No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
In 1932, Professor Dodd published in the Expository Times an article on ‘The Order of Events in St. Mark's Gospel' which broke fresh ground in the Study of that Gospel. Dr Dodd then stated that in planning the first ten chapters St. Mark had a skeleton outline of our Lord's earthly career which he broke up into what now stand as editorial summaries. This outline he suggested was in the nature of a summary of the kerygma and approximated to the Petrine speech of Acts 10.37–41 or the Pauline speech in Acts 13.23–31. Into this outline were inserted the pericopae Mark collected sometimes on a historical, and at other times on a topical basis. This hypothesis held the field for a considerable time but it has recently been questioned by Professor Nineham in an examination of Dr Dodd's hypothesis in his contribution to Studies in the Gospels published in 1955. Indeed Professor Nineham takes the line that the presupposition of such a skeleton outline of our Lord's ministry which Mark used in the way Dr Dodd suggests is ‘highly improbable’.1 He questions the probability of such an outline having been preserved by the early Church. Referring to the changes in the Marcan pattern which both Matthew and Luke felt free to introduce when using St. Mark's Gospel as a basis, and to the difference in outlook between St. John's Gospel and the Synoptics, he concludes: ‘It does not appear that the precise order in which the saving events occurred seemed to the early Christian mind a very vital element in the saving proclamation or kerygma.'2 Professor Nineham is of course prepared to admit that the Passion narrative is in a class by itself and does not appear to question the accepted opinions of scholars that it was an early compilation of the primitive Church. But he rightly contends that there is no cogent evidence that the Church quite early agreed on ‘a formal outline account of the progress of the Lord's earthly ministry’.3
page 279 note 1 Studies in the Gospels, ed. Nineham, (London, 1955), p. 230Google Scholar.
page 279 note 2 ibid., p. 23.
page 279 note 3 ibid., p. 229.
page 280 note 1 See Dibelius, , Studies in Acts, ed. Greeven, (London, 1956), pp. 1–25Google Scholar.
page 281 note 1 The Origin of the Gospel of St. Mark (London, 1951), p. 106.
page 281 note 2 ibid., p. 115.
page 281 note 3 ibid., p. 116. See also Farrer, , A Study in Mark (London, 1951), p. 367fGoogle Scholar.
page 281 note 4 ibid., p. 76.
page 281 note 5 ibid, (see chap. IX).
page 281 note 6 Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (London, 1953), p. 4Google Scholar.
page 282 note 1 ibid., p. 5.
page 282 note 2 ibid., p. 28.
page 282 note 3 ibid., p. 31.
page 283 note 1 ibid., p. 32.
page 283 note 2 ibid., p. 44.
page 283 note 3 St. John, ed. Evans, (London, 1957), p. 57Google Scholar.
page 284 note 1 Caird, , Principalities and Powers, p. 70Google Scholar.
page 284 note 2 op. cit., p. 238.
page 284 note 3 Primitive Christian Calendar (London, 1952), p. 43Google Scholar.
page 285 note 1 ibid., p. 79; cf. Taylor, Vincent, St. Mark, p. 132Google Scholar.
page 285 note 2 ibid., p. 80.
page 285 note 3 ibid., p. 81.
page 285 note 4 ibid., p. 92.
page 285 note 5 op. cit., p. 33.
page 285 note 6 ibid., p. 26.
page 286 note 1 ibid., p. 27.
page 286 note 2 ibid., p. 79.
page 286 note 3 ibid., p. 34f.
page 286 note 4 ibid., p. 34.
page 286 note 5 ibid., p. 55.
page 286 note 6 ibid., p. 76.
page 286 note 7 ibid., p. 65.
page 286 note 8 ibid., p. 5.
page 286 note 9 ibid., p. 187.
page 287 note 1 ibid., p. 188.
page 287 note 2 ibid., p. 80f; cf. p. 303.
page 287 note 3 St. Matthew and St. Mark (London, 1954), p. 93Google Scholar.
page 287 note 4 ibid., p. 84.
page 288 note 1 ibid., p. 63.
page 288 note 2 ibid., p. 64.
page 288 note 3 ibid., p. 68.
page 288 note 4 ibid., p. 75.
page 289 note 1 ibid., pp. 81ff.
page 289 note 2 ibid., p. 82.
page 289 note 3 ibid., p. 69.
page 289 note 4 St. Mark, p. 52.
page 289 note 5 ibid., p. 297.
page 289 note 6 St. Matthew and St. Mark, p. 73.
page 289 note 7 ibid., p. 61.
page 290 note 1 ibid., p. 71.
page 290 note 2 ibid., p. 72.
page 290 note 3 Dr Farrer himself finds the Marcan plot too complicated to admit of that yardstick, St. Mark, p. 30f.
page 290 note 4 Farrer recognises this feature of St. Mark but does not attach enough importance to it. See especially St. Mark, pp. 235f, 245, 315.
page 292 note 1 Cf. Farrer's interpretation of the term παρρησ⋯ᾳ: St. Mark, p. 281; St. Matthew and St. Mark, p. 93.
page 294 note 1 Cf. 1 Thess. 2.14–16 where the Jews who killed Jesus are described as not pleasing God, and ‘preventing us’—two marks of satanic initiative.