The historical Jesus may not have meant himself by the Son of Man – but what matters is what Mark meant. Mark can make his Jesus say anything – and Mark’s Jesus refers to himself as the son of man in the third just like the other there gospels.
Mark has Jesus use the third person for the son of man lots of times. Also when referring to just the Son. “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”.
Shakepeare’s words will eventually pass and they certainly wont outlast heaven and earth. Jesus’s words will be eternal outlasting heaven and earth. There’s only one who’s words are eternal.
The quote you use indicates that Mark does not believe the Son of Man is equal to God. The Father has knowledge the Son does not, and is the Son is an entirely separate being. And having Jesus refer to the Son in the third person seems to indicate that Jesus isn’t the Son, but has a strange inexplicable link to the Son. Mark is very msyterious–but it’s quite clear his Christology is lower than that of the other gospels. His Jesus is fully human, while having a special link to the divine–that he insists any of us could have.
Please understand, I’m not saying Mark believes there’s nothing special about Jesus. He is unique in his ability to access the divine. But he accesses the divine as a man. He has all the weaknesses and doubts of a man. And he was conceived and born the same as all men.
That, for Mark, is the miracle. And the mystery.
Yes but theres plenty of verses in matthew luke and john which indicate jesus is not equal to the father. We’re looking for differences between marks christology and the other three – this isnt one.
Jesus referring to the son in the third person does appear to indicate the son is didferent to jesus – but there are verses (as above) which make it crystal clear in mark that jesus is referring to himself. Again this is common to all 4 gospels.
Being born of a virgin does not make you divine – but being the son of god does – being the lord of Isaiah 40.3 makes you divine.
Marks jesus is the son of god, with no earthly father (joseph conspicuously absent from mark unlike the other 3)
The reason those verses are there, of course, is that Matthew and Luke are copying from Mark. As to John, even he doesn’t think Jesus is God the Father, but rather the Incarnate Word of God.
Being the ADOPTED son of God makes you divine only by proxy. Jesus’ power, as he says in Mark, comes entirely from faith. The power of God flows through him only when his faith is strong, and when he goes home to Nazareth, where people don’t believe in him, he can’t do much.
Why does Mark’s Jesus think anyone can do the same miracles as him? Why does he think the people he heals really heal themselves?
godspell said
The reason those verses are there, of course, is that Matthew and Luke are copying from Mark. As to John, even he doesn’t think Jesus is God the Father, but rather the Incarnate Word of God.Being the ADOPTED son of God makes you divine only by proxy. Jesus’ power, as he says in Mark, comes entirely from faith. The power of God flows through him only when his faith is strong, and when he goes home to Nazareth, where people don’t believe in him, he can’t do much.
Why does Mark’s Jesus think anyone can do the same miracles as him? Why does he think the people he heals really heal themselves?
In Mark you can be healed through faith and if you believe whatever you ask for you will receive.
But we’re looking for christological development in the gospels and “whatever you ask for you’ll receive” is a common theme to all four gospels. Its unique to Mark.
Jesus is not an adopted son of god in Mark- he is the son of god (Jesus warns the demons not to reveal this).
The story of the vineyard in chapter 12 is about Jesus. The owner sends servants to collect the harvest who are either beaten or killed. Finally the son whom the owner loves is sent. He is the beloved son before he is sent to the vineyard.
Robert said
Since Jesus is speaking here, one probably should not think he is speaking of he himself shortening the days of the end times. Also, in the Greek text, it does not explicitly say his angels or his elect. This may indeed be implied and thus the English translation your using is not necessarily wrong, but it is an interpretation added to the text in the translation process.
More generally, highly qualified professional scholars disagree and even change their minds (eg, Bart) as to whether or to what extent Mark saw Jesus as divine so you are not likely to solve that question here.
That said, neither I nor even brenmcg knows of a single legitimate scholar who holds, as he does, that Mark’s failure to mention the name of Joseph as the father of Jesus and a virgin birth narrative as a sign of Mark supposedly having a higher, less Jewish christology. That’s just an example of brenmcg grasping at straws, trying to turn an indicator for Markan priority into a ridiculous ‘argument’ against it.
Yes point taken on “his angels” thank you – though Matthew does make his angels explicit and his version makes more sense. In matthew the son of man sends his angels to gather his elect. In Mark he sends (his)/the angels and gathers his elect (himself) – its not clear what the angels are being sent to do in Marks version. Matthew’s “trumpet call” also matching up better with 1 Thess 4, suggesting at the least, Matthew being closer to Paul historically.
