Son of Man: the Story of Jesus in Mark
The Gospel of Mark has
gained unprecedented and growing importance for both theology and
literature. Acknowledged as one of the great pieces of world
literature, Mark has come across time and space to give us Jesus the
man in a connected, if periscopic, narrative, however brief, stark,
and oracular, absent of birth stories and resurrection. This image
has vividly affected modern culture, and it is the image of “the Son
of Man” that becomes the focus of this paper.
Scholarship, granting the possibility that Jesus may not have said
the words attributed to him, seems to have settled on three possible
interpretations of “Son of Man”: a present, earthly Son of Man, a
suffering Son of Man, and a future coming Son of Man.[1] At
the heart of most of the ambiguity and controversy lies a question
of authority: whether Jesus got his power from heaven or from
earthly origins. Jesus refused to answer this question: “Neither will I tell you by what
authority I am doing these things.” [2] Instead,
Jesus then, as now, asks another question about identity: “But who do you say that I am?”[3]
Brenda Deen Schildgen in Power and Prejudice: Reception of the
Gospel of Mark provides an in-depth overview of reception history
related to the Gospel of Mark, revealing that the Church mostly
neglected Mark in commentaries, citations by church fathers, (Biblia
Patrista) and lectionary reading.[4] Mark
has only a little early manuscript attestation, some presence in a
third century codex, and then greater presence in the fourth century
in Sinaiticusand Vaticanus. Peter Head in “The Gospel of Mark in
Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations”
explores the question “of what Sinaiticus reveals about issues
concerning the reception and interpretation of Mark, in particular,
what the text of Mark in Sinaiticus might indicate for the study of
the reception-history or effective-history of the Gospel according
to St. Mark,” concluding Mark was obviously “embedded as one of the
gospels,” and the concern of Sinaiticus was “to present rather than
improve the text.” [5] Schildgen
turns her eye from Church patronage to
an academic patronage, which
has given Mark a new and growing prominence. The earlier neglect of
Mark may have resulted from questions about Mark’s place in the
order of the Gospel writings: whether first, and used by Matthew and
Luke, or whether appearing later as a shortened version of Matthew;
about authorship, whether the writer is John Mark, identified with
Peter through the tradition of Papias, one of the seventy disciples
who accompanied Jesus, a conservative Jew from Jerusalem, who
responded from a congregational request in Rome to write a story
about Jesus, an anonymous author, the young woman of verse Mark
14.9, or the mysterious young man of Mark 14:51-52, or best left
open to debate;[6] and
finally, one may wonder whether Mark, as genre, is Hebrew Bible
narrative, history, ancient biography, docudrama,[7] a
theological fiction, popular novella, a preaching gospel,
storytelling in the mode of rhetoric, Judean apocalypse, or,
perhaps, midrashic commentary on the Hebrew Bible .[8]
Reflecting on the mutation of redaction criticism into a new form of
literary criticism (redaction building upon source/form criticism),
Robert W. Fowler concludes, ‘the
Gospel writers produced neither volumes of learned exegesis
nor sermons. Rather, they told stories; and if we wish to understand
what the Gospels say, we should study how stories are told.”[9] In
making this statement, Fowler follows the lead of Norman Perrin
(1972), under whom he studied at the University of Chicago in 1974;
he says Perrin’s approach at that time was a novel one:
Perrin was
arguing that literary criticism was emerging as the methodological
heir to redaction criticism. He said that redaction criticism had
been so successful in demonstrating the theological viewpoints of
the Gospel writers, and that the evangelists’ influence on the
traditional material they were editing had been found to be so
pervasive, that it was no longer possible simply to characterize the
Gospel writers as collectors and editors of tradition. They were
much more than that: they were authors -- authors who had made use
of traditional material, but authors nonetheless.[10]
Perrin would have no issue understanding “there were theological
motives and tendencies at work in the composition of the Gospels, so
that the reporting of the words of Jesus was conditioned in each
case by the author’s background, interests, purpose, and audience.”[11] But
aside from these considerations, Perrin’s approach emphasizing
authors and storytelling returns readers to
looking at the work as “an
integral, literary whole” and asks them to use the “critical methods
commonly applied to non-biblical literature.” Literary concerns
include “the structure of the literary whole, themes, characters,
plot and so on.”[12]
Literary concerns address genre and sub-genres. The ESV calls Mark a
docudrama and then describes it as speaking about the actions and
teachings of Jesus, presenting Jesus as a hero, and using an array
of subgenres:
Of the four Gospels, Mark is most overtly a “docudrama,” consisting
of noteworthy “clips” as well as typical or representative events;
snatches of speeches or dialogues; and commentary by the narrator.
Mark’s approach to the biographical data is that of a careful
recorder. Mark’s Gospel, however, is not a biography in the modern
sense, as there is no attempt to describe Jesus physically, treat
his family origins, or portray Jesus’ inner life. Rather, like other
ancient biographies (which were called a bios or “life”), Mark’s
purpose is to speak about the actions and teachings of Jesus that
present his ministry and mission. Of course, the book is at the same
time an implied proclamation and apologetic work that hints at the
redemptive meaning of the events recorded. All of the Gospels are
hero stories. Additionally, Mark’s Gospel is made up of the usual
array of subgenres found in the NT Gospels, including calling
stories, recognition stories, witness/testimony stories, encounter
stories, conflict or controversy stories, pronouncement stories,
miracle stories, parables, discourses and sermons, proverbs or
sayings, passion stories, and resurrection stories.[13]
Interestingly, the “Introduction” then goes on to present the
collage or mosaic of “the life of Jesus” as being the docudrama of
“the life of Christ,” highlighting one of the tensions in modern
scholarship: whether to present the historical Jesus or to indulge
Christology. Mark Allan Powel, Chair
of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical
Literature, notes in “'Things
That Matter': Historical Jesus Studies in the New Millennium,” that
scholarship in historical Jesus studies has moved on in the
mid-2000’s to the larger tasks of “reconstructing a historically
credible Jesus… for systematic theology, pastoral preparation,
spiritual formation, ecumenical discourse, and a variety of other
agendas.”[14] Powel
provides two examples of this extended breadth of concern: N.T.
Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of Godfocuses on theology and
what resurrection faith ought to mean, while James Dunn’s Jesus
Remembered concerns itself with “what Jesus said and did than with
analyzing how Jesus was remembered and why.”[15]
Literary analysis also asks readers to ask questions about
characters and character identity; in the case of Jesus, this
includes titles, those he used for himself and those others used.
Herbert W. Bateman in "Defining
the Titles 'Christ' and 'Son of God' in Mark's Narrative
Presentation of Jesus," argues essentially that all titles used for
Jesus, including “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” “Son of the Most High
God,” and “Holy One of God” all serve as “appositional or parallel
epithets all referring to “the Christ” but further makes the point
that “later creeds and confessional statements should not cloud the
earlier and simpler understanding of the "Messiah" presented in
Mark, which ultimately does not include the latter developing
theology of Jesus as divine Son of God.”[16] Bateman
holds, however, to the Christological idea that Jesus exalted
himself to Christ and God at the cross. The point here is simply to
highlight a tension that has been present in much of twentieth century
scholarship on the historical Jesus and the Christology of Mark.
John M. Depoe in “The Messianic Secret in “The Gospel of Mark:
Historical Development and Value of Wrede’s Theory” has outlined
much of this scholarship with respect to messianic secrecy; he lays
out several reasons for “Mark’s use of the messianic secret that
compromise neither the historicity nor the exegetical integrity of
the text.”[17]
Interpretation lies at the heart of any literary approach to texts.
Norman Perrin discusses three distinct but interrelated aspects
involved in interpretation-- "historical criticism," "literary
criticism," and "hermeneutic"; he describes the text as a
historical entity written or spoken by one man, in a distinct set of
circumstances, and for a definite purpose, intended to have a
particular meaning and understood by its addressees in a particular
kind of way.”[18] He
says historical criticism recovers this information, and concludes
much of this work has been accomplished. He then explains how
literary criticism builds upon this foundational historicism as the
text “takes on a life and vitality of its own, independent of the
historical circumstances of its creation”:
It is interpreted and reinterpreted in any number of new and
different situations, and therefore takes on new and different
meanings and is understood in new and different ways. But even here,
there are rules to the game. A text has a given form, and this
form functions in one way and not another. A text is written in a
certain kind of language, and this language has a certain force and
not another. A text may be and indeed is open-ended, but it is not
inchoate. Its form and language are in no small way determinative of
the manner in which it may be understood and interpreted. It is this
aspect of the act of interpreting the text which I am designating
"literary criticism."
He designates “hermeneutics” as a dynamic relationship between the
text and individual reader, occurring when “a text is read by a
given individual and understood in a certain way by that individual;
it says something to that individual.’”[19] Perrin
then goes on to explain the significance of these interrelated
aspects--author, text, and reader—by presenting three standpoints
from which a text must be considered; the first of these is
historical:
. It must be considered from the standpoint of historical criticism,
as a text intended to say something and saying something to its
first readers or hearers. We must respect the act of authorship and
the intent of the author, as we must also respect the understanding
of a text reached by its intended readers or hearers. To do anything
less than this is to commit an act of rape on the text.[20]
He then addresses what happens to text when it becomes independent
of the original author and intended reader:
But at the same time, we must admit that something happens when a
text is committed to writing and hence broadcast to the world for
anyone to read who can master the language in which it is written.
It is now no longer a private communication with its potentiality
for meaning limited to the intent of the author and the
understanding of its intended reader. It now exists in its own
right, essentially independent of the original author and intended
reader, and its potentiality for meaning is limited only by the
function of its form and its language. In practice, of course, its
potentiality for meaning is not even limited in that way, but it is
an argument of this paper that it should be so limited. Even with
independently existing literary objects, there is a difference
between exegesis and eisegesis![21]
Both “exegesis” and “eisegesis,” and any consequent favoring of one
term, creates potential obstacles for interpretation: the first
emphasizes careful, objective analysis, usually in support of
finding some absolute meaning or truth; the second risks
subjectivity and reader bias. The third consideration Perrin
explores is that between the text and reader:
Finally, a text is read and
something happens, or does not happen, between the text and the
reader. This is the most difficult area to explore, and yet we must
attempt to explore it.[22]
In practice, the three considerations cannot stand so starkly apart,
and any reading of the Gospel of Mark inevitably mixes some history,
some literary criticism, and some hermeneutics.
Neither Mark nor “Son of Man” exists any longer apart from an
ever-evolving background of interpretive criticism concerning
author, text, and intended audience (historicism), independent text
as literary object, and hermeneutics, or what happens between
independent text and its readers. Mark provocatively places the
question of Jesus’ identity in his pivotal chapter eight: “But who
do you say that I am?” Possibilities include not only John, Elijah,
and prophets, but also, appellations: “Son of God,” “Son of
David,” “Messiah, and “Son of Man.” Much of the existent
controversy concerns Trinitarian arguments: whether “Son of God”
means Jesus is God. The Church has attempted to settle the debate on
the side of “God”; the Nicene Creed, in fact, says Jesus is “very
God of very God.” Readers, in trying
to decide on the identity of Jesus, encounter almost
immediately an ambiguity present in all epithets, this stemming from
Hebrew/Jewish and Christian traditions in which the titles take on
the dual nature of referencing both divine and human content. The
term “Son of God,” for example, has at least three possible
meanings: “the term "son of God" may mean: (a) an angelic being; (b)
Israel as God's chosen people; (c) the righteous or obedient within
Israel; or (d) the king as the personal representative of God's
elect nation.”[23]
Oral and formative, as well as closer to the Jewish context, Mark
records Peter as proclaiming: “You are the Messiah.”[24] In
Luke, Peter says, “The Messiah of God.” [25]Matthew
combines “Messiah” and “Son of God”: “You are the Messiah, the Son
of the living God.”[26]Mark,
in fact, uses “Messiah” more extensively than any other title,
including “Son of Man.” In context, all these references carry
meanings and connotations understood only from within a
Hebrew/Jewish backdrop. Readers encounter, first, the gospel claimed
by the messiah; John’s proclamation of Lord and Messiah; a
Decapolis openness about a messiah not political or military, and
people's astonishment at this non-political, military messiah. Next
follows Jesus' expressed sadness at this misunderstanding of his
mission and the overt failure on the part of many--and his own
disciples--that he is to be a suffering messiah. Peter
acknowledges the Messiah of God in his confession, understanding
Jesus as the Christ, i.e., the divinely anointed Jewish and
military leader, a confession ignoring the self-accepted humbling of
this Messiah of God, and Jesus' prediction that the Son of Man must
be killed (overturning Jewish expectation), and the consequent
rejection by the elders, priests, and scribes. The disciples
must take up the cross of obedience and dependence on this servant-
messiah. Given a glimpse of the Kingdom of God, three disciples fail
to grasp the nature of the Transfiguration, desiring to raise an
earthly tent. They hear the endorsement by the Father that "This is
my Beloved Son," but continue to misunderstand or heed Jesus'
instructions concerning servant hood. Then comes the resolute turn
to Jerusalem, the Triumphal Entry, (and celebration of a political
and Davidic messiah; the rejected messianic "stone," which is
"divinely vindicated and established as the cornerstone of a new
building)"; the climactic "Lord of David" passage, and finally, the
anticipated exaltation and warning about false Christs and false
prophets accompanied by the protection of God's own. Understandably,
the reader of Mark normally asks what all of this can mean.
C.H. Dodd understands the pivotal question about Jesus’ messiahship
to be about whether he did or did not intend to accept the title of
Messiah. He says, Jesus, examined before the High Priest, in Mark,
answered the question of whether he was the Messiah “without
ambiguity, ‘I am.’”[27] He
goes on to point out that Matthew has Jesus say, “The words are
yours” without any particular “accepted form of affirmation”; in
Luke, Jesus refuses to reply.[28] Dowd
concludes:
We may perhaps get some light on the matter if we consider the
sequel to this questioning. Whether it was at a formal examination
in court, or earlier in a public confrontation, that Jesus was asked
the crucial question, we may fairly understand it as a preliminary
to his arraignment before the Roman governor. The charge which was
then preferred by the priests was that of claiming to be "king of
the Jews." The charge was of course framed for Roman ears. Among
themselves, the priests would
not have used that expression. They would have said that he claimed
falsely to be the "anointed" king of Israel, the Messiah. In his
examination before Pilate Jesus was asked, "Are you the king of the
Jews?" and he replied (as all gospels agree) with the noncommittal
expression, "The words are yours" ("Have it so if you choose"). At
this juncture, a refusal to
disown the title would have the same effect as an avowal, and it was
a matter of life and death. Jesus, at any rate, allowed himself to
be condemned to death for claiming to be (in Jewish terms) Messiah.[29]
The term “Messiah,” Bart Ehrman notes, “ took
on various connotations, with no fixed notion in the time of Jesus:
as a future king like David, as "an authoritative priest to provide
definitive instruction in God's law" and "as a comic figure sent by
God to overthrow the forces of evil." [30] N.T.
Wright writes that in the first century, “Messiah” meant Israel's
Messiah:
To say that Jesus is 'the Christ' is, in first-century terms, to say
first and foremost that he is Israel's Messiah, not to say that he
is the incarnate Logos, the second person of the Trinity, the
only-begotten son of the father. Even the phrase 'son of god,'
during Jesus' ministry and in very early Christianity, does not mean
what it came to mean in later theology, though already by the time
of Paul a widening of its meaning can be observed. [31]
Herbert W. Bateman, wondering if the creeds of the Church cloud an
early writing like Mark, points out that “Jesus” is the most common
name used in the Gospel of Mark, and that it designates the
historical personage, used some eighty-two times in contrast to the
sparing use of Christ (only seven times) and Jesus Christ, only
once.[32] He
says that up until his confession, Peter has known Jesus through
miraculous ministry, an expectation
in keeping with first-century Jewish beliefs.”[33]
Bateman further shows that "Son of David" is used in the second
major section (8:22-10:22) on the way to Jerusalem and the
celebration of the Passover. Bartimaeus is encountered by Jesus
"along the side of the road," but after the healing, follows him "on
the way" to Jerusalem where Jesus would suffer and die (543).[34] Even
here, Bateman points out, Mark uses the title in apposition to
Jesus, and “Son of David,” a ‘polite title’ for any Jew or a
"hoped-for anointed figure." Mark, in 12;35-37, using an enthymeme,
proves that "the Messiah, whom David calls 'lord,' cannot be his
son." Although Bateman clearly supports Jesus as Christ of the later
Christian orthodox tradition, he also says “it is a biased reading
of Mark,” then quotes N.T. Wright: "Mark tells the story of Jesus as
the story of a Galilean prophet, announcing the kingdom of Israel's
God, summoning Israel to change her direction, that is, to repent
(1:15, 6:4).
A complicating factor in interpreting Mark stems from the changing
nature of the expected Messiah as it moves from earlier and later
prophecy. When, in chapter eleven, Jesus sends his disciples to find
a colt that has never been ridden and instructs them to untie it and
bring it to him, the allusion seems to be to Zechariah 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
The Oxford Annotated Bible notes that Zechariah’sprophecies date
from 520 to 518 B.C., and portray a zeal for a rebuilt temple, a
purified community, and the coming of the messianic age, forming a
link between earlier prophecy (especially Ezekiel) and mature
apocalyptic thought (Daniel 7–12). The later section of Zechariah
9–14 speaks not of the Persian period but rather, of the Greeks
(Zechariah 9.13). The imagery now becomes that of universal war and
the siege of Jerusalem, instead of peace and rebuilding. The Romans,
who replace the Greeks, accept much of their Hellenized religion
with multiple gods, the human often made into gods, with gods
symbolizing forces of nature. Tolerant, the Romans reacted to any
events in opposition to the current
rule. As pointed out previously,
Jesus’s refusal to deny that he is “King of the Jews” becomes a
threat to Roman hegemony. The people in Mark 11:10 clearly
hail Jesus as in some way fulfilling messianic claim, whether
relative to an expected coming messianic age or an apocalyptic end
of an age: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!”
It is then against such an interpretive background and network of
inter-textual references that the “Son of Man” passages must be
interpreted. It may be best to allow “Son of God’ its multiple
meanings: angelic beings, Israel as chosen people, Israel’s
righteous or obedient, and king as personal representative.
Messianic proclamations must be seen against Jewish expectations and
traditions, including peace and rebuilding and apocalyptic end. “Son
of David” carries connotations of royalty and messianic “hoped-for
anointed one.” Jesus and “Son of Man,” some think, traditionally
have kept more to the historical and credible, with only Jesus using
the title directly, and the Evangelist quoting it directly or
indirectly.
Such simplicity, however, overlooks or minimizes the pivotal use of
“Son of Man” in Jesus’ interrogation before the high priest:
“Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus,
“and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”[35]Each
of the claims here carries ambiguity: Christ in both Greek and
Aramaic means messiah and “one who has been anointed,”’ and “Son of
the Blessed One” suggests Jesus
shares authority with God in heaven, “the Power’ being a
circumlocution,” and coming with the clouds of Heaven,” a reference
to Daniel 7:13. Here, “Son of Man” seems to suggest an apocalyptic,
end-of- time, future coming figure. Here arises, too, a controversy
concerning what sayings could authentically be claimed as having
been said by Jesus. Solutions range from denying Jesus spoke both
the apocalyptic or non-apocalyptic sayings, crediting the Church
with the creation of one or the other, attempting to reconcile all
sayings, and denying the authenticity of all sayings.[36]
Dom Henry Wansbrough finds structurally that “Son of Man” plays not
only a key role in the three prophecies of passion (8:31, 9:31,
10:33), the passion and vindication (9:9, 12), and three times in
passion without explicit mention of resurrection (10:45; 12:21,41),
but that it is also used in relation to Jesus' authority. [37] He
notes first, an authority to forgive sins (2: 10) and then, an
authority as “lord over the Sabbath” (2:28). More importantly, he
points out that “On the other occasions, all the sayings [Son of
Man] are in prominent positions, and therefore all the more
important for Mark's view of Jesus.
Mark 8:38 says, “If anyone in
this sinful and adulterous generation is ashamed of me and of my
words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the
glory of his Father with the holy angels,” leads into the
Transfiguration and presages final judgement.”[38] The
next (13.26-27), “And then they will see the Son of Man coming with
great power and glory. And then he will send the angels to gather
his elect from the four winds” comes at the climax of the
'eschatological discourse',
the foretelling of the persecution of Jesus' community in the world,
ending with their liberation by the son of man.”[39] According
to Wansbrough, the Daniel allusion leads directly to the decision to
have Jesus killed, not for his claim to be the
messiah, but for the claim for
an authority now extended to heaven. “Seated at the right hand “and
“coming with the clouds of heaven,” he explains, depict Jesus as
sharing the mobile Merkabah-throne of God:
This Merkabah-throne is the chariot-throne on which God is seated in
Ezekiel 1. Already at the time of
Jesus, this imagery bulked large in the imagination and
descriptions of Jewish mysticism (called Merkabah-mysticism). Such a
claim would give good grounds for the charge of blasphemy.[40]
Other scholars, however, such as Alan Richardson and C.H. Dodd have
argued that Ezekiel, while on the minds of early Christians, “does
not appeal to have been a primary source of testimonies.”[41] Wansbrough,
too, seems to have Ezekiel in mind at the same time that he quotes
Daniel and sees this as the climax of Mark’s presentation of Jesus:
he points out that Daniel has just described the four empires which
have oppressed the Jewish nation, and explains that Daniel uses the
“son of man” to represent that nation of Israel, vindicated,
triumphant, and ruling over the world with God’s authority; he
concludes that Mark sees Jesus as this “son of man,” sharing God’s
power and authority and the throne itself.[42] Another
interpretation of this passage interprets the Son of Man “stands for
a loyal, martyr-group who are brought to glory and vindicated
through suffering.”[43]
Wansbrough is not alone in seeing authority as a possible unifying
theme useful for reconciling the various epitaphs used for Jesus.[44]The
issue of authority arises early (1:22) in Mark’s presentation of
Jesus: everyone who hears him speak is astounded because he teaches
with authority, apparently speaking directly and in terms of his own
understanding rather than relying upon other experts in the law.[45] This
motif finds its echo later when Jesus teaches in the synagogue and
many astonished, listening people wonder about the content and
wisdom of his ideas as well as his hands-on miracles.[46] This
also occasions questions about his biological identity, the son of
Mary, his brothers, and
sisters, his trade. The fact that the people who listen take offense
suggests a Jewish audience and some derogatory direction in this
line of question. Not only does Jesus have teaching and healing
authority, but he also has authority to forgive sins and authority over the
Sabbath[47] The
story of the stilling of the storm demonstrates an authority over
natural forces.[48] This
authority caused the disciples to ask
exactly who Jesus was exactly. In healing a hemorrhagic woman
and raising the little girl of the synagogue ruler from her reported
death, Jesus demonstrates power over life and death itself. [49]The
question of Jesus’ authority intensifies following the episodes of
the Triumphal Entry, the Cleansing of the Temple the Cursing of the
Fig Tree, and the Withered Fig Tree. The chief priests, experts of
the law, and elders ask Jesus who gave him his authority; Jesus
recognizes immediately that
whatever answer he gives will be used against him, and redirects the
question to John’s authority, whether of God or the people.[50] Fearing
the people who believed John to be truly a prophet, the Jewish
leaders could only answer they did not know, leaving the question of
Jesus’ authority also unanswered. In the prediction of the coming
destruction of the Temple, the Abomination of Desolation, and the
coming of the Son of Man (with its allusion to Daniel 7:13), once
again, the issue is authority,
this time, the full authority of judgment.[51] When
this time will come has been
left open to debate, with the Son, in earthly life, warning that no
one knows of “that day or hour” (13:32). The issue of authority, as
already marked, comes up again when Jesus stands condemned before
the Sanhedrin, where he is asked
directly whether he is the Christ, “the Son of the Blessed
One,” and answers directly, “I am… and you will see the Son of Man
[elevated to heaven] sitting at the right hand of the Power and
coming with the clouds of heaven” (14:62).
In relation to authority, James R. Edwards has argued that the
“essential and distinctive characteristic of Jesus is to be found in
his exousia [freedom and magisterial authority]and that his
authority is perhaps the most significant example of implicit
Christology in the Gospel tradition.”[52] He
concludes, “Nowhere is the continuity between the memory of the
early Church and the self-understanding of Jesus more discernible
than in Mark’s witness to the exousia, his divine legitimacy as
God’s Son and servant.”[53] Even
here, however, the same paradoxical ambiguity between Christology
and history unfolds in the use of servant hood motif. Richard N.
Longenecker in “’Son of Man’ as a Self-Designation of Jesus” points
out, “there is a widely based tradition that Jesus used the term of
Himself and little evidence that there was any extensive use of Son
of Man as a Christological title on the part of Christians during
the first century.”[54] Longenecker
writes in opposition to two prevailing scholarly conclusions: that
the title alludes to pre-Christian Jewish thought concerning a
transcendent redeemer figure coming to the earth as a Judge in End
Time; a non-designation term applied to Jesus by the early Church
and a foundational motif in early Christologies.[55] He
quotes C.H. Dodd to dismiss Ezekiel as a possible source of the
term, and he explains the enigmatic figure of Daniel 7 speaks of the
glorification of a redeemer, not as transcendent, but in the context
of “glorification and vindication through suffering,” either as an
individual or as corporate personality.[56] He
concludes, Jesus used “Son of Man” as a self-designation “to
indicate his understanding of the nature of his messiahship.”[57]Further,
the apostolic Fathers largely used “Son of Man” to refer to the
humanity of Jesus and as a converse to the title Son of God.[58] Longenecker
ends his discussion by quoting G.H. Dalman: “He purposely furnished
them with a problem which stimulated reflection about His person,
and gave such a tendency to this reflection that the solution of the
problem revealed the mystery of the personality of Jesus.”[59]
Just as the existing text of Mark uses “Son of Man” in a
structurally strategic way to address Jesus’ ministry and passion,
alongside a paradoxical motif of Christology and servant hood, other
epitaphs also reveal significance within the overall narrative
structure. Unclean spirits, when Jesus ministers outside the
traditional Jewish territories, cry out, “You are the Son of God.” [60] Early
in the first chapter of Mark, following the healing of Simon’s
mother-in-law and others who were sick and demon-possessed, Jesus
would not permit the demons to speak, revealing they knew him.[61] The
healing of a demoniac in Gentile territory warrants the recognition
of Jesus as “Son of the Most God.” [62] And
it is a Roman centurion, observing how Jesus died, who
declared, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”[63] The
point should not be missed that Jesus can be more openly proclaimed
as God outside Jewish territories and by non-Jewish observers. On
the other hand, Jewish leaders ask questions more specifically with
respect to Jesus’ being the Messiah, whether of this age or End Age
(with transcendent and
universal rule), this latter with overtones of blasphemy. Peter, a
Jewish disciple, proclaims Jesus as Messiah, but objects to a
Messiah who will be rejected, suffer, and die. Peter obviously is
expecting a messianic king in current history, a national and
political messiah. “Son of David” emerges in the context of Jewish
experience or expectations, with Blind Bartimaeus proclaiming Jesus
as “Son of David,” probably in the tradition of knowing that Solomon
had been acclaimed to have powers of healing; again, in the
Triumphal entry proclaiming Jesus as “coming in the name of the
Lord,” followed by “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father
David;” it appears once more in the question of whether the Messiah
is David’s son or David’s Lord.[64] That
the Messiah is David’s Lord would suggest an apocalyptic world view
and potentially an “other-worldly” transcendent Messiah.
The other view of Messiah would have been to see the Davidic Messiah
in the tradition of the prophet.
The Roman hegemony interests itself most pointedly in any claims to
kingship and possible insurrection.
In designating himself “Son of Man,” Jesus chooses a title that is,
at once, most acceptable, as without risk, and yet ultimately, most
radical,” revealing as well as hiding.”[65] The
storywriter presents a plot that unfolds about this “Son of Man.”
The Son of Man appears in a fast-paced narrative that presents him
in all of his actions and deeds as evidencing everything other than
another ordinary teacher or would-be messiah; he astonishes everyone
he encounters with his “sovereign freedom and magisterial
authority.”[66] As
“Son of Man,” he understands his ministry as one that will culminate
in suffering and death, and any glorification will come as a
testament to this completed
destiny. To the Romans, and indeed, gentiles in general, “Son of
Man” posed no particular challenge. For Jewish believers in a
Davidic and political Messiah, the rejection, suffering, and
crucifixion of Jesus shook them, as demonstrated by Peter, as an
outrageous disappointment. One could well understand any motivation
they, and the early Church
might have to shift from this vision to another of vindication and
an apocalyptic “Son of Man” liberating Israel. For most Jewish
people, however, any sharing of the throne of God would have been
deeply suspect, bordering on blasphemy. Thus, they would have
worried about Jesus’ acts of forgiving sins, his healings on the
Sabbath, and his treatment and regard for the Temple, including any
predictions regarding its destruction. They would have followed
carefully any proclamations about a “Son of God” and the several
possible meanings: angelic beings,
Israel as chosen people, Israel’s righteous or obedient, and king as
personal representative. The Romans would have surveyed the man
Jesus and the crowds that surrounded him, observing carefully any
claims of kingship, or acts of insurrection to their hegemony.
Claims of “Son of God” would, likewise, have aroused little
suspicion or unrest among a Hellenized
people accustomed to having
humans elevated into gods. Mark, however, presents a Jesus referring
to himself in the third person as “Son Man,” perhaps with overtones
already of an early Palestinian Christianity trying to make sense of
the man Jesus, and it is with respect to this title that all
questions of the narrative identity of Jesus will have to be
settled.
Mark Goodacre has described Mark as “a work of brutish genius, which
was subsequently explicated by both Matthew and Luke.”[67] Joanna
Dewey has argued that Mark survived because it has always been
recognized as “a good story” with oral characteristics: no linear
climatic plot, a structure consisting rather of repetitive patterns,
series of parallel episodes, concentric, and chiastic structures.[68] She
goes on to say, “Such structures are characteristic of oral
literature, helping the performer, the audience, and new performers,
and audiences remember and transmit the
material. From what we know of oral literature there is no reason
why it could not have been composed and transmitted in oral form.”[69]Wansbrough
imagines, “the community came to
Mk and said, ‘Mark, you are such a good story-teller that we choose
you to write it all down.’”[70] He
then points to Mark’s use of “ the
historical present [which]
gives a breathless speed to the narrative which [and] emphasizes the
urgency of Jesus’ message,” Mark’s zooming -in technique which
focuses on memorable, material objects such as Jesus asleep in the
stern of the boat with his head on a cushion or a woman
touching his cloak from behind, delayed explanations that force the
reader to ask questions, sandwiching techniques, use of
controversies, and triple repetitions for emphasis.[71] Readers
today will encounter Mark the storyteller as he tells the story of
Jesus, a man who came into history, lived in history, and died as a
man in history; they will encounter a metaphorical narrative in
which ultimately the quest for factuality vanishes. They will hear
again the familiar words, “Who
do you say I am?” and hear Jesus’ own words, “Neither will
I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” They
will experience the
rejected Jesus, suffering, and crucified; they will stand inside his
tomb and hear the words, “Do
not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was
crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the
place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is
going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he
told you.”[72] With
Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome, readers of Mark will flee the tomb
in terror and amazement, saying nothing to anyone, “for they were
afraid.”
Bateman, Herbert W. "Defining the
titles 'Christ' and 'Son of God' in Mark's Narrative
Presentation of Jesus." JETS 50/3 , ( September 2007) 537–59.
Beavis, Mary Ann and Michael
J. Eds. Dictrionary of the Bible and Western Culture. Gilmour.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
Burkett, Delbert Royce. The Son of Man Debate: A History and
Evaluation. Society for New Testament Studies, 107. UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
Chapman, Dean W. The Orphan Gospel: Mark’s Perspective on Jesus. The
Biblical Seminar 16. JSOT/Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 1993.
Crossan, John Dominic. The
Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San
Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1991. Paperback edition, 1993.
Depoe, John M. Depoe. “The Messianic
Secret in “The Gospel of Mark: Historical Development and Value of
Wrede’s Theory” http://www.johndepoe.com/Messianic_secret.pdf(accessed
February 20, 2014).
Dewey, Joanna. “Survival of Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, Fall 2004, Questia,http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-712541541/the-survival-of-mark-s-gospel-a-good-story (accessed
March 4, 2014).
Dodd, C.H. “The Founder of Christianity,””Religion Online. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2241&C=2113 (accessed
February 20, 2014).
Edwards, James R. “The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of
Mark.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society.http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_217-233_Edwards.pdf.
Accesse014. March 5, 2014.
Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To The
early Christian Writings, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Fowler, Robert W. “Using Literary Criticism on the
Gospels.” Religion-online. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1565(accessed (accessed
February 19, 2014).
Goodacre, Mark. “Excerpt from Chapter 3” The Synoptic Problem: A Way
Through the Maze,http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/excerpt.htm,
(accessed March 4, 2014).
Hay, Lewis S. Quoting Oscar Cullman,“The Son-of-God Christology in
Mark,” Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 32, No. 2 (April 1964),
106-114. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460203 (accessed
February 26, 2014).
Head, Peter. “The
Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical
Considerations.” http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol13/Head2008.pdf.
(Accessed February 19, 2014.
Longenecker, Richard N. “’Son of Man’ as a Self-Designation of
Jesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/12/12-3/12-3-pp151-158_JETS.pdf,
accessed March 11, 2014.
Parker, Pierson. “John and John Mark.” Journal of Biblical
Literature Vol.79. No. 2.( June, 1960): 97-110.
Perrin, Norman. "Criticism, Literary Criticism, and Hermeneutics:
The Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus and the Gospel of Mark
Today," The Journal of Religion, Vol. 52, No. 4, Oct., 1972,
pp. 361-375, Published by: The University Press,
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1201589(accessed: 15/03/2012
10:59).
Powel, Mark Allan. “'Things
That Matter': Historical Jesus Studies in the New Millennium.” SBL
Forum Archive, Society for Biblical Literature, http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=333. (accessed
February 20, 2014).
Rhodes, David, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An
Introduction to the Narrative of the Gospel.Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1999.
Schildgen, Brenda Deen. Power and Prejudice: Reception of the Gospel
of Mark. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999
Turton, Michael. Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark:
Introduction to the Gospel of Mark. http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_intro.html#interp.
(accessed Feb. 18, 2014.
Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God:Christian Question
and the Origins of God. Vol. 3.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 203, 24.
Wansbrough, Dom Henry. “What
Did Mark Think of Jesus?”Ampleforth, April 23, 2005 http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/essays/marksviewofjesus.htm(accessed
March 4, 2014.
------.“Introduction
to Mark,” Lectionary, Scripture Study, Worship Links and Resources http://www.textweek.com/mkjnacts/mark.htm (accessed
March 4, 2014).
[1] Delbert
Royce Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and
Evaluation, Society for New Testament Studies, 107, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2004, 43.
[2] Mark
11:33.
[3] Mark
8:29.
[4] (Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1999).
[5] http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol13/Head2008.pdf.
(Accessed February 19, 2014.
[6] Michael
Turton, Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark:Introduction to
the Gospel of Mark, http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_intro.html#interp,
accessed March 12, 2014.
[7] ESV,
“Introduction to Mark.”
[8] David
Rhodes, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie,Mark as Story: An
Introduction to the Narrative of the Gospel, Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1999), iii..
[9] Robert
W. Fowler, “Using Literary Criticism on the
Gospels,” religion-online, http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1565(accessed February
19, 2014).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Richard
N.Longenecker in “’Son of Man’ as a Self-Designation of
Jesus” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/12/12-3/12-3-pp151-158_JETS.pdf,
accessed March 11, 2014, 157.
[12] Ibid.
[13] “Introduction.”
[14] SBL
Forum Archive, Society for Biblical Literature, http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=333. (accessed
February 20, 2014).
[15] Ibid.
[16] JETS
50:3 (Sep 2007).http://www.galaxie.com/article/jets50-3-06.
(accessed February 29, 20140.
[17]http://www.johndepoe.com/Messianic_secret.pdf (accessed
February 20, 2014).
[18] Norman
Perrin, "Criticism, Literary Criticism, and Hermeneutics: The
Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus and the Gospel of Mark
Today," The Journal of Religion, Vol. 52, No. 4, Oct., 1972,
pp. 361-375, Published by: The University of Chicago Press,,
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1201589,
Accessed: 15/03/2012 10:59).364.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Lewis
S. Hay, quoting Oscar Cullman,“The Son-of-God Christology in
Mark,” Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 32, No. 2 (April 1964),
106-114. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460203 (accessed
February 26, 2014).
[24] 9:29.
[25] 9:20.
[26] 16:13
[27] “The
Founder of Christianity,”Religion Online, http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2241&C=2113 (accessed
February 20, 2014).
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Bart
Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To The early
Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
[31] N.T.
Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God:Christian Question and
the Origins of God. Vol. 3.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 203, 24.
[32]Herbert
W. Bateman, "Defining
the titles 'Christ' and 'Son of God' in Mark's Narrative
Presentation of Jesus" (JETS 50/3 ,September 2007, 537–59) 543.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid,.
[35] Mark
14: 61, 62
[36] 44.
[37] “What
Did Mark Think of Jesus?” Ampleforth, April 23, 2005
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/essays/marksviewofjesus.htm (accessed
March 4, 2014).
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Longenecker,153.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Longenecker,
quoting C.F.D. Moule, 154.
[44] Burkett,
49-50.
[45] Note,
Net Bible.mir
[46] 6:2.
[47] 2:10,
28.
[48] Chapter
4.
[49] Mark
5.
[50] 11:27-33.
[51] Mark
13.
[52] “The
Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark,”Journal of the Evangelical
Theological
Societyhttp://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-2/JETS_37-2_217-233_Edwards.pdf.
[53] Ibid.
232.
[54] Longenecker,
“Son of Man,” 155.
[55] Ibid.151.
[56] Ibid.
154.
[57] Ibid.158.
[58] Ibid.157.
[59] Ibid.
158
[60] 3:11.
[61] 1:32.
[62] 5:7.
[63] 15:39
[64] 10:47,
11:10,12:36.
[65] Longenecker,
156.
[66] Edwards,
217.
[67] “Excerpt
from Chapter 3” The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze,http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/excerpt.htm,
Accessed March 4, 2014.
[68] “Survival
of Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, Fall 2004, Questia,http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-712541541/the-survival-of-mark-s-gospel-a-good-story (Accessed
March 4, 2014).
[69] Ibid.
[70] “Introduction
to Mark,” Lectionary, Scripture Study, Worship Links and Resources http://www.textweek.com/mkjnacts/mark.htm (Accessed
March 4, 2014).
[71] Ibid.
[72] Mark
16: 6,7.