Throughout the Gospel of Mark, and more conspicuously in this Gospel than in any other, we are presented with numerous points on which the identity and the activity of Jesus are attempted. secret. Since the publication of Wrede's "historical[1]" work on the subject, scholars have come to refer to Jesus' pervasive sense of concealment using Wrede's own term: "The Messianic Secret." However, while most recognize that such an air of secrecy prevails, disagreements remain regarding the overall centrality of messianic secrecy and the role it plays in Mark. In this essay I will seek to support the argument that the sheer frequency with which the secret is mentioned in the Gospel acts as a clear indication of the importance of the theme to the writer. However, even though we can infer that this notion is meaningful in some way, the details are very ambiguous. When we examine the theology of the Gospel, we must ask to what extent the messianic secret is a deliberate theological addition to the text, as opposed to a mere historical documentation or inheritance of an idea or set of ideas from an earlier tradition. While affirming the first of these options could potentially indicate the centrality of the messianic secret in the overall theology of the Gospel, affirming the latter two would reduce the extent to which we could claim its theological importance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Before embarking on an exploration of the meaning of the messianic secret of the Gospel of Mark, it is perhaps helpful to describe the textual evidence we have for the Gospel of Mark. notion of secrecy; It's clear from the number of references that secrecy is something that Mark's author felt needed strengthening. As Strecker argues: “The motif of messianic secrecy appears very frequently in various ways. This indicates that we must recognize the fundamental significance of the motif for the interpretation of the whole Gospel[2].' It is also worth emphasizing that Wrede's phrase "The Messianic Secret" was not simply intended to denote aspects of the secret that refer specifically to messiahship, although that is what the term immediately implies; “The expression “messianic secret” has become an almost technical term to designate a set of phenomena in the Gospels, particularly in Mark. Neither "messianic" nor "secret" conveys precisely what Wrede meant, he used "messianic" not only to connote strictly defined messianism, but also as a general term for Jesus' religious status as a divine being or person endowed by God with transcendent power. , and Geheimnis has the connotation of "mystery" as well as "secret."[3]' The various ways in which claims about Jesus are silenced in the Gospel are often classified for ease of reference, e.g., the category commandments to; silence towards anyone who recognizes the identity of Jesus. In these cases, Jesus himself takes the initiative to actively keep his identity disclosed.[4] many demons; and he did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew him[5].' We see this silencing of demons again in 3:12. Jesus asks for discretion from those he has healed; for example, after the resurrection of Jairus' daughter, "he strictly commanded them that no one should know it."[6] » of this nature can be seen at 1:43-45, 7:36 and 8:26, Jesus demands silencedisciples at 8:30 a.m. and 9:9 a.m. In addition to these many explicit demonstrations of the theme of secrecy, we can see Mark suggesting Jesus' desire for privacy. when he withdraws from the crowd to teach the disciples in isolation (4.34; 7.17-23; 9.28; 8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34; 13.3), an implicit suggestion of mystery and concealment. Jesus' desire for intimacy is also evident elsewhere in the text; Boring refers to the notion of “Christ Incognito”: “The Jesus Markan seeks intimacy; he wants to remain unknown and unrecognized. After the “day of the Lord” of 1:21-34, when everyone was looking for him, Jesus avoids publicity and goes elsewhere (1:35-38). This pattern is repeated (6:31-32, 7:24, 9:28-32)[7].' Many would also see Jesus speaking in parables as a method of preventing understanding of his teaching. It is therefore clear that the idea of ​​secrecy is well established in the text and that it clearly has some importance to the author of Mark. The nature of this meaning has, however, been widely debated. Before Wrede's work, and even after it, many critics of Mark's Gospel thought that a historical reading of the text was the obvious approach; as Tuckett notes, "earlier studies by Holtzmann and others had convinced the majority of scholars of the literary priority of Mark's Gospel." However, this was then often taken as an indication of Mark's historical reliability.[8]' According to this interpretation, the question of secrecy became a question of why the historical Jesus might have wanted to hide his identity. A popular conclusion was that Jesus understood his own messiahship very differently from the way he thought others would; he hid his identity in an attempt to escape the misinterpretation of the term that would inevitably result. Jesus' contemporaries could have understood Jesus' messiahship as a political messiahship, a "claim to political kingship."[9] » Banning the messianic proclamation until after his death and resurrection would signal that Jesus was not this earthly and political Messiah[10]. Many recognized a gradual revelation of Jesus' messiahship, which allowed a correct interpretation of his role to slowly develop. It is not difficult to imagine other practical motivations behind Jesus' secret; the crowds, for example, might have become heavy - we can already see this flagged as a slight problem earlier in the text (3:9). Alternatively, we might imagine that Jesus did not want to distract from his preaching about God, as messianic claims might have done. However, the problems with this historical line are obvious. First, as Hooker points out, the historical approach does not explain why Jesus would want to confuse his disciples about his understanding of his messiahship. Furthermore, this approach presupposes the reality of "unclean spirits" and, furthermore, assumes that witnesses to Jesus' exorcisms would not notice the messianic proclamations of these spirits.[11] Furthermore, we must not forget that the messianic secret is a purely Markanese addition: the identity of Jesus is freely proclaimed through the other Gospels. Matthew and Luke, for example, describe the wise men and angels as identifying Jesus from the beginning of their Gospels.[12] The Fourth Gospel explicitly rejects notions of secrecy, Jesus affirms that he "spoke openly to the world...I said nothing in secret[13]". Wrede rejected the historical approach entirely, saying that conclusions about Mark's historical Jesus had been drawn too hastily; "the key was to be sought in the world of Mark's thought, and not inthe story of Jesus[14]. » Wrede, himself, took an entirely new approach to the idea of ​​secrecy in the Gospel. He considered all aspects of the secret in the text as a whole and concluded that the idea derived entirely from Mark's tradition. He noted that the early Church recognized that Jesus had been made Messiah by God in his resurrection; his life was not considered messianic. It was only later in the tradition's history that the belief that Jesus' life had been Christological began to emerge. Wrede concludes that the messianic secret was therefore a "transitional idea and that it can be characterized as the consequence of the idea that the resurrection is the beginning of messiahship at a time when Jesus' life was already materially filled with content messianic. Or it came from the impulse to make Jesus' earthly life messianic, but inhibited by the old vision, which was still powerful[15].' So, if one were to adopt Wrede's view, to what extent could one argue that the notion of messianic secrecy was theologically important to the Gospel? We can, at least, affirm that this point of view leaves more room for secrets with theological significance than the historical approach; if the events were simply a historical account of actual events, then we might not be able to claim any theological interpretation of the gospel. But if Mark's ideas arise from the Christologies brewing around him, then perhaps we can only say that the theme of secrecy is either an attempt to appease these different Christian groups, or an attempt to represent them. Do we consider this to be sound theology? » The idea of ​​Mark as an independent theologian is not considered at all by Wrede[16]. “However, many criticized Wrede's rather uncomfortable performance. Hooker, for example, notes that Jesus was put to death as a "messianic pretender"[17]; questions about his messiahship must have already been asked even if Jesus was reluctant to answer them. She maintains that “Jesus acted with authority and believed himself mandated by God: it is difficult not to use the term “messianic” to qualify such authority[18]”. Furthermore, she notes that if the Church had intended to offer a messianic interpretation, something clearer than the messianic secret would have emerged. However, from Wrede's perspective, others have put forward reasons for the secrecy theory that arise more from an agenda than a theological approach. For example, the apologetic interpretation views the messianic secret as a Markan technique to explain why Jesus was rejected by the Jews. If it could be argued that Jesus intended to keep his messiahship hidden, for example by speaking in parables, then it is more understandable that he was not more widely embraced. If we were to assert that the messianic secret was central to the theology of the Gospel, we would have to assert that it actually had a theological purpose, that it aimed to communicate something Christological about Jesus. For this to be able to be asserted, I think we should perhaps consider the messianic secret as a narrative device. When read in light of this interpretation, many potential narrative reasons for the inclusion of the theme of secrecy begin to emerge. However, with this approach it is often necessary to view instances of secrecy as distinct events put in place for distinct reasons, as opposed to a Wrede-type notion that they all serve the same purpose. Many noted that the theme of secrecy could potentially be a technique used.