In asking this question I assume a few things and I should make these assumptions clear:
(1) GMark uses the term Christos as a category for Jesus. Furthermore, it seems clear that one of GMark's unfolding plot lines involves revealing and demonstrating what this means.
(2) Some form of the parallelism represented by Romans 1:3-4 was in circulation prior to Mark's composition. I.e. some folks in the early Church were meditating on Jesus' significance in similar language/titles that we find in GMark.
(3) It is almost impossible not to view these titles (Christ; Son of God; Lord) and language (death and resurrection) without using the theological categories of a much later Christian period.
Points one and two suggest that GMark exists in a world of theological categories and that something like "Christology" was already unfolding. Point three suggests that if indeed Christology (or a like category) was a concern of GMark, it was a category under construction as opposed to something that was doctrinally stable.
Of course NT scholars have been using the term "messianism" for sometime now. Part of the reason for this is to sidestep some of the problems of anachronism. But in my experience, the category of "messianism" can bring the same Christological assumptions to the text.
So I am curious to hear your thoughts: is "Christology" the wrong category by which to measure Mark's Gospel?
-anthony
Anthony, I quickly go to Stendahl's Biblical-theological bifurcated definition of "what it meant" and "what it means."
ReplyDeleteFor "what it meant," I go to Mark 8:29, and posit that we are looking to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say I am?" Peter's rapid-fire answer is, "You are the Christ," suggesting that "Christology" is a good term to use to address the answer to Jesus' question. But there's a problem in what follows: Jesus' command to keep his identity a secret, and utter confusion among his followers about what it meant to be the Christ. We might then say that, according to Mark, the "what it meant" (circa 30 CE) of "Christology" was a question without an answer.
Forgive me my Jewish fascination with the question. But instead of "Christology," I tentatively propose "Christology?" I mean "Christology?" not in the sense of asking if there's Christology in Mark, but instead in the sense of recognition that Mark makes it clear that it’s important to determine who Jesus was and what it meant to be the Christ. But if Mark himself provides this answer, he provides it circa 65-75 CE as a matter of systematic theology (“what it means”).
"....a question without an answer...." You rarely disappoint, Larry.
Delete-anthony
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Christology is a poor choice for this category. As has been argued in the current conversation, it is indeed how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the expectations of the Jewish Messiah that lead Mark to reveal Jesus' divinity the way he did. I agree that some early believers were indeed contemplating these titles before Mark.
Finally, I find Hurtado compelling on the issue of Jesus' resurrection leading to early and broad worship of Jesus in conjunction with Jesus' unique relationship with the Monotheistic God of Judaism.
Tim
Thank you, Tim. Allow me to echo the other side of this argument for the sake of nuance. You say "it is indeed how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the expectations of the Jewish Messiah that lead Mark to reveal Jesus' divinity the way he did." ....I appreciate that you render "expectations" in the plural. Because, of course, we must ask *which* expectations? I even have a problem with the definite article in your line. Because the phrase "the expectations" suggests that there was a widely excepted set of determinative factors. And, while there were a few common points of coherence, different notions of what a messiah was and did varied widely. Of course, I am probably saying something that you already know.
Delete-anthony
I'm using 'Christ/ology' as meaning wisdom about the Christ: In Mark Christ is only mentioned twice: 1:1 where it is paired with son-of-God, and 8:29-31 where it is paired with son-of-man. The first implies a spirit/human dimension and the second a human/super- human dimension.
ReplyDeleteIt is the unclean spirits which recognized that Jesus is son-of-God (3:11), and it is Jesus himself who teaches that the son-of-man must suffer, die (8:31-32), and then return to gather the elect (13:26-27). The centurion at the cross agrees with the spirits that Jesus is son-of-God (15:39). But perhaps there are two meanings: the spirits see Jesus as God's envoy against Satan, while Jesus as a new kind of King is put on the lips of the centurion (military).
Another use of 'son' (of God)is found at 9:7 (echoing 1:11)where Jesus, the "beloved son," the servant king of Israel of Isaiah 42:1 and 49:3, is presented as greater in wisdom than Moses and Elijah.
The disciples are to keep quiet about Jesus' identity as Christ/Annointed until the son-of-man rises from his grave (9:9).
Mark has covered all his bases, Christology involves both son-of-God and son-of man identities, both having human and divine dimensions. Yes, it's okay to speak of the Markan Jesus in Christological categories.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Gene, thanks for this quick and very useful survey. The point of my question, however, is about category assumptions and possible category errors. Let me put it another way: would we be better served to ask: in what way(s) does GMark think that Jesus is "anointed"? I wonder if asking this question will provoke different answers than the standard spectrum of our Christological debates.
Delete-anthony
Anthony posed the question, "...would we be better served to ask: in what way(s) does GMark think that Jesus is "anointed"? My thoughts follow:
DeleteMark appears to have two examples of annointing: one as standard practice and one as once in history event. For example:
Mark thinks that preparing for burial with costly ointments is an act of anointing Jesus (14:3-9), and
Mark thinks that resurrection, following the son of man’s torturous death, is an act of anointing Jesus (8:29-31).
