Larry Hurtado Reviews Michael Peppard’s The Son of God in the Roman World”

I have written a lengthy summary of the chapters in Michael Peppard’s The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context before and linked to his Bible & Interpretation article.  Larry Hurtado has now critically interacted with the book in detail in his blog review.  In my mind, Hurtado scores points on reading the verb eudokeō in context (en soi eudokēsa) and on the primacy of the Jewish context in the baptism and transfiguration scenes.  On the other hand, the emperor is present in Mark (Hurtado notes the demoniac “legion” and the centurion’s acclamation; I would add the parallel of Mark’s opening verse to the Priene inscription to Augustus and Jesus whole “triumphal entry” and the crufixion scene as an imperial parody) and I wonder if it could be countered that the resistance of (the majority?) of Jews to cultic devotion to the emperor was that he was not viewed as Yahweh’s true representative and annointed king (see, for instance, Daniel Kirk on 1 Chronicles 29:20).  Jesus was God’s annointed (e.g., the allusion to Psalm 2:7 at the baptism) and representative of Israel (the Son of Man with the Danielic background in Mark), and as the one destined to be heir of the vinyard (Israel) and gatherer of the elect from the nations at the apocalyptic coming of the kingdom and Son of Man, it seems to me fitting for Jesus to be described as a counter-emperor and for parallels to be drawn with the current one.  Anyways, check out the review and let me know what you think…

Update: While I am not sure Professor Hurtado would have seen my little notice here, in light of his recent post I should clarify that he would reject both the imperial cult and Jewish intermediatory figures like the Davidic king (or other exalted humans [Adam, Moses, etc], the eschatological figure of the Similitudes of Enoch, a heavenly vice-regent like Metatron or Yahoel, etc) as true analogues to what he sees as the unique binitarian or dyadic cultic devotion offered to Jesus alongside God in early Jewish-Christian circles.

Larry Hurtado on the Son of Man Problem and High Christology

Sorry I have been too busy to blog.  But readers might be interested in Larry Hurtado’s blog response to Daniel Boyarin’s reading of the ‘son of man’ figure in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels (Update: he has also reviewed Nickelsburg & VanderKam’s commentary on the Similitudes of Enoch in relation to the expression “son of man”).  He has uploaded his own solution to the Son of Man problem in his essay section here.  Moreover, in the comments of a previous post on high Christology there is a fascinating exchange between Hurtado, Bauckham and even Geza Vermes!  It is exciting to see such scholarly giants debate on the blogosphere and, further, what I found especially interesting is how Richard Bauckham nuances his position.  One criticism of the early high christology club is that the Jewish context may be used to exclude “contamination” from Greco-Roman influence and yet Christology transcends that Jewish context as utterly unique.  But in the comments Bauckham argues that due to various historical or social factors the earliest Jesus followers formulated a Christology that was largely unparalleled in contemporary Jewish sources about intermediary figures (Bauckham concedes that, even if wrong on texts like Ezekiel the Tragedian, Apocalypse of Abraham or Philo, these voices are not representative), but he allows that it may be possible that other Jewish groups in their own specific social context could have made similar moves such as the speculation about Metatron in some Hekhalot texts  and adds “My concern in this matter has never been to secure the uniqueness of early Christianity and minimize its continuity with early Judaism.”  I am open to arguments about high christology in the Pauline epistles and (pre-Pauline?) hymns, though I think the Synoptic tradition preserves a different christological formulation that the preexistence-descent-ascent pattern in Paul/Hebrews/John, but what do you think of Bauckham’s added nuance?

A Married Jesus and Mark?

I have stayed out of the debate about whether the new Coptic fragment about Jesus’ Wife is genuine or a forgery and prefer to await the results of scientific testing before making any final decisions.  At most, against the media hype, the scholars add the nuance that this does not tell us about the marital status of Jesus but about what later Christians thought in the context of theological debates about marriage and sexuality.  Reading Francis Watson’s views on the matter here, I was struck by his line:

For Christian traditions that place a high value on celibacy, Jesus is the supreme celibate; and he retains this status even when, in Protestantism, celibacy is no longer seen as a mark of the truly holy life. The Christ who offers salvation to all, the incarnate divine Son, can, surely, never have uttered the words, “My wife”? Yet it is just these words that some scribe, ancient or modern, has put into his mouth. That scribe knew exactly what he or she was doing: subverting deep-seated assumptions about Jesus in the most effective way possible, by challenging them out of Jesus’ own lips. The Jesus of this text renounces not only his celibacy but also the community for which that celibacy is integral to who he is. No Christian institution – not the Vatican itself – could withstand such a challenge, if it really is Jesus who speaks here

For a diametrically opposed view see April DeConick.  For my part I wonder why a theological belief in the Incarnation, of God becoming fully, could not accomodate a married Jesus?  Please share your views in the comments if you agree or disagree.  What convinces me Jesus was probably celibate is the complete silence of the early sources, especially since I see no reason for censoring that information when some of the earliest images of Jesus are as a human agent of God no matter how highly exalted (Jesus as a sage, eschatological prophet, miracle worker like Moses/Elijah, annointed one now enthroned at the deity’s right hand)?  For instance, before the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity arose, Mark has the onlookers in the Nazareth synogogue ask, “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?” (6:3).  Why would Mark omit a reference to Jesus’ wife here if he had one?  Another clue to Jesus’ celibacy may be in Matthew’s addition to Mark’s strict stance on divorce and remarriage (compare Mk 10:1-11 with Matt 19:1-12), Matthew has Jesus add a saying about being eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:12).  This would be a pretty hard-line for a married Jesus to demand of seekers after the kingdom, but since this is singly attested I wouldn’t lean too much on it.  What do you think?

Messianic Beliefs in Second Temple Judaism

Since I think that Mark uses the royal ”son of God” as basically interchangeable with the annointed one (Christ) and to counter an imperial title, it may help to situate Mark’s understanding of the messiahship of Jesus in the wider context of the various messianic figures entertained within Second Temple Judaism(s).  Therefore, readers might be interested in this set of videos by the well-respected Emeritus Professor of Post-Biblical Jewish Literature at the University of Manchester, Philip Alexander, on the history of Jewish Messianism.  I know I am looking forward to listening to his video lectures (thanks to Jim West for pointing it out)

New Article on Mark’s Christology at Bible & Interpretation

Since his name has come up a few times in my review of the scholarly literature on Markan christology, some readers may be interested in checking out Michael Peppard’s latest article “Powerful Sons were Adopted Sons: A Roman Imperial Perspective” at the website The Bible and Interpretation (thanks to Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni for calling it to my attention).  Enjoy.

Conclusion: Mark’s Christology and Christian Origins

I am taking a rest from posting study notes of various books or articles on Mark’s Christology, but hopefully it gives readers an idea of the diversity of views out there.  To wrap it up, I believe Mark’s Jesus is a prophet (6:4), the Son of Man or representative of Israel, and Messiah (Christ, son of David, royal son of God) who was annointed at the baptism and enthroned as Lord at God’s right hand.  These claims were set against Roman imperialism.  However, there was a problem in that Jesus was executed by the powers, the kingdom had not come and Mark’s readers were persecuted.  So Mark spends half the gospel encouraging readers to imitate Jesus on the road to the cross and redefines the messianic task around the suffering righteous one (Psalms, Wisdom of Solomon) and martyrdom traditions (the saints suffer under the beast in Daniel as Mark’s passion predictions speak of Daniel’s “son of man”, the Maccabean martyrs, perhaps the Isaianic suffering servant) as well as Jesus’ present Lordship in heaven (Mk 12:35-37).  Yet the Son of Man will return imminently to establish the kingdom, judge the priestly establishment and transfer the vineyard to his re-gathered elect.  However, I am not so sure Mark ascribes to Jesus pre-existence or goes beyond what was conceivable under the Jewish concept of agency.

How does this fit into a wider picture of Christian origins?  Creedal fragments in the Pauline letters, sources behind the Synoptics/Thomas and other Jewish works like James/Didache suggest to me some of the earliest conceptions of Jesus were as follows (whether all these conceptions go back to a monolithic “Jewish Christianity” or we should imagine greater diversity in the early period with groups passing along sayings sources, miracle stories, the kerygma of resurrection appearances to Cephas and the Twelve, etc, I leave open):

• wise sage (logia, aphorisms, parables, pronouncement stories, parenetic section in James and Paul, etc)
• eschatological prophet (future kingdom sayings, dramatic reversal language, future Son of Man sayings, threat tradition, symbolic actions like the “temple cleansing” or the “Twelve”, etc)
• Moses/Elijah-like figure (the sources behind the sea/feeding miracles and mount of transfiguration, etc)
• exalted chief agent of God (disciples on 12 thrones with Jesus as their leader and the titulus “king of the Jews,” Jesus fulfilling messianic functions in Matt 11:4-6/Luke 7:22-23 [Q?]; creedal fragments in 1 Cor 15:3-5 [cf. Mk 16:7, Lk 24:33] and Rom 1:3-4; Aramaic prayer “our Lord come” in 1 Cor 16:22/Rev 22:20/Did 10:6; widespread Christian exegesis of Psalm 110 or Dan 7;  etc)
• martyr (pre-Markan passion narrative, a deuteronomic theology where Jesus suffers the fate of the prophets in the Synoptic double tradition [Q?]; 1 Cor 15:3 died for our sins; Lord’s supper, etc)

On the other hand, I think that in the Pauline/deutero-Pauline epistles and Johannine corpus and other writings (e.g., Ignatius) we see developments of pre-existence Christology, identification of Jesus with God’s Wisdom/Word/Presence/Name and perhaps binitarian or dyadic theology (or approaching it; there is the bigger issue of whether it could be paralleled within or transgressed Second Temple “monotheism” if that category is even appropriate).  I know diversity may trouble Christians but for me I think it can mean that Jesus cannot be put into a box and different groups of people located in a specific time and place had different insights into who he was and what it means to follow him in their own social situation.  From a canonical or systematic-theology perspective, for the Trinitarian Christian who believes in progressive revelation it need not shock that flawed humans took centuries and many heated debates to try to grasp the full reality of who Jesus was and is.  Where do you stand on the question of Mark’s Christology and on the wider context of Christian origins?

Hearing Mark’s Son of God Among Different Audiences

Would a first century Jew or Greek, with different backgrounds and native traditions, understand Mark’s depiction of the “son of god” in different ways?  Adela Collins explores this question in two articles entitled ”Mark and His Readers:  The Son of God among Jews” HTR 92 (1999): 393-408 and “Mark and His Readers:  The Son of God among Greeks and Romans” HTR 93 (2000): 85-100.  The underlying premise of her studies is that Mark was read aloud in public Christian gatherings among people of varying degrees of commitments and who may have been aware of different Christological formulations (e.g., some may have known Paul’s view of Jesus’ divine sonship yet preferred more traditional expressions or vice-versa)  and was also available to the interested outsider (393).

In Jewish tradition “son of God” calls up ancient Israelite royal ideology (Ps 2; 89:26-27), surviving remnants of which identify the king as a superhuman, divine being or an elohim (Ps 45:7) (394).  The king was begotten (Ps 110:3) in the sense of election/adoption (cf. cf. 2 Sam 7:14; 12:24-25; parallels the Mesopotamian view) rather than a metaphysical sense (cf. Egyptian view) (394-5). Whereas the Greek text of Psalm 110:3 implies a pre-existent Messiah, the use of Isa 42:1 to interpret Psalm 2:7 and adjective “beloved” in Mk 1:11 points to election (395).  The Wisdom of Solomon identifies the collective righteous as a pais kuriou (servant/child of the Lord) and calls God “father” (2:7, 16), Philo restricts divine sonship for the good, outstanding or wise, Sirach has the sage address God as Father (23:1, 4) and a fragmentary Qumran text has Joseph pray to God as Father (4Q371-72) (396).  But Jesus is not just righteous as his endowment with the spirit suggests a prophetic (cf. Elisha’s commission, Yahweh’s servant, the prophet of Isa 61:1-11) and messianic office (Isa 11:1-5; 1QS 9:10-11; 4QpIsa; Ps Sol 17:37) (396-7).  Solomon was a legendary exorcist in the Testament of Solomon (399).  The Transfiguration  has heavenly white clothes (cf. Dan 7:9) and has Jesus fulfill the prophet like Moses (cf. J Marcus) (400-2).  The “beloved son” of the vineyard parable puts Jesus above the prophets as Davidic king (402).  The title “son of god” or divine begetting is in Jewish texts (4Q246; 1QSa [1Q28a] 2:11-12), but reticence over it may be due to its use for quasi-divine rulers and perhaps the “two powers heresy” which may explain the blasphemy charge (402-5).  The Centurion foreshadows that “others” who inherit the vineyard include Gentiles but ”son of God” must be read in his own categories (406).  She concludes Mark redefined messiahship to fit a heavenly cosmic ruler type (Ps 110:1 + Dan 7:13; cf. Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra) minus pre-existence than a human warrior type (407-8).

Huios theou (son of god) is rare in polytheistic Greek myths or cults as rulers, warriors or sages may be sons of Zeus, Apollo or other named divinities (86-7).  She parallels the transformative experience of Jesus at the baptism, his attraction of great crowds or healings to popular biographies of heroes and sages (e.g., Isis granting Aesop the powers of good speech, the healings of Asclepius, etc) (88-90).  The Gerasene demoniac identifies Jesus as son of the most high which could be a divine name for Zeus (90).  Greeks were familiar with gods in human form (Odyssey 17.485-87; Hymn to Demeter 101, 118-22) and could have heard the Transfiguration in this light (90-2).  Mk 13 fits an inspired diviner speaking on behalf of the oracular god (92).  The centurion’s confession is not intended ironically (97), but he may understand Jesus’ sonship as the apotheosis of a Roman emperor (cf. Romulus’ departure, death of Julius Caesar, inarticular theou huios in imperial cult).  This is backed up by his use of the imperfect tense (“was”) and lack of an article (predicate nominatives may not have the article so could be “the son of god” or “a son of god”) as well as that his response came after seeing the cosmic portents at Jesus’ death (93-6).  She ends by critiquing scholars who underestimate the impact of the imperial cult on Mark and other early Christians (98-99, see also my post on Michael Peppard on Mark and the imperial cult).

So what do you think of Collins approach?  Does she successfully navigate between those who privilege either an exclusive Jewish or Greco-Roman background?  Also, instead of getting bogged down in the issue of authorial intention when the evangelist is no longer alive to clarify matters, might her approach to ask how Mark would have been heard by different audiences be a fruitful way forward?

Thoughts on Daniel Boyarin’s “The Jewish Gospels” and Christology?

One book I am looking forward to reading is Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels.  In the last post I looked at James Crossley’s views of Mark’s Christology; Crossley largely follows Maurice Casey (cf. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God) that Christology did not develop beyond what could be ascribed to intermediary agents in Second Temple Judaism until John’s Gospel.  On the other hand, Boyarin seems to affirm an early high christology (cf. Hurtado) but also insists binitarianism was fully at home in Second Temple Judaism.  Part of Boyarin’s methodological approach is to deconstruct “Judaism” and “Christianity” as distinct, monolithic categories and to see a variety of groups on the Judaeo-Christian spectrum, with “orthodoxy” and “heresy” (minut) coming into being together when one group sets its boundaries in reaction to evolving ideas of another. In Border Lines, he sees Jewish binitarianism in rabbinic discussion of the Two Powers Heresy (cf. Alan Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven, but Boyarin argues this “heresy” was an earlier view only later expelled by the Rabbis) and the memra of the Targums as a parallel to John’s Logos (Word).  

Though I haven’t read his new book, articles posted on Boyarin’s website include “The Sovereignty of the Son of Man: Reading Mark 2“ where he argues Mark’s titular “the Son of Man” (ho huios tou anthropou) depends on Daniel and agaist Vermes that behind it stands an Aramaic circumlocution for “I.”  Moreover, he interprets Daniel’s son of man (cf. Similitudes of Enoch) as a second divinity and incarnate messianic figure.  See also his ”Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism” for his case for a geneological relationship between the Danielic son of man, the exalted Enoch of Enochic literature and Yahweh’s heavenly vice-regent Metatron.  Reviews of his book include a very critical one by Peter Schafer (via Larry Hurtado; Allan Brill; Theophrastus) and other reviews by Allan Brill, Joel Willitts (also here), Darrell Bock and Daniel Kirk (here, here, here, here).  What do you think – did early Jewish Christians and Mark just draw on a Jewish binitarian theology that was alive and well in the Second Temple period and reapply it to Jesus or does Boyarin build too much of his case for a divine Jesus in Mark on his controversial interpretation of the title Son of Man (e.g., does Boyarin refute the view that an Aramaic idiom could just refer to humanity in general and the speaker in particular, does Dan 7 refer to a second divinity or an angel or collectively the saints of Israel, what is the dating of the Similitudes and is the identification with Enoch original or an interpolation, etc)?

Is Mark’s Christology Really Unparalleled in Second Temple Judaism?

Some scholars I have reviewed tend to emphasize the Jewish background over the Greco-Roman for Mark’s Christology, but there is also a tendency of some to argue that Mark goes beyond what can be paralleled by Jewish intermediary agents (exalted humans, messianic figures, God’s chief Angel) and attributes to Jesus what can only be attributed to Yahweh (e.g., Johannson on forgiving sins as a divine prerogative, Watts on Jesus = Yahweh Warrior).  In contrast, James Crossley argues that scholars greatly exaggerate when they make Mark’s Christology out to be unique and unparalleled in Second Temple Judaism in his, “Mark’s Christology and a Scholarly Creation of a Non-Jewish Christ of Faith” pp 118-51 in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition (ed. James Crossley; London & Oakville: Equinox, 2010).  Those familiar with Crossley’s ideological-critical work know he applies the “propoganda model” of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky to show how the pre-dominantly Christian context influences NT scholarship (118-9).  He also turns to Slavoj Zizek on how scholars use the Other (e.g., a Jewish Jesus) but stripped of his problematic otherness to make him fit with a modern capitalist, liberal, multicultural world (119).  Scholars often fill in the gaps with their assumptions and end up constructing a non-Jewish Christ of faith out of Mark (120).

He takes aim at “corrective christologies” (Perrin, Weeden, Tyson, Crossan, Goulder, Telford, sort of Marcus) where Mark “corrects” a traditional Torah-observant Jewish Christianity associated with Cephas, the Twelve or James.  Crossley responds that there is no evidence that Law-observance can’t co-exist with notions of Jesus’ redemptive death (cf. 2 Macc 7) or that Jewish Christians rejected the latter (120-1).  While Dan 7:13 could be interpreted for a future redeemer figure (cf. b. Sanh. 98a; Num. R. 13.14; but Crossley denies “the Son of Man” was a fixed title), against Telford there is no evidence Mark qualified an earlier Jewish apocalyptic Son of Man with a suffering role (doesn’t qualify Mk 13:26; 14:62; cf. 8:38) (122).  Telford points to the lack of Q parallels for the suffering son of man but perhaps Matt/Luke felt Mark’s portrait was sufficient so no need to reproduce similar material at their disposal and Casey shows the Aramaic background of the idiom in reference to modesty, humility, danger or death as well as that Jesus may have anticipated his martyrdom in light of the Baptist/Maccabean martyrs (123).  Against Tyson on the Jerusalem Church’s nationalistic royal family dynasty (i.e. contra Mark’s stress on the cross, denial of title son of David), Paul gives no evidence of this narrow nationalism but confirms that they accepted a Gentile mission perhaps in light of the eschatological ingathering of Gentiles (124-5).  Mark is not concerned with Davidic Christology as Bartimaeus cry (10:48) may merely mean a good Jew like daughter of Abraham (Lk 13:16) or son of God (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Sir 4:10; Ps. Sol. 17:27 [29]; m. Taan. 3.8) and the people hope for the kingdom of “our father” David (11:10) (126).  There is no evidence Mark overturned a triumphalistic Davidic messiah – 12:35-7 may be just for Jesus to show up the scribes in Jerusalem (David’s capital) to the amusement of the crowd, Peter rebukes Jesus for saying the son of man (not Davidic king) must suffer and 10:35-45 neither mentions Son of David/Messiah nor denies a future place at Jesus’ side in glory but only that it is Jesus’ decision (126).  He takes particular aim at R.G. Hammerton-Kelly view (cf. Rene Girard’s theory on mimetic violence redirected towards a scapegoat and Jesus as the victim exposing this system of sacred violence) as a restatement of Christian superiority (i.e., sacred violence = Judaism), despite Jewish traditions of non-violence/innocent suffering or Mark’s violence (Jesus’ saving sacrifice, Jewish leaders as scapegoats) (127, 130), and Mark does not reject the cult itself as a) 11:15-17 is less scathing than prophets like Isa 1:10-17; Jer 6:20; 7:21-28; Amos 5:21-27; b) Jesus values the ideal function of the Temple although its financial corruption (bandit’s den) leads to its destruction, c) 12:28-34 only comparatively more important than offerings (cf. Spec. Leg. 1.299-300; Apion 2.206; T. Iss. 7.6; T. Dan 5.1, 3; Arist. 234), d) martyrdom traditions do not imply anti-temple stance (cf. Maccabees), and e) there is no explicit evidence Jesus rejects the sacrificial cult nor of conflict that would arise if he did (128-30).   Back to Telford, ”Son of God” is not a Hellenistic divine man in opposition to the disciples low view (they accept Jesus as God’s son at the Transfiguration and only mistakenly make booths) and there is no evidence in Paul of conflict over a divine, non-Jewish Son of God Christology (131).  The Roman centurion can’t be taken as evidence as the lack of a definite article and imperfect tense in 15:39 may fall short of the Christian confession and fit with Roman pagan thought (cf. E.S. Johnson) (131); the Baptism/Transfiguration reflect a Jewish background (bath qol, Ps 2.7, tearing of heavens echoes MT Isa 63:19; white clothing purity before God as in Dan 11:35; War 2.123; cf. Isa 1:18; 6:1-7, allusion to Tabernacles, Moses/Elijah) (132).  Nor is Mark transforming Jewish royal Son of God traditions (cf. Juel) as David had a hard path to kingship (1 Sam 18-29; Ps 22) and there are parallels of the suffering righteous (132-3).  It is better to say that, confronted with the historical particularity of one believed to be Messiah who was crucified, they did what other Jews did by reinterpreting scripture/tradition (133).  Mark is not hostile to the Jews as Gentiles get their share of bad press on Jesus death (10:33-34) and many Jews (e.g., Joseph of Armathaea) accept Jesus (134).  The tearing of the temple curtain need not be anti-Jewish but can be read in light of haggadic traditions of cosmic imagery at the deaths of great figures and God mourning for his beloved son (cf. R. Aus) (135).

He further disagrees with attempts to find a high Christology in Mark beyond contemporary Jewish views. Philip G. Davis’ third way that Mark built neither directly on Jewish or pagan thought but on the considerable body of Christian tradition on Jesus as somewhat divine and pre-existent is problematic as it assumes Jewish influences died out (contra Mark’s debates on Sabbah, purity, Jewish figures and institutions) and overlooks Mark’s investment in the scriptural background and Jewish parallels for a “king of the Jews” and even for a divine figure (11Q132.10-11 on Melchizidek; Philo Vit. Mos. 1.155-158 [cf. Exod 7:1; Philo Post. 28; Sir 45:1-5] on Moses as god and king; 1 En. 48:3, 6; 62:7 pre-existance of “that son of man”; Gen. R. 2.4 on Gen 1:2; cf 4Q521 on the pre-existent spirit of the Messiah) (136).  Against Marcus’ view that Jesus commits blasphemy by taking son of god in a high sense (cf. b. Sanh. 38b), there is broad usage of blasphemy in intra-Jewish conflicts (cf. Ant. 13.293-95 dispute over the high priesthood; b. Sanh. 38b as over whether a human could be exalted by God’s side) (138).  2:5 could be translated sins are “released/loosed” so the paralytic’s limbs are set free of satanic bondage (cf. Lk 13:16) and the blasphemy charge is paralleled in 3:29 over whether Jesus is in league with satan (3:22, 29; cf. CD 4.12-18) (138).  Critiquing Hurtado’s view of the high christology of Mark’s miracle stories (139-49), there is nothing explicit as ego eimi in Mk 6:50 may just mean “I am he” (contra Jn 18:5-6 where ego eimi causes others to fall back) and the feeding miracles are like Moses, Elisha and Hanina ben Dosa (141-2).  Parallels include what some believed Theudas (parting the Jordan) and the Egyptian (fall of Jerusalem’s walls) could do (War 2.258-63; Ant. 20.97-99, 167-72, Jonah and R Gamaliel (e.g., Pesiq. R. 36.1; Pirqe R. El. 10; Tanhuma on Lev 8; b. BM 59b), R. Eliezer (mastery over the elements in b. BM 59b), Moses (e.g., Philo Vit Mos 1.155-156 elements obey Moses and the use of “obey” [hupakouō]), and the annointed one (4Q421 frag. 2, 2.1 heavens and earth listen to the annointed one; Messiah “hovering” over the waters in Gen. R. 2.4 on Gen 1:2; cf. R. Aus) (140-1).  Finally he takes on Broadhead’s priestly christology (142-5): there is no unambiguous mention of Jesus as a priest or criticism of him behaving in such a way nor would imitation necessarily imply replacement of the temple (143), Jesus send the leper back to the priest to declare him clean as per Lev 14:2-7 (144), sins could be forgiven outside the temple (Sir 3:30) and Mk 2 is on the source of Jesus’ authority (144) and the disputes on Sabbath or handwashing is not a priestly conflict (e.g., Sabbath conflict only has Pharisees & Herodians, Jesus gives  a typical halakhic defense on the priority of saving life) (144-5).

What do you think:  is NT scholarship guilty of reading in dominant Christian assumptions into Mark such as that his Christology is unparalleled (e.g., Jesus actions go beyond what intermediary agents can do) or that the Markan community has split from Second Temple Judaism (e.g., Jesus seen as replacing the Temple cultus)?  Or do you think Crossley goes too far in opposing some sort of corrective Christology behind Mark (e.g., might Mark also be read as accepting Jesus as the messianic son of David but that must revise the popular expectation because the historical circumstances forced Mark to accomodate the known facts of the crucifixion and the delay of the kingdom [i.e. Jesus currently rules in heaven as the exalted Lord])?

Mark’s Christology According to Isaiah? Part II

Like the last post on the importance of Isaiah to Mark and thorougly scriptural roots to Christology, next up for review is Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord:  Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Lousville: Westminster John Knox, 1992).  He aims to combine approaches (Christological titles, history-of-religions, narrative criticism) (8).  Each chapter starts with pericopes that explicitly refer back to scripture with a citation like “it is written” and explores the larger context (8), then proceeds to try to separate tradition and redaction (8-9), then looks at the narrative as a whole (9-10), then at parallel Jewish or Christian scriptural interpretations (10) and lastly at what it reveals about the setting-in-life of the Markan community (10-11; cf. Marcus’ article on this).  I will focus on Christology.

Ch 2 (12-47) covers now familiar territory on Isaiah.  Mark put Isa 40:3 together with Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1 conflated text (cf. also in Q [Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27]) because in the MT and Aramaic there is identical expression for “prepare the way” (thus the evangelist is a native speaker even if readers using the Greek text are not) (16).  Following Guelich he argues kathōs gegraptai (as it has been written) is a transitional bridge from 1:1 so the Isaiah ascription is key to the “beginning of the gospel” (17-8).  He agrees with Stuhlmacher on the Isaianic background to ”gospel” (18-19) and finds many Isaianic themes - announcement to behold God and coming kingdom (20), eschatological comfort (21-2), wilderness location (22-3), second exodus (24-6), proto-apocalyptic imagery (Yahweh’s council, new age) (28-30), entering the kingdom like Yawheh’s kingly rule and return with people to Zion (33), healing the blind (34-5), way to Jerusalem and Yahweh’s triumphal procession in holy war (35-7).  On Christology, 1:2-3 “your” (Jesus) way and the “way of the Lord” (Yahweh) shows both unity and distinction (37-8).  Likewise Jesus as kyrios is much more than just a “master/owner” (2:28; 11:3; 12:36-7) but he is distinct from and subordinate to God as kyrios (10:18, 40; 12:36-7; 13:32; 14:36; 15:34) (38-39).  This unity/distinction can be seen in 5:19-20 (Gerasene man is instructed to tell what the “Lord” has done for him and he tells what “Jesus” did for him so that Jesus acts in the power & authority of the Lord), 11:9 (blessing Jesus in the Lord’s name or Jesus coming at a deeper level is the advent of the Lord) and 2:7, 10 (only God can forgive sins, but the Son of Man has authority on earth to exercise this prerogative) (40).  He adds that the distinction is maintained when Jesus’ apparent defeat at the cross is the time of God’s victory, so he disagrees with Watts’ view that Jesus is identified as the Divine Warrior (41, 41 n. 105).

Ch 3 tackles the baptism (48-79).  ”It came to pass in those days” reflects a solemn biblical formula (48).  There are echoes of Isa 63:19 MT (rending heavens), 63:11 MT (bringing the shepherd up from the sea and putting the holy spirit on him) and 63:14 LXX (descent of spirit, probably why Mark has eis [in] instead of epi [on]) (49-50).  There are allusions to Ps 2:7 (50-1) and, in support of the servant of Isa 42:1, he argues the following: the best option for “beloved” (Isa 42:1 chosen on, a late Targum on Ps 2:7, a solitary reference to the binding of Isaac, the firstborn in Exod 4:22-3?) is from Isaiah as “beloved” (agapetos) can be a cognate of “chosen” (eklektos/eklelegmos (Isa 42:1) and that “beloved” and “well pleased” (eudokēsen) is used in Matt 12:18 citation of Isa 42:1 (cf. eudokēsen also in Theodotion and Symmachus) (51-2); Mk 1:10-11 is similar to the Targum on Isa 41:8-9; 42:1; 43:10 (cf. Chilton) (53) and the parallel with the independent John 1:32-34 shows a common reference to the “chosen one” so the servant may be original and Ps 2:7 reference redactional in Mark (54-5).  Marcus proceeds to analyze Jewish and Christian eschatological and messianic interpretations of Ps 2:7 (59-66).  Mark has both themes of the apocalyptic kingdom and royal son of god (66-9).  As for the titles’ meaning, Marcus argues it is an earthly monarch who at his coronation is invested with the kingly authority of his father (cf. Christ’s dominion in Rom 1:4; Heb 1:5; 5:5; Col 1:13; Lk 22:29) (69-70).  As “begotten” there is a substratum of meaning that the king while distinct in some way bears Yahweh’s personal presence and share in his holiness, so it transcends the boundary of a juridicial adoption to take on superhuman/cosmic dimensions and more of a change in essence (71-2).  Marcus notes that the aorist eudokēsen suggests the past election and pre-existent choice of the Messiah (like israel), though it is not clear if Jesus became the Messiah at the baptism at his annointing (74-5).  The quasi divine implications of “son of god” explain why it was rarely used and discontinued in Jewish literature (77-9).

Ch 4 is on the Transfiguration (80-93).  The scriptural echo “Listen to him” sounds like the exhortation of Deut 18:15 (81). The account is saturated with Moses imagery from ascending a mountain with 3 men (Exod 24:1-2; 9-18), appearance changed (Exod 34:29-35), 6 days (Exod 24:16), God in a cloud and the crowd’s astonishment (Mk 9:15; cf. Exod 34:29-35) (82-3).  Granted only Jesus’ clothes and not face shine (contra Matt/Luke parallel; cf 2 Cor 3:5-18) and Mark puts Elijah before Moses, but the reason is Mark’s focus on eschatology (i.e. coming of Elijah per Malachi, radiant garments at the eschaton [Dan 12:3; 2 Apoc. Bar 51:1-3; Matt 13:43; Rev 7:13-14]) (89).  This is not low Christology as there are traditions of Moses enthronement (cf. Ezekiel the Tragedian; Philo, Life of Moses 1.155-158; John 6:14-15; a tannaitic midrash tanhuma 4:51-52) (84-86).  9:1 as a bridge from 8:38 to the Transfiguration shows the latter is proleptic of the eschatological kingdom and Jesus like Moses ascending the mountain to become king and 9:9 connects it to the resurrection (87, 88; contra Gathercole on pre-existence).  Traditions of Moses’ translation to heaven are attested in Philo (Questoins on Genesis 1.86), Josephus (Ant 3.96; denied in Ant. 4.326 but includes a counterproductive tradition that Moses was still taken up in a cloud to descend to a ravine) and the Mekilta (Bahodesh 4 [Lauterbach 2.224]) (88-9).  Moses was divinized in Philo (Life of Moses 1.138; cf. Allegorical Interpretation 1.40; On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 9; The Worse Attacks the Better 161-62; On the Migration of Abraham 84; On the Change of Names 19; On Dreams 2.189) and the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana on Deut 33:1, though Philo and the Rabbis back off by insisting the language is metaphorical or on Moses’ mortality but other first century Jews may have expressed cultic devotion to Moses (90-91) and Mark 8:38 does not shy from Jesus bearing his Father’s glory (91).

Ch 5 (94-110) offers a solution for where Mark found a scripture that Elijah would be mistreated; Mark tries to reconcile the promise that Elijah will restore all things in seeming contradiction to the necessity of the Son of Man suffering (cf. Servant Songs, righteous sufferer of Psalms, Dan 7) with the idea that the forerunner suffers like the Messiah.  Ch 6 (111-29) looks at Ps 118:22-3 LXX (111).  His reconstruction of the tradition history has the parable first circulate without the scripture (cf. Thomas 65) and the Psalm alters its point from condemning injustice (bad tenants) to vindication (112-14).  Marcus laments that Mark suggests the transfer of the vinyard (Israel) from the tenants (Jewish leaders or all Jews?) to a mixed but predominantly Gentile church (“others”), understandable in the heated context of the Jewish War but problematic with centuries of Christian anti-Semitism (117-8).  Regarding Christology, he argues the “stone” could be read literally for the Temple (cf. T. Solomon 22:7-23:4) or figuratively for the people (1 Pet 2:4-7; 1QS 8:4; 1QH 6:25-29; 7:8-9) and the parable has other Temple imagery (tower = temple; cf. 1 En 89:73; 4Q500; see also Mark’s interest in the Temple in 11:27, 9-11, 15-18, 27-33; ch 13) (120-1).  The Markan Jesus desires a new eschatological temple with the inclusive vision of Isaiah (cf. Mk 11:17) (121), though its current tenants will be excluded (122).  Jesus is the cornerstone of the new temple (the Church), for the parable does not explicitly mention the son’s resurrection so the vindicated stone must apply to the transfer of the vineyard (with Temple) to “others” (123).  As cornerstone of the faith community, they are inseparable (disciples to “be with him”, Son of Man represents humans, share in Spirit, eucharist) (123-4)

Ch 7 (130-52) looks at Ps 110 and 8:7 (under the feet) behind Mk 12:35-37 (130).  The parallel with Barnabas 12:10-11 shows this is mostly traditional rather than redactional (131-2).  Again he looks at the reception of Ps 110 in Jewish eschatology (postexilic context of Psalter; 11QMelchizedek; parasha 4 [midrash on Psalms]; Mk 12:36 introduces it as spoken in the Spirit and emphasis on Jesus’ unrivalled authority and cosmic power in all under his feet) (132-7).  As to whether Jesus accepted “son of David” or not, Marcus first notes the title is concentrated in the “way” section (10:46, 52; 11:9-11; 12:35-7) (137) and the geographical location of Jericho/Jerusalem/Temple may have fueled Davidic hopes (138-9).  Second, it is insufficient as no father calls his son “Lord” (139-40) and Marcus denies that Jesus intends to resolve a contraction as there is no second passage cited (scribal opinion) and the natural reading is a negative answer (152).  Though the Messiah’s Davidic sonship is common in Jewish and Christian texts (exception Barn 12:10-11) (140), Mark’s preference may be for “son of god” (cf. Barn 12:10, possible stress on not his [i.e. David's] son, the reference to divine begetting in Ps 109:3 LXX) (141).  “Son of god” goes beyond Davidic sonship (cf. Rom 1:3-4; Mk 14:61-62 with Dan 7:13/Ps 110:1 in background) as he participates in the divine majesty and is the “filial plenipotentiary” who rules over human and cosmic foes (142-4, he points to the theophany at the sea ion p. 144).  He ties this in with the “Two Powers heresy” of rabbinic Judaism though Mark does not see it in violation of the Sheme (cf. 12:28-34, linked with catch words like teacher, teaching and Lord) because Mark’s figure is still subordinate to God (145).  The Shema also seems to appear behind Mk 2:7 and 10:18 (“except one, God”) and together Jesus is both distanced from/unequal to God and yet represents his heavenly authority on earth (146).  Finally Ch 8 (153-98) covers the Passion Narrative where Marcus sees the influence of Zech 9-14 (the shepherd, the scattered and regathered sheep, the Mount of Olives, the holy war and eschatological imagery) (154-64), the Son of Man as both an individual judge (Mk 8:38; 14:62; cf. similar idea in the Similitudes of Enoch that may influence Matt 25 and Jn 5:27) and collective representative (shares in sufferings and martyrdom; cf. represents collective saints in Daniel) (164-71), the Righteious Sufferer of the Psalms (172-86) and the Suffering Servant (poured out for “many”, silent before Pilate and torturers, paradidonai in Isa 53:6, 12) (186-96).

So in comparison to Watt’s, both agree on the centrality of the Scriptural background to Mark and especially on the use of Isaiah and the Suffering Servant, though Watt’s is based on a PhD thesis that is more narrowly focussed on Isaiah while Marcus explores the wider OT background.  Further, both see Mark’s Christology as fairly high (for Marcus Mark has Jesus as the cosmic quasi divine son of god, a second power in heaven, the new temple) though unlike Watts and Johannson Marcus ultimately sees Mark’s Jesus as subordinate to Yahweh.  One area that I might disagree with Marcus is that I do not think Jesus rejected the title “son of David” (he accepted the acclamation from Peter and Bartimaeus) and I think “son of god” should be read as equivalent to the annointed royal king, though Mark may redefine the role in an eschatological light where Jesus is currently enthroned in heaven as Lord and will rule at the coming of the apocalyptic kingdom.  What do you think:  do you agree or disagree with Marcus’ interpretations of the various OT backgrounds behind Mark and has he achieved the right balance in seeing Jesus as both in unity with but also distinct from God?