Mk14 - Are You the Messiah

7/31/2019 Mk14 - Are You the Messiah

1/18

Novum Testamen tum XX X I , 2 (1989)

M A R K 14:61:

" A R E Y O U T H E M E S S I A H - S O N - O F - G O D ? "

by

JOEL MARCUS

Princeton Theological Seminary

Types of Apposition

In a discussion of English grammar, R. Quirk and S. Green-

baum distinguish non-restrictive from restrictive apposition. In

non-restrictive apposition, the second appositive provides addi

tional, parenthetic information not essential for identifying the

referent, which is already identified in the first appositive. This

type of apposit ion is " indicated in speech by separated tone units

for the appositives and in writing by commas or more weighty

punctuation., ,

In restrictive apposition, on the other hand, the first

appositive is viewed as a member of a class which can be

linguistically identified only through the modification supplied by

the second appositive.1

Quirk and Greenbaum give the following

illustration:

Non-restrictive apposition "Mr Campbell, the lawyer, was here last night "Restrictive apposition "Mr Campbell the lawyer was here last night" (1 e as

opposed to any other Mr Campbel l we know)

Consider now Mark 14:61b-64 in the RSV version:

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand

of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven ' ' And the high priest tore his

garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his

blasphemy What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving

death

Al i h i k2

l i d


2/18

126 JOEL MARCUS

taries join with the RS V in const ruing the relationship between the

titles "Christ" and "Son of the Blessed" in Mark 14:61 as one of

non-restrictive apposition.3 The two appositives are separated in

translation by commas, and the second, "the Son of the Blessed,"

merely supplements the pr imary identification supplied by the first,

"the Christ." This reading leads easily to the conclusion of several

scholars that the two titles are essentially synonymous in the

Markan account.4 The passage is thus taken to be parallel to 15:32,

in which "Messiah" and "King of Israel" clearly are non-

restrictive synonymous appositives.It is the purpose of the present study, however, to challenge both

the non-restrictive interpretation of the apposition in Mark 14:61

and the conclusion that the titles "Christ" and "Son of the

Blessed" are to be understood synonymously.5

3Moffatt, N AB, NAS B, NE B, NI V, Phillips, TE V translations, E Lohmeye r,

Das Evangelium des Markus (Gottingen Vandenhoeck& Rup recht , 1951, on g 1937)

326-28, V Taylor, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Gra nd Rapid s Baker, 1981,ong 1950) 567-68, J Blmzler, Der Prozess Jesu (2d ed , Reg ens burg Pustet , 1955)

75, D F Nineham, Saint Mark (Pelican New Testament Commentaries, Mid

dlesex Peng uin, 1963) 397, W Gr un dm an n, Das Evangelium nach Markus

( T H K N T 2, Berlin Evangelische, 1965) 299, E Schweizer, The GoodNews Accord

ing to Mark (Atlanta J ohn Knox, 1970) 320, W Lan e, The Gospel of Mark

( N I C N T, Gr and Rapi ds Eer dman s, 1974) 535, R Pesch, Das Markusevangelium

(2 vols , H T K N T 2, Fre iburg Herd er , 1976) 2 437, J Gnilka, Das Evangelium

nach Markus (2 vols , E K K N T 2, Zurich Benziger/Neukir chener , 1978-79) 2 274,

C S Ma nn , Mark A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27,

Gar de n City Double day, 1986) 606, D Lu hr ma nn , Das Markusevangelium ( H N T3, Tu bi ng en Mohr /Siebeck , 1987) 247 Some of the commenta ries speak

specifically of the "apposition" of the two titles, by which they clearly mean non-

restnctive apposition4

In the vocabulary of Quir k a nd G re en ba um ( 9 53), this type of non-

restnctive apposition is "reformulation," in which "a synonymous word or

phrase may replace the first formulation in order to avoid misinterpretation or

provide a more familiar or a more technical term " Lovestam ("Frage," 95)

characteri zes synonymity as the usual interpr etat ion, see e g J Blinzler, Prozess

75, D R Catchpol e, " T h e Probl em of the Historicity of the Sanh edrm Tr ia l, "

The Trial of Jesus Cambridge Studies in honour of C F D Moule (ed E Bammel, SB2nd senes 13, Nape rvil le Allenson, 1970) 64, W La ne , Mark 535, D Ju el ,

Messiah and Temple The Trial ofJesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31 Missoula


3/18

THE MESSIAH-SON-OF-GOD 127

The Charge of Blasphemy

One of the main problems with taking "Christ (= Messiah)" and

"Son of the Blessed (= Son of God)"6

as synonyms is that the

charge of blasphemy in 14:63-64 then becomes difficult to under

stand. Why should Jesus' claim to be "the Messiah, the Son of

God" be considered blasphemous7

if "Son of God" is merely a

synonym for "Messia h"? What is blasphemous about claiming to

be the Messiah?

One searches Jewish literature in vain for evidence that a simpleclaim to be the Messiah would incur such a charge. Although the

Mishnaic limitation of blasphemy to pronunciation of the divine

name {San. 7:5) probably reflects a later restriction of the charge,8

it is likely that already in New Testament times blasphemy was

defined as misuse of God's name.9

This criterion is not met by the

staking of a messianic claim if, as is normally the case in Jewish

proper sense, Son of God being understood as a synonym for Messiah, or is more

'Christian,' Messiah being defined by Son of God and the emphasis being on the

Chr ist ian no tion of Je su s' div ine Sonship " Wh at is new in the present study is

the relation of this question to different kinds of apposition and to a specific Jewish

background6

Ma tt 26 63 rend ers Ma rk' s "S on of the Blessed" with "Son of God " O n

" th e Blessed O n e " as a circumlocut ion for Go d, see D Ju el , Messiah and Temple

77-79 Since "Son of the Blessed" is equivalent to "So n of G o d , " bu t the latter

is a more familiar and less awkward phrase, it will be used in what follows even

in renderings of ' * Son of the Blessed ' '

Noti ng that there are Jewis h analogies (" th e Holy On e, Blessed be He " ) but

no exact Jewish parallels to " t he Blessed O n e " in the liter ature known to us, Juel

concludes that this is a "pseudo-Jewish expression " The fragmentary nature of

ou r sources for first-century Ju dai sm , however, casts some doubt on the

appropr iateness of the prefix " p se u do - "7

It is most likely tha t in the Ma rkan narrat ive as it presently stands Je su s' affir

mation of the titles of 14 61 is meant to be seen as the immediate cause of his con

demnat ion for blas phem y See the detailed discussions of the blas phemy charge

by D R Catchpole {The Trial of Jesus A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography

from 1770 to the Present Day [SPB 18, Leiden Brill, 1971] 126-48) and D Ju el


4/18

128 JOEL MARCUS

texts, the Messiah10

is simply a human figure from the line of

David.

11

Two rabbinic traditions about the leader of the second Jewish

revolt against the Romans in A.D. 131-135, Simon Bar Kozeba

(Bar Kochba), drive home the point that a messianic claim is in

itself an insufficient cause for a charge of blasphemy:12

R Aqi ba, when he saw Bar Kozeba , said, "T hi s is the Kin g Messiah " R

Yohanan ben Toreta said to him, "Aqiba1 Grass will grow on your cheeks before

the Messiah will come'" {y Tacanit 4 5)

Bar Kozeba reigned two and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, "I am the

Mess iah " T hey answere d, " O f Messiah it is written that he smells and jud ges 13

let us see whether he [Bar Kozeba] can do so" {b Sanhdrin 93b)

These traditions probably have an authentic historical core: it is

likely that Bar Kochba was regarded as the Messiah both by R.

Aqiba and by himself.14

Ofrelevance for our study, however, is the

10

Th e absolute term " th e Mess ia h" is frequent in the N T , targ umic, and rab binic lit erature , but rare in the pre- Chri stia n sources known to us In the Q L, for

example, (ham)msiah is usually best transl ated "t he anoin ted of " (see D Ju el ,

Messiah and Temple 115-116) Howe ver , I QS a 21 2 does seem to show the absolute

usage, here we find the Messiah {hammsiah = the Messiah of Israel) in the

sin gul ar alongside the priest ( = the Messiah of Aaron) D Ju el concludes that the

absolute usage " wa s curr ent at the time of Je sus , at least in some Jewi sh cir cle s",

cf M de Jo ng e, " T h e Use of the Wor d 'An oin ted ' in the Ti me of J es u s, " NovT

8 (1966) 147 "Mess i ah " is "o n the way to beco ming a standa rd expression "11

I am aware of the divers ity of Jewis h messianic conceptions, and that the

word msah could be applied to figures not of David's line, indeed, this fact iscrucial for the line of thought I advan ce in what follows Nevertheless, even at

Qumran, where the Davidic Messiah is subordinated to the Priestly Messiah,

there is a tendency to associate the word msah especially with the expected Son

of Dav id, see IQ Sa 2 12, cited in the previous note , and cf M de Jo ng e, " U s e "

141 On the generally hum an l ineaments of the Mess iah in Jewish texts , see G F

Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols , New York

Schock en, 1971 , ong 1927-30) 2 349, E Schurer, The History of the Jewish People

in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 C AD 135), vol 2 (G Ve rm es et al , eds , rev

ed Ed in bu rg h & Cla rk, 1979) 518-5191 2

Translations from J Neusner, Messiah in Context (Philadelphia Fortress,1984) 189, 951 3

J Klausner par ap hra ses this clause, " H e has an instinct for who is right and


5/18


fact that neither of the passages suggests that a messianic claim is

in itselfblasphemous. In the first passage, Aqiba's assertion of Bar

Kochba's messiahship leads to nothing more than a rebuke for his

foolishness. In the second, Bar Kochba's confession of his

messiahship meets with a "wait-and-see" attitude from the rab

binical authorities , who suspend judg ment until they can ascertain

whether or not he produces authenticating signs.15

Assuming, therefore, that the same basic attitude toward mes

sianic claims prevailed in the first century as in the second,16

it is

difficult to see how Jesus could have been accused of blasphemysolely for claiming to be the Messiah, or how Mark (or the author

of a putative pre-Markan Passion Narrative),17

if he had any

knowledge ofJewish attitudes to such claims and any concern for

verisimilitude,18

could have portrayed Je su s' claim to messiahship

around Bar Ko kh ba As migh t be expected from such a powerful, dom in an t per

sonality, he himself probabl y had prete ntio ns to being a red eemer and fostered

these hopes " At least we have no traditions about Bar Kochba similar to the

"me ssi ani c secret " passages in Ma rk or Jo h n 6 1515 The passage from Sanhdrin 93b continues with the report that when Bar