Does this not still beg the question, Who is the son of man that he should be annointed, i.e., resurrected? And, as I'm looking at the matter, have we not come full circle back to Christ/ology.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
To me, the text explores what a holy Christ or hero might be like, in effect. But it does not consistently and unequivocally assign Jesus to that category.
ReplyDeleteIt is mostly those with demons who do that. Others suggest it is blasphemy; in 2.7. That Jesus associates too much with sinners, in 2.16. That he breaks the laws of God and the Jews, by working on a Sabbath, in 3.2. Only unclean persons call him the Son of God, in 3.11.
People suggest he is only the son of a carpenter in 6.3. His disciples break food laws, 7.5. Others, like unclean spirits, proclaim him. Even as Jesus himself tells them no to, in 7.36.
Jesus himself will not reveal what authority supports him, in 11.27-33. Though he hints in an Christlike way, that God will kill those who dismissively him, in 12.1-9. He speaks of a Son of Man, but in third person, 14.21ff.. He once seemed to affirm he was a Messiah in 14.61-2. But this is narrated differently in another gospel, where it is others, priests, who say it. And not Jesus himself.
Then Peter denies him, 15.72. As Jesus himself on the cross, dying, feels God has abandoned him, 15.34. So God is not accepting him as his Christ.
In the short ending, Jesus is described as having been "raised." But perhaps that means disinterred and moved. The longer ending offers more, but it is disputed.
So the concept of some kind of a loyal Jewish hero is explored in Mark. But in spite of arguments in his defense, there is no absolutely consistent, unequivocal theme showing anyone, even Jesus himself, agreeing that Jesus matches those models.
So perhaps Jesus is something other than the Christ, in Mark
"Theogany" would probably be less prejudicial or anachronistic.
ReplyDeleteSP: Theogony.
DeletePeter endorses Jesus as Messiah, in Mark 8.29. But Jesus tells the apostles not to say that, in 8.30. And when Peter opposes Jesus on some other major doctrinal matters, Jesus calls Peter "Satan." Mark 8.32-33.
ReplyDeleteSo Peter, including his endorsement of Jesus as Messiah,is not reliable.
I'd say that the 1) presentation of Jesus as a sage and worker of miracles, is the most-often stressed theme in gospels like Mark. But just as important, is 2) the rigorous questioning and doubt about the high status and goodness and Christhood of Jesus. Which surprisingly, comes in part not just from others, but in part from Jesus himself.
Delete"Christology" could be the wrong category, as it runs the risk of anachronism, as does most (any?) second-order term readers come up with to talk about things. I got dinged in a seminary exegesis course when I used it to talk about Mark. The point was well-taken then (and is still now) that maybe "Christology," as a discourse about the person and nature of Jesus and his relationship to God, could run the risk of distorting our reading of Mark. Mark knows nothing of Nicaea and later Christological discourses, after all. But maybe it's less a problem with categories and more an issue related to how we *define* our terms and categories. If "Christology" is defined with regard to Mark along the lines of "how the Markan narrative presents the person of Jesus of Nazareth and his relationship to divine power", it might not be a bad category to use. To my thinking, I would want to work very hard to make sure my category, whatever it is, is tutored by and remains rooted in a reading of Mark's story. (Shooting from the hip here; no doubt any number of readers could come up with a better working definition for using "christology" to talk about GMark).
ReplyDeletePeter reports in Mark 8 that people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. The implication is that Jesus had done nothing up to that point that would make people think that he was the Messiah.
ReplyDeleteIt is in Mark 10 that blind Bartimaeus calls Jesus "son of David," and people rebuke him and tell him to remain silent. There seems to be an implication that the term "son of David" has profound significance.
I suggest that in GMark, "son of David" was an equivalent term with "Messiah," and that it carried mainly a political meaning - King of Israel.
If so, then Jesus' acknowledgment that Bartimaeus' was correct in calling him "son of David," was Jesus first public acknowledgment that he was the Messiah, the king of Israel.
This was followed 15 miles later by Jesus' second public act associating himself with the Messiah - his mounting and riding a donkey into Jerusalem. Those traveling with him seemed to recognize the significance of what he was doing and reacted accordingly, in Mark 11.
I suggest that the arrest and "trial" of Jesus before the chief priests was merely their attempt to obtain more direct evidence that Jesus was indeed claiming to be the Messiah, the king of Israel.
It wasn't until Jesus claimed that he would be returning on the clouds of heaven, seated at the right hand of power, that GMark's Jesus claims that "Messiah" has more than a political meaning, and that it refers to one who has the right to literally sit at God's right hand.
Julian, I don't think that you are quite capturing the significance of the title son of David. If you're interested in the variety of ways that the term was used in the Second Temple period, see my _The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David_.
Delete-anthony
Does your book offer an explanation why GMark portrays the people as not suspecting that Jesus might be the Messiah?
Delete"Don't suspect it" - or simply, consciously reject it, for a dozen stated reasons?
DeleteThose loyal to the old Jewish ways, the Jewish God, found many places where Jesus seemed to clearly violate the Old Testament laws. And, not buying his explanations or apologetics, they reject him as a heretic. As a traitor to the Old Testament. And as disobedient to its God.
To say simply that they "didn't suspect" the truth, would patronize Jews far too much. It would fail to give the Old Testament-based arguments against Jesus, serious consideration.
So perhaps today, we should reconsider his Jewish contemporaries' arguments against Jesus. That Jesus actually disobeyed many of the laws of God. As defined by most Jews: scribes, Pharisees, priests, and countless ordinary Jews. Today we should slough off Christian bias. And take far more seriously the reasons given by his contemporaries, in part, for his arrest and execution. The reasons the Jews regarded Jesus as a heretic and apostate from Judaism.
Still trying to figure out how to answer Anthony's question, "... would we be better served to ask: in what way(s) does GMark think that Jesus is "anointed"?
ReplyDelete(see above)
When Peter associates Jesus with anointing, Jesus "sternly orders" the group not to tell anyone about this (8:29-30) and goes on to describe his death and resurrection, and the silence is reinforced in 9:9, where the disciples are not to speak of the transfiguration "until after the son of man had risen from the dead."
So both anointing (8:27-32) and transfiguration (9:2-9)are associated with being silent until the resurrection.
Might it not be so that Mark did not think of Jesus as anointed until the resurrection and that the transfiguration is intended as a resurrection event, depicting the Annointed one, placed at the center of the gospel.
If so, might not anointing/resurrecting mean that, as depicted in the transfiguration, Jesus replaces the authority of the Law and the Prophets; he is the new Israel.
But the question remains why was Jesus anointed in this way? What about his life deserved anointing - something about who he was, what he did, or both?
Wink's notion, appealing to mysticism (particularly the Jewish Chariot Throne mystics) and depth psychology (e.g., Jung) was that the Son of Man Human Archetype emerged in the life of Jesus (cf. the vision of Ezekiel 1). An so Jesus was fully human yet also transcended human limitations. [See The Human Being, 2002). Did Mark have something like this in mind, only expressed in his own terms?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Another thought. If I am correct that, for Mark, the resurrection was Jesus' anointing (see above), we then have a similarity to what is probably an early creed as cited by Paul in Romans 1:1-4, "Paul, a slave/servant of Jesus Christ...set apart for the gospel of God...the gospel concerning his son, who was descended from David according to the flesh, and was declared to be Son of God with power (Messiah?) according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead..." Visions of the Christ in Power apparently occurred quite early, perhaps inherited by Paul and decades before Mark.
DeleteGene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Usually, christening in the sense that is a root of the word "Christ," probably preferred to the official, public ceremonial act. Which anointed a person with oil, to publicly mark him as having attained some kind of status. In this case, something like crowning; marking Jesus as the sought-after king for the Jews; an heroic and officially recognized great king, like David.
ReplyDeleteBut where in Mark does that ever happen? Likely it never happened that say, the existing king, Herod,officially anointed Jesus as his approved successor.
So,the text tries to introduce alternative allusions to a similar kind of recognition. In day, a woman pouring ointment on his head, 14.3. But that was still different than a real christening.
You might argue that the Transformation, where the disciples see Jesus with Moses and Elijah, was a kind of christening. But that seems quite, quite remote. With no literal ointment to mark it. And everyone, including Jesus, was confused, and issued no clear words on that or related subjects; 9.6-11, 9.34,10.18, 13.32.
Similarly, to date I see in Mark, no official anointing of the Son of Man, and/or the resurrected Jesus; no anointing by any official, to mark him as say, the official new heir to the kingship of Israel.
A voice comes from heaven. But after all, heaven contains evil angels, often. And when they look up to see who has spoken, they see no one; 9.7-8.
Finally only Romans and other unreliable persons like Peter call Jesus son of God; 15.39.
So we see only the most distant and questionable allusions to any firm christening.
So was Jesus the Christ? Is there a Christology in Mark?
DeleteI see some search for a christened leader for Israel and so forth, in the synoptic gospels. But in Mark, when many of his contemporaries look at Jesus, they say he breaks too many Jewish, Old Testament laws and customs. And partly for that reason, we don't see a clear, unequivocal presentation of a formal, public anointing or christening of Jesus. We don't see an anointing by an official.
And we don't see the other of the two major elements of a christening and the installation of a successor: the strong verbal endorsement. The unequivocal,formal endorsement of the candidate, by the standing Lord or other high authority, of the new candidate for office. As the previous lord's chosen successor and heir.
What we have in Mark are only vague allusions to only remotely similar things. And never issued in full formal and unequivocally authoritative language. We have at best, 1) an anonymous voice from the clouds, which may or may not be the Lord god. And the endorsement by unreliable Peter, and a Roman.
And, say? We have 2) women smearing oil or ointment on Jesus, at times.
Which for its day, falls far short of a full, adequate, formal christening of Jesus.