In looking at the history and reception of some of the most controversial passages in Mark - the descent of the spirit and divine voice declaring Jesus’ sonship at the baptism, the question of whether the emphasis in Mark is on Jesus as a powerful theios aner (divine man), the refusal to accept the acclamation “good,” the accusation that Jesus usurped a divine prerogative in claiming to forgive sins, the ignorance of “the son” about the eschatological day or hour, the experience of Jesus being forsaken by God at the crucifixion – we have mostly been touching on Markan christology. In the next bunch of posts I plan to provide notes summarizing books/articles which have very different takes on Mark’s christology. I will by-and-large withhold my own opinions until concluding the series, but as always I invite readers comments and open debate in the comments section.
Maybe we can at least agree that among the four Gospels questions concerning Mark’s Christology are more prominent than in later Gospels, and hence raise the most controversy?
Other signs of Mark being early include the fact that in Mark the male apostles all flee, and only female disciples are mentioned as being at the crucifixion, and only watching “from a distance;” (Compare later Gospels in which the passage that they “fled” is no longer included, and male disciples are added at the crucifixion, and then male and female disciples are added right at the foot of the cross). And in Mark Jesus is buried hastily, without being anointed at all. (Compare later Gospels that no longer mention the women’s reason for going to the tomb as being “to anoint the body,” especially John where Jesus is spiced to the max before being buried.) Not to mention even more obvious points of changes in Gospel trajectory over time, namely, that Mark lacks both a nativity and post-resurrection narrative, and that Mark has the angel tell the women at the tomb that Jesus has gone on before them to Galilee “for there ye shall see him” (rather than the idea in later Gospels that the apostles remained in Jerusalem and Jesus was first seen there, it’s the “Galilee changing to Jerusalem” trajectory).
.
Thanks Ed. What do you mean by “questions concerning Mark’s Christology are more prominent than in later Gospels” are you saying that Mark’s own Christology is less clear-cut or unambiguous, not as “high” or developed, or what? I definitely agree with you that Mark is the earliest Gospel for reasons such as you mention (though keep in mind it is possible that IF Matthew and Luke are independent of each other they may be calling on some alternative sources too for their infancy and post-resurrection narratives and so not everything may be redactional)