Diogenes the Cynic

Good point. Mark appears to have been adoptionist. I would just amend my position to posit that Mark simply didn't know the legal definition of blasphemy.

Ben C Smith

I am interested in the following coincidence:

1. The Mishnah says that only uttering the divine name is grounds for conviction as a blasphemer.
2. In the trial account, Jesus is convicted as a blasphemer right after quoting an OT verse that (A) has the divine name and (B) has, in the Marcan text, a unique circumlocution for that name.

This coincidence between Mark and the Mishnah forces us to at least look outside of Mark for some explanation, just as various coincidences between Mark and Matthew force us to look outside of both of those gospels for some explanation (the synoptic problem).

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Whether he is or isn't, your claim cannot be mainetaned in the light of Mk. 1:9-11, Mk. 8:27-9:1, Mk. 12:35-37, Mk. 13:21-22, and especially in the light of Mk. 15:32.

You mean the Mishnaic definition.

But -- as you'll see if you consult the TDNT article on Blasphemeo that I cited, or read Brown (which I assume you haven't done, correct?), you'll see that pronouncing the name of God was not the only thing that was regarded in the first century as "legally" constituting blasphemy. It also, indeed primarily, involved denigrating the power and majesty of God.

And as I tried to show in my article, Mark was quite well aware of that definition.

So I don't think your claim above holds any water.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Is that really what the Mishnah (3rd century CE) says regarding blasphemy? Was uttering the divine name really the only thing that was regarded as constituting blasphemy in the first century? Do you know this for certain?

I take it you haven't read my article or the discussion of blasphemy in the TDNT or in Brown or in Collins. Am I correct?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

I worded that poorly. What I mean is that the conviction for (this kind of) blasphemy happens only upon actually hearing the divine name in court.

Ben.

ETA: Of the sources you cite, I have consulted only Brown. But I do not have him to hand right now.

aa5874

It may be that the author wanted the readers of gMark to think that claiming to be a Messiah was blasphemy. And Pilate, even in gMark, did not find any fault with Jesus.

And in any event the trial of this supposed Jesus of Nazareth has not been confirmed or reported by any external credible non-apologetic sources.

Amaleq13

Fair enough.

I was thinking of a more specific religious/social context but maybe there is none. I was wondering if there was some sort of movement or philosophy behind the use of the forbidden name.

The you tubes are blocked here at the school so I'll have to wait until I get home to appreciate the link.

Diogenes the Cynic

I already conceded that I mispoke about Mark's conception of Christ as God. I knew better too. For some reason, I downloaded Paul's Christology into my thoughts instead of Mark's while I was writing. Call it an early senior moment.
Of course. That's the only source we really have.
I read Death of the Messiah maybe 12 years ago. I confess I don't remember Brown's treatment of the blasphemy conviction very well. I have no idea how to access the TDNT article. You state that a blasphemy charge did not have to include an utterance of the divine name but without the ability to access or analyze the articles you study, I am unable to to respond to that claim. Could you summarize the evidentiary basis for a claim that blasphemy could include such an implicit "denigration" of God as you suggest or cite specific examples where convictions were pronounced when the subject had not vocalized the tetragrammaton?
Such is your contention but forgive me if I find this statement just a tad circular.
What about the fact that so many other details of Mark's trial are so historically and procedurally implausible? Do you think the trial is history or fiction? If fiction, then why is it unreasonable to presume that the blasphemy pronouncement was fiction too? If mark didn't know that a capital sentence can't be proned on the same day a a trial or that a trial can't be held at night or on the sabbath or on the Passover or at the home of the High Priest, then how can you be so sure he had such a highly nuanced comprehension of what constituted blasphemy?

God Fearing Atheist

Here are some of the relevant portions of Brown (from pages 522-23):

Jeffrey Gibson

But Paul doesn't belive that the Messiah is god either.

Umm, no, it's not.

Interesting. You admit that you are unread in NT scholarship, and yet you'll make apodictic claims about what NT texts say!


"God Fearing Atheist" has just done so.

But here's the relevant portion of the TDNT entry:

Quote:

βλάσφημος βλασφημία is always the act committed in βλασφημεῖν, βλάσφημοςthe quality either of the doer or his attitude. A. βλασφημία in Greek Literature. In secular Gk. βλασφημία is a. “abusive speech” (misuse of words) in contrast to εὐφημία: Demosth., 25, 26: βλασφημίαν ἀντὶ τῆς νῦν εὐφημίας; Democ. Fr., 177 (II, 97, 3 ff., Diels): οὔτε λόγος ἐσθλὸς φαύλην πρῆξιν ἀμαυρίσκει οὔτε πρῆξις ἀγαθὴ λόγου βλασφημίῃ λυμαίνεται. In Eur. Ion, 1189: ἐν χεροῖν ἔχοντι δὲ σπονδὰς μετʼ ἄλλων παιδὶ τῷ πεφηνότι βλασφημίαν τις οἰκετῶν ἐφθ�*γξατο. J. Wackernagel translates βλασφημία as a “word of evil sound.”1 b. The word means further the strongest form of “personal mockery and calumniation.” It almost amounts to the same as λοιδορεῖν: Isoc., 10, 45: ἤδη τινὲς ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτόν, ὧν τὴν ἄνοιαν, ἐξ ὧν ἐβλασφήμησαν περὶ ἐκείνου, ῥᾴδιον ἅπασι καταμαθεῖν. Mostly, however, it is stronger than λοιδορεῖν and ὀνειδίζειν, e.g., Demosth., 18, 10; 19, 210. The living and the dead can be derided: Demosth., 18, 95: τὰς βλασφημίας, ἃς κατὰ τῶν Εὐβο�*ων καὶ τῶν Βυζαντίων ἐποιήσατο; Luc. Alex., 4: τὰ χείριστα καὶ βλασφημότατα τῶν ἐπὶ διαβολῇ περὶ τοῦ �*υθαγόρου λεγομ�*νων; Herodian Hist., VII, 8, 9: βλάσφημα πολλὰ εἰπὼν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην καὶ τὴν σύγκλητον; Demosth., 40, 17: περὶ τεθνεώτων αὐτῶν βλασφημοῦντες. c. It then means “blasphemy of the deity” by mistaking ’its true nature or violating or doubting its power. Ps.-Plat. Alc., II, 149c: βλασφημούντων οὖν αὐτῶν ἀκούοντες οἱ θεοὶ οὐκ ἀποδ�*χονται τὰς πολυτελεῖς ταυτασὶ πομπὰς τε καὶ θυσίας. Plat. Leg., VII, 800c: (εἴ τις) βλασφημοῖ πᾶσαν βλασφημίαν. Myths which presuppose an anthropomorphic form of the gods become βλασφημεῖν εἰς θεούς: Plat. Resp., II, 381e. Vett. Val., I, 22 (p.44, 4, Kroll); ibid., II, 2 (p. 58, 12, Kroll): εἰς τὰ θεῖα βλασφημουντες; ibid., II, 13 (p. 67, 20, Kroll): πολλὰ βλασφημήσει θεοὺς ἕνεκεν τῶν συμβαινόντων αὐτῷ πραγμάτων. B. βλασφημία in the LXX and Judaism. The root βλασφημ- in the LXX2 has nothing clearly corresponding in the original. The word is used for the pi of גדף, the pi of �*אץ and the root שָׁלוּ or שָׁלָה: βλασφημία corresponds to words formed from these roots and βλάσφημος once to מְבָרֵךְ אָוֶן. In the translations of the Hexapla βλασφημ- is also used for חרף, לעג, ברך and קלל. All these terms are rendered variously and with widely varying emphases in the Greek translations, and no firm rules can be distinguished. Alternatives to βλασφημεῖν are particularly ὀνειδίζειν and παροξύνειν, which often occur for גדף, חרף, לעג and �*אץ. As distinct from these synonyms, βλασφημ- always refers finally to God, whether in the sense of the disputing of His saving power (4 Βασ*. 19:4, 6, 22), the desecrating of His name by the Gentiles who capture and enslave His people (Is. 52:5), the violation of His glory by derision of the mountains of Israel (Ez. 35:12) and His people (2 Macc. 15:24), all ungodly speech and action, especially on the part of the Gentiles (Is. 66:3; 1 Macc. 2:6; 2 Macc. 8:4; 10:34 ff.; 12:14; Tob. 1:18 א), or human arrogance with its implied depreciation of God (Lv. 24:11 in marg Codd 58, 85, 130 βλασφημεῖν, Codex X in marg ἐνυβρίζειν for קלל, which at 2 Βασ*. 19:43 LXX is rendered ὑβρίζειν; 4 Βασ*. 19:22: ἐβλασφήμησας … ἦρας εἰς ὕψος τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου, cf. also Sir. 48:18, where גדף is translated μεγαλαυχεῖν ὑπερηφανίᾳ). The very fact that they do not believe in Yahweh makes the Gentiles βλασφήμοις καὶ βαρβάροις ἔθνεσιν (2 Macc. 10:4). With this direct or indirect reference to God, βλασφημ- also occurs in other translations of the OT: Σ 2 Βασ*. 12:14 (Field, I, 563); ἈΣ ψ 43:16 (Field, II, 159); ἈΣθ Is. 37:6, 23 (Field, II, 502 f.); 43:28 (Field, II, 519). The varying significance of the term in Philo is best shown by considering the words with which he associates it, συκοφαντεῖν in Leg. Gaj., 169, κατηγορεῖν in Migr. Abr., 115, κακηγορεῖν in Spec. Leg., IV, 197, ὕβρις in Decal., 86, Jos., 74, διαβολή in Flacc., 33, ἀσ�*βεια in Decal., 63. βλασφημ- is sharpest when it is linked with κατάρα in antithesis to εὐλογία and εὐχή in Migr. Abr., 117. It here denotes abuse to the point of cursing. The religious sense is predominant, obviously under the influence of the LXX. There is the general statement ὅπως μηδεὶς μηδ�*να βλασφημῇ in Spec. Leg., IV, 197. But mostly there is reference to the divine: τῶν εἰς τὸ θεῖον βλασφημιῶν, Leg. Gaj., 368; Decal., 63; Fug., 84. The Jew should not blaspheme other gods according to LXX Ex. 22:28 in order that the name of God should not be brought into jeopardy: Spec. Leg., I, 53: προστάττει δὲ μὴ … στομαργίᾳ χρήσασθαι καὶ ἀχαλίνῳ γλώσαῃ βλασφημοῦντας οὓς ἕτεροι νομίζουσι θεούς. Similarly Jos. Ant., 4, 207 and Ap., 2, 237.3 The real sin, however, is τὸν τῶν ὅλων πατ�*ρα καὶ ποιητὴν βλασφημεῖν, Philo Fug., 84; Vit. Mos., II, 206. In Josephus, with the secular use, blasphemy is equated with attacks on the Jews as the people of God (Ap., 1, 59; 1, 223), or on Moses (Ant., 3, 307; Ap., 1, 279), or on the law of the fathers (Ap., 2, 143). In the Damascus. Document, 5, 11 ff.4 it is said of the opponents of the new covenant: “They desecrate the Holy Spirit, blaspheming with their tongue and opening their mouths against the laws of the divine covenant.” Here we have the thought, specifically reminiscent of Mk. 3:28 f., that blasphemy is a transgression against the Holy Spirit, who is here viewed as the divinely given inner purity of men. The Rabbis5 in their concept of blasphemy start with the divinely ordained stoning of the blasphemer (Lv. 24:10–16) and the similar saying in Nu. 15:30 f. They find the substance of this capital offence in one “who speaks impudently of the Torah” (S. Nu., 112 on 15:30), in the idolater (S. Nu., 112 on 15:31) and in the one who brings shame on the name of Yahweh (b. Pes., 93b). The formal exposition of the concept by later Rabbinic law, which finds fulfilment of the substance of blasphemy in such things as the clear enunciation of the name of God (Sanh., 7, 5), is not yet present in the time of Jesus.6 The decisive thing in the concept of blasphemy is here, too, violation of the majesty of God. C. βλασφημία in the NT. 1. In the NT the concept of blasphemy is controlled throughout by the thought of violation of the power and majesty of God. Blasphemy may be directed immediately against God (Rev. 13:6; 16:11, 21; Ac. 6:11),8 against the name of God (R. 2:24, quoting Is. 52:5 LXX, → 621; 1 Tm. 6:1; Rev. 16:9), against the Word of God (Tt. 2:5), against Moses and God and therefore against the bearer of revelation in the Law (Ac. 6:11).

And I find what you "find" presumption on your part in the light of your admission that you haven't read (or remembered) either anything dealing with the concept of blasphemy in the first century and, as seems apparent, my article.

On what basis do you say this? On the "laws" for capital trials that the Mishna lays out? Why do you assume that the "laws" laid out there are 1st century in origin and were in place, let alone scrupulously observed, in Jesus' time?

Again, you are assuming that the procedures for capital trials set out in the Mishnah are not anachorsitic.

It isn't highly nuanced. As the data indicates, it's the standard, common undertsanding of what constituted blasphemy in the first century.

Jeffrey