In the essay, The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation, I set forth some principles that would guide my interpretation of Scripture. These principles were derived from the creeds, and they will be applied to my interpretation of Mark. The principles are as follows,
Principles of Biblical Interpretation
1. In Scripture, when God speaks, acts, or appears, he does so as one God who speaks in a three-fold way as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. All passages must be interpreted in light of the whole of the biblical narrative, beginning with creation, centered on Jesus Christ, and culminating with the life of the world to come.
3. When interpreting Scripture, any passage must be understood in reference to Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels. In this regard, Old Testament persons or events are figures or types fulfilled in Christ.
4. The original meaning of any passage of Scripture depends upon the meanings of its words in the context of its historical circumstances, and further, when reading Scripture, genre needs to be taken into account. The meaning of a scriptural passage for today is rooted in the original meaning.
5. The biblical narrative reveals God; its narrated words and deeds are God speaking to us.
6. By his mighty power the Spirit takes the creative, powerful words, deeds, and appearances of God narrated in Scripture and repeats them in life today as a foretaste of God's final victory. From this perspective, Scripture understood as God's action with corresponding human responses, are a promise of God’s saving action in the present and future. The meaning of a passage for today is God’s act and our response.
7. The purpose of Scripture is to bring us into a saving relationship with the one true God, and Scripture is to be read with that as the primary goal. As members of the body of Christ, we enter into that saving relationship by faith and obedience.
8. Understanding Scripture is the work of the entire church, and for that reason, it is important to study what others have thought about a particular passage.
Since none of the original biblical writers were aware of the developed creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, it could be asked why the creeds should play a role in the interpretation of Mark. Although the New Testament writers were not aware of the creedal developments of the first five centuries, they were aware of the realities, the fundamental Christian truths, these developed creeds sought to protect against false interpretations. Therefore, in using the creeds to interpret Mark’s gospel, I am not saying that Jesus, Mark, or the writers of the New Testament, were affirming these creeds in their developed form. The creeds are, however, rooted in Scripture, and they help to rightly interpret Scripture. For that reason, I use the creeds to clarify and properly set forth the realities to which the entire Scripture testifies.
In regard to point 8, I write this commentary by reading other commentaries, consulting lexicons on the meaning of the Greek words, reading interpretations of the church fathers, considering the whole of Scripture, reflecting on life and the church as I have known it, submitting my thoughts to God, and praying that he will guide my work and redeem my inadequacies. If some particular bit of information seems to require special verification, I will reference it. My goal is to set forth the living Lord Jesus as known in Mark.
The Title
The earliest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark begin with a title, “Gospel According to Mark.” The earliest manuscripts of Matthew, Luke, and John have a similar form, beginning with “Gospel According to ...” and each ending with the name of one of the four evangelists. If the title of Mark’s gospel were “Gospel of Mark,” rather than “Gospel According to Mark,” this could imply that Mark’s gospel is his own special version in contrast to other gospels. The title, however, is “Gospel According to Mark,” meaning that this is Mark’s version of the one gospel.(1)
These four particular names were attached to the gospels because these four versions were the authorized versions, that is, versions that were either based on eyewitness apostolic accounts (Mark and Luke), or authored by one of the apostles themselves (Matthew and John). It was important for the early church to preserve truthful accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection since a number of false accounts were also in circulation.
As will be seen, the tradition of the early church, as well as evidence within the gospel of Mark itself, point to Mark as having recorded the eyewitness testimony of Peter. Among other evidence, Peter himself, as he approached death, stated that he would see to it that his testimony was remembered beyond his lifetime. Here are his words,
And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Peter 1:15-16).
The passage just cited, of course, does not say that Mark wrote down Peter’s testimony. It simply states that Peter was concerned that his eyewitness account be preserved. To show that Mark recorded Peter we must consider further evidence. Among other things, the consensus of the early church fathers is that the gospel of Mark recorded the eyewitness testimony of Peter, and that this Mark was the same Mark mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25:37, 39, Colossians 4:10, Philemon 24, Second Timothy 4:11, First Peter 5:13).
