In a recent comment Vinny asked:
To the extent that Mark understands Jesus as divine, is it not consistent with the concept of exaltation as divine authority that is conferred upon a human by God? Does it any way require equality rather than agency?
Put another way, if Dr. Bock is correct that first century Jews would have understood that God could in his infinite wisdom exalt certain unique human beings and grant them authority to execute certain divine functions on His behalf and that these individuals nonetheless remained human beings, is there anything in Mark that points to some other understanding of Jesus as divine?
Rather than post my response in another comment on an already long thread I thought I’d take the time to turn it into a post. Unfortunately ‘real life’ keeps getting in the way of writing the whole thing the way I’d like to so I’m going to do a series of shorter posts on the topic. The tentative plan is to begin with this introduction which restates two separate comments that I made before Vinny asked the question, the first was made to Vinny and the second to Michael Metts. Then in subsequent posts I’d like to summarize the arguments that various scholars make in favor of a divine Christology in Mark. The concluding post will then offer my final reflections. Each post will have a recommended reading list (that may or may not be expanded) at the end of it for those who are interested in checking out the sources that I’ve drawn from. Hopefully I’ll be able to find the time to churn out these posts quickly but for now I can’t promise promptness because there will be quite a bit of re-reading involved in the process. Without further ado here are the two aforementioned comments:
-
You’re well aware that Christians believe Jesus to be both God and Man. That Mark records Jesus being human is quite natural and to be expected since Jesus was human! That’s beside the point. That Mark also records Jesus doing/saying things that God does/says is also to be expected and he does just that (see e.g., Mk. 4:35-41 cf. Ps. 65:7; 89:9; 107:23-30). Mark also applies OT YHWH texts to Jesus (e.g., Mk. 1:4 cf. Is. 40:3). So his recording and understanding Jesus’ claim in 14:62 as a unique equation of Jesus with God is not out of the realm of possibility, in fact it’s highly probable.
. -
As I noted above, in [Mark] chapter 1 John the Baptist prepares the way for Jesus taking over Isaiah’s statement concerning the way being prepared for YHWH, in chapter 2 he forgives sins (as God does), in chapter 4 he rebukes the waves and wind (as God does), in chapter 6 (which I neglected to mention) he walks across the sea and comforts his disciples (cf. Is. 43; Ps. 77:16-20), in chapter 12 he speaks of himself as being greater than David, implying that his messiahship is much more than earthly, and it culminates in chapter 14 with his claiming to sit at God’s right hand and to return in judgment (taking up the same psalm as well as Daniel 7).
These two comments provide some, but certainly not all of the data available to us in Mark’s Gospel which I think is capable of answering Vinny’s question. My position is that the concept of agency doesn’t do justice to the overall picture of Jesus painted by Mark. Likewise, I don’t believe that exalted humans in extra-biblical literature (e.g., Adam. Enoch, Moses, etc.) reach the status that Jesus has in Mark’s Gospel. And finally, I think that the exaltation of a mere human or the concept of a functional divinity goes unsupported by the reactions of Jesus’ accusers. For example, in Mark 2 when Jesus forgives and heals the paralytic, the reaction is that God alone can forgive sins and Jesus is then accused of blasphemy for claiming a uniquely divine prerogative. Had the concept of a functional divinity been dominant or even adequate to explain Jesus’ statements/actions then his accusers certainly weren’t familiar with it, and if they were then their reaction seems rather odd.
B”H
Recommended Reading:
-
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
-
Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000.
- Bowman, Robert, Jr. and J. Ed Komozsewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007.
-
Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
-
Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia, 1976. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007.
-
––––––. Studies in Early Christology. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
-
Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions About Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
-
––––––. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
-
––––––. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.
-
––––––. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 2nd ed. London: T&T Clark, 1998.
-
Watts, Rikk E. “Mark.” Pages 111-249 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Sounds like a great series to me. I look forward to seeing more in-depth look at the texts in Mark in making your case.
Mike: I look forward to working it all out. Lord willing I’ll find a 25th hour in each day to do so!
Very cool. I’m with Mike. Looking forward to more.
This is excellent! Thank you, Nick.
This could easily be a YouTube classic! Break it down in ten minute episodes and it could go on indefinitely! Always great to be prepared…Go get a professional photo of scholarly proportions so you will have that part of the project out of the way! Once you make the YouTubes you can imbed them on your site…waiting expectantly!
Matt: I hope I don’t disappoint. I’d like to get another post up today on Bauckham’s argument but I’m trying to get two book reviews in before it. I’ll probably only get one done but I’m being optimistic!
Manuel: Gracias!
Nancy: You are the consumate encourager. If ever I get around to putting myself on YouTube you’ll be the first to know! :-)
Nick,
If you were to meet me on the street, I doubt that it would ever occur to you I am a reigning Olympic gymnastics champion. This would not be because you are unfamiliar with the concept of Olympic gymnastics champions, but because I am 6’4”, 52 years old, and carrying 30 extra pounds. Similarly, the fact that the teachers of the law in Mark 2:6-7 didn’t consider the possibility that Jesus had been authorized by God to forgive sins doesn’t tell us that they believed it was something God could not do. They may simply have rejected the possibility that God would have exalted one such as Jesus as Bock says the priests did in Mark 14.
Assuming that Bock has accurately captured exultation in first century Judaism, Mark may well be describing Jesus as the most exalted human of all, however, I think Mark might well have expected the Messiah to be the most exalted human ever. The question is whether Mark nonetheless still thought Jesus to be a type of human being that fit within his cultural understanding rather than some new type of divine person previously unknown to Judaism such as God incarnate or the second person in a divine trinity. That’s a huge leap that I think requires more than a calmed storm and a mangled quotation of Isaiah 40.
Vinny: I don’t think your analogy works, but let’s leave the analogy aside. The question that Jesus’ accusers ask in Mark 2:7 is “Why does this man speak this way?… Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The idea of God exalting a man to such a status doesn’t cross their minds, at least not as far as we can tell from the narrative. The idea that anyone other than God forgiving sins seems outright blasphemous to them. Your argument from silence is unconvincing in light of what is actually said.
For right now we’ll leave talk of the Trinity alone and focus on Mark’s depiction of Jesus throughout his Gospel. The significance of calming the storm and having a YHWH text applied to him are two important pieces of an overall puzzle that Mark puts together. The subsequent posts will deal with all of this in more detail.
Actually Nick, it is you who is making the argument from silence, not me. You are using the silence of the teachers in Mark 2 regarding exultation as evidence that it was absent from their cultural understanding. I am arguing that their silence on exultation at that point doesn’t tell us much one way or the other.
If Bock’s analysis is correct, the importance of exultation is that it provides us part of the cultural context for Mark’s depiction of Jesus. If Mark portrays Jesus as doing something “God-like,” we can’t assume that Mark thought Jesus was God if Mark’s world-view included humans doing God-like things by God’s authority. By the same token, if Mark’s world-view did not include ideas like man being equal to God or God becoming man, we should be reluctant to interpret him that way if there is any ambiguity. There are many pieces to the puzzle that fit a human Jesus.
Vinny: That’s ridiculous. One of us (me) is addressing what Mark’s narrative says. The other one of us (you) is saying that we can’t rule something out because it’s not said in the narrative. In Mark 2 we have the scribes not fathoming anyone other than God as having the ability to forgive sins. If in fact they are familiar with exaltation themes, which it is entirely possible that they are, they don’t see this as a case where it applies. In the trial scene Bock argues that the high priest’s familiarity with these exaltation themes is what leads him to see Jesus as claiming a self-exaltation. So I’m not arguing that Jews in the first century weren’t familiar with exaltation; I’m arguing that it doesn’t best explain what Mark says. And your last sentence tells me that you either (1) have a short memory or (2) don’t pay very good attention. As I said in the comment I quoted above:
So of course there are many pieces to the puzzle that fit a human Jesus! He was human!
Now that you mention it, I do recall hearing something about Christians believing that Jesus was both God and Man.
I guess I wasn’t very clear there. I realize that a passage in which Jesus is described as eating is consistent with a Jesus who is both God and human as well as being consistent with a Jesus who is only human. I was thinking of passages that point to some sort of sub-God status for Jesus as when he says the places by his side in heaven are not his to give or when he says that he doesn’t know when the end will be but the Father does.
Regarding the other point, as I understand it, an argument from silence is when someone argues that the absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence. For example, “Paul doesn’t mention women finding the tomb empty; therefore Paul didn’t believe that women found the tomb empty” is an argument from Paul’s silence on the empty tomb. Since I was opposed to ruling out something that wasn’t in the narrative, I’m pretty sure that it couldn’t have been deemed an argument from silence.
Great discussion here Norelli.
While I was finishing up JVG (Jesus and the Victory of God) I came across a section Wright titles “Sharing the Throne of God” (pg. 624-9). I’ll quote it below, but first I’d like to point out that much of the argument for agency stems from Pseudepigraphal passages (e.g., 1 Enoch) which are likely to be interpretations of OT passages such as Daniel seven’s “one like a son of man.” This is not to obfuscate the matter, but if these agency interpretations (which are, again, interpreted from Daniel 7) are further developments of biblical passages, the matter is indeed obfuscated. It seems we cannot fairly portray Jesus in the fashion of ‘divine agent’ alongside the second temple literature (as easy as it makes it for some to satisfy their insecurities about a Messiah who may in fact be God), and ignore the root of the matter which first gave rise to agency concepts (Daniel 7). Wouldn’t this put the cart before the horse?
Here’s the relevant data from Wright:
“To begin with, we must note the existence of a complex range of Jewish texts, from widely differing periods, which speculate about the exaltation, and the heavenly enthronement, of a figure who may be either an angel or a human being. These speculations seem to grow from meditation upon, and discussion of, certain key texts, such as Ezekiel 1, in which the prophet receives a vision of YHWH’s throne-chariot, and Daniel 7, where ‘one like a son of man’ is presented to ‘the Ancient of Days’ and shares his throne. Such speculations formed almost the staple diet of a whole tradition of Jewish mysticism and accompanying theological and cosmological enquiry. (…). In the LXX version of Daniel 7.13 the translator has interpreted ‘he came to the Ancient of Days’ as ‘he came as the Ancient of Days’.
Let’s give credit where credit is due! If these are developments of Daniel 7, they are attempting to nail the target of the prophecy fulfilled by Christ, but fulfilled differently than what they were expecting — he was not simply an agent. If it stood as an independent tradition alongside the Hebrew OT, it would certainly make things difficult for NT Christology. However, this may not be the case.
I have to run and do homework.
MM
Sorry, I just realized that had nothing at all to due with divinity in Mark… :/
I’d actually like to see Mike Aubrey’s input on that LXX Greek reference to see if it is substantiated.
Vinny: Fair enough. Let’s suspend the discussion until the next post (which will hopefully get written today).
Michael: The problem isn’t so much with agency, but with mere agency, i.e., the idea that Jesus is nothing more than a highly exalted human. I have no problem saying that Jesus is God’s agent (in fact I’ve said it), but as guys like Bauckham and Hurtado argue, Jesus is identified with YHWH in a way that no exalted human, principal angel, or personified divine attribute ever was.
And the quote from Wright is relevant to Mark’s Christology inasmuch as Jesus is depicted as drawing from Daniel 7 at his trial. I suppose that ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν in the Old Greek can be taken as “as the ancient of days.” The NETS translates it as “as far as the ancient of days.” Theodotian’s Greek is a bit different but receives the same translation in the NETS. I’d be interested to see if Mike had anything to say about this as well.
Pingback: Around the Blogs « Christ, My Righteousness
The problem isn’t so much with agency, but with mere agency, i.e., the idea that Jesus is nothing more than a highly exalted human.
I cannot help but think that if Mark’s was the only gospel available to us, we might look at it and say, “Wow, Jesus was the most sacred, most exalted, most spiritual, and most glorious human being who ever walked the earth.” However, because we have John’s portrait of Jesus as God incarnate, that description somehow seems unimpressive.
It reminds me of something one might have heard two basketball fans in Chicago arguing about back in the 1990’s: The problem isn’t with Michael Jordan being the best basketball player who ever lived, but with him being merely the best basketball player who ever lived,i.e., the idea that the greatest athlete and clutch performer who ever played any game ever is nothing more than the best at his sport.
Vinny: I don’t think it seems unimpressive, I just think it tells half the tale. A lot of folks think that our view of Jesus would be drastically different if we didn’t have John’s Gospel but I’m not among them. Nor do I concede the charge that some (not you in particular) make that we read the Synoptics through Johannine lenses. I think that there was a high christology that saw Jesus as divine that preceded any writing in the NT, and I think that this is reflected in nearly every writing in the NT (Philemon of course tells us nothing, 3John isn’t much better).
I think that there was a high christology that saw Jesus as divine that preceded any writing in the NT, and I think that this is reflected in nearly every writing in the NT.
I think I agree with almost every word in that sentence except “a.” The problem is the phrase “Jesus as divine” is terribly imprecise. In general, seeing someone as divine could mean seeing him as a diivine messenger, a divine leader, a divine prophet, a divine healer, a divine teacher, a divine agent, one exalted by God, a personification of divine attributes, a local god, a demi-god, or the one true God.
You can probably lump me in with the people who think that John’s Christology gets read back into the Synoptic gospels, although I think the root of the problem is the attempt to find a unified Christology that applies across all the New Testament books. I doubt that any two of the New Testament would have agreed on which permutation of agency, exultation, adoption, and incarnation inter alia best described Jesus’ relationship with God. I don’t even think we can assume that each writer’s understanding remained constant within each book. It certainly took the church awhile before consensus on the best formulation was reached.
I suppose that exultation may only be half the tale in Mark, but it might be 99% of the tale, too. Didn’t Bock acknowledge the possibility that Jesus was not making a claim about himself in Mark 14:62 even if he considered that reading less likely? Maybe Jesus was talking about some other exalted figure who would vindicate him and judge the priests.
Vinny: When I say “Jesus as divine” I mean it in the sense that Jesus is on the Creator side of the Creator/creature divide, the embodiment of YHWH.
I’ll have to look through Bock’s book to find that. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I don’t see how that reading could be supported. Folks propose all kinds of weird interpretations though. I just read one yesterday that Jesus was demon possessed while on the cross. :-|
As annoyed as I was by Bock quoting German scholars without translation, he redeemed himself in my eyes by his willingness to acknowledge an alternative reading that was less supportive of his thesis. Some conservative scholars have a tendency to breeze over such interpretations.
I am pretty sure that Geza Vermes thinks that Jesus did not view himself as Daniel’s “son of man” and I think that is who Bock cites. I have also seen Ehrman and Crossan discuss the idea although I do not recall where they ultimately came down on the question. I suspect that it has more mainstream support than you might guess.
Vinny: I’ll look through the author index and see if I can find the reference. Which scholars do you have in mind who breeze over alternative explanations? As someone who reads quite a bit of popular apologetics I generally don’t find this to be the case. Some folks do it but not too many.
That interpretation might have more mainstream support than I’d guess, but I also read quite a bit in historical Jesus research (as well as Christology) and I can’t remember seeing it. Doesn’t mean I haven’t seen it; just means it didn’t leave a lasting impression.
I was very disappointed early in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, when Bauckham just glossed over Eusebius’ assessment of Papias’ intelligence, saying “There is no reason why we should adopt this prejudiced attitude towards Papias.” In fact, we have surviving fragments of Papias such as the story of corpulent Judas that support Eusebius. We also have no reason to call Eusebius prejudiced since he had access to all five volumes of Papias whereas we do not. It was hard for me to take Bauckham seriously when he failed to seriously examine the perfectly valid reasons for questioning Papias’ reliability.
I was really disgusted with some of the drivel Craig Evans dished out for Lee Strobel in The Case for the Real Jesus on the same question we have been discussing. He claimed that many liberal scholars’ ignorance of “the Semitic background of the New Testament” caused them to misconstrue Jesus’ use of the phrase “Son of Man.” “They didn’t know how it was linked to the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7, where there are divine implications.” I cannot imagine ever bothering to read anything written by a guy who has the nerve to claim that scholars like Vermes and Ehrman are unfamiliar with a “link” that is footnoted in every Bible.
Vinny: Eusebius made the comment with regard to Papias’ eschatology, an eschatology that he disagreed with. I can’t see that as a reason for anyone to accept that Papias was a man of little intelligence. A few pages later (p. 25, n. 52) Bauckham footnotes a work that’s supposed to show that Papias was an educated man. I’m not sure what valid reasons you think that Bauckham should have examined to be honest.
With regard to Evans, I think (1) you misread him, and (2) you’re expecting way too much from Strobel’s book. Concerning #1 he lodged the complaint against NT scholars in general, which is quite simply true. Relatively few NT scholars go beyond the Hebrew of the OT and lack familiarity with the semitic background of the NT. Maurice Casey who is by no means of the same mind as Evans has lodged similar complaints. Also, he didn’t claim anything about Ehrman or Vermes, he specifically indicted the Jesus Seminar who did in fact search for Greco-Roman parallels. To my knowledge (and I just rechecked the Westar Institute’s homepage) neither Ehrman nor Vermes were fellows of the Jesus Seminar. Regarding #2, Evans has published widely on this subject in a broad array of scholarly literature. To take a soundbite from an interview conducted, and no doubt edited, by Lee Strobel and judge Evans based solely on it seems a bit on the silly side. But I’m not sure that his statements constitute the “breezing over alternative explanations” that you take issue with.
I think Bauckham was at the very least required to examine Papias’ account of fat, stinky Judas. How can you declare Papias to be a man who valued eyewitness testimony when he passed on goofy stories that contradicted what are supposed to be eyewitness accounts? As far as Eusebius goes, his statement indicates that there was much in Papias that he found questionable. The eschatology was but an example.
I had forgotten the reference to the Jesus Seminar, but I have also seen Crossan and Mack, who are members of the Jesus Seminar discuss it as well. I’m willing to bet that I can find it addressed by many others, too.
Vinny: Unfortunately Strobel’s book isn’t as heavily (end-)noted as I’d like. I’d surmise from Evans’ comment about the Jesus Seminar that he has in mind their The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar in which they translate “Son of Man” as “Son of Adam.” He suggests that they did this because “they didn’t know how the title was linked to the Son of figure in Daniel 7.” He didn’t say that they didn’t know that it was linked, or that they’d never heard the idea. But in any event, I think because the entire Seminar is credited with this work that he can make general statements about the Jesus Seminar in his interview with Strobel. In other works he’s examined the disparate writings of various fellows.
I’ll go through Eusebius again, but I can’t recall him calling Papias into question wholesale or his denying the general reliability of Papias’ writing.
“For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.”
I think that has to be viewed as a general assessment of Papias’ abilities..