ynquirer

Your translation is ridiculous. The most ignorant Jew perfectly knows that Jehovah is not a valid name for God. It is a Christianization of the Tetragrammaton. It is as though you confessed that your source for knowledge of the Jewish law were The life of Brian.

Could you be as kind as to tell us where have you gotten such a mess from?

Diogenes the Cynic

Wow, this is really, REALLY lame. Well, Here you go. It's the only translation of the Babylonian Talmud I could find on line. It's quite old (1918) which puts it in the public domain and is probably why it's available online.

The translator, Michael L. Rodkinson, was a Jewish Rabbi and a Hebrew scholar. Of course, everybody knows that "Jehovah" is an error of transliteration. Why Rodkinson chose to use it, I have no idea. maybe he didn't want to say Yahweh or maybe he wanted to approximate the "Adonai" vowel points used in the Hebrew (which is what caused the mistake in the first place). Or maybe he just chose it because it was familiar. Whatever. It's a rather trivial point of contention, don't you think?

Ben C Smith

Joe, your whole post takes my comments in a very different direction than I intended. The argument made on this thread was that the statement about divorce was an obvious Marcan mistake about Judaism, since it is impossible to imagine a Jew saying such a thing. This Marcan mistake is then pressed against the Jewishness of Mark himself; he was probably a gentile, the argument goes.

Your post takes what you perceive to be the fictional quality of the Marcan narrative as a whole in order to show that this saying is also fictional. Completely different direction of argumentation, and a different thrust.

I submit that the Josephan passage about Herodias demonstrates that, as of the year 29 (IIRC), a Jewish Jesus could easily and understandably have included the female half of the divorce statement. Moreover, a later author such as Mark could easily and understandably have either included or created the female half of the statement as an obvious application of the male half for the benefit of a Hellenistic readership (thus the so-called mistake would tell us nothing about the author, but everything about his readership).

The burden I have to meet here is relatively low. The divorce statement cannot be pressed against the Jewishness of Mark the evangelist.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I think agnosticism is an entirely reasonable position.








PS Go see The Pimps. It will change your life.

ynquirer

OK. No problem. Try this one, which is updated.

An interesting bonus of that link is that it includes the original Hebrew.

No, I don’t. It is of some import, as I shall presently show.

Not only is the translation inaccurate – albeit possibly acceptable for 1918 – but it is misleading as well. The name “Jehovah� is an addition by the translator. The original Hebrew does not include the name proper. Even in both translations I’ve proposed the phrase “the Divine Name� is an expansion in English to render the original Hebrew more understandable. Actually, the original Hebrew says H$M or ha-shem, which simply means “the Name.� (Here is another translation of the Babylonian Talmud that shows that the Tetragrammaton is not in the Mishnah but has been added by the commentator in a footnote.)

Now, let’s recall the interpretation rule you laid down:

Yet you don’t abide by your own rules when saying:

That’s not true. The Mishnah does not even mention the Tetragrammaton, as I have shown above. One can infer the implication of the Tetragrammaton from the Mishnah but it’s not explicit in the Mishnah – as you yourself said.

Now, my first point might be expounded as follows: The requisite of verbalizing the Tetragrammaton for someone to be held convict of blasphemy is not even in the Mishnah; it is a later interpretation of the Mishnah in relation to Leviticus 24:10-16.

My second point is this. The link here shows that the twice verbalization of the Tetragrammaton as a sole requisite to be held convict of blasphemy is a late addition of the Gemara – an Aramaic word for Hebraic Talmud – in any event, after the Mishnah was written c. 220 CE. The point is evidenced by the introduction of the word “bless� in substitution for “curse� – which is the original word in Leviticus. The substitution is said to be “a euphemism,� but it had real effects, for anyone that twice verbalized the Tetragrammaton in a secular context might since be convicted of blasphemy in relation to Deuteronomy 6:13.

The third point is that even the rule that twice mentioning the Tetragrammaton was enough to get a conviction for blasphemy was not altogether clear in the Talmud. In the Gemara the commentator expresses doubts as to what the formula “to bless the Name by the Name� really means. He explains: “…perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name,� as being one among several other alternatives. (Such doubts emerge again when discussing blasphemy as committed by a heathen BTW.)

