Dean B. Deppe, «Markan Christology and the Omission of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1», Vol. 21 (2008) 45-64
In the last years a new consensus has arisen in textual critical circles that favors the omission of 'Son of God' from the prologue of Mark’s gospel.
The new angle by which I want to approach this problem is to investigate its significance for Markan Christology. I will argue that the shorter Markan prologue, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' does not sufficiently capture Mark’s theology of the person of Jesus. The paper includes two sections, the first discussing Markan Christology and the second evaluating the textual evidence. In the Christological section I first challenge the assertion that Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Messiahship (8:27-30) is the turning point of the Gospel of Mark. Then I demonstrate that an additional title like suffering Son of Man or Son of God is necessary to adequately capture Mark’s Christology. Finally, I argue that Matthew and John have similarly positioned crucial Christological titles in the prologues of their gospels. In the textual critical section I provide evidence for the inclusion of 'Son of God' at Mk. 1:1 and argue that the omission of this title in a few manuscripts must have occurred through periblepsis occasioned by homoioteleuton.
49
Markan Christology and the Omission Of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1
(29,251 characters), the closest point to the exact middle of Mark’s gospel
which consists of 11,783 words (58,279 characters)21. Mark employs the
transfiguration as a confirmation to Jesus’ inner disciples that this suffe-
ring Son of Man is God’s Son and thus is a continuation of 8:31-3222. The
term “Messiah†plays no role.
One problem with the suggested chiasm above is that Jesus’ eschato-
logical discourse (Mark 13) precedes the set of controversies (Mk. 11-12)
in order to parallel Jesus’ parable discourse in Mark 4. In addition, other
proposed chiasms of the entire gospel call into question the entire legi-
timacy of employing macro-chiasms. M. Philip Scott’s contention23 that
the emphasis falls upon the Transfiguration points to some interesting
parallels but in the end misses the Markan movement from the revelation
to Jesus alone through the voice from heaven at Jesus baptism, to the
inclusion of the disciples in the Transfiguration, and the climax in the
Gentile centurion’s confession at the cross where Jesus is revealed as Son
of God to all nations.
A (1:2) An angel witnesses to his coming
B (1:11) You are my Son
C (2:7) Who can forgive sins (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὠθεός)
D (3:29) The guilt of the scribes
E (3:33) Who is my mother?
F (3:35) The primacy of doing God’s will
G (4:40) Who is this that the winds obey him?
H (6:3) Jesus is called the son of Mary
I (8:27) Who do you say that I am?
J (8:31) Prophecy of betrayal, passion, resurrection
K (9:7) This is my Son: listen to him
J’ (9:30) Prophecy of betrayal, passion, resurrection
I’ (10:18) Why call me good? (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὠθεός)
H’ (10:47) Jesus is called Son of David
G’ (11:28) By what authority do you do these things?
F’ (12:30) The primacy of God’s commandment to love
E’ (12:37) How is Christ David’s Son?
D’ (12:40) A judgment on the scribes
C’ (14:61) Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed God?
B’ (15:39) Truly, this man was the Son of God
A’ (16:6) An angel witnesses to his going
The narrative through Peter’s confession at 8:30 contains only 5540 words (27,592
21
characters).
The transfiguration is tied to Jesus’ passion through the misunderstanding by Peter
22
in 9:5-6 and the addition of 9:9-13. Mk. 9:1-13 functions as a parallel to 8:27-38 with the
revelation of Jesus’ identity, the misunderstanding by Peter, and the teaching about Jesus’
passion.
M. Philip Scott, “Chiastic Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of Mark’s Gospelâ€,
23
Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (1985): a18-19, 25.
FOLLOW US