^{page 445 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., Galiläa und Jerusalem (1936), pp. 10Google Scholar f. and Das Evangelium des Markus (1937), p. 356.

^{page 445 note 2} Lightfoot, R. H., Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (1937), pp. 55–65Google Scholar; Michaelis, W., Die Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen (1944), pp. 61–5Google Scholar; Marxsen, W., Mark the Evangelist (1969), pp. 75–95Google Scholar and The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (1970), p. 164; Bartsch, H.-W., Entmythologisierende Auslegung (1962), p. 79Google Scholar; Wieder, N., The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (1962), pp. 30–51Google Scholar; Bailey, J. A., The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John (1963), p. 96Google Scholar; Hamilton, N. Q., ‘Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), pp. 419–21Google Scholar and Jesus for a No-God World (1969), pp. 64–5; Weeden, T. J., Mark– Traditions in Conflict (1971), pp. 111–17.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 3} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Problem (1963), p. 285Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (n.d.), p. 190Google Scholar; Marxsen, , Mark, pp. 75–81Google Scholar; Schreiber, J., ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums’, Z.Th.K. LVIII (1961), p. 176Google Scholar; Grass, H., Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte (1962), p. 21Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (1959), p. 549Google Scholar; Weeden, p. 46. Lohmeyer, , Galiläa, pp. 29 and 34Google Scholar, maintains that these verses are pre-Markan. Wieder, p. 45 attributes them to Jesus.

^{page 445 note 4} Another interpretation favoured by some scholars sees these verses as referring to the presence of the risen Christ in the mission to the Gentiles. So Hoskyns, E. C., ‘Adversaria Exegetica’, Theology VII (1923), pp. 147–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St. Mark (1950), p. 116Google Scholar; Carrington, P., The Primitive Christian Calendar (1952), p. 88Google Scholar; Boobyer, G. H., ‘Galilee and Galileans in St. Mark's Gospel’, B.J.R.L. XXXV (1953), pp. 334–48Google Scholar; Evans, C. F., ‘I will go before you into Galilee’, J.T.S. v (1954), pp. 3–18Google Scholar and Resurrection and the New Testament (1970), p. 81; Schreiber, J., Theologie des Vertrauens (1967), pp. 178–9.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 1} Lohmeyer, , Galiläa, pp. 10 f.Google Scholar; Marxsen, p. 84; and Weeden, p. 112 n. 14, who, however, admits that this argument is ‘not as solid as Lohmeyer claimed’.

^{page 446 note 2} Marxsen, p. 82 attributes the Matthean and Johannine Galilean resurrection accounts to the influence of Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7.

^{page 446 note 3} Weeden, p. 112.

^{page 446 note 4} Norman Perrin, ‘Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark’, an unpublished work quoted in Weeden, p. 113.

^{page 446 note 5} Marxsen, pp. 89–90 and Weeden, p. 112.

^{page 446 note 6} Lightfoot, , Locality, p. 75Google Scholar correctly points out that it is not possible to argue that the verb, its tense, or its voice are used in a technical way in the NT. It is furthermore precarious to argue from only two clear instances (Mark xiii. 32 and xiv. 62) that this term is a terminus technicus in Mark for the parousia. Wieder, pp. 30–48 maintains that ‘to go before’ is a technical Jewish messiological idea which best applies to the parousia rather than the resurrection. The major weakness of Wieder's thesis in his neglect of the Sitz im Leben in which the Gospel of Mark was written. He errs both in not recognizing the redactional character of Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7 (see p. 445 n. 3) and in not observing that Mark uses προάγειν five times and in Mark vi. 45, x. 32 and xi. 9 it is not associated with the parousia. It cannot therefore be a terminus technicus for Mark. (It should be noted that in none of the fourteen instances that προάγειν is used in the LXX does it have a ‘Jewish messiological’sense.) The same criticism can be raised with regard to Wieder's view that ‘Galilee’ is a messiological term. Whether ‘Galilee’ has messianic connotations in Jewish literature is not the issue. The basic issue is what this meant to Mark. This question Wieder does not investigate.

^{page 447 note 1} This assumes that Matt. xxviii. 10 and the subsequent appearance in Galilee (vv. 16–20) do not represent a lost ending of Mark. (See, p. 446 nn. 2 and 6.) If they were part of such a lost ending, then it would be clear that in Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7 the Evangelist was referring to a resurrection appearance in Galilee and not the parousia.

^{page 447 note 2} Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St Luke (1960), p. 93Google Scholar argues that after the resurrection Galilee is no longer important for Luke. Luke's scheme does not permit any Galilean resurrection appearances. If this is correct, Luke's omission of any Galilean resurrection account is no argument against the existence of such account(s).

^{page 447 note 3} Even if there were no such Galilean resurrection account before Mark, this would not mean that Mark could not refer to such an account here. Why should Mark be eliminated from being able to create such an account?

^{page 448 note 1} See Strecker, G., ‘The Passion– and Resurrection-Predictions in Mark's Gospel’, Interp. XXII (1968), pp. 421–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 448 note 2} Cf. I Cor. xv. 3 f.

^{page 448 note 3} μετά τό έγερθήναί με

^{page 448 note 4} Lightfoot, pp. 1–48.

^{page 448 note 5} See Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (1966), pp. 71–2.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 6} Horst, P. W. vander, ‘Can a Book End with ΓΑΡ? A Note on Mark xvi. 8’, J.T.S. XXII (1972). pp. 121–4.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 1} Goodspeed, E. J., An Introduction to the New Testament (1937), P. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} Linnemann, Eta, ‘Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluß’, Z.Th.K. LXVI (1969), pp. 255–87Google Scholar. Cf. also Trompf, G. W., ‘The first Resurrection appearance and the ending of Mark's gospel’, N.T.S. XVIII (1972), pp. 308–30Google Scholar, who argues that something like Matt. xxviii. 9–10 and a quotation found in Justin Martyr's περί άναστάσεως originally concluded Mark's gospel.

^{page 449 note 3} See Aland, K., ‘Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluß’, Z.Th.K. LXVII (1970), pp. 3–13Google Scholar for a criticism of Linnemann's thesis on textual grounds. For a criticism of this thesis on literary grounds see Bartsch, H.-W., ‘Der Schluß des Markus-Evangeliums’, T.Z.. XXVII (1971), pp. 241–54.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 4} Fuller, R. H., The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (1971), p. 64Google Scholar states that the silence of the women, which was part of the tradition, ‘has been re-interpreted by the Evangelist in connection with this special theory of the messianic secret. For…it is not until the resurrection that the secret is fully lifted, and then it is to be proclaimed by the disciples. This is why the women may not proclaim it …The charge to the women was simply a device to point forward to the final unveiling of the messianic secret in the two resurrection appearances, to Peter and to the disciples.’

^{page 449 note 5} Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark i. 14; Luke xii. 5, xxii 20; Acts i. 3, vii. 4, x. 41, xv. 13, xix. 21, xx. 1; I Cor. xi. 25; Heb. x. 15, 26 (this may be an exception).

^{page 450 note 1} Marxsen, p. 86, and Fuller, p. 61 correctly point out that the word means to ‘precede’ and not to ‘lead’.

^{page 450 note 2} Marxsen, p. 86, is aware of this problem but his attempt to escape it must be considered a failure. He states, ‘Jesus is “already there”. This is why there is such emphasis upon his activity in this land by the Sea. To be sure, his presence is hidden, but it will shortly be manifest. Clear also is the way in which his presence in Galilee is now experienced–in the proclamation.’ Lohmeyer, pp. 13–14, was also aware of this difficulty.

^{page 450 note 3} Bode, E. L., The First Easter Morning (1970), p. 103Google Scholar maintains that this tradition may have been formulated by the end of the thirties.

^{page 450 note 4} See Bode, pp. 90–104.

^{page 450 note 5} If Mark had simply inserted the title ‘Son of Man’ into these verses, his readers might have thought then of the parousia, but Mark does not do this. It is not the Son of Man that they are to see in Galilee but ‘Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified (Mark xvi. 6)’.

^{page 451 note 1} Is it legitimate to see in this type of interpretation the influence of a twentieth–century existentialist philosophy? Cf. Trocmé, E., La Formation de L' évangile selon Marc (1963), p. 112 nGoogle Scholar. 10.

^{page 451 note 2} Tyson, J. B., ‘The Blindness of the Disciples of Mark’, J.B.L. LXXX (1961), pp. 261–8Google Scholar; Trocmé, pp. 96–109; Sandmel, S., ‘Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark’, J.B.R. XXXI (1963), p. 298Google Scholar; Schreiber, ‘Christologie’. pp. 177–83; Weeden, pp. 52–69.

^{page 451 note 3} Hoskyns, pp. 149–53; Lohmeyer; Lightfoot, pp. 106–31; Carrington, pp. 75–89; Boobyer; Marxsen, pp. 54–116; Karnetzki, M., ‘Die galiläische Redaction im Markusevangelium’, Z.N.W. LII (1961), pp. 238–72Google Scholar; Kümmel, pp. 64–5; Wieder, pp. 1–51; Weeden, p. 112; Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion (1965), pp. 174–7Google Scholar; Schreiber, pp. 171–2 and Theologie, pp. 170–84; Evans, ‘I will go’, pp. 13–17 and Resurrection, p. 81; Bowman, J. W., The Gospel of Mark (1965), pp. 352–3Google Scholar. For a criticism of this view see Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation (1963), pp. 252–7.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 4} In Mark iii. 7–8 ‘Galilee’ may have symbolic significance as may ‘Judaea’, ‘Jerusalem’, ‘Idumaea’, ‘beyond the Jordan’, and ‘from about Tyre and Sidon’, but for Mark these are certainly actual places as well. In Mark vi. 21 Herod's leading men come from ‘Galilee’, over which Herod Antipas ruled. Here the term has little if any theological significance and serves primarily as an actual geographical designation. It should be noted in this regard that for Marxsen the ‘Galilee’ to which the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem are to flee is the geographical location by that name. See p. 115 n. 176 and p. 184 where the mountains of Galilee are mentioned.

^{page 452 note 1} Fuller, pp. 63–4.

^{page 452 note 2} If the gospel of Mark were written before the death of Peter, then this argument is weakened, but this would require both an earlier dating of Mark and a later dating of the death of Peter than is generally accepted. Several of the scholars who maintain that Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7 refer to the parousia, however, clearly date the composition of the gospel of Mark after the death of Peter. So Marxsen p. 181 – after the siege of Jerusalem began; Hamilton, Jesus, p. 56 – after A.D. 70; Weeden, p. 159 – ‘the beginning of the eighth decade A.D.’; Perrin, N., Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage (1971), p. 36Google Scholar – shortly after the fall of Jerusalem.