Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

[rgprice]

One issue is whether anyone could easily believe
a/Jesus is the Son of Man
b/ Jesus is the Son of God
and also believe
c/ Jesus is not the Christ.

Andrew Criddle

My general approach to the testimony of the "heretics" is that the heretics must have had valid reasons for their interpretations. Their views were based on plain readings of the document they had in hand. They must have read versions of the narrative that led them to the conclusion that Jesus was not, nor did he profess to be, a "king of the Jews", i.e. Messiah, i.e. Christos.

Son of God is of course ambiguous, because "which God"? As we see in Luke and John it is possible to read passages from them as indicating that Jesus was sent by a different God.

Son of Man? Son of Man is a term used primarily in Ezekiel, from which Mark derives a significant amount of material, to describe a prophet sent by God against the people of Israel.

Ezekiel 2: 3 He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day. 4 The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn.

So yes, I think you can conclude that Jesus is the Son of Man, a prophet sent against the people of Israel a.k.a. Jews, that Jesus is the son of God, either the Jewish God or a Higher God, and that Jesus was not the Messiah because Jesus was greater than the Messiah and because the Messiah was for the Jews but Jesus was sent to fulfill a mission to the whole world.

[JoeWallack]

I Am

JW:

13

5 And Jesus began to say unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray.

6 Many shall come in my name, saying, I am [he]; and shall lead many astray.

Verses:

14

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am:

JW:

At the narrative level I am convinced that it is easy to take this as ironic. "Mark's" Jesus, on request states that you can first spot (so to speak/not speak) a false Christ by the false Christ saying "I am". Straightaway next chapter, upon request, he says "I am". Now the founder of this unholy Skeptical Church has rightly divided recently that in trying to understand possible author intent, one should also consider the related context, near and far. Possibilities from orthodox to Skeptical:

1) The matching "I am"s are just a coincidence. Seems like quite a coincidence.

2) The "I am" is just part of the criteria.

3) The author context was the "I am" answer was intended to lead the Sanhedrin astray. "I am" was a true statement by Jesus but the Sanhedrin mistakenly took it as a false statement and the official reason to judge Jesus a false christ.

4) The author's primary objective is literary style, here irony. The matching "I am"s are intentional and the irony is expanded by working in different ways.

5) Author intent was to show that Jesus gave evidence that he was a false christ either intentionally or unintentionally.

6) Author intent was to show that Jesus was a false christ but this supported that Jesus was instead the son of God.

7) Author intent was to show that Jesus was a false Christ.

The above being said, I am saying that in general "Mark's" objective is open for me. The edges are:

1) Literary art with a setting of religion.

Verses

2) Religious art with a style of irony.

Or something in between.

Right now I favor Literary art as consistently what is most important to this author is the style, specifically irony. Every character, including Jesus, is subservient to irony. This is a relatively new observation for skeptical scholarship and traditional Christian scholarship is still in denial about it (I have faith the Ehrman will gradually accept that I am correct).


Joseph

[rgprice]

Interesting observation JW:

From Mark 13:6 ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι
From Mark 14:62 Ἐγώ εἰμι

Mark 13:5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am (he),’ and will deceive many.
Mark 14:61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus.

This is such a slippery text. I can see how there were so many varied and conspiratorial interpretations swirling around.

I don't quite know what to make of this, but its certainly confounding and also I would say works against my prior post suggesting that the answer given here may have been an orthodox revision. This makes it look more like something intentional to the original, but what can it mean?

It almost reminds me of those endings in movies where its just nonsensically irrational. For example like the end of the Wizard of Oz to take a classic example. Did Dorthey actually go to Oz or not? Maybe its not the best example, but you know where like at the end it will be revealed that the character was having a dream, but then something from the dream will appear in reality as just as WTF moment type thing.

[Peter Kirby]

This is such a slippery text. I can see how there were so many varied and conspiratorial interpretations swirling around.

Right? For example, I know that modern Christians sometimes interpret Mark's "I am" here as a reference to the divine name, YHWH, claiming identity and equality with God. I think that's a little nutty, but that's how they read it.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This is such a slippery text. I can see how there were so many varied and conspiratorial interpretations swirling around.

Right? For example, I know that modern Christians sometimes interpret Mark's "I am" here as a reference to the divine name, YHWH, claiming identity and equality with God. I think that's a little nutty, but that's how they read it.

In principle I would too, but imho with Mark 6:49-50 that may become more likely

49 but when they saw Him walking on the sea, they cried out, thinking He was a ghost— 50 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But Jesus spoke up at once: “Take courage! It is I (ἐγώ εἰμι). Do not be afraid.”

[Peter Kirby]

This is such a slippery text. I can see how there were so many varied and conspiratorial interpretations swirling around.

Right? For example, I know that modern Christians sometimes interpret Mark's "I am" here as a reference to the divine name, YHWH, claiming identity and equality with God. I think that's a little nutty, but that's how they read it.

In principle I would too, but imho with Mark 6:49-50 that may become more likely

49 but when they saw Him walking on the sea, they cried out, thinking He was a ghost— 50 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But Jesus spoke up at once: “Take courage! It is I (ἐγώ εἰμι). Do not be afraid.”

On the other hand, if Mark 6:49-50 is the parallel, then the answer of Jesus could be much more pedestrian:

"It is I, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

The rest of the answer leaves it ambiguous who the Son of Man is, but the first part makes it clear that "It is I" (perhaps).

[Peter Kirby]

Look at the variant for Mark 1:1 - 2 in Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos 3.6. See if it helps your case.

Thanks. What is the variant?

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm

Baptism is the end of the Old Testament, and beginning of the New. For its author was John, than whom was none greater among them that are born of women. The end he was of the Prophets: for all the Prophets and the law were until John Matthew 11:13: but of the Gospel history he was the first-fruit. For it says, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, etc.: John came baptising in the wilderness.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew!

[robert j]

... I know that modern Christians sometimes interpret Mark's "I am" here as a reference to the divine name, YHWH, claiming identity and equality with God. I think that's a little nutty, but that's how they read it.

I don't think the suggestion is nutty. Once again, I don’t have the time to adequately develop the idea now, but I want to throw this into the mix. My apologies if I repeat something without attribution that has already been stated --- I haven’t read every post here.

As already discussed, I think there is reasonable agreement that claiming to be a “Christ” --- an anointed messianic claimant --- would not have been a blasphemy worthy of death in a Jewish context. Only a political crime in a Roman context.

Claiming to be a son of God would not by itself be seen as blasphemous --- (Deuteronomy 14:1, 38:18; Philo, Confusion of Tongues, 145). But I suppose claiming to be a son of God that will sit at the right hand of power could tip the scale to a charge of capitol blasphemy (as discussed in the OP).

I think the Paulinist author of GMark may have been expressing a much more significant claim. Did Jesus actually answer in the affirmative, or was Jesus giving a different answer? Revealing his true nature.

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and says to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

And Jesus said, “I am (ἐγώ εἰμι). And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:61-62)

Was Jesus at once denying the mundane title of a “Christ” --- a common anointed king, priest, or prophet --- while also claiming a much higher status?

He was way more than any of those things. He was the Lord and creator of the entire universe. He was the Paulinist suffering savior. He was the one having existed in the form of God and having equality with God before incarnation in the form of a man. He was the one who will, in the end, join all-in-all with God.

When Jesus answered, “I am (εγώ ειμι)”, the author of GMark may have been referring to ---

I am (εγώ ειμι). I am (εγώ ειμι) he. The one wiping away your lawless deeds because of me. And your sins in no way shall I remember. (Isaiah 43:25, LXX)

In Paul’s letters, Jesus will once again be restored all-in-all with God in the future (1 Corinthians 15:28). The drawing on Isaiah 43:25 would render the following verse applicable, and could very well trigger an accusation of blasphemy in Mark ---

What is the name given to him? What shall I say to them? And God said to Moses, I am (εγώ ειμι) the one being. (Exodus 3:14, LXX)

And Jesus said, “I am (ἐγώ εἰμι). (Mark 14:62)

I am (εγώ ειμι) he. The one wiping away your lawless deeds … (Isaiah 43:25, LXX)

I am (εγώ ειμι) the one being. (Exodus 3:14, LXX)

… you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power (Mark 14:62)

The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until whenever I should make your enemies a footstool. (Psalm 110:1, LXX)

… then the end, when He shall hand over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He shall have annulled all dominion, and all authority and power. For it behooves Him to reign until He shall have put all the enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death. (1 Corinthians 15:24-26)

Prior to his incarnation in the form of a man, the JC figure in Paul’s letters existed in the “form of God” and had “equality with God” (Philippians 2:6). And at the end (1 Corinthians 15:24), the JC figure will once again become “all-in-all” with God ---

… also the Son Himself will be put in subjection to the One having put in subjection all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

I see the author of GMark as a very clever writer with a devious sense of humor drier than the sands of Arabia --- and a Paulinist. And at least some passages are like icebergs --- with 90 percent of the message below the surface.

[JoeWallack]

This is such a slippery text. I can see how there were so many varied and conspiratorial interpretations swirling around.

Right? For example, I know that modern Christians sometimes interpret Mark's "I am" here as a reference to the divine name, YHWH, claiming identity and equality with God. I think that's a little nutty, but that's how they read it.

In principle I would too, but imho with Mark 6:49-50 that may become more likely

49 but when they saw Him walking on the sea, they cried out, thinking He was a ghost— 50 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But Jesus spoke up at once: “Take courage! It is I (ἐγώ εἰμι). Do not be afraid.”

JW
Agreed. I think the "I am" is also referring to one of God's names. See the who is who's son riddle.Again, not necessarily a theological statement, maybe just really good literary irony. Or maybe intended prequelle to Paul. Jesus ironic/ambiguous intentionally or unintentionally to hide Jesus until revelation to Paul.


Joseph

[rgprice]

I think it helps to understand GMark if the author is recognized as a very clever writer with a devious sense of humor drier than the sands of Arabia --- and a Paulinist. And at least some passages are like icebergs --- with 90 percent of the message below the surface.

Indeed. You know when people ask, "If you could have dinner with anyone from history, who would it be?" For sure it would be whoever wrote the first Gospel, whether we want to call it proto-Mark or Mark or whatever. Whoever was the original author of this material, that's who I want to talk to, cause this guy was on another level for sure. He was like the friggen Einstein of allegory.

As an atheist, I wish there was an afterlife, just so this guy could be sitting around watching what he unleashed on the world. He deserves eternal laughter for it.