72 years of messianic secret

7/28/2019 72 years of messianic secret

1/10

Seventy-Two Yearsof the Messianic SecretA Review Article

James L. BlevinsMars Hill College

After almost seventy-five years of waiting, English readerswill welcome the translation of William Wrede's influential Das

Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. For three quarters of a century,this book has loomed as a bright star over the horizon of Marcanstudies. Every serious work dealing with the second Gospel hashad to take its stance in reference to Wrede's theory of the MessianicSecret. Vincent Taylor has observed, "This conception (theMessianic Secret) presented in a particularly challenging form byW. Wrede . . ., has powerfully affected all subsequent discussion ofthe Markan Christology."!

Before assessing this impact, let us review the threefoldoutline of Wrede's book.

Wrede arrived on the scene of New Testament studies at atime in which the Gospelsmore particularly Markwere regardedas containing a "safe" historical account of the ministry of Jesus.Due to the advance of the historical critical method of approachas championed by Strauss and Baur or as even more recently

applied in a quite radical sense by Wellhausen, the "safe" could notbe uttered quite as certainly as before. However, many of Wrede'st i i k t t th t th Ch i ti t diti h d


2/10

BLEVINS:MESSIANIC SECRET 193

beneath the Gospels was cracked, it still could bear the weight of anauthentic portrait of Jesus.2 H. J. Holtzmann, a true representativeof this spirit stated in 101, "the original plan of the Gospel's

historical narrative has been retained in our second Gospel."3However Wrede's education had been shaped and influenced

by Eichhorn, one of the chief instigators of the History of Religions School and by Wellhausen, one who had outlined anhistorical critical approach to the New Testament. Thus Wrede'originality does not lie in the formulation of the historical criticaapproach but rather in fashioning its perceptions in methodicamanner and applying them quite severely.

Nowhere is it more evident that Wrede has emerged as themost influential exponent of this method than is his Das Messias-geheimnis in den Evangelien. Reacting strongly to the psychological studies of Jesus current in New Testament studies (H. JHoltzmann), Wrede approaches the New Testament with thintention of ferreting out "pure" history only. "Indeed the firstask can consist only in examining the account in the context oits own spirit asking what the narrato* intended to say to threadeis of his own time."4 He feels that there is a fundamentadistinction between the meaning of an account and the historicityof that frhich is reported.

This quest for the historical is readily apparent in each othe three major divisions of the book: (1) Mark, (2) The LateGospels, (3) Historical Examination. In the first division, Wredmakes a. direct attack upon the psychological lives of Jesus which

outline a gradual messianic awareness, beginning with his baptismcentering in the Caesarea-Philippi experience, and coupled with adeveloping manifestation of himself. Wrede demonstrates thathere is no concrete evidence within the Markan text for such adevelopmental theory concerning Jesus' messiahship. More positively, Wrede sees evidence of a clear manifestation of the messiahship, as well as a definite tendency to withhold it, throughout thedrospel. He makes an attempt to resolve the conflict by attributing

2Werner G. Kummel, Das Neue Testament (Freiburg: Verlag Kar


3/10

194 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

both motifs to the theological tendency of the early church asexpressed by the Evangelist Mark.

The key to the riddle is in Mark 9:9, in which there is a

definite indication of the circumstances surrounding the SecondEvangelist. The resurrection is viewed as the central point of thedisciples' understanding of Jesus' messiahship. Looking into thefuture, they hope for the return of the messiah, and at the sametime they enthrone him in the present even as they are writing hismessiahship back into the developing oral and written accounts.Therefore, since the Evangelist had as his subject the Son of God,the resurtected one, he felt compelled to present certain manifesta

tions of his messiahship. However at the same time he felt constrained to wrap it in a veil of secrecy. This latter motif is atheological theofy of the evangelist which Wrede terms the MessianicSecret. "The idea of the Messianic Secret is a theological presentation.'^ The remaining part of the division is dedicated to settingforth proof for this hypothesis.

In the second division, a study is made of the later Gospelsin their relationship to the Markan theory. Wrede demonstrateshow Matthew covers over the weakness and inability of thedisciplesa trait central to the Markan theorythus idealizingthem. Luke, on the other hand, makes the theory a part ofhistory in that he explains the disciples' inability to recognize themessiahship in the light of the explicit Jewish messianic expectation.John presents a much closer view which Wrede interprets asdemonstrating the influence of the resurrection in the formationof the early church's conception of Jesus' messiahship. "He showsthat it is a question here of thoughts which are alive in the broadercircles of the church."6 In other words, John, the latest Gospel,shows clearly the trend began by Mark emerging in the openly proclaimed messiahship of Jesus.

The third division represents an attempt to draw certainhistorical and dogmatic conclusions from this perception of a Markan

theory, the Messianic Secret. Here Wrede answers the question posedin the first division concerning Mark's reason for using the theory.Th t ithi th M k h h d i i t


4/10

BLEVINS: MESSIANIC SECRET 195

the other shared the post-resurrection understanding of the messiahship but questioned how to relate this to what they felt was a silenceconcerning it in the earthly life of Jesus. A compromise of sorts

arose in a secrecy theory which attributed messianic claims to thehistorical Jesus but at the same time manifest Jesus as seeking toconceal it. Wrede believes that Mark appropriated this theory andwove his Gospel around it. Then he draws the significant historicalconclusion: "If the existence of our view depends only on onenot knowing the messianic claim of Jesus, then we appear to havea positive historical testimony for the fact that Jesus actually didnot pose as the messiah."?

Reaction to Wrede's theory of the Messianic Secret over thesenearly seventy-five years warrants a book in itself.8 In the firstdecade, after publication, Wrede was met with much hostility andwidespread rejection of his theory. This is best summarized in thewords of the English scholar, William Sanday, "I consider it to benot only very wrong but also distinctly wrong-headed."9 Otherscholars such as H. A. A. Kennedy, Fritz Barth, Otto SchmiedelEmil Schurer and von SodenlO joined this negative bandwagon

Berhard Weiss and Albert Schweitzer!! were numbered in the few

llbid., p. 229.

8Cf. Hans J. Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis und dje BotschaftMarcus-Evangelisten (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1939) which covers theerature from 1901-1939; also James L. Blevins, "The Messianic Secret inMarkan Research, 1901-1964" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, SouthernBaptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1965); also G. Minette de Tillesse,

Le secret messianique dans Vevangile de Marc (Paris, 1968).

9William Sanday, The Life ofChrist in Recent Research (New Y

Oxford University Press, 1908), pp. 70-76.

lOCf. H. A. A. Kennedy, Book review of Das Messiasgeheimnisden Evangelien, bv William Wrede. The Critical Review of TheologicahilosophicalLiterature, XII (1902), 339-44; Fritz Barth, Die Hauptprobdes Lebens Jesu (Gtersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1907); Otto Schmiedel, Die

Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, Emil Schurer, Das messianiche Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christ (GtfttingVandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903); Hermann von Soden Di i htigst


5/10

196 PERSPECTIVES INRELIGIOUS STUDIES

friends of the theory but only after modifying it to meet theirspecifications. Weiss agreed with Wrede in viewing the Markanconnection as unhistorical but continued to hold that the substance

of Mark was valid for a life of Jesus. Schweitzer accepted thetheory but refused to attribute it to Mark. This first period ofnegative reaction had as its chief consequence the realization thatWrede had shaken the old reliable Markan framework. The initialreaction was to patch up the structure and defend it.

In the second decade of its existence, 1911-1920, the initialnegative reaction faded away. In its place, two poles emerged inreference to Wrede's theory. Some scholars began to accept it with

certain modifications, whereas others adooted Wrede's theory andbegan to explore its ramifications. On the continent, the modifications of Wrede's workemerged in the writings of R. Wernle, J. Weiss,Boussett, Julicher, Loisy and in England with F. C. Burkitt andA. S. Peake.12 These men in a variety of ways attempted to linkthe motif of the Messianic Secret directly to the historical Jesus.In essence, this cut the heart out of Wrede's original formulationin which the Messianic Secret was viewed as a theological creation.

In view of the hostility which greeted the book in the first decadeof its existence, even this modified acceptance in the second decadeis remarkable.

The second pole, the acceptance of the theory, also beganin the second decade but reached its full bloom in the third decade,1921-30. The emerging form critics discovered that Wrede's theoryfitted their needs precisely.13 They were prepared to recognizethe existence of an editorial scheme, the Messianic Secret, runningthroughout the second Gospel. Bultmann even went as far asaccepting Wrede's famous negative conclusion that Jesus made no

12paul Wernle, Jesus (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1916); JohannesWeiss, Jesus im Glauben des Urchristentums (Tubingen: J. C. . Mohr,1910); Wilhelm Bousset, KyriosChristos(GSttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprech1913); Adolf Julicher, Neue Linien in derKritik derevangelischen belieferung (Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1906); Alfred Loisy, L'Evangi

selon Marc (Paris: E. Nourry, 1912); F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources the Life of Jesus (New York: E. P. Dutten & Co., 1922).


6/10


claims to messiahship. Although many other scholars preferred thold to the modified theory which characterized the second decadethis third period brought the first significant adoption of Wrede'

theory.The fourth and fifth decades must be treated together as th

World War II years. During this period, Wrede's theory, as a resulof its adoption by the form critics, enjoyed new interest among thmore conservative scholars. They recognized for the first time thaWrede was here to stay. An all-out attempt was made to place th

Messianic Secret in the consciousness of Jesus himself. Scholarsuch as T. W. Manson, J. Schniewind, and A. T. Cadoux*

4be

labored this point of view. Thus Wrede found himself very populain both theological poles: conservative and liberal. The issue dividing the two camps could be expressed in one question: "Is thMessianic Secret a theological or editorial device or; expresse

somewhat differently, does it have its origin with Jesus or Mark?

Since 1950, the modern decades have seen many new

attempts to break this old impasse in Markan studies. Vincen

Taylor! 5 while claiming that the secrecy motif stems from Jesuown consciousness is willing to temper this stance by acceptinan exaggeration of the secrecy theme by Mark. Eric Sjberglattempts to bolster the conservative position by showing that thhidden-revealed messiahship was characteristic of Jewish apocalypti

literature. Ernst Kasemann and Gnther Bornkamm in their quefor the historical Jesus have placed even more emphasis on thpost-Easter Church as the creator of the Messianic Secret motif.l

14julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Gottingendenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933); T. W. Manson, The Teaching ofJesus (CamThe University Press, 1931); A. T. Cadoux, The Sources ofthe Second G(London: James Clarke & Company, 1935).

15Vincent Taylor, "The Messianic Secret in Mark: A Rejoinder the Rev. Dr. T. A. Burkill," The Hibbert Journal, LV (1956-1957), 2"Wrede's The Messianic Secret," The Expository Times LXV (1954), 246

l Enc Sjberg, Der Verborgene Menschensohn in den Ev(L d C W Gl 1955) f l G H B b "Th S M


7/10


Bornkamm observes: "As we meet this theory in Mark, it clearlysuggests the reflection and the interpretation of the post-EasterChurch."18 Willi Marxsenl and T. A. Burkill20 are offering the

new approach of redaction critical studies. Marxsen maintainsthat Mark was trying to reconcile the non-messianic tradition withthe Pauline conception of the exalted Lord. Bur kill agrees withWrede and stresses even more the theological genius of Mark.

What are some of the basic issues still with us seventy-threeyears later? For the most part, Wrede's historical conclusion hasbeen a focal point of argument and discussion, especially amongmore conservative scholars. Actually Wrede was not concerned

with the problem of whether Jesus himself claimed to be themessiah, but rather he wanted primarily to demonstrate the essentialrole which the secrecy theory had played in the shaping of theMarkan Gospel. One major aspect of an evaluation of the bookthen must be the question, "Does Wrede offer sufficient evidenceto support such a theory?"

To his credit, one must attribute his contribution concerningthe Evangelists' theological influence upon the oral and written

traditions. Although Wrede ties his Evangelists more closely to theearly church, one must still view his perceptions in this field asfoundation stones for the present redactional studies of men suchas Marxsen. In the second division of his work especially, Wredeapproaches a redactional type of study in showing the Mattheanand Lukan modifications of Mark's secrecy theory.

Secondly, Wrede is to be praised for pointing out the errorsof the psychological lives of Jesus and opening up new doors inthis study. He demonstrates in clear fashion the contradictive natureof the Gospel reports which he views as indicating their originwithin the theology of the early church, therefore unreliable. However Wrede leaves a sense of uncertainty surrounding the relationship

l&Bornkamm, p. 171.

l Willi Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1956); Cf. also U. Luz, "Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinischeChristologie" Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (19


8/10


of Mark and the forces at work in the church. Whereas Wrede iquite ready to attribute theological tendencies to the other threevangelists, he is unwilling to evaluate Mark in the same light. Th

evidence presented by Wrede seems to point more to an individuaas originator of the theory than an individual reflecting the opinionof several groups. The study would have benefited if Wrede hasubjected Mark to the same analysis as Luke.

The one telling weakness in the total plan of the book is lack of information concerning the origins of the theory. Twmajor groups of Christians are mentioned: one confronting Chrisas messiah and one not remembering any claims of messiahship i

the earthly life of Jesus. We are tempted to exclaim with T. WManson, "How, on Wrede's theory, these groups came into existencand formulated their strong notions; these are questions to whicwe should perhaps not expect an answer."21 One may ask how dieither group come to view Jesus as messiah if he made no claims tthis title?

But lastly, as H. J. Ebeling22 has noted, Wrede falls prey tthe very error he hoped to indicate in the psychological lives o

Jesusthe author's own theological tendency. Wrede does not dthis in regard to Jesus but rather in relationship to Mark. How caWrede distinguish adequately between the conceptions of Mark anhis contemporaries and those of his own? Does not Wrede ofteread into Mark his own theology and thereby prepare a psychologicastudy? Wrede operates along the lines that one can distinguisbetween the Gospel reports as to which stem from faith anwhich from history failing to realize that the only measure availablis his own theological tendency. This type of foundation does noseem adequate to support the full weight of the Markan theorythe Messianic Secret. In addition, the early church would have alslacked thisjneasure of distinguishing since for them faith and historwere thoroughly intertwined.

But is it also not possible to view the theory in terms whic

are not either-or? For the most part, subsequent scholars have rejected the Markan theory as a fabrication of the early church. Th


9/10


total force of Wrede's position can only leave one with an uncertainfeeling regarding the Gospel accounts. More aftd more, authoritiesare recognizing that the Messianic Secret is essential to the Markan

narrative, but in contrast to Wrede they are ascribing its roots to theplan of Jesus himself. This is not to rule out the evidence thatcleariy indicates a Markan redacting influence which ultimatelyelaborates the secret into a theory infiltrating every element ofthe Gospel. Thus the influence of Wrede's theory of a messianicsecret has been great although its fundamental tenet has beenrejected. The basic debate of modern scholarship centers aroundthe "reasons for" and the "extent of" Jesus' use of secrecy.

Perhaps the new English translation will stimulate further debate.


10/10

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Documents

72 years of messianic secret