| Humphrey, H. M., A Bibliography for the Gospel of Mark, 1954–1980 (New York, 1981). Johns, E. and Major, D., Witness in a Pagan World. A Study of Mark " s Gospel (London, 1980). Juel, D., Messiah and Temple. The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, 1977). Karavidopoulos, J., «παρχα κκλησιολογας ες τ κατ Μρκον Εαγγλιον, » ΕΕΘΣΠΘ 17 (1972) 45–93. Karavidopoulos, J., «Δο συλλογοα λογιων το Ιησο ες τ κατ Μρκον Εαγγλιον» ΕΕΘΣΠΘ 20 (1975) 89–120. Kazmierski, C. R., Jesus the Son of God. A Study of the Markan Tradition and its Redaction by the Evangelist (Würzburg, 1979). Kealy, S. R, Mark " s Gospel: A History of its Interpretation. From the BeginningUntil 1979 (New York, 1982). Keck, L. E., « Mark 3,7–12 and Mark " s Christology,» JBL 84 (1965) 341–58. Kee, H. C., Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark " s Gospel (Philadelphia, 1977). Kelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark. A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia, 1977). Kelber, W. H. (ed.), The Passion in Mark. Studies on Mark 14–16 (Philadelphia, 1976). Kelber, W. H., Mark " s Story of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1979). Kermode, F., The Genesis of Secrecy. On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, 19803). Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium (Munich, 1970). Kesich, V., The Gospel Image of Christ (Crestwood, 1972). Kingsbury, J. D., The Christology of Mark " s Gospel (Philadelphia, 1983). Koester, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (Berlin, 1957). Koester, H., «History and Development of Mark " s Gospel,» in Colloquy on New Testament Studies, ed. B. Corley (Macon, 1983) 35–85. Kolenkow, A. B., «Healing Controversy as a Tie Between Miracle and Passion Material for a Proto-Gospel,» JBL 95 (1976) 623–38. Kühschelm, R., Jüngerverfolg ung und Geschick Jesu (Klosterneuburg, 1983). Lamarche, P., Christ Vivant (Paris, 1977). Lamarche, P., Révélation de Dieu chez Marc (Paris, 1976). Lemcio, E. E., «The Intention of the Evangelist Mark,» NTS 32 (1986)187–206. Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950). |
| Linnemann, E., Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Göttingen, 1970). Longstaff, T. R. W., Evidence of Conflation in Mark? (Missoula, 1977). Lührmann, D., «Biographie des Gerechten als Evangelium,» Wort und Dienst, N. F. (1977) 25–50. Luz, U., «Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie,» ZNW 56 (1965) 9–30. Malbon, E. S., «Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature in Marcan Interpretation,» CBQ 44 (1982) 242–55. Malbon, E. S., «Disciples/Crowds/Whoever: Markan Characters and Readers,» NovT 28 (1986) 104–30. Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus (Gottingen, 19592). English trans. Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969). Matera, F. J., The Kingship of Jesus: Compositiori and, Theology in Mark 15 (Chico, 1982). Matera, F. J., Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies (New York, 1986). Maloney, E. C., Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (Chico, 1981). Martin, R. R, Mark: Evangelist and Theobgian (Exeter, 1972). Marcus, Г, « Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,» JBL 103 (1984) 557–74. Marcus, J., The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (Atlanta, 1986). McCowen, A., Personal Mark (New York, 1985). Meagher, J. C., Clumsy Construction in Mark " s Gospel (New York, 1979). Meye, R. V., Jesus and the Twelve. Discipleship and Revelation in Mark " s Gospel (Grand Rapids, 1968). Minette de Tillesse, C., Le secret messianique dans l " evangile de Marc (Paris, 1968). Neirynck, F., Evangelica. Gospel Studies. Collected Essays, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Leuven, 1982). Nickelsberg, C., «The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative,» HTR 73 (1980) 153–84. O " Grady, J. F., Mark: The Sorrowful Gospel. An Intmduction to the Second Gospel (New York, 1981). Peabody, D. B., Mark as Composer (Macon, 1987). Perrin, N., «Towards an Interpretation of the Cospel of Mark,» in Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage, ed. H. D. Betz (SBL, 1973). Perrin, N., «The Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark, Interpretation 30 (1976) 115–24. Pesch, R., Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Düsseldorf, 1968). |
| Calloud, J., «Toward a Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Mark,» Semeia 16 (1979) 133–65. Cangh, J. M. van, «La Galilee dans l " évangile de Marc: un Heu théologique?,» RB 79 (1972) 59–75. Cancik, H., Markus-Philologie (Tübingen, 1984). Caroll, W. D., «The Jesus of Mark " s Gospel,» BT 103 (1979) 2105–12. Carlston, C. E., The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia, 1975). Casey, M., Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London, 1979). Chordat, J. L., Jésus devant sa mort dans l " évangile De Marc (Paris, 1970). Church, I. F., A Study of the Marean Gospel (New York, 1976). Cook, M. J., Mark " s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (Leiden, 1978). Cousar, C. B., «Eschatology and Mark " s Theologia Crucis,» Interpretation 24 (1970) 321–35. Crossan, J. D., «Empty Tomb and Absent Lord,» The Passion in Mark, ed. W. H. Kelber (Philadelphia, 1976) 135–52. D " Arc, J., Évangile selon Marc (Paris, 1986). Danker, F. W., «The Demonie Secret in Mark: A Reexamination of the Cry of Dereliction,» ZNW 61 (1970) 48–69. Delling, C., Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der Urchlistlichen Verkündigung (Göttingen, 1972). Delorme, J., «Lecture de l " Évangile selon saint Marc,» Cahiers EvangilebA (1973) 3–123. Derrett, J. D. M., The Making of Mark (Shipston, 1985) Dewey, Joanna, Markan Public Debate (Chico, 1980). Donahue, J. R., «Are you the Christ?» The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, 1973). Donahue, J. R., The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Milwaukee, 1983). Dormeyer, D., Der Sinn des Leidens Jesu (Stuttgart, 1979). Doughty, D. J., «The Authority of the Son of Man ( Mk 2 :l–3:6),» ZNW 74 (1983) 161–81. Dschulnigg, P., Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1986). Duling, D. C., «Interpreting the Markan Hodology,» Nexus 17 (1974) 2–11. Dumitriu, P., Comment nepas l " aimer! Une lecture de lÉvangile selon saint Marc (Baris, 1981). Dungan, D. L., «The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark According to the " Two Gospels» Hypothesis,» in Colloquy on New Testament Studies, ed. B. Corley (Macon, 1983) 133–79. |
| Pesch, R., Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis (Freiburg, 1978). Petersen, N. R., «When is the End not the End? Reflections on the Ending of Mark " s Narrative,» Interpretation 34 (1980) 151–66. Pryke, E. J, Redactional Style in the Markan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978). Quesnel, M., Comment lire un évangile. Saint Marc (Paris, 1984). Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark. Interpretation and Method through the Exegesis of Mark 6,52 (Rome, 1969). Räisänen, H., Das Messiasgeheimnis im Markusevangelium. Ein Redaktionskritischer Versuch (Helsinki, 1976). Reardon, P. H., «Kenotic Ecclesiology in Mark,» BT 70 (1974) 1476–1482. Roads, D. and Michie, D., Markos Story (Philadelphia, 1982). Robbins, V. K., «Summons and Outline in Mark: The Three-Step Progression,» NovT 23 (1981) 97–114. Robbins, V., Jesus the Teacher, (Philadelphia, 1984). Robinson, J. M., The Problem of History in Mark (London, 19714). Sabbe, M. (ed.), LÉvangile selon Marc. Tradition et rédaction (Gembloux, 1974). Schenk, W., Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh, 1974). Schenke, L., Der gekreuzigte Christus (Stuttgart, 1974). Schenke, L., Die wunderbare Brotvermehrung (Würzburg, 1983). Schille, G., Offen für alle Menschen. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Thaeologie des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1974). Schlier, H., Die Markuspassion (Einsiedeln, 1974). Schlosser, J., Le régne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (Paris, 1980). Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchung zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1964repr). Schweizer, E., «Towards a Christology of Mark,» God " s Christ and His People, Festschr. N. A. Dahl (Oslo, 1977) 29–42. Senior, D., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Wilmington, 1984). Senior, D., «The Struggle to be Universal: Mission as Vantage Point for New Testament Investigation,» CBQ 46 (1984) 63–81. Smith, M., The Secret Gospel. The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York, 1973). Smith, M., Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, 1973). |
| But more specific evidence than this favors the substantial reliability of the passion narratives. Theissen argues for the most part (and sufficiently) persuasively that the pre-Markan passion narrative as a whole was in use by 40 C.E. in Jerusalem and Judea. 9534 Thus, for example, Mark preserves names (such as those of the sons who identify the second Mary and Simon, Mark 15:21,40,47; 16:1 ) that serve no recognizable function in his own narrative– but that may well have been recognizable to those who passed on the traditions behind his early Jerusalem source ( Mark 15:40, 43 ). 9535 Place names such as Nazareth, Magdala, and Arimathea would mean nothing to audiences outside Palestine 9536 (we should add here that the Galilean names may have meant little to most of the Jerusalem church as well, who may have preserved them for the same reasons that Mark did). Although one normally identifies local persons through their father " s name, most persons in the Passion Narrative (which identifies more people «than elsewhere in the synoptic tradition») are identified by their place of origin instead. This practice makes the most sense in the church " s first generation in Jerusalem, when (and where) it consisted of people from elsewhere. 9537 Mark presumes his audiencés prior knowledge of Pilate and (more significantly) Barabbas and other insurrectionists. That Barabbas " s name is preserved when Pilate had numerous confrontations with such revolutionaries whose names are lost to us suggests that this particular insurrectionist " s name was preserved in connection with the Passion Narrative. 9538 Finally, some central characters in the account remain anonymous, probably to protect living persons who could face criminal charges in Jerusalem, fitting other ancient examples of protective anonymity. 9539 Taken together, these arguments seem persuasive. 9540 Evidence does suggest that Mark edited his Passion Narrative, 9541 but this no more denies the authenticity of the prior tradition than frequent rewriting of sources by any other ancient author, including other writers of the Gospels; thus, for example, the Passion Narrative in Matthew and Luke may agree against Mark at points (e.g., Mark 14:72 ). 9542 Independent tradition drawn on by Matthew, Luke, and John preserves the name of the high priest, but Mark may follow the oldest passion account in omitting his name for political prudence, though Pilate, now deposed and despised, could easily be named in this period. 9543 Brown suspects that Mark may have acquired some of his style from frequent recitation of the passion narrative; 9544 further, Mark may have rephrased the narrative in his own words, especially where his sources were ora1. One should see most fully the 1994 essay by Marion Soards, 9545 who makes a strong case both that Mark uses a source and that we probably cannot separate the tradition from the redaction. |
| Louisville, 1992; VanderKam J. C. Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71//The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity/Ed. J. H. Charlesworth e. a. Minneapolis, 1992. P. 161-191; Amphoux C.-B. La Finale longue de Marc: Un épilogue des quatre évangiles//The Synoptic Gospels: Source, Criticism and the New Literary Criticism/Ed. C. Focant. Louvain, 1993. P. 548-555; Bryan Chr. A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and Cultural Settings. N. Y.; Oxf., 1993; Henaut B. Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4. Sheffield, 1993; Bibliographies for Biblical Research/Ed. W. E. Mills. N. Y., 1994. Vol. 2: The Gospel of Mark [Библиогр.]; Black C. C. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Columbia, 1994; Brown R. E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Comment. on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. N. Y., 1994. 2 vol.; Kahl W. NT Miracle Stories in their Religious Historical Setting: A Religionsgeschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective. Gött., 1994; Neville D. J. Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique. Macon, 1994; idem. Mark " s Gospel - Prior Or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order. L.; N. Y., 2002; Fitzmyer J. A. The Palestinian Background of «Son of God» as a Title for Jesus//Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in honor of L. Hartman/Ed. T. Fornberg, D. Hellholm. Oslo, 1995. P. 567-577; Schmidt T. E. Mark 15. 16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession//NTS. 1995. Vol. 41. N 1. P. 1-18; Toit D. S., du. Theios anthropos: Zur Verwendung von θεος νθρωπος und sinnverwandten Ausdrücken in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Tüb., 1997; Casey M. Aramaic Sources of Mark " s Gospel. Camb., 1998; Iersel B. M. F., van. Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. Sheffield, 1998; The Composition of Mark " s Gospel: Selected Studies from «Novum Testamentum»/Ed. |
| Dunn, J. D. C., «Le secret Messianique chez Marc,» Hokhma 18 (1981) 34–56. Dupont, J., Études sur les évangiles synoptiques, 2 vols. (Leuven, 1985). Egger, W., Frobotschaft und Lehre (Frankfurt, 1976). Egger, W., Nachfolge als Weg zum Leben (Klosterneuburg, 1979). Englezakis, B., «Markan Parable: More than Word Modality a Revelation of Contents,» ΔΒΜ 2 (1973–74) 349–57. Evans, C. A., «The Hermeneutics of Mark and John: On the Theology of the Canonical Gospels,» Bib 64 (1983) 153–72. Evans, C. F., The Beginning of the Gospel (London, 1968). Farmer, W. R., The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (New York, 1974). Feneberg, W., Der Markussprolog: Studien zur Formbestimmung des Evangeliums (Munich, 1974). Feuillet, A., L " agonie de Gethsemani (Paris, 1977). Ford, D., The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (Washington, D. C., 1979). Fowler, R. M., Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark (Chico, 1981). Fusco, У., Parola e regno. La sezione delle Parabole nella Prospettiva Marciana (Brescia, 1980). Gaboury, A., «Christological Implications Resulting from a Study of the Structure of the Synoptic Gospels,» SocBibLit Meeting 1972 (Los Angeles) Yol. 1,97–146. Genest, Olivette, Le Christ de la Passion. Perspective Structurale (Montreal, 1978). Hahn, F., (ed.), Der Erzählung des Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1985). Harrington, D. J., The Gospel according to Mark (New York, 1983). Harrington, D. J., «A Map of Books on Mark (1975–1984),» BTB 15(1985)12–16. Harrisville, R. A., The Miracle of Mark. A Study in the Gospel (Minneapolis, 1967). Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted (Lund, 1966). Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia, 1964). Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967). Hooker, M. D., The Message of Mark (London, 1983). Horstmann, M., Studien zur markinischen Christologie (Münster, 1969). Hug, J., La finale de l " Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1978). Hultgren, A. J, Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis, 1979). |
| Marky ho habary Giri Bu kitap Isany döwründe ýaan Mark atly adam tarapyndan ýazyldy. Ol IsaMesihi resuly Pawlus bilen täze ýygnaklary düýbüni tutmakda (Res 13-nji bap), resul Petrus bilen Ho Habary ýaýmakda (1Pet 5:13) arman-ýadaman zähmet çekenleri biridir. Mark Isany durmuyny, eden ilerini we wagyzlaryny ilkinji bolup ýazga geçiren adam diýen pikir Mukaddes Ýazgylary öwrenýän alymlary arasynda örän ýörgünlidir. Olary çaklamalaryna görä, Mark bu kitaby Rim äherinde tussaglykda saklanan Pawlusa kömek beren döwründe, ýagny b.e. 55 — 65-nji ýyllary ýazypdyr. Kitapda arameý dilini sözlerine, ýahudy halkyny däp-dessurlaryna düündiri berilýär. eýle düündiriler bu kitaby ýahudy däl halklar üçin ýazylandygyny aýdy görkezýär. Mark ony Rimdäki ýygnak üçin ýazypdyr, sebäbi ol döwürde ýygnagy agzalary ýahudy we ýahudy däl halklary wekillerinden ybaratdy. Marky esasy maksady Isany Mesihdigini, ýagny Hudaýy pygamberler arkaly wada berlen Patyadygyny mälim etmekden ybaratdy. Ol öz kitabynda Isany ilkibadan Mesih, ýagny Hudaýy Ogly diýip atlandyrýar. Mark Isany il içinde görkezen gudratlary, adamlary haýrana galdyran mugjyzalary barada aýat hökmünde ýazýar. Mark eýle gudratlary we mugjyzalary Hudaýy güýji arkaly amala aýandygyny nygtap, adamlary kem-kemden Isany kimdigine düünilerini görkezýär. Isa Öz ägirtlerinden: «Siz Maa kim diýýärsiiz?» diýip soranda, Petrus «Sen Mesihsi» diýip jogap berýär (Mar 8:29). eýle-de Mark Mesih bolmagy die ygtyýarlylyk däl, eýsem hyzmat we özüi gurban etmeklikdigini hem görkezýär. Ol Isa Mesihi ýönekeý adamlary söýüp, olara hyzmat ediini, olary ugrunda Özüni gurban etmäge-de taýyndygyny beýan edýär. Isa Mesih eýle diýýär: «Ynsan Ogly hem Özüne hyzmat edilmegi üçin däl-de, eýsem, bagalara hyzmat etmek üçin, köpleri ugrunda janyny gurban edip, olary azat etmek üçin geldi» (Mar 10:45). Isa Özüni Ynsan Ogly diýip atlandyrýardy. Mark Isa Mesihe iman edip, Onu güýjüne ynanan islendik adamy keselden gutulýandygyna, jynlardan azat bolýandygyna we ebedi ýaaýa eýe bolýandygyna aýatlyk edýär. Ýöne ol Isa Mesihe eýermegi asat däldigini hem aýdýar. Isany hakyky ägirtleri öz Halypalary ýaly adamlara hyzmat etmeli, ejir çekmäge we Ol kimin özüni gurban etmäge-de taýyn bolmaly. |
| L., 1973; Weeden T. J. The Heresy That Necessitated Mark " s Gospel//ZNW. 1968. Bd. 59. N 3/4. S. 145-158; idem. Mark: Traditions in Conflict. Phil., 1971; Linton O. Evidences of a 2nd-Cent. Revised Edition of St Mark " s Gospel//NTS. 1968. Vol. 14. N 3. P. 321-355; Tilesse G. M., de. Le secret messianique dans l " Évangile de Marc. P., 1968; Achtemeier P. J. Toward the Isolation of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae//JBL. 1970. Vol. 89. N 3. P. 265-291; idem. The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae//Ibid. 1972. Vol. 91/2. P. 198-221; Linnemann E. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. Gött., 1970; Kuhn H. W. Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium. Gött., 1971; Tiede D. L. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Missoula, 1972; Hamerton-Kelly R. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and The Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the NT. L. etc., 1973; Räisänen H. Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. Helsinki, 1973; Dormeyer D. Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell: Literarische und theologische Analyse der Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Markuspassion. Münster, 1974; idem. Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener. Stuttg., 1999; Farmer W. R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. L.; N. Y., 1974; Hull J. M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. L., 1974; Kelber W. H. The Kingdom in Mark. Phil., 1974; idem., ed. The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16. Phil., 1976; idem. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Phil., 1983; Schenke L. Die Wundererzählungen des Markusevangeliums. Stuttg., 1974; Theissen G. Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. Gütersloh, 1974; idem. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Gött., 1989; Koch D. A. Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangeliums. |
| 2318 Cf. Talbert, Gospel, who relates men who achieved immortality (26–31) to theoi andres, while noting that not all theoi andres became immortal (35–38). Aune, «Problem,» 19 criticizes him severely on his differentiation of «eternals» and «immortals.» 2319 See Tiede, Figure, 99 (cf. 14–29, on Pythagorean conceptions; 71–97, Heracles), Gallagher, Divine Man, 173; Shuler, Genre, 18; Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 188–91; Kingsbury, Christology, 34; Martitz, «Υις,» 8:339–40; Betz, Jesus, 64. 2323 Georgi, Opponents, 122–64, especially explores the Hellenistic Jewish use of the motif; cf. also 390–409. 2324 Tiede, Figure, 101–240 (ch. 2, «Images of Moses in Hellenistic Judaism»). Moses was «divine» in the sense that he was affected by the deity (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.279). 2328 Ibid., 238. It should be admitted, however, that many extant apostolic fathers aim at a philosophical rather than popular audience, whereas the Gospels do not. 2330 Stern, Authors, 2:221–23, citing Philopseudeis 16; Alexander Pseudopropheta 13; Tragodopodogra 171–73. 2337 So also Kee, Origins, 62; cf. similarly Betz, Jesus, 64. For a survey of especially OT theology of healings (in their ancient Near Eastern and Greek contexts), see esp. Brown, Healer. 2338 Boring, Sayings, 201–2, is wrong to suggest that Mark opposes charismatic excesses in Q; Mark draws on Q at places (e.g., in his abbreviated introduction; in Mark 3:22–30 ); but he rightly points out that as a charismatic, Mark could oppose charismatic excesses (203). Kümmel, Introduction, 93, rightly observes against Weeden that Mark does not deny Jesus» role as a wonder-worker; the signs are clearly positive (Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 105; Kingsbury, Christology, 76–77), even if they must be read in view of the cross. 2339 Vander Broek, «Sifz,» 131–89. Lane, " Theios Aner? 160, thinks the view might be attributable to the crowds. Weeden, Mark, 52–69, thought Mark " s opponents followed a theios aner Christology like Paul " s opponents in 2Corinthians; «opponents» may be too strong, and theios aner too ambiguous (although they may hold «a triumphalist theology characterized by … miraculous acts,» vii). |
|
|
