Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Stefan,

Thank you for the excellent response. I don't have any issues with or anything to add to what you said. Much appreciated.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Stefan wrote:
It is surprising that Daniel is not cited more in the NT than it is. Especially in Paul. But I think it is because it is so cryptic, particularly Dan 7-12, that it was considered too mystical for open exegesis. But I think we have to read Dan 7 as important background for a passage such as 1 Cor 15:20-28.
I'm seeing Daniel in 1 Thess. 4:16-17 too.
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
And in 1 Pet. 3:21-22:
It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Stefan wrote:
I think the Book of Daniel must have gained new relevance with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.
No doubt there. However, even though Josephus was writing after 70 CE, he does say in War 6.5.4 that Fourth Philosophers (and I use that term loosely; I don't think anyone went around saying, "We're the Fourth Philosophy") were at least aware of the arguably Danielic signs prior to the 70 CE destruction.
Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, that then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square. But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
So Daniel (arguably) was "in the air" before 70 CE.

Regarding the Two Powers in Heaven ideology, I'm going more by Segal than Boyarin. I've only read the latter's The Jewish Gospels, and if I recall correctly he mentions the Two Powers only once (I can't see what page it's on on Google Books and I don't want to get up from my chair at the library to get the book right now):
We see now why the later Rabbis, in naming this very ancient religious view a heresy, refer to it as "two powers in heaven."
But Segal goes deeper. As he says on pages IX and X in his preface to Two Powers in Heaven:
It became clear that "two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus, if Philo is a trustworthy witness, and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity. It was one of the central issues over which the two religions separated ... Though it was difficult to date the rabbinic traditions accurately in many cases, the results showed that the earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven while only later could heretics be shown to believe in two opposing powers in heaven. The extra-rabbinic evidence allowed the conclusion that the traditions were earlier than the first century. Furthermore, in comparing the literature, it was possible to define a number of dangerous scriptural interpretations central to the heresy and show how the rabbis countered them by bringing in
other scriptures which unambiguously stated God's unity. From this evidence it became clear that the basic heresy involved interpreting
scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. This heresy was combatted by the rabbis
with verses from Deuteronomy and Isaiah which emphasized God's unity.
And on pages 17-18 in his introduction:
... we will be able to sketch the outlines of a history of the heresy of "two powers," including an approximate date for the entrance of several different heretical groups into Rabbinic scrutiny. This, in turn, will suggest a progression and relative chronology of apocalypticism, mysticism, Christianity and gnosticism as historical movements, at least as the rabbis saw them. Of course, this evidence itself cannot be final. The rabbis may have missed some aspects of the phenomenon or have chosen not record their earliest encounters. But the task of this paper is to explain what has been preserved, not speculate on what has not.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Regarding 1 Peter (and other Christian writings) and the "right hand of God" imagery, while I don't doubt that it is based on Ps. 110:1 ("The Lord says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' "), 1 Peter ties it to "angels, authorities and powers," and Jesus himself appears to have a quibble about Ps. 110:1 in Mk. 12:35-37:
"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.' David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”


As Acts 2:29-36 puts it:
Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' " Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.
It's the "angels, authorities and powers" and "heaven" and "resurrection" parts that makes me think the "sit at my right hand" imagery could (also) be tied in with the "son of man" in Dan. 7:9-13 and that the way Jesus got to heaven is by being resurrected. The resurrection, of course, is mentioned in Dan. 12:1-3 and is associated with the coming of the archangel Michael, and Jewish Christians believed that the "Christ" aspect of Jesus was an archangel.

Dan. 7:9-13:
As I looked, thrones were set in place ... 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.


As Segal writes on page 40:
In the apocalyptic vision ascribed to Daniel, two thrones appear in heaven, which imply two different figures to fill them.

And Epiphanius says in Pan. 30:
And they [Ebionites] say that for this reason Jesus was born of the seed of man and that he was chosen and that he therefore was called the Son of God according to the election because Christ descended upon him from above in the form of a dove. They do not say that he was born of God the Father but that he was created as one of the archangels (and even higher) and that he is Lord over the angels as also over everything the Almighty has created.
And Hegesippus says about the grandsons of Jesus' brother Judas in EH 3.16:
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
It's all kind of confusing, but this is my attempt to sort everything out.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
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 »

John2 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:32 amIt's all kind of confusing, but this is my attempt to sort everything out.
Every book on early Christianity ought to be prefaced with this sentence.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

I got off my butt today and took a look at Boyarin's book again and was struck by something interesting I hadn't noticed before (pg. 137-138):
We learn several key things from [Mk. 14:62]. The first ... is that "Messiah" is for Jesus equivalent to the "Son of Man." Second, we learn that claiming to be the Son of Man was considered blasphemy by the high priest and thus a claim not only to messianic status but also to divinity.
That part I got, but somehow I hadn't noticed what follows:
When Jesus answers "I am," he is going even further than merely claiming messianic status, for "I Am," eigo eimi, is precisely what YHVH calls himself when Moses asks his name: "This is what you are to say to the Israelites, 'I am [eigo eimi] has sent me to you' " (Exodus 3:14). The high priest of the Jews could hardly be expected to miss this allusion. Jesus claims to be the Son of God, the Son of Man, and indeed God himself. A statement such as that is not merely true or false; it is truth or blasphemy. It is also the same blasphemy of which Jesus was accused in chapter 2, when he presumed the divine prerogative of forgiving sins.
This would also tie in with Ben's idea regarding the charge of blasphemy for pronouncing the divine name in the Mishnah (which I want to take another look at).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Yeah, that's it! Ben and Boyarin are right.
The blasphemer - [he] is not liable until he [explicitly] utters the name [of God]. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said, every day the witnesses testify using a substitute name [in place of the actual Divine Name uttered by the blasphemer]: "May Yossi smite Yossi." Once the verdict has been reached, they would not execute [the defendant] [on the basis of testimony] using a substitute name. Rather, [the judges] send everyone outside, and inquire of the greatest [witness] among them, saying to him: "State explicitly what you heard," and he states [the blasphemy verbatim]. And the judges stand upon their feet and render [their clothing]. And they may not [ever] mend [the rendered clothing]. And the second [witness] says, "I also [heard] like him," and the third [witness] says, "I also [heard] like him."

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.7.5?lang=bi
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Something similar seems to be going on in John 18:4-6 (not that I think John is on par with Mark in terms of having potential
"historical value"):
Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he” [eigo eimi], Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he [eigo eimi],” they drew back and fell to the ground.
As a comment on the biblehub says:
They went backward, and fell to the ground.—There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that our Lord put forth miraculous power to cause this terror. The impression is rather that it was produced by the majesty of His person, and by the answer which to Jewish ears conveyed the unutterable name, “Jehovah” (I AM).

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-6.htm
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

And here's some interesting things about eigo eimi on Wikipedia:
The use of this phrase in some of the uses found in the Gospel of John is given theological significance by many Christians ...

Use without a predicate in Hellenistic Greek is largely consistent with earlier 'classical' use, even in Jewish texts:

Septuagint Exodus 3:14 "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am (ego eimi) THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."

Septuagint 2 Samuel 2:19 And Asahel pursued Abner, and as he went, he turned neither to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner. 20 Then Abner looked behind him and said, “Is that you, Asahel?” And he answered, "I am" (ego eimi) i.e. “It is I.”

Note: But in the original language of Hebrew, what is translated here as "ego eimi" is an entirely different word than in Exodus 3:14.

Gospel of John 9:8 The neighbours and those who had seen him before as a beggar were saying, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am he.” (ego eimi)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_eimi
It looks like only John 9:8 is the odd one out here, since I don't suppose the beggar is calling himself God. And it's interesting that the Hebrew for 2 Sam. 2:19 is different than Ex. 3:14, so that one doesn't count.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

And I don't feel like typing it out, nor do I understand any of the grammar regarding this expression, but for whatever it may be worth, McGinley appears to have some issues with Boyarin on this.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9IV8U ... in&f=false

I'll let the Greek experts here sort this one out.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply