Why is this important?
If we want an honest discussion about what Wrede got wrong or right, we need to know what he really said. Scholars often make two variations on the same mistake.
1. Claiming Wrede said something he actually never said.
2. Claiming Wrede failed to say something that he actually did say.
An honest discussion cannot arise from incorrect baseline data.
This post isn’t part of the series, “Reading Wrede Again for the First Time,” but is more or less an excursus on the state of deficient scholarship surrounding William Wrede and the Messianic Secret (das Messiasgeheimnis). I’m trying out the term Wredegeheimnis to describe the hidden or “Secret Wrede” in modern NT studies.
We’ll take a closer look at some recent examples. By the way, I don’t expect things to improve in Wrede Club. I’m not a scholar, just a guy who reads.
Reigning Champion: Wikipedia
Yes, I fully support the concept of Wikipedia, but I recognize that its execution often falls short of its potential. Wikimedia is part of the overall universe of free and open discourse, which is important now more than ever. However, the article on the Messianic Secret is a complete dog’s breakfast. I will highlight some of the more egregious mistakes below.
♦ How Did the Secrecy Motif Originate?
Wrede suggested that this theme was not historical but was an addition by the author of Mark. [Main topic, para. 2]
No. Wrede held that the author of Mark is not responsible for the theme. It was present in the sources that he had at his disposal. I must point out here that the German Wikipedia page on the Gospel of Mark gets it right.
Das Messiasgeheimnis ist eine von William Wrede erstmals als dogmatisches Konstrukt erkannte Theorie des Markusevangeliums. Er schrieb dieses jedoch der vormarkinischen Tradition zu und benannte drei Elemente dieser Theorie: Schweigegebote an Dämonen, Geheilte und Jünger, Unverständnis und Unglaube der Jünger und die Parabelbelehrung.
The Messianic Secret is a theory of the Gospel of Mark first recognized as a dogmatic construct by William Wrede. However, he attributed it to the pre-Markan tradition. He named three elements of this theory: commands of silence to demons, healed people, and disciples; the disciples’ lack of understanding and their unbelief; and his teaching in parables. (My translation, emphasis mine)
As an aside, the Encyclopaedia Britannica also gets it wrong.
According to Wrede, Mark’s solution was: Jesus always knew it but kept it a secret for the inner group. (emphasis mine)
That’s incorrect. It was never “Mark’s solution.” According to Wrede, there were at least two strands of tradition available to the author of Mark: one in which Jesus keeps his Messiahship a secret, and another in which everyone knows he’s the anointed Son of God. (Wrede also points to another source of tension against the Messianic Secret tradition, namely the fact that the author’s purpose for writing the Gospel is to prove Jesus was the Messiah! We’ll look at this point more closely in a future post.)
♦ Did Wrede Renounce Markan Priority?
The Wikipedia authors declare:
Wrede’s theory had an inherent inter-relationship with the hypothesis of Markan priority, which Wrede eventually abandoned, but some of his followers accepted. [Main topic, para. 3]
Wrede never abandoned the concept of Markan priority. The authors of this paragraph on Wikipedia have misread and cited Christology and the Synoptic Problem by Peter M. Head. They may have been confused by this sentence: Continue reading “Wrede Club: Some Recent Examples of “Wredegeheimnis” (1)”
