Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

[Peter Kirby]

I like the idea that Mark is the Mr Magoo of great literature.

He's oblivious and clumsy, but somehow the twists and turns come together to have deep, complex readings.

[robert j]

I think Philo is an under-appreciated source for Paul. Not for direct citations, but rather for thematic elements. I suspect the author of GMark was familiar with Philo as well.

I think the following from Philo is directly relevant to the issue at hand ---

(120) Let not any one then fancy that the word shadow is applied to God with perfect propriety. It is merely a catachrestical abuse of the name, by way of bringing before our eyes a more vivid representation of the matter intended to be intimated. (121) Since this is not the actual truth, but in order that one may when speaking keep as close to the truth as possible, the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature. (Philo, On Abraham, 120-121)

And Jesus said, “I am (ἐγώ εἰμι)". (Mark 14:62)

... He was the Lord and creator of the entire universe.

[rgprice]

This does raise an important issue. The Pauline letters really make no case at all that Jesus was a "messiah" or "king", even a celestial or universal king. The closest thing is identifying him as a high priest in Hebrews.

So it seems that the idea of Jesus being a king is introduced in the Gospel narratives, and it is from this introduction that it becomes clear that he was identified as a "messiah".

A "messiah" is, after all, an anointed king who does God's will or fulfills God's plan. The messiah is an instrument of God's will, perhaps one can say.

But this case is never really made in the "genuine" Pauline letters, nor even in Hebrews, nor in any of the NT epistles except the Pastorals.

But this association of Jesus with kingship is made even in *Ev.

Even if one can make the case that in the Gospels or any given Gospel, the writer is refuting the identify of Jesus as king or messiah, the question is raised, why?

Paul made no claim that Jesus was a messiah in any traditional sense. Even if the Evangelist is disputing the identity of Jesus as messiah, why does the Evangelist feel the need to dispute this identity?

The problem that essentially all of the Gospel leave us with is that they all seem to show that Jesus is not a traditional messiah, he was not an earthly king, so why then does he have the title of Christos? None of them explain it.

So Paul never says that ΧΥ means messiah/Jewish king or celestial king
The Gospels say that ΧΥ does NOT mean Jewish king
The Gospels seem to imply that ΧΥ means celestial king?

I have a theory about this, but I'd like to see what others thoughts are.

[Peter Kirby]

But this association of Jesus with kingship is made even in *Ev.

Is it?

And is this statement about positive association, or is it stating only that there may have been either a positive association or a negative association, which is a kind of association that could be considered to make the statement true (if that's what you intended)?

While it has been taken as presumed in the discussion in this thread that it is (by Giuseppe, dependent on the writing of various scholars, and by me for the sake of discussion), I have not seen anything presented in this thread to show that it is true.

So, is it the case that the "association of Jesus with kingship is made even in *Ev"?

If it was made, how was that association made?

In what way? Which passages, what content, and on what basis was that content reconstructed?

[Peter Kirby]

The problem that essentially all of the Gospel leave us with is that they all seem to show that Jesus is not a traditional messiah, he was not an earthly king, so why then does he have the title of Christos? None of them explain it.

So Paul never says that ΧΥ means messiah/Jewish king or celestial king
The Gospels say that ΧΥ does NOT mean Jewish king
The Gospels seem to imply that ΧΥ means celestial king?

These are a few possible suggestions, among them:

(1) Along with other names ("spirit," "son," "wisdom," etc), "Christ" was drawn into the vortex of speculation about a second power in heaven. This speculation was based largely on interpretation of the scriptures, and it would perhaps be more surprising if it didn't at some point bring the "Christ" passages into its purview. If someone is looking for ambiguous oracles in scripture, the "Christ" ones could be assiduously avoided, but they didn't have to be. All that is required is reinterpretation by the Jesus cult.

(2) Some of this discussion may be placing too much stress on THE "traditional messiah." There may have been some pre-Christian variation in the interpretation of a "messiah" figure, even if that was not the most common view taken among those who thought something about a "messiah." Such non-"traditional" interpretations of a "messiah" may be pre-Christian and not originally developed in association with a Jesus cult.

(3) Obligatory mention that some may have thought that Jesus could become a "Jewish king," and then they were disappointed that he did not. After such a disappointment, at some point they could have interpreted him as being God's Messiah in a different sense, retaining the term from their initial hopes about him being such in the first sense. This is an idea about what could have happened that has never completely died out. I understand that it's like tossing in a hand grenade to mention this here, so let me say this isn't my view.

All of these seem consistent with Paul having a view along the lines of what you call a "celestial king" (which is not a perfect title but I can see what you mean), with Mark having a similar view.

[rgprice]

Perhaps we can look to the "Christ" Hymn (NIV):

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Some scholars have argued that v9-11 is a later addition. But regardless, maybe this is the key. In this Jesus is first humbled as a servant. He is surely not a king. Then in v9 he becomes exalted, after death.

Interestingly, though, this doesn't quite say exactly what we might want it to say. It say that "Jesus Christ" is Lord, not that Jesus is "the Christ".

So in other words, even this doesn't explain that he "became the Christ" this is explaining that Christ "become the Lord", which isn't exactly the same thing.

At any rate, perhaps the writer of "Mark" had this in mind. It would seem to me that he did.

[Peter Kirby]

Interestingly, though, this doesn't quite say exactly what we might want it to say. It say that "Jesus Christ" is Lord, not that Jesus is "the Christ".

So in other words, even this doesn't explain that he "became the Christ" this is explaining that Christ "become the Lord", which isn't exactly the same thing.

I noticed this too. Accordingly, this passage is not clear evidence of the idea that Paul thought Jesus 'is the Christ', as if that were a confessional statement recognizing the status of Jesus. It's also not clear what it's evidence of, if anything. It seems compatible with almost any proposal regarding Paul and his views that I have seen.

[Ken Olson]

This does raise an important issue. The Pauline letters really make no case at all that Jesus was a "messiah" or "king", even a celestial or universal king. The closest thing is identifying him as a high priest in Hebrews.

This needs some qualification. 1 Corinthians 15.24-55 has Jesus reigning in the future:

24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom (βασιλείαν) to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign (βασιλεύειν) until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15.htm

If we take the category of Pauline Letters to mean the 14 letter corpus, rather than just the seven generally accepted Paulines, we would also have to consider the following occurrences of βασιλείαν:

Colossians 1.13 - the kingdom of his beloved [Son]
Ephesians 5.5 - the kingdom of [Christ] (there are textual issues with this one)
2 Timothy 4.1 - [Jesus] [Christ] who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom

Best,

Ken

ETA: There is also Romans 1.3 'the gospel concerning his [Son], who was descended from David according to the flesh; and 2 Tim 2.8 'Remember [Jesus] [Christ], descended from David, as preached in my gospel.

The former verse is not attested for Marcion's Apostolikon, while the latter is found in a letter not acknowledged by Marcion, so both could conceivably be later anti-Marcionite reactions.

[davidmartin]

(1) Along with other names ("spirit," "son," "wisdom," etc), "Christ" was drawn into the vortex of speculation about a second power in heaven. This speculation was based largely on interpretation of the scriptures, and it would perhaps be more surprising if it didn't at some point bring the "Christ" passages into its purview. If someone is looking for ambiguous oracles in scripture, the "Christ" ones could be assiduously avoided, but they didn't have to be. All that is required is reinterpretation by the Jesus cult.

I don't think in the epistles Jesus is the Messiah but looks a lot more like wisdom or spirit which is found in the Hebrew bible a lot more than the Messiah plus is pre-existent. Following on from how the epistles don't really like Judaism and the Messiah is part of what they dislike. The problem the church had was they did think Jesus was the Messiah so Acts sort of corrects the epistles here to fit back in with the gospels. Problem solved. Probably there was the idea Jesus was the Messiah originally its just the epistle author was writing some time after this. Otherwise it's just trying to read the gospel's Messiah into the epistles. RG Price seems to not think it's at all coherent it probably was, like originally it was before folk started saying one thing and other folk another thing.

[rgprice]

One thing to keep in mind was the Roman incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah. The orthodox view was that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy. As such, this voided the Jewish expectation of a future messiah. Since Jesus was the Messiah, this should put an end to Jewish expectations of any coming warrior king to lead them on any more rebellions.