If I were to identify just one aspect of Jesus’s temple-identification which suggested his divinity, it would be the effortless authority with which he contravened and ‘rewrote’ the levitical holiness code. For instance the healing of the haemmorhaging woman: instead of uncleanness being transmitted to Jesus (which should also have resulted in her being stoned), healing (cleanness) was transmitted to the woman. My point is: who had the authority to do these things? Within a 1st century Jewish worldview, the authority could only be either demonic and blashemous, or divine. Nowhere is Jesus presented as a mere agent of YHWH. Nowhere does he attempt to ascribe the source of authority to YHWH and not himself. On the contrary, he seems to encourage the focus on himself rather than on a YHWH who was distinct from himself.

The point seems to me clear: in reconstituting the people of God by gathering them around himself, and providing for them through himself what had previously only been available through the presence of God and God-ordained means at the temple (in the ways I summarised in the previous post), Jesus was pursuing a vocation as none other than YHWH himself. His triumphal entry and judgement on the temple continued the theme of either supreme blasphemy or divinity.

I agree that we should seek to avoid reading into Jesus’s own self-awareness the theological (christological?) formulations of a later age. It’s here that I find Wright very helpful: that Jesus’s sense of vocation was worked out through Jewish symbols, not later metaphysical Greek substitutes. It’s here that the temple significance is so telling; it accompanied Jesus throughout his earthly ministry, culminating in his pronouncement of judgement on the Jerusalem temple. In the imagery of the passover meal Jesus enacted his own sacrifice and deliverance, accomplished on the cross - again, paralleling, but contradistinguished from, the Jerusalem temple where the passover lambs were offered.

Having said all this, I’m actually rather uncertain of the precise line of thought you are aiming for. If the aim is to identify a narrative which forms the basis of a worldview, within the historical terms of 1st century Judaism, I can’t see why the divine nature of Jesus should not be part of that. In fact, I think the evidence is compelling that it should be part of the narrative. Given that this divine nature is worked out in 1st century Jewish thought forms, I don’t really see the objections.

As regards the stilling of the storm, isn’t it rather striking that the Jesus in Mark 4:35-41 is identifiable with the YHWH of Psalm 107:28-29? One might go further and identify other things Jesus did with works of YHWH in the psalm, eg the Gerasene healing, Mark 5:1-20, with Psalm 107:10-16. To say that Jesus only acted on behalf of YHWH is being rather evasive, and not suggested at all in the text. And whatever levels of significance we can unearth in the story - Jesus is still presented as one who has authority over the elements of the created world, just as he has over sickness, demonisation, infirmity, raising from the dead etc. It’s true that miracles of various kinds had previously been performed by merely human agents, (and were subsequently) and that the miraculous in itself does not prove a divine nature. So for me, it’s what the miracles signified that is compelling, embedded in the context of Jewish thought forms and belief.