Jeffrey Gibson

In Mark? No. How could the Markan Jesus' response be taken as a claim to be God when Jesus clearly -- in his saying yes to being the Son of the Blessed and and as one who (if he is claiming to be the Son of Man) will sit at the right hand, and not on the throne, of "the Power"? -- distinguishes himself from the Blessed One and "the Power"?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Good question, and one that I had not thought of, at least not in those terms.

Let me back away from a firm claim that what Ananus did would not be considered blasphemy, only to say this much: I do not think that speaking against the temple is enough in itself to merit death on a charge of blasphemy (the evidence being Jesus of Ananus), whereas using the holy name is enough in itself, at least at some point in time, to merit death on a charge of blasphemy (the evidence being the Mishnah).

The fact remains, for me, that both Mark and the Mishnah bring together the following concepts:

1. A charge of blasphemy.
2. A ritual rending of clothes.
3. A death sentence.

And, in agreeing this far with the Mishnah, Mark also happens to place a unique (for him, at least) periphrasis for Yahweh on the lips of Jesus right before the hammer falls. All in all, I still think Gundry is right, though it is for me an open question whether Mark himself understood all this or simply got it from a source.

Thanks. Every so often I like to surprise my debating partner with one of those. Keeps them off guard.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Good show.


By noting (with the help of commentaries, other translations, and those who know Greek) that the translation in this case has gone beyond the bounds of a literal rendering.

That is right. He is not telling us everything that we would like to know. Nor do our own modern texts spell out everything that people a thousand years from now might wish to know.

They absolutely have to. Either we remain in the dark or we use other literary sources to shed at least a little bit of light on the subject.

Above you called the arguments against such a notion compelling. The more compelling they are, the less plausible the notion becomes.

(A lot of the notion that Jesus was claiming to be God here comes from reading Exodus 3.14 into the I am statement Jesus makes before the high priest. But usually an I am is just an I am.)

Ben.

DramaQ

Yes, I see. That makes sense. Thank you.

Yes, I've seen the arguments for "I am." I was never convinced by them.

Thanks all.

Mark

Amaleq13

Gotcha. And another good point. I am totally off-guard, now.

Gundry's reading makes sense to me for whatever that is worth.

Jeffrey Gibson

He also places a "unique" for him periphrasis for Yahweh on the lips of the Highh Priest -- doublessly to point out the irony of the High Priest's attempt to be pious when he himself, in the light of Mk. 3:28-30, is committing

But is what Jesus says so unique?

Note Evans' comments:
Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5219259]I am not sure I agree. Is son of the blessed one a periphrasis for son of Yahweh? Son of God is a lot more common. Sometimes a fancy name for God is just a fancy name for God, not a circumlocution for Yahweh; and sometimes the word God itself may be a circumlocution for Yahweh (Romans 8.34, for example). Contrariwise, when Jesus speaks of the power it is in the context of an allusion to Psalm 110; thus power just about has to be a circumlocution for Yahweh.

Besides, this is also the only chapter the high priest speaks in the entire gospel, whereas Jesus has used Lord several times already (12.11, 29, 30), along with one instance of an allusion to this very same psalm (12.36) in which Lord is the circumlocution.

No, and I have not argued that it is unique in any absolute sense. Just (A) less common than Lord and (B) unique to Mark and the Marcan Jesus in a context that the Mishnah links with the divine name.

I like that commentary a lot and have consulted it often. I also agree with him that there is no reason to regard the power as inauthentically Judaic.

But note that Evans is treating both blessed one and the power as circumlocutions for God, not for Yahweh. He is not speaking to the difference between God and Yahweh.

I am not seeing, moreover, within Evans or without, a better link with Mark than that mishnaic passage. It is easy to explicate each individual element in Mark (death sentence, blasphemy, rending clothes) on its own, one at a time, but not so easy to explain all of them together as if they were all completely unrelated.

Ben.

JoeWallack

I've Got The Power

http://www.zhubert.com/study?word=%C...&onlybook=Mark

"Mark 13:26

καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης

Mark 14:62

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ"


http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CE...&number=616752

"Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
δυνάμεως (181) δύναμις (705) Noun power, might, strength; pl. acts of power, miracles"


NIV:

13:26:
"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory."

14:62:
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."


DQ, the underlying Greek words for "great power" and "Mighty One" above are the same. In 14:62 Jesus is simply repeating the same word he used in his prediction of 13:26. Thus, there is nothing unique about the usage in 14:62. The primary underlying Scripture is Daniel and not Psalm 110.

Regarding Gundry's eternal Assertian that there is always underlying historicity to search for, I'm reminded of the words of that great 20th century philosopher Maude who said:

"It's good not to be too moral. You miss out on too much fun. Try to aim above morality."

So too, it's good not to be too historical. You miss out on too much Literary intent. Try to aim above historicity.

"Mark" is guided by Literary Style and Structure and supposed historicity is secondary. What amuses me here is that someone like aa is written off by Believers and even some/most Skeptics here because he assumes no historicity. However, compared to a Believer who assumes historicity, aa is actually more likely to be correct with respect to a specific pericope that there is no/little historicity.

Regarding 14:62 I find it reMarkable that anyone would try to argue that Jesus really was guilty of anything. Obviously "Mark" wants to present Jesus as completely innocent for the Irony. I do think "Mark" missed a Literary opportunity here because he could have had the HP say, "God damnit! Did you hear that !@#$%&*! God blasphemy?" In "Mark" everyone is Forced by the Power to correctly Identify Jesus. They just don't understand what they are doing:

Peter = The Christ - Does not understand what that means.

HP = Says the son of God - Does not believe it.

Pilate = Writes King of Jews - Does not believe it.

"Mark" has a major theme that the issue is not whether Jesus has the Power, but rather what is the Source of Jesus' Power (From Above or from Below). Jesus is asked for a sign from Heaven in order to prove that his Source is God. "Mark's" Jesus refuses the request. Thus, in "Mark's" Jesus' story, this Generation lacked a sign from Heaven. This is the primary theme of "Mark". Belief in Jesus (that his Source is God) should be based on Faith and not evidence. The Disciples get all the evidence yet they never Believe in Jesus because they have no Faith. In Contrived Ironic Contrast, complete strangers, who never had any evidence Believe in Jesus because they have Faith.

The offending word in 14:62 has a connotation of a sign from Above, miraculous Power. "Mark's Jesus is stating to the HP that he/you will see the Source of Jesus' Power at the End (actually just his/your end). Timing wise though this is connected to Judgment and not Ministry (Daniel). Therefore, in addition to 14:62 repeating a phrase and therefore not being unique, there is an excellent reason for the specific substitute for God there.

The real Power behind "Mark" here is Paul, which is the Primary Source for "Mark's" major themes.



Joseph

Jeffrey Gibson

No. He's not. The second use of δύναμις is arthrous and diectic. The first is not.

Jeffrey

Toto

William Buckley lives on.

arthrous means "having the definite article." ("The powerful one" versus mere "power.")

diectic: did you mean deictic? definition. I can't see how that applies here. Please enlighten me.

But it is the same word.