Ko ch ba failed to produce such signs, the rabbis killed him This execution is legen

dary, since Bar Kochba was almost certainly killed by the Romans in the siege of

Beth ar (see S Abramsky , "B ar Ko kh ba" 235), on the late date of the passage,

see J Kla usn er, Messianic Idea 468 No r does the tradi tion provide evidence that

messianic claims were considered blasphemous, the presumed reason for the

execution is not the confession of messiahship itself but the fact that Bar Kochba

has demonstrated that he is a false prophet and a deceiver {mst), and so is liable

to the penaltie s of De ut 13 1-11, cf S Abramsky {NesP 56), who says that Bar

Ko chba is executed as a "false Me ss ia h" in this passage On the mstcharge, see

D R Catchpole, Trial, passim, J L Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth

Gospel (2nd ed , Nashville Abing don, 1979, ong 1968) 73-8116 It seems unlikely, contra J Blinzler {Prozess 78-79), that a more lenient

att itude toward messianic claims developed in the time between Je sus and Bar

Ko chba Blinzler ma y well be right that the Pharasa ic legal code that came into

force after the failure of the first revolt was milder in many ways than the Saddu-

cean code tha t prevailed up to tha t time (ibid , 109-115) But on the crucial poi nt

of atti tude toward messianic claims, it is difficult to see Je su s' con dem nat ion for

bla sphemy as a reflection of Sad duc ean stringency Th e Sadducees insisted on the

letter of the O T law, but , as Blinzler himself acknowledges, " D a s AT gibt

nirgends eme Definition des Gotteslsterung" (ibid , 78 39), and it certainly


6/18

130 JOEL MARCUS

as the cause of his condemnation. Certainly the possibility must be

considered that he did notpossess such knowledge or such a con

cern, but only after other exegetical possibilities have been

explored. Is there another way of understanding the titles of 14:61

that makes more sense of the charge of blasphemy?

"Son of God" as a Restrictive Appositive

I would like to suggest that there is; the two titles are in restrictive

rather than non-restrictive apposition, so that the second qualifiesthe first. According to the definition of restrictive apposition

presented above, the first title, "Christ," is viewed as a member

of a class which can be linguistically identified only through the

modification supplied by the second, " the Son of God. " J u s t as the

phrase "Mr. Caldwell the lawyer" distinguishes this Mr. Caldwell

from any other Mr. Caldwell we may know, so the phrase "the

Messiah-the-Son-of-God" distinguishes this Messiah from any

other Messiah the Markan characters and readers might have in

mind. The second title, "the Son of God," far from being a

synonym for "the Messiah," indicates whatsortof messianic expec

tation is in view: notthe Messiah-Son-of-David, nor the Messiah as

the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah-

Son -of- God.

The Messiah-Son-of-Joseph

This restrictive understanding of the apposition in Mark 14:61

makes it parallel to the usage found in some later rabbinic tradi

tions, which attest the pair " Messiah-Son-of-David "/ "M es siah -

Son-of-Joseph."19 The lat ter term distinguishes a second figure,

alongside of and subordinate to the more frequently-mentioned

Messiah of Davidic descent. An example is provided by b Sukkah

52a:


7/18


O u r Rab bis taught The Holy One , blessed be he, will say to the Messi ah the son

of David (may he reveal himself speedily in our days'), "Ask of me anything, and

I will give it to you " But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Jo se phis slain, he will say to him, "Lord of the Universe, I ask of thee only the gift of

life "2 0

Two different figures are in view; the one, the Messiah-Son-of-

David, takes fright when he sees the fate of the other, the Messiah-

Son-of-Joseph. This Messiah-Son-of-Joseph (sometimes called

Messiah-Son-of-Ephraim) was of great interest to an earlier genera

tion of New Testament scholars, to some of whom his violent deathin battle seemed to point to a Jewish background for the Chr ist ian

idea of a suffering Messiah.21

This opinion is now generally dis

counted because the texts that speak of the Messiah-Son-of-Joseph

are late and because this portrait of the Messiah diverges

significantly from the Christ ian portrai t of Jesus.22

Still, for our

purposes it is significant that in Tannaitic sources the term

"Messiah" can be made more precise by the addition of the

qualifier "Son-of-X" to indicate the descent of the Messiah in

question.

The Messiahs ofAaron and ofIsrael

It is likely that such patronymic qualifiers of the noun

"Messiah" already existed in New Testament times. We know that

in this period the title "Son of David" was already in wide use forthe more generally-expected figure.

23Furthermore, the Dead Sea

Scrolls supply indirect but substantial evidence of the formula

"Messiah-Son-of-X." There we hear of two figures, " the Messiahs

20Tra nsl ati on slightly altered from J Neu sne r, Messiah 188-89 Neusner,

following the Soncino translation, puts a comma after the word "Messiah" m the

phrase "the Messiah, the son of David" but not after the same word m the phrase

" the Mess iah the son of Josep h " It makes better sense, however, to omit the

co mm a m both instances , since two Messiahs are in view It is significant that here


8/18

132 JOEL MARCUS

of Aaron and of Israel." 2 4 Something must be understood between

the word "Messiahs" and the phrase "of Aaron and of Israel."

Th e omit ted word is not " t r i be , " since neither Aaron nor Israel is

a tribe.25 I would suggest that it is, rather, " sons" ; the phrase "t he

Messiahs of Aaron and of Is ra el ," refers to the "Messiah-Sn-of-

Aaron" and the "Messiah-&?rc-ofTsrael."

We know from ancient Israelite inscriptions that such an ellipsis

of the word " s o n " is a grammatical possibility in ancient Hebrew.

In several of the inscriptions collected by Ja ro s, the name of a

son is immediately followed by that of his father, and Ja ros insertsthe words " son of" in parentheses in his translation

2 6

This grammatical possibility becomes an exegetical probability

when we investigate the O T background of the titles "Mess ia h of

Aa r o n " and "Messiah of Israel." Considering first the title

"Messiah of Aaron," we recall that this title designates the priestly

Messiah,2 7

and that one of the commonest OT designations for

2 4Despite the ambiguity of the phrase in the Damascus Document "the

Messiah of Aaro n and Isr ae l" (C D 12 23-13 1, 14 19, cf 20 1), it is incontroverti

ble that at least some passages in the Q L distinguish the Mess iah of Aar on from

the Mess iah of Israel, see 1QS 9 11, IQ Sa 2 11-22, cf G Ku hn , " T h e Two

Messiahs of Aaron and Israel," The Scrolls and the New Testament (K Stend ahl, ed ,

New York Ha rp er , 1957) 54-60, J A Fitzmyer, " T h e Ara maic 'Elect of Go d'

Text from Qumran Cave 4," Essays on the Semitic Backgroundof the New Testament

(Sources for Biblical St udy 5, Misso ula Scholars, 1974, ong 1965) 129-40, G

Vermes et al , History 2 550-52 See also the contribut ion of L H Schiffman tothe Princeton Messiah Symposium, "Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran

Scrolls," 5-8, this paper will soon be published along with the other contributions

to the symposium {The Messiah, J Cha rlesw ort h and J V Brownso n, eds )2 5

" H o u s e " is a possibility, "h ou se of Is ra el " is used frequently m the O T ,

("Baytt," BDB 110), and "house of Aaron" appears m Psalms 115 10, 12, 118 3,

and 135 19, in all of which except 118 3 it al ternates with " house of Israel " Since

th e "house" of a father consists of the line of his descendants, particularly of his

sons (cf BDB 109-110), und er st an di ng the ellipsis to contain the phrase " of the

h o u s e " amounts to essentially the same thing as understanding it to contain the

word " so n " (Thanks to - Ruger for pointing this out to me m conversa tio n )2 6 Jaros, Hundert Inschriften aus Kanaan und Israel Fur den Hebraischuntemcht

bearbeitet (Fn bo ur g Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk 1982) ## 7 16 22


9/18


priests is "t he sons ofAaron ," 2 8 since all priests were supposed to

be descendants of that illustrious ancestor. Indeed, in one O T

passage " the priest" in the singular appears in apposition to "t he

son ofAaron" (Neh 10:39). Further, two ofthe four passages that

have been identified by scholars as generative texts for the Qumran

concept ofthe "Messia h ofAaron," Lev 6:15 and Nu m 25:10-13,29

use the term "s on ofAaron" for the priest, and the former speaks

of him as "t he priest of[Aaron's] sons who is anointed in his place"

(hakkohn hammsiah tahtw mibbnw) .30 Links are thus established

in the O T between the concepts "priest," "s on ofAaron ," and"anointed."

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that in IQSa 2:12 the

"Pr ies t , " the figure who is elsewhere called the Messiah ofAaron,

is associated with "h i s brothers, the sons ofAaron, the priests." 3 1

Since they are sons of Aaron, it follows that he also is a son of

Aaron.32

There seem to be good grounds, therefore, for inter

preting msyh ^hrwn as the "Messiah-Son-of-Aaron."

