The Gospels and National Geographic on John the Baptist

Jim West called attention to the following National Geographic special:

I think it is right to be skeptical about biblical discoveries on National Geographic, but scholars Candida Moss and Vincent Pizzuto do a good job introducing the evangelists’ aims to magnify Jesus over the Baptist:  1) Mark turns the baptism of Jesus into an epiphanic moment revealing to Jesus (and the reader) his messianic sonship (1:9-11), 2) Matthew makes the vision public and has John try to deter Jesus by insisting that he needs to be baptized by him (3:13-17), 3) Luke makes the vision public and relates Jesus’ baptism after John’s imprisonment (3:19-21), 4) John does not narrate the baptism but John sees the vision and testifies to Jesus (1:29-34), 5) Gospel of Hebrews has Jesus ask what sin he has committed that he needs to be baptized (Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2), 6) there may be competition between followers of Jesus and the Baptist about the superior figure (cf. Acts 19:1-7; cf John 3:22-30).  However, I am not sure we need to write off Matt 11:2-6/Luke 7:18-23 as it may be from an older source(s) (“double tradition” or “Q”), it may run counter to the evangelists agenda to definitively link Jesus to John’s coming eschatological figure as the question implies uncertainty on John’s part (perhaps he only heard rumors about Jesus) and Jesus only implicitly answers by pointing to messianic functions (Isa 61; cf. 4Q521) rather than explicit Christological titles.  As for John’s martyrdom (Mark 6:14-29; cf. Matt 14:1-12; cf. the differences in Josephus Antiquities 8.5.2), I think Herod probably executed John as a political threat and the Gospels retell John’s death in scriptural categories (allusions to the weak-willed Ahab and evil Jezebel or to Xerxes promising up to half his kingdom to Esther).  See further James Crossley, “History from the Margins: The Death of John the Baptist” in Writing History, Constructing Religion (eds. J.G. Crossley and C. Karner; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 147-161.

Calling Gentiles “Dogs”? Further Background

A few other bloggers have linked to Larry Hurtado’s recent blog posts on Mark 7:24-30 and that kunarion did not refer to a scavenger dog of the streets but a household pet.  I posted follow-up questions here, but what may also be relevant to the discussion is Mark Nanos’ online article “Paul’s Reversal of Jews calling Gentiles ’Dogs’ (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog?“  Nanos is a leading scholar on what Magnus Zetterholm terms the “radical new perspective on Paul” (cf. Approaches to Paul) and his article attempts to overturn the prevailing interpretation of Phil 3:2 as Paul turning a slur against Gentiles as “dogs” back on Jewish missionaries who demand that Gentile Christ followers get circumcised.  It also argues that the insult towards Gentiles as ”dogs” is virtually unparalleled in Jewish texts, though regrettably the insult has been thrown as a term of abuse against Jewish persons by anti-Semitic Christians over the centuries, and has an interesting re-reading of the Matthean parallel (though it may be more convincing to me if he spent more time on the Markan version as the Matthean reference to the woman as a “Canaanite” and Jesus’ aside that he was sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” are probably redactional).  But the article challenges the idea that the Markan/Matthean Jesus was simply repeating a common cultural prejudice against Gentiles as “dogs,” so let me know what  you think?

Puppies Under the Table?

I have posted some thoughts on the story of the Syrophoenician woman before here, but Larry Hurtado has a few posts here and here that are worth checking out.  I get what he is saying about the diminutive form, but I always thought that Jesus’ (or Mark’s) Jewish cultural context did not look fondly on dogs as they were unclean animals that may eat anything.  I also wonder, as per one of the articles in my last post, if the woman maybe had a different idea of dogs than Jesus because notice that Jesus talks about throwing the bread to the dogs but it is her who brings up the image of dogs under the table.  Finally, even if the Markan Jesus meant ”household dogs”, does it still speak derogatorily about the nations who are put in a decidedly secondary role after Israel?  But personally I hope Professor Hurtado is right as it always has been a troubling passage to me so let me know what you think?

The Miracles in Mark and Magic?

In the next few posts I want to look at the whole question of the miracle stories in Mark in relation to ancient and modern definitions of “magic.”  Leaving aside our modern context where “magic” tends to denote card tricks or illusions for entertainment purposes, an older anthropological distinction between “religion” and “magic” tended to be that the former involved a humble supplicant who entreats the powers that be to perform a miracle while the latter involved the coercion of the powers that be to obey the magicians’ will (e.g., though formulas repeating various syllables or divine names, manipulating various physical elements, etc, to get the desired result), though there may be gray areas along the spectrum from “religion” to “magic.”  However, others argue that all attempted distinctions ultimately break down; “magician” is just a perjorative label applied to a miracle worker who is perceived as operating outside the legitimate channels of authority or is the “other” to our tradition.  I often think of the example in Acts 19 where even aprons and handkerchiefs touched by Paul had healing/exorcism powers but when the seven sons of Sceva try to use Jesus’ name to do exorcisms they get beat up by the demoniac and the response of the people was to burn their magic books (is this a case of we do miracles and they do magic?).  So to start off the discussion, I will list a few passages in Mark below and I want to ask commentators if they would classify them as “miracle” or “magic” or think that is a meaningless distinction.  Note I don’t intend “magic” to be used with modern negative connotations of “illusion” or “fakery” or imply anything about these deeds, all I am asking is how a social scientist might classify the following episodes:

And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.  She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.  For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.”  And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.  And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?”  And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”  And he looked around to see who had done it.  But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth.  And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease” (5:25-34)

And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him.  And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, “Eph’phatha,” that is, “Be opened.”  And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.  And he charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it (7:32-36)

“Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a dumb spirit; and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.”  And he answered them, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.”  And they brought the boy to him; and when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth.  And Jesus asked his father, “How long has he had this?” And he said, “From childhood.  And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.”  And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.”  Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”  And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.”  And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, “He is dead.”  But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.  And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?”  And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer” (9:17-29)

Forsaken by God?

To return to those tricky Markan passages, few passages have caused theologians such difficulty as Jesus’ last dying words in Mark (and Matthew).  For trinitarian Christians, it seems to be beyond paradoxical for God the Father to forsake God the Son on the cross.  Before I look at how exegetes or systematic theologians have dealt with the passage, first I want to look at a few examples of the role it has played in popular Christian worship songs.

Although both songs are surprisingly packed in with a lot of theology when one compares them to much of contemporary popular Christian music, they both read what transpired at the crucifixion through a particular lens.  Specifically, the songs seem to advocate a penal substitution view where Jesus took on the sins of the world upon himself and became the recipient of divine wrath and the Father literally “turned his face away.”  Since my area of expertise is not in systematic theology I welcome the contributions of theologians in the comments section (do you believe this was a literal separation of Father and Son or more how Jesus felt with raw human emotion and, if the former, how does that not affect the unity of the Trinity or slide into tritheism? – Update: for a canonical-systematic theological treatment of the issue check out this book review by Abram K-J).  However, while I believe this later theological reflection is perfectly legitimate, I also think if we want to try to get at how Mark would have been heard by its intended audience we need to be careful to not impose later categories from Nicea when doing exegesis.  So just some notes…

• In Mark 15:34 Jesus cries out “E’lo-i, E’lo-i, lema sabachthani?’ (ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι) which Mark translates “my God, my God why have you forsaken me.”  The mocking bystanders mishear this as a cry for Elijah, assuming Jesus was invoking the eschatological coming of Elijah (cf. Mal 4:5) to deliver him.  Those without ears to hear sets up another scene of Markan irony,  for Elijah had already come (John the Baptist) and they mistakenly believe that if Jesus really was special he would be divinely rescued from the cross.
• Matthew 27:46 changes Jesus address from Aramaic to Hebrew (ηλι ηλι) (eli, eli), perhaps to make it easier to see the confusion about Elijah (?), but retains the translation that Jesus cries out about being forsaken by God.  Yet Luke omits the line and puts in its place a much more trusting sentiment as Jesus commits his spirit to God (Lk 23:46).  John may or may not know Mark but he also does not have the words, opting instead for Jesus to announce that it has been accomplished (John 19:30).  The Akhmim fragment (Gos Peter?), which again is widely debated if it is dependent on the Synoptics Passion Narrative or develops shared oral/written traditions in its own way, has Jesus cry “my power, you have forsaken me” (5:19).  This may be seen as docetic (i.e. Jesus only “seemed” human) (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.12.1-6 on bishop Serapion’s later judgment on it) or fits in with the complaints of some heresiologists about groups who divide the spiritual Christ from the human Jesus, yet ”power” may also just be a circumlocution for “God.”
• This leads to the last question.  Do you think in Mark this should be interpreted as another cry of an innocent victim facing the horrors of crucifixion and lamenting about how God has abandoned him to this fate?  Or do you think this should be interpreted with reference to the Psalm as a whole, where Mark intends Jesus to have fulfilled the entire pattern of the Psalm of the innocent righteous one who will be vindicated in the end?

Forgiving Sins… Like God? (Part 3)

In the comments section of my last post, Dr. Tobias Hägerland left his unpublished paper in response to Johannson’s view that Jesus declaring the paralytic’s sins forgiven was unprecedented in Second Temple Judaism (focussing on Josephus, Ant. 6.92) and argues that it is only the evangelist’s insertion of Mk 2:7 that would lead one to believe that Jesus goes beyond what a prophet could do in mediating forgiveness.  A well-argued rebuttal, though for interested readers it does presuppose a certain level of Greek, and if we bring in James Crossley’s view from a couple of posts ago we now have three distinct views on the passage in question.  That is, the action is read as revealing the high christological self-understanding of the historical Jesus (Johannson), the action only shows the prophetic self-understanding of Jesus but (with Mark 2:7) supports a high christology at the redactional level of the evangelist (Hägerland) or that not even the evangelist has a high christology and that 2:7 is best understood as a dispute over the source of Jesus’ authority (cf. the debate in Mk 3 whether Jesus’ authority in exorcisms derives from God or “Beelzebul”) (Crossley).  Please feel free to continue the discussion in the comments.

Forgiving Sins… Like God?

In what has come to be known as the famous trilemma that Jesus is either a liar, lunatic or Lord, C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) builds his case that Jesus had a divine self-understanding on the basis of his claim to forgive sins.  Countless commentators agree that in Mark 2:1-12 (cf. Matt 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26) where Jesus proclaims that the paralytic’s sins are forgiven is a usurping of a divine prerogative and seems confirmed by the omniscient narrator who reveals that the scribes thought Jesus committed blasphemy (2:6-7).   N.T. Wright (“Simply Lewis“) writes appreciately of Lewis though he tries to provide a more nuanced conservative view that Jesus didn’t just claim to be god but that people could find in Jesus what they would normally seek by going to the temple where the divine presence was housed and the forgiveness of sins offered.  Yet other scholars such as Geza Vermes (The Religion of Jesus the Jew) or E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism) point out the passive (“your sins are forgiven”) meaning forgiveness is attributed to god and that Jesus does not go beyond prophet or priest as a divine spokespersons (Vermes on p. 193 n. 9 notes the parallel from the Prayer of Nabonidus where a Jewish exorcist forgives the sins of the Babylonian king).

With this background in mind, lets turn to Daniel Johannson, “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism” JSNT33 (2011): 351-74.  The aim of his article is to demonstrate that Jesus’ action is without parallel for other intermediary agents.  First, the willingness to forgive is often described a divine attribute even if no biblical passage and the rare one in Second Temple or later rabbinic literature explicitly declare that it is the exclusive right of YHWH alone (352-3).  Then he argues that priests made atonement for sin but in textual descriptions of their practice there is no evidence that they pronounced an absolution of the forgiveness of sins (354-6).  Against the view that the scribes in Mark reflect the Pharisaic viewpoint but that the Prayer of Nabonidus represents a different view from Qumran, he raises issues about the fragmentary state of the text leading to differing scholarly renderings and concludes that the least problematic translation is that god forgives the king’s sins (357-60).  Jesus goes beyond a prophet who just announces god’s forgiveness (2 Sam 12:13) in personally forgiving the paralytic (Mk 2:10) (360) and he disputes Hägerland’s interpretation of Josephus Antiquities 6.92-93 (cf. 1 Sam 12:16-25) that Samuel forgives sins on behalf of God (either the people beg Samuel to forgive them for their personal affront to him and his own leadership in asking for a king or, better, god is the implied subject of the infinitive “to forgive”) (361-63).  Some scholars read some texts (Targum of Isaiah 53, T. Levi 18.9, Damascus Document 14.19) as suggesting that the Messiah grants forgiveness but he objects that these passages suggest that sin will cease in the messianic age or, at most, that the Messiah will make intercession or ritual expiation for sins but does not grant forgiveness (364-66).  Finally, angels act as messengers in announcing forgiveness (the seraph who touches the prophet Isaiah’s lips with coal to atone for his sins in Isa 6:7 may seem to go further but the LXX version places the emphasis on the atoning function of the coal), with the seeming exception of the Angel of YHWH who is closely linked with or may have originally been understood as the visible manifestation of the deity (Exod 23:20-21, see also how this is reworded in the LXX and how the passage comes up in debates about “Two Powers” in b. Sanh. 38b; Exod. Rab. 32.4; Zech 3:4 again reworded in the LXX) (366-69).   

All in all, this is a well-argued article but I have two questions.  First, does the Markan Jesus forgive the paralytic or like a messenger announce they are forgiven (…by god); the divine passive seems to support the latter (and perhaps the scribes misunderstand out of hostile intent) while the claim that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins seems to support the former (but could this be a shorthand that the Son of Man has authority to announce forgiveness on god’s behalf,  or does Jesus authority on earth to forgive just echo what has already been granted in heaven, or if Jesus has literally been granted authority to forgive on earth might there be a parallel in Matt 16:19 where Peter is granted authority on earth to bind and loose which will be ratified in heaven)?  Second, if it is unprecedented in Jewish texts on divine agency to ascribe to figures other than YHWH the right to forgive sins, does that necessarily imply a “high christology” in Mark or might it just be another innovation in Christian understanding of Jesus as the supreme mediatory figure (note the parallel passage in Matt 9:8 where the people are astounded that god had given such authority to humans).   Finally, James Crossley and Michael Bird, who co-wrote How Did Christianity Begin: A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence, have debated this particular passage on the radio program Unbelievable.  Bird defends the traditional view that Jesus is understood as usurping a divine prerogative in forgiving sins while Crossley argues that Jesus is not doing anything so radical but that the passage could be translated as your sins are loosed (the paralytic is freed from the sins that result in his condition) and that the issue is not claiming to be divine but in where Jesus’ authority comes from (he points to Mark 3 where the scribes ascribe Jesus’ authority in exorcisms not to god but to Be-el’zebul).  What do you think?

The Syrophoenician woman

Mark 7:24-30 may be one of the most troubling episodes in the NT.  It begins in Tyre with Jesus in a “house” (Markan redactional setting?) in an attempt to stay out of the public eye, but as so often happens with Mark’s secrecy theme the word gets out.  He is approached by a Greek woman, a Phoenician from Syria, who begs him to cast a demon from her daughter.  Jesus replies that the children (i.e. Israel) should first be fed as it is not right to take their bread and toss it to the dogs (i.e. Gentiles), but in response to her witty retort that even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table Jesus grants her request.  Matthew’s version (15:21-28) drops the private house setting but notable changes include the woman is a Canaanite (a traditional enemy of Israel), the cry to the “Lord, Son of David,” the silent treatment she receives followed by a remark that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel and Jesus explicitly commends her faith in the end.  The scene is part of the great Lukan omission of Mk 6:45-8:26 so perhaps it was not in Luke’s manuscript of Mark or accidently skipped over, but I suspect Luke deliberately omitted the whole block, finding a story like this offensive and wrong in pre-dating a Gentile mission before Acts 10.  There are many approaches one could take to Mark’s pericope:  a historical-critical (does the story reflect the attitude of the historical Jesus or some early Jewish Jesus-followers), form-critical (a miracle tale?  A Pronouncment Story that is unusual in the gospels for Jesus appears to be the opponent and the Syrophoenician woman the victor), narrative-critical (how does this fit larger narrative themes in Mark such as that Jesus’ presence or identity is unable to remain a secret, “outsiders” consistently have more perception about Jesus then the supposed “insider” disciples, the gospel will eventually go out to the nations after the mission to Israel [Mk 13:10]), ideological-critical (issues of gender, ethnicity, boundary-crossing and hybridity).  To do full justice to it requires more than just this post, but my focus here will just be on the theological question of how to deal with the offensiveness of the story.

Over at the Text this Week, there a a number of resources listed at both the popular and the scholarly level and from google search I found some other scholarly or popular treatments available online (Great Shelford, “The Syrophoenician Woman and her Dogs” ExpTim;  David Rhoads article reprinted in Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel; Markus Schäfler, The Syrophoenician Woman; Alan H. Cadwallader, “When a woman is a dog: Ancient and modern ethology meet the Syrophoenician women” The Bible and Critical Theory and see also here; Surekha Nelavala “Smart Syrophoenician woman:  A Dalit Feminist Reading of Mark 7:24-31” ExpTim; Brian Incigneri Jesus and the Dog; Holly J. Carey “Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman: A Case Study in Inclusiveness” or Anna Butler “A Place at the Table” in Leaven 19; David D.M. King The Problem of the Syrophoenician Woman: A Reader Response Analysis of Mark 7:24-31).  What brought this story again to my attention was at the recent conference on the Bible and Zionism at Sheffield (I discuss my paper here), one session featured the Palestinian Liberation theologian Naim Ateek leading a group discussion on the parallel passage in Matthew and I enjoyed getting to discuss it with professors from different disciplines, students and Jewish or Christian religious leaders who sat in on that particular session.  Ateek rightly dismisses the reading revolving around the diminutive κυναρίοις as suggesting Jesus meant little puppies instead of scavenger dogs (yet the possibility that she had a different cultural attitude to dogs under the table came up in the discussion; cf. the article by Shelford above).  Ateek wants to interpret Jesus’ treatment of the woman as really designed to bring to light and challenge the disciples own prejudices, though others were persuaded that the woman truly taught Jesus to move beyond his culturally inherited prejudices.  The latter reading could work for systematic theologians who accept Jesus’ full humanity, but how do you deal with this difficult text?

No One Knows… Not Even the Son

In another post, I argued that Mark does not exactly predict the cosmic return of the Son of Man in a generation but that all the preliminary signs that immediately precede his coming would be fulfilled in a generation (Mark 13:30).  Otherwise, it is difficult to reconcile with Mark 13:32 that concerning that eschatological day or hour no one knows (οὐδεὶς οἶδεν), not even the angels in heaven (οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ) nor the Son (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός) but the Father alone (εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ).  While this may seem to alleviate some theological concerns about why the end did not come exactly within his generation (but see my post addressing the problem of a 2000 year delay of the parousia!), it raises other problems for later systematic theologians on the nature of the Trinity.  Checking out Wieland Wilker’s Textual Commentary on Mark, if you scroll down to Mark 13:32 one can see that a few Markan manuscripts and a lot more manuscripts of Matthew 24:36 omit the offending words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός.  I also found online an interesting article Francis Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance:  Four Patristic Solutions” Trinity Journal 28 (2007): 205-13.  Again, since Mark’s christology was not as developed as John I dont think the evangelist was too worried about this issue (rather it may serve a positive function in discouraging overly enthusiastic setting an exact date for the end) and I do not think it has to be a problem for those Incarnational theologians who accept Jesus’ full humanity, but if theology is your interest I want to ask how you deal with the passage?

Does Mark Deny Jesus Was Good?

To begin with a personal anecdote:  when I graduated high school and embarked on a degree in Religion & Theology, my goal in part was to be an apologist.  Among the popular apologetics I had readily consumed was Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) (my attitude to apologetics has since changed quite a bit as it seems to me more about reinforcing the worldview of insiders than an effective mode of persuasion for outsiders and I tend to think the best apologetic is how a tradition impacts one’s daily life and how one treats other people).  Moving away from that personal tangent, Strobel’s chapter “The Profile Evidence: Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God” interviews D.A. Carson and has the following conversation:

For example, in Mark 10 someone addresses Jesus as “good teacher,” promoting him to reply, “Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone.”  “Wasn’t he denying his divinity by saying this?” I [Strobel] asked.  “No, I think he was trying to get the fellow to stop and think about what he was saying,” Carson explained. “The parallel passage in Matthew is a little more expansive and does not find Jesus downplaying his deity at all. “I think all he’s saying is, ‘Wait a minute; why are you calling me good? Is this just a polite thing, like you say, “Good day”?  What do you mean by good? You call me good master-is this because you’re trying to honey up to me?’  In a fundamental sense there’s only one who is good, and that’s God. But Jesus is not implicitly saying, ‘So don’t call me that.’  He’s saying Do you really understand what you’re saying when you say that? Are you really ascribing to me what should only be ascribed to God?’ That could be teased out to mean, ‘I really am what you say; you speak better than you know’ or ‘Don’t you dare call me that; next time call me “sinner Jesus” like everybody else does.’ In terms of all that Jesus says and does elsewhere, which way does it make sense to take it?”  With so many verses that call Jesus “sinless,” “holy,” “righteous,” “innocent,” “undefiled,” and “separate from sinners,” the answer was pretty obvious (162)

It is hard to deny Mk 10:17-18 (cf. Luke 18:18-19) creates issues for Christology, so much that the parallel in Matthew 19:16-17a ”good” is no longer an adjective describing the teacher (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ) but ”what good thing I must do” (τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω) and ”why do you call me good?  No one is good except one, God” (τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) becomes “why do you ask me concerning the good?  One is good” (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός).  Yet Carson’s view of Mark as actually implicitly pointing to Jesus’ divinity is a traditional reading (cf. Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Halls, Mark for Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series) and I came across online an extensive case that at the level of the evangelist (regardless of what the historical Jesus or the rich man thought) the intent was for the perceptive reader to reach this deeper understanding in Brian Han Gregg, “Why Do You Call Me Good:  A Markan Riddle” Scripture and Interpretation 3:1 (2009): 68-78.  Gregg’s case seems to hinge on whether one accepts that the words/deeds of the Markan Jesus go beyond the Jewish concept of agency (e.g., could the conflict in Mk 2:7f be about the source of Jesus’ authority, see the interpretive comment in Matt 9:8?) and whether the call to sell all & follow me supersedes Torah (might the man’s attachment to possessions be seen as breaking the first commandment which prevents him from Torah obedience as interpreted in the Jesus movement?).  On the contrary, I don’t think Mark intended to discredit Jesus’ deity or goodness because I am not sure it is yet an issue in this particular gospel but was merely trying to make a point against flattery that should be reserved for God; however from a canonical or sytematic theological perspective I am not opposed to a Christian who wants to make the equation Jesus = good = equal with God even if not convinced that was how the first readers (or auditors) of Mark heard it.  What do you think?