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.
59
Markan Christology and the Omission Of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1
like Origen evidence the omission of “Son of Godâ€, these early readings
could trace back to a single or two-fold accidental omission51.
Evaluating the Internal Evidence
Regarding internal evidence, I will concede that evidence based upon
Markan style alone is indecisive in favor of the reading υἱοῦ θεοῦ52. The
text without the title “Son of God†is supported by the well-known textual
criteria of the shorter reading (Lectio Brevior Lectio Potior) and the more
difficult reading (Lectio Difficilior Lectio Potior) since the title “Son of
God†is a favorite of Mark’s (1:11; 3:11; 9:7; 14:61; 15:39), employed at
the crucial moments of baptism, transfiguration, and crucifixion53. The
shorter reading is frequently considered more difficult as well since the
early church would likely embellish the text with additional references to
Jesus’ identity. Therefore, Peter Head reports that “no plausible reason for
the omission of the phrase can be foundâ€54. He points out that in other
gospel passages the title “Son of God†is never omitted, but it is added
on a multitude of occasions (Mk. 8:29; 14:61; Mt. 1:1,16; 13:37; Jn. 1:18;
6:69). However, these canons of textual criticism only apply to intentional
changes, whereas I will argue that the alteration is unintentional.
Bart Ehrman even suggests a theological reason for the longer text.
He believes that “In order to circumvent an adoptionistic reading of this
inaugurating event, early orthodox Christian scribes made a slight modi-
fication of Mark’s opening words, so that now they affirm Jesus’ status as
the Son of God prior to his baptismâ€55. Ehrman’s premise assumes that
Mk. 1:1 functioned for the early church chronologically as a historical
incident where a confession of faith is elicited. However, just as the title
“Messiah†in 1:1 does not annul the historical recognition of Jesus as
Lane, Mark, 41, n. 7 maintains that the text of Codex Sinaiticus may be based upon
51
that of papyri which Origen took with him from Alexandria to Palestine so that the two
chief witnesses for the omission ()* and Origen) are reduced to one.
For example, the anarthrous state of the nouns in 1:1 and 15:39 is employed to ar-
52
gue for an inclusio within the gospel. But Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 74 points out
that the inclusion between Mk. 1:10 and 15:39 is significantly stronger as evidenced by
the additional reference to the ripping of the heavens (1:10) and the temple veil (15:38),
although Robert Gundry, Mark: Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans 1993) 38 offers the counter evidence that the expression “my beloved Son†at 1:11
is not nearly as close in wording as 1:1 and 15:39.
Peter Head points out that an even greater emphasis upon “Son of God†in Matthew
53
does not require this nomenclature be added to the introduction of Matthew.
Head, “Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1â€, 627.
54
Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christo-
55
logical Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: University Press 1993) 75.