DramaQ

Thank you Mr. Gibson. I have plenty of reading to do.

Meanwhile (and at the risk of being accused of cherry picking) my curiousity largely centers around this point:


Off to read now...

DramaQ

Thanks for the input DCH. I am trying to absorb it all.

And I am looking at this strictly in the context of Mark's literary world. What I want to learn is his insight into the state of expectation of at least one group of people for what The Christ would be.

And is that blasphemy charge telling us something about that?

dq

P.S. Try the Reese's blizzard. It's my best.

Ben C Smith

I certainly recommend you read the article that Jeffrey Gibson gave you, but I myself lean toward the interpretation given by Gundry, Commentary on Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Basically, the reader is to understand that Jesus, when quoting the psalm at his trial, uttered the divine name, YHWH.

Psalm 110.1 (109.1 LXX) reads:

Yahweh said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.

This is Yahweh speaking, so of course if one were to quote this verse in the third person it would come out as follows:

Sit at the right hand of Yahweh.

And if one were to follow the later Jewish convention of talking around the divine name, it would come out as:

Sit at the right hand of God.

This is the form in which we find this line in Mark 16.19; Acts 2.33; 7.55-56; Romans 8.34; Colossians 3.1; Hebrews 10.12; and 1 Peter 3.22. Other circumlocutions are also possible, including the right hand of the majesty on high in Hebrews 1.3 (refer also to 8.1).

Mark generally uses the typical LXX periphrasis Lord when quoting OT passages with the divine name in them; he quotes Psalm 110.1, for example, in 12.36 with this very term in place of Yahweh. Other instances of this substitute for Yahweh in Mark are 1.3; 11.9; 12.11; 12.29-30.

Mark 14.62, however, is a different story. Here Jesus is said to have stated:

You shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.

Jesus is clearly alluding to Psalm 110.1 here, but neither Mark nor the Marcan Jesus uses this particular circumlocution, power, for Yahweh elsewhere.

Furthermore, the high priest in the very next line rends his garments and calls this blasphemy. Mishnah 7.5 declares that blasphemy consists precisely of the uttering of the divine name, and that the judge in a blasphemy case is supposed to rend his garments and never mend them:

The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the name [Yahweh]. Rabbi Joshua ben Karcha said: On the day [of trial] they examined the witnesses with a substitute name: May Jose smite Jose! The trial did not end in a death sentence on the strength of the substitute, but they sent every witness outside and examined the main one among them, telling him: Say exactly what you heard! When he said it, the judges rose to their feet and tore [their garments] and did not mend them. And the second said: I too heard what he did! And the third said: I too heard what he did!

The hypothetical defendant in this mishnaic passage is on trial for blasphemy, that is, for having uttered the divine name out loud. The witnesses are brought in and the lead witness is allowed to repeat what they all heard, exactly once, at which point the judge is supposed to rend his garments and the other witnesses are supposed to agree with the lead witness. Note how at the trial in Mark the high priest says that there is no need for witnesses. Why? Because Jesus did everybody a favor and uttered the divine name himself.

Note also that, until that point in the trial, the witnesses and judges use a substitute name, not the divine name.

So we have the following data:

1. Jesus is accused of blasphemy in Mark 14.63-64 for what he said in 14.62.
2. Blasphemy (the prosecutable kind, anyway) consists of uttering the divine name.
3. Jesus has just quoted an OT verse that contains the divine name.
4. Mark has substituted the divine name in that verse with a circumlocution (power) that he never uses elsewhere.

I think that we are to understand that Jesus uttered the divine name at trial, and that Mark has properly glossed it with a different word (power).

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

But the problem with this approach is that it doesn't take Mark's text on its own terms. In the end it involves an appeal to a conspiracy theory.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

How does the notion of Mark's author choosing to use "power" in quoting the blasphemy of Jesus rather than the offending word constitute or imply a conspiracy?

Amaleq13

Why "hypothetical"? The rabbi wasn't relating an actual story?

Do we know the context of this passage?

Who are these Jews who chose to blaspheme in this way and why?

Jeffrey Gibson

If Mark covered over or changed what he knew what was actually said, he's involved in a conspiracy of deception.

Jeffrey

robto

Ben, I was very intrigued by Gundry's interpretation when I first read it. But it seems to assume Mark had very detailed knowledge of Jewish jurisprudence, whereas most scholars seem to agree that Mark was gentile.

Also, whether Jew or gentile, why wouldn't Mark write YHWH if that was what was said? There's no prohibition against writing God's name, is there? Using a circumlocution muddles the blasphemy issue - especially for a gentile audience.

Acetylhexene

It should have been "a Christ" not "the Christ".

Ben C Smith

Not sure, actually, but it all sounds hypothetical, despite the past tense (but I do not have the Hebrew of this passage handy, nor is Hebrew my strongest suit). I said hypothetical mainly because of the introduction, the blasphemer [in general, any old blasphemer?] is not guilty until..., and also because this whole section gives general precepts.

You can see the whole passage at the Jewish Virtual Library. The context is the explication of various laws. The preceding mishnaic passage (followed, as usual, by the usual fleshing out of the text by the Talmudic Gemara) has to do with stoning both the human and the animal for sexual bestiality.

See for yourself.

Ben.