Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by iskander »

So, as it is written in the gospel of Mark, Jesus did not say the Divine name, but someone writes that Jesus said the Divine name-- the tribunal substituted the offending word for a harmless one without giving any explanation--and that therefore Jesus was lawfully sentenced to death by a pious and righteous tribunal.!!!!!!!!. but behind the wall ...
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: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.
You are correct it is OK, but I found my argument persuasive that there should be no expectation of using the same methodology when discussing what should be said in testimony and the way a person would report a trial.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote: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??
I didn’t know it was a modern addition. However I still thought it was an interesting thought as to why that word was chosen.
Ben C. Smith wrote: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 do understand your position even when I write a shorthand version of it.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote: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.
It appears to me that you are still failing to understand what I am saying.
We can both agree that in Daniel God is not referred to as “Power”. We can also agree that in Ps 110:1 God is not referred to as “Power”. However in the Coming Son of Man sayings in Mark the word “power” appears, and in the two verses after Ps 110:1 the word “power” appears. Can we agree on that?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote: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”?
There is a difference between an Old Testament quotation and a combination of Old Testament quotes. Can you agree with this in any way?

In the Old Testament quotes apart from 14:62 does Mark have a different word for Yahweh than in the Septuagint?

So my point is that 14:62 is not in the same group as “References (plural) to God/Yahweh as "Lord", directly quoting the OT”. It appears you might be able to agree with this even if you don’t understand why I think it is important.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote: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?
My point was that those examples were not of the same thing as I had pointed out.
Ben C. Smith wrote: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.
I have presented some alternatives to the Mishnaic connection as you seemed to desire, it is fine that you are not been persuaded. Even if the Mishnaic connection was the most likely explanation I am not sure how this effects the historicity of this section of Mark. (I suppose that any discussion of historicity would have to include a discussion on whether Jesus referred to a coming Son of Man.)
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by robert j »

Is Mark’s use of the term “power” in 14:62 actually a circumlocution for the divine name?

I’m not so sure. Is it not possible that Mark was referring to the seated position at the right hand, as a “position or seat of power”?
And Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power (δυνάμεως) and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62)
Mark may have derived his use of the term "power" here, as suggested by Michael BG, from Psalm 109 (110):1-3.
The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send out a rod of power (δυνάμεως) for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. With thee is dominion in the day of thy power (δυνάμεώς), in the splendours of thy holy ones … (Psalm 109:1-3, LXX) (aka Psalm 110:1-3)
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:You are correct it is OK, but I found my argument persuasive that there should be no expectation of using the same methodology when discussing what should be said in testimony and the way a person would report a trial.
I would not necessarily insist on the same expectation in both cases, but I honestly have no real idea of what to expect in either case on so fine a point. I suspect it is now your turn to tell me what you would expect from both cases, after which it will be my turn to say that I simply disagree. :)
It appears to me that you are still failing to understand what I am saying.
Yes, very much so. I have no understanding of whatever argument you are trying to make.
We can both agree that in Daniel God is not referred to as “Power”. We can also agree that in Ps 110:1 God is not referred to as “Power”. However in the Coming Son of Man sayings in Mark the word “power” appears, and in the two verses after Ps 110:1 the word “power” appears. Can we agree on that?
Sure, in a general sense. Can we also agree that, more specifically, "power" (though present in all three sayings) is associated with the coming of the Son of Man only once, that it is associated in one of the sayings with the coming of the kingdom (which I can agree to meaning pretty much the same thing in the long run) and in another with the sitting at the right hand (which is not the same thing at all in my book)?
There is a difference between an Old Testament quotation and a combination of Old Testament quotes. Can you agree with this in any way?
Sure. My threefold list accounted for such a distinction. Here it is again for reference:
  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.
So my point is that 14:62 is not in the same group as “References (plural) to God/Yahweh as "Lord", directly quoting the OT”. It appears you might be able to agree with this even if you don’t understand why I think it is important.
Yes, I agree that a distinction can be made. See the above threefold list. And yes, I have no understanding of why you think that is important, since to my mind "Power" equals "Yahweh" whether the verse is a direct quote or just an allusion. Quotes and allusions both share a common origin in the Hebrew scriptural text; that is the overlap between categories that I see. So, while we can distinguish between quotes and allusions, I do not know why you think it is helpful in this case.

Bicycles and motorcycles certainly can be distinguished from one another; if, however, the current topic is "vehicles with two wheels", it is not clear that they should be distinguished from one another.
I have presented some alternatives to the Mishnaic connection as you seemed to desire, it is fine that you are not been persuaded. Even if the Mishnaic connection was the most likely explanation I am not sure how this effects the historicity of this section of Mark. (I suppose that any discussion of historicity would have to include a discussion on whether Jesus referred to a coming Son of Man.)
Historicity is not even in my sights at this stage. Establish what the text means first, I say. Then we can talk about what goes back to history and what does not.

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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:You are correct it is OK, but I found my argument persuasive that there should be no expectation of using the same methodology when discussing what should be said in testimony and the way a person would report a trial.
I would not necessarily insist on the same expectation in both cases, but I honestly have no real idea of what to expect in either case on so fine a point. I suspect it is now your turn to tell me what you would expect from both cases, after which it will be my turn to say that I simply disagree. :)
It appears you have already made a decision on expectation. You seem to be saying that you expect a substitution like “Jose” i.e. an unusual substitution for the divine name to show that the divine name was actually said, rather than the author just writing “he used the proper name of the Lord” or “of God”. Even for a Jewish audience of a story about a trial it seems to make more sense to be clear that the divine name was spoken rather than imply it by using an unusual substitution. For me it turns on the intention of understanding. What evidence do you need that every Jew would understand that an unusual substitution means that the person actually said the divine name and do you have it? How common was it that a pseudonym was used rather than a circumlocution as I have suggested either during a trial or during every day conversation?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:We can both agree that in Daniel God is not referred to as “Power”. We can also agree that in Ps 110:1 God is not referred to as “Power”. However in the Coming Son of Man sayings in Mark the word “power” appears, and in the two verses after Ps 110:1 the word “power” appears. Can we agree on that?
Sure, in a general sense.
Good. I have no wish to get involved in the details of how the word power is used, but I do accept they are not the same.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:There is a difference between an Old Testament quotation and a combination of Old Testament quotes. Can you agree with this in any way?
Sure.
Good!

The point you seem not to understand is that in a combination the creator of the combination is free to use whichever words they wish unlike where they are saying one direct Old Testament quotation. This is a big difference.

I wonder if we would be having this discussion is we had “Ancient of Days” instead of “power”?

I was not questioning that “power” equals “Yahweh”.
robert j wrote:Is Mark’s use of the term “power” in 14:62 actually a circumlocution for the divine name?

I’m not so sure. Is it not possible that Mark was referring to the seated position at the right hand, as a “position or seat of power”?
And Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power (δυνάμεως) and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62)
Mark may have derived his use of the term "power" here, as suggested by Michael BG, from Psalm 109 (110):1-3.
The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send out a rod of power (δυνάμεως) for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. With thee is dominion in the day of thy power (δυνάμεώς), in the splendours of thy holy ones … (Psalm 109:1-3, LXX) (aka Psalm 110:1-3)
I think this is a valid idea.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I have presented some alternatives to the Mishnaic connection as you seemed to desire, it is fine that you are not been persuaded. Even if the Mishnaic connection was the most likely explanation I am not sure how this effects the historicity of this section of Mark. (I suppose that any discussion of historicity would have to include a discussion on whether Jesus referred to a coming Son of Man.)
Historicity is not even in my sights at this stage. Establish what the text means first, I say. Then we can talk about what goes back to history and what does not.
If it makes no difference to historicity why is it important?
(For example if you had discussed the coming Son of Man sayings and concluded than none go back to Jesus why is it important if someone, say before Mark, thought it would be a good idea to have Jesus saying the divine name?)
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:It appears you have already made a decision on expectation.
It appears that way to you because everything I am saying proceeds from the apparent coincidence of a guilty verdict on a count of blasphemy, rent clothing, dismissed witnesses, and an unusual circumlocution for Yahweh. Everything. You keep pressing for evidence besides this simple observation, but there is none. You ask, for example:
What evidence do you need that every Jew would understand that an unusual substitution means that the person actually said the divine name and do you have it?
And the answer is none, on both counts. I need no such independent evidence (nor do I even believe that "every" Jew would understand this), nor do I have it. My position is that the coincidence itself is evidence that some Jews (not "every" Jew) passed on a story in which Jesus uttered the divine name. They could not repeat the divine name, out of respect, so they used a substitute. Nor did they need to specify, "He used the divine name!" (any more than the churchgoers in my background had to specify each and every time that so-and-so cussed; they just nodded and winked and used euphemisms). How do I "know" that they did not, in their own circles, need to specify? Because the coincidence itself, in my view, is enough to suggest that the blasphemy at the trial involved the divine name, yet the story does not specify this.
You seem to be saying that you expect....
Full stop. No, I expect nothing in particular beyond what the above coincidence implies. I do not know whether each and every time an unusual pseudonym was used it meant Yahweh's name had been directly spoken. I do not know whether it is statistically normal to make that sure one states explicitly that the divine name (or any other taboo word) was spoken; the "evidence" from my background is purely anecdotal and can scarcely substitute for a sound statistical argument. My expectations on such matters are at absolute zero.
I wonder if we would be having this discussion is we had “Ancient of Days” instead of “power”?
If an examination led to the conclusion that "Ancient of Days" fills the slot on the list of coincidences as well as "Power" does, then yes. If not, then no.
If it makes no difference to historicity why is it important?
Because not everything is about historicity.

Because, nevertheless, this analysis must of necessity precede any discussion of historicity.

Because I am a curious person.

Because understanding for the sake of understanding is a noble goal in and of itself.

