Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Nathan
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Nathan » Wed May 15, 2019 2:38 pm

Irish1975 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:22 pm
Nathan wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:12 pm
Talmudic literature knows several rabbis who used the matronymic "son of Martha," as well one called "Isaac son of Maryon." Also, the late ancient Jewish inscriptions from Beth She'arim refer to a "Justus son of Sappho," while the same from Rome refer to an "Euphranticus son of Veriana."
Interesting. Any idea what the reason or context might be for such cases, where matronymic is given instead of patronymic?
The Talmudic evidence arguably raises the question whether the fathers were (still) in the picture. The rabbis are referred to using matronymics routinely, rather than just in isolated instances. In one case the mother (Martha) is featured prominently in a story about her son, and to my knowledge the son's father is never mentioned at all, there or elsewhere in the Talmud.

The inscription from Rome says only "Here lies Euphranticus son of Veriana," which suggested to the inscription's editor that "Veriana is likely to be the commemorator here (hence the use of the matronymic)." In my mind that would again call into question the father's vital status.

On the other hand, the use of the matronymic in the Beth She'arim inscription is probably mostly for aesthetic effect. It is paired with a reference to the father ("son of Leontius/Justus son of Sappho"), and according to the editor the whole inscription is under the influence of Homeric verse.

John2
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by John2 » Wed May 15, 2019 5:07 pm

The Talmudic evidence arguably raises the question whether the fathers were (still) in the picture. The rabbis are referred to using matronymics routinely, rather than just in isolated instances. In one case the mother (Martha) is featured prominently in a story about her son, and to my knowledge the son's father is never mentioned at all, there or elsewhere in the Talmud.
If that's the case, then perhaps Jesus' father was out of the picture in Mark (though even if that is the case I think the heavenly "son of man"/son of God angle could still apply).
Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own.

John2
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by John2 » Wed May 15, 2019 7:25 pm

Irish1975 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:30 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:50 am

I see the reference to Mary in Mk. 6:3 as being related to Jesus' divinity as Daniel's "son of man," i.e., that he was thus the "son of God" (as per Mk. 1:1 if it is not an interpolation and Mk. 15:39 if it is). And in that sense, as Jesus says in Mk. 8:38:
If the author of gMark thought that Jesus was born of a virgin, wouldn't he have said so? It's not as though the title "son of God" excluded having a human father in the ancient world, eg, Augustus. It seems as if you're reading the other synoptics into gMark.

Well, Jesus was not necessarily born of a virgin in Mark. I think Jesus' divinity in Mark has more to do with adoptionism, like it does in Jewish Christianity, where it is related to the dove descending on Jesus at his baptism and his observance of the Torah.

Take what Hippolytus says about Cerinthus and Jewish Christians in RH 7.21-22, for example:
And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things ...

The Ebionaeans ... propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus ... alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family)..

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm


And I see this "multiple Christ" idea as pertaining to Daniel's "son of man" too since it is arguable that Daniel's "son of man" is an individual and a figure representing all Israel.
Later in chapter 7 [of Daniel] it is explained that "one like a man" certainly implicates a "human being" and also stands for "the saints of the Most High" (7:18, 21-22) and "the people of the saints of the Most High" (7:27). The "saints" and "people of the saints" in turn probably stand for the people of Israel – the author is expressing the hope that God will take dominion over the world away from the beast-like pagan "nations" and give it to human-like Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man#Jewish_Bible
Mark may not have wanted to highlight Jesus' human father since it is so concerned with Jesus' "son of man" aspect, is all I meant (or maybe he was just out of the picture as Nathan suggests).
Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own.

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Irish1975 » Thu May 16, 2019 8:44 am

John2 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 7:25 pm
Irish1975 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:30 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:50 am

I see the reference to Mary in Mk. 6:3 as being related to Jesus' divinity as Daniel's "son of man," i.e., that he was thus the "son of God" (as per Mk. 1:1 if it is not an interpolation and Mk. 15:39 if it is). And in that sense, as Jesus says in Mk. 8:38:
If the author of gMark thought that Jesus was born of a virgin, wouldn't he have said so? It's not as though the title "son of God" excluded having a human father in the ancient world, eg, Augustus. It seems as if you're reading the other synoptics into gMark.
Well, Jesus was not necessarily born of a virgin in Mark. I think Jesus' divinity in Mark has more to do with adoptionism, like it does in Jewish Christianity, where it is related to the dove descending on Jesus at his baptism and his observance of the Torah.
You can't have it both ways. Either the reference to Mary is related to Jesus' divinity in gMark or it isn't.
Sub Tiberio quies.

John2
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by John2 » Thu May 16, 2019 2:01 pm

Irish1975 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 8:44 am
John2 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 7:25 pm
Irish1975 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:30 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:50 am

I see the reference to Mary in Mk. 6:3 as being related to Jesus' divinity as Daniel's "son of man," i.e., that he was thus the "son of God" (as per Mk. 1:1 if it is not an interpolation and Mk. 15:39 if it is). And in that sense, as Jesus says in Mk. 8:38:
If the author of gMark thought that Jesus was born of a virgin, wouldn't he have said so? It's not as though the title "son of God" excluded having a human father in the ancient world, eg, Augustus. It seems as if you're reading the other synoptics into gMark.
Well, Jesus was not necessarily born of a virgin in Mark. I think Jesus' divinity in Mark has more to do with adoptionism, like it does in Jewish Christianity, where it is related to the dove descending on Jesus at his baptism and his observance of the Torah.
You can't have it both ways. Either the reference to Mary is related to Jesus' divinity in gMark or it isn't.
I don't rule out that it could be both, is all. And I lean towards the option that it could be related to Jesus' divinity (in the sense of Mark not wanting to highlight his human father), but Nathan's suggestion is interesting and in any event would not affect anything I've been saying about Jesus being divine in Mark via adooptionism.

Edit:

Since there has been no response to my above comment yet I thought I'd make an addition. After more reflection, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "You can't have it both ways." For some reason I thought you meant that the "son of Mary" verse can't pertain to Jesus' divinity and Nathan's suggestion, so that's what I meant by "I don't rule out that it could be both." But I guess I'm not understanding what you think I'm trying to have "both ways."

I'll just say that if the verse is not related to Jesus' divinity then Nathan's suggestion seems like a plausible option to me, and even if it is not what you meant, I think the verse could pertain both to Jesus's divinity and Nathan's suggestion (though I lean towards only the former) and that if it only pertains to the latter then that wouldn't affect the idea that Jesus is divine in Mark via adoptionsim.
Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own.

Post Reply