To sum up, the Jewish law of blasphemy was not an immutable rule from the time of Moses to the completion of the Talmud and after. In Leviticus the stress was laid upon deprecating – “cursing� – God, while using His name was only an indication that God was the object of such deprecation. In the Mishnah the stress has moved to a more formal ground on which the name of God seems to be the direct object of the transgression – this is shown by the use of the direct-object particle just before H$M – but it is unclear whether only the Tetragrammaton may be such an object. Finally, in the Talmud one finds that the mere verbalization of the Tetragrammaton, twice, is in the way to become the transgression itself.

My conclusion is that we really don’t know what the law of blasphemy was as of the early-to-mid first century. Yet a reasonable hypothesis is that it was somewhere in between the content-oriented rule of Leviticus and the formalistic-oriented post-Talmud rule. Probably an indication that the suspect was talking of God was required, though not necessarily the verbalization of the Tetragrammaton, as well as an analysis of content that might be deemed “offensive� to God.

IMHO both requirements are reasonably met in Mark’s narrative of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.

Diogenes the Cynic

The only "Divine Name" is the Tetragrammaton. The Mishnah clearly means that a person has to actually say YHWH to be guilty of blasphemy. The Boraitha says it requires that you curse the name BY the name (which is not the same as saying the name twice). The rest of your commentary has no bearing on this thread since Mark does not accuse Jesus of saying the name even once, ceratinly does not accuse him of cursing the name BY the name, and claiming to be the Messiah fits no conceivable theory of cursing God, nor is such a suggestion supported by the slightest bit of either Tanakhic or Rabbinic writing or law.

ynquirer

“Divine Name� is English. Read the Hebrew. It says H$M – “the Name� alone.

Does the Mishnah say it explicit? Nope. At best you can infer from the use of the phrase “the Name� that God is alluded.

Yet Halacha recognizes seven names of God that cannot be erased. Where do you read in the Torah or even in the Mishnah that “the Name� is Y-H-W-H alone? Is it that you have always heard of such a rumor and can’t help think that way?

Wrong. It is the Torah that says that. The Talmud says that someone has “to bless the name by the name.� Bless is not a synonym for curse but precisely an antonym.

On the other hand, I have given you evidence in the Gemara that indicates that either “to bless the name by the name� or “to curse the name by the name� are phrases whose meaning was unclear even during the period while the Talmud was being written. (You seem to be a little too quick in ascertaning a meaning that cost much time and effort for the sages to discern.)

Mark of course does not accuse Jesus of any charge. He just reports accusation and trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin.

On the other hand, it seems to me that it is useless to try, however hardly, to entertain a conversation with you, as you seldom address the arguments you are given.

And the argument you have been given is that you do not have evidence whatever to support the contention that using the Tetragrammaton was blasphemy in Leviticus but only a possible indication of blasphemy – one amongst other possible indications, such as using another of the seven valid names of God or any indication that God is direct object of deprecation.

Using the Tetragrammaton only becomes blasphemy in post-Talmudic law – which is the only law you seem to have heard of and which you render the law during the late Second Temple in a recurring display of the classical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You have shown too poor command of the Jewish law – your only source of the Mishnah is one that renders Y-H-W-H Jehovah – as to make such bold statements about what the law is and what the law is not.

Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 7.

Rick Sumner

No, it isn't. First of all, to argue that someone should remain bound by a cultural contract (marriage) is as antithetical to everything a Cynic represents.

Secondly, Cynics do not read non legal Jewish texts as though they are a basis for binding Jewish Law--that is Halacha, no matter how you cut it.

Even if Mark is a Cynic, he is a Cynic who has read Gen.1.27 halachically. I am not arguing that the passage shows Mark to be Jewish, I am arguing that Diogenes cannot use this passage to show that Mark was not Jewish. Since Diogenes has changed his argument from one of contention (this passage shows Mark to be unfamiliar with Judaism) to one of defense (this passage does not show Mark to be Jewish, only that he knew Jewish texts), it would appear that my point was made.

