Guest guest Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 Dear All, We concluded Part 5 with the following: (p.42) " At the desolate scene of the crucifixion, Mark tells how Jesus cried out that God had abandoned him, uttered a final, inarticulate cry, and died; yet a Roman centurion who watched him die declared, " Truly, this man was a son of God. " [34] Although to a non-Jew like the centurion, " son of God " might have indicated a divine being, Jesus' earliest followers, like Mark, were Jewish and understood that " son of God, " like " messiah, " designated Israel's human king. During Israel's ancient coronation ceremonies, the future king was anointed with oil to show God's favor while a chorus singing one of the ceremonial psalms proclaimed that when the king is crowned he becomes God's representative, his human " son. " [35] Thus when Mark opens his gospel saying that " this is the gospel of Jesus, the 'messiah', the 'son of God', " [36] he is announcing that God has chosen Jesus to be the future king of Israel. Since Mark writes in Greek, he translates the Hebrew term 'messiah' as 'christos' ( " anointed one " in Greek), which later becomes, in English, " Jesus [the] christ. " Beyond Belief (The Secret Gospel of Thomas) Chapter 2, p.40-42. Notes: [34] Mark 15:39. [35] Psalm 2:7; discussion of the way such passages are worked into the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, see Raymond E. Brown, S.J., 'The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke', 2nd ed. (New York, 1993). [36] Mark 1:1. Here now, is Part 6. Enjoy, violet Gospels In Conflict: John and Thomas - Part 6 (p.42) In Mark, Jesus also characterizes himself as " son of man, " (p.43) the meaning of which is ambiguous. Often in the Hebrew Bible, " son of man " means nothing more than " human being " (in Hebrew, 'ben adam' means " son of Adam " ). The prophet Ezekiel, for example, says that the Lord repeatedly addressed him as " son of man, " often translated " mortal " ; [37] thus when Mark's Jesus calls himself " son of man, " he too may simply mean " human being. " Yet Mark's contemporaries who were familiar with the Hebrew Bible may also have recognized " son of man " as referring to the mysterious person whom the prophet Daniel saw in a vision appearing before God's throne to be invested with power: I saw in the night visions, and behold, coming with the clouds of heaven was one like a 'son of man', and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory, and kingdom, so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him...an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away. [38] Mark says that when the high priest interrogated Jesus at his trial, and asked, " Are you the messiah, the son of God? " Jesus answered, " I am; and you will see the son of man...'coming with the clouds of heaven.' " [39] According to Mark, then, Jesus not only claimed the royal titles of Israel's king ( " messiah, " " son of God " ) but actually quoted Daniel's vision to suggest that he--or perhaps someone else whose coming he foresaw--was the " son of man " whom the prophet saw appearing before God's throne in heaven. Matthew and Luke follow Mark in describing Jesus both as a future king ( " messiah, " " son of God " ) and as a mortal invested with divine power ( " son of man " ). (p.44) None of these titles, however, explains precisely who Jesus is. Instead, the gospel writers invoke a cluster of traditional terms to express their radical conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was a man raised to unique--even supernatural--status. Luke suggests, however, that it was only after Jesus' death that God, in an unprecedented act of favor; restored him to life, and thus 'promoted' Jesus, so to speak, not only to " messiah " but also to " Lord " --a name that Jewish tradition ordinarily reserves strictly for the divine Lord himself. According to Luke's account, written ten to twenty years after Mark's, Peter dares announce to the " men of Jerusalem " that Jesus alone, of the entire human race, returned alive after death, and that proves that " God 'has made him both Lord and messiah'--this Jesus whom you crucified. " [40] Yet John, who wrote about a decade after Luke, opens his gospel with a poem which suggests that Jesus is not human at all but the divine, eternal Word of God in human 'form' ( " in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God " ). [41] The author whom we call John probably knew that he was not the first--and certainly not the only--Christian to believe that Jesus was somehow divine. Some fifty years earlier, the apostle Paul, probably quoting an early hymn, had said of Jesus that although 'he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped', but emptied himself, 'taking the form of a servant, being found in the likeness of a human being.' [42] Unlike Luke, who depicts Jesus as a man raised to divine status, John, as does the hymn Paul quotes, pictures him instead as a divine being who descended to earth--temporarily--to take on human 'form'. (p.45) Elsewhere, Paul declares that it is the holy spirit who inspires those who believe that " Jesus is Lord! " [45] Sixty years later, one of Paul's admirers, the Syrian bishop Ignatius of Antioch, anticipating his impending martyrdom, wrote that he passionately longed to " imitate the suffering of my God " [44]--that is, of Jesus. So Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, probably was right when, after investigating suspicious persons in his province, he wrote to the the emperor Trajan (c. 115) that these Christians " sing a hymn to Jesus as to a god " [45]--perhaps it was the same hymn that Paul knew. This is why some historians, having compared the Gospel of Mark (written 68 to 70 C.E.) with the gospels of Matthew and Luke (c.80 to 90), and then with that of John (c. 90 to 100), have thought that John's gospel represents a transition from a lower to a higher Christology--an increasingly elevated view of Jesus. These historians point out that such views developed from the first century on and culminated in phrases like those enshrined in the Nicene Creed, which proclaims Jesus to be " God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. " Yet Christian teaching about Jesus does not follow a simple evolutionary pattern. Although John's formulations have virtually defined orthodox Christian doctrine for nearly two thousand years, they were not universally accepted in his own time. And while the claims of Jesus' divinity by Paul and John surpass those of Mark, Luke, and Matthew, Thomas's gospel, written perhaps around the same time as John's, takes similar language to mean something quite different. Because the Gospel of Thomas diverges from the more familiar pattern found in John, let us look at it first. Beyond Belief (The Secret Gospel of Thomas) Chapter 2, p.42-45 Elaine Pagels Vintage Books, New York, U.S.A ISBN: 0-375-70316-0 Notes: [37] See, for example, Ezekiel 2:1; 2:8; 3:1; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25; and throughout the oracles of Ezekiel. [38] Daniel 7:13. [39] Mark 14:61-62. [40] Most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the New Testament Acts of the Apostles; see Acts 2:22-23, 32-36. [41] John 1.1. [42] Philippians 2:7-8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.