Because I think George Leigh Mallory was onto something.
The point you seem not to understand is that in a combination the creator of the combination is free to use whichever words they wish unlike where they are saying one direct Old Testament quotation. This is a big difference.
In theory, yes, this is a big difference. In practice, no, it is not in this case, since, as you say:
I was not questioning that “power” equals “Yahweh”.
"Power" and "Jose" are both rare circumlocutions for Yahweh and thus both fill the same slot in the above coincidence. That coincidence is the sum total of the evidence I have. I agree it is not a lock. But I think it is something, and to my mind it is stronger than explaining the word "power" in the pericope in isolation without also explaining why "power", in this case being employed as a circumlocution for Yahweh, happens to have found its way into the one context which would make it seem to parallel the Mishnah on this point. Nip away at the word "power" by finding it elsewhere in Mark all you wish. As long as you do not find it equaling Yahweh somewhere in Mark, or commonly used in that way overall, it is still unusual enough to stand beside Jose in the list of points that comprise the coincidence.

You have not turned a coincidence into a noncoincidence. It is still a coincidence. You apparently think it is not a very big one, and that is fine; coincidences do happen all on their own, with no special explanation required beyond simple statistical considerations. I obviously think this one is more significant than you do.

I hope/think that sums up most of the argumentation on both sides: you think the coincidence is not enough to stand on its own, so we need to find support; and I disagree with that assessment, thinking that the coincidence is, in and of itself, decent support for the inferences therefrom. Am I wrong in this assessment of the debate?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Clive »

Mark as story argues the passion narrative is a sub plot, the main plot is the rule of God :-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Blasphemy & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by John2 »

Michael BG wrote:

"How common was it that a pseudonym was used rather than a circumlocution as I have suggested either during a trial or during every day conversation?"

I don't know about trials, but the Qumran sect forbids the latter, as do Ben Sira and Philo and Josephus, and this taboo goes back to at least the LXX. I also mentioned that it was pronounced by priests on certain occasions, such as when reciting the Priestly Blessing:

"In the Temple he says the name as it is written, but in the province in its substituted name" (M. Sotah 7:6).

"In the temple they [the priests] would say the name as it is written but outside the temple they would use a pseudonym" (M. Tamid 7:2).

"And the priest stood on the east side facing the west. He laid both his hands upon it and confessed. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant: 'For on this day shall atonement be made for you'," etc. [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord] (Leviticus 16:30). And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after him: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever” (M. Yoma 3:8).

"Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever" (M. Yoma 6:2).

Does this mean that a priest in the temple could say the divine name during a trial? The passage Ben has cited, M. San. 7.5, says no, but the procedure is attributed to a rabbi from the second century CE.

To me this issue is a good example of why I dropped religion. The OT says that it's okay to say YHWH, that this is God's name and that it should be remembered and proclaimed to the world and used in oaths. The Torah says don't add or subtract anything from it. And people love the OT and painstakingly copy every word of it over thousands of years. And somewhere along the line it became taboo to ever say (or even write) the name YHWH. And how this is justified just sounds crazy to me.

While I'm venting, it reminds me of my experience with Reform Judaism after I became interested in Karaism and began to question the need to observe or revere the Oral Torah. Somehow, even though no one actually observed the vast majority of anything in the Oral Torah in Reform Judaism (or the written, for that matter) or believed that it was of divine origin, my "rejection" of it and interest in Karaism made me an outcast. My rabbi didn't even see Karaites as being Jewish. That's crazy.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
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:It appears you have already made a decision on expectation.
It appears that way to you because everything I am saying proceeds from the apparent coincidence of a guilty verdict on a count of blasphemy, rent clothing, dismissed witnesses, and an unusual circumlocution for Yahweh. Everything.
The guilty verdict of blasphemy and the rent clothing are normal together as the quotation from later on the quotation you provided on blasphemy that I posted showed.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:What evidence do you need that every Jew would understand that an unusual substitution means that the person actually said the divine name and do you have it?
And the answer is none, on both counts. I need no such independent evidence (nor do I even believe that "every" Jew would understand this), nor do I have it. My position is that the coincidence itself is evidence that some Jews (not "every" Jew) passed on a story in which Jesus uttered the divine name.
Your view runs counter to my view of communication. The point of communicating something is so that those hearing (or reading) understand and do not misunderstand what you are communicating.
Ben C. Smith wrote:How do I "know" that they did not, in their own circles, need to specify? Because the coincidence itself, in my view, is enough to suggest that the blasphemy at the trial involved the divine name, yet the story does not specify this.


I do not know whether each and every time an unusual pseudonym was used it meant Yahweh's name had been directly spoken. I do not know whether it is statistically normal to make that sure one states explicitly that the divine name (or any other taboo word) was spoken; the "evidence" from my background is purely anecdotal and can scarcely substitute for a sound statistical argument.
I wonder if we would be having this discussion is we had “Ancient of Days” instead of “power”?
If an examination led to the conclusion that "Ancient of Days" fills the slot on the list of coincidences as well as "Power" does, then yes.
I do not consider a coincidence sufficient to determine what was likely.
Ben C. Smith wrote:… sums up most of the argumentation on both sides: you think the coincidence is not enough to stand on its own, so we need to find support; and I disagree with that assessment, thinking that the coincidence is, in and of itself, decent support for the inferences therefrom. Am I wrong in this assessment of the debate?
That is a correct summation.
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:That is a correct summation.
Thank you for the polite exchange. Cheers.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply