Although I can see why early high Christology might be an appealing way of explaining this feature, it seems to me that _easy_ is one thing this explanation is not. Much depends, however, on what you mean by 'high' (and, for that matter, what you mean by 'early'!). If you are suggesting that Mark's narrative presupposes something like the idea of Jesus as God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity striding in the flesh across the sea, then this faces the difficulty that Mark presents no real controversy over this issue. We find the early Christians debating with their Jewish contemporaries over the Law, over whether Jesus was the Messiah, and various other things that were sticking points between Christian and non-Christian Jews. If the early Christians had, by Mark's time, modified Jewish monotheism in some way, then we should expect to see debates about this too.
If, on the other hand, by 'high Christology' you mean AGENCY Christology, then I think you are absolutely right, and that this is a plausible explanation of this story. Jesus, as God's agent, is capable of doing the things that are God's own actions. He can regather the 12 tribes (centered around his 12 followers) and can even cross the sea as if on dry land. Perhaps there is also an underlying comparison with Moses, an earlier agent of God who parted the waters, just as God was depicted in
parting the waters at creation. This sort of Christology could be early, and is quite 'high', but because of the Jewish precedents it would not have provoked controversy in the way some other ideas of 'high Christology' presumably would have.
James McGrath
Assistant Professor of Religion
Butler University, Indianapolis
No comments:
Post a Comment