JoeWallack wrote:Regarding your complaint above note that Jesus' instructions are:
“Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you.”
but Jesus is foiled (so to speak) again:
"And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him"
I think the take away is that "Mark's" Jesus realizes at this point that after healing tongues will wag despite admonitions so he tries to deflect attention to himself by instructing that God, not him, did it. Perhaps like Dennis in the classic SpongeBob I'm saying too much but in any case the point stands that Jesus instructed to say God did it and not him.
I have boldfaced the Achilles' heel of your hypothesis above. Start to tug at that thread and soon the whole messianic secret unravels. For how can Mark's Jesus realize this obvious point here and not at the several other points of the gospel in which he enjoins an improbable (and in some cases impossible) silence?
19 And he suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go to thy house unto thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and [how] he had mercy on thee.
47 And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me.
48 And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.
(and now, next to the Passion, the crowd is telling him to be quiet. Nice.) In the story under analysis Jesus instructed to say that God had mercy but the reaction of the healed was to say that Jesus had mercy. Now the son of mantra for Jesus is to have Mercy being repeated like the refrain in a Kuriosoke Bar. Another reason for the 5:19 story. By the way, I think "Mark's" "mercy" is coming from Romans 9:15. Paul makes kind of a big deal about it. [hint]Repeating[/hint] the offending word 4 times.
The fact that we know a 'secret gospel' of Mark was established in Egypt by the turn of the second century isn't it likely that the same secrecy referenced in Clement's letter (i.e. a secret priestly initiation ritual) is key to understand what is the 'messianic secret' in the curtailed version of the same text? In other words, whatever Jesus is doing with the 'youth' (= from the context of Clement's letter it is clear that it is establishing the new priesthood of Israel) that explains the messianic secret.
Indeed the very identification of it as a specifically messianic secret is a modern invention (and as always everything modern starts out with a series of wrong assumptions). It is not specifically a 'messianic' secret but a secret regarding Jesus's identity. But Clement tells us who Jesus is. He is the angel/God 'man' that wrestled with Jacob and so made him Israel (and divine). To this end, the Hebrew in the chapter of Genesis is vague. The same term is taken to mean not only 'wrestle' but seduce, entice, even have carnal relations.
To this end, the preference for modern paradigms as opposed to ancient means that this secret will likely remain so for a long time. It's not a messianic secret but a secret identity. Jesus avoids revealing who he is (= angel) to anyone but those being initiated (like Jacob) compare 'tell me your name' in many versions of the wrestling narratives. Back to the usual nonsense ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Could not all those "don't tell" admonitions be in reaction to charges by average everyday folks the Christians hobnob with their in towns or villages. "Why do you follow someone executed for claiming rule without permission of the emperor? They wouldn't have executed him that way unless he was making claims or not disavowing claims of kingship!"
What else can a Christian with a high Christology say in response to something like that? I mean, to him, Jesus Christ had evolved into a divine savior figure, not some royal pretender in a backwater sub-province of Syria. So, in an apology meant to explain-away why Jesus was executed in that way, the author of Mark, and frankly the authors of all the synoptic gospels, said that his healings and such were attracting a lot of acclaim that he had not sought after, but actually actively discouraged. The Judean aristocracy had set him up to do away with him, because they were - get this - jealous of the acclamations he was getting from the common folk.
Now, the only way that this kind of argument can succeed, seeing that there was nothing in the gospels to really explain why the Judean authorities would set someone up to keep him from stealing the limelight, is that there was common knowledge afloat that the Judean authorities had recently ruined their entire nation by making decisions based on vanity. It is a rhetorical method called "enthymeme" where an argument used in narrative uses premises that are commonly known to the hearers, and so do not need to be specifically stated.
The source of this "common knowledge" was, of course, the account of the Judean War by Flavius Josephus, which was perhaps being recited aloud in the market or wherever. Josephus portrays everyone connected to Judean authority in a rather bad light: social revolutionaries (the poor who are too ignorant to make good decisions), religious zealots (from the Zealot faction to semi-religious terrorists like the Sicarii), men of power (the elites/aristocrats), local warlords ("robbers" = private militias), to common criminals (evil-doers).
If it wasn't Josephus' War then there may have been other accounts read in town that made fun of vain politicians in a way that made the gospel author's unsupported assertions, that the Judean aristocracy were vain and could do something like that, seem plausible
But DCH isn't Daniel the underlying influence beneath the gospel and Josephus? Josephus's 'history' of the Jewish War was heavily shaped by Daniel 9:24 - 27. Even if we acknowledge that the Josippon tradition was developed after Josephus the author seems to have hit on the basic formula - i.e. Agrippa is the 'anointed one' (to follow the formula established by Daniel). The author 'clues into' the underlying logic in the original text. Agrippa pleads with the Jews in Jerusalem and is subsequently 'cut off.' The city is destroyed but not without establishing the שִׁקּוּץ מְשׁמֵם - the large number of crucifixions that face the city. If the logic in the gospel (namely that these dead were never buried and thus formed a 'curse') is extended to Josephus we can see how Daniel's mysterious logic was 'revealed' in both texts.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
BTW that's why I think ancient readers were shocked by the differences in Justus and Josephus. I think Justus's text was based more on history and Josephus's on theology. This explains why the Church preferred the latter.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
As Mason notes "Josephus' interest in Daniel goes far beyond supporting the general argument of thc Antiquities. For him, Daniel was "one of the greatest prophets" (Ant 10 § 266), with a distinctive message: he predicted in detail the whole course of subsequent history and so offers the key to understanding the times." I think the gospel is similarly arranged hence their 'histories' agree.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
DCHindley wrote:Could not all those "don't tell" admonitions be in reaction to charges by average everyday folks the Christians hobnob with their in towns or villages. "Why do you follow someone executed for claiming rule without permission of the emperor? They wouldn't have executed him that way unless he was making claims or not disavowing claims of kingship!"
What else can a Christian with a high Christology say in response to something like that? I mean, to him, Jesus Christ had evolved into a divine savior figure, not some royal pretender in a backwater sub-province of Syria. So, in an apology meant to explain-away why Jesus was executed in that way, the author of Mark, and frankly the authors of all the synoptic gospels, said that his healings and such were attracting a lot of acclaim that he had not sought after, but actually actively discouraged. The Judean aristocracy had set him up to do away with him, because they were - get this - jealous of the acclamations he was getting from the common folk. ...
Clearly, it could. One of the problems with your idea is that the majority of scholars agree that there also other parts of the theme of secrecy and not only "those don't tell admonitions". Two examples:
Mark 7:24 And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden.
Mark 9:30 They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he did not want anyone to know
Mark 4:11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”
Mark 4:21 And he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a stand? 22 For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light.
.
This revelation of a secret healing could be also relevant
a secret healing
25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.
only Jesus noticed it
30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”
the revelation
32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
Years ago I had played with the DSS/CD passage where the initiates were told to turn to the book HHGW. This is usually translated "Book of Study" even though that is a bit forced.
So, I applied the "atbash" cypher (reverse the letters of the alphabet) to the letters HHGW and came up with Tz Tz R Ph A (I am speaking entirely off the cuff during a lunch break). I could, with a little difficulty, eek out the phrase "Tzitz (fringe) Rapha (of healing)".
Of course, Spin would call it "rubbish", but it did make me think of this pericope.
