Bible Commentaries
Mark

CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH

A Commentary On

THE BOOK OF MARK

By CARL M. JOHNSON

Publisher Charles Allen Bailey

Editor

Executive Editor - Joe L. Norton, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2012
Contending for the Faith Publications
4216 Abigale Drive, Yukon, OK 73099

[email protected] <http://[email protected]/>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

All Rights Reserved

All scripture quotations,
unless otherwise indicated, are taken from
The King James Version, KJV

Dedication

This volume is lovingly dedicated to my wife Phyllis and my sons Corey and David. Their patient understanding of the many hours required of me to research and write this book over the past five years and their words of encouragement has been an invaluable source of inspiration.

Carl M. Johnson

Preface

It is with great pleasure that we publish this volume of the Contending for the Faith commentary, and we are especially pleased to have as its writer Brother Carl Johnson, who has spent the last twenty-five years studying and preaching the word of God full-time.

In this volume on the Gospel of Mark, Carl has aggressively researched and addressed every point of any consequence. As well, no topic was too difficult for him to study, preach, and defend during open discussion at the annual New Testament Study in Irving, Texas. He forthrightly addressed such difficult topics as demon possession, the destruction of Jerusalem, the communion, divorce and remarriage, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, these signs shall follow those who believe, and several others.

In 1992, Carl began delivering four chapters a year at the New Testament Study conducted over Memorial Day weekend at the Irving, Texas, congregation. This schedule was completed in 1995. Hundreds, yea thousands of hours were spent on this volume.

Carl was born July 27, 1948, in Ada, Oklahoma, and still lives there. He obeyed the gospel in 1959, graduated from Ada High School in 1966, and received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in psychology and sociology from East Central University in Ada in 1970. The church of Christ in Ada ordained Carl as an evangelist in 1970. Since that time, he has traveled across the United States conducting hundreds of gospel meetings, assisting many in obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and serving as mentor and counselor to many who have sought his advice. In addition, he has often presented topics at the annual December study for gospel preachers. Studious, humorous, and clever, Carl is a talented speaker whose pulpit demeanor is respected by all. He is an active contributing editor for the Christian’s Expositor and the Old Paths Advocate. His writing in both religious journals is respected and appreciated.

On December 30, 1966, Carl was united in marriage to Sister Phyllis Kay Smith of Healdton, Oklahoma. They have two sons: Corey and David.

A special word of thanks to Carl for this scholarly work--he has given his best to this volume, and Christian men and women everywhere will long appreciate it. It is especially readable while, at the same time, it maintains a scholarly integrity. It is a volume Christians will enjoy reading, giving as a gift, or passing on to a family member or friend.

It is because of the professional functioning of a prestigious team that this volume is presented. Brother Joe Norton, Executive Editor, has overseen every volume of the commentaries, applying his skills as a college journalism professor to each volume. We owe Dr. Norton a great debt for his scholarly editing. He chose Sister Martha Morris of the Green Oaks congregation in Arlington, Texas, as his primary proofreader. Her skills are much respected and are utilized by many who need to have material edited. Brother Mark Bailey’s computer skills have been employed, and he has assisted in expediting this volume. As with every volume from beginning until the present, Brother Gene Edmiston graciously applied his expert computer abilities to make this volume as good as he could make it. With this team at work, those who receive this volume are the recipients of scholarly and professional labors and can appreciate its quality as they study God’s Holy and Divine Word.

May the Lord bless the readers of this volume, and may all come to know Christ in a more special way as a result of a continuing study of God’s word.

Allen Bailey

Introduction

The gospel of Mark, the shortest and simplest of the four gospels, was virtually ignored by commentators for the first five hundred years of the church’s existence. The apparent reason for the Ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers’ neglect of Mark was their conviction that Mark was just an abbreviation of the more stately gospel of Matthew. It was not until late in the fifth century that Victor, presbyter of Antioch, bothered by a total absence of commentaries on Mark, moved to fill the void. Not much is known of Victor, but he was apparently more of an industrious compiler of extant materials than an actual commentator. He compiled a popular work from the exegetical writings of Origen, Titus of Bostra, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. These early church fathers had made brief, incidental comments on Mark in their expositions of Matthew, Luke, and John.

The next significant volume on Mark did not appear until another four hundred years had passed (735 A.D.) when Bede published commentaries on St. Mark and St. Luke at the request of Acca, Bishop of Hexham.

The commentators’ pattern of virtually ignoring Mark, preferring to quote and publish works on the more comprehensive gospels, continued until the nineteenth century. But when modern scholars began to apply the principles of "higher criticism" to the study of the gospels, Mark was catapulted to the forefront of scholarly interest and study. Today there is a wealth of valuable expositions on Mark. Scholars no longer view Mark as an insignificant abbreviation of Matthew, but rather they view Mark as an extremely valuable, independent work written to a specific people for a definite purpose. A majority of scholars believe Mark to have been the first gospel written and, thus, the key to unlocking the "synoptic problem" (discussed later in this Introduction).

Authorship

The gospel of Mark, like its three companions, contains no statement of authorship. In spite of the fact the early church fathers uniformly attribute the authorship of the second gospel to Mark, there remain some who are skeptical. John Paul Pritchard offers the following example:

Ancient literary works were in most cases not given titles by their authors; these were added later by others, and not always well chosen. The ascription of the second Gospel to Mark is accordingly not necessarily correct; the Greek title (kata Markon) in fact does not categorically state his authorship. The translation of the King James Version (KJV) rendered it accurately as "according to Mark," which may mean nothing more than "the way Mark told it." This formula begs the question of authorship, albeit no doubt unintentionally in the minds of the translators (34).

A consensus of scholars today, however, believes there is overwhelming evidence that proves Mark is the author of this gospel.

External Evidence

The earliest witness to the gospel of Mark and its origin is Papias (c.70-150), bishop of Hierapolis, dating to the first half of the second century. In a fragment preserved by Eusebius, Papias says:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements (Vol. I 154-155).

Papias says Mark wrote from his memory of Peter’s eyewitness testimony concerning the events of Jesus’ life. He says Mark wrote the things he heard from Peter accurately, but not necessarily in chronological order.

Papias also mentions Mark was Peter’s "interpreter." Some scholars believe this reference means Mark was Peter’s translator. These scholars contend that Peter, coming from Galilee, spoke Aramaic as a native language and could speak very little Greek; and consequently, Mark traveled with Peter to translate his preaching into Greek. This explanation of "interpreter" is unlikely, though, since most Galileans were bilingual, speaking Aramaic and Greek. Thus, it is highly probable Peter could speak fluent, if not polished Greek.

Others believe Mark was Peter’s interpreter in that he preserved and handed down what he heard Peter preach. A fragmentary Latin prologue to Mark’s gospel, known as the Anti-Marciaonite Prologue, dated around 160-180 A.D., says, "Mark...was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy" (Hiebert 84). This corroborates Papias’ testimony about Mark and adds that Mark’s gospel was written in Italy after Peter’s death.

Irenaeus (c.140-203), bishop of Lyons in Gaul, adds to Papias’ testimony that Mark wrote after Peter’s death (somewhere around 65 A.D.):

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure (death), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Vol. I 414).

On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria (c.195 A.D.) and Origen (c.230) give testimony that implies Peter was alive when Mark wrote his gospel. In the work called Hypotyposes, Clement is quoted as writing:

The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it (Eusebius, Vol. I 261).

Eusebius also quotes Origen as saying Mark wrote the second gospel "according to the instructions of Peter" (Vol. I 273).

A possible solution to the apparent conflict among the four ancient authorities is supplied by Donald Guthrie, who says that "Mark began his Gospel before and completed it after Peter’s death; a suggestion which merits more consideration than it generally receives" (73).

At any rate the ancient testimony, dating from the second century, is that the second gospel was written by a person named Mark who was the companion and "interpreter" of Peter.

Internal Evidence

There are internal peculiarities in the second gospel that confirm the testimony of the ancient church fathers who identify Mark as its author. For example, Mark’s long association with Peter would account for the "eyewitness vividness" of many of Mark’s narratives.

It has also been pointed out that Mark omits narratives that would have honored Peter, such as his walking on water (Matthew 14:28-31) and his blessing and promise of "the keys" from Jesus (Matthew 16:17-19) but records episodes that are humiliating to Peter (8:33; 9:5-6; 14:29-31, 66-72). It is believed that Peter, the proud fisherman, learned true humility after the resurrection of Christ (see Peter’s first epistle) and influenced the selection of Mark’s material concerning himself.

Another traditional connection with Peter is that Mark’s gospel follows the same outline of the gospel story given by Peter at the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-43).

The conclusion (based on external and internal evidence) that Mark is the author of the second gospel "is strengthened by the fact that there is no reason why the gospel would have been assigned to a minor character like Mark if he did not write it" (Heibert 86).

Thus, the available evidence overwhelmingly proves Mark to be the author of the second gospel. Albert Barnes summarizes the conviction of this commentator when he says:

The uniform testimony of the fathers is that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and that he wrote this gospel under the eye of Peter and with his approbation. It has come down to us with the sanction of Peter’s authority. Its right to a place among the inspired books has never been questioned. That it was written by Mark, that it was with Peter’s approbation, that it was a record of the facts which Peter stated in his ministry, and that it was therefore an inspired book, has never been questioned (147).

History of Mark

The author of Mark is the same John Mark mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, by Peter in 1 Peter 5:13, and by Paul in Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:24, and 2 Timothy 4:11. John was his Jewish name and Mark his surname or Latin name. In the epistles he is referred to exclusively as Mark, indicating his ministry was almost entirely among the Gentiles. Mark was a native of Jerusalem where his mother’s house became one of the meeting places of the early Christians (Acts 12:12). His house was where Christians assembled to pray for the imprisoned Peter and where Peter came when he was released from prison by an angel. The scriptures indicate the house was large and included a courtyard and a gate, and it was attended by a servant girl named Rhoda. This description serves to suggest that John Mark’s home was one of wealth and prominence.

It is also probable that Mark was the mysterious young man who escaped from the soldiers’ hands on the night of Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:51). The linen garment left behind by this fleeing youth was consistent with the type of clothing that Mark’s affluence would suggest. If the identity of the mysterious young man is Mark, it would explain why such an unimportant incident--unknown to the other gospels--is recorded in Mark’s gospel.

Mark was also a cousin to the noted Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). When Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey, they took Mark with them; but when they reached Perga, Mark left the expedition and returned home (Acts 13:13). The reason for his leaving Paul and Barnabas has been speculated upon for centuries. It could have been that he was merely homesick. It is also possible he was afraid to face the dangers that lay before them as the roads were difficult to travel and were plagued by bandits. The opposition of the Jews to their mission would also pose an increasing threat. Others have speculated he returned home because it became increasingly clear that the leadership of the journey was being assumed by Paul and that his cousin Barnabas was being pushed to the background. Regardless of the motive, Mark abandoned Paul and Barnabas and returned home to Jerusalem.

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was eager to take Mark with them again, but Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia" (Acts 15:37-40). The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp they split company and went their separate ways. Barnabas took Mark with him on his missionary travels while Paul took Silas as his companion.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went to Egypt and founded the church of Alexandria. He finally reemerges in a most surprising way. When Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome, Mark is there with him (Colossians 4:10). In a prison letter to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellowlaborers (verse 24). As Paul is anticipating his death, knowing that the time is very near, he writes to Timothy and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me" (2 Timothy 4:11). This is quite a contrast with the contempt Paul earlier expresses about Mark. Mark has obviously redeemed and vindicated himself in Paul’s eyes, demonstrating that he is of great value to the cause of Jesus Christ.

Although Paul’s words are the last mention of Mark in the New Testament, Mark had been mentioned by Peter approximately five or six years earlier. Peter, writing from Babylon (some scholars believe Peter’s use of "Babylon" is a symbolical reference to Rome), mentions that Mark is with him at that time and affectionately refers to him as "my son" (1 Peter 5:13). It has often been inferred that Mark was converted through Peter’s influence. Peter was a frequent visitor to Mark’s home (Acts 12) in Jerusalem and, thus, Mark was familiar with Peter’s preaching from early days.

It becomes increasingly clear that Mark eventually enjoys a close and respected relationship with both Peter and Paul. He is with Peter at Babylon and Paul at Rome.

Date

Based upon the testimony of the Ante-Nicene fathers, Mark probably began his gospel while Peter was alive and concluded it after Peter’s death. Mark seems to be unaware of the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in A.D. 70, indicating he wrote his gospel sometime after the death of Peter but prior to Jerusalem’s destruction. These facts lead a consensus of scholars to believe Mark completed his gospel about 65 A.D.

Written to Whom

It has long been accepted that Mark’s primary audience was the Romans. Again, Eusebius, a painstaking fourth century church historian, quoted the work of second century writer Papias of Hierapolis that Mark wrote his gospel at the request of Peter’s Roman followers to record the teaching they had orally received from Peter.

There are evidences from the style of Mark that further suggest his gospel was intended primarily for the Gentiles in Rome. For example, he quotes very little from the Jewish Old Testament scriptures, and he makes no mention of Jesus’ biological lineage. These facts would impress a Jewish audience but would be of little significance to Roman Gentiles. He also explains in detail Jewish references, such as fasting, washings, that Jordan is a river, the location of the Mount of Olives and the temple, the Passover, etc. These are references for which a Jewish audience would need no explanation.

Purpose

Mark’s purpose for writing was essentially the same as the purpose of the other inspired writers of the gospel: to present Jesus as the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Matthew portrays Jesus as the Messiah. Luke says Jesus is the Perfect Man. John casts Him as the incarnate Word. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus is as the faithful, devoted, powerful Servant.

Style

Scholars consider Mark’s gospel to be the least polished, stylistically, of all the gospels. The words employed by Mark could be easily understood by the ordinary man-in-the-street in Rome. Even those of limited education would have little difficulty with it. Mark uses uncomplicated sentence structure. He obviously wants to communicate with readers who, "however intelligent and sensible, had not the cultural responses of the more highly educated and literate" (Pritchard 38).

Mark shows tremendous skill in sizing up his audience and maintaining their interest. His narrative moves rapidly, which demands the audience’s attention. At the same time, his brief description of episodes seems to adapt well to those with a short attention span. Nineteen times Mark introduces a speedy transi­tion with the adverb straightway, which means immediately. The Romans were busy, aggressive people who admired decisive action; hence, Mark stresses not so much what Jesus taught, but what He did. Mark portrays Jesus as being incessantly active during His ministry, and he is the only gospel writer to reveal that Jesus was too busy to eat and sleep properly (3:20; 6:31). He pictures Jesus’ work as being physically and emotionally exhausting. Jesus is frequently jostled by the crowds, forcing Him to seek refuge in a boat on the Sea of Galilee. Heibert quotes Gerard Sloyan as saying, "To read this Gospel at a single sitting is to feel hemmed in by crowds, wearied by their demands, besieged by the attacks of demons" (98). Although Mark mentions fewer of Jesus’ parables and discourses, he mentions many of His miracles, often in more vivid detail than Matthew or Luke.

J.B. Phillips observes:

His style has no literary polish but it has the forceful vitality of the man who believes what he writes, and it is not without certain vivid flashes of realism. He draws with strong lines the portrait of a Man Who was thoroughly human but also unmistakably the Son of God (69).

Phillips is right on target when he mentions "certain vivid flashes of realism." Mark makes no attempt to cover the weaknesses and shortcomings of the disciples. He candidly reports their many instances of spiritual dullness (4:13; 6:52; 8:17, 21; 9:10, 32) and the fact that the disciples even dared to criticize Jesus (4:38; 5:31). Mark also frankly reports that Jesus’ family, worried about His mental health, went to Capernaum to take Him--by force if necessary--back home to Nazareth.

Textual Problems

The ending to Mark’s gospel has long posed one of the major problems in the New Testament for textual critics. Textual criticism was one of the earliest approaches to studying the New Testament, and it was developed as the result of an effort to establish the accuracy of the existing manuscripts of the New Testament. Obviously, no book of the New Testament survives in the original autographed copy. What does exist are copies, and copies of copies, of the original. The earliest copies that are still in existence were written more than a century later than the autographed copies, and these exist on fragments of papyrus, a paper-like material that tends to become dry, brittle, and crumbly with age. Copies made on vellum--specially prepared animal skins--have been more durable than the papyri, and many of them survive in fairly complete condition. The earliest surviving vellum manuscripts of the New Testament date from the fourth century, a century and more later than the papyri. Pritchard adds, "The care in their making and the better preservation on vellum tend to counterbalance their later date and to give them textual value at least equal to the papyri" (15).

Early in the Christian era, the vellum manuscripts were preserved in codices. A codex is a book-like volume that replaced the roll. The three most highly regarded manuscripts in existence today include the following: Codex Vaticanus, written in the fourth century, has been in the Vatican Library since it was first catalogued in 1475 and is designated by the capital B; Codex Sinaiticus, also from the fourth century, was discovered in 1844 by Constantin Tischendorf and is designated by Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet; and Codex Alexandrinus, from the fifth century, is designated A.

The textual critics compare these and other codices with papyri manuscripts in an effort to establish a New Testament text as close to the original manuscripts as possible. Their efforts have served to reinforce our conviction that the Bible is "the Word of God," handed down from generation to generation, without essential loss or change. In this regard, textual criticism has certainly made a worthy contribution to Christianity.

The last twelve verses of Mark have long posed one of the greatest textual problems of the New Testament. Debate has raged among scholars for years over whether Mark 16:9-20 should be considered a part of the original gospel canon or as an interpolation which was later added by a copyist.

The Long Ending

Ancient manuscripts show three endings for Mark’s gospel. The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, known as the "long ending." With the exceptions of the Vaticanus (Codex B), the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph), and a much later uncial manuscript, L, of about the eighth century, all the uncial manuscripts maintain the last twelve verses. The evidence of the cursives is unanimous in favor of the disputed verses.

Dean John W. Burgon, in his passionate defense of the integrity of Mark’s last twelve verses, clearly shows that these verses were read in the public services of the church in the fourth century and probably much earlier (97-110).

The testimony of the Ante-Nicene fathers supports the belief that these twelve verses are authentic. Justin Martyr (about 160 A.D.) quotes from the last verse of Mark when he says "...His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere" (Vol. I 178). Even more striking is the testimony of Irenaeus (180 A.D.), who quotes verse 19 in his third Book of Heresies:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool" (Vol. I 426).

Irenaeus’s testimony shows conclusively that in the second century there was no doubt as to the genuineness and authenticity of the passage in Gaul, Asia Minor, or Italy.

Ending with Verse Eight

Other manuscripts show Mark’s gospel ending with verse 8. The strongest argument of scholars who believe the last twelve verses of Mark are an interpolation, and therefore no part of the original gospel, is that these verses are not found in the two most authoritative codices (Aleph and B). While it is true these verses are not found in Codex B (Vaticanus Manuscript), this manuscript retains a blank space at the end of Mark exactly equivalent to these twelve verses. The blank space left by the copyist could mean he intended to include these verses later or knew of the longer ending and rejected it for some reason. Hugo McCord adds:

Support by B is weakened by a blank column with space that would accommodate verses 9-20. For longer interpolations or omissions ’the application of stichometric reckoning" was a "rough and ready check on the general accuracy of a manuscript, for obviously a document which was short of the total number of stichoi was a defective copy" (Metzger, The Text 15). Matthew has 2560 lines, Mark 1616, Luke 2750, John 2024. Mark in B does not have 1616 lines, but enough space is left for the lines that would make 1616. This implies "the presence of 16:9-20 in Mark" (Metzger, ibid) (516-517).

Third Ending

Several manuscripts, dating from the sixth to the thirteenth century, have two endings. A shorter ending, following verse 8, reads:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation (RSV).

This "short ending" is followed by verses 9-20. Heibert says:

There can be no doubt that this short ending is not original but was a scribal addition prompted by an abrupt ending at verse 8. It was added because the account concluding at verse 8 was felt to be incomplete (102).

Internal Evidence

Scholars who believe Mark 16:9-20 is a scribal interpolation point out there is a marked difference in literary style between these verses and the rest of Mark’s gospel and that these verses are too clumsily connected to the first eight verses to be authentically written by Mark. It is ironic, however, that scholars unanimously agree Mark’s style of writing is without polish, clipped, quick-moving, and sometimes awkward, yet reject the authenticity of the last twelve verses because they are awkwardly connected to the first eight verses of chapter sixteen. Furthermore, Burgon shows without question that Mark 16:9-20 "is exceedingly like the style of Mark 1:9-20" (255-270).

Burton Coffman offers additional internal evidences as to the authenticity of Mark’s last twelve verses:

The most distinctive feature of Mark’s gospel is the recurrence of the connective "and." It is used 43 times in chapter 13, 86 times in chapter 14, 64 times in chapter 15, and 33 times in chapter 16--226 times in 176 verses, or an average of approximately 1.3 times per verse. The 12 verses we are considering have it 19 times, a little more than the 1.3 average. Furthermore, verses numbered 9-20 (the same numbers as here) in chapter 13 have this connective 19 times, exactly the same as in verses 9-20 at the end of Mark! And something else, the omission of "straightway" from 16:9-20 is exactly paralleled by its omission from 13:9-20. Thus the two most decisive words of the Markan vocabulary bear witness to the genuineness of the text (13).

In view of the above testimony from ancient manuscripts, early Church fathers, and internal evidences, the conclusion must be made that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are genuine and are rightfully included in the sacred text.

Higher Criticism

While being virtually ignored for eighteen centuries, Mark’s gospel was catapulted into the limelight of scholarly interest when the principles of "higher criticism" began to be applied to Bible study.

Higher criticism is a complex system of literary research which includes the examination of form, method, subject, and arguments of the different books; the nature and connection of the context; the relation of passages to each other; the known circumstances of the writer, and those of the persons for whose immediate use they wrote. The questions of higher criticism are questions of integrity, authenticity, credibility, and literary forms of the various writings that make up the Bible.

Although higher criticism as an exacting science had been applied to some classical literature before the nineteenth century, J.G. Eichhorn, a German rationalist of the late 1700’s, was the first to apply the term to the study of the Bible. He introduced the second edition of his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (O.T. Introduction) in 1787 with these words:

I have been obliged to bestow the greatest amount of labor on a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the inner constitution of the particular writings of the O.T., by the Higher Criticism (McDowell 165).

Eichhorn has been called the "Father of Old Testament Criticism."

Source Criticism

It was not long until higher critics applied the same methods used in study of the Old Testament (especially the Pentateuch) to the New Testament. Early in the nineteenth century, a New Testament criticism was developed by German scholars called "source criticism."

While arbitrarily ignoring the superintendence of the Holy Spirit upon the production of the gospels, source critics tried to ascertain the actual source of an author’s material. When this approach is applied to the first three gospels, called the "Synoptic Gospels" because they give the account of the life of Jesus from the same perspective, it becomes quickly apparent that they, ostensibly, all had the same source. Nearly all of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke. Pritchard explains:

To express it statistically, of Mark’s 661 verses Mat­thew includes 606, Luke 320; only 24 verses in Mark do not occur in either or both these Gospels. In both these Gospels, about one-half of Mark’s verses are taken verbatim, while the other half are only slightly altered in wording (18).

The Synoptic Problem

This striking similarity in the gospels along with some apparent discrepancies has resulted in what critics have called the "Synoptic Problem." Source critics, discounting the fact that the Holy Spirit directed these men to write as they did, concluded that Matthew and Luke must have had a copy of Mark in front of them as an outline as they wrote their own accounts. A.T. Robertson says matter-of-factly, "It is now known that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark for the framework of their Gospels (A Harmony of the Gospels vii).

This logic also resulted in what is called the "Primacy of Mark"--the conclusion that Mark must have been the first account of the gospel written.

In addition to using Mark as a source, these critics believe Matthew and Luke also had another unnamed written source from which they drew similiar material not found in Mark. The German scholars who led in such critical studies called it "The Source" and referred to it as Q, the initial letter of Quelle, the German word for source.

It is amazing that these theories of source critics have become so widely accepted because they are founded on speculation and imagination. It is significant that textual critics have never found any evidence that the so-called original co-source "Q" ever existed. It further seems absurd that Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness of the life of Jesus, would need a copy of Mark in front of him to guide his own writing.

Form Criticism

Another critical approach to the study of the gospels growing out of source criticism is "form criticism." Form criticism is the study of the oral transmission of gospel material. In the ancient Grecian world, rote memorization was used extensively by Jewish and Greek educators. Pritchard says that a common Jewish rabbinical saying was "that a good student is like a well-plastered cistern that never loses a drop" (19). Greek educators cultivated their students’ memories by having them memorize the Homeric poems. Private libraries were scarce in the ancient Grecian world, thus a man had to rely heavily upon his memory. Scholars such as A.B. Lord and G. Kennedy show that since the ancient Greeks and Jews read little by our standards, they had a much more prodigious verbal memory than is common today (Fiensy 125-126).

Some scholars believe oral accounts of the gospels were preferred to written records among the first century Christians, and they point to the practice of Paul as evidence. For the first forty years of the church’s history, many of the preachers and teachers of the gospel were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ career or had heard eyewitness accounts of it. These teachers stored in their retentive memories the things they had personally witnessed of Jesus or had learned from the apostles, and then they would pass the teaching along with a tenacious, almost verbatim recollection of the wording that would be unheard of today. Although Luke implies in his gospel introduction that there were several written accounts in existence, the early church undoubtedly relied upon word-of-mouth transmission of the gospel for several years.

The oral tradition of the gospel had been quietly ignored by the source critics, whose attention was fixed upon documentary records. After World War I, however, German scholars dramatically turned the focus of the world’s other Bible scholars to the oral tradition with a new discipline called "form criticism." Pioneers in this study were Rudolf Bultmann, who published his Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (History of the Synoptic Tradition) in 1931, and Martin Dibelius, whose Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Form Criticism of the Gospel) appeared in 1935. The theories of these two German scholars were rapidly accepted by British and American scholars, and today they are taught almost as factual in universities, Bible colleges, seminaries, and other educational institutions throughout the world.

Bultmann and Dibelius assumed that the original oral tradition behind the gospels took shape just like other folklore traditions (China, India, Persia, Greece), which were molded by constant repetition. They believed the oral gospel consisted of "pericopes" (brief independent sayings); and as it was being taught, church leaders adapted the gospel message with alterations, embellishments, and additions to fit specific situations. Consequently, they believed that after a period of several years when the gospel was finally written down, it had evolved into something much different from the original message. Bultmann, in his essay The Study of the Synoptic Gospels, says:

It may be seen quite clearly that the original tradition was made up almost entirely of brief single units (sayings or short narratives), and that almost all references to time and place which serve to connect up the single sections into a larger context are the editorial work of the evangelists (25).

The purpose of form criticism is to distinguish between the original oral tradition and the things critics believe were later added and altered by the evangelists and church leaders. It was the purpose of Bultmann and Dibelius to penetrate what they regarded as the "artificial crust of the written Gospel to its real core" (R. Alan Cole 27).

