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.
45
Markan Christology
and the Omission of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1
DEAN B. DEPPE
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 sec-
tions, 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 Chris-
tology. 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.
A Challenge to the Present Scholarly Consensus
In textual studies Mark 1:1 continues to remain a hotly disputed topic
of discussion1 with Nestle-Aland omitting υἱοῦ θεοῦ from their Greek
editions 1-25 but including it in brackets since that time. The new angle
by which I want to approach this problem is to investigate its significance
for Markan Christology. Does the shorter Markan prologue, “The begin-
ning of the gospel of Jesus Christ†sufficiently capture Mark’s designation
of the person of Jesus? Or is the additional title, “Son of God†required to
understand Mark’s Christological point of view?.
The following Greek manuscripts, versions, and church fathers omit
“Son of God†from the text of Mk. 1:1 so that it reads, “The beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christâ€.
Besides commentaries and studies on textual criticism, note the articles by Jan Slomp
1
(1977), Alexander Globe (1982), Peter Head (1991), Adela Collins (1995), and N. Clayton
Croy (2001).
FilologÃa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XXI - 2008, pp. 45-64
Facultad de FilosofÃa y Letras - Universidad de Córdoba (España)
FOLLOW US