Continuing Licona/Martin Debate

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James White.

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on this November 8th 2012 I have made all the comments that I think I need to make concerning the events of The sixth on the video that I posted on the blog so I am NOT going to Continue that post-mortem activity.

Reviewing Dale Martin’s Text-Critical Arguments

I'm going to press on with the debate that we began reviewing on the 6th which was between Mike Lycona and Dr. Martin Dale Martin of Yale University and we're gonna get into some of the really good stuff today I will mention one more time that I am playing The I'm playing it back a little bit faster than it was recorded that allows us to get through things a little bit more quickly and it makes people sound so much smarter and so We are going to be looking at remember.

Dr. Martin is a post-modernist New Testament scholar and Boy are we seeing how that impacts things? But I think in the next section and as we get into the question-and-answer period I Think it's so important for all of you who are interested in apologetics who want to be able to analyze the argumentation Of the world against our faith.

You've got to be able to hear The arguments and weigh them as you're hearing them and see the presuppositional errors the foundational errors that are being made. This is extremely important. It it is it is the very thing that most people are not trained to do in public education today to think logically to analyze arguments to see it on the fly and to be able to identify what the issues are and I think it's vitally important and I hope this is useful to you.

So we're gonna dive right back into it where we left off. This is Dale Martin's opening statement and We're just gonna dive right back in. It would help if I was in the right window and.

Click and go. And that Orthodox scribes in the second century took out the today I have begotten you because they thought this makes it sound like Jesus was adopted by God. He wasn't always God.

He was adopted by God at his baptism. Now what we have here if you weren't with us last time. The argument here is Here is someone who is relying upon Bart Ehrman's Theories in regards to the well There's always been a recognition That scribes were human beings and that scribes could be influenced by theology.

The problem is we've also always recognized that we don't know who the scribes were. So there could be orthodox scribes. There could be unorthodox scribes. There could be scribes who were really up on current debates and scribes that were clueless About current debates and we don't know and one of the things that just drives me insane about much of the modern Leading material on this subject is That it's assumed.

Well, you know scribes were concerned about adoptionist heresies and therefore any variation even if there are other really logical explanations, but any variation such as when Psalm 2 is quoted. You're my son today.

I've begotten you. Well, if today I have begotten you could be misused by someone not if not if it Couldn't be properly interpreted in an orthodoxy. But if it could just possibly be misused then scribes are gonna take it out or they're gonna do something with it.

Sounds like someone's trying to get in the back windows here. At the at the radio ranch here actually some kids I think may have just broken a leg or something. I don't know, but anyhow. What's going on?

We're outside the window. We all just sort of said, oh, that's an interesting sound anyways. There are canons of textual criticism and in essence there has been a rather major change in those canons over the past 20 or 30 years.

That involves reading the minds of scribes and that's what you've got going on here is Dale Martin is presenting the idea that there have been these textual variants and the overriding assumption is that all the scribes are orthodox and That just simply is something we do not know.

Note also that the same kind of saying happens at the Transfiguration in Luke 9 35. Our passages says this is my son this is my beloved my chosen and in that passage so the word my chosen is used at the Transfiguration and Some scribes apparently changed that to my beloved now.

Why would they do that?

Maybe because that's the version of it. They had memorized from the Old Testament. I mean there are other reasons. Then that they have this particular.

Controversy in mind. Now, why would people change my chosen to my beloved? Well, if you're an orthodox scribe and you believe Jesus wasn't chosen to be God's Son at the Transfiguration He always was God's Son.

Then you might want to change that text of Scripture to not leave adoptionist Christians who you consider heretics. Any ammo in the Bible in Romans 1 for Paul says that Jesus was designated or Appointed as Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by resurrection from the dead.

Now your translation might have that as declared to be Son of God. But I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the Greek word horrid. So is a word that you use for designating something some as something.

Okay. The the term itself.

Horace then toss in Romans 1 for I Think Is being stretched here? Just just slightly just just just a little bit if he wants to say this means that that Well, both the NASB and NESB have declared and was declared to be the Son of God in power according the Spirit of Holiness by his resurrection from the dead Jesus Christ our Lord and Your basic meaning is to Determine to declare and The idea that is being read into the text here.

I think read into the text by dr Martin is that what you really have going on here is some kind of a Insertion of a meaning that would not have been original now, let me let me just read to you here Let me see where did oh there it is.

Let's go down to be dag Which is the sorry, that is the Bauer dunker aren't and Gingrich to make a determination about an entity determine a point fix set is the for basic meaning to separate entities and so establish a boundary and The idea to of persons to a point designate declare.

These are all meanings that are assigned Within the range of the meaning of the particular term that is under discussion here. The problem is that dr. Martin doesn't need to worry About interpreting Paul in light of Paul and that's what's going to drive us all nuts by the time we get into the conversation is He can atomize the text when I say atomized cut it into small little pieces and interpret one against another Even within the same author.

Now I really wonder if he would appreciate if we did that to his books. Would he appreciate if we did that his books take his use of one word in one chapter and Then redefine it in another chapter to make him say contradictory things.

Now as a post-modernist I don't know what he would have any. Would he have any basis for complaining about that. I really don't think that he would. But that's what he does Paul and it truly is an insight into the modern methodologies that are used.

Well, that's interesting. I Just clicked on something that it ever clicked on something in a program Which is somewhat new to and the entire screen changes.

Don't do that. I think it's misleading, but I think the Greek should be read and I don't. This is not Paul's Christology. I think what Paul is doing is quoting some kind of line that he's heard before him.

But that line said would sound like that Jesus that God made Jesus Son of God only at his resurrection.

Well, we didn't see the word made given as a definition in any of the things. I just read there that that's not what it's referring to and. Okay, let me see if I'm here. Yes, so Paul's Heard this from somebody else.

It's not his Christology, but he doesn't actually recognize that. It's gonna be teaching something that he doesn't actually agree with is.

Is that is that what he's saying. And that's what some adoptionist Christians pointed to to back up their own case. For example, Queen Elizabeth was not Queen until she was made Queen at her coronation.

And I think that that's the best way to read that Greek if that's true. Then someone before Paul because he's quoting it. I think. Had an adoptionist Christology by which they believe Jesus wasn't God or son of God until his resurrection.

In acts 238 This is a quotation. God has made him both Lord and Messiah. This Jesus whom you crucified again made him Lord and Messiah.

Now. Back up the truck here. Just a second so he thinks That Paul is quoting from somebody else in Romans 1 even though hmm. He doesn't say he's doing that. So you you create a theory That Paul got this from somebody else because Paul couldn't have ever made anything like this up himself.

I mean, I read the Carmen Christie, but um, he got this from somebody else and that somebody else was an adoptionist and. So that I don't know. This is what people are being taught at Yale University and you wonder why people go to Yale and get confused.

I Would be confusing to me too.

In acts 1333 God fulfilled his promise by raising Jesus as also it is written in the second Psalm You are my son today. I have begotten you. The raising of Jesus is when Jesus became Messiah.

Now Again, I understand that the people by cutting texts apart from their context Can make them say many things? But this is what Just I again I listened to this debate again on my ride today so that I could be fresh for it.

I'm glad I did because I needed to look some other stuff up that I'd forgotten. I need to look up to be prepared to adequately address the issues that were being presented here and It is just amazing to me.

How many times? Dr. Martin adopts the perspective That well, you know what It doesn't I Believe that Paul has such as such a view. However, I Can interpret this text over here? Contrary to his views even within his own Writings.

So I can in an overarching way, for example, he'll say well, you know mark believed that Jesus was The Messiah and so Things in his letters that say Jesus wasn't the Messiah are more valuable than things that say he was the Messiah.

Well, how do you know mark believe the Jews the Messiah other than there being an overarching testimony of his words? I mean it just when you start taking it apart. The only reason that these people Get anywhere is because people are cowered by their degrees.

The there's a simple lack of common sense in much of what they're saying and you can't let that cause you to not Respond and to demonstrate that there are serious serious problems in what's being said?

The different and of course I'm saying this is not Orthodox Christology. It just shows that there was there were messy ideas about whether Jesus was divine. If so, what kind of divine was he. Was he kind of low-level divine a really high level divine.

And When did he become divine now?

Now remember he's gonna be he's gonna be saying he's gonna be quoting people like E .P. Sanders who are gonna say Remember his theory was your Jesus the illiterate peasant. So you want to have for Second Temple Judaism as your context but now you've got all different kinds of levels of divine and and all the rest of this kind of stuff in and the whole idea is you cannot allow any one author to be harmonious in himself and.

You cannot allow for any harmonization of the views. So that Jesus is more complex than your simplistic view and your simplistic theory of it. That's this is this is high end.

Modern-day scholarship. And these things it takes the full second century and a good bit of the third century for these to get straightened out to become. What became Orthodox Christology's? I think the different Christology's we find in the New Testament or hinted about in the New Testament Suggests that beliefs and his divinity arose only after his death.

Otherwise, we would expect more commonality or uniformity among his later followers. Now listen this argument. Listen, listen to.

Give yourself a test here. Okay, give yourself a test. You just heard the first part of the argument here. He's gonna expand on it. Listen. To this and before I respond to it ask yourself the question.

What is the fundamental presuppositional error in the argument being presented? This is this is the kind of thing you must Learn to do on your own so that you can have confidence to engage this kind of stuff the students of these people.

You know on the train on the plane in the automobile in the taxi at the bus stop wherever.

Listen what he says? This is very similar to EP Sanders argument that Jesus the historical Jesus must not have taught something that was absolutely clear About the Mosaic Torah as it related to his followers and to later Gentiles.

For example, if the historical Jesus had said You know after at the US as followers of me won't have to keep the Mosaic Law anymore It's passed away. Or if he had said the opposite you will have to keep the Mosaic Law and you have to keep it strictly.

Or if he had said when you have decide when You make disciples of Gentiles. You should Circumcise them and make them keep the Torah. Or if he said when you have Gentiles who come into your group They don't have to keep Torah Although you have to keep Torah.

If Jesus had taught any of these things very clearly You wouldn't have all the confusion and fighting about what to do about the law that happened after his death among his followers. If he had said something clear that was EP Sanders argument the law.

I'm making a very similar one about Jesus about she claims to Jesus divinity if he had taught that he was divine in any kind Of clear sense and I did not expect that you have all the various ways of conceiving him to be divine or not in the earliest Christianity now.

What is the fundamental Clear Assumption that must be challenged in that argument. I'm No, you you have not lost the stream The the file was not corrupted. I'm just I'm just giving you a second to think about it the fundamental assumption is That all these differing views Orthodox Christology adoptionist Christology.

And They're all equal with one another and and everybody is standing on the same level everyone is trying their best To be honest with the information and it's just that the information just isn't clear enough to be able to answer the questions.

And so this is all you've got is you've got this unclear revelation. Well, it's not really a revelation, but you've got this unclear these unclear sources and everyone is just Honestly dealing with it and what's the assumption there?

The assumption is the exact opposite of what is taught in Scripture concerning the nature of man. Man is not taught is not presented as being some honest Forthright never. There's never no such thing as false teachers.

Jesus himself said there may be many false prophets. They would come after he claimed to speak in my name. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no you Orthodox folks, you're always complaining everybody else's Is the bad it's right there in the source documents themselves the assumption is that There is no divine revelation there is no true position we can't know anything about Jesus and Everyone was just doing the best they could do.

I And that is a view of man that is utterly contrary to what the scriptures themselves teach about man and The presentation to make of the early church and the conflicts there the church and everything else.

Which of course they would then explain is just as just the proto-orthodox spinning things at a later point. But it's all goes back to well. We have our theory about who Jesus was and we're not going to accept any evidence that goes against that.

That's the way they think. Next that if they built if if people believe that Jesus is divine in the New Testament They often have what we call a subordinationist notion of divine divinity. Not that he's equal to God the Father.

Our earlier source Paul has very some rather suspicious statements in his letters that suggest that though He believed Jesus was divine in some sense. He did not equate Jesus with God. He did not believe Jesus was equal to God the Father.

He may have entertained some kind of adoptionist Christology at least at some time and he was it seems thoroughly a subordinationist.

So he was a he was thoroughly a subordinationist even though there were some texts that might have Indicated he was divine on some level but actually. Then when he quotes the Romans 1 for text, he's actually quoting somebody else and that's not his Christology.