This messianic descendant of Aaron is set over against, and

28 See Lev 1 5, 7-8, 11 , 2 2, 3 2, 5 , 8, 13, 6 9, 14, 7 10, 33-34, Num 3 3, 10 8,

Josh 21 4, 10, 13, 19, 1 Chron 6 49, 54, 57, 15 4, 24 1, 31, 2 Chron 13 9-10 ,

26 18, 29 21, 31 19, 35 14, Neh 12 47 (cf "Ben," BDB 120-21 [j])29 M de Jonge, " U s e " 139, A Dahl, "Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion

of Jesus," The Messiah (see 24) 2 9 1 T h e other passages mentioned by de

Jong e an d Dahl are Lev 4 3, 5, 16 and Deut 33 8-113 0

Cf N u m 3 3, which speaks of "the sons ofAaron, the anointed prie sts" {bene

^Aharon hakkohanm hammsuhm)31 This is the translation of E Lohse, Die Texte aus himran Hebrisch und Deutsch

(Mnchen Kosel, 1964) Unfortunately, the text is fragmentary, and the word

" s o n s " is part of the restoration It has been restored, however, not only by Lohse

but also by all other translations I was able to check A S va n der Woude, Die

messiamschen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von (Qumran (Studia semitica neerlandica 3,

Assen V a n Gorcum, 1957) 98 , G Kuhn, " T w o Messiahs" 56 A Dupont-

Sommer, The Essene Writings from (Qumran (Gloucester, Mass Peter Smith, 1973),

G Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (2n d ed , Middlesex Penguin, 1975)

Th e reason for this restoration is doubtless the frequent O T apposition " t h e sons

of Aaron, the pries ts" (Lev 1 5, 8, 11 , 2 2, 3 2, N u m 3 3, 10 8, Josh 21 19, 2Chron 31 19, cf 26 18, 29 2 1 , 35 14, citations from BDB, "Ben," 120-21)3 2

It is probably some such reasoning that leads A S va n de r Woude to speak


10/18

134 JOEL MARCUS

clearly considered to be superior to, the lay Messiah, the Messiah

of Israel.33 Because of the parallelism between the two Messiahs

("Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel"), I would propose that the lat

ter title also should be understood as containing the word "son" in

ellipsis. Referring to the lay Messiah as a "son of Israel" makes

sense in terms of Qumran messianism, for it de-emphasizes this

figure vis--vis the priestly Messiah, as is generally the case in the

Qumran literature. The lay Messiah would be referred to as the

" Messiah-[Son] -o-IsraeV perhaps in order to avoid the honorific

"Son of David, ' ' a patronymic which would bring in its tra in a hostof glorious biblical associations. The Messiah of Israel, in other

words, would be that Messiah who, in contradistinction to the

priestly Messiah, was only a ben-yisrl, the normal biblical term for

an Israelite.34 Thus it seems reasonable that "the Messiahs of

Aaron and Is rael " are to be understood as the Messiah-Son-of-

Aaron and the Messiah-Son-of-Israel, with "S on of Aaron" and

"Son of Israel" functioning as restrictive appositives.

Restrictive appositives would be necessary because of the variety

of messianisms in the postbiblical period.35 As we have seen from

our study of the Qumran texts and of rabbinic traditions, more

than one Messiah was expected in some circles (sometimes

alongside other redeemer figures not called "Messiah").3 6 Indeed,

33 O n the subor dinat ion of the Messiah of Israel to the Messiah of Aaro n at

Qu mr an , see H -W Ku hn , "Bei den Messi as" 205-208, G Verm es, History 550-51 In the messianic ban que t described in IQ Sa 2 11-12, the "P ri es t " takes

precedence over the Messiah of Israel in matte rs of ritual and doct rine Cf the

Tes tam ent s of the Twelve Pa tri arch s, where the same scheme of dual messiahship

is present, and in which Jud a h declares, " T o me God has given kingship, to him

(Levi) the priesthood, and he has subor dina ted the kingship to the pri est hoo d" {T

Jud 21 2-5) O n the relation between the mess iani sm of the Testaments and that

of Q u m r a n, see the works listed above an d G Kuhn, "Two Messiahs" 57-583 4

See BDB, "Ben," 120-213 5

O n this fluidity, see M de Jo nge , " U s e " 132, 139, J Heinemann,

"Me ssi ah of Ep hr ai m" 6, J Neusner, Messiah in Context187, A Dahl, " I d e a s "2 9-2 12

3 6Th e second Messi ah alongs ide of the Davidic Messiah is different in the Q L


11/18


.A. Dahl goes so far as to say that a dual pattern, based on the

dual O T expectation of a future Davidic ruler and a futureAaronite priest (e.g. Jer 23:17-26; Zech 3:6-8; 4.3-14; 6:9-13), was

probably the norm.3 7

In a situat ion of such fluidity, it would some

times be advantageous, when using the term "Messiah," to make

more precise which Messiah one had in view. One way of doing this

would be by means of the restrictive appositive "S o n of X . "

Mark 12 35-37 pars "Whose Son is He?"

