bock d.l.- jewish expressions in mark 14.61-62 and the authenticity of the jewish examination of...

7/28/2019 Bock D.L.- Jewish Expressions in Mark 14.61-62 and the Authenticity of the Jewish Examination of Jesus (JSHJ 2003)

1/14

http://jhj.sagepub.com

Historical JesusJournal for the Study of the

DOI: 10.1177/1476869003001002022003; 1; 147Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Darrell L. BockJewish Examination of Jesus

Jewish Expressions in Mark 14.61-62 and the Authenticity of the

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/147The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at:can beJournal for the Study of the Historical JesusAdditional services and information for

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008http://jhj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/14

147-

JEWISH EXPRESSIONS IN MARK14.61-62AND THEAUTHENTICITY

OF THE JEWISH EXAMINATION OF JESUS

Darrell L. Bock

Dallas Theological Seminary

ABSTRACT

This essay assesses Maurice Caseys critique of work on Mk 14.61-62 foundin my Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism. The article examines againand brings more detailed argument for the authenticity of these verses aswell as questioning elements of his critique. The Jewish background fits thetrial setting in a way that is unlikely to reflect an early church creation fora Gentile audience (i.e. Mark did not create this material). The essay alsoshows how solemn this exchange was once it is seen in light of this back-ground.An array of Jewish texts illumine the expressions of the BlessedOne and the Power.A positive assessment of this passages authenticityis significant for historical Jesus studies.

Key Words: historical Jesus, Jewish trial of Jesus, Blessed One.

There is little doubt that the Jewish leaderships examination of Jesus is oneof the more important pericope units in Marks Gospel. Here is the ultimateconfrontation between Jesus and the leaders. This confrontation led to his

crucifixion at the hands of the Romans later in the Gospel. Here claims ofexaltation ran headlong into a reaction that Jesus had blasphemed. In myearlier study of this scene from Mark, I raised the possibility that there aretraces of Jewish expression in Mk 14.61-62 that gives evidence of enhan-

cing the claim of thisscene

as being authentic. This claim has recentlybeen challenged by Maurice Casey, who argues that the conversation wascreated mistakenly by Mark at a point where his sources did not tell him

1. Adetailed study of these two themes and their impact on Mk 14.53-65 can befound in my Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus(WUNT, 2.106; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998).

http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/


3/14

148

what was said,.2This article has the goal of responding to Caseys claimsand

bringingforward a more

completediscussion of the details on the

evidence for traces of Jewish expression in Mk 14.61-62.The essay proceeds in four parts: (1) a review of matters that suggest

the possibility that information on the trial could well have been available tothe Church, (2) the discussion of the otherwise unattested expression theBlessed One, (3) the discussion of the Power, and (4) remaining objec-tions to the verses.

1. On the Possibility of Evidencefrom the Trial Being Known

The key objection to Mark possessing solid information about the examina-tion is simply that no single disciple was present at the interrogation. Per-haps E.P. Sanders states the view most succinctly: It is hard, though notimpossible, to imagine a train of transmission which would have passed onthe exchanges of the supposed trial. This assessment seems too extreme.There are numerous possible avenues for a train of transmission. Several ofthe prominent Jews who would have participated or known participantswould also have had close contact, even if in public debate, with Christians.Such figures could include figures like Joseph ofArimathea and Nico-demus. Now some question the historicity of such figures as well, but thefact that Joseph comes from such an obscure location makes the fabricationof him and his activity unlikely.4However, another figure who would haveaccess to such events would be Saul/Paul, not to mention other priestly fig-ures who joined the new movement (Acts 6.7). Finally, one must not forgetthat there was an ongoing debate between the new movement and the lead-

ership that ran for thirty years within Jerusalem. In the heated polemic thatcertainly emerged, discussion of what led to Jesus demise would almostcertainly have surfaced, at least in its most fundamental terms. Surely theJewish view of the examination would surface in the context of such public

2. M. Casey, Review of Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final

Examination of Jesus, JTS 52 (2001), pp. 245-47. The key critique of these particularissues appears on pp. 246-47. It should be noted that the tone of this review was unusu-ally harsh.

3. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 298.4. See the full discussion by Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah (ABRL;

New York: Doubleday, 1994), II, pp. 1212-32, 1240. He calls Josephs existence andburial of Jesus, very probable. He argues later Church hostility to the Jewish leadershipmakes creation out of nothing of a hero figure from among them as almost inex-plicable. Whether the reading of Joseph is as diverse between Mark and John as Brownsuggests is another matter.



4/14

149

debate. TheAnnas clan, still fighting James, the brother of Jesus, in thesixties,

certainlywould have made its view of Jesus known.5 Thus it is not

so hard to believe that the key issues of the trial would have surfaced andbeen discussed in public contexts. Granted this is not hard evidence oftextual sources, but it is a credible explanation for the way such debatewould have certainly proceeded with the persistent presence of discipleswithin Jerusalem.

Given this general line of argument, might there be indications of thedebate that took place at the examination? It is here that two expressions inMark deserve attention as potential indicators of the age of the examinationtradition. They are the reference to God as the Blessed One in the highpriests question and the reference to God as the Power in Jesus reply.

2. On the Expression, The Blessed One

The Jewish examination of Jesus begins with the unsuccessful pursuit ofcharges against Jesus that he predicted that he would destroy the temple(Mk 14.55-59). It is at this point that the high priest steps in and beginsquestioning Jesus. Such an action would not be a violation of any Jewishrules concerning legal procedure, since this is not a trial in the technicalsense but more like a grand jury investigation.6 The goal is to gather evi-dence to take to Pilate so he can rule on Jesus legally.

In this context, the high priest asks the question, Are you the Christ,the Son of the Blessed One?. The Greek reads, alb S 6 XpiJT6g 6 vio5TOT) E.OY111:0.

The query is about whether Jesus is the promised Messiah, withChristos and Son of the Blessed One functioning as synonyms.~For ourconcerns, the key expression is the otherwise unattested phrase, Son ofthe Blessed One. What is the likelihood that this expression has roots inthe original scene?

First, one could note that this expression, on the basis of the traditionalhistorical criteria of authenticity, would have a solid claim to being auth-entic because it is dissimilar to both Jewish and early Christian expression.The term, Blessed One, functions in Mark as an indirect way for naming

5. This detail is corroborated by Josephus,Ant. 20.9.1 197-203.6. For details defending this distinction, see Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, pp.

188-95.

7. On Son of God having this sense, see Ps. 2.2, 7; 1 Chron. 17.13; 2 Sam. 7.12,14. Similar concepts probably appear at Qumran in 4Q [=Florilegium] 3.11-12 and

1QSa. 2.11-12. See C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC, 34B; Nashville: Thomas

Nelson, 2001), pp. 448-49.



5/14

150

God. Technically this expression is a circumlocution, not because it replacesGods

specificname but because it avoids

referringto him as God as an

indication of respect by mentioning him more circumspectly.In this form, itis otherwise unknown in Judaism and in the early Church. In the New Testa-ment, the term EOY11t appears eight times and is reserved for blessingformulas (Lk. 1.68; 2 Cor. 1.3; Eph. 1.3; 1 Pet. 1.3) or for descriptions of Godas blessed (Rom. 1.25, 9.5; 2 Cor. 11.31). The same blessing formulaappears in the two uses of the term in theApostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Eph.1.3 ; Barn. 6.10).

It is

unlikelythis is a Markan

expression.Of Marks fives uses of the

verb F--6Xoygco, three occur in meal contexts where food is being blessed(Mk 6.41; 8.7; 14.22) and the other two uses are reserved for the entry ofJesus (Mk 11.9-IO). One use in each class is unique to Mark (Mk 8.7; 11.10),that is, it does not show up in the parallel in another synoptic. However,none of these uses show God as a blessed figure.As we noted, the use ofthe adjective EoY11t appears eight times in the New Testament. Luke1.68 is the only other use in a Gospel. It is highly unlikely that Mark wouldcreate a Jewish feel to this trial, because his audience lacks savvy on Jewishmatters as his translation ofAramaic expressions and explanation of Jewishcustoms show (Mk 7.1-4). This point is made even more likely when we seeMark use Son of God (moq + 0eo) in several texts (Mk 1.1; 3.11; 5.7 [vi~TOT) 8EO]; 15.39). Why a singular exception here?

