^{page 393 note 1} Intense study of Mark really only began with the establishment of Marcan priority over Matthew and Luke, which was first seen by Wilke, Christian Gottlieb, ‘Über die Parabel von den Arbeitern im Weinberge Matth. 20.1–16’, Zeikchrift für wissenschqftliche Theologie, I (1826), 73–88Google Scholar, and was proved by Lachmann, Carl, ‘De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis’, ThStKr, VIII (1835), 570–590Google Scholar, Wilke, Der Urevangelist, 1838, and Christian Hermann Weisse, Die Evangelische Ceschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, 1838.

^{page 393 note 2} The classic proof both for the Marcan priority and for the historicity of the Marcan presentation is Holtzmann's, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863Google Scholar. The history of this bifocal ‘Marcan hypothesis’ is given by Schweitzer, A., The Quest for the Historical Jesus, 1910, pp. I93ffGoogle Scholar, and Ebeling, H. J., Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus–Evangelisten, 1939, pp. 19ff.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 3} The detailed explanation of the Marcan order continues to be obscure, but the motive in this case may be to suggest the time lapse between the sending out (6.7–13) and the return (6.3 off) of the ‘twelve’. Cf. Dobschutz, E. von, ‘Zur Erzählerkunst des Markus’, ZNTW, XXVII (1928), 193–198Google Scholar. The choice of the Herod story for this function may be due to Mark's inability to present stories of Jesus unaccompanied by disciples, and/or a desire to prepare for the allusion of 9.13

^{page 394 note 1} Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901.

^{page 394 note 2} Das Messianitäts und Leidensgeheimnis, 1901 (Eng. tr. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God), and Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906 (Eng. tr. The Quest of the Historical Jesus).

^{page 394 note 3} Einleitung in die dreierslen Evangelien, 1905, 2nd ed. 1911Google Scholar. Although Wellhausen recognised the theological influence throughout the gospels, he was careful to confine this extreme statement to Q and Mark 8–10. However, the impact of Wellhausen's presentation was more general, as is documented by Bultmann's, R. appraisal, ‘The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem’, The Journal of Religion, VI (1926), 341.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 4} Das Markusevangelium, 1911. Emphasis: astral mythology.

^{page 394 note 5} Das Markusevangelium als Zeugnis gegen die Geschichllichkeit Jesu, 1921. Emphasis: non–historicity of Jesus.

^{page 394 note 6} Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelisten, 1924. Emphasis: Marcionism.

^{page 394 note 7} History and Interpretation in the Gospels, the Bampton Lectures of 1934.

^{page 394 note 8} The Primitive Christian Calendar; a Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel, igss. Emphasis: Mark a lectionary built on the church year.

^{page 394 note 9} A Study in St. Mark, 1952. Emphasis: complicated hidden patterns of numbers.

^{page 394 note 10} Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 1919.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 11} This term occurs not only on p. 218 of From Tradition to Gospel (1935), but also occurs pp. 225 and 226 of the German original (Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 2nd ed., 1933), but is obscured by the translations ‘would-be history’ p. 224 and ‘touched … up’ p. 225 of the Eng. ed.

^{page 394 note 12} ‘Zur Synoptiker-Exegese’, ThR, n.F., II (1930), 129–189.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 1} Already in ‘Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte’ in the Gunkel Festchrift (1923), II, 126Google Scholar. More fully in ‘Das Christuszeugnis der synoptischen Evangelien’, Beiheft 2 of Evangelische Theologie, 2. Aufl. 1936, PP– 7–33.

^{page 395 note 2} O. A. Piper, ‘Das Problem des Lebens Jesu seit Schweitzer’, Schmitz Fest-schrift, 1953; Käsemann, E., ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesus’, ZThK, LI (1954), 125–153.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten, Beiheft 19 to ZNTW, 1939.

^{page 395 note 4} Acts 1.22 is co-ordinate to Mark 1.1 in making a break between Judaism and John, while Acts 10.37, making a break between John and Jesus, is more co-ordinate to Mark 1.14 and Luke 3.2 of; cf. also Luke 23.5; Acts 13.24f; 19.3f.

^{page 395 note 5} Answer: For Mark the gospel is not personal or biographical, but temporal or historical, i.c. it begins at a point in time when a certain thing happens, rather than consisting simply in a person and consequently beginning with his birth.

^{page 395 note 6} Answer: The introduction is not the personal background of Jesus introductory to a biography, but the prophesied period of preparation antecedent to the coming of the Messiah. With the arrest of John (1.14) that preparation is completed (9.11–13).

^{page 395 note 7} Answer: Not out of biographical interest, but to prove that John conforms to the prophesied role of Elijah redivivus (cf. 9.13).

^{page 395 note 8} Answer: Such information (cf. 2.18; 6.14–29; 11.32) did not fit into the scope of the prophecy of a preparer. John's baptism is the only biographical trait not necessitated by the prophecy, and it is made to conform to the prophecy of a herald (‘preaching’ baptism), and to the preparation for Jesus (whose ministry is only here called a ‘baptism’, so as to make John's baptism its preparation).

^{page 396 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., ‘Zur evangelischen Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täfer’, JBL, LI (1932), 302Google Scholar, subdivides the description of John into four units corresponding to the four members of the prophecy. The Marcan presentation cannot properly be schematised to this extent. But the basic insight is correct.

^{page 396 note 2} Since the prophecy is a connexion of two prophecies, and is not a modern scholarly exegesis of the passages, it cannot be looked upon as the ultimate source of the introduction, but must be traced back to the faith of the early Church, although perhaps through the medium of some collection of testimonies.

^{page 396 note 3} Cf. Schweizer, E., ‘The Spirit of Power’, Interpretation, VI (1952), 260, and his forthcoming article on pneuma in Kittel–Friedrich, ThWb, Vol. VI.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 4} This exegesis of Mark 3.27 has been advanced by Hoennicke, G., ‘Die Teufelsidee in den Evangelien’, Neutestamentliche Studien für Georg Heinrici, 1914, p. 211Google Scholar; Jeremias, Joachim, Jesus als Welttollender, 1930, p. 59Google Scholar; Fridrichsen, A., ‘The Conflict of Jesus with the Unclean Spirits’, Theology, XXII (1931), 128fGoogle Scholar; Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (1929) to 12.29Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., Der Begriff der Kraft in der neutestamentlichen Gedankenwelt, 1932, p. 49f, 70Google Scholar; Rust, E. C., The Christian Understanding of History, 1947, p. 143Google Scholar. The main opponent of this view, E. Klostermann (HNT, 2nd ed., 1926), conceded (3rd ed., 1936) to Grundmann on the basis of Isa. 49.25; Test. Levi. 18.12; Test. Zeb. 9.8; Luke 13.16; Acts 10.38 that the figure of speech was more suited to Grundmann's exegesis, but persisted, now on insufficient grounds, in maintaining his exegesis of Mark 3.27.

^{page 397 note 1} E.g. the movement from the Baptist's crowds to the wilderness could seem introductory to ‘war in heaven’, especially in view of the similarity of the description of that ‘war’ to the temptation: ‘Michael and his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels’ (Rev. 12.7).

^{page 397 note 2} Str-B, I, 125ff.

^{page 397 note 3} For the eschatological significance of the Spirit in the early Church cf. such passages as Luke4.16ff; Acts 2; Paul's concept of the Spirit as ‘first-fruit’ or ‘down-payment’ of the eschaton; cf. further Schniewind, , ‘Zur Synoptiker-Exegese’, ThR, n.F., II (1930), 155fGoogle Scholar; Jeremias, , Jesus als Wetvollender, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 4} The observation—e.g. by Klostermann in his debate with Grundmann, cf. above—that Mark does not record the outcome of the temptation, may not have sufficiently accounted for the intimate relation between the gocd news announced in 1.14f and the issue at stake in the temptation.

^{page 397 note 5} 3.22–30, Satan behind the demons and the Spirit behind Jesus; 8.27–9.13, Satan inspiring Peter, the transfiguration, the heavenly voice designating Jesus as God's Son, the apocalyptic reference to the angels with the Son of Man; ch. 13, the Marcan apocalypse; the passion narrative: Jesus named Son of God 14.61; 15–39; a splitting of the veil separating from God 15.38, the session of the Son of Man at God's right hand and His future coming 14.62; the resurrection.

^{page 398 note 1} 3.22–30, climaxing with an accusation of blasphemy and eternal sin, heightens the Jewish intention of 3.6 and draws attention to the exorcisms; 8.27–9,: 13, besides revealing the heavenly dimensions of Jesus whose history is being recorded, provides the theological interpretation of the disciples' opposition dominating ch. 8–10; the Marcan apocalypse puts the passion narrative into a theological perspective (cf. Lohmeyer, Theol. Blatter, Oct. Nov. 1941, summarised by R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, Ch. IV); the flashes of light in the passion narrative keep the theological significance of the cross from being drowned in sentimentality; the resurrection makes the whole history Gospel.

^{page 398 note 2} 1.23–27, 34.39; 3.11f, 15; 5.1–20; 6.7, 13; 7.24–30; 9.14–29.

^{page 398 note 3} This is patent in 1.23–27; 3.11f; 9.14–29; in 5.1–20 the effects are public. In the other instances there is no suggestion of secrecy, which, for Mark, is some what remarkable.

^{page 398 note 4} Bauernfeind, O., Die Worle der Dämonen im Markusevangelium, 1927, pp. 56ffGoogle Scholar, maintains that the demons of 3.11f are disembodied. This view is at best an argument from silence, and insofar as the two verses conform to the normal presentation of exorcism narratives (e.g. bowing down before Jesus), the passage is best understood as a case of demon possession. Cf. the arguments of Ebeling, , Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 5} O. Bauernfeind, Die Worle der Dämonen im Markuseuangelium, has proved that the ‘confessions’ of the demons are incantations.

^{page 399 note 1} This dualism consists not only in the unrelenting opposition of Jesus to the demons reflected throughout the narratives, but also in the contrast between the status before and after the exorcism, a trait also accentuated in the healings and nature miracles.

^{page 399 note 2} 2.1–3, 6; 7.1–23; ch. 11–12.

^{page 399 note 3} Primarily concerning Jesus' passion and their unwillingness to suffer, 8.31–10. 45, but anticipated in their lack of understanding 4.13ff, 40; 6.49–52; 7.17–23; 8.14–21.

^{page 399 note 4} 8.11; 10.2; 12.15; in 12.13 they try to ‘trap’ Him.

^{page 399 note 5} Jewish authorities: 3.5; 10.5; disciples: 6.52; 8.17.

^{page 399 note 6} The sense of hostility inherent in the debates with the Jewish authorities is augmented not only by the designation of them as members of official Jewish groups (cf. R. Bultmann (Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien, 2nd ed., 1930, pp. 17F), and by the references to ‘tempting’, ‘trapping’, and ‘hardness of heart’, but also by statements that they ‘err’ (12.24, 27) are guilty of‘hypocrisy’ (12.15), follow immoral ways of life (12.38–40), and plot Jesus' death (3.6; 11.18; 12.12; 14.1; 14.53–15.1)).

^{page 399 note 7} E.g.: the ambiguity of Sabbath healing is reduced 3.4 to the clear alternative ‘do good or do evil’, ‘save life or kill’; the confusing problem of ceremonial cleanliness is reduced to the clear alternatives (7.7–9) ‘man's laws’ or ‘God's laws’.

^{page 400 note 1} The alternations of Matt, and Luke document these ambiguities.

^{page 400 note 2} 2.20; 3.6; 8.31; 9.12, 31; 10.33f, 38, 45; 12.8; 14.1, 21, 22, 24, 27, 36.

^{page 400 note 3} The resurrection is anticipated: 8.31; 9.9, 31; 10.34; 12.Iof; 14.28, 58.

^{page 400 note 4} In 8.31; 9.31; 10.34; 12.Iof the close association of the resurrection to the mention of Jesus' enemies indicates the resurrection served as a vindication of Jesus over His enemies (cf. also 14.21); 14.28, 58 lack any reference to His enemies, but accentuate His vindication or victory; 10.45 points to the role of the cross as a ‘ransom’, whereas 9.12; 14.21, 36.49 had made it clear that the cross is in the programme of God.

^{page 400 note 5} The nearest parallel is 3.3.

^{page 400 note 6} Clearest in 5.34, 36; 10.49.

^{page 400 note 7} The fact that Mark thinks apocalyptically of the kingdom is documented by 9.1, especially in its association with 8.38; and in 9.47, where the kingdom stands as the alternative to Gehenna.

^{page 400 note 8} The contrast in 10.30 makes this clear.

^{page 401 note 1} This alternative is not only a realistic problem in view of the prevalence of such views in the mystery religions of the day, but is implied in the various monographs (listed above) associating Mark with gnostic, Marcionite, and astrological movements. Bultmannian definitions of history (e.g. Ernst Fuchs, ‘Christus das Ende der Geschichte’, Evangelische Theologie, Jahrgang 1948–49 [1949], 457, note 18) accentuate its meaninglessness, and Bultmann calls for the ‘de-historicising’ of life (Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen, p. 87; cf. also ‘History and Eschatology in the New Testament’, New Testament Studies, I, [1954], 5–16). Yet Bultmann does not wish to be understood mystically, but retains the formal pattern of ‘historical’ encounter, condemning any ‘de-historicising’ of life (sic! Das Urchristentum, p. 65).

^{page 401 note 2} Such conjectures as those of Burkitt, F. C., Christian Beginnings, 1924, p. 83Google Scholar, and Clarke, W. K. Lowther in Theology, XXIX (1934), 106fGoogle Scholar, to the effect that Mark wrote a Church-history similar to Acts 1–12, cannot be substantiated. Nor can the ending at 16.8 be regarded as so well established as to serve as a basis for far-reaching conclusions. Even among those who accept the ending at 16.8, interpretation of the meaning of that ending varies from Lohmeyer's concept that the parousia is predicted in 16.7, so that intervening history is by-passed, to C. F. Evans' view (‘ “I will Go Before You into Galilee” ’, JThS, n.s., V [1954], 3ff) that the gentile mission is here predicted, thus giving to Church-history a high significance for Mark.

^{page 402 note 1} Jesus' ministry is seen by Mark as a ‘coming’ (1.24, 38; 2.17; 10.45) of the ‘Son of Man’ (2, 10.28; 8.31; 9.9, 12.31; 10.33, 45; 14.21, 41), just as is the final consummation; his awareness of the similarity of the two events is perhaps documented by the terms he employs with regard to the second ‘coming’ to distinguish it from the first: 8.38: ‘in the glory of his Father with the holy angels’; 9.1: ‘in power’; 13.26: ‘on clouds with much power and glory’; 14.62 ‘with the clouds of heaven’. The most remarkable passages are 8.38; 10.45; 14.62, where Mark's identification of the two comings is apparent.

^{page 403 note 1} Beasley-Murray, G. R., Jesus and the Future, 1954Google Scholar, gives a history of the interpretation of Mark 13, in which the various identifications of Marcan language with first century history and with apocalyptic language are recorded.

^{page 403 note 2} Evident in the Lord's Supper (14.22–25) and in the allusion to the Lord's Prayer (11.25), as well as in the whole cultic significance demonstrated by formcriticism.

^{page 403 note 3} The ‘history of religions school’ tended to confine its application of the Sitz im Leben insight to cultic aspects, since the relationship was understood mystically; the fact that the same phenomenon occurs outside of the cult indicates that the key to the Sitz im Leben problem must be sought on a broader basis, involving an understanding of one's own history in terms of antecedent history.

^{page 403 note 4} The experience of the Church depicted in the Marcan apocalypse involves such world-historical matters as courtroom proceedings (13.9, 11), international wars (13.7f), messianic pretenders (13.5f 21f), perhaps the Caligula incident of A.D. 40 (13.14), and a flight scene (13.14ff) often seen as appropriate for the reaction to a military invasion.

^{page 403 note 5} Esp. ch. 6–8. Cf. Boobyer, G. H., ‘Galilee and Galileans in St. Mark's Gospel’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, XXXV (1952–1953), 334–348Google Scholar; ‘The Miracles of the Loaves and the Gentiles in St. Mark's Gospel’, Scottish Journal of Theology, VI (1953), 77–87.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} The investigation's point of departure in the philosophy of religion presented in Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy is not arbitrary, but is based partially upon the fact that this approach has been applied to Mark (e.g. by Olof Lindton, ‘Der vermisste Markusschluss’, ThBl VIII [1929], Col. 229–243), but especially upon the fact that Mark seems at first sight to show marked similarities to the categories of the numinous. It is only when such a correlation is investigated in detail that its deficiencies become apparent.

^{page 405 note 1} Cf. Strathmann, , ThWb, IV, 48–52.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 2} 8.38. The introduction of the ‘crowd’ 8.34 into a scene hardly suited to the presence of a crowd can be due to a desire to have at hand a group suitable for the designation in 8.38.

^{page 405 note 3} Contrast e.g. 12.12 with 15.15.

^{page 405 note 4} 1.15: ‘the gospel’; 11.22: ‘God’; 11.23: ‘that what one says (viz. asks in prayer) will happen’; 11.24;‘that you received’; 11–31; John as‘from heaven’; 13.21: that (a false) ‘Christ’ has come; 15.32: ‘Christ King of Israel’; 5.36; g.23f: that saving action (miracle) will happen.

^{page 406 note 1} Compare 5.15 with 5.3–5; 5.19 with 5.2f, 5; 9.27 with 9.17, 18.22, 25; 6.42–44 with 6.34–37; 8.8f with 8, 1–5; 4.29 with 4.37f. Cf. also the evidences of the completeness of the cure 1.31,44; 2,11f; 3.5; 5.34,43; 7.35; 8.25.

^{page 407 note 1} Instances in which a ‘coming’ without a connected itinerary is connected with a ‘coming’ from God: 1.21 connected with 1.24; 1.35 connected with 1.38; 2.13 connected with 2.17; 10.1 connected with 10.45; 11.11 connected with 11.10.

^{page 407 note 2} Instances in which following as joining an itinerant band is given a spiritual meaning: 1.16–17a, 18 interpreted by 1.17b; 2.14 interpreted by 2.17; 10.21 interpreted by 10.17. The ‘following’ involved in 2.15; 3.7; 5.24; 6.1; 15.41 is given deeper meaning in 10.28–31.

^{page 407 note 3} The concept of the ‘twelve’ as ‘sent’ away from Jesus 3.14 is used only with regard to the mission of the twelve 6.7; 6.30. The other concept given 3.14, ‘so that they could be with him’, seems Mark's dominant characterisation: 11.11; 14.17; 14.67; 9.8; 2.19; 3.7; 4.36; 8.10; 5.40; (1.36?); 15.41; 5.18; 14.14, 17, 18, 20, 33 (contrast 14.43, 54. 67).

^{page 407 note 4} The disciples are bearers of special instruction: 4.10, 34; 7.17; 9.28, 33, 35; 10.10, 23, 32; 13.3. They bear the kerygma: 8.27–31; 9.9, 31; 10.32–33. They are witnesses of special events: 1.29; 537; 9.2; 14.3–11, 18ff, 33.

^{page 407 note 5} Mark is not opposed to family relationships as such: 1.16, 19, 31; 2.11; 5.19, 21ff, 36, 40; 7.10–13, 24ff, 28; 8.25; 9.24; 10.1–12, 19; 15.21, 40. But a tendency is evident to relativise family ties and to regroup individuals in terms of religious considerations: the family nearness of Andrew to Peter yields to the spiritual nearness of James and John to Peter 3.16–19; 13.3; 5.37; 9.2; 14.33, while the relationship of James and John is restated as ‘sons of thunder’, 3.17, except 10.35, where the blood relationship is accentuated in their unworthy association.

^{page 408 note 1} In the listing of the family sacrificed, the ‘father’ is listed 10.29, but in the spiritual family of fellow-Christians the ‘father’ is not replaced 10.30; the same omission is evident in 3.35. This argument from silence is supported by the positive evidence that God is the Father of Jesus, 8.38; 14.36, and Jesus is His Son (1.1); 1.11; 3.11; 5.7; 9.7; 12.6; 14.61; 15.39, so that they bear these titles absolutely 13.32; God is the Christian's Father 11.25.

^{page 408 note 2} The fact that the two feedings of the multitudes are eucharistic is evident from the form of presentation. Cf. Pfleiderer, , Primitive Christianity, 1909, II, 25ffGoogle Scholar. The eucharistic tone of the saying about the bread cannot be reduced to the coincidence of normal mealtime language (cf. Str–B I, 685), for in Mark 2.26 the language of the LXX has been altered in a eucharistic direction, making the presence of some attracting force evident (cf. Riesenfeld, Jesus transfiguré, 1947, p. 321).

^{page 409 note 1} 6.34; 7.21–23; 8.2; 10.43–45. The two-fold significance of the term ‘serve’ (cf. Beyer, ThWb, II, 92) is present in Mark (serve tables: 1.13, 31; 15.41; ethically: 10.45), so that not only 10.38ff, but also 10.43ff, have eucharistic relationships, calling for the ethic of humility in the mealtime customs commemorative of Jesus' sacrifice and anticipatory to the eschatological banquet.