It is so massively confusing once you start playing this game of. Well, you know and remember he doesn't he's not gonna allow you to look at Titus 2 13 and It's testimony to the deity of Christ. He's not gonna let you look at anything your first second Timothy.

He's not gonna like let you look at Ephesians or Colossians. He's gonna have a minimalist canon of Paul. He's only got seven Pauline letters. All those others are non Pauline so that doesn't matter anyways.

See, so you cut all those out. So you've got a minimized group and then you start picking and choosing what is subordinationist and the one thing you can't do is You cannot in any way shape or form Harmonize them.

You can't do it. This is simply the idea that Christ is a divine figure but subordinate to God the Father. Certainly Paul accepted a form of early Christianity that already worshiped Jesus as Lord. But again, that did not necessarily mean they thought of him as fully God.

The word Lord just doesn't mean that in Greek.

Now, I'm sorry, but You can find uses of courteous. That do not mean the highest Revelation of God's being no question about that, but that is a simplistic and ridiculous Response to the use of courteous by Paul and the other New Testament writers when they clearly are using it to refer to Yahweh himself.

He's gonna ask Michael. Iconic. Do you really think that that these texts are saying Jesus Yahweh? I mean, he's just shocked. Just oh, it's impossible. But it's clearly due to the fact that well I have my theory about who Jesus was and all other data is simply going to be interpreted in some.

Other perspective. And it almost certainly in the beginning did not mean they thought of him as equal to God. First Corinthians 11 13 I mean 11 3 says God is the head of Christ as man is the head of woman and Paul certainly believed that females were inferior to males.

He therefore must have believed that Christ was inferior to God the Father.

Wow, no, there's here's here is Yale University scholarship at its finest. Do not allow for any discussion of categories of functions of Christ being Messiah and therefore sent to do sir. Oh, no, no, no, no, and just assume that Paul felt that females were Inferior to males.

I mean just by the whole bucket load of Stuff and just pour it all in there because hey, you don't have to harmonize anything at all. You know all one in Christ Jesus no male or female all redeemed equal.

Oh, no, no, no, no, don't worry about that. That's some that's another text. It may not even be Pauline who knows, you know first Corinthians 15 38.

When all things are subjected to him Then the son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him so that God may be all-in-all. Again, Jesus as the coming Messiah as the battles subjects the entire universe to himself Jesus Then he subjects everything to the one whom he also is subjected to God the Father.

Well again. Evidently showing distinctions between father and son. Seeing different roles between father and son. Doesn't. And an amazing thing is remember. This is the guy who says I'm a Trinitarian.

This is the guy who who confesses that I seen faith, but that's in a different part of his brain. That's a different part of his worldview. So he already has the categories for interpreting these things, but he but no no, no, we can't do that can't.

No no, no, no. No, that's just all. Retrofitting and an anachronistic and and they're you know. What we believe is Orthodox cannot be anything relevant in our interpretation of the original writings.

All of those cases seem to me to say that although you do have the Gospel of John which makes Jesus Equal to God the Father in divinity, that's one that's one situation in the New Testament. You have many examples of subordinates subordinates Christology in the New Testament also not to mention post-new testament writings.

Now the irony is he's actually arguing that John Does not have any subordination ism that not he. He's not clear in what he means by that. I mean, there's a historical use the term subordination ism but he seems to conflate any Any Text where the son is distinguished from the father in his role in mission John clearly without question Presents Jesus as the one who is sent not the sender.

There's no confusion to the father and the son and John and Jesus says he does nothing of himself. He's does only what the sees the father doing. I Cannot even begin to understand The the interpretations offered in this type of a context the last piece of evidence.

I think that Jesus did not consider himself divine is one saying in the Gospel of Mark that I believe if any Saying of Jesus has a claim to be historical. It's this one.

That mark is the earth. So if there's if there's any statement in the Gospel of Mark if There's any statement in the Gospels That she has actually ever said it's this one. Now there's a there's a real confident.

Historical perspective, isn't there? This is this is what is right here earliest gospel and it tells the story in which Jesus is asked What should eat what by young men? What should I do the entire eternal life good teacher?

It's mark 10 17 through 18 and this is the NRS V version. Jesus answers as the first part Why do you call me good? No one is good, but God alone. I Think you can interpret that in lots of different ways, but it seems to be the most natural.

