Christology and Authority in the Gospel of Mark

By coincidence I independently came across two articles by Daniel Johansson in the space of a few minutes. Obviously, a divine sign that I must share these articles both from the Journal for the Study of the New Testament:

Daniel Johansson,  "Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark",  Journal for the Study of the New Testament September 2010 33: 101-124.


He writes: "The thesis is, in short, that the ambiguous use of κυριος [in Mark] is intentional and serves the purpose of linking Jesus to the God of Israel, so that they both share the identity as κύριος." (102-3, emphasis in original.)


Abstract:

Against the common view that the title κύριος  plays a relatively insignificant role in the Gospel of Mark, this article argues that Mark uses κυριος to set out important aspects of Jesus’ identity. The first instance of κύριος, which refers to both God and Jesus (Mk 1.3), is seen as the key to Mark’s κύριος Christology. The difficulty of determining whether κύριος refers to God or Jesus in many of the following passages should be understood in light of this. Mark used κύριος ambiguously to link both God and Jesus to the title. While the evangelist maintains that there is only one κύριος , he also claims that Jesus shares the identity of being κύριος with the God of Israel.

Daniel Johansson  "‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism" Journal for the Study of the New Testament June, 2011 33: 351-374.
 

Abstract:

Was forgiveness of sins viewed as a divine prerogative, uniquely reserved for the God of Israel in early Judaism? While some scholars think this was the case, others have questioned or qualified such a view, arguing that other figures, such as priests, prophets, various messianic figures, or angels, could forgive sins in the place of God. This article surveys and critiques the main evidence that has been put forward to demonstrate this. The outcome is mainly negative. With the possible exception of one or two passages which may ascribe the authority to pardon sin to the Angel of YHWH, no firm evidence can be found which demonstrates that other figures than God forgave sins. Various strands of early Judaism conceived of human and angelic agents who interceded on behalf of others, expiated sin and mediated forgiveness from God, but they all seem to have shared the view that forgiveness is divine prerogative.

Bauckham on Divine Identity & Orthodox Christology

After a lengthy summarising of Richard Bauckham's thesis (including some snazzy tables) I came across his own:

In my view much work on New Testament christology has employed categories of thought that are certainly no less appropriate than those of the patristic definitions. In particular, much damage has been done by the standard distinction between functional christology and ontic christology. The former means that Jesus performs divine functions (such as saving and judging) but only as an agent of God, while ontic christology goes further in claiming that Jesus shares the being of God or is divine by nature. A widespread assumption has been that in the Jewish monotheistic context in which the earliest christology developed only functional christology is conceivable. Ontic christology is possible only to the extent that early Christianity moved outside a dominantly Jewish framework of thought, and the more scholars have come to think that most, if not all of the New Testament writings belong within a Jewish framework of thought, the more ontic christology has been pushed to the margins of the New Testament. There has been a strong tendency to read New Testament christological texts in as 'low' a way as possible on the grounds that their original Jewish context requires this. Obviously, the gap between the Christ of the New Testament and the Christ of later patristic orthodoxy grows deeper and wider.

While I entirely agree that Jewish monotheism was the context of thought within which early christology originated and developed, I think that the relationship of early christology and Jewish monotheism has been profoundly misunderstood. It is vital to work with categories that are appropriate to the texts we are considering, and it seems to me that the category most helpful for characterizing both Jewish monotheism and New Testament christology is that of divine identity. Jewish theology was much more concerned with 'who God is' (divine identity) than with 'what divinity is' (divine nature). Jewish monotheism defined the unique identity of God - what it is that constitutes God the only God - in a number of ways, of which the most prominent are that the God of Israel is the only creator of all things and the only sovereign ruler of all things. These were ways of distinguishing the one God absolutely from all other reality. The exclusive worship of only this one God was the appropriate way of recognizing his unique identity. When we read the New Testament with these ways of characterizing the unique identity of the God of Israel in view, it becomes very clear that the New Testament writings use precisely these uniquely divine characteristics to include Jesus within the unique identity of the God of Israel. When Jesus is pictured as seated at God's right hand on the cosmic throne in heaven from which God exercises his sovereign rule over all things, Jesus is being included in the unique divine identity. It is not that Jesus is exercising a divine function which God may delegate to someone other than God. Sovereignty over all things is a uniquely divine relationship to the world and belongs to who God is. Similarly, and even more unambiguously, when the New Testament portrays the pre-existent Christ participating in God's work of Creation, there could be no clearer way, in Jewish theological terms, of claiming that Jesus belongs - eternally - to the unique identity of the one God, the God of Israel, the Creator and Ruler of all things. This is why early Christians worshipped Jesus without supposing that they were abandoning Jewish monotheism. In terms of the definition of Jewish monotheism, the worship of Jesus as included in the unique divine identity made sense, whereas the worship of Jesus as someone other than God, to whom God merely delegated divine functions, would have been idolatry and effectively polytheism. Early Christianity remained monotheistic precise because it attributed divinity in the fullest (and only true) sense to Jesus, not because it made Jesus some kind of lesser divinity distinguished from God.

From this perspective all christology in the New Testament is equally 'high' since at least Jesus' status as exalted to the divine throne of the universe - the symbol of God's uniqueness - is everywhere presupposed and in this basic sense the New Testament writings share a common christology. Against the background of twentieth-century study of New Testament christology, I find rather astonishing to be able to say that, from Pentecost onwards, there was never a stage at which Christians did not consider Jesus to share in the unique divine identity, but I think this is true. In the New Testament there is christological development in the sense of drawing out the implications of this, but there is no development from 'low' to 'high' christology. New Testament christology is already the highest possible christology - but developed and expounded in Jewish theological terms. What made the difference for the Fathers was, first, a context in Hellenistic philosophy which highlighted divine nature rather than divine identity, and, secondly, the temptation to understand monotheism in a non-Jewish way, such that the uniqueness of the one God (the Father) could be maintained by attributing subordinate divinity to Christ. These problems required the Fathers to work through the issues of trinitarian and christological doctrine in order to reach definitions that adequately re-stated the claims of New Testament christology in a different intellectual context. These definitions are Hellenistic insofar as they give prominence to notions of divine and human nature (what it is to be divine, what it is to be human), but they also correspond to the New Testament's Jewish thinking about God insofar as the idea of divine nature is subordinated to a trinitarian understanding of God and a hypostatic (personal) understanding of incarnation. The Trinity is the Christian statement of God's identity (who God is) and the statement that the eternal divine Son made human nature his own in incarnation effectively includes the man Jesus within the identity of the one and only God.

And more...

Scribal Habits as Christological Indicators of Early Christian Diversity

In 1934 with the publication of Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (tr. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity ) Walter Bauer set into motion a new approach to understanding the relationship between orthodoxy and heresy in the early church.  Although problematic in many respects, this legacy has been continued to this day in a variety of fields. Two notable commentators following the legacy of Bauer would be Bart Ehrman (e.g. Orthodox Corruption of Scripture; Lost Christianities; as well as a short rehash in Jesus Interrupted.) as well as Helmut Koester. These scholars have in some way or another, utilised early Christian literary sources as indicators of Christian diversity. With this in mind, it is a contention of mine that an approach to early Christianity can be greatly complimented through the study of early scribal habits. In particular, an evaluation of textual corruptions and the use of features such as the nomina sacra may be used to tweak a Christological model to assist our understanding of Christian diversity.


For example, text critical analysis of New Testament manuscripts and early patristic citations has been the basis for Ehrman’s reconstruction of Christianity. Ehrman’s thesis argues that early Christological controversies are reflected in corruptions of the NT texts by overzealous proto-orthodox scribes.[1] For example, in Luke 3:22 Ehrman conjectures an original adoptionist reading in the post-baptismal discourse of God, declaring “today I have begotten you” as opposed to “with you I am well pleased.”[2] Although Ehrman's  preferred adoptionist reading does not find much support,[3] it has opened up a new way of understanding the early Christian artifacts as an indicator of orthodoxy and heresy. Similarly, text critical analysis has been utilised by Ben Witherington in noting “a concerted effort by some part of the Church, perhaps as early as the late first century or beginning of the second, to tone down texts ...that indicated that women played an important and prominent part in the early days of the Christian community.”[4]

In light of the possibilities of examining the manuscripts, I propose that the development of the nomina sacra may be used in the region of Egypt. That is, the use of nomina sacra act as a Christological indicator that may be used to demonstrate an early and possibly dominant proto-orthodox community.

Although the nomina sacra is used in both literary and documentary papyri[5] the focus of this examination will be on the use in early literary works. The origins of the nomina sacra, although contested, show an awareness of both Graeco-Roman and Jewish scribal traditions. However, it would be fair to argue that the original abbreviation of the divine names appear to be tied to the Jewish scribal treatment of the divine name in the indisputably Greek biblical manuscripts of Jewish provenance.[6] Within the Jewish scribal tradition, the Tetragrammaton was often distinguished from the rest of the text.[7] For example, in P.Oxy. 3522 of Job 42, the Tetragrammaton is distinguished through the use of Paleo-Hebrew characters despite a Greek text.[8]  On this basis, as well as the consistent and early use, Roberts has found favour in the argument that the nomina sacra came to Egypt through “Jewish Christians from Palestine”[9] citing synagogue  practices as the best explanation of such a consistent, widespread and early use.[10]

Although by the Byzantine period around fifteen words came to frequently be treated as nomina sacra by Christian scribes, the significance of the early scribal habits should not be overlooked.[11] That is, noting that the earliest and most consistently abbreviated names were θεος, κυριος, χριστος and ιησους. [12] Similarly, a number of scholars have argued that the nomina sacra was present in the earliest Christian literary manuscript, P52, for example.[13]

With this in mind, what can we learn about early Christian diversity? By appealing to a Christological model for defining sectarian Christianity, a number of possible directions can be taken. First of all it may be said that this demonstrates a form of early Jewish and proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus which has been coined “binitarian.”[14] Arguably, the consistent use of the scribal habit of Jesus/Christ with Lord/God[15] demonstrates both a reverence of YHWH and the high Christology of Jesus; as well as a divine equation of both. The implications of this on the models of Bauer and Koester include early evidence of proto-orthodox Christological expression in Egypt. Similarly, the exaltation of YHWH as an early scribal habit in Egypt would count in favour of proto-orthodox and Jewish Christianity as opposed to Marcionite leaning interpretation of scripture, or Gnostic demiurge tendancies.

Further Notes:

• For an evaluation of Bauer's model see Robinson, Thomas A. The Bauer Thesis Examined : The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity.
• Sorry if everything I said was wrong, utterly flawed and incoherent (having been written between 11pm-1am today).

---

[1] Ehrman (1989). The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

[2] Ibid. 49.; Idem (2005) Misquoting Jesus. 159.

[3] For example, the reading relies heavily on the Western text type while also raising questions about Markan priority. Metzger in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament grants the Alexandrian and Byzantine reading a “B” rating, stating, “The Western reading, “This day I have begotten thee,” which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps 2.7.”

[4] Witherington, 'The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the 'Western' Text in Acts', Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.82), (March 1984).

[5] E.g. P.Congr. 15.20 III/IV cf. http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf

[6] For a list of Greek biblical manuscripts generally held to be of Jewish provenance see the compilation by Robert Kraft: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//jewishpap.html#jewishmss

[7] Roberts (1977), Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. 47.

[8] This is evident in the image: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//lxxjewpap/POxy3522.jpg

[9] Roberts (1977), Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. 45.

[10] Roberts (1977), Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. 45-46.

[11] Hurtado (2005). The Earliest Christian Artifacts. 96-97.

[12] Hurtado (2005). The Earliest Christian Artifacts. 96-97.

[13] Charles E. Hill, "Did the Scribe of P52 Use the Nomina Sacra? Another Look," NTS 48 (2002): 587-92.

[14] E.g. Hurtado (2005), How on Earth did Jesus Become a God?; Idem, (2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. 627. It should be noted that Hurtado’s use of binitarianism refers to cultic devotion, not precluding the Trinitarian belief formulated by later orthodox Christianity.

[15] Although, the sufficient ambiguity of the use of kyrios referring to both Jesus and YHWH in the Christian writings should be noted. That said, however, it should be noted that the kyrios scribal habit is present in Christian OT texts.

Quote of the Day - I. Howard Marshall on Bousset's Christology

From The Origins of New Testament Christology by I. Howard Marshall (1990 reprint):

His (Bousset's) appeeal to religious parallels from outside Judaism easily turns parallels into influences, and much of the details reconstructions of myths that have been held to influnce the early Church has been shown to rest on a misreading of the sources. Finally, his attempt to distance Paul from Jesus by means of a hypothetical gentile church acting as intermediary must be pronounced a failure. (pp.18-19)

The Exalted Christology of Mark 12:35-37

The exalted Christology of the synoptic gospels is greatly underappreciated. In fact, in many cases the idea of high Christology in the synoptics is sneered at. Some argue that it isn't until the Gospel of John that we find the Christology that sets Jesus apart being a mere mortal prophet.

If I was to suggest that John 17:5 had its roots in primitive Christology I am sure many would dismiss it without consideration. However, I think we should give it a go. John 17:5 (ESV) states:

And now, Father,  glorify me in your own presence with the glory  that I had with you  before the world existed.

 We see a number of unique features here. Firstly, Jesus is clearly an exalted character. Secondly, Jesus shared in the glory of God. Thirdly, Jesus shared in the Father's glory in the realm of his human pre-existence.