How is it possible to distinguish between what was part of the original oral gospel, and what was believed to be added later by the evangelists? Bultmann says:

This begins with the observation that, especially in primitive literature, literary expression (oral or written) makes use of more or less fixed forms, which have their own laws of style. In the Old Testament we have long been accustomed to recognize this feature and to apply the form-historical method. The forms of psalm, prayer, prophetic address, fable, story and historical narrative have been recognized and their stylistic laws have been described (Study of the Synoptic Gospels 28-29).

The first aim of the form critics, then, is to discover the laws of oral tradition in the "twilight period" when the tradition was still circulating orally.

The second aim of the form critics is to arrive at the actual happenings and sayings of Jesus.

As Bultmann and Debilius applied the form critical method to the gospels, the process comprised three operations: the oral units were classified according to a form, the forms were assigned to a life setting in the community or group which created them ("Sitz im Leben," life situation), and the historical value of each unit was assessed.

McDowell gives Bultmann’s listing of forms as follows:

1.    "Apothegms"--(may be controversial or biographical, practically the group called paradigms by Dibelius).

Bultmann writes:

(he) should reckon as part of the tradition of the sayings a species of traditional material which might well be reckoned as stories--viz. such units as consist of sayings of Jesus set in a brief context. I use a term to describe them which comes from Greek literature and is least question begging--"apothegms."

Some characteristics of Bultmann’s apothegms:

"The interest of the story centers on a saying of Jesus."

"The narrative is simple and brief, just long enough to make the story intelligible."

"The biographical interest, lacking in many of the narratives, forms an ingredient of the stories. Generally the parties concerned are vaguely described."

"The narrative ends in the saying or an act of Jesus."

Bultmann concedes that the background for the form may be true but the apothegm is not an historical report; it is a church construction.

2.    "Sayings"--which he divides into five groups (wisdom words, "I" words, prophetic and apocalyptic words, law words and community rules, and parables).

a.    Bultmann contends "Logia" or "Wisdom Sayings" were born as the result of community needs. Jesus was a wisdom teacher similar to other wisdom teachers in Israel, Judaism, and the Orient.

b.    "Prophetic Sayings" proclaimed the arrival of the Reign of God and preached the call to repentance, promising salvation for those who were prepared and threatening woes upon the unrepentant.

c.    "I Sayings" consist of all the sayings that are attributed to Jesus where He speaks of His work or His destiny or Himself. Bultmann alleges that Jesus did not speak of Himself in first person, but he admits that it is impossible to prove this.

d.    "Legal Sayings" are formed by Jesus’ words regarding the law, to which have been attached many sayings setting forth the regulations of the community....Though the church may have invented some of these legal sayings, Bultmann believes that as a whole these words conflict with legalism, and expressing a spiritual obedience to the will of God, go back to the prophetic personality of Jesus. Even though many of the sayings may have originated in the community, the spirit that lives in them goes back to the work of Jesus.

e.    "Parable" is defined as a concise and simple story that is much like a popular story in its concrete language, its use of dialectical language and soliloquy, and its repetition. It is a story told to call forth judgment on the part of the hearer; a judgment is made regarding the story of everyday human affairs and relations; then the judgment is applied in the realm of the spiritual life.

3.    "Miracle stories"--are those in which the miracle constitutes the main theme and is described with considerable detail, such as the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, the cure of the woman with the issue of blood, the raising of the daughter of Jairus from death, the stories of the stilling of the storm, of walking on the sea, and others.

4.    "Legend"--is a narrative that is both religious and edifying. It is not a miracle story or a history as such, but it may contain elements of both. Historical stories and legends are treated together by Bultmann, due to an inability to separate the two (217-228).

Bultmann’s Conclusions

Bultmann concludes that the gospels contain only about forty authentic, historically accurate statements, and these are from the group that he lists as "Sayings." He concludes that none of the "Miracle Stories" and none of the "Legends" are authentic. Bultmann rejects the idea that the writers of the gospels had any intention of being historically accurate and that the majority of the materials about Jesus are legendary or mythological fabrications. Bultmann believes the primitive Christians made up the stories recorded in the gospels in order to express their faith in Jesus in a concrete, objective way.

Analysis of Form Criticism

Form criticism has done a service by pointing out that the oral tradition existed for several years before the written scriptures. Further, there is nothing wrong with reading the gospels and classifying the materials according to literary form (parables, miracle stories, sayings, etc.), but to assume that the literary form of a statement determines whether it is true or false is invalid. As Fiensy says, "...it is a fallacy to conclude that a narrative or saying is unhistorical simply because one can find parallels to it in content or in form in other traditions or literature" (132). In other words, the fact there are legends and myths in other literature does not arbitrarily mean the miracle stories in the gospels are unsubstantiated legends and myths also.

McDowell quotes A.M. Hunter as saying:

One must never forget that the form in which a story is told can never tell us whether the substance of the story is true or false. The whole method is too subjective and speculative to afford us much sure guidance (238).

T.W. Manson observes:

A paragraph of Mark is not a penny the better or the worse for being labelled "Apothegm" or "Pronouncement Story" or "Paradigm." In fact if Form-criticism had stuck to its proper business, it would not have made any real stir. We should have taken it as we take the forms of Hebrew poetry or the forms of musical composition (McDowell 238).

The assumption of form critics that the church freely changed and created gospel material ignores the fact eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive when the last gospel was written and that any inaccurate and unhistorical narratives would have been exposed. In addition, the kind of evolution Bultmann and Dibelius believe took place in the gospels would have required much more time than the interval between the initial oral revelation and the actual writing of the gospels allowed.

The conclusions of Bultmann and his cohorts also ignore the tenacious memorization practiced in the ancient Grecian world. Kennedy cites the example of philosopher Seneca who memorized speeches and did not write them down until years later. Fiensy quotes Kennedy as adding:

It would have been a much less demanding task for regular hearers of Jesus or of the apostles to hold in memory a significant part of the teaching they had repeatedly heard and to recite it or write it down at any time there was reason to do so (126).

Another recent revelation by Kennedy is that many of the ancients practiced taking notes on the teachings of important people. Several of Socrates’ followers took notes on his teachings. These note takers included not only the elite of society but also some of the common people. It has been discovered that a cobbler took notes on everything he could remember of Socrates’ teaching and ended up with 33 dialogues (Fiensy 125). Since note taking was commonly practiced in ancient times, it is reasonable to assume some of Jesus’ disciples had notes of His sayings.

Finally, Bultmann and Dibelius prejudice their own conclusions about Tales, Legends, and Myths. The real problem for them--as they freely admitted--is that they did not believe in miracles. This was one of many presuppositions they brought with them to the study of the gospels. Consequently, they automatically dismissed any narrative with a miraculous element as being untrue--assuming again a point not proved.

Redaction Criticism

One other New Testament criticism that has recently grown out of form criticism is called "redaction criticism." Redaction means editor; hence, these critics focus on the "editorial work" done by the writers of the synoptic gospels. This discipline is hardly distinguishable from form criticism, except that redaction critics believe that each of the synoptic writers had a particular theological message they wanted to convey and that this message influenced their decisions about which materials they selected to put into their accounts of the gospel. Whereas form critics examine small segments of the gospels, redaction critics take a "macro-perspective"--looking at each gospel as a whole in order to see the overall theological theme intended by the author.

Conclusion

The major flaw in the entire higher critical approach to Bible study is that critics are forced to approach the Bible just as they would any other book. Consequently, they reject the divine inspiration of the text, any reference to miracles in the Bible narratives, and the supernatural in general. This approach is necessary, they say, because they are looking at the Bible from a historian’s point of view and not from a theologian’s.

Because the Bible claims to be an inspired book, the whole critical process becomes invalid, if one arbitrarily refuses to consider the contribution the Holy Spirit made to scripture. Gutherie insists that "the operation of the Spirit in Gospel origins is a vital factor, indeed the vital factor, in the historical situation" (232). Jesus promises His disciples the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance everything He had taught them and guide them into all truth (John 14:26; John 16:12-14). Thus, it is unwarranted to reject the work of the Spirit in the production of the gospels because it does not fit into the normal categories of literary criticism. As Hiebert says:

Literary and historical criticism may throw valuable light upon external circumstances and conditions connected with the writing of the gospels. But it cannot explain the inner guiding work of the Holy Spirit upon the authors. The Holy Spirit who controlled the formation and development of the gospel tradition also controlled the selection of the material by the different authors. As men voluntarily submitted to the guidance of the Spirit, He freely directed them in the selection of their material, whether from personal observation, eyewitnesses, or written sources. The preaching of the gospel was colored by individual emphasis and characteristic features which stemmed from the individual experiences and nature of the preachers. There was, however, a fundamental harmony in their message. The Holy Spirit, in superintending the composition of each gospel account, worked through the personality of the individual evangelist. Thus the account received a special emphasis and distinctive coloring appropriate to the writer’s own purposes and the needs of his audience (189-190).

This author agrees wholeheartedly with Hiebert’s words. Higher criticism cannot explain the inner guiding work of the Holy Spirit upon the authors of scripture. Since most of the work done by higher critics has been based on fallacious presuppositions (no guiding Holy Spirit; no miracles; etc.), it is for the most part useless in any investigation of the synoptic gospels.

In fact, the true fruit of higher criticism is skepticism of the reliability of the Bible--which has disastrous consequences. Case studies prove that when Christians lose confidence in the reliability of the Bible, they begin an irrevocable, theological deterioration, usually resulting in a denial of the inspiration of the scriptures and an abandonment of the faith. Because higher criticism has had such an adverse effect on people’s confidence in the Bible, it is commonly referred to today as "destructive higher criticism." When we see the presuppositions and prejudices higher critics bring to the study of the gospels, we can easily see their conclusions about them are erroneous. Accordingly, it is with the full conviction that The Gospel According to Mark is a part of the inspired, inerrant word of God that I humbly offer this commentary.

WORKS CITED

Amplified Bible, The. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Analytical Greek Lexicon. Wilmington, Delaware: AP & A, n.d.

Augustin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Bales, James D. "The New Covenant and the Bible," Firm Foundation (July 17, 1973): 4.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954.

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Berry, George Ricker. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Guardian Press, 1897.

Bickersteth, E. The Pulpit Commentary. Vol. XVI. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.

Bishop, Jim. The Day Christ Died. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1957.

Boles, H. Leo. Commentary on Matthew. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1936.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain, D.D. The Expositor’s Greek New Testament: The Synoptic Gospels. Vol. I. Editor W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1988.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain, D.D. The Training of the Twelve. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1971.

Bultmann, Rudolf and Karl Kundsin. Form Criticism. Translated by Frederick C. Grant. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1934.

Bundy, Walter E. Jesus and the First Three Gospels. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Burgon, John W., B.D. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Reprint. Faith and Facts Press, n.d.

Campbell, Alexander. The Christian System. Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1839.

Chrysostom. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Coffman, James Burton. Mark. Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1975.

Cole, R. Alan, Ph.D., M.Th. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961.

Coleman, James C. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1964.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Cyprian. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

De Vaux, Roland. Everyday Life in Bible Times. National Geographic Society, 1967.

Dickason, C. Fred. Angels, Elect and Evil. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.

Dorris, C. E. W. New Testament Commentaries: Mark. Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Company, 1970.

Edersheim, Alfred, D.D., Ph.D. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.

Edersheim, Alfred, D.D., Ph.D. Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

Edersheim, Alfred, D.D., Ph.D. The Temple. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Eerdmans’ Concise Bible Handbook. Edited by David and Pat Alexander. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lion Publishing, 1973.

Ellicott, Charles John. Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Edited by Charles John Ellicott. London, Paris, New York: Cassel, Petter, Galpin and Co., n.d.

Eusebius. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Translated and edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., and Henry Wace, D.D. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1890.

Fussell, Wayne. "This Cup Is the New Testament," 1990 Preachers’ Study Notes. Published by Christian’s Expositor, 1991.

Gould, Ezra P., S.T.D. The International Critical Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1970.

Halley, Henry H. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1975.

Hester, H. I. The Heart of the New Testament. Liberty, Missouri: The Quality Press, Inc., 1963.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.

Howard, V. E. The Book of Mark. Editor Jim Laws. Pulaski, Tennessee: Sain Publications, 1989.

Ignatius. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Irenaeus. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Jones, J. D., M.A, B.D. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Fincastle, Virginia: Scripture Truth, n.d.

Josephus. The Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Lynn, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1980.

Justin Martyr. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 Volumes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

Kitto, John, D.D., F.S.A. Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. 2 Volumes. New York: American Book Exchange, 1881.

Kraeling, Emil G., Ph.D. Rand McNally Bible Atlas. New York: Rand McNally and Company, 1961.

Lane, William L., Th.D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Laws, Jim. The Book of Mark. Pulaski, Tennessee: Sain Publications, 1989.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1946.

Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

MacKnight, James, D.D. A Harmony of the Four Gospels. Vol. I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950.

Marshall, Alfred, D. Litt. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.

Marshall, I. Howard. New International Greek Testament Commentary: Commentary on Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

McCord, Hugo, Th.D. New Testament Translation. Henderson, Tennessee: Freed-Hardeman College, 1988.

McDowell, Josh. More Evidence That Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, California: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1975.

McGarvey, J. W., LL.D. Jesus and Jonah. Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Dehoff Publications, 1952.

McGarvey, J. W., LL.D., and Philip Y. Pendleton, A.B. The Fourfold Gospel. Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Foundation, n.d.

McMillan, Earle. The Living Word Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark. Editor Everett Ferguson. Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973.

Moffatt, James, B.D., D.D., D.Litt. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925.

Monser, J. W. Types and Metaphors of the Bible. Cincinnati, Ohio: F. L. Rowe Publisher, 1886.

Needham, Mrs. George C. Angels and Demons. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.

Newberry, Alfred L. The Divine Pattern Advocate. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Published for private circulation, 1987.

Origen. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Orten, Dr. James D. and Alton B. Bailey. Sanitation in Communion. La Grange, Georgia: An Informer Publication, 1993.

Papias. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Patton, William, D.D. Bible Wines. Fort Worth: Star Bible and Tract Corp., 1976.

Pearlman, Moshe. Digging Up the Bible. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1980.

Perrin, Norman. What Is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Peterson, Hugh R. A Study of the Gospel of Mark. Nashville, Tennessee: Convention Press, 1958.

Phillips, J. B. The Gospels in Modern English. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959.

Phillips, J. B. The New Testment in Modern English. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959.

Phillips, J. D. The Cup of the Lord. Springfield, Missouri: Ronny Wade, Publisher, 1970.

Phillips, J. D. The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness. Harrison, Arkansas: Ronny Wade, Publisher, 1965.

Philo. The Works of Philo. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

Plummer, A., M.A., D.D. Cambridge Greek New Testament: The Gospel According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Pritchard, John Paul. A Literary Approach to the New Testament. Norman, Oklahoma: University Press, 1972.

Robertson, A. T., M.A., D.D., LL.D., Litt. D. A Harmony of the Gospels. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1922.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. I. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1930.

Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, The. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Shaw, Tommy. The Destruction of Jerusalem. Cassville, Missouri: Litho Printers, 1979.

Smith, Dr. William. Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by H. B. Hackett, D.D. 4 Volumes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1868.

Smith, Jay. Panorama of the New Testament. Nashville, Tennessee: Twentieth Century Christian, n.d.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins, D.D., LL.D. Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907.

Swete, Henry Barclay. Commentary on Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1977.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, D.D. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon. Grand Rapids, Michigan: AP & A, n.d.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1965.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1948.

Unger, Merrill F. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Vincent, M. R. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. I. McLean, Virginia: MacDonald’s Publishing Company, n.d.

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966.

Wade, Ronny. "Realized Eschatology--The A.D. 70 Doctrine," 1991 Preachers’ Study Notes. Published by Christian’s Expositor, 1992.

Wade, Ronny. The Sun Will Shine Again, Someday. Springfield, Missouri: Yesterday’s Treasures, 1986.

Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language. Second Edition. Editor William Allan Neilson, Ph.D., LL.D., L.H.D., Litt. D. Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1947.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. 2nd ed. Editor David B. Guralnik. New York and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1972.

Westcott, Brooke Foss, D.D., D.C.L. On the Canon of the New Testament. London: McMillan & Co., 1896.

Winkler, Wendell. The Book of Mark. Editor Jim Laws. Pulaski, Tennessee: Sain Publications, 1989.

Woodson, William. Difficult Texts of the New Testament Explained. Editor Wendell Winkler. Hurst, Texas: Winkler Publications, 1981.

Word Of God, The. The New International Version. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.

World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago, London, Sydney, Toronto: World Book Inc., 1984.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament. Vol. I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950.

Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957.