So what evidence is there that this expression might have its roots in aJewish context, rather than being a pseudo-Jewish expression as Juelclaims?9 The key texts are m. Ber. 7.3 and 7 En. 77.2. The mishnaic text

reads, Rabbi Ishmael says, &dquo;Bless the Lord who is blessed&dquo; (7t~vt~~ 5&dquo;!~11~t~~ t_ &dquo;-n~ 1;:~~ 7mi&). Here the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael concludes adiscussion of how to bless a meal or how to give a blessing in the syna-gogue, whether a few are present or thousands. His opinion is cited as thedecisive form of blessing for the synagogue. What is significant is that Godis described either as one who is blessed or as the Blessed. Juel notesthat the mishnaic construction is adjectival, not substantival, but the ambi-

8.In

this way, Istate more

preciselywhat

Imeant to

sayin

Bock, Blasphemyand Exaltation, when I said the term was a circumlocution that avoids the pronun-ciation of Gods name out of respect for the deity (p. 214). Caseys critique of this re-mark as confused because the term Blessed replaces &thetas;o not is technically cor-

rect but reads my unclear original statement too narrowly (p. 247). Of course, Casey iscorrect that the presence of expressions naming God as God are frequent in Greek andin Semitic sources. The point about the indirectness of the expression being a sign ofrespect is the key idea in the choice of the more indirect expression, BDAG, p. 408.

9. Donald Juel, Messiah and the Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark(SBLDS, 31; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 79.



6/14

151

guity in moving from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek may be at play here so thatthe original query that Mark reflects could either have referred to God asthe Blessed One or as the one who is blessed.1 What is evident is thatwe have a reverent address of God as one uniquely worthy to be blessed. Itis likely, given the way the blessing is addressed here, that this kind of ex-pression was tied to highly liturgical moments in the worship of the com-munity.ll We shall return to this idea after treating 7 Enoch.

7 Enoch 77.2 in its Ethiopic version refers to the Most High and the

eternally blessed. It is absent in theAramaic fragments from Qumran, butthose fragments cover only a portion of 7 Enoch. 12A potential parallel in

4Q209 [=4QEnastrb ar 23.3] reads the Great One instead of most High oreternally blessed and apparently speaks of God sojourning eternally.&dquo;Knibb translates the relevant part of the Ethiopic version of 77.2 as,because there the Most High descends, and there especially the one whois blessed for ever descends.14 The 7 Enoch text is less than certain as toits authenticity, given the status of the slightAramaic evidence we pos-sess, but its potential evidence, which may be late, only corroborates thekey Mishnaic15

10. This point is made by Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, p. 449. This point alsoanswers the critique of Casey that the expression qualifies the name of God, itis not a circumlocution as in Mark 14:6 (p. 247). By the way, I noted that the mish-naic expression was adjectival (on p. 216) and also noted the alternative issue of ren-dering in my original remarks in Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, even though Caseyleaves the clear (mis)impression that I was not aware of this element of the discussion.

11. Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (SJ, 9; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,1977), pp. 100-11, 314, esp. p. 105 n. 1, notes 37 different blessing formulaes involv-ing God. Judaism was in the habit of showering blessings upon its God during worship.An example of this is found in Sifre Deut. 306. Here we have both the blessing (Blessyou the Lord who is to be blessed) and the response (Bless you the Lord who is to beblessed forever). Both responses use the key expression The expression isassociated with respectful adoration of God. The later exposition of m. Ber. 7.3appears in b. Ber. 49b-50a.

12. For the listing of the coverage of theAramaic fragments, see MichaelA.Knibb (ed.), The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), pp. 6-15.He notes on p. 12 that 196 of the books 1,062 Ethiopic verses are found in these

fragments, just under one-fifth of the total.13. See frag. 23. However the text is only partially preserved in the verse. Floren-

tino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, I(1Q1-4Q273) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 436-37. See also Knibb (ed.), EthiopicBook of Enoch, p. 11.

14. Knibb (ed.), Ethiopic Book of Enoch, p. 179. His notes on the passage com-pare theAramaic.

15. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill,1985), p. 407 n. 29, calls the phrase in 77.2 probably a gloss.



7/14

152

What the m. Ber. 7.3 reflects is the extensive use of blessing inassociation with the name of God. These roots go back into the Old Testa-

ment, especially as reflected in the Psalter. Hebrew has two terms for bles-sing : 11: and *)!~. The second term in its 25 uses in the Psalter alwaysapplies to people. In contrast, 11: in its 69 uses in the Psalter refers to Godin 40 of those. The range of expressions for God as the object of bles-singinclude bless the Lord (26 times using Yahweh), bless [our] God (4 timesusing Elohim), bless his name (6 times), bless Ya (once), bless you [=God] (twice), and bless my rock (once), plus numerous variousexpressions where God does the blessing. 16 Thus, though 11: is not used

exclusively of blessing God or God blessing, it is the predominant term forsuch a declaration. 17

The use of the term in the Dead Sea confirms such common usage.Numerous Dead Sea texts reflect either a call to bless the name or to bless

God (IQH 18.14: Blessed are you, God of compassion; 1QM 14.8, 18.6:Blessed is your name; 1QM 14.3-4: all bless the name of the God ofIsrael/blessed is the God of Israel; 1QM 13.7: We bless your name for-ever ; 1QS 9.26: with prayer he shall bless him; 1QS 11.15: Blessed are

you, 0 my God, who has opened knowledge to thee mind of your servant;1QHa 5.4: Blessed are you, 0 Lord). These are but a sample of the DeadSea uses. Other combinations include 4Q 252 3.12 (El Shaddai will b[lessyou]), 4Q 287 f.2.8 ([Bless] the glorious name of your divinity), 4Q287 f.3.1I(bless your Holy name with blessings), 4Q 403 fli.29 (he who blesses),and 4Q 403 fli.2 ([he who] blesses all who receive blessing forever).18 Thesheer number and variety of these samples shows how common blessingand God are associated in the worship of Judaism.

Common in the Mishnah is the refrain, blessed is he, blessed be he,or blessed are you. The first two refrains appear in m. Ned. 3.11, m. Yoma8.9, m. Sot. 1.9, 5.5, m. San. 4.5 (twice), 10.6; m. Mak. 3.16, m. Avot 2.9, 3.1-3;4.22, 5.4, m. Mid. 5.4; m. Uq. 3.12. The blessed are you refrain appearsseven times alone in m. Tanh. 2.4.A most interesting text is m. Sanh. 6.4-5.

16. Ps. 5.13; 10.3; 16.7; 18.47; 26.12; 28.6, 9; 29.11; 31.22; 34.2; 37.22; 41.14;

45.3; 49.19; 62.5; 63.5; 65.11; 66.8,20;

67.2, 7-8; 68.20,27,

36; 72.15,17-19;

89.53; 96.2; 100.4; 103.1-2, 20-104.1; 104.35; 106.48; 107.38; 109.28; 112.2;113.2; 115.12-13, 15, 18; 118.26; 119.12; 124.6; 128.4-5; 129.8; 132.15; 134.1-3;135.19-21; 144.1; 145.1-2, 10, 21; 147.13.

17. This corrects a statement of mine in Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, on

p. 216, where I said this term is reserved for God exclusively. What should have beensaid is that it refers to God predominantly. It is a term that is especially associated withGod, which is the key point.

18. The refrain in 4Q 287 f 3.1 suggests a similar context for other texts cited in

the broken text of 4Q 287 f 2.8.



8/14

153

Here the term 1-in appears in an ironic reversal to refer to cursing thename in the context where being hung on a tree is being discussed withallusion to Deut. 21.23. It is blasphemy that is being treated and the issue isprofaning the Name, the name that should be blessed.

All this evidence shows how deeply rooted in worship is the theme of

blessing God and the uniqueness of the one who is blessed. So as unprece-dented as the expression Son of the Blessed One is, the concept of God asthe one who is blessed is not rare at all. It is this combination of similarityand dissimilarity that speaks to the likelihood that what we have in Mark 14is a trace of Jewish expression, not made up by Mark or the Church butretained from the Jewish roots and serious nature of the examination ofJesus. So after a review of the evidence, I continue to agree with the assess-ment of Joel Marcus about the claim that pseudo-Jewish expressions are

present in Mark 14 that The fragmentary nature of our sources for first cen-

tury Judaism, however, casts doubt on the appropriateness of the prefix&dquo;pseudo-&dquo; .19 In fact, even the fragmentary evidence we have reveals aseries of expressions concerning the blessedness of God that indicate justhow somber this moment is. If the expression is a trace of Jewish thinking,then the high priest was evoking with all seriousness the unique and sacrednature and character of Israels worshipped God as he posed the messianic

question to Jesus.What of Jesus reply? How did he respond to this question with its

solemn mood of reverence?

3. On the Expression, At the Right Hand of Power

Here our concern is the significance of the indirect reference to God as thePower/theAlmighty (Heb.:i11:Ji1;Aramaic: &n71x ). The evidence here ismore direct than with the Blessed One. 7 Enoch 62.7 has a figurative ref-erence to power, though not as a name. It reads, For the Son of Man wasconcealed from the beginning, and the Most High preserved him in the

presence of his power. What is significant here is the juxtaposition of theSon of Man with an image of divine authority exercised on the Son of

Mans behalf.This expression of the Power is common and consistent in how it is

used in later Judaism. It often appears in contexts where Gods activity inthe Exodus or through Moses is in view. In the Talmud, the expressionappears in contexts where Moses received the Law from the Power (b.

19. Joel Marcus, Mark 14:61:Are You the Messiah of God?, NovT 31 (1989),pp. 125-41 (p. 127 n. 6).



9/14

154

Erub. 54b [twice]; b. Yeb. 105b; b. Shab. 88b; b. Meg. 31b). The expressionserves to

certifythe

qualityof the revelation to Moses

by highlightingits

ultimate source. Targum Job 5.8 has a similar expression from the Power.The usage in the midrashim parallels the Talmud. In Sire Num. 112 (on

Num. 15.31), Rabbi Ishmael (c. 120 CE) refers to the failure to observe thefirst commandment to worship God alone as he condemns the idolaters onthe basis of the Numbers text which speaks of despising the word of theLord. This was a word that Moses received out of the mouth of the Power

which said, I am the Lord your God...you shall have no other gods besidesme (citing Exod. 20.2-3).2 Similar in force is b. Mak. 24a, where a commandnot to have gods is said by rabbi Hamnuma (c. 290 CE) to have come fromthe mouth of the Power. Parallel to that is b. Hor. 8a, where Ishmael

repeats the idea that one should not have other gods, a command that camefrom the mouth of the Power.ARN [A] 37.12 defends Moses right tospeak for God because Moses heard from the mouth of the Power. Similaris an alternate text in Sfie Deut. 9 (on Deut. 1.9), which says, Moses saidto Israel, &dquo;I did not speak to you on my own, but out of the mouth of thePower&dquo;.

Meki l ta also follows this pattern of references to Moses. Mek-

Beshallah 2 (26a) on Exod. 14.2 has Moses declare that the freedom of theIsraelites came from the mouth of the Power. Mek.Amalek 4 (959b) onExod. 18.19 calls on Moses to seek counsel with the Power. Mek. Bah. 9

(71a} on Exod. 20.18 has Ishmael (c. 120 CE) report the words of Akiba (c.120 CE) that speaks of people hearing the fiery word coming out of themouth of the Power . Mek.Amalek 1 (54b) on Exod. 17.13 has rabbi Eleazar

(c. 130 CE) speak of the war being by the order of the Power. Mek. hay-assa 1 on Exod. 15.22 has two references from rabbi Eleazar. The first is thatMoses got the command of the journey from the mouth of theAlmighty.The other comments on Exod. 15.24 and notes that when Israel spokeagainst Moses, she was speaking against the Power. So the expressionunderscores the authority of revelation coming through another in a keyperiod that was the salvation of the nation.

