Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.06UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.05UNLIKELY
Fear
0.07UNLIKELY
Joy
0.51LIKELY
Sadness
0.12UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.42UNLIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.39UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.82LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.43UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.13UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.49UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.64LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Jesus’ Kingdom
James; and John’s Request
(ii) Sources
There are three facts more than consistent with the priority of Mk 10:35–45 over Mt 20:20–8.1 (i) The prophecy of baptism appears only in Mark.
Omission by Matthew is understandable: commentators have long struggled with Mark’s words.
(ii) ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου (v.
23) is Matthean redaction.
Its addition is natural: Mark’s ἡτοίμασται cries out for an addition (cf.
Mark’s textual tradition).
A postulated omission is less natural.
(iii) Whereas Jesus addresses the mother of the sons of Zebedee in v. 21, he addresses the sons themselves in v. 22.
The sudden shift is a sign of the imperfect editing of Mark.2
Separating Sheep from Goats
Separating Sheep from Goats
Jesus on the cross
luk
Jesus’ Kingdom = Paradise
The “Son of God”
Solomon
David’s Son
41–45.
From Mk 12:35–37a
(M) 41.
And when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying.]
Mk. has: “And Jesus answered and said, as He taught in the temple.”
For the emphasis on the Pharisees, cf. on v. 35.
The collocation of συνήχθησαν, v. 34, with περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, v. 42, suggests that very possibly the Evangelist had in mind Ps 2:2.
(M) 42.
What think ye about the Messiah?
Whose Son is He?
They say to Him, David’s.]
Mk. has: “How say the scribes that the Messiah is David’s Son?”—τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ] cf. on 17:25.
For λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, cf.
19:7, 21:31, 22:21.
(M) 43.
He saith to them, How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying?]
Mk. has: “David himself in the Holy Spirit said.”—ἐν
πνεύματι] i.e. by divine inspiration.
Cf. “David said in the Holy Spirit,” Schir ha-Schirim 21 (Wünsche, p. 54), and see Bacher, Exeget.
Termin.
ii.
202.
(M) 44.
The Lord said to My Lord, Sit at My right hand until I place Thy enemies underneath Thy feet.]
So Mk.
That is to say, “there is a Psalm of David in which the writer speaks of the Messiah as Lord.”
It is assumed that the Psalm is Davidic, and that it deals with the Messiah.
The reference is to Ps 110:1.
Both Mt. and Mk.
differ from the LXX. in omitting the article before κύριος, and in substituting ὑποκάτω for ὑποπόδιον.
(M) 45.
If, therefore, David calls Him Lord, how is He His Son? Mk. has: “David himself calls Him Lord, and whence is He His Son?” Christ here raises a difficulty which He does not solve.
If the Messiah is David’s Son, how is it that David, speaking by divine inspiration, ascribes to Him a divine title and divine prerogatives?
The solution suggested, though not expressed, is that the Messiah is not only Son of David, but Son of God.
See Dalm.
Words, pp.
285 f.
(M) 46.
And no one could answer Him a word, nor did any one dare from that day to question Him any further.]
Mk. has: “And no one any further dared to question Him.”
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9