Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Paul's Dying Formula and Mk. 10:45

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    Pursuant to the calim I made in response to Ted s question about parallels between Paul s use of the dying formula and Mark s theology of the cross, I d like
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 24, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Pursuant to the calim I made in response to Ted's question about
      parallels between Paul's use of the "dying formula" and Mark's theology
      of the cross, I'd like to reproduce here a section of my _Temptations of
      Jesus in Early Christianity_ which is part of a larger attempt to
      outline, though an understanding of who the disciples thing Jesus is (or
      ought to be), what Mark says is the path of Messiahship that Jesus was
      urged by the disciples to take at Caerea Philippi and which the Markan
      Jesus subsequently rejects as grounded in "thinking" TA TOU
      ANQRWPOU. I hope that why I think Mk 10:45 is parallel to what I think
      Paul was up to in claiming that "Christ died for us", will be clear once
      you have read the excerpt.



      Finally, that the disciples view Jesus as a worldly, powerful king is
      also evident from Jesus' statement in Mk 10.45 concerning the nature of
      his role as Son of Man in the plan of redemption /1/. The statement
      serves to counter what Jesus, in the use of the words OU...ALLA,
      designates as a false set of expectations concerning his activity as the
      Son of Man, by contrasting what he recognizes is expected of him with
      the facts /2/. Since in its present context /3/ the statement is
      addressed to the disciples, it is they who hold the expectations about
      Jesus' role which Jesus insists are inappropriate. But what precisely
      are these expectations? They are not simply, as a cursory reading of
      what is negated by OU in Mk 10.45 might suggest, that Jesus is, on the
      one hand, to be served and, on the other, not give his life /4/. For in
      its context, what is negated is highly evocative and allusory, calling
      to mind in the first instance of negation the Son of Man of Dan. 7.14

      ... was given dominion, and glory, and kingdom
      that all the peoples, and nations, and languages
      should serve him ...

      and in the second instance the Son of Man of 1 Enoch 46.4ff. and 69.27
      who in `raising up' (i.e., routing)

      ... the kings and the mighty from their seats
      (and the strong from their thrones)
      and loosening the reigns of the strong
      and breaking the teeth of the sinners
      because they do not extol and praise him
      nor humbly acknowledge whence the kingdom was
      bestowed upon them ...

      and in sitting

      ... on the throne of his glory ...
      (causing) the sinners to pass away and be destroyed
      from off the face of the earth ...

      takes rather than ransoms the lives of his enemies /5/. Notably this
      Son of Man is also one who does not die, but instead is bestowed with
      `the sum of judgment' (1 Enoch 69.27) but also with a `dominion
      (EXOUSIA) which shall not pass away, and a kingdom (BASILEA) `that shall
      not be destroyed' (Dan. 7.15) /6/. Accordingly, in the eyes of the
      disciples Jesus is seen as a king appointed to manifest his sovereignty
      by exercising a mighty and devastating authority against all who might
      be thought of as his foes.

      1. Whether or not, or in what manner, the historical Jesus referred to
      himself as `the Son of Man', and whether the phrase OUTOS hUIOUS TOU
      ANQRWPOU (Aramaic bar-nash/bar nasha') possessed, or was ever used in, a
      titular sense in the time of Jesus, it is clear that Mark presents Jesus
      using the term as a self designation with a specific apocalyptic,
      Christological sense. On this, see N. Perrin, `The Creative Use of the
      Son of Man Traditions by Mark' in A Modern Pilgrimage in Christology
      (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), pp. 84-93 and J.D. Kingsbury, Jesus
      Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), p.
      38-40. On `The Son of Man' in Judaism and early Christianity, see now
      the important work by M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation of Daniel
      7 (London: SCM, 1979) and B. Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man (Grand Rapids:
      Eerdmans, 1982).

      2. On this, see C.K. Barrett, `The Background to Mark 10.45' in New
      Testament Essays, ed. A.J.B. Higgins (London: SPCK, 1959), pp. 8-9; M.
      Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK, 1967), p. 141.

      3. The break between Mk 10.44 and 10.45 caused by the introduction of
      the term `the Son of Man' suggests that v. 45 was not originally one
      with the preceding logia, but was a secondary addition to that material.
      On this, see Best, Following Jesus, p. 125. Best, however, finds it
      unlikely that Mark was responsible for the redaction of vs. 45 to the
      community rule of vs. 42b-44. On the question of the authenticity and
      the tradition history of the `Ransom' saying, see the brief but succinct
      and informative summary by B. Lindars, `Mark 10.45; A Ransom for Many',
      ExpT 92 (1981-82), pp. 292-95.

      4. Strictly speaking, the OU... ALLA contrast is not explicitly
      continued in the second part of Mk 10.54 where the idea of `to give
      one's life' appears. But, nevertheless, especially as precedes the
      full statement of the purpose of the Son of Man's coming (KAI GAR hOUTOS
      undoubtedly carried on. On this, see Barrett, `The Background of Mark
      10.45', p. 9.

      5. On this, see Barrett, `The Background of Mark 10.45', p. 9.

      6. Hooker, Son of Man in Mark, p. 141.

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.