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.
54 Dean B. Deppe
appropriate unless an additional designation was included like “Son of
Godâ€. Therefore, the designation “Messiah†in 9:41 is closely tied with the
title “suffering Son of Man†in 9:31.
What Titles Appropriately Express Markan Christology?
Just as the title “Messiah†is insufficient Christology for Mark, so the
additional designations of “Son of David†and “King of the Jews†are
likewise insufficient theological designations to describe the person of
Jesus. Therefore, a pattern is established in Mark’s gospel that titles that
did not originally include suffering in their Jewish milieu are consistently
complemented by other titles. This is true of such designations as miracle
worker, Son of David, King of the Jews, Elijah, and cornerstone.
A presentation of Jesus as the powerful miracle worker is likewise
insufficient Christology. Since the correct understanding of Jesus accor-
ding to Mark is as a righteous suffering miracle worker, the first half of
the gospel concentrates on Jesus’ miracles while the second part empha-
sizes his passion. In the Galilean ministry and trip to Jerusalem Mark
first demonstrates that Jesus is the Messiah through his acts of power
(4:35-8:21) and then in the three passion predictions exhibits Jesus as
the righteous sufferer (8:22-10:52). Then in the Jerusalem ministry Mark
first demonstrates that Jesus is the royal Son of David (Mk. 11-12) and
secondly that he is the righteous suffering King of the Jews (Mk. 14-15).
The misunderstanding of the disciples after the three trips across the sea
(4:40; 6:52; 8:13-21) indicates that an understanding of Jesus as a miracle
working messiah is insufficient. The disciples’ failure to understand the
loaves (6:52) can only be removed by their recognition that the true mul-
tiplication occurs at the last supper which symbolizes Jesus’ death on the
cross.
Similarly the title “King of the Jews†is inadequate to describe Jesus’
identity until the title is identified with Jesus’ passion.33 Thus before the
passion narrative Herod claims the designation “king†(6:14,22,25,26,27);
Jesus is only specified as King of the Jews (15:2,9,12,18,26) and King
of Israel (15:32) in his suffering. Likewise, the title “Son of David†is
emphasized only in the first part of Jesus’ Jerusalem ministry (10:47-48;
Just as the title “king†is identified with Jesus’ passion, so the kingdom of God arrives
33
at the cross for Mark since 1) Jesus is ironically proclaimed King of the Jews by the notice
on the cross (15:26) and by the mocking of the teachers of the law (King of Israel 15:32) and
2) Jesus drinks the cup of the kingdom (14:25; 15:36) and 3) Joseph of Arimathea who has
been waiting for the kingdom of God (15:43) finally takes action.
FOLLOW US