Interpretation is Jesus is basically saying I'm not God. That is absurd.

It's absurd when? Paul Belal Williams says it and it's absurd when a liberal scholar from Yale says it. It's absurd simply in a contextual context. First of all, I mean, are you really gonna sit there and say yeah.

What Mark's telling us is that Jesus is not good. Really that's what Marcus Mark wants to say. Jesus is not good honestly. What is the issue here. Jesus is not saying I am NOT God. What Jesus is doing is challenging the man's understanding of what is good because he's about to show that this man.

I Kept all these things from the time. I was a child onward and what does Jesus do with one command demonstrates an idolater? He thinks he's good, but he's not good. So he's challenging his understanding of what goodness is.

I mean, that's the only way to read it in context. But these guys don't have to worry about context. You don't have to worry about the next few sentences. Maybe somebody else wrote that or that's in a different discourse different dialogue.

Different story, you know when you're a post-modernist and I don't need to worry about the second half of a sentence. We don't need to worry about objective truth. Consistency things like that. Those are the hobgoblins of smaller minds.

We have transcended above these things.

Why do you call me good? No one is good, but God alone. Of all sayings that have any possible Divinity of Jesus in the synoptics this one has in my opinion the greatest claim to historicity and it seems to be a denial on Jesus part of divine status for himself.

Now compared to the discussion about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus that we had last night The question of his possible divine self-consciousness is much more murky. I would say that no reputable historian would call the flesh and blood resurrection of Jesus a historical fact.

But I could see even non-christian professional historians being willing at least to entertain the possibility That Jesus may have thought of himself as divine in some sense. Though certainly not I believe in the Orthodox Trinitarian sense.

So what. Whatever it could be it can't be that that that seems to be the mantra of Liberalism. Whatever it is whatever interpretation you want to put on it is absolutely fine as Long as it's not the Orthodox one because that's the one We will not allow you to even discuss as we it's just not going to happen.

That last sense I think would be wildly anachronistic and unhistorical. Retrojected back into life into Jesus on historical lifetime wildly anachronistic. Wildly anachronistic. There you go. What does it matter for my faith?

Not at all. I Believe Jesus is divine and I believe the Christology is to develop later in the church. I accept the good thing about Anglicans and Roman Catholics is we don't have to base all of our theology purely on a literal and Historical reading of the Bible.

There you go, folks.

There you go, I mean that there's a summary statement for you right there. We don't have to worry about it. Yeah that Bible stuff. Come on you know us Roman Catholics and Anglicans and at my my Anglican friends in Sydney are are tearing their hair out and Getting ready to go on an Anglican jihad right now.

Not sure what that would look like. Be sort of odd-looking and sound strange to be a little bit like Monty Python, but anyways This is there's the statement, you know, we really don't have to worry about this Bible stuff and have to sweat it.

Because we have this in essence another source revelation. Remember somebody else who said something very similar to this. Some of you may have listened to the Debate that I did with Barry Lynn. Remember Barry Lynn.

Wildly liberal angry Barry Lynn. During which he actually claimed to receive revelation on the same level as the Apostle Paul. Yeah out there. Yeah, there you go.

We can say the Holy Spirit has guided the church even after the period of the New Testament and When we confess the Apostles Creed in the Nicene Creed, we believe the church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit came to interpret the Bible to teach these truths about Jesus and That's what we accept as Orthodox.

So I can speak as a historian about this and it doesn't affect my faith at all. To believe that the historic that I can't say the historical Jesus thought himself to be divine. In fact, I think rather that the best historical solution is that the historical Jesus did not think he was divine.

Thank you.

So there you go. So my orthodoxy is Just that it just exists and that's why as he's going to be asked fairly early on in the questions I don't defend my faith. I Apologize in the sense of Apollo getting engaged in apologetics.

How can he? This kind of quote-unquote Christianity is is purely subjective and has no message for the world at all. It's just a this is my personal feelings. And this is just how I like to do things and la la la la.

So we continue on.

Cross-Examination on Mark 10 and the Synoptic Christology

Well, this is my favorite part of the night. This is that we're both scholars get to ask each other questions about their presentations with their thoughts and We get to hear from them as though we're imagine you're at the library pub as I said.

And you get to hear these guys go back and forth. Well, you get to do that right from these seats. So we're gonna start with Dale. I might want to prioritize which questions you're gonna ask each other because you got about 25 30 minutes max.

So you can only ask so many questions. So ask the most important ones that you think you can come up with. So Dale. We'd like to start and ask Mike a question to get the dialogue started.

Can I ask two questions that are probably not very long to answer one? I'm with how would you interpret that last market passage? And so I'm sure you must have a different interpretation that Jesus is not denying divine status to himself.

But I also want to ask if you make Jesus equal to Yahweh even in Jesus some teachings. How do you explain all that subordination? Subordination ism that we find in the New Testament and later Christian Christian literature.

Okay, great quick. Is this a little out for you guys? No. In terms of the the question about Mark chapter 10 verses 17 and 18. Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. I Agree with you.

That's ambiguous. It could be interpreted as Jesus in hey, why do you call me good? I'm not good only God only God is good and that's not me or it could be saying why do you call me good? Only God is good.

In other words, do you know what you're saying? You know what you just said you called me good And only God is good. Well done. So it could be in either way. So when we come to a text which is ambiguous and could be interpreted one way or the other I think the best thing to do the responsible hermeneutics would be to interpret that text in light of other texts at least by the same author or what Jesus would say elsewhere in Mark and as I and as I Contended in my opening statement, I think Mark is quite clear that Jesus regards himself as being God in some sense.

So that's how I would interpret that and therefore I think now like on a.

Obviously as a Christian has to say well you interpret what Mark is saying in the context that Mark himself provides and This is common sense. It's not postmodern common sense. But it's common sense that when you interpret a book you interpret it in light of the author's intentions.

If if there's a preface to a book that lays out and the author's intentions. Then you don't interpret what he says later on contrary to what he's laid out in the preface, right? No, that's not how it works in postmodernism.

That's not how it works in modern scholarship. And that's why a lot of times Christians will listen to these folks and they'll go. What on where did they get that and so often they go? Well, I guess if I just went to seminary.

Yeah, I suppose if you did and they suck the common sense out of your mind, then you'd understand but so often These these folks just get so isolated in their ivory towers. That things that are that are completely lacking in common sense.

End up being presented as if they are the very essence of scholarship and this is a good example of that and so what like on is saying is You need to interpret this text in light of Mark's intention now I'm gonna have some words of criticism for Mike like on it because again every time we listen to either Mike or William Lane Craig doing debates.

I don't answer the same way they do and I think it's useful. Helpful To the listening audience to know why? I'm not gonna be one of those people. I it would get me a lot more Invitations, there'd be a lot more doors open to me if I just swept these things with a rug and people say I just don't like how you talk about it.

What look people need to know why we answer in different ways. If I don't talk about it. Then there's not gonna be any increase in understanding and you're in you are the one you're the listener lose out.

You don't get to have the opportunity of Really understanding what the differences are and why they are and making the decision for yourself as to what kind of apologetics is consistent for the biblical Christian and so that's why we do what we do on the dividing line the.

Interpretation that I just gave to it would be a more plausible or likely interpretation than the one that you provided. But I admit that it is ambiguous and taken alone. You could go either way. But in the context of how Jesus presents himself in mark, or maybe I should say how mark in his biography presents Jesus I think it might interpretation be more likely.

I mean mark even opens up the gospel with quoting. You know Isaiah 43 about John the Baptist in relation to Jesus a voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare the way of the Lord make straight the paths of our God and that's applying to Yahweh in Isaiah 40 verse 3 and yet here Mark is applying that to John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus.

So I think the whole of the biography of Jesus as presented by mark is Jesus is Yahweh amongst us. Then why doesn't he say it now?

I I agree with Mike that that you you have to allow mark to be mark. Why doesn't he say it? Well, that's a good question. I Guess what he's saying is why doesn't mark say Jesus is Yahweh. And like on his response going to be somewhat along the lines of the messianic secret.

But I think there does have to be an allowance for and and here's where a Completely part company with with Martin because I just don't think he could even have categories for this but obviously The Gospels have to be a story that can be presented in summary fashion.