dog-on

Pretty much across the entire tale, DC.

For instance, what do you think the author meant by this:

Diogenes the Cynic

Well either he didn't know or didn't care. I suspect he didn't know since every time he tried to say anything about Jewish tradition or law (or Palestinian geography) he got something wrong.

It's fact that under Jewish law, scripture and common vernacular, none of those titles were blasphemous to claim for oneself. "Son of man" isn't even really a title.

Mark never indicates that he thinks the Messiah is God, and makes it clear that he views God and Jesus as different entities. Jesus is possessed by the Holy Spirit, but he is not, himself, the Holy Spirit.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's Mark's famous "Messianic secret," not an implication of deity.

dog-on

I see and what in your opinion is Mark's intention regarding his famous Messianic secret? Is Mark talking about a Jewish Messiah?

stephan huller

Exactly dog-on. It is difficult to conceive of a 'secret messiah' for the Jews. For white people - okay. There is a Samaritan account of the Gentiles watching on as the Passover service is carried out where they are described as 'dogs.' Dogs are kept outside of what is sacred. But the Jewish messiah coming and keeping a secret from the very people he is supposed to save is absurd. There is no such a thing as a 'secret messiah of the Jews' whose secret is kept away from the Jewish people. Only white people could come up with something as idiotic as this. The clearest sign that Jesus wasn't the Jewish messiah is the fact that (a) the Jews rejected him and (b) the Marcionites consistently and explicitly take each saying from the gospel and show how Jesus denied he was the messiah.

Case in point - the blind man at Jericho. As a blind man he says 'Son of David' when he can see he calls Jesus 'Lord.' There are many more examples but notice Clement says the same thing - i.e. many said 'Son of David' but the 'few' call him 'Son of God.' It's the same argument, the same understanding.

Notice also Cassiodorus's retelling of the trial in Mark. Yes Cassiodorus repeats the reading 'XS, the Son of the Blessed' but notice what follows:

Notice what Clement thinks 'all the gospels' say in terms of the trial - i.e. that Jesus explicitly declares that he is the Son of God. This is what Mark wants us to believe about Jesus. In the language of modern public relations - this is his 'key message.'

dog-on

Exactly Stephan. I think the author actually makes this quite clear, to his readers of course.

The issue here seems to be an inability to seperate the interactions of the characters with the author's interaction with his audience.

Maybe assuming that we are here dealing with literal history masks this somehow.

stephan huller

I feel strange actually agree with someone at this forum over and over again patting each other on the back. Seems like a re-run of the Mike Douglas show from the seventies. But you've hit the nail on the head. Whenever these people come around and talk about 'the historical Jesus' they forget they are reading a book! They keep saying 'But Jesus said ...' instead of 'Mark says that Jesus said' The difference amounts to the chasm which exists between critical research and mere belief.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is only my opinion (which is changeable. I've learned not to invest supreme confidence in any opinion about this stuff) is that Mark conceived the Messiah as the "son of man" figure in Daniel who is depicted as descending from the clouds as a conquering liberator (an arguably celestial figure in this model, albeit not a god), and that Jesus' "secret" is that he knew he would fulfill this prophecy after he died and ascended and that Mark was explaining to his audience why Jesus wasn't recognized as the Messiah even by his own disciples while he was on earth.

Mark's apostles are never even told about the resurrection. The empty tomb is known about only by scared women who ran away and didn't tell anybody.

I think there is an apologetic at work here. Mark is explaining why the disciples didn't know he was the Messiah and telling his audience that they were now in on a secret that the disciples missed out on.

EarlDoherty

Then why, when Jesus admitted to being the "son of the Blessed One" did the HP (i.e., Mark) call it blasphemy and deserving of death? this is what I asked Jon to explain.

Earl Doherty

LegionOnomaMoi

You seem to be conflating two very seperate things here. One is the quite correct view that messiah did not mean "god" and messianic claims did not mean a claim to divinity. The other is that the only way such claims could be seen as "blasphemy" would be if they were divine. That seems to me to be quite ill-founded. It's true that, when it comes to 1st century judaism, and the various movement, tensions, etc., our sources are somewhat limited in many respects, and one of these is what, exactly, eschatological hopes involved, especially in terms of a messiah. However, the claim seems to have been intricately tied with socio-political (which, in that time, and particularly for the Jews, implied religious) ideas linked to the restoration of Israel, kingship, and authority. It seems that one central reason for discontent in and around the early 1st century was the Hasmonean claim to priestly authority despite the fact that they were not of the "line of Zadok." In other words, we are already dealing with a priestly elite whose "authority" and proper interpretation of the law was questioned at a time when this authority was already subject to Rome. From Josephus and Philo (who discusses the zeletoi nomon or zealots of the law, persecuting other Jews because of any number of what they considered "blasphemies") to Roman historians, we get a picture in which the authority of the priests was tenuous and there were plenty apart from the priests who would kill over the claims about the Law. And from what we know of the Pharisees and the support they had, the life and execution of John the baptist as described by Josephus, and the evidence from some of the so-called intertestamental literature (and even rabbinic literature), a claim to be the "annointed" of god could easily be deemed blaphemy and was certainly a dangerous claim to make in front of the elite. It came with a claim to authority from god over Israel. I find it hard to believe the priestly authority ~30 CE would not have thought someone claiming to be the messiah was making a blasphemous claim.