We can see from a Synoptic passage, Mark 12:35-37 (pars. Matt

22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44), that there might be some question as to

whose son a messianic figure was.3 8

This is clearest in Matthew's

version of Jesus' introductory question: "Wh at do you think of the

Christ?whose son is he?" As D. Hay observes, the placing of

these two questions back to back links the mystery of the Messiah's

nature with the mystery of his origin, and the pericope as a wholeimplies by its form and context that he is the son of someone besides

David.3 9

Similarly, the Lucan version of the pericope places the

genitive "o f David " emphatically before the word " s o n , " so that

Luke 20:41 should probably be translated, "How do they say that

the Christ is David's s o n ? "4 0

Again, it is implied that he is the son

of someone else. Finally, the Ma rkan source of these two versions

probably uses word order to make a similar point. As W. Wrede

already pointed out in 1907, the orderpothen autou estin huios ("how

of him is he son?", 12:37) is odd. Wrede rightly suggested that this

oddity was a deliberate stylistic device to put the emphasis on the

word autou: "How is he then his [i.e. David's] s o n ? "4 1

3 7

A Dahl, " I d e a s " 2 10, 2 10 1 J Hei nem ann ("Me ssia h of Ep hr ai m"

4-6) opines that "the evidence suggests not 'duality' of Messiahs, but

mul tip lic ity ," but he seems to be using the word " M e s s i a h " generally for any

redeemer figure, wheth er or not he is called "Me ss ia h "3 8 The relevance of Mark 12 35-37 pars for my hypothesi s was suggested to me

orally by Bart Ehrman, to whom also thanks for a thorough critique of an earlier


12/18

136 JOEL MARCUS

It seems, then, that in all three Synoptic versions a question is

raised as to whose son the Messiah is, and as to whether or nor"Son of David" is an adequate title for the Messiah. It would prob

ably be best to translate Mark 12:35b by putting this title in quota

tion marks: "How do the scribes say that the Messiah is 'the Son

of David'?" In other words, why do they think that this is an ade

quate title for him? For in the context of the whole Gospel (indeed

of all three Synoptics), the question cannot be whether or not the

Messiah is to be a physical descendant of David, elsewhere Jesus'

Davidic descent is acknowledged 42 Rather, the question is whether

designating Jesus "the Son of David" really gets to the heart of

what Hay calls " the mystery of his origin "

Plainly it does not, and this deficiency has to do with the forms

assumed by the expectation of a Davidic Messiah in first century

Juda ism and Christ ianity. L. H Schiffman has recently drawn on

the work of G. Scholem to speak of two poles of Jewish messianism,

one "restorative," the other "utopian "4 3

In the "restorative"strain, the messianic yearning is not for a catastrophic inbreaking

of the new age but for an improvement and perfection of the pres

ent world by the reestablishment of the Davidic empire The "Uto

pian" strain, by way of contrast, nurses a discontinuous, apocalyp

tic messianic hope that God will destroy the old world and create

a new one from its ashes. Schiffman goes on to link these two strains

to contrasting messianic conceptions within the Qumran litera

ture:4 4

Those texts which espouse the Davidic Messiah tend toward the restorative Th ey

therefore emphasize much more the prophecies of peace and prosperity, and do

not expect the cataclysmic destruction of all evil Th e more catastr ophic, Utopian,

or even apocalyptic tendencies usually do not envisage a Davidic Messiah

unjustified Both Ma tt he w and Luke, in revising Ma rk , imply that Je sus is the son

of someone else, and the word order in 12 37b, which Hay admits is odd, provides

a plausible point of de pa rt ur e for these revisions Also to be rejected is the opin ionof D Ju el {Messianic Exegesis Chnstological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early

Christianity [Phil adelphia Fortr ess 1988] 142-44) who follows E Loves tam (" Di e


13/18


When we relate these suggestive observations to Mark 12:35-37

pars., the problem with the title "S o n of Dav id" comes sharply intofocus.45

The Messiah who is given this title is thereby designated

as one whose task is primarily to reestablish the Davidic empire.

Such a hope is not big enough to encompass the one who, according

to Psalm 110:1, is to be at God's right hand as he displays his might

by an apocalyptic destruction of evil cosmic powers.4 6

As the OT

passage is interpreted in Mark 12:35-37 pars., David himself has

acknowledged the Messiah's superior role; "Son of David," there

fore, cannot express the fullness of Je su s' identi ty .4 7 Although thetitle " S o n of G o d " is not explicitly used in any of the Synoptic ver

sions of this pericope, it is probably implicit in all three Synoptic

passages that Jesu s is not jus t the Son of David because he is the

Son of God.4 8

4 5

As Schiffman puts it, the " u t o p i a n " Q u m r a n writings invest au thor ity not

in a Davidic Messiah but "in an dominant priestly, religious leader and a tem

poral princ e who is to be sub ser vie nt" (ibid ) Th ou gh Jes us is not pictu red in

Mark 12 35-37 or m 14 61-62 as a priestly figure {contra G Friedrich,

"Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohe npri este rerw artu ng in den Synop

t ikern," ZTK 53 [1956] 286-89), there is a certain resemblance to the Q u m r a n

pattern in which the Davidic hope is generally suppressed in favor of a more

transcendent conception of the Messiah's role4 6

D Hay, Glory, 111 " T h e implication is that the messiah's kingdom will not

be a mere renewal of David's " Cf ibid , 115, where Hay speculates that Luke

may have avoided the title "Son of David" (though he stronglyemphasized Jesus '

Davidic descent) "because it suggested that Je su s was merely a second Dav id "4 7

