i. Jesus is described in more developed and exalted language in Lk than in Mk. There is less emphasis upon his weaknesses, emotions and limitations. This is significant because it is only natural that later authors would use more exalted language of the Son, and by observing this language we may gain insights into their theological sensibilities. While arguing in favor of Markan priority over Matthean priority, Allison and Davies remarked,
"The general direction of early Christology cannot be gainsaid. It was from the lesser to the greater. The passing of time incontrovertibly saw a development; there was an enhancing of feelings of reverence, an increase in Jesus' position and status." [1]
The same may be said of Lk, which makes more frequent use of exalted language, affirmations of divine sonship, attributions of foreknowledge, and a higher emphasis on the transcendence of Jesus. Mk has no nativity story, no narrative of a virgin birth, no genealogy of Jesus, no resurrection appearances, and the apologetic features surrounding the resurrection which we would expect of a later gospel. These are all features that would exalt the status and credibility of Jesus, therefore, their addition by Lk is inherently more plausible than Mk deciding to omit such details.
ii. Firstly, with regard to titles, in Mk he is called Lord, κύριος, only eight times,[2] but Lk multiplies this to a total of sixty two occurrences![3] Mark does not refer to Jesus as "the Lord" in narrative transitions, but Luke often does with the phrase "the Lord answered." The frequent references to Jesus as κύριος reflect the theological vocabulary of the later church, but Mk tends to keep the more primitive address, Rabbi, ραββι, (9:5; 11:21; 14:45) and once he contains the native form ραββουνι, Rabboni (10:51) which not found at all in Lk. There is also a difference in the emphasis upon the Sonship of Jesus, who is only called the Son of God with the definite article five times in Mk. (1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61) The first human to address him as such is a Roman soldier in an apparently sarcastic quip at Mk. 15:39, ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν, which lacks the article and the occurrence at Mk. 1:1 is a later scribal addition. The most common title for Jesus in Mk is the Son of Man which occurs fifteen times.[4] In Luke he is called "Son of God" seven times (1:32, 35; 4:3, 9, 41; 8:28; 22:70) and Son of Man twenty six times.[5]
iii. The Messiah is given the designation צמח in the OT which is generally translated "Branch," but the LXX gives the curious translation ανατολή which signifies "sunrise," "dawn," or "rising star." (Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12) Luke alone gives this heavenly designation to Jesus and directly says that he has a heavenly origin, the Messiah comes, "from on high," that is, from heaven.
Luke 1:78, 79: "On account of the clement mercies of our God, by which the Sunrise (ανατολή) will visit us from on high, to shine on those who are in darkness and in the shadow of death."
This is likely a reference to the pre-existence of the Messiah, he is directly said to have a heavenly origin, "from on High," and is compared with the rising Sun.[6] Gathercole sees in this passage "a strong indication of Jesus as a pre-existent Messiah."[7] It is noteworthy that Philo of Alexandria interpreted the ανατολή title to be a heavenly title which is properly applied to an "incorporeal being no different from the divine image."
"I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such an oracle as this: "Behold, a man whose name is Sunrise (ανατολή)!" A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider the one mentioned as consisting of body and soul. But if it is that incorporeal being no different from the divine image, then you will agree that his name Sunrise is attributed to him most appropriately. For the father of all things has caused him to spring up (ανέτειλε) as his eldest son - the one elsewhere he calls his firstborn." (Philo of Alexandria, Confusione Linguarum 62.)
Other titles of the Messiah in Lk but not in Mk include, "Horn of Salvation" (1:69), "Lord Christ" (2:11), "light of the Gentiles," (2:32) and "Savior." (2:11) Many stories in Lk which exalt the status of Jesus which are not found in Mk, an army of the angels descends from heaven and sings hymns to herald the birth of the Messiah, but no mention of this is made in the other gospels. (Lk. 2:8-14) Even as a child, Jesus displays supernatural knowledge and intense piety. At the age of 12 he leaves his parents to remain in the temple of God and holds his own in theological debates with the Jewish clergy, when asked why he does this he claims a special relationship with God, "Did you not know I would be in the house of my Father?" (Luke 2:41-52) Which implies his awareness of a unique divine sonship. In other words, God is the father of Jesus in a special and unique way, in such a way that it is not surprising to find him in the temple at the age of twelve debating rabbis and scribes. There are no such stories in Mk, who instead begins straightaway with the ministry of John the Baptist. (Mk. 1:1-15) Mk lacks a genealogy of Jesus, but Lk gives him a royal and aristocratic lineage which can be traced through Shealtiel, Nathan, Solomon and David, some of the most prominent leaders of the Jewish people in their entire history. The genealogy traces Jesus back to Adam and even God himself. (Lk. 3:23-38)
iv. The knowledge of Jesus is clearly limited in Mark (13:32) and in Matthew (24:36) where it is stated that he does not know when the last day will arrive. There is no Lukan parallel for this passage. Never does Luke portray Jesus as unaware of the Last Day; rather, he goes out of his way to depict Jesus as aware of heavenly secrets. Jesus is a witness to the fall of Satan, he beheld "Satan, fallen as lightning" and is aware of whose names are "written in heaven," which is typically a secret known only to heavenly beings in Jewish literature. (Lk. 10:18, 20) He even has a direct role in the election of the saints according to Lk. 10:22:
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Jesus Christ himself has a role in choosing the elect. Anyone who comes to know the Father must first come to know the Son, and "the Son chooses to reveal him." This attributes a very exhaustive supernatural knowledge to Jesus himself, who will forever be part of the decision making process about who comes to know God and who comes to be saved. In Lk, Jesus is also aware of events in God’s heavenly council, for example, he is aware of what Satan has asked God concerning Peter and will intercede for him.
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31-32)
Jesus is aware not only of Satan’s general interest, but of his specific requests to God in the heavenly council and has already taken action to counter it; he knows what Satan has asked regarding Peter. Lk also goes out of his way to omit many attributions of emotion to emphasize the transcendence of Jesus, his otherworldly composure and self-control.
v. The following is a selection of passages that attribute emotion, or lack of knowledge to Jesus which are absent in Lk:
Mk. 1:41: Moved with anger
1:43 He sternly charged
3:5: He looked around him with anger, grieved
6:5: He could do no mighty work there
6:6: He was astonished at their unbelief
8:12: He sighed deeply in his spirit
8:23: Do you see anything?
9:21: How long has he been like this?
9:33: What were you discussing?
10:14: He was indignant at seeing this
10:21: He looked at him and loved him
13:32: Nor the Son, but the Father alone
14:33: Greatly distressed and troubled
15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
The absence of a Lukan parallel for Mk. 14:33 was evidently very disturbing to some scribes, and for this reason the following words are added in, “And he was in agony, and prayed still more earnestly and his sweat fell to the ground like drops of blood.” (Lk. 22:43) These words were not originally part of Lk and might have been added on the supposed authority of some oral tradition that Christ sweated tears of blood.
vi. Texts in Mk which seem to indicate a limitation upon the miraculous powers and abilities of Jesus are rephrased. In Lk all of the miracles and healings of Jesus are instantaneous, and exhaustive. Jesus healing "many" in Mk. 1:34 becomes "all" and "each one of them" in Lk. 4:40, 41. And again, healing "many" in Mk. 3:10 becomes "he healed them all" in Lk. 6:19 so it should not be thought that any in the crowd left without being restored. In Mk alone we read of a certain blind man in Bethsaida who is healed only after multiple attempts.
"And they came to Bethsaida. And they brought a blind man to Jesus and begged him to touch him. Taking the blind man by the hand, he brought him out of the village. And after spitting on his eyes and laying his hands on him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" And he looked up and said, "I see men, for I see them like trees, walking around." Then again he laid his hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly. And he sent him to his home, saying, "Do not even enter the village."" (Mk. 8:22-26)
The visit to Bethsaida is recorded by Lk but this healing is omitted likely due to the strange details, such as spitting upon the eyes of the sick, or the lack of an instantaneous quality to the healing. There is another noteworthy redaction in the description of the ministry in Nazareth, Mk. 6:5-6 says.
"And he could do no miracle there except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he wondered at their unbelief. And he was going around the villages teaching."
These words imply that he was incapable of performing grand supernatural signs in Nazareth, those which were typically a feature of his ministry. But Lk omits this difficult comment and says only that he was promptly driven out of Nazareth after his teaching in the Synagogue proved offensive to the local residents. (Lk. 4:16-30)
vii. I may also say something of the "I have Come" sayings which progressively more exalted from Mark to Luke (and finally to John).[8] For our purposes we need only observe the differences between the Markan and Lukan versions. There are only three such statements in Mk (1:38; 2:17; 10:45) however they multiply in number and become increasingly exalted in Luke where they prophesy worldwide change due to the work mission of Jesus.
"I have come to cast fire on the earth, and I wish it were already kindled!" (Luke 12:49)
"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division." (Lk. 12:51)
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Lk. 19:10)
None of these sayings have a parallel in Mk and are intended as summaries of the work and mission of Jesus. It must be admitted that "I have come to cast a fire on the earth," (Lk. 12:49) is a far more exceptional statement than "I have come to preach," (Mk. 1:38) and so on.[9] In one example, a simple statement of arrival is exchanged for a claim of divine commission,
Mark 1:38: And he said to them, "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out."
Luke 4:43: But he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose."
He has not merely arrived to preach as in Mk. 1:38, this is exchanged in Lk. 4:43 for a claim to have been specifically sent and commissioned by God. The language of sending in Lk. 4:43, ότι επί τούτο απεστάλην, is quite similar to the language used of the departure of Gabriel from heaven, και απεστάλην λαλήσαι προς σε, (Lk. 1:19) and again, εν δε τω μηνί τω έκτω απεστάλη ο άγγελος Γαβριήλ από του θεού εις πόλιν της Γαλιλαίας η όνομα Ναζαρέθ. (1:26)
viii. Although Mk does believe in the resurrection of Jesus, as is evident from 8:31 and 16:6-7, he does not record any post-resurrection appearances. Lk not only records several post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, but contains certain apologetic features. Often ancient Jewish tombs housed multiple corpses or entire families. Multiple corpses might be housed together in the same room, with individual recesses (kokhim) housing each of the bodies. It is this sort of tomb which the body of Christ was laid in. This is evident from the statement in Mk that a young man was waiting inside of the tomb "on the right side," to point out the specific location where Christ was laid. (16:6) The first thing a critic of the Christian gospel might say is that the disciples were simply mistaken about which specific vault housed the body of Jesus! Perhaps, Jesus was simply laid in a different compartment within the tomb, and in their hysteria, the disciples assumed the body was in fact missing. But Mk says nothing to address this very obvious objection. However, Lk goes out of his way to say that the tomb was brand new and was not yet used by other occupants "a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid." (Lk. 23:53; cf. Mt. 27:60) This comment is added to pre-emptively ward off any doubts about the emptiness of the tomb, but there is no parallel statement in Mk.
ix. In his post-resurrection appearances, Lk goes out of his way to oppose docetic gnosticism by portraying the risen Christ as having "flesh and bones." (Lk. 24:39) And several times he records that the risen Christ ate and drank with his disciples to prove that he was indeed corporeal, not a phantasm or a spirit. (Lk. 24:30, 31; 24:41-43) These features betray that Lk was writing at a time where opposition to the Chrsitian movement was fiercer and gnosticism was an obstacle facing the church.
x. Of all the Evangelists, Lk has the most expansive vocabulary and the most formal style of Greek, he has a tendency to clear ambiguities, smooth out rough grammar in sayings material and substitutes common vocabulary in place of unusual words or phrases. Later redactors will tend to improve language and make the text they are editing more comprehensible. The following is a selection of instances of rare and unusual phrases in Mk which are omitted by Lk or substituted with a more familiar word or phrase.[10]
It is far more reasonable to suppose that these are instances of Lukan improvements rather than Mk choosing to substitute strange terminology. Allison and Davies comment,
"It would be wholly natural for one writer to replace an uncommon word with a common word. But what would be the motive of someone who did Just the opposite—especially someone like Mark, whose literary talents were less than considerable?"[11]
xi. Rather coarse language is used in Mk. 1:12 to describe the Spirit impelling Christ to go into the wilderness, καὶ εὐθὺς τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον. He uses the verb εκβάλλω, which often signifies to drive out, or cast away, and is typically reserved for describing exorcisms. (cf. Mk. 3:22; 9:47; Mt. 7:22; 9:34; 21:37) In contrast, Lk. 4:1 uses more polite language ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Lk. 4:1) exchanging εκβάλλω for άγω. In the Matthean (4:1) version the same editorial change is made, but only in Lk 4:1 do we find the added phrase Ἰησοῦς δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου. It is understandable that later Evangelists should make this change to clarify to the audience that the Holy Spirit did not lead Jesus forcibly into the wilderness to be tempted.
xii. The vocabulary and grammar of Mk is far more limited and semitic than what we find in the other Evangelists. On occasions, Mk transliterates the Aramaic phrases that Jesus himself spoke. The following are semitic words, phrases and names found in Mk but absent in Lk:
Mk. 3:17: Βοανηργές
5:41: ταλιθα κουμ
7:11: κορβάν
7:34 εφφαθα
10:46: Βαρτιμαίος
10:51: ραββουνί
11:9, 10: ὡσαννά
14:36: αββά
15:34: ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι
Again, none of these Aramaic phrases have a parallel in Lk to which one might ask "are Βοανηργές, κορβάν, and Βαρτιμαίος really words that would have survived long in a non-Jewish environment?"[12] Gentile readers would have been eager to substitute such foreign words for familiar Greek equivalents. The simplest and most obvious explanation for these features is that Mk is a more primitive document authored by a Jewish-Christian author, whose native language is Aramaic, not Greek. Lk is a later gospel written by a Gentile author who substituted unfamiliar Aramaisms with common Greek words. Otherwise, we would have to suppose that a later Gentile redactor decided to write in poorer, more semitic Greek, to substitute more difficult reading, obscure vocabulary, more difficult grammar—such a suggestion struggles to even appear remotely plausible.
xiii. The healing of the leper provides another clear instance of Lukan redactions which are theologically motivated.
It seems the anger of Jesus in Mk. 1:41 was unpalatable to Lk and was therefore omitted. The reading καί όργισθεις, and moved with anger, seems to have been equally unpalatable to many later scribes who instead substituted σπλαγχνισθείς, compassion, but the more difficult reading is undoubtedly authentic. It is hardly imaginable that some later scribe would decide to replace "compassion" with "anger," the reverse is more plausible. The Markan depiction of Jesus is that he is capable of seeing into the thoughts, hearts, and intentions of his audience. (e.g. Mk. 2:6-8) It seems likely that Mk intends to communicate that Jesus perceived something wicked in the heart of the leper, and suspected that he would disobey his commandments. Hence, the leper was immediately met with anger and this suspicion proves to be correct when the leper disobeys the stern charge and spreads the news of the miracle across the countryside. Rather than the harsher phrase, sternly charged him, Lk. 5:14 merely comments that "he ordered him." The leper is directly blamed for spreading abroad the news of the miracle in Mk. 1:45 but in the parallel, Lk. 5:15 no particular party is blamed for this. Furthermore, while Mk says that Jesus spent lengths of time in unpopulated areas as an inevitable consequence of his popularity, Lk instead says that he would deliberately "slip away" to deserted places for the purpose of prayer. The explanation in Mk relates that it was infeasible for Christ to spend lengths of time in cities, but Lk instead decides to emphasize the prayer life of Jesus, to stress his contemplative and personal relationship with God, the phrase "slip away," implies that it was not merely infeasible, but Christ’s own choice to spend much of his time in often deserted plains. Again, it is far simpler to suppose that these are Lukan redactions rather than the reverse hypothesis. Insults and disrespectful comments directed towards Jesus are often omitted. The family of Jesus is reported to have said "He is out of his mind!" (Mk. 3:21) This is absent in Lk, as is the rather rude question of the disciples at Mk 4:38, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" These sayings appear to have been omitted out of respect, the opposite suggestion is surely implausible.