This expression and its consistency of use is so widely attested acrossthe midrashim and other key portions of Jewish literature that it has a solidclaim to early roots. It is the type of reference that is less likely to havearisen from a creative Mark trying to give a Jewish feel to the scene. It fitstoo well. If this type of background informs Jesus reply, then his responseis quite direct to the high priests solemn invoking the uniqueness of God in

20. Sifre Num. 46 (on Num. 7.9) defends the teaching of the Levites arguing theyhad inserted nothing as what they taught they had received out of the mouth of

Moses,and Moses out of the mouth of the Power.



10/14

155

asking the messianic question. Jesus invokes an equally solemn indirect

expressionabout God that

pointsto his

sovereign authorityto reveal as he

wills and to do so through an agent that speaks directly for him.Add to thisa seating by Gods side and one can see why Jesus reply would evoke thestrong negative reaction it did, considering the manner in which the leadersviewed Jesus.After all, Jesus is claiming that he will sit in vindication nextto theAlmighty and will receive full authority as his unique representative.If the allusion to the Power does evoke Moses and the Exodus, then theclaim is as strong and provocative as one can imagine. What Jesus repre-sents is a revelation through the Power that is every bit the equal of Moses,if not of even more significance. Jesus has answered the high priests ques-tion in kind and positively. In fact, he has answered it more emphaticallythan the high priest could have imagined. This kind of involved Jewishexpression is unlikely to have its origin in the early Church, particularly in aGospel that is written with Gentile concerns in mind. Its counter Sitz imLeben speaks to its authenticity.

So we have here a potentially significant trace of Jewish background tothe examination scene of Jesus. But we must complete our study by notingsome objections to seeing this scene as authentic. It is these I treat in thisfinal major section.

4. On Objections toAuthenticity

What objections to authenticity can be raised concerning these twoverses? With regard to the high priests question about whether Jesus is

the Son of the Blessed One, the only objections focuson

the uniquenessof the indirect expression which we have already treated as unlikely as acreation of the early Church.

When it comes to Jesus reply, the discussion is more complicated anddebated. Casey raises three objections to the authenticity of Mk 14.62, mostof them rotating around the use of the Son of Man to present Jesus returnand his appeal to Ps. 110.1and Dan. 7.13.21

Before treating these objections, a few observations can be made at thestart. First, it is important to note that the

replymakes good sense inAra-

maic. Maurice Casey notes that the reply renders cleanly intoAramaic . 22Secondly, the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings are multiply-attested. Theyappear in Mark (Mk 8.38//Mt. 16.27//Lk. 9.26; Mk 13.26//Mt. 24.30//Lk. 21.27;

21. M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London:SPCK, 1979), pp. 213-18.

22. Casey, Son of Man, p. 178.



11/14

156

Mk 14.621/Mt. 26.64/iLk. 22.69), Q (Mt. 24.27 and Lk. 17.24; Mt. 24.37 and Lk.

17.26;Mt. 24.39 and Lk. 17.30; Lk. 12.8

[whereMt. 10.32 lacks the

title]),M

(Mt. 10.23, 13.41; 19.28 [Lk. 22;30 lacks title, so this could be Q], 24.44;25.31), and L (Lk. 17.22 [Lk. 12.8, if it is not Q]). Thirdly, texts appealingdirectly or indirectly to Daniel 7 are also widely attested: Triple Tradition(Mk 13.26 and par.; Mk 14.62 and par.), M (Mt. 13.41; 19.28; 25.31) andeither Q or L (Lk. 12.8). This is not as widespread as the apocalyptic Son ofMan sayings, but still is significant.