One of the earliest traditions that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark is that of Papias. Papias wrote early in the second century, shortly after the apostles were no longer living. He is referred to by the historian Eusebius (260-340) with these words,
This also the presbyter [Papias] said: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”(2)
Here we have the affirmation that Mark wrote the gospel attributed to him, that he wrote down the testimony of Peter, and that he did not write in strict chronological order. He made it his goal to falsify nothing and to include what he remembered. The implication is that we have the testimony of Peter, but not exactly written in chronological order.
Papias, however, is not the only early source affirming that Mark was Peter’s interpreter. The same was said by other early Christians -- Clement in Alexandria, Eusebius in Caesarea, and Irenaeus in southern Gaul, as well as Origin who had a wide knowledge of Palestinian, Alexandrian, and Roman traditions. The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, after surveying the evidence, comments as follows, “Thus by an extraordinary coalescence of testimony from widely diverse arenas we have reliable textual evidence that the second and third generation of Christian teachers viewed Mark as echoing the narrative voice of Peter.”(3)
In addition to the evidence of the early church fathers, there is additional evidence within Mark’s gospel itself that Mark wrote down Peter’s eyewitness account. Before speaking of this, however, I want to make an initial comment.
Over the years I have read many commentaries on Scripture, as well as studies involving the interpretation of Scripture, the history of biblical interpretation, the presuppositions and theological commitments that guide biblical interpretation, and more. As previously stated, this commentary on Mark is not complete, and therefore, I will not reference the many scholars that I have read unless a particular significant point is being made. Interested students can read this literature. I will, however, refer to those who, after years of study, I consider to be the most compelling in their arguments. To that end, I will, at this point, refer to the work of Richard Bauckham whom I consider one of the finest New Testament scholars I have ever read. In the next few paragraphs, I will draw upon his work.
Bauckham, in his work, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, gives impressive external and internal evidence that the four canonical gospels were based on eyewitness accounts, and further, that Mark based his gospel on the testimony of Peter.(4) Bauckham makes the following points,
1. Ancient historians were convinced that true history could only be written within the period in which eyewitnesses could testify.
2. There were those who witnessed Jesus' words and deeds, and if this witness was to be credible, their accounts had to be preserved.
3. The gospels were written within living memory of the eyewitnesses. This is acknowledged by virtually all scholars.
4. Early Christian sources outside the biblical documents, Irenaeus, Eusebius quoting Papias, and others, speak of the gospels as eyewitness accounts with Mark recording Peter. Nowhere in the earliest Christian literature are the four gospels associated with communities or unknown persons, but rather, with eyewitnesses.
5. Paul assumed an apostolic eyewitness testimony which was acknowledged by the early Christians as authoritative. Most of these eyewitnesses still existed while Paul was writing (First Corinthians 15:1-8).
6. Internal evidence in the gospels would indicate that they were written by eyewitnesses, or recorded by those who received eyewitness accounts at first hand. This internal evidence includes the following:
a. Direct claims as to a gospel's eyewitness status such as Luke 1:1-2 and John 21:24.
b. The literary devise of inclusio, the inclusion of the apostle whose testimony comprises the gospel at decisive moments throughout that gospel narrative. This devise would have been understood by early Christian readers and is found in Mark.
c. In describing various events in the life of Jesus, Mark’s gospel frequently uses language that would indicate that Peter was among the disciples.
d. Certain persons found in the gospels were named because of their continued existence in the early Christian community. For example, Matthew used Mark as a source, but in going from Mark to Matthew, Matthew dropped certain Marcan names since they were unknown to the immediate readers of Matthew, but known to those who first read Mark. These persons would know if the accounts were accurate.
e. The names found in inscriptions both in and outside Palestine validate that the gospels used names common to Palestine in the time of Jesus.
f. Various terms used in the gospel, such as "Son of Man," are retained in the pre-Easter narrative even though they were not used by the Christian community after Easter. In other words, the early Christian community remained faithful to the verbal tradition even though its language did not always fit their post-Easter context.
