In the reviews of Gathercole, Johannson and Peppard we have been looking at those who set Mark’s christology primarily against a Jewish (e.g., eschatological agents, intermediary or angelic figures, theophanies of Yahweh) or Roman (e.g., the imperial cult) background. A mark of some older scholarship on Mark was to see the Gospels’ portrait of Jesus as fitting into a common type known as a “divine man” (theios aner), a semi-divine figure such as an apotheosized hero or leader, charismatic magician or renowned sage, in Hellenistic literature (including Jewish literature more influenced by Hellenism such as Jewish historiographers or Philo on Moses). So Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ supernatural feats especially in the first half of the Gospel was either seen as promoting an image of Jesus as a “divine man” (cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament; more recently William Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark) or to combat such a theology with an emphasis on the suffering and weakness of the cross (cf. Theodore Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict). While I think JZ Smith (Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity) and others fairly critique scholars who exclusively search for a Jewish background that has not been contaminated by the wider Greco-Roman world as seeking a “pure” geneology for “Christianity” (but also one in which it supersedes) and therefore I am all for searching for cross-cultural parallels (whether similarities between Gospel chriae or miracle stories or other rhetorical devices to the Hellenistic world or Peppard’s useful contributions on the importance of the imperial cult), the category of a theois aner has really gone out of use in a lot of recent Gospel scholarship. The reason is that this was seen as a scholarly construct and an abstraction that tried to catch so much disparate data that it really was not of analytical use to describe why Mark or the other evangelists narrate the story of Jesus the way they do. To see some works that have led to the decline of the use of the category theios aner, see:
Carl Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
B. Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. WUNT 2.40; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991.
David L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. SBL Dissertation Series 1;, Missoula, Mont: SBL, 1972.
J.D. Kingsbury, “The ‘Divine Man’ as the Key to Mark’s Christology: The End of an Era?” Interpretation 35 (1981): 243-57
Walter L. Liefield, “The Hellenistic ‘Divine Man’ and the Figure of Jesus in the Gospels” JETS
I tend to see Mark as being a translator of sorts, in the sense that he’s trying to promote the tradition he inherited, which includes the traditions framed in the categories of second temple religious thought and adapt them in a way that is both true to his community’s religious heritage and meaningful to his present day audience who come from a variety of
backgrounds, some of which are Hellenistic in nature, whatever that means…
So while I think that those who try to interpret the gospels as if they were formed in a vacuum, completely free from “Hellenist” influence are misguided, they at least do well, over Bultmann, in getting the general content of the evangelist thought right.
So I think it is a little bit of both, Mark wanted to speak to his audiences in a language that was both meaningful to them, think imperial ideology, and true to his heritage, Jesus was not a literal son of God but adopted in a sense, forming a link between divine agency and a more Hellenistic metaphor informed by Roman customs.
evangelist thought
Thanks Brian, it is probably a good image of Mark as a translator since the evangelist is already clearly explaining some aspects of Jewish practice for at least some non-Jewish readers (e.g., Mk 7:3-4). Eventually I want to look at some of Adela Collins stuff on “son of god” as an example of how it might be heard to Jewish or Greek audiences.
Mike.
Mark’s gospel seems so abstract because the author created his work within a framework of how he saw human nature and he was enormously influenced by Greek philosophy. In his gospel Jesus is the personification of the logos, part of a divine tripartite soul (see Philo’s Legum Allegoriae). The soul of each man also had a tripartite soul. Now if an aspect of the individual soul is out of tune with an aspect of the divine soul, this has repercussions.
There are six related Galiean healing miracles which demonstrate six psychological fractures (anxiety, stress/distress, ingratitude, guilt, prejudice, avoiding/ignoring others).
These correspond to healing of Capernaum Demoniac, Simon’s mother in law, leper, paralytic, man with withered hand and woman with haemorrhage).
Similarly there are six social fractures (or sins) exemplified by the characters within the Passion narrative (making a commitment that we fail to honor, acting impetuously with no regard for the consequences, avoiding the responsibility that is rightfully ours, not listening or explaining or using provocative language, acting harshly when we feel threatened, exploting / betraying others).
These correspond to Peter, the crowd, Pilate, Jesus, High Priest, Judas.
When you see it, it is just beautiful.
Check out http://www.stmarkblog.com (when i’ve finished it).
Regards
DominickG