Also, as I said, its not Mark’s failure to name Jesus’s father its his failure to make any mention of an earthly father at all, very significant in a collection of biographies which claim Jesus to be the son of god.
This is supported by a general lessening of the role of Joseph in the gospels – indicating a complete absence being a later edition.
And also a specific passage common to Matthew and Mark where Matthew has Jesus described as the “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?”
Mark has “Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?“
The transition from Matthew to Mark here being far more likely, given the fact that both authors believe Jesus to be the son of god.
Robert
Of course its possible that Matthew is clarifying Mark here.
But Mark has the singular “he will gather” whereas Matthew has the plural “they will gather” so a simple clarification cant be the case. Mark seems to have intended “son of man will gather the elect” which means the angels arent doing anything.
I think anyone who hasnt already decided on Markan priority should conclude that in this cas at least Matthew has the more original version.
Why do think this is pathetic reasoning? Do you not think its significant that an author would leave out any mention of an earthly father in a book about the supposed son of god?
Bren, nobody’s arguing Jesus isn’t special in Mark. But he’s special because God chose him for his worthiness. God could have chosen someone else. The test in the desert is, one might argue, God’s test (remember Job–the Adversary is used to test Job’s faith). Will Jesus claim the power of God? No, because he knows he’s just a man. He is absolutely and utterly subordinate to God–true, a Roman Emperor would adopt someone to succeed him, but God isn’t going to die. Jesus is.
Robert said
Seems like a very simple clarification to me. Nothing complicated or significant here.
But which is more likely to be the original version “the son of man will send the angels and he (himself) will gather his elect”
or “the son of man will send the angels and they will gather the elect”?
Clearly the second version.
As I’ve explained elsewhere, its pathetic in your circular attempt to make up facts to support you preconceived conclusions, for example, your pure assertion that the virgin birth was a Jewish messianic expectation. You made that up out of pure cloth and, when challenged, tried to claimed that Matthew’s text itself was evidence for this idea. To counter what most people see as an obvious sign of a higher christology in Matthew, you merely fabricate a ‘fact’ that allows you to dismiss this in your own mind and supposedly explain why Mark (but not Luke) would leave out this material.
But its only circular reasoning if the pure assertions are used to derive claims which are themselves used to support the pure assertion. Which wasnt the case.
Anyway who claims matthean priority has to at least attempt an explanation for why Mark would leave out the nativity. I claim that as christianity developed christians became less concerned with Jesus fulfulling messianic prophesies (like coming from bethlehem or being descended for David). This is supported by 1 Tim 1:3,4 “stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies“
The virgin birth being a messianic expectation, while it would help support this, isnt necessary. And Matthew’s text being evidence for it wouldnt be circular reasoning, as long as claims of matthean priority weren’t used.
godspell said
Bren, nobody’s arguing Jesus isn’t special in Mark. But he’s special because God chose him for his worthiness. God could have chosen someone else. The test in the desert is, one might argue, God’s test (remember Job–the Adversary is used to test Job’s faith). Will Jesus claim the power of God? No, because he knows he’s just a man. He is absolutely and utterly subordinate to God–true, a Roman Emperor would adopt someone to succeed him, but God isn’t going to die. Jesus is.
If Jesus was chosen by god for his worthiness then this would certainly demonstrate a christological development in the gospels, because Jesus was not chosen in Matthew/Luke and certainly not in John.
So all one would have to do is show a verse in Mark which says or implies that Jesus gets chosen by God. But no verse can be shown because there isnt any. Jesus is not chosen by god in Mark.
He’s the son and heir in Mark, and he’s heir to the divine name and the lordship of the universe. He was lord while Isaiah was writing 40.3
(we’re looking for differences between Mark and the other three; he is tested by Satan also in Matthew/Luke, he follows gods will in all four and dies in all four).
Bren, how is being chosen before you were born (or even conceived) not a higher Christology than being chosen as an adult? Really, it’s Mary who is chosen–Jesus is a divine being waiting to be incarnated in human form through the Holy Spirit. So Mary is deemed worthy because of her faith (and virginity) and this is to fulfill a mistranslated verse from the OT. The Hebrew word translated to ‘parthenos’ doesn’t mean virgin. Nobody in the Jewish world thought the Messiah would be born of a virgin. That was something a faction of Christians came up with some time after Jesus was dead.
