In his book How Jesus became God Dr. Ehrman proposes that the author the gospel of Mark did not think Jesus existed prior to his birth; he was, in fact, born a mere human like any of us. In Mark’s gospel, according to Dr. Ehrman, it was at his baptism that Jesus “became divine”. Dr. Ehrman bases this mostly on what Mark has God (presumably) says: “You are my beloved son, in you I am pleased.” Dr. Ehrman sees this scene as a moment of initiation–Jesus, a mere human, has been “adopted” into divinity. It is for this reason Jesus is able to perform the miraculous deeds that the rest of Mark’s gospel relates.
I am unpersuaded.
Let us assume the freedom that scholars like Dr. Ehrman give to the contributors of the n.t.: the freedom to exaggerate, to fabricate, even to deceive (forgeries).
We must then go back and assume Mark’s perspective as he begins the creative writing process. According to Dr. Ehrman, Mark, staring a blank page, so to speak, wishes to convey that it was at his baptism Jesus was adopted by God and transitioned into divinity.
Now Mark has already quoted lengthily from his scripture, so we know scriptural support is important to him; if he can find a verse or phrase from scripture to communicate Jesus’ apotheosis, he surely would.
and so what phrase derived from scipture does Mark place in the mouth of the heavenly voice?
An almost unidentifiable conflation of several texts: the phrase “you are my son” from Psalm 2:7; the adjective “beloved” taken from Genesis 22:2, and perhaps the motif of “pleased” from Isaiah 42:1.
What does Mark not include? the very next line of Psalm 2:7, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”!!!!!
I propose that if Mark intended to present an occurrence of apotheosis at Jesus’ baptism, he would have quoted more from Psalm 2, and perhaps only from Psalm 2:
“You are my son, today i have begotten you.”
It could not get any clearer, and any easier for his readers, than that.
That Mark did not do this strongly suggests apotheosis was not his intended theological meaning.
We can go further. As noted, Mark has already used Scripture, a modified quote from Malachi 3:1 conflated with Isaiah 40:3 and perhaps Exodus. It is his rendition of Malachi that is most striking. In the MT Malachi reads: “Behold I am going to send my messenger, and he will clear the way before me.”
That is, in Malachi, the messenger prepares the way for Yahweh; those are the two positions, the messenger and Yahweh. In Mark, it is John B. who fills the position of “messenger”; so who fills the position of Yahweh? Jesus.
Any thoughts?
brown.connor4 said
… We must then go back and assume Mark’s perspective as he begins the creative writing process. According to Dr. Ehrman, Mark, staring a blank page, so to speak, wishes to convey that it was at his baptism Jesus was adopted by God and transitioned into divinity.
Now Mark has already quoted lengthily from his scripture, so we know scriptural support is important to him; if he can find a verse or phrase from scripture to communicate Jesus’ apotheosis, he surely would.
and so what phrase derived from scipture does Mark place in the mouth of the heavenly voice?
An almost unidentifiable conflation of several texts: the phrase “you are my son” from Psalm 2:7; the adjective “beloved” taken from Genesis 22:2, and perhaps the motif of “pleased” from Isaiah 42:1.
What does Mark not include? the very next line of Psalm 2:7, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”!!!!!
I propose that if Mark intended to present an occurrence of apotheosis at Jesus’ baptism, he would have quoted more from Psalm 2, and perhaps only from Psalm 2:
“You are my son, today i have begotten you.”
It could not get any clearer, and any easier for his readers, than that.
This seems to be presuming that the Mark which composed a gospel that ended with the Empty Tomb and appears to expect the readers to infer the resurrection (in some sense) and ascendance to sit at the right hand of God always wishes to make things easier for his readers.
Also, if the earliest text we have from Mark 1 is from 150-250 CE, the question arises of how much confidence to place in a “surely he ought to have included” reference being omitted in the autograph, given that it would be much less convenient by the middle of the 2nd century.
BruceRMcF said
brown.connor4 said
… We must then go back and assume Mark’s perspective as he begins the creative writing process. According to Dr. Ehrman, Mark, staring a blank page, so to speak, wishes to convey that it was at his baptism Jesus was adopted by God and transitioned into divinity.
Now Mark has already quoted lengthily from his scripture, so we know scriptural support is important to him; if he can find a verse or phrase from scripture to communicate Jesus’ apotheosis, he surely would.
and so what phrase derived from scipture does Mark place in the mouth of the heavenly voice?
An almost unidentifiable conflation of several texts: the phrase “you are my son” from Psalm 2:7; the adjective “beloved” taken from Genesis 22:2, and perhaps the motif of “pleased” from Isaiah 42:1.