A difference mus t be recognized betw een Ma rk 12 35-37 pars an d the pro

posed re ad ing of M ar k 14 61 par s In Mark 12 35-37 the subject is the Messiah,

apparently the one-and-only Messia h, and the questio n of whose son he is In

Mark 14 61 exhypothse, on the other hand, the restrictive appositive "Son of God"

is added to indicate which Messiah is in view, the Messiah-Son-of-God or some

other Mess iah , a plural ity of Messiahs would seem to be presupposed Tw o com

men ts , however , are in order 1) Th is variation is no more radical tha n that found

in the Qu mran literatur e or in rabbinic traditions In the Q L , " Me ss ia h " usually

has to be qualified by "o f X , " but on one occasion ( IQSa 2 12) hammsah is used

to refer to the David ic Mess iah , see above In rabb inic trad itions, " the M es si ah "

is usually used alone without a restrictive appositive, thus implying only one

Mess iah , but it can occasionally be used with such an appositive ("Mes sia h-Son-


14/18

138 JOEL MARCUS

The Messiah-Son-of-God

This brings us back to Mark 14:61, where the high priest asksJesus whether or not he is "the Messiah the Son of God." If our

line of reasoning so far has cogency, the assertion of D. Juel, that

" t h e Messiah, the Son of God" is essentially another way of

denoting the Davidic Messiah,4 9

becomes questionable. Our argu

ment, rather, has been that "Son of God" is a restrictive

appositive, and that the accent falls on this title rather than on the

title "Me s s i a h. " It indicates which messianic figure Jesus is being

interrogated about; the high priest is not asking him whether or not

he is the royal Messiah, the Messiah-Son-of-David, but whether or

not he is the Messiah-Son-of-GW.

Contrary to Ju el , "Son of G o d " is not simply a synonym for the

Davidic Messiah in Mark 14:61. It is true that in 4QFlor 1:10-11

the divine promise of 2 Sam 7:14, " I will be his father, and he shall

be my son," is applied to the Davidic Messiah,5 0

and that this sort

of interpretation may have played a role in the application of thetitle " S o n of G o d " to Jesus .

5 1It is conceivable that at some earlier

point in the tradition, the title "the Messiah, the Son of God" in

Mark 14:61 may merely have been a reference to Jesu s as the

Davidic Messiah.5 2

The question is whether it retains this meaning

in Mark, or whether the title "Son of God" has developed a higher

sense, as Ju el acknowledges it eventually di d.5 3

connection with Psalm 110 (M ark 14 61-62 pars , see below) Cf also the str iking

paralle l in Ro m 1 3-4 "s ee d of Davi d acco rdin g to the flesh, Son of God in powe r

acc ord ing to the spirit of holiness ' '4 9

It would be most compatib le with such an interpre tatio n to und ers tan d " S o n

of G o d " in a low sense as a title indicating Go d' s legal acknowledgment of his

design ated king Cf G Fohrer, "Huios," TDNT 8 (1972) 349-51, on O T

passages such as Psal m 2 7 and 2 Sam 7 14 " T h e king of J u d a h was not Go d' s

son by nat ur e an d he did not by himself enter the divine sphere by ent hrone

ment He was acknowledged as son by a resolve of Yah weh, and only thus could

he have a share in the authority , possessions, and inher itance of God " Ju el 's own

position, however, is nua nce d Althou gh he interpr ets " S o n of G o d " in Ma rk as

a predominantly royal title, he admits that it may have additional components and


15/18


A higher interpretation of the title is indicated by the progression

of thought that leads from its use in 14:61 to the scriptural prophecy

of exaltation and return in 14:62 to the charge of blasphemy in

14:63-64. That progression suggests that "Son of God" (14:61) is

understood in terms of participation in God's cosmic lordship

(14:62; cf. Ps 110:1),54

and that it is this participatory under

standing of sonship that gives rise to the charge of blasphemy

(14:63-64).55

The Markan Jesus implies in 14:62 that he will sit at

God's right hand and come with the clouds of heaven,56

and that

this description of a transcendent future indicates part of his understanding of the title he has jus t accepted, "Son of Go d . " An

approach to equality with God, then, is suggested, and this

approach leads naturally to a charge of blasphemy on the part of

his opponents.

Support for this interpretation comes from observation of one of

the earliest commentaries on Mark 14:61-65namely, Luke

22:67-71. Here the Jewish leaders first ask Jesus whether or not heis the Messiah. Jesus' answer implies that he is, and he goes on to

prophesy his exaltation to God's right hand, using the imagery of

Psalm 110:1 (the Markan reference to Dan 7:13 is reduced to use

54Cf Barn 12 10, in which "S on of G o d " is associated with Psalm 110 1 D

Hay {Glory, 119) thinks that this association comes from a tradition that pre-dates

Barnabas55 See E Lovestam ( "F r ag e , " 96-107), who sees interpre tation of Psalm 2 2,

7 in pre-Christian Judaism and in early Christianity as crucial background for

Ma rk 14 61-62 Lov estam points to the way in which the psalm jux taposes the

concepts of "the Lord's anointed" {christon) and his "son," as well as to the

midrash on Psalm 2 7, which interprets that verse by means of Psalm 110 1 and

Da n 7 13, the same two O T texts bro ugh t in by Je sus in Mar k 14 62 Th is obser

vation supports our point that 14 61 cannot be considered in isolation from 14 62

Lovestam points out , however, tha t in the O T an d Jewish texts, including the

midrash, the Messiah remains a human being, though one with an extraordinary

relation to God from whom he derives world-wide dominion, if this were the

back gro und of Ma rk 14 61-62, Ju el 's case would be support ed But Lovestam

add s tha t various passages in the NT also link Psa lm 2 with Psa lm 110 (e g Heb


16/18

140 JOEL MARCUS

of the title "Son of Man"). The leaders then ask, "Are you then

(oun) the Son of God?" Jesus answers forthrightly that he is. Theleaders respond that they have no need of further witness, sug

gesting that Jesus has condemned himself by his answer.