Your original argument certainly lent that impression. Indeed, you suggested that it was your own lack of clarity that may have led to that impression.

You later rephrased it, but still didn't seem to quite know what it meant to read something halachically. You polished it off by suggesting that the method of argument is representative of the Cynics, though it isn't. You then followed up by suggesting that the distinction between the CD (only kings) and Mark (everyone) was in any way relevant to whether or not it was halachic, or whether or not it was essentially the same halacha--which it isn't

At the end of the day, you didn't know what it meant, and would rather argue against the point than simply ask.

WIth sincerest apologies, I was getting quite frustrated. A case of trying to force one to understand rather than explaining.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Your previous post suggested that the entire passage was indicative of Mark's ignorance of Judaism. Now you learn that this was incorrect, and in fact shows a knowledge of Judaism. So you change your argument, now it is not that Mark wasn't familiar with Judaism, but rather he was quoting someone who was.

First of all, I don't think Mark knew the CD (which is where I was headed to begin with. Vork already indicated why--Mark carries a much broader use of the halachic reading). Rather I'd suggest it circulated as something of an aphorism--a reason God hated divorce, perhaps. Much the way I think the old line about what was the "whole Law" circulated as a way of briefly summarizing the intricacies of Jewish Law. Did he make it up? No. But he got it from Jewish circles.

Secondly, your post still seems to confuse my intent. I haven't argued that Mark was Jewish. I've argued that you can't say with certainty that he wasn't.

But more importantly than all this is that you thought Mark was wrong about Judaism, but he wasn't--you were. You offer the ad hoc of dependence now, largely because I all but handed it to you. At what point do we stop the ad hocs and instead reshape our own understanding so that we can more accurately assess that of Mark? One cannot preform comparitive religion without understanding both religions being compared. Your presentation of Judaism as compared to Mark fairly smacks of Bultmann; a view that was fairly shattered by Sanders and the "New Perspective."

I stand by my earlier assessment. Based almost entirely on the ever-shifting argument you present here.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Diogenes the Cynic

No, I only said that one specific verse (10:12) showed ignorance of Judaism and I cited Graham Stanton as a scholar who holds that same conclusion. I said nothing about an "entire passage," and in fact, there is no "entire passage." We are talking about two different pericopes. One probably inherited by Mark (either from HJ or elesewhere) and one probably authored or redacted by Mark. I only quoted 10:11-12, and I only claimed that 10:12 showed ignorance of Jewish law. Your attempt to include 10:6 as part of what I was claiming showed ignorance is simply false. I never claimed it, I never implied it and when you brought it into the thread I specifically argued my case that it was from a different pericope, that it was not authored by Mark and I supported this argument with Stanton.
Or maybe he got it from a sayings tradition attributed to Jesus? Even if some of the Jesus sayings originated in Palestinian Judaism (something I doubt very many people would argue with) that doesn't mean that they could only be circulated by Jews. Look at Q. The Jesus sayings may have been partially lifted from Jewish tradition but once they were in the diaspora - and especially after the war- they became simply "Christian" and they were circulated by Gentiles.
I can say the default presumption should be that he wasn't and that all of the internal and external evidence as to the author's cultural background points away from from Judaism.
Excuse me? What was I wrong about?
No, I explained the dependency to you after you tried to insert an unrelated periicope into the one I was saying was wrong about Judaism.
I was not making any ad hocs at all. The conclusions as to the authenticity of the discrete pericopes in question are not mine. I did not decide that 10:6 was "authentic," I was relying on the scholarship of others. I did the same with 10:12. I made no comment at all on 10:6 until you brought it up. Once you did, I responded that 10:6 was not something regarded as having been originally authored by Mark (and hence, no conclusion can be drawn from it about the author's Halachic abilities).
What was I wrong about?
I've shifted nothing. Maybe you should read a little more carefully. I've been entirely consistent about my opinions regarding both verses in questions and contrary to your accusations, I have made no attempt whatever to make any sort of holistic comment on any block of text which would include both verses (i.e. I never said a thing about an "entire passage").