7. Studies of oral societies reveal various forms of oral transmission, and among them, the strongest were formal, controlled traditions which required they be repeated exactly as told. This form of transmission was reserved for material of the highest importance. The testimony to Jesus was of that type.
8. Memorization was universal in the ancient world, and written and oral accounts were taken as complementary, the former serving as a norm for the latter. The gospels had to be written for the integrity of the oral witness to be maintained.
9. Memory has been studied scientifically. Such studies show that the mind's recall is highly accurate when remembering unique or unusual events, significant events, events which involve the person, frequently rehearsed events, and memories that are fitted into a conceptual schema. The events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection satisfied these criteria. In reference to the last point, the evangelists located events within a historical and theological schema whose roots were in the Old Testament.
10. Those who have experienced unique, personally compelling events, whatever they may be, cannot help but testify. The four gospels are the eyewitness testimony to the Lord Jesus.
On the basis of the evidence, both internal to Mark and from other sources, this commentary will be written from the belief that Mark recorded Peter’s eyewitness testimony to Jesus. Further, and I will not present the evidence for this as it is well known, there are many early manuscripts of Mark which allow the original text of Mark to be established with a very high degree of accuracy. Differences among the manuscripts, with an exception subsequently considered (Mark 16:9-20), are minor and do not affect interpretation.
In describing the apostolic testimony, it is important to recognize that the apostles not only experienced the human person of Jesus, they also experienced God active as the words and deeds of Jesus. Although, from a theological perspective, I have discussed this in a number of essays on this website,(5) it can be helpful at this point to mention another excellent New Testament scholar, Larry W. Hurtado.(6) The principle claim of his book, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, was that Jesus was recognized as God, that is, worshipped and acknowledged as God, as a direct result of powerful, revelatory experiences from God himself that identified Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection, with the God of Israel. In other words, the words and deeds of Jesus were recognized as the words and deeds of Israel’s God. Therefore, the apostolic testimony is not simply testimony to the human person of Jesus, but also to God active as Jesus. As a result, the gospel accounts are authoritative, the revelation of God. Had Jesus simply been a man and nothing more, the apostles would never have worshipped him and described his life as a revelation of God. Bauckham describes the matter in these words.
"In all four gospels we have the history of Jesus only in the form of testimony, the testimony of involved participants who responded in faith to the disclosure of God in these events. In testimony fact and interpretation are inextricable; in this testimony empirical sight and spiritual perception are inseparable. If this history was in fact the disclosure of God, then to have the report of some uncommitted observer would not take us near the historical truth but further from it. The concurrence of historiographic and theological concepts of witness in John's Gospel is wholly appropriate to the historical uniqueness of the subject matter, which as historical requires historiographic rendering but in its disclosure of God also demands that the witness to it speak of God.
At this point, it might be helpful to state how this commentary will differ from what has commonly been called conservative or liberal exegesis. On the conservative side, a great deal of effort has been made to harmonize the details of Mark’s gospel with other gospels, or to prove that all information given by Mark on any subject, whether the fine points of geography, or Jewish traditions, or history, were accurate in all details. I will not substantiate these claims, nor will I seek to disprove their efforts. Rather, I will focus on what Jesus said and did, believing that the purpose of the gospel is salvation, where salvation is given by Jesus’ words and deeds. It is my belief, based on ideas given above, that the essential truths of his words and deeds are accurately given in Scripture, even if the accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John differ at times in details. Each account, however, is truthful in its saving essentials, and when received, is sufficient to bring salvation. Here is Bauckham,
The eyewitnesses who remembered the events of the history of Jesus were remembering inherently very memorable events, unusual events that would have impressed themselves on the memory, events of key significance for those who remembered them, landmark or life-changing events for them in many cases, and their memories would have been reinforced and stabilized by frequent rehearsal, beginning soon after the event. They did not need to remember--and the Gospels rarely record--merely peripheral aspects of the scene of the event, the aspects of recollective memory that are least reliable. Such details may often have been subject to performative variation in the eyewitnesses telling of their stories, but the central features of the memory, those that constituted its meaning for those who witnessed and attested it, are likely to have been preserved reliably. We may conclude that the memories of eyewitnesses of the history of Jesus score highly by the criteria for likely reliability that have been established by the psychological study of recollective memory.(7)
In this connection, I have known Christians who have had life-changing encounters with the Lord Jesus, and I have listened to their accounts of these events. Similar to other life-changing events, their memories of these powerful events are still clear even after many years. When they testify to what God has done, their accounts vary on the details each time they tell the story, but the substance is always the same and the testimony preserves its original power. That was the nature of the apostolic encounter with the person of Jesus. He was God in the flesh, and being God, he profoundly affected those around him. This is one of the reasons I am convinced that the apostolic witness was accurately remembered in its essential aspects, and further, that though the details of the testimony may vary somewhat from gospel to gospel, the substance is accurate, a matter of life and death.
One other aspect must be added to Bauckham's account. On the basis of the psychological study of memory, he observes that human beings do remember life-changing events with high levels of accuracy. This is the human aspect of memory. It must also be affirmed that the apostles had received the Holy Spirit. This is massively attested in the New Testament. As a result, their testimony was Spirit-inspired, and therefore, the witness of Scripture is not only fully human, but divinely inspired so that it brings salvation. That is the point of Scripture, and as we shall see, that is the objective of Mark's gospel.
In regard to what is commonly called liberal exegesis, this commentary does not accept the liberal presupposition that Christ did no miracles. The position taken here is that Christ did the miracles attributed to him and that he rose bodily from the dead. I have theologically dealt with these matters in other essays, especially the essay, Knowing the Christian God, as well as contemporary examples of miracles as found in the directory, God's Mighty Acts.
Nor does the position taken here endorse the liberal effort to distinguish between what Jesus really said and did, and what was added to the gospel of Mark by the early church in the process of oral transmission. This effort has been termed the “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Frankly, having studied these matters for many years, I believe the words and deeds of the gospels never evolved in separation from the control exercised by the eye-witness accounts. The church was never allowed, as the liberals would suggest, to substantially alter the saving truths of the apostolic witness. That witness was the criterion for truth, and the differences one finds between the gospels can, by and large, be accounted for by the distinct perspectives of each eyewitness who complement each other rather than presenting radically distinct gospels. For that reason, the effort to distill the authentic words and deeds of Jesus from the accretions of the early church is, in my mind, a dead end and a distortion. Once again, allow me to quote Richard Bauckham, affirming that the gospel traditions as remembered by the apostles were the authoritative witness.
If they were close companions of Jesus throughout his ministry, as the gospels claim they were, and if they were also, as most scholars agree, the first leaders of the mother church in Jerusalem and of its initial outreach elsewhere, we should certainly expect them to have been authoritative transmitters of the traditions of Jesus and to have had something like an official status for their formulations of those traditions. (8)
We should probably envisage a carefully compiled and formulated collection of Jesus traditions, incorporating other eyewitness testimony as well as that of the Twelve themselves, but authorized by the Twelve as the official body of witnesses. (9)
The assumption that the gospels are essentially products of the early church animated by Spirit can be considered theologically. Communities begin by being created by God the Father, the creator of heaven and earth. The liberal view assumes that the gospels which describe the Son are given by the Father’s creation and the work of the Spirit. Or, to use the summary language of the Nicene Creed, the Son proceeds from the Father (the created community) and the Spirit. That is a theological heresy. Or, perhaps it could be claimed that the community and the gospel of Christ mutually condition each other. In that case the Son and the Spirit with the Father mutually condition each other. This is also a theological heresy. The early church was created by the Holy Spirit bearing testimony to the Truth of the gospel, a gospel rooted in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture proclaims this.
These theological assessments, however, are true by appropriation. Although the Son is prior to the Spirit, the Spirit is not a merely passive person of the Trinity, and in his work, the apostolic witnesses did not simply mechanically record the words and deeds of Jesus. As quoted above by Eusebius, Peter adapted his testimony to the needs of his hearers. When the Spirit works, the human person is not obliterated. Rather, the evangelists selected, summarized, and organized his sources, making full use of their intellectual, emotional, and experiential capacities as the Spirit guided the process. The result was testimony, testimony to the Lord Jesus. We will begin there, that Mark’s gospel is testimony to one who is risen from the dead and alive today, doing today what Mark narrates he did them.
For whom did Mark write? There is compelling evidence that the intended audience for all four gospels is the whole of humanity and not simply a particular community. Mark’s gospel may have been initially written in the context of a particular circle of believers, but it was always understood that it would be circulated throughout the known world. This claim goes against the assumption that the gospels, including Mark, were only written for specific communities. All four gospels tell us for whom they were written. Matthew ends his gospel with these words,
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20).
When Jesus commands the disciples to teach, the content of that teaching is the gospel itself. To whom is it addressed? The teaching, that is, the gospel of Matthew, is addressed to the nations.
Luke’s gospel has a similar message. By means of Jesus’ genealogy, Luke recognizes that of humanity are decedents of Adam, he emphasizes the presence of both Jews and Gentiles as recipients of Jesus’ ministry, and ends with Jesus telling his disciples that, according to Scripture, “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). Prior to bringing the gospel to the nations, however, the disciples are to wait until they have received the Spirit at which time they will be his witnesses, “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8). On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), Peter preaches to the crowd of Jews assembled from the nations. The content of that sermon is a summary of the events of Christ’s life, not only as found in Luke, but as set forth in the other gospels as well. Nor long afterward (Acts 10), Peter is instructed to go to the house of Cornelius. Again, his sermon, now given to Gentiles in Caesarea, is an overview of the gospel accounts. Peter then spends the rest of his life as an apostle, visiting various cities and regions such as Jerusalem (Acts 1:8, 11-12), Samaria (Acts 8:14-25), Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea (Acts 8:32-10:48), Antioch (Galatians 2:11), Corinth (First Corinthians 1:12), and Rome (First Peter 5:13).(10) If Mark was giving Peter’s eye-witness testimony as claimed earlier in this essay, it would be understood that this testimony was for the nations.
Luke ends his account in Acts with Paul becoming an apostle to the Gentiles, founding churches throughout the empire, and finally coming to Rome. The gospel of Luke was and is universal. Its message was and still is proclaimed in “Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
John’s gospel begins with a universal perspective -- God, his Word (Jesus Christ), the creation of the world through Christ who is the Light of the world, the “true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world” (John 1:9), his rejection by his own (the Jews), “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). This universal perspective, that Christ came to save the world, is maintained throughout the gospel (1:9, 1:29, 3:16-17, 4:42, 6:33, 6:51, 8:12, 8:26, 9:5, 11:27, 12:46-47, 14:22-23, 16:8, 17:18, 17:21, 17:23, 18:37). Further, this saving gospel, originally given to the Jewish disciples, will be given to the Gentiles who will also be disciples and spread the everlasting gospel (17:18-23). The gospel of John comes to an apparent close with chapter 20, with another chapter added, the restoration of Peter and the command for him to “Feed my sheep.” Chapter 20 ends with these words which sum up the gospel, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). John’s gospel was addressed to all people everywhere, and regardless of when or where it was written, it was doubtless understood that the gospel would be copied and distributed throughout the world.
The genre of Mark is gospel, its intent and audience is the same as the other gospels. Its original ending was apparently lost. Each of the other three gospels end with, among other things, Jesus instructing his disciples to spread the gospel to the nations. This is missing in Mark, but supplied with an ending that was apparently written not long after since it appears in early manuscripts. That ending, similar to the other gospels, contains these words,
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:14-16).
The gospel, referred to in Mark 1:1, is the gospel of Mark itself, a proclamation which reveals Jesus Christ, and when received by believers, creates the life of Christ in the believing community. Its target audience is the “world,” the “whole creation.”
