Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

http://jhj.sagepub.com Jewish Expressions in Mark 14.61-62 and the Authenticity of the Jewish Examination of Jesus
Darrell L. Bock Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2003; 1; 147 DOI: 10.1177/147686900300100202 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/147

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

147-

JEWISH EXPRESSIONS IN MARK 14.61-62 AND THE AUTHENTICITY 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 found in my Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism. The article examines again and brings more detailed argument for the authenticity of these verses as well as questioning elements of his critique. The Jewish background fits the trial setting in a way that is unlikely to reflect an early church creation for a Gentile audience (i.e. Mark did not create this material). The essay also shows how solemn this exchange was once it is seen in light of this background. An array of Jewish texts illumine the expressions of the Blessed One and the Power. A positive assessment of this passages authenticity is 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 one of the more important pericope units in Marks Gospel. Here is the ultimate confrontation between Jesus and the leaders. This confrontation led to his crucifixion at the hands of the Romans later in the Gospel. Here claims of exaltation ran headlong into a reaction that Jesus had blasphemed. In my earlier study of this scene from Mark, I raised the possibility that there are traces of Jewish expression in Mk 14.61-62 that gives evidence of enhancing the claim of this scene as being authentic. This claim has recently been challenged by Maurice Casey, who argues that the conversation was created mistakenly by Mark at a point where his sources did not tell him

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

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

148

what was said,.2This article has the goal of responding to Caseys claims and bringing forward a more complete discussion 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 to the Church, (2) the discussion of the otherwise unattested expression the Blessed One, (3) the discussion of the Power, and (4) remaining objections to the verses.

1. On the Possibility

of Evidence from

the Trial Being Known

The key objection to Mark possessing solid information about the examination is simply that no single disciple was present at the interrogation. Perhaps E.P. Sanders states the view most succinctly: It is hard, though not impossible, to imagine a train of transmission which would have passed on the exchanges of the supposed trial. This assessment seems too extreme. There are numerous possible avenues for a train of transmission. Several of the prominent Jews who would have participated or known participants would also have had close contact, even if in public debate, with Christians. Such figures could include figures like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Now some question the historicity of such figures as well, but the fact that Joseph comes from such an obscure location makes the fabrication of him and his activity unlikely.4However, another figure who would have access to such events would be Saul/Paul, not to mention other priestly figures who joined the new movement (Acts 6.7). Finally, one must not forget that there was an ongoing debate between the new movement and the leadership that ran for thirty years within Jerusalem. In the heated polemic that certainly emerged, discussion of what led to Jesus demise would almost certainly have surfaced, at least in its most fundamental terms. Surely the Jewish 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 particular issues appears on pp. 246-47. It should be noted that the tone of this review was unusually 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 and burial of Jesus, very probable. He argues later Church hostility to the Jewish leadership makes creation out of nothing of a hero figure from among them as almost inexplicable. Whether the reading of Joseph is as diverse between Mark and John as Brown suggests is another matter.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

149 debate. The Annas clan, still fighting James, the brother of Jesus, in the sixties, certainly would 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 and been discussed in public contexts. Granted this is not hard evidence of textual sources, but it is a credible explanation for the way such debate would have certainly proceeded with the persistent presence of disciples within Jerusalem. Given this general line of argument, might there be indications of the debate that took place at the examination? It is here that two expressions in Mark deserve attention as potential indicators of the age of the examination tradition. They are the reference to God as the Blessed One in the high priests 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 of charges 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 begins questioning Jesus. Such an action would not be a violation of any Jewish rules concerning legal procedure, since this is not a trial in the technical sense but more like a grand jury investigation.6 The goal is to gather evidence 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 vio5 TOT) E.OY111:0. The query is about whether Jesus is the promised Messiah, with Christos and Son of the Blessed One functioning as synonyms.~For our concerns, the key expression is the otherwise unattested phrase, Son of the Blessed One. What is the likelihood that this expression has roots in the original scene? First, one could note that this expression, on the basis of the traditional historical criteria of authenticity, would have a solid claim to being authentic 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.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

150 God. Technically this expression is a circumlocution, not because it replaces Gods specific name but because it avoids referring to him as God as an indication of respect by mentioning him more circumspectly.In this form, it is otherwise unknown in Judaism and in the early Church. In the New Testament, the term EOY11t appears eight times and is reserved for blessing formulas (Lk. 1.68; 2 Cor. 1.3; Eph. 1.3; 1 Pet. 1.3) or for descriptions of God as blessed (Rom. 1.25, 9.5; 2 Cor. 11.31). The same blessing formula appears in the two uses of the term in the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Eph. 1.3 ; Barn. 6.10). It is unlikely this 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 of Jesus (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 of the adjective EoY11t appears eight times in the New Testament. Luke 1.68 is the only other use in a Gospel. It is highly unlikely that Mark would create a Jewish feel to this trial, because his audience lacks savvy on Jewish matters as his translation of Aramaic expressions and explanation of Jewish customs show (Mk 7.1-4). This point is made even more likely when we see Mark 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 a Jewish context, rather than being a pseudo-Jewish expression as Juel claims?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 a discussion of how to bless a meal or how to give a blessing in the synagogue, whether a few are present or thousands. His opinion is cited as the decisive form of blessing for the synagogue. What is significant is that God is described either as one who is blessed or as the Blessed. Juel notes that the mishnaic construction is adjectival, not substantival, but the ambiIn this way, I state more precisely what I meant to say in Bock, Blasphemy 8. and Exaltation, when I said the term was a circumlocution that avoids the pronunciation of Gods name out of respect for the deity (p. 214). Caseys critique of this reis technically cormark as confused because the term Blessed replaces &thetas;εoν not rect but reads my unclear original statement too narrowly (p. 247). Of course, Casey is correct that the presence of expressions naming God as God are frequent in Greek and in Semitic sources. The point about the indirectness of the expression being a sign of respect 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.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

151

guity in moving from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek may be at play here so that the original query that Mark reflects could either have referred to God as the Blessed One or as the one who is blessed.1 What is evident is that we have a reverent address of God as one uniquely worthy to be blessed. It is likely, given the way the blessing is addressed here, that this kind of expression was tied to highly liturgical moments in the worship of the community.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 the Aramaic fragments from Qumran, but those fragments cover only a portion of 7 Enoch. 12 A potential parallel in 4Q209 [=4QEnastrb ar 23.3] reads the Great One instead of most High or eternally 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 who is blessed for ever descends.14 The 7 Enoch text is less than certain as to its authenticity, given the status of the slight Aramaic evidence we possess, but its potential evidence, which may be late, only corroborates the key Mishnaic 15
This point is made by Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, p. 449. This point also the critique of Casey that the expression qualifies the name of God, it is not a circumlocution as in Mark 14:6 (p. 247). By the way, I noted that the mishnaic expression was adjectival (on p. 216) and also noted the alternative issue of rendering in my original remarks in Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, even though Casey leaves 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 involving 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 (Bless you the Lord who is to be blessed) and the response (Bless you the Lord who is to be blessed forever). Both responses use the key expression The expression is associated with respectful adoration of God. The later exposition of m. Ber. 7.3 appears in b. Ber. 49b-50a. 12. For the listing of the coverage of the Aramaic fragments, see Michael A. 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. Florentino 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.), Ethiopic Book of Enoch, p. 11. 14. Knibb (ed.), Ethiopic Book of Enoch, p. 179. His notes on the passage compare the Aramaic. 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.
10.
answers

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

152
What the m. Ber. 7.3 reflects is the extensive use of blessing in association with the name of God. These roots go back into the Old Testament, especially as reflected in the Psalter. Hebrew has two terms for blessing : 11: and *)!~. The second term in its 25 uses in the Psalter always applies to people. In contrast, 11: in its 69 uses in the Psalter refers to God in 40 of those. The range of expressions for God as the object of bles-sing include bless the Lord (26 times using Yahweh), bless [our] God (4 times using Elohim), bless his name (6 times), bless Ya (once), bless you [= God] (twice), and bless my rock (once), plus numerous various expressions where God does the blessing. 16 Thus, though 11: is not used exclusively of blessing God or God blessing, it is the predominant term for such 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 of Israel/blessed is the God of Israel; 1QM 13.7: We bless your name forever ; 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 Dead Sea uses. Other combinations include 4Q 252 3.12 (El Shaddai will b[less I you]), 4Q 287 f.2.8 ([Bless] the glorious name of your divinity), 4Q287 f.3.1 (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 The sheer number and variety of these samples shows how common blessing and 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. Yoma 8.9, 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 appears seven times alone in m. Tanh. 2.4. A most interesting text is m. Sanh. 6.4-5.

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 been

16.

said is that it refers to God predominantly. It is a term that is especially associated with God, 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.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

153 Here the term 1-in appears in an ironic reversal to refer to cursing the name in the context where being hung on a tree is being discussed with allusion to Deut. 21.23. It is blasphemy that is being treated and the issue is profaning 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 unprecedented as the expression Son of the Blessed One is, the concept of God as the one who is blessed is not rare at all. It is this combination of similarity and dissimilarity that speaks to the likelihood that what we have in Mark 14 is a trace of Jewish expression, not made up by Mark or the Church but retained from the Jewish roots and serious nature of the examination of Jesus. So after a review of the evidence, I continue to agree with the assessment of Joel Marcus about the claim that pseudo-Jewish expressions are present in Mark 14 that The fragmentary nature of our sources for first century Judaism, however, casts doubt on the appropriateness of the prefix &dquo;pseudo-&dquo; .19 In fact, even the fragmentary evidence we have reveals a series of expressions concerning the blessedness of God that indicate just how 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 sacred nature 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 Here

Power

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

presence of his power. What is significant here is the juxtaposition of the Son 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 in the Exodus or through Moses is in view. In the Talmud, the expression appears in contexts where Moses received the Law from the Power (b.
19. Joel Marcus, Mark 14:61: Are You the Messiah of (p. 127 n. 6).

God?,

NovT 31

(1989),

pp. 125-41

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

154

[twice]; b. Yeb. 105b; b. Shab. 88b; b. Meg. 31b). The expression certify the quality of the revelation to Moses by highlighting its 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 the first commandment to worship God alone as he condemns the idolaters on the basis of the Numbers text which speaks of despising the word of the
Erub. 54b
serves to

Lord. 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 besides me (citing Exod. 20.2-3).2 Similar in force is b. Mak. 24a, where a command not to have gods is said by rabbi Hamnuma (c. 290 CE) to have come from the 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 came from the mouth of the Power. ARN [A] 37.12 defends Moses right to speak for God because Moses heard from the mouth of the Power. Similar is an alternate text in Sfie Deut. 9 (on Deut. 1.9), which says, Moses said to Israel, &dquo;I did not speak to you on my own, but out of the mouth of the Power&dquo;. Meki l ta also follows this pattern of references to Moses. MekBeshallah 2 (26a) on Exod. 14.2 has Moses declare that the freedom of the Israelites came from the mouth of the Power. Mek. Amalek 4 (959b) on Exod. 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 the mouth 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. hayassa 1 on Exod. 15.22 has two references from rabbi Eleazar. The first is that Moses got the command of the journey from the mouth of the Almighty. The other comments on Exod. 15.24 and notes that when Israel spoke against Moses, she was speaking against the Power. So the expression underscores the authority of revelation coming through another in a key period that was the salvation of the nation. This expression and its consistency of use is so widely attested across the midrashim and other key portions of Jewish literature that it has a solid claim to early roots. It is the type of reference that is less likely to have arisen from a creative Mark trying to give a Jewish feel to the scene. It fits too well. If this type of background informs Jesus reply, then his response is 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 they had inserted nothing as what they taught they had received out of the mouth of Moses, and Moses out of the mouth of the Power.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

155

asking the messianic question. Jesus invokes an equally solemn indirect expression about God that points to his sovereign authority to reveal as he wills and to do so through an agent that speaks directly for him. Add to this a seating by Gods side and one can see why Jesus reply would evoke the strong negative reaction it did, considering the manner in which the leaders viewed Jesus. After all, Jesus is claiming that he will sit in vindication next to the Almighty and will receive full authority as his unique representative. If the allusion to the Power does evoke Moses and the Exodus, then the
claim is as strong and provocative as one can imagine. What Jesus represents 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 question in kind and positively. In fact, he has answered it more emphatically than the high priest could have imagined. This kind of involved Jewish expression is unlikely to have its origin in the early Church, particularly in a Gospel that is written with Gentile concerns in mind. Its counter Sitz im Leben speaks to its authenticity. So we have here a potentially significant trace of Jewish background to the examination scene of Jesus. But we must complete our study by noting some objections to seeing this scene as authentic. It is these I treat in this final major section.

4. On

Objections

to

Authenticity

What objections to authenticity can be raised concerning these two verses? With regard to the high priests question about whether Jesus is the Son of the Blessed One, the only objections focus on the uniqueness of the indirect expression which we have already treated as unlikely as a creation of the early Church. When it comes to Jesus reply, the discussion is more complicated and debated. Casey raises three objections to the authenticity of Mk 14.62, most of them rotating around the use of the Son of Man to present Jesus return and his appeal to Ps. 110.1and Dan. 7.13.21 Before treating these objections, a few observations can be made at the start. First, it is important to note that the reply makes good sense in Aramaic. Maurice Casey notes that the reply renders cleanly into Aramaic . 22 Secondly, the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings are multiply-attested. They appear in Mark (Mk 8.38//Mt. 16.27//Lk. 9.26; Mk 13.26//Mt. 24.30//Lk. 21.27;
21. M. Son

Casey,

of Man:

The

Interpretation and Influence of Daniel

(London:

SPCK, 1979), pp. 213-18. 22. Casey, Son of Man,

p. 178.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

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 [where Mt. 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 appealing directly 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) and either Q or L (Lk. 12.8). This is not as widespread as the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings, but still is significant. It also is important to note how Son of Man is cited. It appears 82 times in the Gospels and is a self-designation for Jesus in all but one case, where it reports a claim of Jesus (Jn 12.34). In other words, the term is one associated with Jesus own speech. That this expression is an early Church creation has two major factors against it. (1) If this were an early Church creation, then why was the term so exclusively retrojected back only onto Jesus lips within the Gospels? This is unlike any other major title, which shows up on Jesus lips and in use by others. (2) If this title was created by the early Church as a self-designation by Jesus, why has it left almost no trace 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 of Man at the right hand of the power. Casey suggests that the Son of Man idea and that of his coming on the clouds fits the early Church Sitz im Leben. The implication is that one need not look for an origin in Jesus, if a plausible setting can be found in the early Church. This argument Casey frames in terms of his belief that the second coming was an early Church expectation only, but this argument ignores one important feature about a text like Mk 14.62. We have no unambiguous evidence of the early Church itself before the period of the Synoptic Gospels confessing the Son of Man title to present this idea.23 The epistolary material does not do it, and there is only one late apocalyptic early Church text that does allusively (Rev. 14.14). We have four Son of Man texts outside the Gospels. They are Acts
23.
we

Arguments from silence can

cut both ways in this debate.

Casey argues: why do

concept that expresses both Jesus rising from the dead and coming on the clouds of heaven? As a counter question one can ask, why do we not have 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 practice seems 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.

not have a Son of Man

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

157 Heb. 2.6, which is a citation 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 language 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 Son of Man texts in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus are creations of the early Church as a way of disqualifying all such texts. But note that then, he is actually arguing more, namely, that all such expressions are from the early Church. 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 early Church and its lack of association as a title tied to second coming outside of the late Revelation text. This blunts the force of his first objection. Caseys second objection, which actually forms a key element of his case for his first argument, is that the midrashic combination of Daniel 7 and Ps. 110.1is unlike Jesus style of self-authoritative argumentation where his appeals are to his own authority, not to Scripture.2a The response here comes at two levels. First, it is not surprising that Jesus 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 did often respond this way in his public discourse. What defense will he use when asked to show what his claim of authority is? What better place to go than the language and imagery of Scripture. For someone who is seen by virtually all Jesus scholars as a prophet, an appeal to the words and imagery of God would not be out of step. Secondly, there is evidence of midrashic like combinations of texts in the Jesus material. The first such text is Mk 7.6-10//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 involving the concept 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 to make the great commandment on love, generally regarded as a keystone of Jesus public teaching. So this kind of midrashic linkage does appear formally in Jesus ethical teaching. It is not hard to consider it likely by this

7.56, where the Son of Man stands

to receive

Stephen;

24. This argument appears both in Casey, From Jewish Prophet, p. 53, and Casey, Son of Man, pp. 213-17. In fact, this scriptural midrashic argument is a key to his arguing that the Sitz im Leben for the Son of Man sayings is the early Church. The claim is that the argumentation comes from the early Church, not Jesus, so the idea is shown to be a later theological reflection on earlier events. Despite Caseys claim in his review of Blasphemy that I did not deal with his arguments against the authenticity of the Son of Man, I did explicitly treat this issue in the volume, although I did not cite his argumentation for it. The argument is old, reaching back at least to Perrins contention, in N. Perrin, Mark XIV.62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?, NTS 13 (1965-1966), pp. 150-55. I responded to Perrins position.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

158

ministry Jesus had tried to make scriptural sense out of what happening to him. Foreseeing (or even hoping for) a vindication, texts like Ps. 110.1and Dan. 7.13 were likely a part of his thinking and self-understanding. Where else would Jesus turn for such self-definition and understanding but to Scripture? I again cite Raymond Brown for the key point, Hidden behind the attribution to the early church is often the assumption that Jesus had no christology even by way of reading the Scripture to discern in what anticipated way he fitted into Gods plan. Can one really think that 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 early Church.26 What is Caseys third objection? It is his observation that resurrection
late time in his
was

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 himself seated at the side of the Power and returning, then this text does exactly what Casey claims never happens with Son of Man sayings. And if it happens 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 the authenticity of Mk 14.62, we see that they do not look nearly as persuasive as they might at first glance. In fact, many of the details they raise seem to point to authenticity. The case for the presence of Jewish traces of expression in the trial scene of Jesus seems to be enhanced by a re-examination made in light of a serious questioning of the original formulation of the
case.

5. Conclusion If the material present in Mk 14.61-62 is authentic or gives a sense of the that took place in that event, then we see that the key examination of Jesus by the Jewish leadership before he went to Pilate took place in a context where the uniqueness of Gods station and power was raised and

key debate

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 and Dan. 7.13, see Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation, pp. 220-30. In particular, I deal with the claim, one Casey does not make, that the use of Ps. 110.1reflects the LXX rendering 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 argument in n. 23 above.

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

159
to with notes of almost worshipful solemnity. The mood well reflects the importance of the confrontation. The high priests speaking of the Blessed One sought to invoke the unique God who was regularly blessed in a variety of forms in the temple and synagogue. Caiaphas, in asking the question this way, reminds Jesus as he asks, that claiming to be the Son of God is a highly sacred claim. Jesus does not back down. He claims that God will vindicate him fully, giving him a seat at Gods very own side. By calling God, the Power, he invokes the God of the salvation of Israel from the time of Moses, who revealed himself directly to the earthly leader of the exodus. Like the Law needed to be heeded, so did the one through whom God is now speaking. So we have in Jesus use of Scripture the very same self-authenticating claim that Casey noted was so characteristic of Jesus teaching elsewhere-yet another point in favor of authenticity. Jesus is claiming to be more than messianic Son of God. Not only will God vindicate him as Son, but also one day they will see him as Son of Man with judgment authority riding the clouds. What Jesus took as vindication into judgment authority through appeals to Ps. 110.1and Dan. 7.13, the Jewish leadership saw as blasphemy. And the rest, as they say, with all its consequences that grew out of this verdict, is history.

responded

Downloaded from http://jhj.sagepub.com by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.