xiv. There are instances where narratives in Mark, (which are perfectly coherent of themselves), are also told by other evangelists who omit details or otherwise change the narrative in such a way that breaks the flow of the narrative (or introduces logical flaws). In other words, when a later redactor alters a story from their source material but doesn't maintain those changes consistently throughout the narrative, you can often identify this by the nature of the inconsistencies that arise. These are explicable if Mk is being used as a source by Lk who changes Mk's narrative at some point but lapse back into the wording of their source later in the narrative. This phenomenon is now commonly called "Editorial Fatigue," after the famous article by Goodcare,[14] although similar arguments were used by Styler and others.[14] The healing of the paralytic takes place in a house in the Markan account (2:1-12), the crowds press in on the Lord, so that the paralytic must be lowered down to him on a pallet through a hole in the ceiling of the house. This same story is told by Luke (5:17-26) but he fails to mention the house! The reader is told only that Christ has been teaching, and crowds "come from every village in Galilee, and Judea and Jerusalem" to see him. Then we are told suddenly that some men "went up onto the roof" to lower the leper to the presence of Jesus. (Lk. 5:19, 20) But at no point was the reader ever told that Christ had entered a house, nor that he was teaching in a house prior to this point.
xv. The Parable of the Sower found in Mark 4:1-20 and Luke 8:4-15 is a prominent example. It is regarded by Mk as the most important parable, and properly understanding it is prerequisite to understanding the others, "Do you not understand this parable? How can you understand all the others?" (4:13) Therefore, Mk begins by giving a presentation of the parable and subsequently gives an interpretation of the parable. Goodacre finds three instances of omissions in the presentation of the parable in Lk, which are mentioned in the interpretations of the parable. The seed which fell on rocky soil sprang up "for it had no depth of soil these sprang up all at once for they had not sunk deep in the ground" (Mk. 4:5) but in Lk. 8:6 he mentions the seeds withered "because they had no moisture," and no other cause is given. These are different causes given for the seeds failing to be fruitful, in Mk it is the lack of depth in the soil but in Lk it is the lack of moisture. Furthermore, although there is no mention of the lack of depth in the presentation of the parable, the interpretation in Lk. 8:14 mentions they "fell among the briers," which implies that they were not planted deeply in the ground but sprang forth into the briers and thistles above ground. This is explicable if Lk has an implicit awareness of the Markan reason although it is not explicitly stated. Finally, in Mk. 4:6 "the sun rose" and scorched the seeds, symbolizing fiery temptations or persecutions (Mk. 4:17-19) but Lk makes no mention of this in his presentation of the parable, although in the interpretation has the corresponding saying "they last for awhile but in a time of temptation they fall away." There is nothing in the Lukan version of the parable which symbolizes temptation, the sun is absent but implied.
xvi. Our Lord is very famously reported in all four gospels to have fed a crowd of five thousand people miraculously from only a few loaves and fishes. (Mk. 6:30-43; Mt. 14:13-21; Lk. 9:10-17; Joh. 6:1-14) An instance of fatigue is seen in how the scene for the miracle is set in Luke.
The Markan account specifies that the miracle took place in a deserted place, literally a desert or wilderness outside of any city. (Mk. 2:32) But in the Lukan account it mentions only that he withdrew to the "city of Bethsaida," which was well equipped with shops and markets able to feed a large crowd. (Lk.9:10, 12) Therefore, when Luke includes the words "we are in a desolate place," he betrays his knowledge of the Markan setting although he himself failed to mention the withdrawal to a desolate place. The account in Luke is not intelligible unless we are first aware of the details present in the Markan version. His knowledge of the Markan version is betrayed by his final mention. It is of course logically possible to explain these differences in an infinite number of ways, for any finite set of data there are an infinite number of explanations, but editorial fatigue is certainly the simplest explanation of these differences.
xvi. As a final point, I shall largely be summarizing the parallels between Luke and Papias presented by MacDonald (2012) who proposes Luke used the Exposition of Papias written sometime around 100 as one of his sources. It is not verified that Papias wrote before Luke. Nor am I persuaded of this but the parallels between the two works are significant enough to merit consideration. Ignatius, writing about the year 110 CE, quotes from Luke and also from John several times in his epistles. Many scholars would date Luke in the 80s or 90s but if Papias was a source for Luke then it would be placed sometime between 100 and 110. The similarities include not only similar content, but vocabulary, syntax and specific persons who are named in identical sequence.
Luke describes his own work as διήγησιν περί τών πεπληροφορημένον έν ημίν πραγμάτων, which is to say, that he is compiling earlier written sources and oral traditions into a unified narrative. (Lk. 1:1) Luke and Papias are both concerned with composing accounts that organize traditional content, preserved in earlier sources, in an appropriate order (τάξις), and Luke describes his own work as an “exposition” διήγησιν, which is quite similar to the title of Papias’ own work, εξήγησις. (Expos. 1:3. 5; Lk. 1:1-3) Both authors refer to oral traditions and logia handed down in christian communities with similar language and list the apostles in similar order. (Lk. 6:12-16; Expos. 1:5) Papias seeks to record “what was said or done [πραχθέντα] by the Lord,” (Expos. 1:3) and Luke seeks to record “the matters [πραγμάτων] of full credence.” (Lk. 1:2) The information Luke transmits was “handed on [παρέδοσαν]” and the information Papias transmits are “handed down [παραδίδωσιν]... traditions [παραδόσεις].” (Expos. 1:1 and 2) Using a verb only found once in his writings, “having followed [παρηκολουθηκότι] them all thoroughly.” (Lk. 1:3) Papias also uses the same verb and says he collected traditions from those who “followed [παρηκολουθηκώς] the elders.” (Expos. 1:5) As MacDonald notes, “Both authors use not only the same word [παρηκολουθηκώς], but they use it in the same tense, voice, mood and number—only the case is different because of the grammatical context.” (Ibid. pp. 45) Both authors seek to compile “sayings” λόγων in Lk. 1:4 and λόγους in Expos. 1:5, which have been passed down to them. Both men also address their audiences with the pronoun σοι. (Lk. 1:3; Expos. 1:5) Below I shall reproduce the chart which appears in MacDonald (2012), pp. 56-58, with a few slight adjustments:
While Mark, according to Papias, “wrote accurately [ακριβώς έγραψεν]” but did not write in proper sequence, τάξις, Luke will write his own work both “write precisely in sequence [ακριβώς καθεξής… γράψαι]... in consecutive order [ανατάξασθαι].” (4) Papias and Luke contain unique historical details such as similar accounts of the death of Judas (Expos. 4:5; Acts 1:18-20), the martyrdom of James (Expos. 2:3; Acts 12:1-3), the preaching of John the Baptist (Expos. 1:6; Lk. 3:8-13), et al.
[1] W. D. Davies and Dale Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. I: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (New York, NY: T&T Clark LTD, 1988), p. 104.
[2] Mk. 2:28; 7:28; 9:24; 10:51; 11:3; 12:36, 37; 13:35.
[3] Lk. 1:43, 76; 2:11; 3:4; 5:8; 5:12, 17; 6:5, 46; 7:6, 13, 31; 9:54, 57, 59, 61; 10:1, 17, 40; 11:1, 39; 12:36, 37, 41-47; 13:8, 15, 23, 25, 35; 14:21, 22, 23; 17:5, 6, 37; 18:6, 41; 19:8, 16-38; 20:13, 15; 22:31, 33, 38, 49, 61; 23:42; 24:3, 34.
[4] Mk. 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:2, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26, 34; 14:21, 41, 62.
[5] Lk. 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 56, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7.
[6] This is reminiscent of Johannine sayings like John 6:62 which describe the Messiah’s return to heaven in similar terms, "What, therefore, if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was previously?"
[7] Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), pp. 232, 238, 239.
[8] Simon Gathercole, The Preexistent Son, p. 83-91.
[9] The statements become even stronger in John, where they also become statements of pre-existence. Son directly claims to have come "from heaven," (Joh. 6:38, 42) "from above," "from God," and "into the word." (Joh. 9:39; 12:49; 16:28; 18:37) It is evident that saying "I have come forth" is not as lofty as saying, "I was sent from heaven." One is clearly more exalted in style than the other. These statements of arrival in Mark become statements of cosmic significance in Luke, and then John they are statements of departure from heaven illustrating a development from Mark, to Luke and finally to John.
[10] Davies and Allison, Commentary on Matthew, Vol. I, p. 105-106.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Mark Goodacre, "Fatigue in the Synoptics," New Testament Studies 44 (1998), p. 45-58.
[14] G. M. Styler, "Excursus 4" in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (London: Black, 1981), p. 285-316.
No comments:
Post a Comment