And good arguments on all sides....
The main argument for denying a physical Davidic descent seems to be Mark 12:35-37. Stefan's main argument for a physical Davidic descent seems to be that Mark must be part of a broader stream of christological views which saw Jesus as a son of David, but not the resurrected Christ. That may be not incompatible with Mark 12:35-37, but seems to „separate Jesus from Christ“ (?).
I am not sure that Mark separates Jesus from Christ. Irenaeus writes about certain adoptionists who apparently did, and it is tempting to read Mark in that light, but I do not think Mark ever actually makes that move. What he separates is Jesus from the spirit:
Irenaeus' adoptionists: Jesus (earthly being) + Christ (heavenly being) = Jesus Christ (composite being).
Mark's gospel: Jesus (earthly being) + spirit (heavenly being) = Christ (composite being).
Maybe this is just a semantic observation, but I like to keep things straight so that I can recognize patterns elsewhere.
It would be interesting to know what Ben is thinking at the moment and how we can move forward.
I wish I could say that I am sure of something right now, but alas....
Bernard makes some good points, but I do not tend to think that Jesus responding only on the second "Jesus son of David" from Bartimaeus means what Bernard thinks it means. For one thing, it is not the second time; the number of times is not actually counted, and the imperfect verb tense implies continued action; therefore, the beggar may have shouted it a dozen times or more before being noticed. And that is what I think is actually going on: it takes time for him to be noticed. Jesus has already shown us that he does not necessarily always know what is happening in a crowd:
Mark 5.30: 30 Immediately Jesus, perceiving in Himself that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth, turned around in the crowd and said, "Who touched My garments?"
(Or, if he knows, he pretends not to!)
And we have already seen someone having to persist in order to get the desired outcome from Jesus:
Mark 7.26-27: 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him [imperfect tense, jas as in Mark 10.48] to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."
Not to mention people trying to prevent supplicants from approaching Jesus:
Mark 10.13: 13 And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them.
So I suspect that Bartimaeus having to call out multiple times, over and against the wishes of the crowd, is just another example of this kind of motif. I doubt Mark is trying to clue the reader in to Jesus not recognizing himself in the designation "Jesus, son of David."
However, the wording of Mark 12.35 does at first glance seem to lean in the direction of Jesus not being the son of David: "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?" On the other hand, as you (Kunigunde) have pointed out, the question of the disciples in Mark 9.11 takes the same form, and surely no doubt is intended on the matter of whether Elijah comes first, since Jesus immediately acknowledges that Elijah does come first (verse 12).
Stefan's reconstruction carries great explanatory value, as does Joe's on another thread, and would unite Mark with many passages in Paul (whether Paul himself wrote them or not!). It would also go right along with Jesus being fleshly until the spirit enters him at the baptism, and with the observation that resurrected and thus immortal humans are now like sexless angels. I have to admit that right now I am leaning in Stefan's direction. That may certainly change, and I am still looking into things.
Another possible line of evidence to pursue would be the prayers in the Didache; it is probably common knowledge by now that I, like Alan Garrow, consider the bulk of the Didache to be very, very early: certainly earlier than Matthew and possibly earlier than Mark.
If a Davidic lineage was assumed early in Christian thought for Jesus, then I am not sure that Mark has done enough to contradict it. His laconic, indirect treatment of the entire question does not make a good counterargument to a Davidic descent, when such counterarguments could easily have been made plain and obvious.
What do you think, Kunigunde?