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.
56 Dean B. Deppe
Jesus’ self-designation as Son of Man is likewise employed by Mark as
an appropriate title because it describes Jesus both in his suffering and in
his exaltation. Mark begins with the Son of Man as an undefined human
being (2:10,28), offers clear premonitions of a suffering Son of Man in
the middle (8:31; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45), and concludes his gospel with the
future enthronement of the Son of Man (13:26; 14:62).
The Prologues of Matthew and John
Our final argument in this Christological section is that the other gos-
pel writers, Matthew and John, demonstrate that a proper Christological
formulation is important in the prologue of the gospel. In Mt. 1:1 the title
of Jesus as “Christ†is supplemented by the titles “son of David, son of
Abraham†to indicate that Jesus is the Messiah for both the Jews and the
Gentiles. Thus Matthew first narrates Jesus ministry to the lost sheep of
Israel (10:6) but then through the encounter with the Canaanite women
in 15:24-28 prepares for a ministry to Gentiles which finally concludes
the gospel (28:19-20). The titles of Mt. 1:1 prepare the reader for the rest
of the gospel. Thus we should envision the Matthean churches as consti-
tuting both children of David and Gentiles, the blessed seed of Abraham.
Similarly, in the Gospel of John, the designation of the Logos as “Godâ€
in 1:1 functions structurally as an inclusio around the prologue (1:1,18),
then the entire gospel (1:1; 20:28 “My Lord and my Godâ€) as well as Jesus’
fulfillment of the feasts (5:18; 10:33). Jesus as God is introduced at the
very beginning because its proclamation becomes the theological pur-
pose for John’s gospel. Likewise, with Mark the titles play a structural
and theological role in his gospel and must be included in the prologue.
The expression “Son of God†concludes the second half of Mark’s gospel
expressing the suffering nature of the Messiah just as the title “Christâ€
finishes the first half which abounds with the powerful miracles of Jesus.
Both titles are needed in the prologue to adequately prepare the readers
to digest Jesus’ identity.
The Weight of the External Textual Evidence
So far we have argued internally from Mark’s presentation of Jesus that
Markan Christology demands that the bare expression of Jesus as “the
Messiah†must be accompanied by a phrase such as “Son of Godâ€. Now
we will substantiate this thesis by demonstrating that the external textual
evidence overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of the title “Son of Godâ€. The
omission in some manuscripts must be an accidental error by periblepsis.
FOLLOW US