Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4082
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 am

I read this comment by prof Bob Price:

Wrede noted certain inconsistencies in Mark's presentation implying that, while he preserved the Secret motif largely intact, he no longer understood it.

https://books.google.it/books?id=hD1RDw ... es&f=false

I am curious of examples in Mark where he broke inadvertently the Messianic Secret, according to Wrede (and/or Price).


May an example (of the Price's claim about Wrede) be the fact that the demons recognize Jesus as the davidic 'Holy of God' ?

Or is it still part of the messianic Secret (meaning that not even the demons recognize that Jesus was not the davidic Messiah) ?

Other more clear examples?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5545
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun May 27, 2018 7:07 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 1:24 am
I read this comment by prof Bob Price:

Wrede noted certain inconsistencies in Mark's presentation implying that, while he preserved the Secret motif largely intact, he no longer understood it.

https://books.google.it/books?id=hD1RDw ... es&f=false

I am curious of examples in Mark where he broke inadvertently the Messianic Secret, according to Wrede (and/or Price).

May an example (of the Price's claim about Wrede) be the fact that the demons recognize Jesus as the davidic 'Holy of God' ?

....

Other more clear examples?
Wrede pointed out Mark's inconsistency in the matter of the silence enjoined about Jesus' messianic character. Several themes run through the gospel all at once, and some of them do not rest easily with the other themes. By themselves, the various themes are fine; but some of them create tensions and contradictions once Mark, "or someone like him" (Wrede's own words on page 33), wove them together.

So here are some examples of Wrede dealing with this issue:

William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, page 34:

Mark does not merely represent the demons as simply addressing Jesus as Messiah; he twice emphasises that they know him (1.24, 34). This would make no sense if he did not in the same connection have the contrast in mind that in general Jesus was not known.

I am not saying that in this the process by which this characteristic came into being has been clearly described. On this subject one can hardly establish anything quite certain and precise, as indeed will be true in many another doubtless unhistorical feature. But the following would be a possibility. First of all the story was told of how the demons were afraid at the approach of Jesus, their enemy. This was an accepted idea. But as the idea existed that Jesus' messiahship was unknown, it attracted attention that the demons constituted an exception. This idea then became important and acquired a definite character.

William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, page 133:

A similar point presses itself upon us in the passage 1.24-27. Jesus' power over the demons is marvelled at and this presupposes that those who marvelled were witnesses of the preceding exorcism and so also witnesses of Jesus' conversation with the demon. But the demon has cried out the secret of the holy God and according to Mark no-one was to hear this. One can gain the same impression from 3.11, 12 and this has actually happened.

Thus Mark seems very quickly to forget his own presuppositions.

William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, pages 237-238:

A great deal of what now does not fit the idea of the secret messiahship can already have been told in the very oldest tradition essentially in this way, without the contradictions having already existed then. I am thinking especially of the miracle stories. To be sure it will have been narrated from the start that Jesus performed miracles and therefore naturally public miracles. But if to start with the miracles were not as yet erga tou Christou..., that is, messianic works, naturally that contradiction too was not present. The public nature of the miracles thus maintained itself simply in the tradition and the contradiction arose first of all through their being later regarded as messianic, while the messiahship itself was reckoned to be a secret.

Other material, however, is of such a form that it must be attributed to a tradition which by reason of its origin is already opposed to the idea of the secret Christ. The clearest examples might be the entry into Jerusalem and the confession before the High Priest. These stories make no bones about the public messiahship of Jesus. Thus in Mark's day and previously there certainly was such a tradition in existence.

On page 140 Wrede also recognizes Mark 5.19-20 as a potential crack in the silence; he offers a solution to this problem, but it is one that I am not really on board with.

ETA: Good going, Giuseppe: an OP with some grist to it!
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Secret Alias » Sun May 27, 2018 8:26 am

Monkeys. Typewriters. Shakespeare
“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

Giuseppe
Posts: 4082
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun May 27, 2018 10:00 am

Thanks Ben for the info about Wrede. I confess ignorance about the Wrede's specific observations before I started this thread. Even so, I have realized alone that the more evident inconsistency is the "presumed" recognition of Jesus's identity by demons. It would be not an inconsistency (just as not a true recognition) under a marcionite reading of the same episode.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun May 27, 2018 10:00 am

"Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif?"

' "Just what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we couldn't punish you?" ' said the corporal who could take shorthand, reading from his steno pad.

'All right,' said the colonel. 'Just what the hell did you mean?'

'I didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir.'

'When?' asked the colonel.

'When what, sir?'

'Now you're asking me questions again.'

'I'm sorry, sir. I'm afraid I don't understand your question.'

'When didn't you say we couldn't punish you? Don't you understand my question?'

'No, sir. I don't understand.'

'You've just told us that. Now suppose you answer my question.'

'But how can I answer it?'

'That's another question you're asking me.'

'I'm sorry, sir. But I don't know how to answer it. I never said you couldn't punish me.'

'Now you're telling us when you did say it. I'm asking you to tell us when you didn't say it.'

Clevinger took a deep breath. 'I always didn't say you couldn't punish me, sir.'

'That's much better, Mr. Clevinger, even though it is a barefaced lie..."

-- Catch-22

Giuseppe
Posts: 4082
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun May 27, 2018 11:01 am

So according to Price the Earliest Gospel was proto-Mark and not Mark. A criterion to reconstruct proto-Mark would be to remove from the our Mark any possible inconsistency against the Messianic Secret.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun May 27, 2018 11:56 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:07 am
So here are some examples of Wrede dealing with this issue:
further ones (from Wrede)

- Jesus accepted the "son of David" from Bartimaeus
- Jesus accepted the messianic cheering at his entry
- Jesus confessed before the Sanhedrin

Stuart
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Stuart » Sun May 27, 2018 4:03 pm

If Mark worked from a source or two (I think two), then even if he reworked the entire story to fit his patterns (which there is strong evidence he did) then it should not be surprising if here and there the original source version without Mark's deliberate themes would slip through.

Of course this is the what we'd expect to be the case for all the Gospels.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Secret Alias » Sun May 27, 2018 5:04 pm

Jesus accepted the "son of David" from Bartimaeus
It is interesting that the Marcionite gospel presented this as a denial and a secret or cryptic denial. When the blind see they no longer call Jesus son of God but Lord. The argument is subtle, secret and cryptic. More like Mark than (canonical) Mark.
“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

Giuseppe
Posts: 4082
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Where didn't Mark preserve the Secret motif ?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun May 27, 2018 10:14 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 5:04 pm
Jesus accepted the "son of David" from Bartimaeus
It is interesting that the Marcionite gospel presented this as a denial and a secret or cryptic denial. When the blind see they no longer call Jesus son of God but Lord. The argument is subtle, secret and cryptic. More like Mark than (canonical) Mark.

Precisely, where does ''Lord'' appear in the Markan text?
Mark 10:46-52
46 Jesus and his disciples went to Jericho. And as they were leaving, they were followed by a large crowd. A blind beggar by the name of Bartimaeus son of Timaeus was sitting beside the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus from Nazareth, he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have pity on me!” 48 Many people told the man to stop, but he shouted even louder, “Son of David, have pity on me!”

49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him over!”

They called out to the blind man and said, “Don’t be afraid! Come on! He is calling for you.” 50 The man threw off his coat as he jumped up and ran to Jesus.

51 Jesus asked, “What do you want me to do for you?”

The blind man answered, “Master, I want to see!”

52 Jesus told him, “You may go. Your eyes are healed because of your faith.”

Right away the man could see, and he went down the road with Jesus.

Are you alluding to Luke?

Luke 18:35-42
35 As [a]Jesus was approaching Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. 36 Now hearing a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. 37 They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. 38 And he called out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39 Those who led the way were sternly telling him to be quiet; but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 And Jesus stopped and commanded that he be brought to Him; and when he came near, He questioned him, 41 “What do you want Me to do for you?” And he said, “Lord, I want to regain my sight!” 42 And Jesus said to him, “ Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.”
But when the blind man says ''Lord'', he is not still healed. He is still victim of the his ignorance about Jesus's identity.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply