Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

Just a couple of additional notes here....

First, there is a miniature article by Gundry that touches upon his view available online: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr18a07_gundry.pdf.

Second, here is another Mishnaic passage of possible interest. Sanhedrin 10.1 (Jerusalem) / 11.1 (Babylon):

These are they who have no share in the world to come: who say there is no resurrection of the dead; that the Law is not from Heaven; and the Epicureans. R. Akiba adds: He who reads the external books; and he who whispers over a wound, saying: "All the sickness which I brought on Egypt I will not bring upon thee," and so on. Abba Shaul adds: He who pronounces the Name with its proper letters.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon May 16, 2016 5:12 pm 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.

If this interpretation is correct, it may entail certain consequences. I am not 100% certain of the following points yet, and you are free to dissuade me (which is why I am posting this in the first place), but let me outline what I think this interpretation might imply about there being traditions before Mark.

It is by no means clear to me that the average reader should be expected to realize what is happening in the pericope. The earliest (and often gentile) readers of Mark do not necessarily seem to have caught on:

Matthew 26.63b-66: 63b And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus says to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” [Matthew himself may understand, but he takes no more steps than Mark does to explain it to his readers.]

Luke 22.66-71: 66 When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, 67 “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70 And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71 Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” [Luke changes the line to "the right hand of the power of God," just to clarify whose right hand is under discussion. Whether he himself understands what is going on or not is an open question, but he has not indicated anything to his readers.]

John 18.19-24: 19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21 Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said.” 22 When He had said this, one of the officers standing nearby struck Jesus, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” 24 So Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. [This is so different that there is little overlap.]

Clement of Alexandria, Comments on Jude: Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if He was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power.” But powers mean the holy angels. Further, when He says “at the right hand of God,” He means the self-same, by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand; that is, that He rests in preeminent honour. [Clement takes "power" to mean the angels; there is no awareness at all of it being a circumlocution for Jesus' blasphemous utterance of the divine name.] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ix.html.

John Chrysostom, Homily 18 on Acts: Therefore, just what they did in Christ's case, the same they do here also. For as He said, You shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God, and they, calling it blasphemy, ran upon Him; just so was it here. There, they rent their garments; here, they stopped their ears. [Chrysostom betrays no awareness of why they called it blasphemy.]

Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Twelve Topics on the Faith: How could it be said that He who suffered is one, and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again the third day from the dead; " and again, "When ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Father;" and again, "When the Son of man cometh in the glory of His Father?" [Changing "power" to "the Father" tells us nothing about the charge of blasphemy.] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-18.htm.

ETA: Refer also to Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.13, and Acts 7.56.

I do not think it can be assumed that the average gentile readership would have any idea what exactly brought on the charge of blasphemy at the trial of Jesus, at least not without explanation, and none is offered.

Which brings me to an interesting question: does Mark himself understand what the blasphemy was?

If he does, then why does he not give some sort of explanation? Is this really the same author who patiently explains to his (apparently gentile) readership that the Jews observe fastidious purity customs (7.3-4), that two lepta are worth a quadrans (12.42), that a courtyard/palace is also called a praetorium (15.16), and that the day before the sabbath is known as the day of preparation (15.42)?

If he does not, then does that not imply that he is actually passing on a story that he drew from a native Judaic tradition whose tradents presumably did understand the point of the circumlocution and the high priest's reaction?

What do you think?

Ben.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon May 16, 2016 5:12 pm In Mark 14.61b-64 the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of blasphemy:
...
So what was this blasphemy?
Blasphemy , this Greek word does not express the idea of an offense committed against the divinity, this Greek word meant only an ordinary insult, which may be addressed to anyone at all. Blasphemy signifies an attack on the divine majesty only if it is accompanied by a specific indication.

Blasphemy in Mk 14:63 must be translated in keeping with its general meaning of "outrage ".

Jesus, the adversary of the law and the enemy of all the Jewish parties--dares to pose as messiah and to announce that he will come with the clouds of heaven. Jesus was a false prophet


Studies in Jewish and Christian History
Volume two, page 735
E.J. Bickerman
Brill. Leiden. Boston . 2011
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

The charge of blasphemy could've been chosen by Mark in order to convey irony and then the pure legal logic of it all would matter less for Mark's story: The blasphemy is on the part of the council themselves who deny Christ, and even goes on to torture and kill this 'son of the Blessed One'. So there is blasphemy here, indeed! But it is the the stewards of Israel contradicting God's proclamation, i.e. their contradiction of 'the gospel', their contradiction of the teaching of Jesus as the Christ, son of God. That is the real blasphemy and this is the unforgivable sin which is exactly what Mark is talking about in chapter 3: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The one who argues against, and denies, the "Gospel's" saving message, "the Word" concerning Jesus as God's son, "blasphemes against the holy spirit" (3:29).

The appellation of the high priest for God, "the blessed", is a well known appellation for God, but the meaning of the word itself also happens to be the exact opposite of the meaning of the word blasphemy. Coincidence? The former literally means "well-spoken-of", the latter can be reconstructed as "hurtfully-spoken-of" (carries the meaning of "slandering"). So the high priest who calls God the "blessed" (well-spoken-of) goes on to blaspheme God (speak hurtful of God) by denying his son, and while charging his son with this very crime. This scene is also about blasphemy, i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For the first time, the Word is out in the open, Jesus has broken the secrecy, the Holy Spirit is doing its work, and the council is blaspheming against it. (One could argue that Peter, problematically, is also guilty of this same unforgivable sin in the parallel scene of his denial.)



The word "power" in 14:62 could possibly have been chosen here by Mark for the specific purpose of referring to the church. I think there could be an intended link between 14:62 and 16:5-6. The angel at the tomb symbolizes the 'son of man' of 14:62 as well as the "kingdom of God having come in power" of 9:1. The resurrected Jesus and the newborn church is one and the same thing, symbolized by this angel at the tomb. Or, the heavenly (Jesus) is a representation of the earthly (the church) and vice versa. It is the Dan 7 situation, the 'son of man'/people of the most High, which have now been given authority, like also Ps 110,1 and PsLXX 8:6-7 (consider the Greek conformity of Mark 12:36c~PsLXX 8:7c). By this authority the 'son of man' (Jesus/the church) can now use God's life-giving "power", δυναμις. The son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. They will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power. I think that maybe Mark is speaking about the church, through the lens of Dan 7, through his character Jesus.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pm The charge of blasphemy could've been chosen by Mark in order to convey irony and then the pure legal logic of it all would matter less for Mark's story: The blasphemy is on the part of the council themselves who deny Christ, and even goes on to torture and kill this 'son of the Blessed One'. So there is blasphemy here, indeed! But it is the the stewards of Israel contradicting God's proclamation, i.e. their contradiction of 'the gospel', their contradiction of the teaching of Jesus as the Christ, son of God. That is the real blasphemy and this is the unforgivable sin which is exactly what Mark is talking about in chapter 3: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The one who argues against, and denies, the "Gospel's" saving message, "the Word" concerning Jesus as God's son, "blasphemes against the holy spirit" (3:29).

The appellation of the high priest for God, "the blessed", is a well known appellation for God, but the meaning of the word itself also happens to be the exact opposite of the meaning of the word blasphemy. Coincidence? The former literally means "well-spoken-of", the latter can be reconstructed as "hurtfully-spoken-of" (carries the meaning of "slandering"). So the high priest who calls God the "blessed" (well-spoken-of) goes on to blaspheme God (speak hurtful of God) by denying his son, and while charging his son with this very crime. This scene is also about blasphemy, i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For the first time, the Word is out in the open, Jesus has broken the secrecy, the Holy Spirit is doing its work, and the council is blaspheming against it. (One could argue that Peter, problematically, is also guilty of this same unforgivable sin in the parallel scene of his denial.)



The word "power" in 14:62 could possibly have been chosen here by Mark for the specific purpose of referring to the church. I think there could be an intended link between 14:62 and 16:5-6. The angel at the tomb symbolizes the 'son of man' of 14:62 as well as the "kingdom of God having come in power" of 9:1. The resurrected Jesus and the newborn church is one and the same thing, symbolized by this angel at the tomb. Or, the heavenly (Jesus) is a representation of the earthly (the church) and vice versa. It is the Dan 7 situation, the 'son of man'/people of the most High, which have now been given authority, like also Ps 110,1 and PsLXX 8:6-7 (consider the Greek conformity of Mark 12:36c~PsLXX 8:7c). By this authority the 'son of man' (Jesus/the church) can now use God's life-giving "power", δυναμις. The son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. They will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power. I think that maybe Mark is speaking about the church, through the lens of Dan 7, through his character Jesus.
Bickerman says that βλασφημίας did not mean blasphemy to the listeners then, but only outrage : 63 And the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the outrage! What do you think?”11 And they all condemned him as deserving death.

The high priest asks Jesus this question: " Are you the Christ, the son of the blessed? ". in casting both the high priest's question and Jesus' answer in the linguistic forms used customarily by the rabbis, Mark also clearly shows that he does not believe that the Jews could find anything blasphemous in the words of the Christ.
bick1.PNG
bick1.PNG (83.24 KiB) Viewed 5748 times
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

Bickerman explains,
bick2.PNG
bick2.PNG (69.41 KiB) Viewed 5746 times
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

and
bick3.PNG
bick3.PNG (64.08 KiB) Viewed 5738 times
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 »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:37 pm The charge of blasphemy could've been chosen by Mark in order to convey irony and then the pure legal logic of it all would matter less for Mark's story: The blasphemy is on the part of the council themselves who deny Christ, and even goes on to torture and kill this 'son of the Blessed One'. So there is blasphemy here, indeed! But it is the the stewards of Israel contradicting God's proclamation, i.e. their contradiction of 'the gospel', their contradiction of the teaching of Jesus as the Christ, son of God. That is the real blasphemy and this is the unforgivable sin which is exactly what Mark is talking about in chapter 3: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The one who argues against, and denies, the "Gospel's" saving message, "the Word" concerning Jesus as God's son, "blasphemes against the holy spirit" (3:29).

The appellation of the high priest for God, "the blessed", is a well known appellation for God, but the meaning of the word itself also happens to be the exact opposite of the meaning of the word blasphemy. Coincidence? The former literally means "well-spoken-of", the latter can be reconstructed as "hurtfully-spoken-of" (carries the meaning of "slandering"). So the high priest who calls God the "blessed" (well-spoken-of) goes on to blaspheme God (speak hurtful of God) by denying his son, and while charging his son with this very crime. This scene is also about blasphemy, i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. For the first time, the Word is out in the open, Jesus has broken the secrecy, the Holy Spirit is doing its work, and the council is blaspheming against it. (One could argue that Peter, problematically, is also guilty of this same unforgivable sin in the parallel scene of his denial.)
This is all good stuff, and I agree with most (if not all) of it. Mark has also stated in chapter 13 that a believer standing before the authorities will be given the words to say by the spirit, and Jesus is here standing before the authorities; we must presume, given the overall Marcan context, that Jesus is speaking by the spirit, and thus the blasphemy against the spirit in which the high priest engages is direct and pointed.

But... this analysis does not deal with the glaringly strong parallels between Mark and the Mishnah. Both passages involve (A) an accusation of blasphemy (B) in a trial setting in which a verdict of guilty leads to execution and (C) in which, upon hearing the proof of blasphemy from witnesses (or from the accused himself in Mark, rendering witnesses explicitly unnecessary), (D) the judge tears his clothing. But the Mishnah insists that such a verdict cannot stand unless the holy name was uttered (that is, the only kind of blasphemy which merits a death sentence is one involving the name), and it gives a euphemism ("Jose") in the standing text for that name. But lo and behold, the corresponding euphemism in Mark is "power," which in its scriptural context would stand in for Yahweh (the holy name) in Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1). This has to mean something. I do not think that your analysis (which lines up with mine) and dealing with the Mishnah parallels are mutually exclusive enterprises.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:42 pm and

bick3.PNG
and
bick3b.PNG
bick3b.PNG (37.77 KiB) Viewed 5727 times
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:06 pm
iskander wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:42 pm and

bick3.PNG
and

bick3b.PNG
and
bick4a.PNG
bick4a.PNG (52.65 KiB) Viewed 5722 times
PS It is late in the UK. I'll say goodnight now.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

and
bick11.PNG
bick11.PNG (55.8 KiB) Viewed 5689 times

Continued from bick11
the scandal of the cross is a mere fiction and that Jesus was killed by stoning. Others are astonished that the man from Nazareth was condemned contrary to the Mishnaic rule ( Sanh. 7.5) that a blasphemer is guilty if he pronounced the name of God-- something Jesus did not do.
I am afraid that all these difficulties are fictitious, and that they owe their origin to a misunderstanding by the translators.
Post Reply