Robert said
Not at all. Matthew’s version is much more likely to be secondary with what he considers to be a minor stylistic improvement. Mark’s version makes perfect sense, however, especially when understood in the original Semitic context, in which those who are sent (שליח shaliach) speak and act only with the the authority of the one who sent them. See, for example, Mt 22,4, where those who are sent actually speak in the fist person singular of the one who sent them. But in a later, Greek context, this might not be so easily understood, as you yourself have demonstrated by your own misunderstanding, and Matthew makes what he considers to be a a minor stylistic improvement, which is clearly secondary.
The context is the end of days. There’s no more message from god to be delivered to mankind – its time to gather up the elect. In this context the angels have nothing to do in Mark’s version. Only in Matthew’s version is there a point in them being there – there the one’s doing the gathering.
Your claim was that Mark was not interested in Matthew’s Jewish messianic motif of a virginally conceived Messiah. I challenged your assertion that Matthew was using a Jewish messianic motif of a virginally conceived Messiah by pointing out that your claim that was a Jewish messianic motif is not supported anywhere in the entire corpus of Jewish literature. You then claimed that it was indeed a Jewish messianic motif because it was used by Matthew. That does not seem just a little bit circular to you? Really?
If I’d said Matthew uses a Jewish messianic motif of a virginally conceived Messiah and Mark rejects Matthew’s nativity because of this motif, and we know its a Jewish messianic motif because of its rejection by Mark – that would be circular reasoning.
But there are other accepted messianic motifs in Matthew’s nativity which means Mark rejecting the nativity out of unconcern for those motifs is still a possibility – whether the virgin conception was a historically accepted prophecy or not.
The virgin birth being a messianic expectation, while it would help support this, isnt necessary. And Matthew’s text being evidence for it wouldnt be circular reasoning, as long as claims of matthean priority weren’t used.
You’re still mistakenly assuming and claiming that the virgin was a Jewish messianic expectation. There is no evidence of this assumption on your part. Everyone who is actually well informed by contemporary Jewish messianic expectations realizes that the virgin birth represents a higher christology than that of Mark.
well no, I said “it would help … ” that is if it was an expectation – I understand its not generally accepted to have been one.
godspell said
Bren, how is being chosen before you were born (or even conceived) not a higher Christology than being chosen as an adult? Really, it’s Mary who is chosen–Jesus is a divine being waiting to be incarnated in human form through the Holy Spirit. So Mary is deemed worthy because of her faith (and virginity) and this is to fulfill a mistranslated verse from the OT. The Hebrew word translated to ‘parthenos’ doesn’t mean virgin. Nobody in the Jewish world thought the Messiah would be born of a virgin. That was something a faction of Christians came up with some time after Jesus was dead.
Being chosen before you were born is a higher christology than being chosen as an adult. And if we had a gospel which claimed Jesus was chosen as an adult and not pre-conception that gospel would have a good claim to being earliest.
But Mark is not that gospel – his gospel does not claim Jesus was chosen as an adult.
But this supposed mistranslation was mistranslated by non-christian Jews before the birth of christ.
There is nothing in Mark to indicate Jesus was chosen before his baptism, bren. That’s where the story begins. Yes, he’s the one prophesied by The Baptist (as Mark sees it), but that’s a prophetic vision. He’s still chosen at that moment in time, not before. And there is no attempt to make The Baptist see him as the Chosen One–why? Because the real John never acclaimed him as such, and Mark knew that from his sources. That fits Mark’s theme that nobody understands who Jesus is–not even the one who proclaimed his coming, and baptized him, making him fit for the Holy Spirit to enter him–meaning he wasn’t before, for all his faith. He didn’t get baptized, as Matthew says, to follow protocol–he couldn’t become the Messiah without being purified of his sins. Before that moment, even Jesus didn’t know his destiny. So that’s the beginning of the story in Mark. A lower Christology–and an earlier one.
Not the earliest. We don’t have the earliest. You keep running away from that. Books written a lifetime after Jesus’ death can’t possibly reflect what people who knew Jesus believed about him in the years immediately following his death. Mark is the earliest surviving account of Jesus’ life. Nothing more. Nothing less.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)