What does Mark not include? the very next line of Psalm 2:7, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”!!!!!
I propose that if Mark intended to present an occurrence of apotheosis at Jesus’ baptism, he would have quoted more from Psalm 2, and perhaps only from Psalm 2:
“You are my son, today i have begotten you.”
It could not get any clearer, and any easier for his readers, than that.This seems to be presuming that the Mark which composed a gospel that ended with the Empty Tomb and appears to expect the readers to infer the resurrection (in some sense) and ascendance to sit at the right hand of God always wishes to make things easier for his readers.
Also, if the earliest text we have from Mark 1 is from 150-250 CE, the question arises of how much confidence to place in a “surely he ought to have included” reference being omitted in the autograph, given that it would be much less convenient by the middle of the 2nd century.
I think your response overly complicates things with dates and “empty tombs” and numerous other things NOT mentioned in my OP or in the opening section of Mark and completely irrelevant to the question. It matters nothing whether Mark was written in 60 AD or 600 AD or by a person named Mark or Jimmy. We are dealing with a text and the theological intent of that text.
According to Dr. Ehrman, the text of this gospel promotes apotheosis. The question is, does it?
I invite you to simply read the opening of Mark’s gospel without pedantic references to dates or empty tombs or other irrelevant clutter.
I invite you to presume that Mark wishes, as Dr. Ehrman proposes, to convey an “adoptionist” view of divinity.
I invite you to notice that Mark feels free to quote scripture and therefore knows and respects scripture.
I invite you to answer my question, “Why did he not quote THE scriptural passage that would PERFECTLY convey adoptionism–“TODAY I have begotten you.”
Dr. Ehrman thinks Mark intended an adoptionist divinity; there is a perfectly good verse to suggest it, and MARK DOES NOT USE IT.
brown.connor4 said
BruceRMcF said
brown.connor4 said
… We must then go back and assume Mark’s perspective as he begins the creative writing process. According to Dr. Ehrman, Mark, staring a blank page, so to speak, wishes to convey that it was at his baptism Jesus was adopted by God and transitioned into divinity.
Now Mark has already quoted lengthily from his scripture, so we know scriptural support is important to him; if he can find a verse or phrase from scripture to communicate Jesus’ apotheosis, he surely would.
and so what phrase derived from scipture does Mark place in the mouth of the heavenly voice?
An almost unidentifiable conflation of several texts: the phrase “you are my son” from Psalm 2:7; the adjective “beloved” taken from Genesis 22:2, and perhaps the motif of “pleased” from Isaiah 42:1.
What does Mark not include? the very next line of Psalm 2:7, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”!!!!!
I propose that if Mark intended to present an occurrence of apotheosis at Jesus’ baptism, he would have quoted more from Psalm 2, and perhaps only from Psalm 2:
“You are my son, today i have begotten you.”
It could not get any clearer, and any easier for his readers, than that.This seems to be presuming that the Mark which composed a gospel that ended with the Empty Tomb and appears to expect the readers to infer the resurrection (in some sense) and ascendance to sit at the right hand of God always wishes to make things easier for his readers.
Also, if the earliest text we have from Mark 1 is from 150-250 CE, the question arises of how much confidence to place in a “surely he ought to have included” reference being omitted in the autograph, given that it would be much less convenient by the middle of the 2nd century.
I think your response overly complicates things with dates and “empty tombs” and numerous other things NOT mentioned in my OP or in the opening section of Mark and completely irrelevant to the question.
You are making the logical argument that Mark is an author that will certainly go for the composition that is easier on his readers, therefore if he has this reference available that is easier on his reader, and does not avail himself of it, it necessarily implies a rejection of that reference.
IMV, saying that other compositional choices that he makes that appear to contradict your tacit major premise are completely irrelevant to the question just underlines that your tacit major premise should be given some more critical consideration.
BruceRMcF said
brown.connor4 said
BruceRMcF said
brown.connor4 said
… We must then go back and assume Mark’s perspective as he begins the creative writing process. According to Dr. Ehrman, Mark, staring a blank page, so to speak, wishes to convey that it was at his baptism Jesus was adopted by God and transitioned into divinity.
Now Mark has already quoted lengthily from his scripture, so we know scriptural support is important to him; if he can find a verse or phrase from scripture to communicate Jesus’ apotheosis, he surely would.
and so what phrase derived from scipture does Mark place in the mouth of the heavenly voice?
