stephan huller

I'm not sure that Mark is an adoptionist. It is difficult to believe that a writer would suddenly introduce Jesus without any mention of his background and then kill him off seventy seven days later without any information about who or what the main character of the narrative was. It's not a matter of 'good writing' alone. If Jesus was meant to identified as the messiah one would expect a genealogy connecting Jesus back to David. This is pretty much standard among messianic candidates (even Jacob Frank in the eighteenth century for God's sake). The reason it isn't given is because Jesus is not claiming to be the messiah. If you turn around and argue that Jesus was just an ordinary man who happened to fall into the right stream of water - i.e. one in which 'God' or 'God's presence' would appear at exactly that moment, one would expect at least some explanation of this phenomenon - like the prologue to John - "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The fact that there is no prologue to Mark speaks to the author having a very simple explanation for understanding who Jesus was. He doesn't explain how he was the messiah, he doesn't explain how he was adopted or why as such the only possibility left is that he simply is 'the Son of God' who 'suddenly' came down from heaven 'secretly' to begin his mission of salvation (a claim referenced again by the Jews when he is hanging from the cross alongside his original declaration that he would destroy the temple which has been since removed).

I think the reason Jesus's background is not discussed is because he had none.

dog-on

The actual Jesus, in Mark, is the spirit. The fleshy carriage is only there to die. So, it is in that respect I call Mark's Christology Adoptionist. My gut asks me to question whether Mark may have originally been Marcionite, or some prior, but similar form, but I don't have any good evidence to pursue that question any further.

stephan huller

Here is what Clement says about who Jesus was in relation to Moses (the gospel narrative being a conscious imitation of Exodus):

You see I think there is a tendency among scholars to want to be recognized for how brilliant they are - 'look I have done all this work to prove X, Y or Z' I say screw these vain egoists. There are important insights that scholarship can make. But the strongest arguments are to go back to the ancient sources.

Clement says in no uncertain terms that Jesus is the power associated with Moses come back as announced in the book of Exodus. What more proof do any of us need?

tanya

yes, of course. And, since the bible proclaims that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west, ergo the sun moves around the earth, that should be the end of it. I have been standing in the same place all day, and I can affirm the validity of the ancient text, for truly, the sun has moved exactly as predicted. Obviously the gospels and ancient texts from Alexandria must be correct.

stephan huller

But the point again is that if you want to understand the ancient mind you can't project modern 'historical' sensibilities on these very same people either. This helps establish an 'even playing field' for scholars to develop worthless debates like those we ourselves seem to be engaging in - yet the answer is clearly predetermined. Jesus was a God and his humanity was slowly developed later culminating in the veneration of his 'birthday' on December 25th in the third century.

this whole exercise is a lot like when people of very strong opinions about the 'sinfulness' of various activities - illegal drug use, sodomy etc - develop movies to 'warn' people against the dangers of this behavior. I am not saying that any behavior is good or bad in itself but when people of strong opinions don't allow the sunlight of 'the other side' to come into their minds they end up developing caricatures of the original opinion or behavior. So we have the compulsive drug user or the seedy whoremonger or the vain and effeminate sodomist - when in reality there are a range of typologies associated with behavior.

The ancient mind wasn't stupid any more than the modern mind is enlightened. Imagine what future generations are going to say about this socially media obsessed video-game playing compulsive masturbating generation. In case you are not yet aware of it, we are not living in the new Renaissance.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why do you think that Clement has any special insight into the intentions of Mark?

stephan huller

I dont know how to answer such a stupid question

Diogenes the Cynic

You cited Clement in a discussion about how Mark viewed Jesus. Why? That would seem to be a non-sequitur. What does Clement know about Mark? What does Clement's Christology have to do with Mark?

tanya

a. and, how can you answer this question, without projecting "modern 'historical' sensibilities'?

b. What texts are you employing to acquire this assessment of Clement's opinion re: Mark?

c. Since I am unable to understand even the contemporary mind, I would rely exclusively on the text to figure out what folks 2000 years ago wished to communicate. It is crucial, in that context, to understand the nature of the texts upon which we rely. The Annals of Tacitus, for example, consists of a single, tattered, mangled, interpolated Latin (not Greek) document. What is the condition of the manuscript evidence ostensibly from Clement's quill? Is it copied from an original Greek manuscript?

tanya

Hmm. I specialize in posing questions of dubious utility, so I may be able to help you.....

Perhaps you could begin to explain the answer, by submitting a list of two or three references with a link, so that we could better understand, what it is about our questions that you regard as stupid.