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.
50 Dean B. Deppe
On the other hand, Hugh Humphrey’s chiasm24 offers an alternative
to Peter’s confession alone as the centerpoint of Mark’s gospel and posits
the possibility that the whole narrative about following a Messiah who is
the suffering Son of Man should be considered as the theological center
of Mark’s gospel.
A. Opening Section 1:1-15 Jesus is identified as Son of God
1. interlude 1:16-20 Jesus’ first followers
B. 1st Major Section 1:21-3:6 Jesus’ ministry occasions opposition
2. interlude 3:7-19 Of Jesus, disciples, mission
C. 2nd Major Section 3:20-6:13 Of response to Jesus, and judgment
3. interlude 6:14-29 Baptist gives his life
D. 3rd Major Section 6:30-8:21 Jesus comes to Israel as its true teacher
4. interlude 8:22-26 Healing of blind man
E. Central Section 8:27-10:45 Secret wisdom: giving all to all gains all
4’ interlude 10:46-52 Healing of blind man
D’ 3rd Last Section 11:1-12:40 Jesus comes to Israel as its Lord
3’ interlude 12:41-44 Widow gives all she has
C’ 2nd Last Section 13:1-37 Of discipleship, judgment
2’ interlude 14:1-9 Of Jesus’ departure and discipleship
B’ Last Major Section 14:10-15:39 Betrayal, rejection and death of Jesus
1’ interlude 15:40-47 Jesus’ last followers
A’ Climax 16:1-8 Jesus is confirmed as Son of God by his resurrection
Whether these chiastic structures do justice to the structure of Mark’s
gospel is not part of our discussion. We only want to prove that Peter’s
confession of Jesus as “Messiah†is not necessarily the emphasis in Mark’s
structure of the narrative.
The Insufficiency of the Title “Christâ€
Certainly, the mentioning of Jesus as Christ at the beginning of Mark’s
gospel implies that Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah (8:29) should
not be viewed negatively25. However, the arguments for a completely
Hugh M. Humphrey, “He is Risen!†A New Reading of Mark’s Gospel (New York:
24
Paulist 1992) 4.
Versus Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark. Proclamation Commentaries (Philadelphia: Fortress
25
1975) 37. For a list of scholars who interpret Peter’s confession negatively see Jack Dean
Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress 1983) 95, n. 141. For
instance, Reginald Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons 1965) 109, contends that when Markan redaction is eliminated
(8:30-32), “we are left with a straight pronouncement story in three parts:†the setting
(8:27-28), the action of Peter’s confession (8:29), and Jesus’ pronouncement saying, “Get
behind me, Satan†(8:33). Peter’s confession followed immediately by Jesus’ categorization
of Peter’s statement as Satanic reveals that “Jesus rejects Messiahship as a merely human
FOLLOW US