I am going to go out on a limb and assert that these three features of an exalted Jesus who shared glory with God in a state of pre-existence is found within the Gospel of Mark. In fact, in a single few verse pericope of Mark 12:35-37 (ESV) which reads:

35  And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,
“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’

37 David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.

So, just to set the scene here. Jesus is at the temple and we receive an exert of the sermon (or even a provocative opening?). Here, we find an open challenge to the Messianic expectations of the scribes. Namely, you say that the Messiah is the son of David? Jesus is setting out to demonstrate that the Messiah is to be so much more, so he moves to the scripture. He cites David under the influence of the Holy Spirit declaring: "YHWH said to my Adoni, Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."

That's all good, but Jesus goes to identify the Messiah with the lord of the text. David himself calls the Messiah lord. So, to the three points from before. Firstly, the Messiah is identified as an exalted figure - he is even recognised as lord by David. Secondly, Adonai is in the glory and presence of YHWH during this discourse and was to be at His right hand. Thirdly, this all took place in a context of pre-existence.

Evidently, we find a very high Christology in these few verses of Mark. Just like the obviously high Christology of John 17:5, we find this short pericople espousing the same features in terms that appear to be just as strong - if not stronger.

Earliest Christianity: One Church or Warring Sects?

Want to read  about unity and diversity in the early church?  Don't have time to read James D.G. Dunn's massive Unity and Diversity in the New Testament? Sick of Ehrman's focus and glorification of second and third century groups? Can't be bothered to wait for me to finish Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity: The Case for Proto-orthodoxy?

Well, then you're just lazy busy. In that case, there is a nice primer in James D.G. Dunn's The Evidence for Jesus. He devotes a chapter to the topic titled "Earliest Christianity: One Church or Warring Sects?"

I must say the title in itself is interesting, however, a tad misleading. In my opinion, it would be wrong to imply that some sort of sectarianism or diversity precludes the concept of "one Church" as, say, a Protestant would understand the term. As he makes the case, there was diversity in earliest Christianity.  But does diversity preclude the existence of a clear orthodoxy? I maintain no - and this is a point that Dunn leaves hanging for far too long in a work intended for such an audience.

In my own life, I wouldn't agree with some what my fellow Christians believe - however, these are all too the periphery. As a Christian who loves the early (in some cases pre-scriptural) creeds, I believe such a form is sufficient to maintain orthodoxy. (I can probably say this with more confidence than those with a theological background :))

So, after all the gloom of telling us that Paul was not the only guy in the early church and that there were people opposing him in expression of the faith, we finally get a touching moment on early Christian unity:

What united the first Christians more than anything else was their belief in Jesus - in Jesus as the climax of God's ongoing purpose for man's redemption, the one whom God had raised from the dead and exalted as Lord, the man who demonstrated most clearly what God is like. Clustered round this central distinguishing belief of the first Christians were a number of others on which they would all have agreed in essence, even if their outworking in fuller formulation and practical application diverged in differing degrees: God, the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ, as one; salvation through faith in Christ; the experience of the Spirit; the Old Testament as scripture and the traditions of Jesus, both to be treasured as authoritative for faith and life; Christianity's continuity with Israel, the people of God; practice of baptism in the name of Jesus and of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of him; and the need for an ethical outworking of faith through love. Such is the heartland of Christianity still. (James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus p.99)

But before ending I must add that I really believe that Dunn's image of first century diversity is clouded by his approach to early Christology. Dunn's view which rips the divine Christology from Paul and his favour for developing Christology within the 'Hellenist' Churches forces him to over emphasise some differences between those zealous for the law vs Paul. For example, on the later Jewish Christian sects (such as the Ebionites) he states:

For the Jewish Christians of the second and third centuries, Jesus was simply a prophet, James the first sole leader of the Jerusalem church was the great hero, and Paul who had transformed the faith by opening the door so wide to the gentiles was a renegade and apostate.(p.96)

However, can Dunn really argue this? I greatly disagree with Dunn's Christological approach and I see no convincing evidence that the Jerusalem church saw Jesus as anything less than exalted as part of the divine identity of YHWH.

As Larry Hurtado has shown in his extensive works on early Christology, "Devotion to Jesus appeared too early, and originated among circles of the early Jesus movement that were comprised of - or certainly dominated by - Jews...." (Lord Jesus Christ, p. 42). Furthermore, Jesus' divine identity was classifed in terms of first century Judaism in such an exalted manner. As Richard Bauckham states, “the highest possible Christology – the inclusion of Jesus in the unique divine identity – was central to the faith of the early church even before any of the New Testament writings were written, since it occurs in all of them.” ("God Crucified" in Jesus and the God of Israel p.19)

So, in essence, read Dunn on early Christian diversity with his Christological view in mind.