The Gospel of Mark and Chalcedon

The other day I was reading through an old article by M. Eugene Boring on Markan Christology, and came across this quote:

The explicit use of God-language for Jesus by later NT authors and the classical creeds is in continuity with the Christology already present in Mark. To state the matter somewhat provocatively: John, Nicea, and Chalcedon understood and developed Mark’s Christology in a more profound sense than was done by either Matthew or Luke. Chalcedon may perhaps be understood as more ‘Markan’ than ‘Johannine’, since John has more explicit subordinationist tendencies than does Mark. Christians who are concerned with both canon and creed need not therefore attempt to get Mark to be Nicean or Joahannine, but should attempt to understand Mark in his own terms.

M. Eugene Boring, “Markan Christology: God-Language For Jesus?” NTS 45 (1999): 471.

"An interesting canonical critical thesis."

Seeing “Born of water” as an ..."
"Of course it contains Exodus imagery but that is because the sacrament of baptism contains ..."

Seeing “Born of water” as an ..."
"Evidently you have not read the XXXIX Articles."

How to Be Trinitarian
"The doctrine of the Trinity, in the sense of God being tripersonal, was not formulated ..."

How to Be Trinitarian

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment