Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [XTalk] The Markan Sanhedrin's view of Israel in exile

Expand Messages
  • Geoff Hudson
    ... From: Bob Schacht [mailto:bobschacht@infomagic.net] Sent: 07 October 2003 22:56 To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Markan Sanhedrin s
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Schacht [mailto:bobschacht@...]
      Sent: 07 October 2003 22:56
      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Markan Sanhedrin's view of Israel in exile

      Bob wrote:
      Of course, Mark may have written ambiguously, referring to both the early
      historical proto-Sanhedrin at the same time that he was addressing (in
      other passages?) the Sanhedrin as it existed in his own day, without
      differentiating between them. Yet obviously, the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day
      would not have been much concerned with the Israel in Exile theme.
      Consequently, in this context, Mk 12:35-37 is rather confusing. These
      verses, as many others, are doing double duty, both as a quasi-historical
      account taking place in the 30s, and as Markan interpretation in the light
      of the issues of his day.
      ******

      Bob,

      Would you amplify what you mean by the double duty of Mk.12:35-37? I am
      particularly interested in the possible interpretations of verse 37.

      Geoff
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Geoff, First of all, my comment requires the assumption that Mark is actually writing about an historical incident-- which is by no means certain. In fact,
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        At 01:10 PM 10/9/2003 +0100, you wrote:

        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: Bob Schacht [mailto:bobschacht@...]
        >Sent: 07 October 2003 22:56
        >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Markan Sanhedrin's view of Israel in exile
        >
        >Bob wrote:
        >Of course, Mark may have written ambiguously, referring to both the early
        >historical proto-Sanhedrin at the same time that he was addressing (in
        >other passages?) the Sanhedrin as it existed in his own day, without
        >differentiating between them. Yet obviously, the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day
        >would not have been much concerned with the Israel in Exile theme.
        >Consequently, in this context, Mk 12:35-37 is rather confusing. These
        >verses, as many others, are doing double duty, both as a quasi-historical
        >account taking place in the 30s, and as Markan interpretation in the light
        >of the issues of his day.
        >******
        >
        >Bob,
        >
        >Would you amplify what you mean by the double duty of Mk.12:35-37? I am
        >particularly interested in the possible interpretations of verse 37.
        >
        >Geoff

        Geoff,
        First of all, my comment requires the assumption that Mark is actually
        writing about an historical incident-- which is by no means certain. In
        fact, the Jesus Seminar rates the saying as Black (not historical.) The
        text contains a reference to Psalm 110, vs. 1 (NRS):

        1 The LORD says to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies
        your footstool."

        Mark 12 (NRS):
        35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes
        say that the Messiah is the son of David?
        36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my
        Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." '
        37 David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?" And the large
        crowd was listening to him with delight.

        The first possible ambiguity comes in vs. 35: was it the scribes of Jesus'
        day who were making the claim about the Messiah, the scribes of Mark's day,
        or both? Or was it Mark putting words in the mouth of the scribes without
        regard for anything they had actually said?

        Vs. 36 contains the quote from Psalm 110:1
        Vs. 37, which you ask about, refers only secondarily to something allegedly
        said by the scribes, referring to Vs. 35, and seems to hold no new
        information about the scribes, so I wonder why you want to focus on it.

        Vs. 35 is interesting because in a way it is an unsurprising claim that
        might be made by any Jew of the First Century, whether a contemporary of
        Jesus, or a contemporary of Mark. But it might contain a hidden argument
        against Jesus as Messiah, the missing part of the argument being that Jesus
        was not the son of David. Indeed, historically, one might envision a
        progression something like the following:
        (a) The disciples put forward the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.
        (b) The scribes counter that whereas the Tanakh proclaim that the Messiah
        will be the son of David, Jesus was not. In fact, if you want to stretch
        things here, some of them may have thrown in the added calumny that Jesus
        was a Mamzer.
        (c) Mark counters the scribes by reporting, modifying, or making up this
        pericope about Jesus that is intended to deflate the importance of the
        lineage of the Messiah. Note that if correct, this would then mean that
        Mark was indulging in psuedo-history at this point.
        (d) Matthew and Luke each use a different tactic, reconstructing a Davidic
        geneology of Jesus (accurately or not).

        There is an added element here that builds on the confusing opening clause
        of Psalm 110, which leaves unexplained who the two Lords in question were.
        Since the psalm's author is presented as David (see superscription to the
        psalm), "my Lord" would then seem to be David's Lord, but the psalm seems
        to describe the messiah. If so, the conundrum as described by Mark in his
        words attributed to Jesus leads to contradictions. But this opens more
        possible ambiguities: were the authorship of Psalm 100 and the association
        of the person described in the Psalm as the messiah known to be positions
        held by the scribes of Jesus' day, by the scribes of Mark's day, or both?
        Or neither?

        What any of this might have to say regarding "Israel in exile" (Jeffrey's
        original question), I have no clue.

        Does this answer your question?
        Bob Schacht, Ph.D.
        Northern Arizona University


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.