the secretive christ - part i of ii
The Gospel attributed to Mark has, especially in recent scholarship, spurred much controversy concerning what has recently become known as the “Messianic secret.” The priority of Mark for scholars of the synoptic gospels leads to certain explanations that may enlighten readers to understanding the reasoning behind the idea of the Messianic secret, yet even with all the internal and external clues to what the author of the Gospel attributed to Mark was hoping to achieve with this allusion to a Messianic secret, it is impossible to say anything for sure. However, a confident investigation into the relation of the evidences themselves can help elucidate the nature of development of what would later become heretical Christian groups. The conspicuous Markan tendency to repeatedly portray Jesus in a secretive way allowed for opposing early Christian trajectories to interpret and expand the Gospel attributed to Mark in radically diverse ways. One trajectory, now considered orthodox, took the Messianic secrecy for granted, noting that the secrecy was leading up to the death and resurrection of Christ; another trajectory, already developed in other syncretic traditions, emphasized, exploited and advanced this suggestion of secrecy in the Markan Gospel. It is possible that the latter trajectory used the earliest Gospel, probably in conjunction with the Gospel attributed to Thomas, to further the Gnostic tradition of secret knowledge as evident in non-canonical gospels. The non-canonical gospels that we now refer to as the Gnostic gospels, rediscovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, stress a tradition passed down from Jesus to a very few, usually one disciple, advocating the emphasis of secret knowledge (gnosis). These non-canonical gospels may differ on which disciple was selected to receive the special knowledge, but it is quite apparent that the idea of secret knowledge was common, and had a foundation in both post-Christian gnosticism and early Christian text, such as the Gospel attributed to Mark.
The Gospel attributed to Mark (hereafter referred to as “Mark”) purposely perpetuates a distinctly secret nature to Jesus’ life. This concept of the Messianic secret is beyond dispute, yet the explanations of the secrecy drastically differ on several grounds. Although William Wrede coined the term “the Messianic secret” in his 1901 publication of the same name, the notion of the secrecy was probably realized as early as the writers of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke. The Messianic secret, as defined by Wrede, is an idiom meant to describe the commandments by Jesus to followers and demons not to reveal the secret of his Messiahship. Elements of Jesus’ secrecy are still prevalent in the other synoptic gospels but are given internal explanations based on the author’s purpose. Matthew, for example, whose audience was probably Jewish, explains Mark’s prevailing propensity to Messianic secrecy by using Jewish scriptures, such as in Mt. 12:16 and 13:11: the gospel writer recalls passages from Isaiah, not only reduce the significant of the secrecy, but also to highlight the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus. Yet looking at the prior Markan source, we do not have such explanations of fulfillment of scripture. Contrarily, Mark does not give many explanations to any of the references to Jesus’ secret nature apart from the obvious, such as references to basic privacy.
Three different types of secretive references are made in Mark’s gospel: avoidance, prohibitions, and revelations. Emic explanations often result in the dismantling of all three separately, refusing to recognize that Mark intermingled an underlying theme. It is important to note that, in all likeliness, the entire concept of Jesus’ Messianic secret was a Markan invention, leaving much scholarship to ask why Mark invoked such a notion, probably adding to the historical Jesus. For the sake of space I will merely state the differences between the secretive references are merely categorical, each involving their own set of argumentation. Yet, most discourse concerning the Messianic secret is limited to the prohibitive aspect of Jesus’ ministry, in which he demands demonic entities to keep quiet concerning his Messiahship (1:25, 1:34, and 3:12), as well as commanding the healed to keep silent about his deeds (1:43-45, 5:43, 7:36, and 8:26). Very little is commented on by scholars concerning the avoidance aspect, and probably rightly so, since they can be explained away quite easily (1:35, 7:24 and 9:30). Although both of these secretive aspects would certainly support the Messianic secret thesis, Gnostic Christians are more indebted by the revelatory material in Mark (3:13, 4:11, 4:34, and 9:2ff), as well as some fairly cryptic passages that are not easily explicated (12:35-37 and 13:32ff), which are more or less futile to attempt any meaningful interpretation. The secretive revelatory material in Mark differs in nature from the other two aspects, as it does not strictly concern the Messiahship as such, but instead to the secretive or cryptic nature of Jesus’ teachings. Hence, the revelatory or teaching material does not strongly attribute to the argument that the Messianic secret points solely to the failure of the Jewish people to recognize the Messiah, as T.A. Burkill argues , or that the true Messianic secret culminates at the resurrection of Christ as others have argued. If, however, any of those explanations are correct, it does not take away from the possibility from deviant explanations such as those presented by the Gnostics.
It is not difficult to comprehend how Mark may have strongly attributed to the application of the Gnostic principle of gnosis to early Christian groups. Mark repeatedly separates the disciples from other listeners; at times this separation is physical, such as the appointment of the disciples (3:13) and the transfiguration (9:2ff), both upon a mountain. Additionally, the transfiguration distinguishes a core within the disciples themselves, setting apart Peter, James, and John. More importantly, however, the separation of disciples from other followers frequently concerns the explanation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven such as in 4:34, stating that Jesus would only speak in parables to the crowds, yet explained the meanings to the disciples in private. Wrede replies that elevating the idea of separate education of the disciples is only intelligible for “modern eyes”, only to fill subjective gaps. Wrede, however unfortunate, is at a disadvantage in his explication due to his lack of awareness of the Gnostic text that would not be discovered for another half-century. In fact, the Gnostics did, as we will later examine, elevate and utilize the idea of special education to the disciples. Whether one believes this to be Mark’s intention or not is a matter of faith, and it is impossible to solidify with any amount of certainty. The teachings of Jesus according to Mark themselves allow for esoteric interpretations. In 4:11, Jesus says, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables…” Hence, Jesus continually taught in parables, often leaving many in amazement and, as noted above, only explained the true meanings to his apostolic initiates.
As noted in most Bibles, the ending of Mark is under some controversy, with some important early ma
nuscripts ending at 16:8, whereas others include twelve extra verses. It is probable that the twelve verses were not the original ending, but it is as of yet uncertain whether the authentic ending was lost or if it ended at 16:8. My own interpretation is that the current ending is either similar to the original or was added very early. The longer ending does not appear to be very congruent with later orthodox traditions, and seems favourable to a Gnostic interpretation. In this ending, Jesus specifically appears first to Mary Magdalene, unlike the ambiguity of Matthew (28:1-10) or the completely contrary account in Luke (24:1-40). Secondly, Mark refers to Jesus appearing “in another form” (16:12), certainly not a phrase that would be invented by orthodox Christians in the 2nd century combating the Gnostic idea of docetism.
The significance of the presentation of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel as offered above is that Jesus was in the very least misunderstood and/or he was purposely cryptic. The former idea would be used to explain the veiled Messiahship, perpetuating the idea that Jesus purposely did not want to reveal himself before its time. Many have interpreted the historicity as an explanation for why Jesus was not immediately recognized as the Messiah. The latter idea would be advanced by adherence to Gnostic Christianity. Debate continues about the dating and authenticity of early gospels, but most scholars accept an early dating of some Pauline writings, the precedence of Mark, and a relatively early dating of the Gospel of Thomas (as early as 50 CE). The certainty of the relationship between Mark’s Gospel and Paul’s letters is dubious, but it is fair to say that the majority of evangelion was spread through oral tradition in the combination form of chreia (providing a brief narrative frame for a saying of Jesus ) and adage. Paul most likely had access to such oral traditions, and the Gospel of Thomas appears to be a document based entirely on this method of oral tradition, often encapsulated simply by “Jesus said, [then an adage of Jesus].” This use of chreia is important because the narrative frame is often more prominent than the saying itself – many of the differences among the gospels, especially Thomas, are not the sayings, but the frame in which they are said. In the time between the writing of Mark’s Gospel, between 65 and 80 CE (I tend to favour the 70-73 CE dating due to Mark’s ‘mini-apocalypse’), and the surge of Gnostic Christian writings, in the mid to late 2nd century, must have seen an explosion of diverse teachings and traditions concerning the personage of Jesus in order to account for the vast assortment of writings that have been made reference to in orthodox writings as well as those of which we have found in the 20th century. The vastly different perspectives of Jesus often resulted by placement the placement of his attributed sayings in contrasting situations. Some Biblical scholars note at least three different trajectories from the time of Mark onward, each with their own texts, traditions, theologies, and internal diversities.
continued in part ii
