am saying; maybe they are not used to how people react to words they truly consider taboo.) This is why the usual circumlocutions for Yahweh were not employed; they would make it sound as if Jesus said "God" (for example), because that is how most people said it. That, doubtless, is why the usual circumlocutions for Yahweh were not employed at trial according to the Mishnah, too.

Later tradents, possibly/probably including Mark, did not understand what constituted blasphemy, and did not understand that Power was just a stand-in for Yahweh, and this is why, despite explanations on other, more trivial matters, Mark does not offer one here; he assumed (as do so many still today) that there was something about the claim itself that was blasphemous.
I am familiar with the use of “sugar” for a swear word. I can’t recall anyone saying “Fanny” instead of the F-word. I would say it is usual either to directly quote or to use a circumlocution rather than an alternative word. For example the “F-word” or “C-word”. However alternatives can be used - “sugar” or “shite”. However in Judaism it seems an alternative was the norm and we both agree that this is often “Lord” but there were others. However it might have been possible to make it clear that Yahweh was spoken by saying “he spoke the divine name” or “he used the proper name of God” or if you prefer “of the Lord” – “A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God" (Mishna VI). Your example is not a story someone is telling, it is testimony. A witness is testifying to what is said, which is why they have to say the divine name as they heard it. It seems unlikely that a story teller would use the word “power” to convey to his hearers that the person had actually said Yahweh. I also note that your quotation of this does not include “(Rashi explains that the name Jose was selected because it contains four letters, as does the proper name of the Lord.)” Do you know how many letters there are in the Aramaic word for power? The Greek has 8!
Ben C. Smith wrote:This is an example of where Marcan usage comes into play; I still do not know what you were trying to demonstrate with your list of Jesus' usages in Mark of the term Father, in contexts not even connected with the scriptures, but what I was trying to demonstrate is that Power is a unique circumlocution for Yahweh in the gospel (as well as rare overall), thus making it stand out from the other circumlocutions. When one is evaluating whether an author is using a source, finding something unique or different about the alleged source compared to the rest of the work is standard practice, and counts as supporting evidence. I hope that much at least is clear now.
You are suggesting that because Mark uses “Lord” when quoting near word perfect from the Old Testament we should expect “Lord” in 14:62. And I am suggesting that Jesus when not quoting near word perfect from the Old Testament uses “Father” for God and not “Lord” and so because the phrase is not in the Old Testament we should not conclude that we have to have “Lord”, especially as the saying is suppose to the voice of Jesus.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Your point about power being associated with the coming of the son of man thrice in the gospel of Mark is interesting; yet in 14.62 it is not associated with the coming; it is associated with the sitting at the right hand. Also, the other two examples demonstrate just how easy it is to say that the coming (of the son of man in one case, of the kingdom in the other) is with power; yet that does not happen in 14.62; instead, Power becomes the pseudonym for the divinity at whose right hand the son of man is to be sitting.
I hope you remember what you wrote – “you are free to dissuade me (which is why I am posting this in the first place)”.

So I am suggesting that the word “power” could have been used because it appears later in the Psalm or because it is associated with the coming Son of Man or a combination of both (I hope you are not saying there is no coming Son of Man in 14:62).
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Your all-embracing method is why you have to continue to restate your position.
No, I think it is because you have never really grasped the entirety of my position, and that may well be because I am not explaining well. But it is not a direct consequence of some all-embracing viewpoint of mine, since the basic idea is actually really simple.
You think so, but others may well disagree – hence why they don’t understand what you are writing.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Mk 14:62 is not a quote from the Old Testament and the phrase we are discussing is not in the Old Testament.
It is a paraphrase of Psalm 110.1, which has been called the scriptural verse most frequently alluded to in the New Testament. I doubt a reference Bible exists that does not recognize the connection here. If you are trying to persuade me that Mark 14.62 is not an allusion to Psalm 110.1, I am sorry, but that is not likely to happen. Here is how allusions to that verse are handled elsewhere:
I agree that bits of two Old Testament verses have been combined or as I like to say – 14:62 is a mishmash of two Old Testament verses.
I’ll repeat what I have already stated
You seem to have missed my point.
Mk 14:62 is not a quote from the Old Testament and the phrase we are discussing is not in the Old Testament. Therefore it was created either by Jesus if you think it is historical or Mark or the pre-Marcan author or (to please you) the earlier Christian community.
Just to be clearer – Please give me one reference in the Old Testament which includes these words “the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Lord”?

I couldn’t see any Coming Son of Man in any of your NT quotes!
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:Your example is not a story someone is telling, it is testimony. A witness is testifying to what is said, which is why they have to say the divine name as they heard it. It seems unlikely that a story teller would use the word “power” to convey to his hearers that the person had actually said Yahweh.
Well, we simply disagree on that. And that is okay.
I also note that your quotation of this does not include “(Rashi explains that the name Jose was selected because it contains four letters, as does the proper name of the Lord.)”
Why would my quotation of the Mishnah include a modern, editorial parenthetical statement that does not belong to the Mishnah, a statement which happens to cite a medieval French rabbi born in the eleventh century?? (You can consult Sefaria for an online version that does not include the interloping phrase, if you like.)
You are suggesting that because Mark uses “Lord” when quoting near word perfect from the Old Testament we should expect “Lord” in 14:62. And I am suggesting that Jesus when not quoting near word perfect from the Old Testament uses “Father” for God and not “Lord” and so because the phrase is not in the Old Testament we should not conclude that we have to have “Lord”, especially as the saying is suppose to the voice of Jesus.
No, my position is not that we should expect Lord. My position is that we should expect one of the usual circumlocutions, which include Lord, but also include God (for example). Based on Jesus' usage of Father in the gospel of Mark, sure, we might even expect Father. But we find none of these common or at least precedented circumlocutions in 14.62. Instead, what we find is unique to Mark, unprecedented in Mark, and rare overall.
I hope you remember what you wrote – “you are free to dissuade me (which is why I am posting this in the first place)”.
I do, but you can surely see that it will be hard to dissuade me when you apparently do not yet fully understand my argument.
So I am suggesting that the word “power” could have been used because it appears later in the Psalm or because it is associated with the coming Son of Man or a combination of both (I hope you are not saying there is no coming Son of Man in 14:62).
There is a coming of the Son of Man in 14.62, in the part of the statement that alludes to Daniel 7.13. Power, however, is not associated with the coming in this verse. It simply is not. Power in this verse is a circumlocution in the part of the statement that alludes to Psalm 110.1, in which there is no coming but only sitting.
I agree that bits of two Old Testament verses have been combined or as I like to say – 14:62 is a mishmash of two Old Testament verses.
I’ll repeat what I have already stated
You seem to have missed my point.
Mk 14:62 is not a quote from the Old Testament and the phrase we are discussing is not in the Old Testament. Therefore it was created either by Jesus if you think it is historical or Mark or the pre-Marcan author or (to please you) the earlier Christian community.
Please do not include the earlier Christian community just to please me. Include it because it is a logical, viable option.

Yes, I remember that you regard Mark 14.62 as a combination of two OT verses; and I agree with you. But you keep coming across as if you are arguing against that very thing. For example, you keep trying to juxtapose Mark 14.62, not with references to OT verses, but with unfettered dominical sayings which use "Father" as a term for God. But why? What is your point? Can we not break the types of statement on the table so far down as follows?
  1. References (plural) to God/Yahweh as "Father", but with no OT connection.
  2. References (plural) to God/Yahweh as "Lord", directly quoting the OT.
  3. Reference (singular) to God/Yahweh as "Power", alluding to the OT.
Why does that first category impact on the third category in any way? The second category at least shares some kind of reference to the OT with the third category, but the first category does not have even that much.
Just to be clearer – Please give me one reference in the Old Testament which includes these words “the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Lord”?
Before I respond: what is at stake? If there is another such reference, how does it affect your argument or mine? If not, how does that affect matters? Does it matter if "Son of Man" is included in the quote? Or does only "Lord" matter? Honestly, this feels like a wild goose chase, unless you can somehow show me how it is relevant.
I couldn’t see any Coming Son of Man in any of your NT quotes!
That is because my list was of allusions to Psalm 110.1, and there is no coming in Psalm 110.1, nor any Son of Man. Again, what is at stake here? What is your point?

To my eyes, your best argument so far is that Mark seems to associate "power" with the coming of the Son of Man. But even that observation is mitigated by the fact that only the second verse on your list really associates "power" with the coming of the Son of Man; the first verse associates it with the coming of the kingdom (though of course the Son of Man is in the context), and the third associates it with the sitting at the right hand (though of course the coming is in the context). I will grant that you have something here, and it is a splendid observation, but I do not think it is as strong as the Mishnaic connection; it still fails to explain why it is that it is here, of all places, in the context of a charge of blasphemy and the rending of garments and the dismissal of witnesses — precisely where the name used for God, according to the Mishnah, really matters — that we find the unique/rare circumlocution for Yahweh. But maybe you perceive this coincidence to be of lesser moment than your threefold list of verses; if so, that is fine; I simply disagree.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply