What explains the fact that Jesus was called ‘the Messiah’ when
(a) he rejected the title, according to the earliest account in Mark
(b) he never claims the title for himself in the earliest sources, such as Mark and Q
and
(c) nothing in his career remotely resembles the actions of a victorious king of David’s line?
What are the main hypotheses to explain this incongruous designation of Jesus as “the Messiah”?
Thank you!
Given the details of the traditions we have it’s hard to believe that Jesus had no messianic pretensions. It would have been easier on the Christians if he hadn’t. Look at how hard a time they had convincing other Jews! Why would you do that to your own movement if you weren’t forced by the facts? It’s like Jesus being associated with Nazareth or being associated with John. Why include those details if you didn’t have to unless it was because everybody knew they were true?
Robert said
The Markan Jesus does claim the title in Mk 14,62 in a climactic trial scene where he announces that those who judged him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death will soon be destroyed along with their temple (referring back to his final private prophecy in Mk 13).As for the historical Jesus, unadorned with Mark’s hindsight and dramatic flair, that’s another matter. Following Rudolf Bultmann and Nils Dahl, Bart’s reconstruction of an historical Jesus presumes some elements of the Markan messianic secrecy motif to be based in fact, whereby an apocalyptic Jesus only secretly taught his disciples that he was the Messiah and that he and they would reign when the heavenly Son of Man came and destroyed the forces of evil and set up the Kingdom of God.
It’s a good and plausible reconstruction, but not the only one. William Wrede, who had previously adapted Bruno Bauer’s idea of a redactional messianic secrecy motif, did not think that the historical Jesus was a messianic figure. For him the messianic secrecy motif was both a traditional and literary fiction.
Paul, who may have been the first to suggest the idea of a messianic secret with respect to Jesus, used it to explain why the rulers of this age would have unknowingly crucified the Lord of Glory. It’s possible that Paul was adapting an earlier Jewish idea that that the human messiah’s identity was known from all eternity only by God. It’s also possible that this messiah was already being thought of as a divine being who also bore the likeness of a human being, ie a son of man.
Can you share with me where Paul suggested the idea of a messianic secret with respect to Jesus? I mean, did he suggest Jesus was hiding his being the Messiah?
What is especially odd about Paul is that he treats “Messiah/Christ” almost as a personal name, which is striking given how forthright the Markan Jesus is in rejecting this title (in response to Peter’s confession).
Stephen said
Given the details of the traditions we have it’s hard to believe that Jesus had no messianic pretensions. It would have been easier on the Christians if he hadn’t. Look at how hard a time they had convincing other Jews! Why would you do that to your own movement if you weren’t forced by the facts? It’s like Jesus being associated with Nazareth or being associated with John. Why include those details if you didn’t have to unless it was because everybody knew they were true?
This is a good point; it is very close to the conundrum I am interested in. Christians must have been forced by the facts to say that Jesus was the Messiah, but which facts were these, exactly? Apparently not the facts about what Jesus himself publically said or did.
Robert said
Omar6741 said
This is a good point; it is very close to the conundrum I am interested in. Christians must have been forced by the facts to say that Jesus was the Messiah, but which facts were these, exactly? Apparently not the facts about what Jesus himself publically said or did.
The reason for Jesus’ crucifixion (ie, that he was condemned for claiming to be the ‘King of the Jews/Judeans’) is very strong evidence for this claim being historical. Other than the titulus on the cross, this title/claim is found nowhere else in the earliest Christian texts (letters of Paul or the gospels) so it is not likely that it was an invention of the earliest Christians.
That’s a good point! Now we can sharpen the statement of the conundrum:
How do we explain the fact that, on the one hand
(a) Jesus was believed to be the Messiah during his lifetime (we can infer this from the titulus, unlikely to have been made up by Christians),
whereas, on the other,
(b) Jesus rather harshly rejected being called the Messiah in response to Peter’s confession (a denial found in the earliest gospel that has come down to us, and also unlikely to have been made up by Christians) ?
Robert said
Omar6741 said
That’s a good point! Now we can sharpen the statement of the conundrum:
How do we explain the fact that, on the one hand
(a) Jesus was believed to be the Messiah during his lifetime (we can infer this from the titulus, unlikely to have been made up by Christians),
whereas, on the other,
(b) Jesus rather harshly rejected being called the Messiah in response to Peter’s confession (a denial found in the earliest gospel that has come down to us, and also unlikely to have been made up by Christians) ?
Consider the possibility that (a) was believed by some, ie, Jesus and his disciples, whereas (b) is more accurately characterized as Mark’s view (not necessarily that of Jesus) that the Markan Jesus rejects Peter’s view that the Messiah must not suffer crucifixion. See the difference?
That is certainly one conceivable way of resolving the contradiction in the evidence, and it makes sense. As an account of Mark’s intentions, though, the explanation would be stronger if Peter’s view that Jesus would not suffer had been expressed in connection with his Messianic confession, right before Jesus’ stern response to calling him ‘the Messiah’. Instead, Jesus’ stern response to Peter’s messianic confession appears to be a distinct episode from Peter’s subsequent rebuke of Jesus.
Well, moderately sure: the narrative logic of the “messianic confession” episode seems quite independent of the logic of the subsequent episodes i.e. it would make good sense to me if removed from the overall passage, and the subsequent episodes would make sense to me without the “messianic confession” episode before them.
I don’t see anything to indicate Mark saw them as intrinsically linked; he could easily have just strung them together because they came in that order in his sources.
I was warned about the side effects of the second dose of Moderna but I didn’t expect all of them at the same time. It is not worth planning anything on that day. After this digression, I come back to the topic.
It is difficult to disagree with Robert’s argumentation
“This three-fold rebuke scene cannot be read as unrelated episodes. Peter and Jesus have directly contrary views of Jesus’ fate at this point.”
So it is. We have 3 scenes creating a mysterious, attractive plot. We have an account of Peter and Jesus similar to that of many literary duets of master and student. The one who knows and the latter is constantly being corrected. Such threads make the piece more attractive. Maybe this is the answer to the title question?
So it is. We have 3 scenes creating a mysterious, attractive plot. We have an account of Peter and Jesus similar to that of many literary duets of master and student. The one who knows and the latter is constantly being corrected. Such threads make the piece more attractive. Maybe this is the answer to the title question?
The only way early Christians could hold onto the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah was by radically reinterpreting the concept. Mark does this explicitly in his gospel, Paul implicitly with his focus on the meaning of the crucifixion. All of this post-crucifixion. The only concept of the Messiah that the historical Jesus would have had available to him was the triumphalist one I suspect he went to Jerusalem at Passover expecting to be vindicated by God. In a real sense Christianity was formed by the cognitive dissonance required to accept a crucified Messiah.
But I take your point Jarek. The author of gMark committed an act of literature. The more I read Mark the more I appreciate his creative genius. And I find it hard to believe he wasn’t fully conscious of what he was doing. It’s just that this fact in no way extrudes a historical core to the tradition.
Omar6741 said
Yes, Mark has Jesus say “I am” in response to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” Very plausibly, in this case it is Matthew who preserves the earlier version of that Markan text, with his much more ambiguous response “You say so” (26:63-64).
Yes very plausible indeed
Stephen said
The only way early Christians could hold onto the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah was by radically reinterpreting the concept.
Yes this is the birth of Christianity, that the crucifixion was a pre-ordained sacrifice of the messiah for the forgiveness of sins. Something that Peter James and Paul all agreed on.
Mark writing his gospel did not describe the real problem of “Is Jesus the messiah?”
Everyone has called him Jesus Christ for a long time, and we have evidence of that from the time of Paul. Mark simply created literary tension by inserting an imaginary plot.
It’s like adding a pericope about a prostitute to John’s gospel. The literary value of the story prevailed.
I don’t know if the early Christians had any idea who the messiah was in the Jewish tradition. At best, they did know it indirectly from sermons, from translation.
Accepting the crucified messiah did not have to be a problem for them, because they developed their own meanning
The concepts of Jesus’ incarnation, passion and resurrection were developed separately. Paul’s teachings on the resurrection were forgotten for several decades and were reborn thanks to Marcion. Until his time, resurrection was passe.There is a good book from Marcus Vinzent “Christ Resurrection…”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)