It is clear from this passage that "Messiah" and "Son of God"

are two separate titles for Luke, or at least the exact nuance of

"Messiah" must be clarified by further questioning. Je su s' implicit

affirmation of the title "Messiah" in 22:67 is not enough to secure

his condemnation; further interrogation is necessary in order to

determine exactly which messianic figure he is claiming to be. Thesecond stage of the interrogation opens with Jesus' prophecy of his

imminent heavenly enthronement ; the Jewish leaders assume (oun)

that this prophecy is related to the title "Son of God," and this

assumption is implicitly affirmed by Jesus and forms the basis for

his condemnation. "Son of God," therefore, is not simply a

synonym for the Davidic Messiah, but rather introduces an idea of

quasi-divinity that is the basis ofJesus ' condemnation57

The two-

stage Christology here is similar to that found earlier in Luke, in

1.32-35, where the picture of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah

appointed by God (1:32-33) gives way to the picture of him as the

Son of God (1:35), with "son" understood in a quite realistic,

almost biological sense.58

The charge of blasphemy is plausible when "Son of God" is

understood as participation m God's lordship, for some Jewish

sources imply that claiming a heavenly enthronement for someoneother than God could be considered blasphemous. In b Sanh. 38b,

for example, R. Aqiba's assertion of the Messiah's heavenly lord-

57See J A Fit zmyer, Luke 2 1463, G Schne ider, Lukas, 2 470 Our suggestion

that the Markan passage revolves around the title "Son of God," which qualifies

the title "Mess i ah , " makes unnecessary the distinction dra wn by D R Catchpole

{Trial, 143-48, 200) between the Markan pericope, in which the two titles are syn

onym ous, and the Lukan pericope, in which they are distinct Also unnecessary,

then, is Catchp ole 's conclusion that "M a r k 14 61 emerges as secondary


17/18


ship causes R. Jose to protest that he has profaned the Shekinah.

This protest at least comes close to a charge of blasphemy,

5 9

and thereason for such a jud gme nt is not ha rd to find. The exaltation of

a human being to God's right hand suggests an approach to

equality with God that infringes the incommensurateness and unity

of God.6 0

The openness of the title "Son of God" to such

blasphemous misunderstandings accounts for its relative disuse in

Jewish sources, despite its biblical background in Psalm 2:7 and 2

Sam 7:14.6 1

At the beginning of the Christian era, then, the tide "Son of

G o d " was ambiguous enough to be open not only to a low, Davidic

interpretation but also to a high, quasi-divine interpretation. When

used to distinguish a figure from the Davidic Messiah, as we have

shown to be the case in the phrase "Messiah-Son-of-God," it

would have fallen on Jewish ears as a claim to commensurability

with God.6 2

In such a situation, the only possible response for one

not predisposed to acknowledge Jesus' words as divine revelationwould be that of the high priest: " Why do we still need witnesses?

You have heard his blasphemy."

5 9

Aqib a in terpre ts the plural " t h r o n e s " in Da n 7 9 one for the Ancient of

Days, one for Dav id, see Ju el , Messiah and Temple, 101, cf S-B, 1 1 01 7- 10 18 , DR

Catchpole, Trial, 140-141, A F Segal, Two Powersin Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports

about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJL A 25, Leiden Brill, 1977) 94-95, 209 736 0

See Ma rk 2 7, J o hn 10 33, cf Loves tam, " F r a g e , " 107, Segal, Two Powers,

passim6 1

Cf above on the absence even from 4Q Fl or of the explicit title " S o n of

G o d , " as well as Ju el 's good discussion of indications in rabbinic and tar gumi c

traditions that the title was expressly avoided as a designation for the Messiah

{Messiah and Temple 80, 108-109, cf Lovestam, " F r a g e , " 95-96) In the Ta rg um

on 2 Sam 7 14, for exam ple , the promise " I will be a father to him, and he will

be a son to m e , " is translated, " I will be to him like a father, and he will be before

me for a son " An even mor e dras tic weake nin g is found in the T ar gu m on 1

Chron 17 13 " I will love him like a father loves his son, and he will be before

me like a son to his fa th er " (my translations) Ju el comm en ts, " T h e lang uage [of

the biblical passages] was understood as suggesting too real a view of sonship bythe Targumists and was consequently modified" {Messiah and Temple, 111)

6 2

Th hi h Ch l i l l i d i M k 14 61 65 h i h


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Mk14 - Are You the Messiah

Documents

Transcript of Mk14 - Are You the Messiah