It also is important to note how Son of Man is cited. It appears 82 timesin the Gospels and is a self-designation for Jesus in all but one case, whereit reports a claim of Jesus (Jn 12.34). In other words, the term is one associ-ated with Jesus own speech. That this expression is an early Church crea-tion has two major factors against it. (1) If this were an early Church crea-tion, then why was the term so exclusively retrojected back only ontoJesus lips within the Gospels? This is unlike any other major title, whichshows up on Jesus lips and in use by others. (2) If this title was created bythe early Church as a self-designation by Jesus, why has it left almost notrace in the non-Gospel New Testament literature from the alleged historical

source?These two questions counter the first argument Casey raises as an

objection to authenticity of the idea of Jesus being seated as the Son ofMan at the right hand of the power. Casey suggests that the Son of Manidea and that of his coming on the clouds fits the early Church Sitz imLeben. The implication is that one need not look for an origin in Jesus, if aplausible setting can be found in the early Church. This argument Caseyframes in terms of his belief that the second coming was an early Church

expectation only, but this argument ignores one important feature about atext like Mk 14.62. We have no unambiguous evidence of the early Churchitself before the period of the Synoptic Gospels confessing the Son of Mantitle to present this idea.23 The epistolary material does not do it, and thereis only one late apocalyptic early Church text that does allusively (Rev.14.14). We have four Son of Man texts outside the Gospels. They areActs

23. Arguments from silence can cut both ways in this debate. Casey argues: why dowe

not have a Son of Man concept that expresses both Jesus rising from the dead andcoming on the clouds of heaven?As a counter question one can ask, why do we nothave a Son of Man text from the texts giving the teaching of the early Church that

places that idea on the lips of someone other than Jesus? This evidence and practiceseems to suggest that it is Jesus utterances and the memory of them that causes this

exclusive association of the Son of Man with Jesus. Caseys summarization of his

detailed argument from Son of Man, pp. 178-84 and 213-18 appears in M. Casey,From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament

Christology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 53-54.



12/14

157

7.56, where the Son of Man stands to receive Stephen; Heb. 2.6, which is acitation of Psalm 8 about all humanity; Rev. 1.13, where a vision of Jesus

currently as the Son of Man appears; and Rev. 14.14, which repeats the lan-guage as it appears in Dan. 7.13 rather than in its titular form. The best

Casey can do to make the case is to attempt to argue that certain other Sonof Man texts in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus are creations of the earlyChurch as a way of disqualifying all such texts. But note that then, he isactually arguing more, namely, that all such expressions are from the earlyChurch. To do this, he must treat as irrelevant all the data just presented,including the lack of Son of Man as title of confession from the earlyChurch and its lack of association as a title tied to second coming outsideof the late Revelation text. This blunts the force of his first objection.

Caseys second objection, which actually forms a key element of hiscase for his first argument, is that the midrashic combination of Daniel 7 and

Ps. 110.1is unlike Jesus style of self-authoritative argumentation where hisappeals are to his own authority, not to Scripture.2a

The response here comes at two levels. First, it is not surprising thatJesus response at a Jewish examination would not simply be a self-claim.

Such a claim would be meaningless in this unique setting, even if Jesus didoften respond this way in his public discourse. What defense will he usewhen asked to show what his claim of authority is? What better place to gothan the language and imagery of Scripture. For someone who is seen byvirtually all Jesus scholars as a prophet, an appeal to the words and imageryof God would not be out of step. Secondly, there is evidence of midrashiclike combinations of texts in the Jesus material. The first such text is Mk7.6-10//Mt. 1~.4=9, where three texts are linked (Isa. 29.13; Exod. 20.12 [Deut.

5.16];Exod. 21.17

[Lev. 20.9]).The second text is

linkage involvingthe con-

cept of love, a central ethical theme in Jesus teaching. It appears in Mt.22.33-39 (like Mk 1~.29-31), where Deut. 6.4-6 and Lev. 19.18 are linked tomake the great commandment on love, generally regarded as a keystone ofJesus public teaching. So this kind of midrashic linkage does appearformally in Jesus ethical teaching. It is not hard to consider it likely by this

24. This argument appears both in Casey, From Jewish Prophet, p. 53, and Casey,Son

ofMan, pp.213-17. In

fact,this

scripturalmidrashic

argumentis a

keyto his

argu-ing that the Sitz im Leben for the Son of Man sayings is the early Church. The claim isthat the argumentation comes from the early Church, not Jesus, so the idea is shown tobe a later theological reflection on earlier events. Despite Caseys claim in his reviewofBlasphemy that I did not deal with his arguments against the authenticity of the Sonof Man, I did explicitly treat this issue in the volume, although I did not cite his argu-mentation for it. The argument is old, reaching back at least to Perrins contention, inN. Perrin, Mark XIV.62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?, NTS 13

(1965-1966), pp. 150-55. I responded to Perrins position.



13/14

158

late time in his ministry Jesus had tried to make scriptural sense out of whatwas happening to him. Foreseeing (or even hoping for) a vindication, textslike Ps. 110.1and Dan. 7.13 were likely a part of his thinking and self-under-standing. Where else would Jesus turn for such self-definition and under-standing but to Scripture? I again cite Raymond Brown for the key point,Hidden behind the attribution to the early church is often the assumptionthat Jesus had no christology even by way of reading the Scripture to dis-cern in what anticipated way he fitted into Gods plan. Can one really thinkthat credible? 25

So we have every reason to question the formal grounds on which

Casey claims that the Ps. 110.l/Dan. 7.13 allusion is a product of the earlyChurch.26What is Caseys third objection? It is his observation that resurrection

of Son of Man and return of Son of Man are never discussed in the same

place .27 One could ask, what of this text? If a to-be-executed Jesus sees him-self seated at the side of the Power and returning, then this text does exactlywhat Casey claims never happens with Son of Man sayings.And if it hap-pens here and nowhere else, then is this not the very kind of unique,

dissimilar text that often is taken to reflect authenticity?So as we examine the specific arguments Casey makes for denying theauthenticity of Mk 14.62, we see that they do not look nearly as persuasiveas they might at first glance. In fact, many of the details they raise seem topoint to authenticity. The case for the presence of Jewish traces of expres-sion in the trial scene of Jesus seems to be enhanced by a re-examinationmade in light of a serious questioning of the original formulation of thecase.

5. Conclusion

If the material present in Mk 14.61-62 is authentic or gives a sense of the

key debate that took place in that event, then we see that the key examina-tion of Jesus by the Jewish leadership before he went to Pilate took place ina context where the uniqueness of Gods station and power was raised and

25. This is part of a longer point made in Brown, Death of the Messiah, pp.513-14.

26. For other arguments defending the authenticity of this use of Ps. 110.1 andDan. 7.13, see Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, pp. 220-30. In particular, I deal withthe claim, one Casey does not make, that the use of Ps. 110.1reflects the LXX render-

ing of that text and thus is a late, Hellenistic, early Church reading of that text.27. Casey, Son of Man, p. 217. I have already raised a question about this argu-

ment in n. 23 above.



14/14

159

responded to with notes of almost worshipful solemnity. The mood wellreflects the

importanceof the confrontation. The

high priests speakingof

the Blessed One sought to invoke the unique God who was regularly bles-sed in a variety of forms in the temple and synagogue. Caiaphas, in askingthe question this way, reminds Jesus as he asks, that claiming to be the Sonof God is a highly sacred claim. Jesus does not back down. He claims thatGod will vindicate him fully, giving him a seat at Gods very own side. Bycalling God, the Power, he invokes the God of the salvation of Israel fromthe time of Moses, who revealed himself directly to the earthly leader of theexodus. Like the Law needed to be heeded, so did the one through whomGod is now speaking. So we have in Jesus use of Scripture the very sameself-authenticating claim that Casey noted was so characteristic of Jesusteaching elsewhere-yet another point in favor of authenticity. Jesus isclaiming to be more than messianic Son of God. Not only will God vindicatehim as Son, but also one day they will see him as Son of Man with judgmentauthority riding the clouds. What Jesus took as vindication into judgmentauthority through appeals to Ps. 110.1and Dan. 7.13, the Jewish leadershipsaw as blasphemy.And the rest, as they say, with all its consequences that

grew out of this verdict, is history.

by Feliz Delgado on May 31 2008http://jhj sagepub comDownloaded from

bock d.l.- jewish expressions in mark 14.61-62 and the authenticity of the jewish examination of...

Documents