Talk:Messianic Secret

message: Hello world. This is my first Wikipedia article; I thought the most important thing to do would be to include some references, which I have done at the bottom of the article.
The article itself is a kind of big stub. I can't really be bothered to do a proper job of it at the moment; not being an expert means that it actually takes _effort_ to write this stuff, but at least there's something there now. I hope people find it useful, and still more that someone (possibly me, if I get around to it) takes the time to expand the article properly.
Tomkirby 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First

message: Writing in this section "Literary/theological explanations: a prominent example is proposed by Wilhelm Wrede. (See below)." and then referring to a book is hardly a good explanation of anything to the average Wikipedia reader.  Perhaps you can summarize the insights Wrede had on this subject for those of us not in-the-know.  I am sure others would also appreciate not having to look it up elsewhere.  Also from a very quick Google search (since there is no article on Wilhelm Wrede, who seems to be very bound up with the phrase— Messianic Secret) is Mr. Wrede the one who coined the phrase?  Or was it already a commonly used phrase before his book/research.  If he coined the phrase then it would be significant and the phrase should be attributed to him in the first paragraph, I would think.  Thanks for an interesting start to an article.  --SFDan 10:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning "Attempts to explain the Messianic Secret"

message: The text said 'avowed atheist' but the Wiki article which the link on his name points to says 'agnostic'.  If 'atheist' is right, please correct me and correct the Bart Ehrman article.  Thanks.  --74.56.12.36 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bart Ehrman atheist or agnostic? 

message: Whereas the preceding text specifies that explanations of the Messianic secret can be categorized as four types, the list now includes a fifth category, "Eschatological", which is not found in the preceding text. After a Google search, I presume that this entry wishes to refer to the explanations propounded by Schweitzer (and followers?). Although coming from a line of research that attempts to define Jesus historically, I would suggest such explanations are nonetheless theological in kind and - if they merit inclusion at all, which I think they probably do - should be included under that header. If inclusion in another category is not feasible, then the "Eschatological" listing should be expounded. Ishisht (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Four or five types of explanation for the Messianic secret?

message: Speculation upon speculation. If there is no citation with Mr. MacDonald providing evidence as to why he believes that Mark may have invented the Gospel account to make it conform to Homer, why do we bother to cite him at all? "If he did this... If he did that... But I have no idea whether he did it or not, only my personal bias and conjecture." Yeah, that's very scholarly.
This is an asinine reference, someone please remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.248 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If, Then... Dennis R. MacDonald 

message: The Messianic Secret is NOT the same as "The Theory of the Messianic Secret" (e.g. Wrede).    The two are 'related', to be sure, but they're separate things. 
The Messianic Secret itself refers not to any particular theory, but rather to the general observation that the text of Mark contains examples of Jesus telling people not to share information.   The Theory of the Messianic Secret, or at least Wrede's theory of it, was that the Messianic Secret is a Markan innovation meant to ease tensions between differing christologies.  
That's a distinction that need to be clearer.    You can say "I don't believe Wrede's theory is correct", and that makes sense.  Saying "I don't believe the Messianic Secret is correct" doesn't really have a meaning in the modern day.  Essentially, you'd be saying perhaps that you dispute the text of mark or its translation, or perhaps you'd be saying you know those verse are there but you don't believe they're important, or.. I don't know what.    
The point is--  "Messianic Secret" is not a thesis-- it's a name for a pattern shown in a collection of verses.  Whatever the original origin of the term was, it's now a very common term and simply using the term doesn't imply any belief about the theories and interpretation of that pattern. 
Reading the current text, I think the two have been equated. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like this article is focused mostly on Wrede and his theory.  Perhaps a move to his bio or an article on his page?   --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ on that. The real issue is the use of the word "is" in your statement above. Exactly what establishes what it "is" needs to be justified by WP:RS sources, and I see none to support that assertion. The term was invented by Wrede and the initial arguments were made in his proposal. Thereafter the theory was subject to discussion. So your statement that it "is" X needs to be backed up by sources. And the sources in the article clearly state that WP:RS sources discuss that as Wrede's theory or modifications thereof. That term and Wrede are inherently linked. Try this search and this search and you will see the similarities. When modern scholars discuss "Messianic Secret" Wrede inevitably comes up. One can not discuss General Relativity without Einstein, just as one can not discuss Messianic Secret without Wrede. The way you have modified it is actually incorrect in that it misses the issue about parables, Kingdom of Heaven etc. which are part of the term. And the assertion the there are "4 explanations" is unsourced. What is the source for that? In general, the changes you made are incoherent, my apologies, but they are. Regarding your statement that it is "pattern shown in a collection of verses" Ulrich Luz showed the errors in that type of assumption in the 1960s, as the article states. And as Daniel J. Harrington clearly stated the term "Messianic Secret" is a misnomer for it applies to too many issues. So the statement that it is a widely "accepted term" is also clearly incorrect. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited a while and I guess you are offline for now. So I fixed the format (which was off) for now and added a ref-improve tag to the assertion. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight but important clarification