podcast 306 – Two Readings of Mark – popular or esoteric? – Part 2

In this episode I critique a reading of the Gospel According to Mark by Dr. Daniel Johansson in his chapter in The Essential Trinity, edited by Brandon D. Crowe and Carl R. Trueman. I call it an “esoteric” reading, as according to it Mark sort of encodes his claim that Jesus is God via his use of the term kurios (“Lord”), and he sneakily implies that God is triune by his portrayals of Christ and of God’s spirit.

My fundamental objection is that such a reading gets the genre of this book wrong, as it is a clear and flat-footed popular writing, meant to be understood by all, and is nothing like an esoteric composition. Its surface thesis that Jesus is God’s Christ really is its main thesis.

Along the way I point out that Dr. Johansson, following a lot of other “early high christology” literature, makes use of a number of unclear terms, some of which I even characterize as “weasel words.” These include,

“proto-trinitarian”
“uniquely close linking” or “close association” of Jesus and God
“a trinitarian pattern in” or “trinitarian contours of” this gospel
“divine status”
“divine figure”
“an overlap between God and Jesus”
“Christological monotheism”
Jesus being “included in the divine identity of God”

Towards the end of the podcast I argue that Dr. Johansson ignores a famous and clear passage in this gospel which should count as evidence against the thesis that for Mark Jesus is God.

Is Dr. Johansson right, that the reader is supposed to draw conclusions about Jesus and God which are neither explicitly said, nor acknowledged by the narrator’s voice, the voice of God, friendly witnesses, or hostile witnesses in this book? Or am I right, as I argued in episode 305, that a straightforward reading of the book is preferable to one on which the author slyly implies his most important claims?