Scholars continue to debate the degree of Christology in the
Gospel of Mark. That is, there is
disagreement as to whether Jesus is depicted as more of a human character or
that of a more divine figure.
Indeed, our text notes that “Jesus is portrayed as supremely
authoritative…this authoritative Son of God.”[i] However, scholarly opinion on the
Christology in Mark has oscillated over the course of the 20th
century. To better understand
these discrepancies, I will address three broad periods of transition in
regards to Markian analysis: late nineteenth century to ca. 1900, 1900-1970
after the publication of Das Messiasgeheimnis, and contemporary analysis involving Jewish influences on Mark.[ii]
Late
19th and early 20th century historical critics rejected
the Markian Jesus’ life because of its lofty Christology: “A Jewish man could
not have made claims like those the Johannine Jesus does.”[iii] However, once it was realized that Mark
was the first Gospel to be written, scholars attributed the high degree of
Christology to that of Messianic Consciousness. When in his travels he reached a “high point at Caesarea
Philippi, Jesus made known to his followers that he believed he was the
expected
Jewish Messiah.”[iv] Thus, scholars were able to account for
the seeming contradiction of high and low Christology present in Mark.
W.
Wrede’s 1901 publication of Das Messiasgeheimnis reignited the Markian divinity debate and reaffirmed the argument
supporting a high degree of Christology in this Gospel. Wrede’s emphasis was on Jesus’
baptism. Although many that Jesus
was designed God’s king or that God expressed his love for Jesus or his human
piety, Wrede “regarded this as the moment when the ‘supernatural nature of
Jesus’ came into being through his reception of the Spirit.”[v] Subscribing to a more Hellenistic view
of Jesus’ life as the divine Messiah, Wrede was able to support the high
Christology argument and continue the debate.
The
late 20th century rise in redaction and literary criticisms have
brought contemporary scholarly consensus back into the view that the Markian
Jesus is one of low Christology.
With recent scholarship attributing a higher degree of Jewish influence,
it seems unlikely that Jewish monotheistic factors would allow for Jesus to be
depicted as divine. These scholars
believe the Markian Jesus should be viewed as a king or even prophet. These same scholars contend that the
theme unifying the passion narrative is the royal theme. This is supported by
the dominance of the title ‘king’ in Mark 15 and the parallel between 14.61
(‘the Christ, the Son of the Blessed’) and 15.32 (‘the Christ, the King of
Israel’) which indicates that ‘Christ’ has a royal connotation.”[vi]
Although
contemporary scholarly consensus rests on a low Christology view of the Markian
Jesus, this has not and will not always be the case. There is more than enough evidence in the Gospel to support
both sides of the argument. What
is interesting is not only the century long debate over Christ’s divinity but
also the extent to which new critical methods shape the debate. Future innovations in critical methods
may yet again swing consensus back to a view of high Christology.
Works Cited
Ehrman, Bart D. The New
Testament. Fourth Edition. New York:
Oxford, 2004
Johansson, Daniel. The
Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present
Proposals. Currents in Biblical
Research. Vol. 9, Issue 3. 2011. Pp
364-393
[i] B.D. The
New Testament (3; New York; Oxford; 2004),
78
[ii] J.D. The
Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals. (CBR Vol. 9, 2011)
[iii] J.D. The
Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals. (CBR Vol. 9, 2011) 365
[iv] J.D. The
Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals. (CBR Vol. 9, 2011) 365
[v] J.D. The
Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals. (CBR Vol. 9, 2011) 366
[vi] J.D. The
Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals. (CBR Vol. 9, 2011) 372
No comments:
Post a Comment