Working on an article about monotheism in early Christianity, I was struck as I hadn\u2019t been before by the contrast between two statements in the Gospel of Mark, one on the lips of others who are complaining about Jesus, the other on the lips of Jesus complaining about how someone else has characterized him.<\/p>\n
Mark 2:7: \u201cWhy does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?\u201d
\nMark 10:18: Jesus said to him, \u201cWhy do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.\u201d<\/p>\n
Both use the same Greek phrase \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Richard Bauckham writes (in \u201cMarkan Christology According to Richard Hays: Some Addenda,\u201d\u00a0Journal of Theological Interpretation<\/i>\u00a011:1 (2017) 21\u201336, here p.28):<\/p>\n The phrase \u201cbut God alone\u201d (\u03b5\u03af \u03bc\u03ae \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u00a0\u0629 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) is identical in 2:7 and 10:18. It alludes to the Shema in the form in\u00a0which it was often summarized in Second Temple period Jewish literature:\u00a0\u201cGod is one\u201d (\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd)\u0660<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is really striking given that both of these texts are quite crucial to how we understand the Christology of the Gospel of Mark as a whole.<\/p>\n The first one sees Jesus respond with a healing that is intended to demonstrate that God has given the son of man authority to forgive sins.<\/p>\n Perhaps the point made through the similar language is that inherent goodness is a different matter. God has delegated some authority to human beings in general (or perhaps, if one thinks Son of Man is a messianic title here, to his anointed one). Goodness, on the other hand, is not something that can be bestowed the way authority can. Human beings fall short, and one of Jesus\u2019 main aims was to call his people to repentance, a people persuaded of their own inherent goodness as the people of God. Jesus thus takes aim at the fact that \u201cgood\u201d had become a form of respectful address, not always reflected in reality.<\/p>\n One of the only places I\u2019ve seen this connection made a focus of attention is in John J. R. Lee\u2019s article \u201cThe divinity of Jesus and the uniqueness of God: are they compatible? A reflection on high Christology and monotheism in Mark\u2019s Gospel\u201d<\/a> in\u00a0Midwestern Journal of Theology<\/em>\u00a015:1 (2016) 84-100. He uses Bauckham\u2019s concept of \u201cdivine identity\u201d which I have evaluated critically in the past and find unhelpful. I\u2019ll include some links to those posts below.<\/p>\n What do readers of this blog think? I\u2019m among those who are not persuaded by attempts to read ideas like pre-existence and ontological divinity into the Gospel of Mark. Does the similar phrases in these two passages fit, confirm, or challenge that conclusion I had drawn previously? What do you think and why?<\/p>\n Of related interest:<\/p>\n https:\/\/ehrmanblog.org\/nope-jesus-is-not-yahweh\/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nope-jesus-is-not-yahweh<\/p>\n https:\/\/ehrmanblog.org\/a-heresy-that-may-not-sound-heretical-to-you-arius-of-alexandria\/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-heresy-that-may-not-sound-heretical-to-you-arius-of-alexandria<\/p>\n https:\/\/ehrmanblog.org\/the-actual-heretical-views-of-arius-in-his-own-words\/<\/p>\n \u201cHow the Spirit Became God\u201d on The Intersection\u00a0Podcast<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n