The Messianic Secret

[MrMacSon]

... the few details from the life of Jesus coincide completely with what Isaiah tells us, even the least credible details: his resurrection, his exaltation.

We don't know what they knew,1 only what they argued.2 I suggest that showing Jesus conformed with the Old Testament3 was a convincing argument to questions about Jesus, especially his suffering, death and resurrection. People weren't interested in his life until after the Gospels were written. Even then, historicist writers4 like Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen were still using the Old Testament5 when talking about Jesus.

• There's a lot of detail missing here, G'Don.

• For example:
  
  1. "We don't know what they knew [about what, exactly ??]"
  2. "what they argued [about what??]"
  3. conformed to the OT [in what way; wrt to what?]
  4. "historicist writers" means what ??
  5. why were these ''historicist writers" still using the OT ??

[mlinssen]

The different counterparts disclose different parts of the identity of IS, and it indeed seems to be of the utmost importance that the titles are ordered as they are:

1:23 Jesus of Nazareth, Holy One of God - demons
3:11 the Son of God - unclean spirits
8:29 the XS (Chrestos?) - Peter
9:7 My Son, the beloved - God
9:31 The Son of Man - IS himself
10:47 Son of David - Bartimaeus
14:61 XS, the Son of the Blessed (Εὐλογητοῦ) One (God) - high priest

That was a fun exercise, but the audiences also matter:

1. Identity disclosed
2. Speaker of (1)
3. Audience to (1) & (2)

Two exceptions / additions: the sea scene, and the Transfiguration

1:23
Jesus of Nazareth, Holy One of God
demons
Capernaum synagogue visitors being taught by IS
3:11
the Son of God
unclean spirits
a great multitude from Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and around Tyre and Sidon
4:41
Who then is this
Wind and sea (are only commanded to silence, they don't disclose the identity of IS)
Disciples rhetorically reveal the identity by posing the question
8:29
the XS (Chrestos or Christos?)
Peter
his disciples, on the way to the villages of Caesarea Philippi
9:7
My Son, the beloved
God (who naturally isn't commended to silence)
Peter, James, John (are commanded to silence instead)
9:31
The Son of Man
IS himself
disciples, while passing through Galilea
10:47
Son of David
Bartimaeus
disciples and a large crowd going out from Jericho
14:61
XS, the Son of the Blessed (Εὐλογητοῦ) One (God)
high priest
chief priests, elders, and the scribes; officers and Peter (nicely cosy by the fire); "all the Council"

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

However, it seems obvious that the messianic secret is primarily about Jesus' identity.

Two other commands to silence should be of particular interest. I suspect that Wrede intentionally left the first one out in the cold. The second command was the most important one for his own solution.

Mark 4:35-41 Calming the storm

Mark 9:2-10 Transfiguration

And on that day, evening having come, He says to them, “Let us pass over to the other side.” And having dismissed the crowd, they take Him with them since He was in the boat; and other boats were with Him. And a violent storm of wind comes, and the waves were breaking over the boat, so that the boat already is being filled up. And He was in the stern, sleeping on the cushion. And they awaken Him and say to Him, “Teacher, is it no concern to You that we perish?” And having been awoken, He rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Silence, be still!” And the wind abated, and there was a great calm. And He said to them, “Why are you fearful? Have you still no faith?” And they feared with great fear and were saying to each other, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

And after six days, Jesus takes with Him Peter and James and John, and brings them up into a high mountain by themselves alone. And He was transfigured before them, and His garments became exceedingly shining white, such as no launderer on the earth is able thus to whiten. And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answering, says to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. And let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” For he did not know what he should say; for they were terrified. And there came a cloud overshadowing them, and there came a voice out of the cloud: “This is My Son, the beloved; listen to Him.” And suddenly, having looked around, no longer did they see anyone with them, except Jesus alone. And as they were descending from the mountain, He instructed them that they should tell to no one what they had seen, except until the Son of Man had risen out from the dead.

Wrede referred to Mark 4:41 to discuss the disciples' lack of understanding, but he did not mention the pericope among the commands to silence. I suspect that the rebuke to the wind, the silencing of the sea and their „obeying“ were too mysterious for him. However, it seems obvious to me that this pericope in particular is relevant to the question of Jesus' identity (“Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”)

The Transfiguration scene contains only a temporary ban on speaking, namely until the resurrection, (and - strictly speaking - only „about what they had seen“).

Wrede's contemporaries explained the commands to silence separately with different reasons. (In one case Jesus was too modest, in another case he didn't want the disciples to get wrong political ideas about his role as Messiah, in another case he feared the Romans or did not want to stir up the people etc. etc.) But Wrede argued that there was a recurring, rigid literary or theological motive that is expressed again and again in the same way in GMark, and that the strict orders to remain silent do not fit the alleged sensitive or tactical motivations that other scholars ascribed to Jesus.

An explanation, therefore, cannot be found in the character of Jesus or in individual (historical) events and circumstances. It must be just one literary or theological reason that explains all the individual cases in the same way.

[mlinssen]

However, it seems obvious that the messianic secret is primarily about Jesus' identity.

Two other commands to silence should be of particular interest. I suspect that Wrede intentionally left the first one out in the cold. The second command was the most important one for his own solution.

Mark 4:35-41 Calming the storm

Mark 9:2-10 Transfiguration

And on that day, evening having come, He says to them, “Let us pass over to the other side.” And having dismissed the crowd, they take Him with them since He was in the boat; and other boats were with Him. And a violent storm of wind comes, and the waves were breaking over the boat, so that the boat already is being filled up. And He was in the stern, sleeping on the cushion. And they awaken Him and say to Him, “Teacher, is it no concern to You that we perish?” And having been awoken, He rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Silence, be still!” And the wind abated, and there was a great calm. And He said to them, “Why are you fearful? Have you still no faith?” And they feared with great fear and were saying to each other, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”

And after six days, Jesus takes with Him Peter and James and John, and brings them up into a high mountain by themselves alone. And He was transfigured before them, and His garments became exceedingly shining white, such as no launderer on the earth is able thus to whiten. And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answering, says to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. And let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” For he did not know what he should say; for they were terrified. And there came a cloud overshadowing them, and there came a voice out of the cloud: “This is My Son, the beloved; listen to Him.” And suddenly, having looked around, no longer did they see anyone with them, except Jesus alone. And as they were descending from the mountain, He instructed them that they should tell to no one what they had seen, except until the Son of Man had risen out from the dead.

Wrede referred to Mark 4:41 to discuss the disciples' lack of understanding, but he did not mention the pericope among the commands to silence. I suspect that the rebuke to the wind, the silencing of the sea and their „obeying“ were too mysterious for him. However, it seems obvious to me that this pericope in particular is relevant to the question of Jesus' identity (“Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”)

The Transfiguration scene contains only a temporary ban on speaking, namely until the resurrection, (and - strictly speaking - only „about what they had seen“).

Wrede's contemporaries explained the commands to silence separately with different reasons. (In one case Jesus was too modest, in another case he didn't want the disciples to get wrong political ideas about his role as Messiah, in another case he feared the Romans or did not want to stir up the people etc. etc.) But Wrede argued that there was a recurring, rigid literary or theological motive that is expressed again and again in the same way in GMark, and that the strict orders to remain silent do not fit the alleged sensitive or tactical motivations that other scholars ascribed to Jesus.

An explanation, therefore, cannot be found in the character of Jesus or in individual (historical) events and circumstances. It must be just one literary or theological reason that explains all the individual cases in the same way.

I have made my overview too concise, perhaps, but the Transfiguration is in

9:7
My Son, the beloved
God
Peter, James, John

Title, speaker, audience

And the Transfiguration is the odd one out as IS can hardly command God to be silent, so he commands the audience in stead.
Similar is the sea scene where the wind and sea are commanded to silence without them disclosing the identity of IS, so this time it is done by proxy by the audience who pose the fairly rhetoric question "who is this"

I have just put that scene back in because it certainly merits attention

[GakuseiDon]

According to Acts, it wasn't Paul describing how wonderful Jesus was that caused people to believe, but rather how Jesus conformed to scriptures.

Acts is not history = Jesus if he existed, was not resurrected and was not exalted in heaven. It is therefore impossible for Jesus' destiny to be conform to the servant in Isaiah 53.

I think that some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for the earliest layer of texts, but I don't believe he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. So this isn't an argument over whether it happened or not, but rather what the earliest Christians believed.

We don't know what they knew, only what they argued. I suggest that showing Jesus conformed with the Old Testament was a convincing argument to questions about Jesus, especially his suffering, death and resurrection.

Jesus, if he existed, was not resurrected and was not exalted in heaven.

It's clear that the earliest Christians believed that he was resurrected and exalted in heaven. Arguably, using Paul as a source, it was based on hallucinations of the risen Jesus.

This is "the Old Testament reporter's Jesus" vs "the newspaper reporter's Jesus". On the one side, you have people of that time arguing that Jesus was Christ because he conformed to the Old Testament. On the other side, you have people of that time noting down that Jesus was Christ because of the amazing things he said and did. The evidence is for the former rather than the latter. If that leads to mythicism, so be it.

For Jesus to be considered resurrected, exalted to heaven and pre-existent, his life would obviously have to be exceptional as well. Oviously it was not the case.

Sure it was. Jesus was obedient to God unto death. So he was resurrected and exalted in heaven.

I suggest you are still under the thrall of the idea that "historical Jesus" must mean some kind of "Gospel Jesus". I.e. that even if he hadn't been crucified and thought raised, he was such an amazing guy that people would have still written about him anyway. But the earliest texts stress his obedience to God, and his exaltation based on that:

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Paul is urging people to be humble and obedient to God, just like Christ was. That's the extraordinary life Christ led. Now, that's not useful for those who want an outrageous Jesus, but that's what Paul wrote. And then Jesus is declared Son of God by the resurrection, not through baptism or birth:

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

And the idea that Jesus was Christ can be seen in other texts:

Hbr 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

1 Pet 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth...

Also apparently the beliefs of the Ebionites:

Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 7.22

The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary.

But unfortunately because the above isn't about the Gospel Jesus, most people won't think those passages are relevant.

And in view of our early sources and the flawed oral tradition, it seems to me more logical that Jesus was built from scriptures rather than a random jew did the outlandish things that were written in a prophetic book 600 years before.

Yep. But don't you see the contradiction in concluding that, and then expect to see in Paul a random Jew who did outlandish things?

[GakuseiDon]

• There's a lot of detail missing here, G'Don.

• For example:
  
  1. "We don't know what they knew [about what, exactly ??]"

It's the fallacy that "if they didn't mention it, then they didn't know it."

[*] conformed to the OT [in what way; wrt to what?]

A lot of material in Paul and the Gospels are obviously influenced, if not copied, from the Old Testament. It's something some mythicists stress as evidence for mythicism.

[*] "historicist writers" means what ??

Writers who apparently believed that Jesus was historical: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen.

[*] why were these ''historicist writers" still using the OT ??

That's the point I'm making. The OT and apographa was the "source text" that validated Christianity for most Christians (Marcion being an obvious exception). The Gospels didn't start to become a "source text" until Marcion forced the issue.

[Sinouhe]

I think that some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for the earliest layer of texts, but I don't believe he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. So this isn't an argument over whether it happened or not, but rather what the earliest Christians believed.

At first glance, this seems the most logical solution indeed. But since Paul is part of a Jewish tradition that presents all kinds of fictitious or future Messiahs based also on the servant, I think it is more reasonable to see Jesus as yet another of these Messiahs without historical basis.

It's clear that the earliest Christians believed that he was resurrected and exalted in heaven.

You quoted the acts to support your words. It is clear that the author of Acts and the Christians of his time believed that Jesus was resurrected and exalted to heaven. But Acts is a second century text that is based on Mark.

Arguably, using Paul as a source, it was based on hallucinations of the risen Jesus.

But are these visions true? And if they were (which I highly doubt), was the ghost they saw the image of a historical man from a recent past ? I doubt it even more.

Sure it was. Jesus was obedient to God unto death. So he was resurrected and exalted in heaven.

So being obedient made Jesus a divine, pre-existent, heavenly, resurrected man and co-agent of creation of the world for the first christians ? We have tons of obedient characters who accepted their deaths. I really don't understand your argument.

I suggest you are still under the thrall of the idea that "historical Jesus" must mean some kind of "Gospel Jesus".

No, i make a clear distinction between the Jesus of Paul and the totally fictitious Jesus of Mark.

I.e. that even if he hadn't been crucified and thought raised, he was such an amazing guy that people would have still written about him anyway. But the earliest texts stress his obedience to God, and his exaltation based on that:

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him

I do not see anything in Philippians 2 that mentions a fabulous life that could have caused men to worship Jesus to the point of imagining him resurrected and exhaled into heaven. Here too it is his death, resurrection and ascension into heaven that Paul is concerned with. Not his life. Besides, using Philippians 2 to defend the historicity of Jesus is a bad idea:

• Deities incarnated in man do not exist

• neither do resurrected men

• The resurrected men who ascend to heaven even less.

• And in fact Paul does not even consider Jesus as a man.

It is a fabulous text to defend mythicism and the only reason why Carrier does not use it is because the incarnation contradicts his thesis of the celestial Jesus.

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is an allusion to Isaiah 53, once again. Moreover, the Messiah of the Psalms of Solomon, also based on the servant, is also without sin (XVII:36). is this a coincidence that two independent authors of the time of the second temple have the same conception of the Messiah ? No, since both use the servant of Isaiah.

Paul is urging people to be humble and obedient to God, just like Christ was. That's the extraordinary life Christ led. Now, that's not useful for those who want an outrageous Jesus, but that's what Paul wrote.

Yes, and I see nothing that would lead Paul to think that Jesus was resurrected and exalted to heaven. And nothing that would have led him to idolize him to the point of making him a pre-existent and divine being who had created the world. Obedience is certainly not a sufficient quality to explain that a man has been idolized to the point of making him the creator of the world.

And then Jesus is declared Son of God by the resurrection, not through baptism or birth:

So you recognize here that it was his resurrection that caused men to idolize Jesus. But there is no such thing as resurrections and exaltations in heaven. And without a wonderful life, there is no reason they should have thought that. Do you understand the problem?

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...

And the idea that Jesus was Christ can be seen in other texts:

Hbr 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

1 Pet 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth...

Once again, all these verses are allusions to Isaiah 53, not anecdotes about the life of a historical Jesus.

Also apparently the beliefs of the Ebionites:

]Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 7.22

The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. But unfortunately because the above isn't about the Gospel Jesus, most people won't think those passages are relevant.

Ebionism is a late post-gospel sect. It was not the memories of a historical Jesus that led the Ebionites to idolize Jesus. It was the gospels.

Yep. But don't you see the contradiction in concluding that, and then expect to see in Paul a random Jew who did outlandish things?

As I have explained, there must be formidable reasons for Paul to have thought that Jesus was resurrected and exalted to heaven. As he says himself, it was his reading of the scriptures and particularly Isaiah 53 that led him to think that a man was resurrected and exalted to heaven. Not a memory of a historical Jesus. The logic is therefore to see Jesus as a character of the scriptures in the mind of Paul. Like Adam or Enoch.

And since we have examples of fictional messiahs invented around the same time and based on the same source as Paul (Isaiah's servant), I think it's reasonable here to see jesus as one of those jewish fantasy about the servant .

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

However, it seems obvious that the messianic secret is primarily about Jesus' identity.

Wrede cites two attempts by Jesus to remain incognito.

Mark 7:24-26 The Syrophoenician woman

Mark 9:30-32 The second passion/resurrection prediction

And from there having risen up, He went away into the region of Tyre. And having entered into a house, He was wishing no one to know it, but He was not able to be hidden. But immediately, having heard about Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having come, fell at His feet. Now the woman was Gentile, Syrophoenician by race, and kept asking Him that He should cast forth the demon out of her daughter.

Having gone forth from there, they were passing through Galilee; and He did not want that anyone should know, for He was teaching His disciples. And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and having been killed, on the third day He will arise.” And they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask Him.

Wrede argues that locality could hardly matter. In both Galilee and Gentile territory, Jesus tries to remain unrecognized. Wrede also points out that the second passion/resurrection prediction is the only place in GMark where a reason for secrecy is explicitly mentioned.

Without wanting to imply anything, I can't help but notice that there is still a small difference. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus' attempt in Galilee was unsuccessful, but he failed in Tyre.

[mlinssen]

However, it seems obvious that the messianic secret is primarily about Jesus' identity.

Wrede cites two attempts by Jesus to remain incognito.

Mark 7:24-26 The Syrophoenician woman

Mark 9:30-32 The second passion/resurrection prediction

And from there having risen up, He went away into the region of Tyre. And having entered into a house, He was wishing no one to know it, but He was not able to be hidden. But immediately, having heard about Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having come, fell at His feet. Now the woman was Gentile, Syrophoenician by race, and kept asking Him that He should cast forth the demon out of her daughter.

Having gone forth from there, they were passing through Galilee; and He did not want that anyone should know, for He was teaching His disciples. And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and having been killed, on the third day He will arise.” And they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask Him.

Wrede argues that locality could hardly matter. In both Galilee and Gentile territory, Jesus tries to remain unrecognized. Wrede also points out that the second passion/resurrection prediction is the only place in GMark where a reason for secrecy is explicitly mentioned.

Without wanting to imply anything, I can't help but notice that there is still a small difference. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus' attempt in Galilee was unsuccessful, but he failed in Tyre.

imperf ind act 3rd sg : ἐδίδασκεν

Again we get misled by the translations, this is a simple imperfect and most certainly not an enduring action.
παρεπορεύοντο likewise is an imperfect.
It is more likely that he taught his disciples that he didn't want anyone to know that they passed Galilea

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

imperf ind act 3rd sg : ἐδίδασκεν

Again we get misled by the translations, this is a simple imperfect and most certainly not an enduring action.
παρεπορεύοντο likewise is an imperfect.
It is more likely that he taught his disciples that he didn't want anyone to know that they passed Galilea

No, we are not misled by the translation. It is most certainly an ongoing action. It lasts from Mark 8 to Mark 14 and even then the disciples still didn't understand it (I hope not you too, Martijn). And it's just one from many imperfects in GMark.

Wrede also points out that the second passion/resurrection prediction is the only place in GMark where a reason for secrecy is explicitly mentioned.

Mark 9:30-32 The second passion/resurrection prediction

Having gone forth from there, they were passing through Galilee; and He did not want that anyone should know, for He was teaching His disciples. And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and having been killed, on the third day He will arise.” And they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask Him.

This automatically leads to Jesus teachings in parables. Note the typical Markan intercalation

Mark 4:10-13
And when He was alone, those around Him with the Twelve began asking Him about the parable.
And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those who are outside, everything is done in parables, so that, ‘Seeing, they might see and not perceive; and hearing, they might hear and not understand; lest ever they should turn, and they should be forgiven.
And He says to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?

Wrede wrote

In this text, the thought is expressed with all clarity that Jesus shrouds himself in mystery with his teaching to the people. In this tendency, he speaks to the crowd in parables and only in parables, deliberately offering them everything in this form; because it is essential for this form that it is incomprehensible, that the listener can hear something, but in such a way that they cannot grasp the meaning.

4:11 is just a copy of Thomas 62, and 4:12 a repurposing of that in the Judaising context

No, this is not a copy and not even the same thought (logion 62: Jesus said: I speak my mysteries to those [who are worthy of my] mysteries. What your right hand does, let not your left hand know what it does.)

In GThomas, Jesus speaks only to the initiates, to no one else. Nobody else should hear it (similarly SecretMark).

In GMark, Jesus speaks to everyone, but in parables. Everyone hears it, but those on the outside will not and should not understand.

I suspect that GThomas is dependent on the Pseudo-Clementines here (Homily XIX. 20.1 "Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.")