Ben C Smith

I was wondering whether you might answer my question. Let me rephrase it and divide it up so as to (hopefully) make it clearer.

Mark, when quoting the LXX where the Hebrew has Yahweh, always follows the LXX in replacing Yahweh with Lord. Except in Mark 14.62, where he replaces Yahweh with power. In your judgment, why does Mark use this replacement here instead of just writing Lord? In your judgment, does his using power here possibly have anything to do with the facts that (A) the Mishnah says a person is not criminally guilty of blasphemy until he has uttered the sacred name (Yahweh) and that (B) in Mark 14.63-64 the high priest accuses Jesus of blasphemy? In your judgment, is the hypothesis that Gundry offers cogent, inasmuch as three separate pointers to blasphemy of the sacred name (the OT verse with Yahweh, the unusual circumlocution of power, and the outright charge of blasphemy) converge in this brief passage?

Thanks for your time.

Ben.

Loomis

If he is quoting the LXX then how do you know he is aware of the name Yahweh at all?

What would he have to replace?

Same deal: If he is quoting the LXX then how do you know he is aware of the name Yahweh at all?

What replacement?

I’m not sure this is an allusion to Psalm 109/110.

It is certainly an allusion to Daniel 7.

Who are Louis Jacobs, Baruch M. Bokser, Shaye J.D. Cohen, and Steven D. Fraade?

Evidently they are scholars who hold that there has been extensive editorial reshaping of the stories and statements within the Mishnah.

Doesn’t it seem absurd to you that an adult man would tear his cloths upon hearing the word Yahweh?

What is factual about this?

How come the guy who wrote this didn’t know that blasphemy only meant uttering Yahweh?

Didn't he know the facts?

Names of blasphemy.

At least two types of blasphemy:

1. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
2. Blasphemy against something other than the Holy Ghost.

Hey Ben,

This is too easy. All you have to do is go over to BibleGateway and search for Blasphemy.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...t=2&limit=none

Are you still going to pretend that blasphemy only meant uttering Yahweh?

Ben C Smith

That is not my pretense. I am, of course, talking about acts of blasphemy that can get you killed. From the Jewish Encyclopedia (underlining mine):

As long as the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was inflicted only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a).

You answered my post across nine, count them, nine posts of your own, making it rather difficult for me to answer them. I find myself unable to muster up the enthusiasm to go back copying and pasting in order to answer points that have already been made and ask questions again that have not yet been answered.

You are free to disagree with Gundry... and me. That is no problem. I just wish you could have at least tried to comprehend the reasoning behind the position before caricaturing it, and at least tried to explain why Mark 14.62 uses the unusual circumlocution power instead of following the LXX as usual.

Ben.

Toto

Finally - a good use for the "merge posts" feature

The 9 have become 1.

Sarpedon

I guess it may be the same phenomenon as we see here sometimes:

The christians who type G-d. God was a name used in substitution of god's name. Then people forgot god had a name and thought it was god's name. so now they say G-d instead of god. What next?

Boro Nut

The real point is in 33 years he never once calls him Dad. I don't think they were as close as people make out. People have to be quite close to make out.

Boro Nut

The Evil One

I must confess myself befuddled by Loomis' argument. Let's assume for the sake of argument that what he is arguing is granted, namely that the NT writers did not know the name "Yahweh", did not understand that "adonai/kyrios" was a circumlocution, etc. etc. It seems a bit of a stretch but let's grant it for the sake of argument. What exactly would that tend to demonstrate? What difference would it make to any substantive question about NT origins? Is it supposed to show that the NT authors were ignorant of the precise ins and outs of Judaism? Or what?

Loomis

gnosis92 asked if, ‘Jesus ever used Hebrew names for deity?’

I said that the guys who invented "Jesus" appear to be completely unaware that Yahweh had a name, and I pointed out that Yahweh isn’t in the LXX or the NT.

Ben C Smith claimed that “Jesus” uttered “Yahweh” in the Sanhedrin episode at Mark 14:62 - he alleges that Mark knew this, and that that’s why he substituted the word power.

The trouble with Ben’s argument is that he can’t show that Mark ever substituted anything for anything. Ben holds that since Mark never substituted the word power for Yahweh anywhere else - that this somehow supports the view that he meant Yahweh here. But I think that’s absurd.

I think that if Mark understood that Lord was a circumlocution for Yahweh, and if Mark wanted his Jesus character to say Yahweh, then Mark would stick to his own rules and use Lord just like he did in 12:36 .

Why would Mark (or “Jesus”) change their own rules?

Loomis

How come the “Pilot” character didn’t know? It looks to me like the whole point of the Sanhedrin episode is to portray the Jesus character as an innocent guy - that the "bad guys" can’t really pin him with any specific crime.

The idea that ‘Jesus committed blasphemy because he uttered Yahweh’ interferes with that motif.

Loomis

Either that or 'Judaism' is a moving target.

Personally I’m more interested in the OT stuff and the Ugaritic stuff. I’m just fascinated by how the “21st century God” got here.

It looks to me like El, Baal, and Yahweh, have all fused together. And it looks like that happened before “Jesus” was born.