Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 7:18 am
It is not quite true that Mark says nothing about Jesus' pedigree.
Mark 6:3--
Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, and Joses...
James Tabor comments:
"Calling Jesus "the son of Mary" indicates an unnamed father. In Judaism children are invariably referred to as sons or daughters of the father--not the mother...Mark avoids the paternity issue altogether. There has to be some good reason for this silence. Matthew, in contrast, is quick to reshape Mark's wording so that the illegitimacy issue is not even hinted at ["Is this not the carpenter's son?" 13:55]. We even find that later Greek manuscripts of Mark's gospel try to "fix" the scandal by altering the text to read 'the son of Mary and Joseph'" (The Jesus Dynasty, p. 63)
On this reading, Mark's Jesus is an illegitimate Galilean, and also the messiah.
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). And in that sense, as Jesus says in Mk. 8:38:
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.
So I see Mk. 12:35-37 more or less as Ladd puts it here:
… there is no evidence that Jesus resented being called the Son of David. Jesus corrected the current evaluation of the Messiah by pointing out that he must be
more than David's son, since David calls him Lord … The point is that the Pharisees' concept of the Messiah was not wrong; it was inadequate. The Messiah must be not only David's son; he must also be the Son of God, and as the Son of God he is David's Lord. As the Son of God, he is to sit at God's right hand to exercise universal sovereignty. David's Son was to rule the world; God's son was to rule the world to come. Jesus suggests that, according to the Psalm here quoted, the Messiah must be a supernatural being who will be seated at God's right hand. These words may even involve a reference to Jesus' pre-existence.
The Messiah is at the same time an earthly man of Davidic descent and the coming world Judge -David's Lord and Judge.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM ... us&f=false
Notice that Jesus does not deny being David's son, he only asks the question, "David himself calls him Lord. So how can he be David’s son?” I see this as being similar to the question he asks in Mk. 10:18:
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."
Is Jesus denying that he is God, or is he suggesting that he is? Given that he calls himself the "son of man" who will come to earth "on the clouds of heaven" (in response to the high priest's question "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?") and the references to "son of God" in Mk. 1:1 and 15:39 and God being his father in Mk. 8:38, I think it is the latter.
And Jesus does not deny being the "son of David" in response to the blind beggar in Mk. 10:47-52 (the same way he doesn't deny being "the king of the Jews" in Mk. 15:2):
... he began to cry out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Many people admonished him to be silent, but he cried out all the louder, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” So they called the blind man. “Take courage!” they said. “Get up! He is calling for you.” Throwing off his cloak, Bartimaeus jumped up and came to Jesus. “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked.
“Rabboni,” said the blind man, “let me see again.” “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
And what else is there that indicates the beggar had "faith" in Jesus here if not (at least in large part) his twice calling him
"son of David"?
And Jesus similarly has no issue with being called David's descendant in Mk. 11:10 (“Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”).
So I see Mk. 12:35-37 like Ladd puts it, that Jesus is saying that, as a supernatural being (i.e., Daniel's "son of man"), he is
more than David's son. And this would be in keeping with what Hegesippus says about the grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude in EH 3.12 and 3.20.1-2:
He [Hegesippus] also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.
Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.
Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.
Now, you may not place much stock in Hegesippus, but I think he is one of the best sources for early Christianity and take what he says here seriously. And you can see the supernatural "more than David's son" factor (as per Mk. 12:35-37) in their response to Domitian in EH 3.20.6:
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.