Throughout the Gospel of Mark, and more prominently in this Gospel than in any other, we are presented with numerous places where attempts are made to maintain identity and activities of secret Jesus. Since the publication of Wrede's landmark work[1] on the subject, scholars have come to refer to the pervasive sense of Jesus' concealment using Wrede's own term: "The Messianic Secret." However, while most recognize that such an air of secrecy prevails, there continues to be disagreement regarding the overall centrality of messianic secrecy and the role it plays in Mark. In this essay I will try to support the thesis according to which the simple frequency with which secrecy is alluded to in the Gospel constitutes a clear indication of the importance of the theme for the writer. However, while we might be able to infer that the notion is somehow meaningful, the details are highly ambiguous. When we examine the theology of the gospel, we must ask to what extent the messianic secret is an intentional theological addition to the text, as opposed to a simple historical record or an inheritance of an idea or collection of ideas from an earlier tradition. Where the affirmation of the first of these options would potentially indicate the centrality of the messianic secret in the overall theology of the Gospel, the affirmation of the last 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Before embarking on an exploration of the meaning of messianic secrecy in the gospel of Mark, it is perhaps worth outlining the textual evidence we have for the notion of secrecy; it is clear from the number of references that secrecy is something that the writer of Mark believed needed strengthening. As Strecker argues, «The motif of the messianic secret appears very frequently in different 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 pointing out that Wrede's coinage "The Messianic Secret" was not simply intended to denote aspects of secrecy that relate specifically to the Messiah, although this 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 exactly what Wrede intended; he used "messianic" not only to connote narrowly defined messiahship, but as a general term to designate Jesus' religious status as a divine being or person endowed by God with power. transcendent. , and Geheimnis has the connotation of "mystery" as well as "secret."[3]' The different ways in which claims about Jesus are silenced in the Gospel are often classified for ease of reference, for example, in the category of you command silence to anyone who recognizes the identity of Jesus. In these cases, it is Jesus himself who takes the initiative to actively keep his identity revealed[4]. many demons; and he did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew him[5]'. We see this silence of the demons again in 3:12. Jesus seeks discretion from those he healed, for example, after the resurrection of Jairus' daughter: "He commanded them strictly that no one should know." of this nature can be seen in 1.43-45, 7.36 and 8.26, Jesus demands the silence of the disciples in 8.30 and 9.9 In addition to these numerous explicit demonstrations of the theme of secrecy, we can see Mark suggests Jesus' desire for privacy when he retreats from the crowd to teach his 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 privacy is also manifested elsewhere in the text; Boring refers to the notion of "Christ in disguise": "The Marcono Jesus seeks privacy; he wants to remain unknown and unrecognized. After the "day of the Lord" of 1.21-34, when everyone sought him, Jesus avoids publicity and goes elsewhere (1.35-38) pattern repeats (6:31-32, 7:24, 9:28-32).' Many would also see Jesus' speaking in parables as a method by which to impede understanding of his teaching. It is clear, then, that the idea of ​​secrecy is well established in the text and clearly has some significance for the writer of Mark. The nature of this meaning, however, has been widely debated. Before Wrede's work, and indeed after, many critics of Mark's gospel believed that a historical reading of the text was the most obvious approach; «early studies by Holtzmann and others had convinced the majority of scholars of the literary priority of the Gospel of Mark. However, this was then often taken as an indication of the historical reliability of Mark[8]' question of secrecy became a question of why the historical Jesus might have wanted to hide his identity. One popular conclusion was that Jesus understood his own messiahship very differently than he believed others would; he hid his identity in an attempt to escape the misinterpretation of the term that would inevitably follow. Jesus' contemporaries may have interpreted Jesus' messiahship as a political messiah, a “claim to political kingship.”[9]” Forbidding messianic proclamation until after his death and resurrection would mean that Jesus was not this earthly, political Messiah [10]. Many recognized a gradual revelation of Jesus' messiahship that allowed the slow development of the correct interpretation of his role. It is not difficult to imagine other practical reasons behind Jesus' secret; the crowds, for example, may have become burdensome: we can already see this problem flagged as a small problem earlier in the text (3:9). Alternatively, we might imagine that Jesus does not want to draw attention away from his preaching about God, which messianic claims might have done. However, the problems with this historical line are evident. First, as Hooker points out, the historical approach does not explain why Jesus wanted to confuse his disciples regarding his understanding of his messiahship. Furthermore, the approach presupposes the reality of “impure spirits” and, furthermore, presupposes that the witnesses to Jesus' exorcisms did not notice the messianic proclamations of these spirits[11]. Furthermore, we must not forget that the messianic secret is a purely Markan addition: the identity of Jesus is freely proclaimed in all the other Gospels. Matthew and Luke, for example, depict the wise men and angels identifying Jesus at the very beginning of their Gospels[12]. The Fourth Gospel explicitly rejects the concept of secrecy, Jesus states that he "spoke openly to the world...I said nothing in secret[13]". Wrede rejected the historical approach entirely, arguing that Mark's conclusions about the historical Jesus had been drawn too hastily; "the key had to be sought in the world of Mark's thoughts, not in the story of Jesus[14]". Wrede himself took a completely new approach to the idea of ​​secrecy in the Gospel. He considered all the various strands of secrecy within the text as a whole and concluded that the idea stemmed entirely from Mark's tradition. He noted that the early church recognized that Jesus had been made Messiah by God to itsresurrection; his life was not considered messianic. Only later in the history of tradition did the belief that Jesus' life had been Christological begin to emerge. Wrede concludes that the messianic secret was, therefore, a transitory idea and can be characterized as the side effect of the view that the resurrection is the beginning of messiahship at a time when Jesus' life was already materially filled with messianic content. Or it proceeded from the impulse to make Jesus' earthly life messianic, however inhibited by the older vision, which was still powerful[15]". So, if Wrede's view were adopted, to what extent could we claim that the notion of the messianic secret was theologically important to the Gospel? We can at least say that this view leaves more room for secrecy with theological significance than the historical approach; if the events were simply a historical account of actual events, then perhaps we could claim no theological interpretation of the Gospel. But, if Mark's ideas were derived from the Christologies that were forming around him, then we can perhaps only say that the theme of secrecy is either an attempt to appease these different Christian groups or an attempt to represent them. Would we consider this to be solid theology? The idea of ​​Mark as an independent theologian is not taken into consideration by Wrede at all[16]. However, many found fault with 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 he had been commissioned by God: it is difficult not to use the term 'messianic' to describe this authority[18]". Furthermore, note that if the Church had wanted to propose a messianic interpretation, something clearer than the messianic secret would have emerged. Aside from Wrede's view, however, others have advanced reasons in favor of the secrecy theory that derive more from an agenda than a theological approach. For example, the apologetic interpretation considers the messianic secret a Markian technique to explain the reasons 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 no longer embraced. If we were to claim that the messianic secret was central to the theology of the gospel, we would have to argue that it actually had a theological purpose, that it was intended to communicate something Christological about Jesus. To claim this, I think we should perhaps view the messianic secret as a device narrative. When read in light of this interpretation, numerous potential narrative reasons for the inclusion of the theme of secrecy begin to emerge. However, with this approach it is often necessary to treat cases of secrecy as separate events occurring for separate reasons, in contrast to the Wrede-like idea that they all serve the same purpose. Many have noted that the theme of secrecy could potentially be a technique used by Mark to illustrate how amazed Jesus' contemporaries were by his miraculous actions; It is often the case that, even after being explicitly commanded to act with discretion, Jesus' followers simply cannot help but proclaim what they have experienced. Regarding Jesus speaking in parables, it has been suggested that this, being the only way humans could understand Jesus' teachings, expressed the "fundamental inaccessibility of God: only in a parable, only in an image we can understand it on a whole level, not in speech.