Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

[Giuseppe]

• Though, when you say "since only so Jesus could deny the his identity with the Christ always and everywhere"
  
  ''the his'' is confusing; do you mean just 'his' ?

Yes. In the Earliest Gospel (post-70) the irony is that "Christ" is not the Christ of the Jews.

Regarding -

So the earliest post-70 Gospel Jesus was a reaction against the claims of a lot of anonymous people having messianic claims. Who were these people? Were they Christians?

- you seem to be implying the anonymous people were Christians. It would seem the anonymous people would be non-Christians.

They were post-70 Christian judaizers.

Essentially, my reconstruction is the following:

1) before the 70: gnostic apocalypticism (in Paul and others).
The power of the Creator god is going to an end, after the recent celestial death of the Man/Son of Man.
In whiletime the Son of Man was honoured with many titles (for example "Christ" and "Jesus" among these).

2) for the original Christians, the Fall of the Temple marked the real end of the rule of the Creator god. But the apocalypticism became now also a messianic apocalypticism:
the God Creator would have sent his davidic Messiah. The (first future coming of the) latter was confused with (the second coming of) the Gnostic Son of Man.

3) the Earliest Gospel: the "Christ" is not the Messiah of the Creator God but he is the celestial Son of Man crucified by the Demiurge.

4) the adoptionism in Mark: the "Christ" is both an earthly figure and the celestial Son of Man.

5) the proto-catholic Matthew.

6) the rest is History.

[Giuseppe]

The weakest point in my reconstruction is why the Son of Man was called "Christ" and (shortly later) "Jesus" by people who hated essentially the Creator god.

[MrMacSon]

In the Earliest Gospel (post-70) the irony is that "Christ" is not the Christ of the Jews.
.

There are likely to have been different scenarios in different regions. It is unlikely there was a universal situation.

They were post-70 Christian judaizers.

It's hard to know what you mean by the term "Christian judaizers".

Essentially, my reconstruction is the following:

1) before the 70: gnostic apocalypticism (in Paul and others).

The power of the Creator god is going to an end, after the recent celestial death of the Man/Son of Man.
In whiletime the Son of Man was honoured with many titles (for example "Christ" and "Jesus" among these).
.

Are you saying such 'gnostic apocalypticism' was outside Judaism? outside Judea, Galilee, Idumea, etc?

I understand the term 'the Son of Man' is closely associated with Jesus of Nazareth cf. a son of man.

[Giuseppe]

There are likely to have been different scenarios in different regions. It is unlikely there was a universal situation.

I mean precisely the Gospel of the First Euhemerizer of the angel named Jesus.

They were post-70 Christian judaizers.

It's hard to know what you mean by the term "Christian judaizers".

Post-70 Christians rather reluctant to hate the creator god.

Are you saying such 'gnostic apocalypticism' was outside Judaism? outside Judea, Galilee, Idumea, etc?

It was also in Judea.

I understand the term 'the Son of Man' is closely associated with Jesus of Nazareth cf. a son of man.

''Son of Man'' is a celestial figure later euhemerized in parallel with Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers, Giuseppe. I get it all, now. I can agree with those points.

I agree 'gnostic apocalypticism' would have also been in Judea.

Do you think the ''Son of Man'' celestial figure became conflated with Jesus, the euhemerized angel?

[Giuseppe]

Cheers, Giuseppe. I get it all, now. I can agree with those points.

I agree 'gnostic apocalypticism' would have also been in Judea.

Do you think the ''Son of Man'' celestial figure became conflated with Jesus, the euhemerized angel?

I think that the celestial ''Son of Man''/''Son of God'' was possibly the name of the Risen Angel before Peter and Paul started to call him as ''Jesus'' and ''Christ''.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I think that Mark wanted to regard Jesus as a spiritual descendant of David in reaction to a previous view of Jesus as both not davidic and not the spiritual Christ (of the Creator)

How is it that the scribe Giuseppe says that the opposing view against Mark was the view of Jesus "as not davidic". Mark's Jesus himself said that the opposing view was "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?".

[Giuseppe]

I think that Mark wanted to regard Jesus as a spiritual descendant of David in reaction to a previous view of Jesus as both not davidic and not the spiritual Christ (of the Creator)

How is it that the scribe Giuseppe says that the opposing view against Mark was the view of Jesus "as not davidic". Mark's Jesus himself said that the opposing view was "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?".

I have specified that Jesus is for Mark the spiritual son of David. So the compromise is realized between ebionitism (Jesus biologically davidic) and gnostic docetism.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have specified that Jesus is for Mark the spiritual son of David. So the compromise is realized between ebionitism (Jesus biologically davidic) and gnostic docetism.

My tip would be that Mark primarily rejected here a portrait of Jesus as a Messiah with the pomp of noble birth and royal lineage, (contrary to Josephus' own boasting or Matthew's genealogy of Jesus.)

This might agree with Mark's interpretation of David. The only "real" story about David is in Mark 2:25-26, an allusion to 1 Samuel 21 (David at Nob). It's not a story about the famous and legendary King David, but about the young David under persecution from Saul.

story in Mark 2:25-26	Markan interpretations	later echos in the story
“25 Have you never read what David did, when he	X	X
was in need and	not mentioned in 1 Samuel 21, Markan theme: suffering	Mark 11:3 ‘The Lord has need of it …
was hungry, he and those who were with him:	not mentioned in 1 Samuel 21, Markan theme: suffering	Mark 11:12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry.
26 how he entered the house of God, … and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”	in 1 Samuel 21 David is a supplicant, but in Mark's version a daredevil acting with authority, Markan theme: authority over religious establishment	feedings of the 5000 and 4000 and the Lord’s Supper

[Ben C. Smith]

I have specified that Jesus is for Mark the spiritual son of David. So the compromise is realized between ebionitism (Jesus biologically davidic) and gnostic docetism.

My tip would be that Mark primarily rejected here a portrait of Jesus as a Messiah with the pomp of noble birth and royal lineage, (contrary to Josephus' own boasting or Matthew's genealogy of Jesus.)

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.

You seem to be siding with option #1 here. If so, how do you break the stalemate? I confess it is hard for me to tell by the Marcan wording alone which option Mark is assuming.

This might agree with Mark's interpretation of David. The only "real" story about David is in Mark 2:25-26, an allusion to 1 Samuel 21 (David at Nob). It's not a story about the famous and legendary King David, but about the young David under persecution from Saul.

story in Mark 2:25-26	Markan interpretations	later echos in the story
“25 Have you never read what David did, when he	X	X
was in need and	not mentioned in 1 Samuel 21, Markan theme: suffering	Mark 11:3 ‘The Lord has need of it …
was hungry, he and those who were with him:	not mentioned in 1 Samuel 21, Markan theme: suffering	Mark 11:12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry.
26 how he entered the house of God, … and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”	in 1 Samuel 21 David is a supplicant, but in Mark's version a daredevil acting with authority, Markan theme: authority over religious establishment	feedings of the 5000 and 4000 and the Lord’s Supper

I always love it when you draw out these kinds of connections across the entire gospel. Excellent observation(s).