There are a few other considerations that have some relevance, taken from the book edited by Bauckham, The Gospel for all Christians. These considerations are as follows:
1. First, non-Christian biographies from the world of the New Testament, known as “lives” or “bioi”, have been analyzed. The gospel accounts of Jesus are similar to these accounts. Once a bio was written, and read by the author’s immediate circle, it was understood that it would be circulated throughout the known world.
2. Letters and other forms of written communication were written in order to reach persons beyond one’s physical presence. For that reason, the gospels were not just written to the specific communities where the writer may have lived, for these people could be addressed orally. Rather, the gospels were written for people who could not be addressed orally, that is, to people everywhere.
3. The early Christians were a close-knit network of communities throughout the Roman world who constantly communicated with each other by writing. Above all, they would have wanted accounts of their savior. The gospels supplied that need.
4. Among early writers, one way of ensuring that a text could reach a wider audience was by dedicating it to a patron who had the resources to have it copied and sent abroad. This quite likely happened in the case of Luke’s gospel.
5. It was common in the ancient world for students to record and disseminate the thought of their teachers by recorded notes. Jesus was a teacher and it would have been normal to preserve his teaching by memory and by writing. (11)
For these reason, as well as the witness of Scripture itself, the gospels, including Mark, cannot be understood as written for specific communities alone, but rather, written for everyone including readers today.
Since Mark was written for all people everywhere, it addresses universal conditions. This will become evident as we investigate the gospel. For that reason, it is legitimate to allow the gospel to address the practical situations in which we find ourselves today as we work to build up the community of Christ in a particular time and place. Although Mark’s first readers were removed from us in time, place, language, and culture, they were, after all, human beings who lived with others and before God. They had the same afflictions, struggles, and hopes that we do. They had a different history than we do, yet there were certain features of their history that are similar to ours.
As do Christians today, the early Christians accepted the Old Testament, along with the preaching and writings of the apostles, as authoritative. The Old Testament provided the types and perspectives by which to discern similarities between their history and the biblical history, and by this means, Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets became intelligible to them. These types and perspectives from the Old Testament were God’s acts, his words and deeds, as well as human responses to God and each other. These make sense of the whole of life. The Old Testament, for us as much as for Mark’s original readers, provides the types of saving acts and perspectives by which we interpret our own histories as well. For this reason, readers of Mark today, and Mark’s original readers, inhabit a similar universe of meaning. According to principle 4 of the “Principles of Interpretation,” “The original meaning of any passage of Scripture depends upon the meanings of its words in the context of its historical circumstances, ….” The historical circumstances of Mark’s early readers were universal human conditions as interpreted by the Old Testament and fulfilled in the proclamation of the gospel, the gospel of Mark itself.
In sum, what is the genre of Mark’s gospel? It is gospel, good news, written to all people everywhere, and when received, it creates a Christian community in which the words and deeds of Jesus bring salvation. That salvation is defined by the gospel itself, and our reading of Mark’s gospel will reveal the nature of that salvation. Salvation is what happens to people when they receive the person of Jesus, his words and deeds, as narrated in the gospels.
Let us end this introduction with a prayer.
O Living God, have mercy upon us as we write and read this short commentary on Mark. Please protect us from error and give us the Truth, your Son, Jesus Christ the Lord. In his name we pray. Amen.
Endnotes
1. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), p. 302.
2.The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 1, Edited by Philip Schaff, p. 291.
3. C. Thomas Oden and Christopher A. Hall (editors), Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, New Testament II, Mark (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. xxiv.
4. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chapters 7-9. For a summary of the evidence see the essay entitled Two Excellent Books.
5.”Barth on Anselm” and ”Knowing the Christian God.”
6. Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns Publishing Company, 2005.
7. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 346.
8. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,p. 94.
9. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 299.
10. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 299.
11. Richard Bauckham (ed.), The Gospel for all Christians. 1. pp. 28-29, 121-122. 2. p. 28. 3. pp. 38-39. 4. p. 98. 5. p. 94.
The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
