Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,
BTW, I am in better shape now.
My impression on the position of gMark of this seed of David question is as follows:
a)"Mark" did not want Jesus to have been (or be) seen as a future temporal king (consequently as "son" of David).
b) But he had to acknowledge Jesus was seen as such by some Jews during his last days as the future "king of the Jews" (which is not particularly attractive for Gentiles Christians!) when the Kingdom will be installed on earth (real soon!).
See http://historical-jesus.info/29.html for a) & b).
c) "Mark" was ambivalent about Jesus as a "son" of David and future temporal king because some in his community believed as such and others opposed that. He acknowledged the issue but did not want to take a firm position. Instead he wrote statements favoring on viewpoint and others to suggest the opposite, so the two groups could find clues in their favor.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,
BTW, I am in better shape now.

Good to hear.

[robert j]

For the sake of argument, let’s say the reversal in gMark is not as dramatic as I have suggested. It doesn’t weaken my wider suggestion of a developing schism over the Davidic-sonship of Jesus evolving over the first two centuries of Christian texts. It may even lend greater support for such a schism.

I believe there was such a schism, since we have examples from both sides of it extant in the literature.

OK

Mark reversed the expectation of the crowd, as you have acknowledged ---

Okay, Bernard ... The thing is, I agree with you that Mark 12.35-37 is probably against Jesus being David's son ...

With a rebuke of the scribes by Jesus, Mark implied Jesus was not Davidic. But if one finds hints of equivocation sprinkled-in the story --- it certainly could reflect an acknowledgement of some differences of opinion among Mark’s wider circle of Christian associates.

I do not necessarily think that Mark (as an author) reversed the expectation of the crowd. Rather, I think that Mark 12.35-37 assumes that Jesus is not the son of David and then produces a clever (but ad hoc) scriptural argument in favor of this assumption. And I think that the assumptions elsewhere in the gospel are the reverse of this.

[for Ben’s proposed scenario see the post]

... This scenario would explain why neither passage is a clear assertion either for or against the Davidic sonship of Jesus ...

Our difference of opinion here seems to be about how much weight to give each side of the question. I give greater weight to the argument placed in the mouth of Jesus. But my interest here is not so much to discuss those finer points of Mark's Gospel.

My interest here is focused on the suggestion that gMark exposes a difference in doctrine over the Davidic-sonship of Jesus, and that, I think the dfference represents a schism in Mark's time in the wider Christian world or at least among Mark's associates.

[JoeWallack]

I suspect apologetics are often at work on this issue and on almost all other issues whatsoever. But my question for you would be, how likely is the text of Mark, as it stands, to change a less biased mind? For somebody who already thinks that Jesus is the son of David, or at least that early Christians (including Mark) thought of him as such, would the puzzling question posed in the Psalm episode be enough to change that person's mind? For somebody who already thinks that Jesus is not the son of David, or at least that early Christians (including Mark) thought of him as not being such, would the confidence of Bartimaeus and the crowds, in conjunction with Jesus' failure to reject the title on the spot, be enough to change that person's mind? For somebody who had no idea yet either way, would one or the other of these two observations be enough to sway that person's opinion in one of the two directions?

JW:
Funny how often your sayings are better than the text you are analyzing. You would agree that the general area of GMark and more so the stories before and after are often evidence as to the intent of the offending story:

Before:

12

33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.

Comparison. The spiritual (love) is more important than the physical (sacrifices).

After:

38 And in his teaching he said, Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and [to have] salutations in the marketplaces,
39 and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts:
40 they that devour widows` houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; these shall receive greater condemnation.

Comparison. The physical actions are evidence of spiritual guilt.

The offending verse:

35 And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
37 David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

So, the clear part here is the physical descent. What might the other part be? Someone? Anyone? Muehler?

Bonus for Solo = Of course the key to understanding the above is to try and consider what "Mark's" (author) related teaching was and not what you think "Mark" thought Jesus' supposed related teaching was. "Mark", like his source Paul, has a primary theme of spiritual is not just greater than physical but physical can actually be a detriment to the spiritual. This is also known as "Reform Judaism". This is why Galatians 1:19 does refer to a physical brother. It is intended as an insult, not a compliment.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[Charles Wilson]

35 And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
37 David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

So, the clear part here is the physical descent. What might the other part be? Someone? Anyone? Muehler?

1 Chronicles 24: 1 - 6 (RSV):

[1] The divisions of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abi'hu, Elea'zar, and Ith'amar.
[2] But Nadab and Abi'hu died before their father, and had no children, so Elea'zar and Ith'amar became the priests.
[3] With the help of Zadok of the sons of Elea'zar, and Ahim'elech of the sons of Ith'amar, David organized them according to the appointed duties in their service.
[4] Since more chief men were found among the sons of Elea'zar than among the sons of Ith'amar, they organized them under sixteen heads of fathers' houses of the sons of Elea'zar, and eight of the sons of Ith'amar.
[5] They organized them by lot, all alike, for there were officers of the sanctuary and officers of God among both the sons of Elea'zar and the sons of Ith'amar.
[6] And the scribe Shemai'ah the son of Nethan'el, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahim'elech the son of Abi'athar, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the priests and of the Levites; one father's house being chosen for Elea'zar and one chosen for Ith'amar.

The Priests are separated from the corrupt High Priest Cabal and their henchmen in the NT. The Priests of the Mishmarot Priesthood do their Duty in their Presentations to God at the Temple. These people are the Chosen Representatives who represent the Nation to God. They are not the Corrupt Ones.

CW

[Irish1975]

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.

[John2]

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.

[Nathan]

...

James Tabor comments:

... In Judaism children are invariably referred to as sons or daughters of the father--not the mother...

...

It is of course true that patrilineage is preferred within Judaism, but Tabor is flatly wrong when he claims Jewish children are "invariably referred to as sons or daughters of the father."

Talmudic literature knows several rabbis who used the matronymic "son of Martha," as well one called "Isaac son of Maryon." Also, the late ancient Jewish inscriptions from Beth She'arim refer to a "Justus son of Sappho," while the same from Rome refer to an "Euphranticus son of Veriana."

[Irish1975]

Talmudic literature knows several rabbis who used the matronymic "son of Martha," as well one called "Isaac son of Maryon." Also, the late ancient Jewish inscriptions from Beth She'arim refer to a "Justus son of Sappho," while the same from Rome refer to an "Euphranticus son of Veriana."

Interesting. Any idea what the reason or context might be for such cases, where matronymic is given instead of patronymic?

[Irish1975]

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 if it is). And in that sense, as Jesus says in Mk. 8:38:

If the author of gMark thought that Jesus was born of a virgin, wouldn't he have said so? It's not as though the title "son of God" excluded having a human father in the ancient world, eg, Augustus. It seems as if you're reading the other synoptics into gMark.