Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:37 pm How can the messiah be the servant of king David? .Ridiculous, plain daft. Mark 12 :35-37 constitutes a rejection of any restoration of the Davidic state.

36 Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here. --John 18

In Mark 10 :47 , the blind man voiced the expectations of the contemporaries and successors of the prophet Daniel : the reestablishment of the Davidic kingship, among others.

The blind man is told that one man identified as Jesus of Nazareth is now within his reach , and the blind man knows of his reputation .He calls Jesus , Son of David , the restorer of the Davidic Kingdom, another name for the Redeemer of Israel , the King Messiah.

In Mark 12:35-37 Jesus is answering the blind men/women who had been educated in the tradition of Daniel.
Daniel also omits (or takes for granted) many other elements that were standard features in the eschatological speculations of his contemporaries and successors: the renewal of Jerusalem (perhaps through the replacement of the earthly city with the heavenly Jerusalem), the ingathering of the exiles, the reestablishment of the Davidic kingship, the veneration of God by the gentiles (presumably those gentiles who were not killed in the final war), and the renewed creation of the cosmos. These ideas, too, were developed in a bewildering variety of ways.
FROM THE MACCABEES TO THE MISHNAH
Shaye J. D. Cohen

Westminster John Knox Press
LOUISVILLE
page 96
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:40 pm Well, fair is fair, since the scribes had previously asked questions about and of Jesus, too:

Mark 2.6-7: 6 But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Mark 2.16: 16 And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?"

Mark 7.5: 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

Mark 11.27-28: 27 And they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests, and scribes, and elders came to Him, 28 and began saying to Him, "By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?"

Mark 12.28: 28 And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"

Not to mention an open, direct accusation:

Mark 3.22: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and, "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."

For sure, but these are verses with concrete and direct questionings and/or challenges against Jesus and his disciples. Mark 9:11 and 12:35 are abstract teachings of the scribes, repeated by Jesus or the disciples.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

I believe that in gMark Jesus is of physical (or fleshly) Davidic descent. I wouldn't use the term 'physical' though, because I think the early Christian understanding of God's spirit was as a physical phenomenon, like for example the stoic concept of spirit. A fine, incorruptible subtance found up in the heavens, akin to breath and wind etc., and very different from the corruptible, earthly flesh down here.

And I think everything makes best sense if Mark considered Jesus to be of Davidic descent. Except: It is only in fleshly form that Jesus is a descendant of David. Which means that he is the Davidic messiah as long as he is in the flesh, but after his death and resurrection his body has changed into a spiritual incorruptible, heavenly body, like angels, and then he is no longer a descendant of David. Instead he is now just a descendant of God. According to Mark, I think, the whole concept of lineage and family as we normally know it is abolished with the resurrection because of the change of the human body from fleshly to spiritual. Mark even elaborates explicitly on this in 12:18-27 (the Saducees and the resurrection).

I believe we shall understand it along with another early Christian, Paul, especially in Romans. Paul argues that when a human being converts and is baptized he takes part in the same change of existence from fleshly to spiritual which happened with Jesus at his death and resurrection (Rom 6-8). This is the change of the human bodies that will happen fully at the general resurrection after judgement day, when God will have his perfect servant eternally, but it can already happen beforehand, now, within the fleshly bodies of humans.

Now, for Paul it is very important that just like there will happen a physical change away from a fleshly existence, so will the special election of Israel also be cancelled, and God’s perfect, chosen servant to serve him eternally in the Kingdom of God is therefore not dependant upon Israelite lineage. Instead one’s lineage will be to God, and everyone will be “children of God” or indeed “sons of God” (Rom 8:14-17), and therefore also brothers of Jesus. So even though the Jews, i.e. “Israel”, still does have some special place in salvation history, according to Paul, it no longer matters if you’re a Jew. Only the new inner, spiritual 'family' relations matter.

For Paul this is extremely important to explain, I think, because one of his main purposes of the letter is to unite the communities of Rome before his arrival, and in my reading of the letter there is perhaps a conflict where a Jewish Christian minority is being treated with contempt by the larger Gentile Christian majority (the addressees of the letter). So for once Paul actually defends Jewish Christians, underscoring that Jewish Christians also have an equal place in the Christian community, 'in Christ'.

In any case his letter is all about the equality which is 'in Christ' between all humans before God, and for this very reason he also frames his fundamental christology right from the beginning of his letter, in Rom 1:3-4, in order to help support and carry the great argument that in baptism all family lineage has changed and fleshly descent has vanished, so we are all now sons of God instead of merely sons of our fleshly parents - just like Jesus. So this is most likely not a traditional formula, but more likely Paul’s own words, shaped meticulously and perfectly to set up the christological foundation of the main argument of his letter:
Rom 1:3-4:
... concerning His son, who came to be from the seed of David according to the flesh,
set apart by power as son of God according to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ, our Lord

This change away from fleshly existence which happened to Jesus and also happens to all (believing) human beings at the resurrection (and partly at baptism) when they “are like angels in heaven”, Mark 12:25, also means a change of covenant. Because the covenant with Israel was based on the fleshly lineage of Jacob. So I think Mark with his story says that when this Davidic Jewish messiah died, the “messiah according to the flesh” as Paul puts is (Rom 9:5), the “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:26), the “king of Israel” (Mark 15:32), so does Israel's covenant die with him. (Also, his death is at the same time the cultic sacrifice that constitutes the new covenant.)

So what, then, is the answer to the question in 12:37: David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?
Of course: He was his son according to the flesh, but he is his lord as the spiritual messiah, i.e. the one who is resurrected and sitting at the right hand of God, which would be the messiah that David is talking about in this Psalm 110. (The exaltation of Jesus to his heavenly (non-fleshly) form hadn't happened at the time of David, so therefore it was a prophetic utterance, i.e. David "spoke in the holy spirit".)

One detail is apparantly always overlooked in the Bartimaeus story, which is probably important (I have never seen a commentator deal with this): The cry of Bartimaeus "have mercy on me" is found as a slogan in the Book of Psalms. Now, this has been pointed out by several commentators. But: this particular slogan, or prayer, is specifically from the Davidic psalms, the very psalms in which David "spoke by the holy spirit" according to Mark (12:36). Which means that Bartimaeus is de facto mimicking David's prayer from Psalms: "Lord, have mercy on me". Only, instead of "Lord" he says "Son of David". What is going on here? "David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?", Jesus asks in 12:37. In some way, Bartimaeus is David calling for salvation from his Lord, which is in fact his own son: "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:39 pm I gave the two following options in the OP (plus another couple which do not seem relevant here):
  1. In Mark, Jesus is not of physical Davidic descent.
  2. In Mark, Jesus is of physical Davidic descent, but he is also much more than that (Lord, for example), and the "much more" is the more important bit.
So I think option two. He is of physical Davidic descent, or fleshly. And when his flesh dies, so does his Davidic descent, inevitably. And this is a central element, in that there is the other side to it. The messiah turned out to have to modes of existence, one fleshly, Davidic messiah, son of David, and one spiritual Godly messiah, son of God. Just like any Christian is son of his fleshly father as well as son of God, crying “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15).

But I also think that the Bartimaeus story has even more to it, with the 'son of David' title also referring cryptically to the wise temple builder king Solomon (cf. Mark 10:36f, 51; 1 Kings 3:5, 9), the original son of David who was also the son of God (2 Sam 7:13-14).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:47 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:40 pm Well, fair is fair, since the scribes had previously asked questions about and of Jesus, too:

Mark 2.6-7: 6 But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Mark 2.16: 16 And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?"

Mark 7.5: 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

Mark 11.27-28: 27 And they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, the chief priests, and scribes, and elders came to Him, 28 and began saying to Him, "By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?"

Mark 12.28: 28 And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"

Not to mention an open, direct accusation:

Mark 3.22: 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and, "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."

For sure, but these are verses with concrete and direct questionings and/or challenges against Jesus and his disciples. Mark 9:11 and 12:35 are abstract teachings of the scribes, repeated by Jesus or the disciples.
Oh, I completely agree. I was not debating your point here. :cheers:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:33 pm I believe that in gMark Jesus is of physical (or fleshly) Davidic descent. I wouldn't use the term 'physical' though, because I think the early Christian understanding of God's spirit was as a physical phenomenon, like for example the stoic concept of spirit. A fine, incorruptible subtance found up in the heavens, akin to breath and wind etc., and very different from the corruptible, earthly flesh down here.

And I think everything makes best sense if Mark considered Jesus to be of Davidic descent. Except: It is only in fleshly form that Jesus is a descendant of David. Which means that he is the Davidic messiah as long as he is in the flesh, but after his death and resurrection his body has changed into a spiritual incorruptible, heavenly body, like angels, and then he is no longer a descendant of David. Instead he is now just a descendant of God. According to Mark, I think, the whole concept of lineage and family as we normally know it is abolished with the resurrection because of the change of the human body from fleshly to spiritual. Mark even elaborates explicitly on this in 12:18-27 (the Sadducees and the resurrection).
I think this all adds up to an excellent interpretation.

I do want to point out that your analysis assumes that the epistle to the Romans was originally penned pretty much as it stands in the standard texts (like NA27). I think your analysis could be tweaked slightly to take other options into account by simply suggesting that this or that notion in the Pauline epistles was obviously held by somebody, but not necessarily by Paul himself.

Your way of reading Paul here is very compatible with the way I was reading Paul in the early 90's after I read A Rereading of Romans, by Stanley K. Stowers, and several other books from the so-called New Perspective. But I have since tempered my reading with two brutal acknowledgements: (A) that Marcion and his intellectual heirs seem to have possessed a different recension of the Pauline corpus and (B) that there are many passages in Paul which have been suggested to be interpolations, some of which are accompanied by pretty strong arguments. I still think that my former way (and apparently your current way) of reading the epistles is valid, since (again) somebody held those beliefs, but I am far more hesitant now to ascribe them all to Paul, or to any single person necessarily.

Specifically, with respect to your reconstruction of Pauline theology, I harbor doubts about Romans 9-11 (almost certainly absent from Marcion) and Romans 1.1b-5a (probably absent from Marcion and definitely absent from codex Boernerianus). I do not wish to discuss Romans 9-11 just yet, since I feel I am still pretty far from making up my mind on those chapters, but several things about Romans 1.1b-5a bother me as coming from Paul's own pen. Most significant among these is the use of the phrase τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. The most natural meaning of the participle ὁρισθέντος would be that Jesus was appointed as the son of God by the resurrection. But elsewhere the Pauline epistles seem to fall in line with the notion that Jesus was already the son of God long before the resurrection.

Charles Talbert, for instance, writes on page 32 of his Commentary on Romans (arguing here for a pre-Pauline tradition):

"Son of David" is used only here in the undisputed [Pauline] letters; the verb horizein (to appoint) is used only here in Paul; the Semitic phrase "spirit of holiness" is not Paul’s usual way of speaking (cf. T. Levi 18:11); ... the association of Jesus' sonship with the resurrection is unlike Paul in his letters but like Acts 13:33, which probably also reflects pre-Pauline tradition. [Douglass Moo adds the following on page 44 of his New International Commentary: "The phrase 'holy Scriptures' occurs only here in Paul."]

In context:

Acts 13.32-33: "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.'"

Psalm 2.7, of course, is used of the baptism in Matthew 3.17 = Mark 1.11 = Luke 3.22 (especially in Bezae). Here it is used of the resurrection. Thus the idea that Jesus was begotten as son at the resurrection seems to have been available in early Christianity, and Romans 1.4 looks very much like a piece of this tradition. But did Paul himself subscribe to this tradition? He wrote that, at the right moment, God "sent his son" (Galatians 4.4). And the Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2 seems to affirm that he was already fully divine, however we may regard that, before his kenosis. How, then, can the idea that he was appointed son of God by means of the resurrection have been penned by the same person? Do you have ideas on this apparent discrepancy? It is tempting to think of it as worded in a way similar to what we find in Acts 17.31: "...because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead," which gives an "out" by linking the proof with the resurrection and leaving the appointment itself unbound. But that is not how our verse in Romans is worded.

(For the record, I have no issue in general with Paul thinking that Jesus was the son of David, in whatever sense. It is just that the only time he mentions it happens to fall in a passage which seems suspicious to me.)

Your observation on Bartimaeus and his utterance from the psalms is brilliant. Very interesting! The parallels with Jesus as son of David and Solomon as son of David and builder of the temple (as well as exorcist, in later tradition) are well worth exploring, for certain, and I have started down that path at various times myself. And I completely agree that the general sense of the resurrection in early Christianity involved a change in all biological bonds and facts, including kinship, inheritance, and bodily functions (such as reproduction, which is necessary only if humans are mortal).

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:33 pm I believe that in gMark Jesus is of physical (or fleshly) Davidic descent. I wouldn't use the term 'physical' though, because I think the early Christian understanding of God's spirit was as a physical phenomenon, like for example the stoic concept of spirit. A fine, incorruptible subtance found up in the heavens, akin to breath and wind etc., and very different from the corruptible, earthly flesh down here.

And I think everything makes best sense if Mark considered Jesus to be of Davidic descent. Except: It is only in fleshly form that Jesus is a descendant of David. Which means that he is the Davidic messiah as long as he is in the flesh, but after his death and resurrection his body has changed into a spiritual incorruptible, heavenly body, like angels, and then he is no longer a descendant of David. Instead he is now just a descendant of God. According to Mark, I think, the whole concept of lineage and family as we normally know it is abolished with the resurrection because of the change of the human body from fleshly to spiritual. Mark even elaborates explicitly on this in 12:18-27 (the Saducees and the resurrection).

I believe we shall understand it along with another early Christian, Paul, especially in Romans. Paul argues that when a human being converts and is baptized he takes part in the same change of existence from fleshly to spiritual which happened with Jesus at his death and resurrection (Rom 6-8). This is the change of the human bodies that will happen fully at the general resurrection after judgement day, when God will have his perfect servant eternally, but it can already happen beforehand, now, within the fleshly bodies of humans.

Now, for Paul it is very important that just like there will happen a physical change away from a fleshly existence, so will the special election of Israel also be cancelled, and God’s perfect, chosen servant to serve him eternally in the Kingdom of God is therefore not dependant upon Israelite lineage. Instead one’s lineage will be to God, and everyone will be “children of God” or indeed “sons of God” (Rom 8:14-17), and therefore also brothers of Jesus. So even though the Jews, i.e. “Israel”, still does have some special place in salvation history, according to Paul, it no longer matters if you’re a Jew. Only the new inner, spiritual 'family' relations matter.

For Paul this is extremely important to explain, I think, because one of his main purposes of the letter is to unite the communities of Rome before his arrival, and in my reading of the letter there is perhaps a conflict where a Jewish Christian minority is being treated with contempt by the larger Gentile Christian majority (the addressees of the letter). So for once Paul actually defends Jewish Christians, underscoring that Jewish Christians also have an equal place in the Christian community, 'in Christ'.

In any case his letter is all about the equality which is 'in Christ' between all humans before God, and for this very reason he also frames his fundamental christology right from the beginning of his letter, in Rom 1:3-4, in order to help support and carry the great argument that in baptism all family lineage has changed and fleshly descent has vanished, so we are all now sons of God instead of merely sons of our fleshly parents - just like Jesus. So this is most likely not a traditional formula, but more likely Paul’s own words, shaped meticulously and perfectly to set up the christological foundation of the main argument of his letter:
Rom 1:3-4:
... concerning His son, who came to be from the seed of David according to the flesh,
set apart by power as son of God according to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ, our Lord

This change away from fleshly existence which happened to Jesus and also happens to all (believing) human beings at the resurrection (and partly at baptism) when they “are like angels in heaven”, Mark 12:25, also means a change of covenant. Because the covenant with Israel was based on the fleshly lineage of Jacob. So I think Mark with his story says that when this Davidic Jewish messiah died, the “messiah according to the flesh” as Paul puts is (Rom 9:5), the “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:26), the “king of Israel” (Mark 15:32), so does Israel's covenant die with him. (Also, his death is at the same time the cultic sacrifice that constitutes the new covenant.)

So what, then, is the answer to the question in 12:37: David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?
Of course: He was his son according to the flesh, but he is his lord as the spiritual messiah, i.e. the one who is resurrected and sitting at the right hand of God, which would be the messiah that David is talking about in this Psalm 110. (The exaltation of Jesus to his heavenly (non-fleshly) form hadn't happened at the time of David, so therefore it was a prophetic utterance, i.e. David "spoke in the holy spirit".)

One detail is apparantly always overlooked in the Bartimaeus story, which is probably important (I have never seen a commentator deal with this): The cry of Bartimaeus "have mercy on me" is found as a slogan in the Book of Psalms. Now, this has been pointed out by several commentators. But: this particular slogan, or prayer, is specifically from the Davidic psalms, the very psalms in which David "spoke by the holy spirit" according to Mark (12:36). Which means that Bartimaeus is de facto mimicking David's prayer from Psalms: "Lord, have mercy on me". Only, instead of "Lord" he says "Son of David". What is going on here? "David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?", Jesus asks in 12:37. In some way, Bartimaeus is David calling for salvation from his Lord, which is in fact his own son: "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:39 pm I gave the two following options in the OP (plus another couple which do not seem relevant here):
  1. In Mark, Jesus is not of physical Davidic descent.
  2. In Mark, Jesus is of physical Davidic descent, but he is also much more than that (Lord, for example), and the "much more" is the more important bit.
So I think option two. He is of physical Davidic descent, or fleshly. And when his flesh dies, so does his Davidic descent, inevitably. And this is a central element, in that there is the other side to it. The messiah turned out to have to modes of existence, one fleshly, Davidic messiah, son of David, and one spiritual Godly messiah, son of God. Just like any Christian is son of his fleshly father as well as son of God, crying “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15).

But I also think that the Bartimaeus story has even more to it, with the 'son of David' title also referring cryptically to the wise temple builder king Solomon (cf. Mark 10:36f, 51; 1 Kings 3:5, 9), the original son of David who was also the son of God (2 Sam 7:13-14).
Mark says nothing about the family of Jesus.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:54 pm I think this all adds up to an excellent interpretation.

I do want to point out that your analysis assumes that the epistle to the Romans was originally penned pretty much as it stands in the standard texts (like NA27). I think your analysis could be tweaked slightly to take other options into account by simply suggesting that this or that notion in the Pauline epistles was obviously held by somebody, but not necessarily by Paul himself.

Your way of reading Paul here is very compatible with the way I was reading Paul in the early 90's after I read A Rereading of Romans, by Stanley K. Stowers, and several other books from the so-called New Perspective. But I have since tempered my reading with two brutal acknowledgements: (A) that Marcion and his intellectual heirs seem to have possessed a different recension of the Pauline corpus and (B) that there are many passages in Paul which have been suggested to be interpolations, some of which are accompanied by pretty strong arguments. I still think that my former way (and apparently your current way) of reading the epistles is valid, since (again) somebody held those beliefs, but I am far more hesitant now to ascribe them all to Paul, or to any single person necessarily.

Specifically, with respect to your reconstruction of Pauline theology, I harbor doubts about Romans 9-11 (almost certainly absent from Marcion) and Romans 1.1b-5a (probably absent from Marcion and definitely absent from codex Boernerianus). I do not wish to discuss Romans 9-11 just yet, since I feel I am still pretty far from making up my mind on those chapters, but several things about Romans 1.1b-5a bother me as coming from Paul's own pen. Most significant among these is the use of the phrase τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει. The most natural meaning of the participle ὁρισθέντος would be that Jesus was appointed as the son of God by the resurrection. But elsewhere the Pauline epistles seem to fall in line with the notion that Jesus was already the son of God long before the resurrection.

Charles Talbert, for instance, writes on page 32 of his Commentary on Romans (arguing here for a pre-Pauline tradition):

"Son of David" is used only here in the undisputed [Pauline] letters; the verb horizein (to appoint) is used only here in Paul; the Semitic phrase "spirit of holiness" is not Paul’s usual way of speaking (cf. T. Levi 18:11); ... the association of Jesus' sonship with the resurrection is unlike Paul in his letters but like Acts 13:33, which probably also reflects pre-Pauline tradition. [Douglass Moo adds the following on page 44 of his New International Commentary: "The phrase 'holy Scriptures' occurs only here in Paul."]

In context:

Acts 13.32-33: "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.'"

Psalm 2.7, of course, is used of the baptism in Matthew 3.17 = Mark 1.11 = Luke 3.22 (especially in Bezae). Here it is used of the resurrection. Thus the idea that Jesus was begotten as son at the resurrection seems to have been available in early Christianity, and Romans 1.4 looks very much like a piece of this tradition. But did Paul himself subscribe to this tradition? He wrote that, at the right moment, God "sent his son" (Galatians 4.4). And the Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2 seems to affirm that he was already fully divine, however we may regard that, before his kenosis. How, then, can the idea that he was appointed son of God by means of the resurrection have been penned by the same person? Do you have ideas on this apparent discrepancy? It is tempting to think of it as worded in a way similar to what we find in Acts 17.31: "...because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead," which gives an "out" by linking the proof with the resurrection and leaving the appointment itself unbound. But that is not how our verse in Romans is worded.

(For the record, I have no issue in general with Paul thinking that Jesus was the son of David, in whatever sense. It is just that the only time he mentions it happens to fall in a passage which seems suspicious to me.)
Before this turns into a very interesting discussion about Paul and Rom 1:3-4, I’d say that my main point concerning gMark and Paul here is that I think we should regard the prose literature of gMark (and all other early Christian literature) in the same way that we regard the epistle literature. The epistle literature is mainly concerned with delivering theological messages that are directly relevant for the intended audience. This is very explicit in most of these texts, even Hebrews. They might talk about ‘historical’ matters such as OT stories (e.g. the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, 1 Cor 10) or Jesus stories (e.g. the crucifixion and resurrection) or non-historical matters such as christological conceptions (e.g. Jesus and God the Father, 1 Cor 8:6). But these things are always brought up because they are relevant in that they can tell us (or, the intended audience) something about ourselves. So, christology for the sake of christology is hardly found anywhere in the NT, it is always shaped and formulated in such a way as to be ‘relevant’ to the intended audience. I mean that we must always keep in mind that christologty is part of an interplay between the relevant message that the author wants to deliver and then the christology that usually goes with in order it to back up that message. It is in this context we find the christology within the epistle literature, I think. I hope it makes sense!

