spin

Further on the analysis of the distinct uses of kyrios, ie between an absolute use, where it functions in place of a name and the titular use, ie a descriptive title (eg my/our lord; the lord of misrule), when we read Mark, we find the same separation (with the notable exception of the appendix added to Mark).

kyrios in Mark:

1:3 prepare the way of the lord -- HB

2:28 the son of man is the lord of the sabbath -- titular

5:19b "tell them what great things the lord has done for thee...," Jesus speaking of god

7:28 yes, my lord -- titular

9:24 lord, I believe -- titular

11:3 our lord has need of him -- titular

11:9 he that comes in the name of the lord -- he = Jesus; the lord = god

11:10 the kingdom .. comes in the name of the lord -- god

12:9 lord of the vineyard -- titular

12:11 this was the lord's doing -- HB

12:29 the lord our god is one lord -- HB

12:30 you shall love the lord your god -- HB

12:36 the lord said to my lord -- HB 1: the lord = god; 2: titular

12:37 David therefore calls him lord, how then can he be his son? -- titular

13:20 if the lord had not cut short those days = god

Appendix:

16:19 so then after the lord had spoken = Jesus

16:20 the lord working with them = Jesus

Mark is the oldest of the gospels and has more chance of representing earlier usages than the other gospels. It gives support to the notion that the early christian use of kyrios did not refer to Jesus.


spin

spin

For those who missed my questionable comments on the use of kyrios in Paul's writings, try recently here and here.

Here's an old one: here.


spin

andrewcriddle

It is possible that the tendency to avoid using kyrios of Jesus during the Gospel narrative may reflect a belief that the pre-Resurrection Jesus was not and or should not have been addressed in that way.

ie it may not be a good giude as to Christian usage in say worship at the time Mark was written.

It has been argued, eg by Moule, that the author of Luke-Acts deliberately uses kyrios of Christ much more in Acts than in Luke. In order to express a distinction between the pre and post resurrection situations.

Andrew Criddle

spin

This is only now a matter of numbers. It's ok for example for the narrator to say in Lk 19:8 "Zacchaeus .. said to the lord...", indicating clearly Jesus as the lord, pre-resurrection, unable to restrain himself.

I don't buy the hagiography which says a Luke wrote both Lk and Acts. I don't buy this after the fact explanation that "the lord" was used for the risen christ, for we have good examples where this isn't true.

I suppose you could make Mt 28:6's use of lord, "the place where the lord lay", a post-resurrection usage, though the speakers in the context couldn't have known that. John's usage however has no hope of being saved by this explanation. Perhaps John was unaware of the distinction or perhaps we have signs of interpolation in John.


spin