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.