But I think the same applies to the prose literature of the NT. Mark’s christology is always part of another, bigger message for his audience. We cannot be content with defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes, which I think we are very often guilty of, because then we ignore the very meaning of the text. Mark meant to say something through his christological conceptions. That is why he shapes his story about Christ the way he does. So when he has Bartimaeus call Jesus ‘son of David’, this must in some way be part of a bigger message that is directly relevant to intended audience.

That is why I think it is extremely useful to turn to the epistle literature. Whether or not Paul wrote the whole of Romans as we have it. I think he did for some 90% of this letter. But unfortunately I don’t know so much about Marcion.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:04 pm Mark says nothing about the family of Jesus.
What do you mean? What about Mark 3? Mark 6:3?
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by iskander »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:30 am
iskander wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:04 pm Mark says nothing about the family of Jesus.
What do you mean? What about Mark 3? Mark 6:3?
The family is mentioned but no information about the family is given . It is a plain working family , nothing more is written about them.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:29 amBefore this turns into a very interesting discussion about Paul and Rom 1:3-4, I’d say that my main point concerning gMark and Paul here is that I think we should regard the prose literature of gMark (and all other early Christian literature) in the same way that we regard the epistle literature. The epistle literature is mainly concerned with delivering theological messages that are directly relevant for the intended audience. This is very explicit in most of these texts, even Hebrews. They might talk about ‘historical’ matters such as OT stories (e.g. the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, 1 Cor 10) or Jesus stories (e.g. the crucifixion and resurrection) or non-historical matters such as christological conceptions (e.g. Jesus and God the Father, 1 Cor 8:6). But these things are always brought up because they are relevant in that they can tell us (or, the intended audience) something about ourselves. So, christology for the sake of christology is hardly found anywhere in the NT, it is always shaped and formulated in such a way as to be ‘relevant’ to the intended audience. I mean that we must always keep in mind that christologty is part of an interplay between the relevant message that the author wants to deliver and then the christology that usually goes with in order it to back up that message. It is in this context we find the christology within the epistle literature, I think. I hope it makes sense!
It makes sense to some extent, but it opens up some questions on my part. For example, what about just plain old fashioned good storytelling techniques? You seem to move from pole to pole pretty quickly (either it is historical detail or it is there for theological purposes), but there are other options in between, I think, which you have not explicitly ruled out. Why can some of the colorful details in Mark not be there simply because they are colorful and enrich the story in that way? Even the most theologically laden stories can sometimes offer details just for the sake of the story.
But I think the same applies to the prose literature of the NT. Mark’s christology is always part of another, bigger message for his audience. We cannot be content with defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes, which I think we are very often guilty of, because then we ignore the very meaning of the text. Mark meant to say something through his christological conceptions. That is why he shapes his story about Christ the way he does. So when he has Bartimaeus call Jesus ‘son of David’, this must in some way be part of a bigger message that is directly relevant to intended audience.
This part is more opaque to me. Can you give a concrete example of somebody being guilty of what you are talking about ("defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes")?

If you are suggesting that one should never read Mark for insight into early Christian history (even literary history or theological history), then I cannot disagree in terms strong enough to express my full feelings on the matter. I do not think you are saying that; but, if you are not, then I am not 100% sure what you are saying.

Not that I necessarily want to go into it fully here and now, but maybe I can offer an example. I think that Mark's gospel and Paul's epistles disagree on a few points of christology; that is, both (sets of) texts evince differences sometimes on the answer to the question: "Who is/was Jesus?" I take this observation further and actively try to reconstruct the sequence of theological development. Which ideas are more primitive and which are more derivative? Which came earlier and which came later? Is Mark earlier or later than Paul? If later (as most think), then is Mark liberally developing what he found in Paul, or is he conservatively hearkening back to an earlier stage of christological development, before Paul came into the picture?

Do those questions I am asking constitute an example of "defining Mark’s christological conceptions for our own historical purposes" (theological history, in this case)?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply