Mark and Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Ben wrote:

I cannot tell whether you are pulling for the Spirit alone or for Jesus + the Spirit. It can be Jesus whom the voice is addressing, or it can be Jesus + the Spirit, but it makes no sense for it to be the Spirit alone, without Jesus,

I mean just that: the Spirit alone is called Son of God.

since the scene is basically repeated in Mark 9.7, in which the pronouns (masculine, singular) have to go back to Jesus (masculine, singular), and the Spirit is not even mentioned in context.

I thought so, also but after I have changed idea reading this important post of Vridar, precisely:

The famous transfiguration scene has Jesus taking Peter, James and John up to a high mountain. There these three disciples are kept on the outer as they see Jesus socializing with the angelic Elijah and Moses. God comes down to join this elite and booms out to the disciples that the one who has been accompanying them has been none other than his very own Son.

But then when the cloud lifts and Elijah and Moses disappear, Mark, poignant with irony or the theme of misidentification once again, says that the disciples

looked around, [and] they saw no one any more, but only Jesus with themselves. (Mark 8:8)

No-one here any more. Only Jesus is left here with us.

I don’t know how much this interpretation depends upon the nuances of the English translation. So I’m not staking a case on it. But it does appear an interesting possibility. This is another possible case where the disciples can only see “the son of man”. Not the Son of God who is actually possessing that particular “son of man”.

. http://vridar.org/2009/11/27/when-a-nob ... possessed/

The emphasis on the Pillars seeing "Jesus alone" points out that something (the Spirit, just proclaimed "my beloved Son") is suddenly missing.

Jesus himself agrees with this in 14.61-62.

Again I quote from Vridar:

But when on trial Jesus was asked, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? (14:61) Son of Blessed is a Jewish circumlocution for Son of God. Jesus replied, I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power . . .”

This surely is a scene where the Son of God inhabiting Jesus is talking to the high priest just as formerly this Son spoke to demons. “I aBut when on trial Jesus was asked, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? (14:61) Son of Blessed is a Jewish circumlocution for Son of God. Jesus replied, I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power . . .”

This surely is a scene where the Son of God inhabiting Jesus is talking to the high priest just as formerly this Son spoke to demons. “I am the Son of the Blessed”, he says. “And you will see the Son of Man” — third person — he says.

And least:

The centurion in 15.39 agrees with this, too, calling "this man" (masculine, singular) the Son of God.

The centurion's point may be seen as full of contempt or sincerity, but this doesn't give us by need the same point of Mark. Especially when you accept the previous clues of separationism, where Jesus himself is introducing the son of man as distinct from him (the Son of Blessed or Son of God).

[Ben C. Smith]

The emphasis on the Pillars seeing "Jesus alone" points out that something (the Spirit, just proclaimed "my beloved Son") is suddenly missing.

What I am saying is that the grammar itself is against this reading. It is not the Spirit who is called "my beloved Son", but rather someone in context who is masculine and singular. ("Spirit" is neuter in Greek, and is not present in context, at any rate.)

The entity at issue, therefore, cannot be the Spirit alone; it has to include Jesus as part of the package deal, unless Mark did not write what he meant.

[Giuseppe]

It is not the Spirit who is called "my beloved Son", but rather someone in context who is masculine and singular. ("Spirit" is neuter in Greek, and is not present in context, at any rate.)

The thesis doesn't require that the Greek neuter "Spirit" (and only that term) is meant. Who is called Son may be even what the demons recognize to be "inside" Jesus: the "Saint of God" (1:24). Or the "Christ". In any case, something that before is there and a minute after is suddenly missing, so much to induce Mark to specify that only Jesus " alone" was there , as stripped of something.

Ben wrote:

He does not have the Christ come down at the baptism; it is the Spirit. So the equation does not seem to be Jesus + Christ = Jesus Christ, Son of God; rather, it seems to be Jesus + Spirit = Christ, Son of God

Have you considered the concrete possibility that during the baptism, it is the Spirit descending on Jesus to be addressed as "you are my Son" and not just Jesus himself ? It seems that both the Spirit and Jesus are "Christ" in two opposed ways: Jesus as coming from Nazareth (a davidic town via Netser) and the Spirit as Son of God. Therefore it seems to be Jesus Nazarene + Spirit Son of God = Jesus Christ, an apparent fusion of two conceptions of Messiah (respectively earthly and spiritual).

An harmonic fusion or a dualistic fusion? I like more the second

Methinks your getting into George Wells territory here

It you see separationism in Mark, then this would imply the question: Where did Mark derive the idea of ​​a mere son of man ?
From a real historical Jesus or from a rival tradition (not Pauline) ?
I would opt for the second answer: the son of man is Israel himself. The earthly Israel.

[Ben C. Smith]

It is not the Spirit who is called "my beloved Son", but rather someone in context who is masculine and singular. ("Spirit" is neuter in Greek, and is not present in context, at any rate.)

The thesis doesn't require that the Greek neuter "Spirit" (and only that term) is meant. Who is called Son may be even what the demons recognize to be "inside" Jesus: the "Saint of God" (1:24). Or the "Christ". In any case, something that before is there and a minute after is suddenly missing, so much to induce Mark to specify that only Jesus " alone" was there , as stripped of something.

How convenient that your way of reading the text allows you to pour whatever meaning you want into it.

[Giuseppe]

It was argued by others and I see it and I like it. This is sufficient for me.