Ben C Smith

Okay, Gerard, before I can adequately deal with your theory, I need to ask you for the basis for some of your statements.

Your whole hypothesis makes certain assumptions about what a messiah is supposed to do; that is, it assumes that Jesus did the right things so far as being a messiah is concerned, but that the crowds and disciples did not understand. What exactly, IOW, were they supposed to understand? What in their background (or in the background of the Marcan readership) would have told them that this kind of fellow, a man who does these things, is the messiah?

1. Miracles.

How exactly do his miracles certify Jesus as the messiah? I am okay with the idea that a messiah might be expected to do miracles, but not everybody who does miracles is necessarily a messiah. So what is it about these miracles that should have tipped everybody off that Jesus was the messiah?

You yourself elsewhere seem to appreciate the difference between working miracles and being the messiah:

2. Death and resurrection.

What is it about dying, being resurrected, or correctly predicting these events that would make Jesus the messiah? In fact, would not the notion that person X is going to be killed by the Jewish and Roman authorities put a real damper on thinking that person X is the messiah? If you thought he was messiah before, surely his getting killed by the Romans instead of defeating them in battle should make one think twice.

On the above points, I am simply looking for your background texts (be they Hebrew scripture, apocrypha, Dead Sea scrolls, or whatever); I am looking for evidence that Mark has indeed portrayed his messiah as someone in century I would expect (in line with your comments above, such as as a good messiah should).

If those nuts are the ones about whom Mark was concerned, as you seem to state in your OP...:

...then why did Mark make his messiah so different from them? If he is cautioning his readers against a typical go-out-and-get-the-Romans messiah figure, why is his own messiah almost a pacifist?

What is the point, then, of including an entire chapter of them (chapter 13)?

Ben.

vid

Sorry, of course I meant "son of father" (as opposed to "son of god"), to focus on point they chose to save human, not divine christ. In this case, "son of father" would only carry meaning "NOT a son of god". Against this proposition is fact that god is referenced as "father" elsewhere.

I don't see a problem with that - symbolic naming based on one's role in story. It is common even now. For example priviged guy being named "Caesar" in One Day of Life of Ivan Denisovich, etc.

Or in Mark, like the possible "Bartimeus" pun on Timeus philosopher being blind, Judas (originally exactly same word as for Judea) name of betrayer, Joshua ("god saves") name of savior, etc... Names in Mark really appear to be very symbolic.

Yes, it might have been word for "some random guy" as proposed, but if it was common use, we should have it preserved elsewhere.

aa5874

How could Mark's Jesus have failed when he deliberately spoke in a way so that the multitudes would not know who he was. And even if anyone managed to recognise that he was the Christ, he would warn them not to tell any one else.

GMark's Jesus was in total control. He knew what he was doing.

Mark 4.11-13 So, the author of gMark's Messiah has clearly laid out his plan, speak to the multitudes in parables, they will be confused, remain in their sins, and say he is a blasphemer and when Pilate asked whether to release Barabbas or the Messiah, they will crucify him and his prediction will come true, just as he had planned, and his disciples would then confirm he is the REAL MESSIAH. HE WOULD RISE.

The NEW MESSIAH WILL LIVE FOREVER. That is MARK'S MESSIAH.

gstafleu

As I understand the Messiah concept, a Messiah is somebody who, with help or a mandate from God, was supposed to put in an appearance and set things straight for Israel. As such he would be similar to your typical hero (as e.g. described in Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces), who goes through various trials and tribulations and then accomplishes some boon for his community. Here are three examples of this.

The earliest version of this theme we have may well be from Sumer: Inanna's descent to the underworld, where she set out ro reunite the Great Above with the Great below, and in the process likely established the growing season.

A next example is from Babylon, where Gilgamesh undergoes a hero journey that results in him changing from a bad king into a good king.

A third example is an interesting one from the Jewish tradition, where the whole Jewish people go through a hero journey: the exodus from Egypt to the Promised land--the boon accomplished here is obvious. As an interesting twist, the hero here is not one person, but a whole people.

The Messiah idea, IMHO, fits in this template, and the Jesus story seems to be presented as such. We have a rather typical start, the "call to arms" in the form of the holy spirit flapping down into Jesus, thus giving him his mission. If you follow Brian Hayden's (Shaman's, Sorcerers and Saints) idea that a hero story is a modern (relatively speaking, Shamanism starts in the Paleolithic ) version of the shamanic journey, the beginning of Jesus ministry is also fairly typical: an initiation via sensory deprivation (the 40 days in the desert), followed by a number of healings (one of the main shamanic functions was/is healing). The end is also fairly typical: death at an axis mundi, in this case a double-barreled one, to with a world mountain and a world tree. "Death" here stands for a journey to the under (or for that matter: upper) world, which results in the boonification of the hero. Jesus is thus not really dead, he "resurrects," arising out of the earth (the tomb).

So far, so good. But in a hero story there are a number of things that are not supposed to happen. Specifically, the hero is not supposed to be rejected by the people for whose good he/she performs his/her Journey. Inanna is a celebrated goddess, her travails are recognized via yearly festivities. Gilgamesh was recognized as a good king after his journey. The trek of the Israelites in the end did get them to the Promised land. What is not supposed to happen is that the hero, after all his travails, does not have much of an effect and everybody just shrugs and walks away.

Where does the power to accomplish supernatural acts come from, in the Jewish world? From God. This establishes the close link between God and Jesus. Exactly how many people performing real-life miracles were there? Not all that many, I'd wager. So while this may not have been a heavenly neon-sign saying "Messiah," it must have been a pretty solid hint.
IOW, the people didn't get the hint.

In my view "messiah" is closely connected to "hero" in Mark's story. A hero is supposed to "die" (make a journey to the underworld, or some other far-off and dangerous realm).
Unless, of course, said person managed to resurrect--surely that should make a point?
As I indicated at the top of this post, I don't think that just looking at the Jewish tradition is gonig to be sufficient. What we seem to have here is the idea of the Jewish Messiah being presented in the context of a hero story. (So when I say "as a good messiah should" I should perhaps (also) have said "as a good hero should.")

Yes, the nuts are the other Jesuses. The reason for making Jesus different is to avoid another Theudas or Egyptian. If Mark had presented his Jesus as an own-trumpet-blower like these two, his readers could have said "Of course he failed, he was just like Theudas and the Egyptian, and we already know that the Romans go after types like that." Mark wanted Jesus to fail not with respect to the Romans but with respect to his intended audience, which is what happened when said audience elected Barabbas over Jesus and ran off in confusion upon learning about the resurrection. In that vein, also notice that it was not the Romans who killed Jesus, it was the Jews. Pilate tries to get out from under it, doesn't think Jesus did anything wrong, and in the end just throws up his hands and gives up.
To make the Messiah look real. Mark doesn't need to believe in the prophesies, just as J.K Rowling does not have to believe that one can fly on a broomstick.

Gerard

Vorkosigan

The genre of Mark? Hellenistic folk biography is probably the closest. The writer of Mark uses numerous conventions from the historical romances, though. I think it deserves to be its own genre, considering its radically different religious views.

Michael

Vorkosigan

gstafleu, I don't think of Mark as satirizing the idea of the Messiah. Mark's Jesus is the subject of debate -- who is he? Elijah? One of the prophets? The demons recognize him but Jesus silences them, creating the narrative possibility for debate among the humans as to the identity of Jesus and the source of his powers. In my view one function of Mark was as a recruiting document, so this recapitulates in the liturgical text the struggle that must be going on in the heart of the potential convert as he hears this tale of Jesus.

IMHO Mark's satire is aimed at the targets of Paul -- the Jerusalem apostles of the Risen Jesus, who are constantly mocked in the text. Mark might also be satirizing the idea that the Messiah could come and nobody know of it -- the demons shout his name, he raises the dead and cures the sick, he hands off his powers to disciples, he cites scripture, crowds follow him everywhere, people throw themselves at his feet -- but still the disciples debate who he must be. The dullards! Isn't it obvious!?

Michael

Ben C Smith

To what ancient texts would you compare Mark in this category?

Ben.

dog-on

Could the author have just been creative?

Ben C Smith

Well, I guess there is very little hope of persuading me that Mark does not believe those prophecies in the apocalyptic chapter 13.

For one thing, what is your evidence that attributing apocalyptic oracles to a fellow would make him look like a more realistic messiah? This is a problem throughout your hypothesis. You repeatedly assert what elements would make Jesus look like a more realistic, more authoritative, or more useful messiah figure without actually producing evidence that ancient authors or readers would have taken those elements that way.

For another, and more specifically, I think Mark 14.54-72 casts serious doubt on the notion that Mark did not believe what Jesus predicts in chapter 13. Yes, this is another Marcan intercalation. The irony cannot be missed; while Jesus is summarizing his apocalyptic discourse in 14.61 before the high priest, reasserting that his prediction(s) will come true, and while soldiers in 14.65 are sarcastically prodding him to prophesy, another of his predictions, namely that Peter would deny him three times, is actually coming true in 14.54, 66-72. This intercalation acts as a lens, as it were, for the Olivet discourse in chapter 13; the truth of the denial prediction secures the truth of the apocalyptic predictions.

This is hard to reconcile with Mark not believing any of it, since the main apocalyptic predictions would presumably still be future to him. Mark appears to be taking them very seriously.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Oh, he was creative. That was not at issue.

Ben.