In the PDF provided by the Great Courses+ for Dr. Ehrman’s lecture series on the Historical Jesus, he says:
The emphasis in Mark is on the “Son of God,” a term used to describe an individual or group of people who mediate God’s will on earth. The Son of God is not a divine being…he is portrayed as completely human in every way. He never talks about himself as divine, and no one identifies him as being God—not even Mark himself.
However, during Dr. Ehrman’s moderated discussion with Peter J. Williams on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierly, he stated that he thinks Mark does present Jesus as a divine being.
What do you think? Does Mark present Jesus as a divine being or not?
I would say, first of all, that a lot depends here on what is meant by “a divine being”. If we mean a human speaking and acting with supernatural authority and power then clearly Mark presents Jesus this way. But, if we mean by this a human who is also the God of Israel, then I’m not so sure about that; in fact, I think that is not what Mark presents.
Robert said
Welcome, brickleytre, to the Readers Forum.Bart changed his mind while he was writing How Jesus Became God. He used to believe that Mark did not intend to portray Jesus as divine, as in your first quote, but later came to the opposite conclusion, as in the interview with Williams. And, as you say, it all depends on what you mean by divine. I agree with you (and Bart), that Mark does indeed portray Jesus as in some sense divine. There may even be an allusion to Jesus using the divine self declaration of Yahweh in 14,62, but even here it is clear that Jesus is referring to his future exalted role, seated at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven.
Thank you for the welcome!
Of course, we are all free to change our minds; I see no problem there.
Do you think Bart thinks Mark intended to portray Jesus as Yahweh incarnate or merely as a human being with the authority and power of Yahweh?
I think the distinction should be, does Jesus now share the same power and status with Yahweh? If he’s just a very high king no, if he’s now the son of God with a relationship do different than sons have to their fathers, sharing some of the fathers innate attributes and status/dominion then yes.
Mark 1:1 “Prepare the way of the Lord make his paths straight”
Mark 12:37 “David himself calls him Lord”
Mark 12:30 “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart … “
Mark 13:6 “Many will come in my name saying ego eimi”
Mark 13:13 “You will be hated by all because of my name. the one enduring to the end however will be saved”.
My sense of what Dr. Ehrman is saying is that, for Mark, Jesus was made divine in some sense at the baptism, but that no one understood. My own view is that Mark didn’t think that Jesus was the eternal god of the OT the way John describes, but is a sort of divine man, like Enoch or Elijah.
jcalendine said
My sense of what Dr. Ehrman is saying is that, for Mark, Jesus was made divine in some sense at the baptism, but that no one understood. My own view is that Mark didn’t think that Jesus was the eternal god of the OT the way John describes, but is a sort of divine man, like Enoch or Elijah.
Thanks for your thoughts. It definitely seems to me that Mark connect Jesus’ sonship (his status as the Son of God) to his baptism. Whereas in Matthew and Luke, this is connected to Jesus’ birth. In John, it seems to be connected to Jesus’ “pre-existence” (i.e., his pre-human existence) as “the Word” with God before creation and his involvement in creation.
I’m not convinced that John wants the reader to understand Jesus to be equal to the Word. I’m also not convinced that, even if John does mean this, he wants the reader to understand that Word to be equal to Yahweh.
I’m not convinced that John wants the reader to understand Jesus to be equal to the Word. I’m also not convinced that, even if John does mean this, he wants the reader to understand that Word to be equal to Yahweh.
I think this is correct. Nicaean Trinitarianism is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. All the early Church Fathers up until Athanasius to a man held to what’s called Subordinationism. Jesus was subordinate to the Father who was supreme. The truth is even at Nicaea it was Arius who held to the traditional view. The Trinitarians were the ones who had newfangled ideas.
Stephen said
I think this is correct. Nicaean Trinitarianism is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. All the early Church Fathers up until Athanasius to a man held to what’s called Subordinationism. Jesus was subordinate to the Father who was supreme. The truth is even at Nicaea it was Arius who held to the traditional view. The Trinitarians were the ones who had newfangled idea
The 99% had newfangled ideas? This isn’t very likely.
The Nicene creed can be described as “subordinationist” depending on your definition.
brickleytre said
It definitely seems to me that Mark connect Jesus’ sonship (his status as the Son of God) to his baptism.
In Mark Jesus is the son of god sent into the world.
Jesus being made the son only at his baptism is pure fantasy.
The 99% had newfangled ideas? This isn’t very likely.
What 99%? Up until Nicaea and for decades afterwards Arianism was the dominant view among Christians.
The Nicene creed can be described as “subordinationist” depending on your definition.
Well there were trinitarians who were subordinationists. The view was called hierarchical subordinationism. There was a triadic relationship between the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit but they weren’t co-equal.
Jesus being made the son only at his baptism is pure fantasy.
Father Raymond Brown’s argument seems pretty convincing to me.
Stephen said
The 99% had newfangled ideas? This isn’t very likely.What 99%? Up until Nicaea and for decades afterwards Arianism was the dominant view among Christians.
There were 318 bishops at Nicaea, only 2 voted against the creed.
If Arianism was the dominant view among christians before and after Nicaea why was it called Arianism? Why was an order given for Arius’ works to be burned? The dominant view of christianity up to and after Nicaea is condemned and blamed on a lone priest from Alexandria?
The Nicene creed can be described as “subordinationist” depending on your definition.
Well there were trinitarians who were subordinationists. The view was called hierarchical subordinationism. There was a triadic relationship between the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit but they weren’t co-equal.
John says Jesus made himself equal with the father by calling himself the son, but still held that the Jesus obeyed the father and was in that sense subordinate. So subordination does not negate equality.
So the statement “Nicaean Trinitarianism is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. All the early Church Fathers up until Athanasius to a man held to what’s called Subordinationism” is ambiguous. Did the early church fathers hold to subordinationism in a different sense to orthodox subordinationism? Just saying they were subordinationist isnt enough.
Jesus being made the son only at his baptism is pure fantasy.
Father Raymond Brown’s argument seems pretty convincing to me.
His claim that Jesus was originally thought to be made son of god at his resurrection, then subsequently revised to be at his baptism in Mark, the birth in Matthew/Luke then eternally in John? Or some specific claim about the gospel of Mark?
Nowhere in the gospel of Mark is it said that Jesus was made the son of god at his baptism.
Robert said
Your reading of the incarnation into Mk 12, 1-12 is rejected by critical scholars because it is not credible. You’ve never succeeded in changing anyone’s mind here about this.
Not credible? Its the natural reading of the passage. And what it certainly isn’t is adoptionist.
Anyway the main point is that nowhere in the gospel of Mark is Jesus said to have been made son of god at his baptism. So why do people believe it?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert