Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
I think there is a pattern: "Mark" seemed to concede to Jewish Christian beliefs, and then have them crushed;
The 3 examples:
1) Jesus seems to plead no contest to Pilate accusing him to be "king of the Jews", but soon after, Jesus is "demonstrated" not being king because he cannot escape from the cross alive (Mk 15:2, 15:32).
2) Jesus is anointed the same way as a Jewish king, but later that anointment is considered as a preparation for burial (Mk 14:3, 8).
3) The blind beggar calls repeatedly Jesus, son of David, with no narrated objection from Jesus but later the psalm episode denies it (a lot more than you think Ben: the Lord, as superior to David cannot be a descendant of David, therefore inferior to him). "Barnabas" had no problem using that psalm in order to "demonstrate" Jesus is not a descendant of David, unequivocally.

I think you have an argument from silence against a positive argument:
a) Jesus NOT stated objection to "son of David" as shouted by a blind beggar (argument from silence)
against
b) Jesus stated objection about being considered son of David (also "Barnabas", and "Mark" (not wanting to consider Jesus as "king"), support that option).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
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: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:17 pm Napoleon wanted to be the Son of Charlemagne and he was accepted by the temple.
d4.PNG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSGFmt1-SRM
Die Deutschen - Die Wege der Deutschen (english sub

Jesus would not
Son of Charlemagne

By Jacques-Louis David - Edited version of: File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon.jpgWho is Who, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7564091
Image


Holy Roman Empire
Charlemagne spent the early part of his reign on several military campaigns to expand his kingdom. He invaded Saxony in 772 and eventually achieved its total conquest and conversion to Christianity. He also extended his dominance to the south, conquering the kingdom of the Lombards in northern Italy. In 778, he invaded northern Spain, then controlled by the Moors. Between 780 and 800, Charlemagne added Bohemia to his empire and subdued the Avars in the middle Danube basin to form a buffer state for the eastern border of his empire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... agne.shtml
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:25 am
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:09 pm to Ben,
Not explicitly, no. But my view (and that of many others) is that the imagery in chapter 9 presumes that David is supposed to be the ancestor of the Messiah.
I do not see anything in Ch. 9 where that can be presumed. Can you explain why to you see that presumption of yours?
I will try to get back to this.
Okay, Bernard, to get back to this, I will start off by readily agreeing that there is nothing in Didache 9-10 which explicitly states that Jesus is the descendant of David. Much of my sense of this in the passage derives from some of the same considerations I see in Mark 10.46-52: to wit, the expectation that the Messiah/Christ would be the descendant of David would seem so natural that to mention David and Jesus in the same messianically charged breath and not expressly deny his lineage would imply to me that the author is right in line with this general expectation.

Barnabas goes out of his way to expressly call this expectation into question:

Barnabas 12.10-11: 10 Behold, again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesies, being afraid and understanding the error of sinners, "The Lord said unto my Lord, 'Sit on My right hand until I set your enemies for a footstool under your feet.'" 11 And again thus says Isaiah, "The Lord said unto my Christ the Lord, of whose right hand I laid hold, that the nations should give ear before him, and I will break down the strength of kings." See how David calls Him Lord, and calls Him not Son.

Mark 12.35-37 is more subtle, but seems to do much the same thing. So does John 7.40-44.

But the Didache does not do this. It deliberately parallels Jesus with David (calling them both the servant/child of God) and equates the eucharistic cup with the "holy vine of David," which seems to me to be a direct reference to Israel (a new Israel, in this case, one including gentiles) as a Davidic kingdom. Jesus, as the one revealing this kingdom (this Davidic vine), and as the Messiah/Christ, is presumably the Davidic king, then. This could be accomplished without Jesus being the descendant of David, but the fact that the Didache (unlike Barnabas and John) nowhere explains how this might be suggests to me that it is not the case.

You recently called this sort of reasoning an argument from silence, and in a way you are right, but what you fail to grasp is that we are both relying on silence here. The fact of the case is that it was possible both for some early Christians to claim that Jesus was the descendant of David and for other early Christians to claim that he was not. There is, therefore, no automatically default position here. To assume that the Didache was written by the latter kind of Christian is just as much an assumption that it was written by the former kind. We are both, you and I, equally trying to penetrate the silence. In my case, the emphasis upon David and upon "the kingdom" in this text suggests that, in the absence of contrary information, the Didachist probably thought of Jesus as Davidic. I could be wrong. But, then again, so could you. We are playing with fine probabilities here.
The blind beggar calls repeatedly Jesus, son of David, with no narrated objection from Jesus but later the psalm episode denies it (a lot more than you think Ben: the Lord, as superior to David cannot be a descendant of David, therefore inferior to him). "Barnabas" had no problem using that psalm in order to "demonstrate" Jesus is not a descendant of David, unequivocally.
The thing is, I agree with you that Mark 12.35-37 is probably against Jesus being David's son; you seem to be haggling over the exact percentage of my agreement with you on this score or something. As for Barnabas, well, Paul had no problem using a verse in Genesis in which "seed of Abraham" was singular in order to prove that Jesus, as a singular human being, was meant, and not Israel in general. Just because Barnabas has no problem using a psalm to prove a point does not mean that the point is proven.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

The son of David and the King Messiah were two different characters until for the first time the Psalms of Solomon made them one. The scribes were promoting this non-biblical understanding of the role of the House of David.
Attachment
son of david  bruce gore mark.PNG
son of david bruce gore mark.PNG (122.82 KiB) Viewed 14042 times
49. The Greatest Commandment (12:28-40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8isM-E4 ... 3A&index=5

The king is chosen by God( Deuteronomy 17:14-15 )
14.When you come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein, and you say, "I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me

15.you shall set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
The fact that the Torah says that God must choose the King indicates that he must be chosen with the agreement of both a prophet and the Sanhedrin.
The king, like every other Jew, was bound to obey the dictates of the Sanhedrin, so for practical purposes, the king was a little more than the chief administrator of the government.
There is a tradition in the Oral Torah that David's royal line would have its seat of government in Jerusalem It is thus written regarding Jerusalem (psalm 122.5)
5.For there were set thrones for judgment, thrones for the house of David.
Rashi : For there were set thrones, etc.: For also in Jerusalem the Shechinah will rest, and thrones will sit there upon which to judge the nations, and the royal thrones of the house of David.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
The throne of Justice refer to the seat of the Sanhedrin, while the thrones of the house of David refer to those of the royal line. The Messiah need not be of the seed of David and Jesus asserts that he is not the son of David in Mark 12:35-37.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Bernard Muller »

deleted. See next posting.
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Bernard Muller »

I wonder what the most ancient known manuscripts have for a phrase in the Didache, chap. 10, which is rendered in English as either:
Hosanna to the God (Son) of David!
or
Hosanna to the God of David!
or
Hosanna to the Son of David!
or
Hosanna to the House of David!

I found some answer here:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=LEwYjl ... id&f=false
But I still do not know what is this H source.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
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 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:37 am I wonder what the most ancient known manuscripts have for a phrase in the Didache, chap. 10, which is rendered in English as either:
Hosanna to the God (Son) of David!
or
Hosanna to the God of David!
or
Hosanna to the Son of David!
or
Hosanna to the House of David!

I found some answer here:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=LEwYjl ... id&f=false
But I still do not know what is this H source.

Cordially, Bernard
If that book is following the schema I am familiar with, H would be codex Hierosolymitanus (year 1056), from which I have transcribed the Didache here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1882&p=41339#p41336. I took a standard internet version of the Greek text (an eclectic one) and compared it word for word to the published edition of Hierosolymitanus, making all necessary changes by hand, to produce that text, so there may be mistakes. Also, the attached translation is not my own, and may not match every variant in Hierosolymitanus, which happens to have "Hosanna to the God of David."

Further up the page I have papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1782 (late century IV), as well. That one is my own translation. I also have codices Mellicensis 597 (century IX or X) and Monacensis 6264 (century XI), which are Latin manuscripts, the Two Ways portion of Barnabas, and the Renunciation (sermon XV) of pseudo-Boniface. I keep meaning to add the other potential Greek witnesses, book 7 of the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apostolic Church Order, but have not yet done so.

According to Ehrman's Loeb text, the Constitutions have "son of David" and the Coptic has "house of David." There are more witnesses listed here: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/didache.pdf.

Hierosolymitanus is one of our most important manuscripts for the apostolic fathers; it contains the texts of 1 and 2 Clement, the epistle of
Barnabas, the Didache, and (the long recension of) the epistles of Ignatius. Before its discovery in 1873, nobody knew we actually had (often highly edited) portions of the Didache, unmarked, in those various text witnesses (such as the Apostolic Constitutions).
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 »

In religion it is very easy to find writings in support of any alternative explanation for any statement, but finding alternatives does not mean that these other alternatives provide the solution to anything at all.



The belief in the coming of the Messiah led the Jew to be optimistic about the future, writes Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in his book (1)...It was this messianic optimism that led to the rise of Zionism , as a movement of national liberation.
There is a tradition that before the messiah comes, the concept of prophecy will once again flourish among the Jewish people. Elijah will return as a prophet and announce the coming of the messiah. This is necessary because the messiah will be a king, and a king can be anointed only by a prophet... The Messiah will be a king over Israel, and a king can only be crowned by the Sanhedrin.
According to tradition, there will be two Messiahs, the 'Messiah son of David' and the ' Messiah son of Joseph' from the tribe of Ephraim. These represent Jacob's two wives, David from Judah and Lea, and Joseph from Rachel.
Joseph will lead the Israelites to victory in the war of Gog and Magog : he will die in battle. The Messiah son of David will be the one to rebuild the Temple of Solomon....
(1) Taken from , The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology II. Rebirth, pg 73ff.



It is not important what commentators of the bible may say if one is trying to understand Jesus as portrayed in the gospel of Mark .
There is nothing in the gospel of Mark to suggest Jesus had any love for the regime of the temple. Jesus said he was not the son of David.
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: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:19 am
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.
True, this is an important reminder for my kind of approach. Eager to find hidden meaning in every detail of the narrative of gMark, I can forget that a detail can be there for the sake of storytelling. But as Mark must rightfully be celebrated for his storytelling abilities, in my view he wrote his story for the sake of teaching. Indeed I think he was really, really concerned with teaching. One could even argue that his story is not about Jesus but about a teaching: the "Jesus Christ gospel". A story about a message. A saving message sent from God, a teaching (concerning Jesus) in the form of Jesus' sayings and deeds and witnessed firsthand by elected "learners" ("disciples", μαθηται), through whom it is then eventually witnessed to the whole world. I think Mark regarded himself as being in the 'sowing' business (Mark 4) doing the good work of the Lord, helping "the gospel" get a good hold since its arrival in this world.

I think he definately wanted to create a story that had suspense, surprise and drama, but I also think he wasted no chance to embed theological teaching in every single passage. A seemingly random detail such as for example the "large room upstairs" for the Last Supper (Mark 14:15) can plausibly be ascribed to rich storytelling. But I'm insistent that we have more than enough evidence to show what kind of shrewd, clever and sophisticated codifier we're dealing with here. And this means that we are obligated to try very, very hard to think of all possible ways that such a detail might be symbolic for something (or it could be both symbolic and rich storytelling, I suppose).

Historical and theological are not two poles in my approach (if that is what you mean), but two sides of the same coin. With 'historical' I mean that Mark meant his whole story to be understood as historical in some sense. In that way I regard gMark and also the other gospels as pious frauds, since I believe that they fabricated (some) material freely and passed it off as a form of real historical data. For the sake of the gospel and soul-saving. I leave aside for now the question concerning what things in their stories might in fact be historical.

So you could say that I think everything in gMark is 'historical' and everything is symbolic! It's because my hypothesis involves that there is a logic and a system to Mark's story, far more consistently than what is usually ascribed to it. Mark has created a rock solid, internally coherent narrative universe. And it is 'realistic' and chronologically sensible, i.e. historically realistic within a Christian (and Jewish) understanding of things. What do I mean by this? I mean that the Christ event hasn't happened yet at the time of the events narrated in the story, and therefore there are certain 'rules' Mark must abide by, and he does this painstakingly. So there is no possible way that anybody in the story can have "faith" in any Christian sense of the term. Nor is anybody saved. Nor is anybody converted. Etc. Not Bartimaeus, not anybody. How could they, the Christ event hasn't happened yet. Mark keeps his surface narrative clean. So if Mark wants through his narrative to convey his Christian teaching which is anachronistic in relation to the narrative's universe, he either has to:
1. make the narrator speak directly and openly to the reader, which he doesn't (except 1:1-3 and 7:19b)
2. have someone in the narrative to speak about it as some sort of prophetic break-in from the heavenly sphere, which Jesus does in just two places where it also is a specific point: 8:31 and 14:62.
3. use transposed meaning from the surface level narrative. Which is what he does.

When Mark read Scripture he believed he was reading about historical events that also had a deeper meaning, in various ways, according to the specific story he was interpreting. Interpreting Scripture was in this way an exercise in interpreting the deeper meaning of reality itself. From the Scriptures the Christians and Jews would get a whole, coherent narrative about world history. Which means that history and therefore reality was for them a narrative. So, reality has a plot and main characters! In Mark's case the characters are God, Israel, humanity (or Gentiles) and Satan, but also with the Christian plot-twist, the Messiah as God's special son. And the plot? Well, God had made humanity as his special servant and vice-ruler over creation and put him in paradise, but after they became disloyal they were exiled from his presence which involves a hard, mortal life. Later on God chooses Israel as his special servant and vice-ruler over the nations and put them in 'paradise' (the promised land of fertility and peace), but same thing, they become disloyal and then exiled from his presence which involves a hard life in diaspora among the faithless Gentiles. This was the current situation. But the plot had a continuation according to Scripture, through 'the promises to the fathers', i.e. God's promise that he would return his special servant from the exile. The prophets elaborate on this, and some of them speak of a Davidic king involved in this return and restoration of order, the 'messiah'. But what special servant did the promise actually concern...? Was it Israel, now, or humanity?

Mark's story is a 100% fully integrated part of this larger narrative. It is the same plot and the same characters.And as far as Mark is concerned, it is all 'historical', all reality. There is of course the great Christian 'plot-twist', this suffering-son-of-God-Messiah figure. It is a plot-twist, because until the Christ event itself, nobody had realised that this was part of the plot all along, foretold in Scripture. And the reason that nobody understood this except the Christians, is that the scribes of Israel don't understand Scripture the right way - like the Christians do. And the reason the scribes don't do that and reject the Christian truth is of course because they are corrupted, perverted, self-centered assholes! It is quite the brutal character assassination by Mark in 12:38-40 which follows upon the passage about the ignorant scribes in 12:35-37... :o
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")?
Well, maybe "historical purposes" was a bad term to use. I'm talking about the fact that for Christians christology has implications, and that it is these implications of the christology, not the chistology itself, that are of interest to the NT writers, including Mark (in my opinion). When Christians read the text, they instinctively ask the question: What does this mean for me? If Bartimaeus is right in calling Jesus 'son of David', what does this mean for me? And this is one question we don't ask as historical-critics. But for sure this is the single most important question which the text is trying to answer. So we should always remember also to ask this question (in a historical-critical manner): If this is the christology of Mark, then what did he think were the implications of this? When I make my mind up about some christological aspect in gMark, for example, I feel happy about it. But when I go on and persue this other question, then new avenues open up that very often completely changes my mind about the original issue.

I read an article by Vernon K. Robbins, ”The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) in the Marcan Theology”, Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 224-243. The article should be something about Marcan "theology", but he concludes that Mark places the Bartimaeus story where he does so that he can connect Jesus' identity as son of David, which point forward to all his temple actions, with Jesus' identity as son of God, which has to do with his healing powers. And so I ask: where's the theology? I mean, didn't Mark think that this had some further implications? Implications for his audience. Of course he did. But what are they? Robbins stops asking too soon.
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.
That's not what I'm saying. Of course I believe that gMark is an historical source for all kinds of things, not least pertaining to early Christian history. I absolutely love the subject of early Christian history, that's one of the reasons I come here :)

What I'm saying is that I have very little confidence that we can use gMark as a source to say something detailed about the historical development of Christian tradition and teaching, such as the eucharist. Instead I think there is another thing we can do with gMark, which is to use it as a source to say something historical about this particular Christian, the author of gMark. Because in my view his narrative is such a coherent story, that it is too uncertain and speculative to try and locate the sources within it. I simply don't believe in tradition criticism when it comes to gMark. And I also don't think that we are finished with understanding his story in the full picture. But I don't believe that finding sources is a useful approach to finding the meaning of the text. Mark was so in control of his story, that even if he sometimes were a little clumsy with his editing, he made sure that his story was still fully coherent and logical when it comes to the real meaning of the text, which I believe always lies at the deeper level.
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)?
No, they don't, I also find this approach extremely interesting. But in the end, I think we're not even close to uncovering Mark's story in exactly that way it was meant to be understood, so that is where my focus is. I mean, before we can make judgements about differences between gMark and 'Paul', we have to understand gMark (and Paul). In the end it is an interplay, of course. What I like to do with gMark is to try and see if any of the known Christian ideas fit into gMark. These ideas are found explicitly in the epistles. And I find that when we try to apply the ideas from the 'Pauline' epistles, we can make alot of pieces fit in gMark, taking care not to make circular reasonings of course.

On another note, I don't have so much time on my hands, so I come here and read all the posts and your replies, but atm I don't have so much time to write.
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 »

The reason that Bartimaeus calls repeatedly, I think, is because it works to underscore his "faith" or "trust". That πιστις, i.e. "faith" or "trust" or "belief", is a prerequisite for healing is a concept that is made clear many times in gMark. There are also the other instances in gMark, where it is precisely the faith of the lack of faith of the character which is underscored in some way or another. The leper's trust in Jesus' powers is made clear when he says that if Jesus chooses to, then he is able to cleanse him (1:40). The bleeding woman's trust in Jesus' healing powers is made clear when, being an unclean, she defies her fear and touches Jesus (Mark 5). Jairus is told to "fear not, only have faith", which leads to his daughters restoration. Jesus is not able to do much healing in his hometown, 6:5-6, apparantly because of their lack of faith (which Jesus finds disturbing). The disciples and scribes in the scene with the epiletpic boy are not able to heal the boy, because they are a "faithless generation" (9:19). The newly obtained faith of the father, on the other hand, is underscored by his shout: "I believe! Help my unbelief!" The very fact that he asks Jesus for help like this shows his faith. Similarly, I think it is the faith of Bartimaeus which is made clear by his adamant calling.


But what about the son of David thing? Why does Mark have Bartimaeus call Jesus 'son of David'? Clearly it somehow ties in with the whole messianic theme initiated in 8:29, which climaxes in some way in the following passage, the Triumphal Entry, but it is hardly Bartimaeus' concern to help Mark built a literary theme! Bartimaeus is a character in the story, and the question is, how can it make sense, that a blind beggar at this point in the story would shout "Son of David!" at Jesus? He asks Jesus for healing and he demonstrates his trust in Jesus' life-giving powers, but what sets him apart from the other instances in gMark is his 'son of David' shout. And what exactly is the reason that the disciples rebuke him?

The hypothesis of a son of David-tradition that involved healing has been a frequent solution. And the disciples' rebuke is seen as somehow related to the messianic secret theme in some way. Either it is because it gets Jesus into trouble with the authorities, or it is because Jesus has ordered silence about his messianic identity in 8:30.

I think there are some good suggestions, and here is another one. We must trust in the internal logic and coherence of Mark's narrative universe. This is a universe where the Christ event hasn't happened yet, so there are no Christians yet, only Jews, including the disciples, and Gentiles. Now, we learn that the scribes "say that the Messiah is the son of David" (12:35). Therefore, that is what the Jews believe whithin the narrative universe of the story. When Peter exclaims that "you are the Messiah" (8:29), Peter is thinking of the whole Jewish son of David conception, but at the same time he has understood that Jesus is another form of Messiah, some kind of healing Messiah. Now, with what can we compare Peter's half-way understanding? It is like a blind man being only partially healed for blindness, only seeing humans as trees...

Also, the scribes don't know that the Messiah, the son of David, must suffer (9:11-13). Add this up, and it means that all Jews in this narrative universe of gMark think that the Messiah is the son of David, and that he is all about glory. A glorious king. Therefore Peter, a Jew, reacts like that to Jesus' passion prediction (8:32). Perhaps also the request of the sons of Zebedee, to take part in Jesus' "glory" is a reflection of a glorious Messiah concept.

This means that Mark wants his audience to (mis)understand Bartimaeus' call, "son of David, have mercy on me!". Mark wants his readers to hear, "glorious rich king of Israel, grant me alms!" Bartimaeus is begging for money. That is what a beggar asks for. Especially when a king comes passing by. Jackpot! And since there are no Christians yet, all the characters in the story (mis)understand Bartimaeus' cry in this way. They think he is begging king Jesus for money. This could be an explanation for why they rebuke Bartimaeus. He has the wrong idea about Jesus as king. Jesus is not about riches and money.

So the surprise is, then, that the beggar doesn't beg for money after all, but instead asks for healing. It is of course a perfect contrast to the sons of Zebedee in the preceding event. In a way he shows the same understanding as Peter: he knows that Jesus' powers are the powers of life, but he also knows that Jesus is the Messiah.
Post Reply