An almost unidentifiable conflation of several texts: the phrase “you are my son” from Psalm 2:7; the adjective “beloved” taken from Genesis 22:2, and perhaps the motif of “pleased” from Isaiah 42:1.
What does Mark not include? the very next line of Psalm 2:7, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”!!!!!
I propose that if Mark intended to present an occurrence of apotheosis at Jesus’ baptism, he would have quoted more from Psalm 2, and perhaps only from Psalm 2:
“You are my son, today i have begotten you.”
It could not get any clearer, and any easier for his readers, than that.This seems to be presuming that the Mark which composed a gospel that ended with the Empty Tomb and appears to expect the readers to infer the resurrection (in some sense) and ascendance to sit at the right hand of God always wishes to make things easier for his readers.
Also, if the earliest text we have from Mark 1 is from 150-250 CE, the question arises of how much confidence to place in a “surely he ought to have included” reference being omitted in the autograph, given that it would be much less convenient by the middle of the 2nd century.
I think your response overly complicates things with dates and “empty tombs” and numerous other things NOT mentioned in my OP or in the opening section of Mark and completely irrelevant to the question.
You are making the logical argument that Mark is an author that will certainly go for the composition that is easier on his readers, therefore if he has this reference available that is easier on his reader, and does not avail himself of it, it necessarily implies a rejection of that reference.
IMV, saying that other compositional choices that he makes that appear to contradict your tacit major premise are completely irrelevant to the question just underlines that your tacit major premise should be given some more critical consideration.
I am making the argument that Mark is going to select a citation that conveys what MARK wants to convey; authors want their readers to understand what they are communicating.
What exactly are YOU saying? Why did Mark NOT choose a verse that literally says, “Today I have begotten you” when his point is “today, God begot Jesus”?
your only logical options are to say that that verse slipped Mark’s mind, or that he considered it and rejected it.
(btw. stop saying things like “tacit major premise”. It makes it sound like you’re a freshman in college who just got out of his first day of logic 101).
I invite you to presume that Mark wishes, as Dr. Ehrman proposes, to convey an “adoptionist” view of divinity.
I invite you to notice that Mark feels free to quote scripture and therefore knows and respects scripture.
I invite you to answer my question, “Why did he not quote THE scriptural passage that would PERFECTLY convey adoptionism–“TODAY I have begotten you.”
Dr. Ehrman thinks Mark intended an adoptionist divinity; there is a perfectly good verse to suggest it, and MARK DOES NOT USE IT.
Well the texts of Mark that survive do not use it. It is interesting however that we have surviving variants of Luke’s account of the Baptism, who follows Mark otherwise, that do use the passage from Psalms 2:7. We can only deal with the texts we have but it might be that original Mark used P2:7 and it was later modified in the tradition as the Adoptionist point of view lost favor. That’s exactly what appears to have happened in Luke.
There are other reasons to interpret Mark as having an Adoptionist Christology than this. I just discussed it in another thread so I won’t repeat myself here.
Stephen said
I invite you to presume that Mark wishes, as Dr. Ehrman proposes, to convey an “adoptionist” view of divinity.
I invite you to notice that Mark feels free to quote scripture and therefore knows and respects scripture.
I invite you to answer my question, “Why did he not quote THE scriptural passage that would PERFECTLY convey adoptionism–“TODAY I have begotten you.”
Dr. Ehrman thinks Mark intended an adoptionist divinity; there is a perfectly good verse to suggest it, and MARK DOES NOT USE IT.
Well the texts of Mark that survive do not use it. It is interesting however that we have surviving variants of Luke’s account of the Baptism, who follows Mark otherwise, that do use the passage from Psalms 2:7. We can only deal with the texts we have but it might be that original Mark used P2:7 and it was later modified in the tradition as the Adoptionist point of view lost favor. That’s exactly what appears to have happened in Luke.
There are other reasons to interpret Mark as having an Adoptionist Christology than this. I just discussed it in another thread so I won’t repeat myself here.
My training in history forbids me to speculate on what some earlier version we do not even know existed might have said. And when historians start spit balling “maybe’s” left and right, I start to think they want Mark to be something it isn’t.
Your point about a variant in Luke is intriguing; unfortunately, i have lost my textual apparatus and the Greek i do use, while it does share variants, does not show one there.
I’d be interested perusing that other thread; where might I find it?
My training in history forbids me to speculate on what some earlier version we do not even know existed might have said. And when historians start spit balling “maybe’s” left and right, I start to think they want Mark to be something it isn’t.
Your point about a variant in Luke is intriguing; unfortunately, i have lost my textual apparatus and the Greek i do use, while it does share variants, does not show one there.
I’d be interested perusing that other thread; where might I find it?
What Robert said.
My other comments were done in the last few days and I think they were in one of your own threads Connor. There have been so many i don’t remember which one, sorry. But I was far from complete. You said you read How Jesus became God. As I recall that book explains the position much better than I probably did.
While we’re talking textual criticism, there is a variant found in some manuscripts of Mark 6:3.
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. NRSVUE
or: “Is not this the son of the carpenter and of Mary…?”
Interestingly Matthew follows the variant reading in 13:55.
Any suggestion that Joseph was actually Jesus’ father would be suspect to later scribes. Not conclusive perhaps but another interesting hint.
My favorite adoptoid passage is Mark 3:20-21. Jesus’ mother(!) and brothers come to seize him because they think he’s crazy. Strange if all that Nativity stuff actually happened. Did Mary forget about the Virgin Birth and that Jesus was to be the Messiah?
>> What does Mark not include? the very next line of Psalm 2:7, “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”!!!!!
>> I propose that if Mark intended . . .
I suggest that that practice (allusions, truncating the Scriptural quotation before the money line) is consistent with at least one other Marcan use of Scripture–Jesus’ last words in 15:34.
I suggest that that practice (allusions, truncating the Scriptural quotation before the money line) is consistent with at least one other Marcan use of Scripture–Jesus’ last words in 15:34.
Ah, an interesting suggestion. If he does it in one place why not in others?
I’m continually struck by how much knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures Mark assumes on the part of his audience. This explains my loyalty to the theory that Mark is not a gentile believer as most scholars seem to think but a Hellenized Diaspora Jew like Paul.
Stephen said
My training in history forbids me to speculate on what some earlier version we do not even know existed might have said. And when historians start spit balling “maybe’s” left and right, I start to think they want Mark to be something it isn’t.
Your point about a variant in Luke is intriguing; unfortunately, i have lost my textual apparatus and the Greek i do use, while it does share variants, does not show one there.
I’d be interested perusing that other thread; where might I find it?
What Robert said.
My other comments were done in the last few days and I think they were in one of your own threads Connor. There have been so many i don’t remember which one, sorry. But I was far from complete. You said you read How Jesus became God. As I recall that book explains the position much better than I probably did.
While we’re talking textual criticism, there is a variant found in some manuscripts of Mark 6:3.
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. NRSVUE
or: “Is not this the son of the carpenter and of Mary…?”
Interestingly Matthew follows the variant reading in 13:55.
Any suggestion that Joseph was actually Jesus’ father would be suspect to later scribes. Not conclusive perhaps but another interesting hint.
My favorite adoptoid passage is Mark 3:20-21. Jesus’ mother(!) and brothers come to seize him because they think he’s crazy. Strange if all that Nativity stuff actually happened. Did Mary forget about the Virgin Birth and that Jesus was to be the Messiah?
Someone here said there was a Variant in Luke that quotes at Jesus’s baptism from Psalm 2:7. I was very excited to see the evidence of this. I have so far been bombarded with irrelevant material and non sequiturs.
If there is a variant behind Luke’s baptismal scene, which quotes “Today I have Begotten you”, then please provide the manuscripts that show it.
At this point, if you can’t, this is a SHAME ON YOU.
Stephen said
I invite you to presume that Mark wishes, as Dr. Ehrman proposes, to convey an “adoptionist” view of divinity.
I invite you to notice that Mark feels free to quote scripture and therefore knows and respects scripture.
I invite you to answer my question, “Why did he not quote THE scriptural passage that would PERFECTLY convey adoptionism–“TODAY I have begotten you.”
Dr. Ehrman thinks Mark intended an adoptionist divinity; there is a perfectly good verse to suggest it, and MARK DOES NOT USE IT.
Well the texts of Mark that survive do not use it. It is interesting however that we have surviving variants of Luke’s account of the Baptism, who follows Mark otherwise, that do use the passage from Psalms 2:7. We can only deal with the texts we have but it might be that original Mark used P2:7 and it was later modified in the tradition as the Adoptionist point of view lost favor. That’s exactly what appears to have happened in Luke.
There are other reasons to interpret Mark as having an Adoptionist Christology than this. I just discussed it in another thread so I won’t repeat myself here.
This is the post that I want to hear about.
Stephen, SHOW ME THE VARIANT OF LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS’ BATPISM THAT USES PSALM 2:7.
IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE THE VARIANT, PLEASE MAKE A POST WITHDRAWING YOUR STATEMENT.
(I WOULD DO THE SAME FOR ANY ERROR I MADE).
That’s quite all right. I’ve gotten drunk and hit the caps lock by mistake myself.
And a demand for evidence is actually refreshing. (Those of us of a certain mindset are as distressed to have our words taken with credulity as we are when credulity is demanded of us. You might say we walk by sight, not by faith. BWAHAHAHA…)
Connor, my friend, I present to you the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** through the auspices of the Cambridge University Digital Library where you may peruse the document at your pleasure. Note the Transcription tab which is very helpful. Sadly, the Translation tab is ‘grayed out’ which means you will have to rely on your own knowledge of Greek and Latin. The Contents tab is also very helpful.
If you find you’re really interested in this sort of textual thing I would wholeheartedly recommend Prof Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. That one, as well as Forgery and CounterForgery, gave me a lot to think about.
Prof Ehrman wrote:
How can we account for a textual situation of this sort? The best attested reading of the early period, a reading known throughout the entire Christian world, virtually disappears from sight, displaced by a reading that is, as we shall see, both harmonized to that of another Gospel and less offensive doctrinally. Given what we have seen so far concerning scribal proclivities—and, of course, I have just begun to amass the data—there is every reason to suspect that here we are dealing with an original reading that has been displaced for theological reasons.
Now, unlike Luke, we have no surviving variants of Mark 1:11 but given Prof Ehrman’s reasoning about Luke, one can’t help but wonder. Would later scribes really want the first gospel to present so clear an Adoptionist reading, post-Matthew? Luke got his reading somewhere and he follows Mark in so much else.
Stephen said
That’s quite all right. I’ve gotten drunk and hit the caps lock by mistake myself.
And a demand for evidence is actually refreshing. (Those of us of a certain mindset are as distressed to have our words taken with credulity as we are when credulity is demanded of us. You might say we walk by sight, not by faith. BWAHAHAHA…)
Connor, my friend, I present to you the CODEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS through the auspices of the Cambridge University Digital Library where you may peruse the document at your pleasure. Note the Transcription tab which is very helpful. Sadly, the Translation tab is ‘grayed out’ which means you will have to rely on your own knowledge of Greek and Latin. The Contents tab is also very helpful.
If you find you’re really interested in this sort of textual thing I would wholeheartedly recommend Prof Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. That one, as well as Forgery and CounterForgery, gave me a lot to think about.
Prof Ehrman wrote:
How can we account for a textual situation of this sort? The best attested reading of the early period, a reading known throughout the entire Christian world, virtually disappears from sight, displaced by a reading that is, as we shall see, both harmonized to that of another Gospel and less offensive doctrinally. Given what we have seen so far concerning scribal proclivities—and, of course, I have just begun to amass the data—there is every reason to suspect that here we are dealing with an original reading that has been displaced for theological reasons.
Now, unlike Luke, we have no surviving variants of Mark 1:11 but given Prof Ehrman’s reasoning about Luke, one can’t help but wonder. Would later scribes really want the first gospel to present so clear an Adoptionist reading, post-Matthew? Luke got his reading somewhere and he follows Mark in so much else.
“I’ve gotten drunk and hit the caps lock by mistake myself”.
That resonated, friend, perhaps too close. I appreciate your grace.
And I apologize to others above, ROBERT, especially. My caps do not express anger or threats but an urgency, no doubt an unrealistic and inappropriate urgency. What I desire is knowledge. And if someone says, “there is a variant”, then I immediately want that variant.
Again, not an excuse….
….and, no doubt, there will be other immature CAPS!!!! in later posts. It is a besetting sin of mine.
I’ve lost my own place among comments (and legitimate criticisms) of my OP.
The OP was about Mark’s gospel and Dr. Ehrman’s interpretation that has Mark advocating “apotheosis” at Jesus’s baptism. That is, according to Dr. Ehrman, Mark understands, and intends his readers to understand, that prior to the baptism, Jesus was a mere mortal, no different from his disciples. It was only after Jesus’s baptism that Mark thinks Jesus entered a new mode of being, namely, the divine.
I have argued that if Mark intended that, he could/would have employed a different text from his Jewish Scriptures: Psalm 2:7, which literally has the words “Today I have begotten you.” But Mark does not use that verse. I believe this is damaging to Dr. Ehrman’s case.
It was then pointed out that there was a variant in Luke’s gospel, a variant that shows up in a single 5th c. manuscript.
I confess I am baffled. We are not talking about Luke; we are talking about Mark. A single 5th c. variant is already irrelevant, but then we are recalling it for a discussion about Mark?
Let’s all recalibrate.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)