Re: "a" or "the" ?? (Mark 15.39)

From: Rod Decker (rdecker@bbc.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 26 1998 - 16:25:28 EST


In response to George's comment that:

>>The lack of an article
>>does indeed seem to argue for the sarcastic 'neither' view, which then
>>makes the 'debate' so evenly balanced. He would then be saying in
>>English idiom a scathing "Son of God indeed!"

Jim commented that:

>Lets all be careful lest we assume that Mark is reporting actual historical
>events. Otherwise soon we will have an entire apocryphal gospel on the look
>on the centurion's face and what color clothing he had on, as well as what
>he had for breakfast. His tone of voice is immaterial, for Mark is not
>interested in the Roman, only in what he says. That Mark would have him
>say, in an insulting way, that Jesus was "son of god" (sneer supplied by our
>apocryphal gospelists) goes against the very purpose of the Gospel.
>
>Interpretation should keep in mind such things as authorial intent or the
>text becomes subject rather than object.

I have mixed feelings here. I agree heartily with Jim's discounting the
"sneering" connotation suggested (I can't imagine how the lack of the
article in itself could suggest that). But on the other hand, I an not sure
what to make of a rejection of "actual historical events"--esp. when the
same post pleads for "authorial intent." Is there any more indication that
Mark did NOT intend us to understand his record to be that of a historical
event than there is indication of a sneer? I think not. It might be worth
noting that Mark may have framed his gospel with two "theological bookends"
re. the identity of Jesus, namely, 1:1, "Son of God" and 15:39, "Son of
God." (I just noted Dale's comment that "context includes the whole of
Mark's Gospel" and would concur heartily.) If Mark was writing for a Roman
audience (likely from my perspective), to introduce Jesus as "Son of God"
in 1:1, develop that theme throughout, and then to close with the same
affirmation on the lips of a Roman officer (official representative of
those directly responsible for the crucifixion)--that would be a powerful
statement. Perhaps that view is not far from Jim's point, the disagreement
perhaps being only whether or not the man actually spoke those words.

Rod

________________________________________________________________
 Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary
 Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800
 rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit PA 18411
 http://www.bbc.edu/faculty/RDecker/
________________________________________________________________



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:18 EDT