JESUS' CLAIM TO SINGULARITY WITH YAHWEH: AN EXEGETICAL

STUDY OF "I AM" SAYINGS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

(Master's Thesis for MA Biblical Literature, Oral Roberts University, 2011)

CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE "I AM"
IN CHRISTIAN SCHOLARSHIP

Introduction
Many books and articles have been written on the significance of the "I Am"
sayings in Jesus' ministry and the self-identification of Jesus with Yahweh. Most
theologians have based such studies exclusively on the Fourth Gospel, neglecting any
discussion of possible "I Am" sayings found in the Synoptic Gospels. Generally, such
sayings in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are thought not to exist or, if they do, to present
little additional material to the discussion of Jesus' divinity. This thesis serves to examine
several "I Am" sayings from each of the Synoptic Gospels in order to determine the
context, meaning, and significance of Jesus' claim to singularity with Yahweh.1
The very existence of "I Am" sayings in the Synoptic Gospels is a matter of
debate among scholars. James D. G. Dunn considers that no such statements exist in the
synoptic tradition, and uses his assessment to invalidate their historical reliability.
What about these profound 'I am' claims? If they were part of the original words
of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John has picked them up, and none of
the others?...I find it almost incredible that such sayings should have been
neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus' teaching. If the 'I ams' had
been part of the original tradition, it is very hard indeed to explain why none of
the other three evangelists made use of them. 2

Edward H. Hall would appear to agree with this when he says that in the first
three gospels, "Jesus appears exclusively as the Jewish Messiah or Christ. And the Jewish

1
For the purpose of this thesis, it should be noted that the author adheres to the
primacy of Mark. While Luke and Matthew's rendition of relevant pericopes will be
discussed, a full study of the historicity of each evangelist's rendition from all possible
source theory "starting points" is far beyond the scope of this thesis.
2
James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985),
36.

77
 74

Messiah . . . was never thought of except as a man."3 In light of these assumptions, the "I
Am" sayings, which are plainly claims to divinity in the Fourth Gospel, are too often
dismissed as Johannine redaction, of little or no significance to the discussion of Jesus'
self-awareness. This is further evidenced by the fact that there even exists an argument of
Jesus' self-awareness in the first place. If one presupposes that the "historical Jesus" truly
said, and believed, such grandiose "I Am" statements in the light in which The Fourth
Gospel portrayed them, there would be little argument over the self-perception of Jesus,
let alone His deity.
In evaluating the historical validity of the "I Am" sayings, it is important to keep
in mind that there is no way to know for certain the actual, literal words that Jesus said, or
even the language in which He said them. It is therefore important to carefully evaluate
how much the evangelists' portrayal of Jesus' words has shaped their apparent meaning.
While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty what Jesus intended with His
words, Matthew, Mark, and Luke's interpretation of them – and the apparent meaning
which they attributed to them – does hold weight. However, as Paul W. Walaskay notes,
"Though the material the evangelist uses may be from written or oral sources, the very
way in which he uses it, the words and phrases he includes or omits. . .[and] his turning
from the source to set down his own thoughts point to the peculiar perspective of the
evangelist."4 In light of this, the Christological "motives" of each evangelist can be
referenced in the following study insomuch as they help to establish which words are
most likely authentic Jesus material, and how closely those words in the evangelist's
redactional context necessarily correspond to Jesus' intended context. If, for example,
Jesus said "I Am" to the Sanhedrin, and Mark recorded it in the context of the well-
attested "Messianic Secret," that does not necessarily mean that Jesus was clearing up the
Messianic Secret, or that He did not intend that his words would be understood in a very
different way. Only if one assumes that the Messianic Secret necessarily implies a
complete fabrication of Jesus' words does it present grounds for discrediting the historical
reliability of the text, or an exclusive interpretation of the text's meaning. Otherwise, the
simple fact that Mark presents the words in a way that seems tied to the Secret (or any
number of surrounding Christological terms) does not negate the validity of other
contexts in which they may have been understood. It furthermore does not negate the
possibility of a separate context in which Jesus may have intended them.

3
Edward H. Hall, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Christian Church (Boston:
American Unitarian Association, 1888), 23.
4
Paul W. Walaskay, "The Trial and Death of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 81.
 75

The Significance of " "5

For some, previous studies have yielded the conclusion that the
statements have no historical authenticity. Others suggest that even though Jesus may
have said them, He certainly did not imply singularity with Yahweh. For others, such as
Ethelbert Stauffer:
There can be no doubt that this theophanic formula goes back to Jesus himself.
This will not justify the assertion that Jesus uttered all the sayings mentioned in
that evidence and these alone, that he spoke them in exactly those circumstances
and with that wording as they are reported. But it may be said with great
confidence that the theophanic formula ANI HU [recorded in Greek as ]
6
must have played a decisive part in Jesus' witness to himself.

George A. F. Knight considers Jesus' statements to be a claim "that from

the beginning Jesus had been doing what God does, namely, love and save and recreate."7
This interpretation in no way suggests any sort of ontological relationship to Yahweh. C.
K. Barrett would seem to agree with Knight, as he suggests that Jesus does not use the
statement as a name "to identify himself with God in any exclusive and final sense, but to
draw attention to himself as the one in whom God is encountered and known."8
This conclusion makes sense from a theological standpoint, and in many cases
from a grammatical one. In the Fourth Gospel, from which most studies have
been drawn, the saying is often coupled with a metaphorical or symbolical predicate.
There are, however, instances where the usage cannot be explained in terms of simple
grammatical structure, such as in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM."9 In this case,
there is no obvious predicate, and Barrett admits that "the phrase itself, if not a title,
implies a distinct role and dignity."10

5
All Greek references are from The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. rev., ed.
Barbara Aland et al. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994).
6
Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (London: S.C.M. Press, 1960), 157.
7
George A. F. Knight, I Am: This is my Name (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983),
61.
8
C.K. Barrett, St. John (London: SPCK, 1960), 98.
9
Unless otherwise indicated all Bible references in this paper are to the New King
James Version (NKJV) (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994).
10
Barrett, 112.
 76

Rudolf Bultmann established the standard four categories for understanding the
statements of Jesus. The "presentation formula" answers the question, "Who are
you?" The "qualificatory formula" answers the question, "What are you?" The
"identification formula" is used to identify one's self with another person or object.
Finally, the "recognition formula" answers the question, "Who is the one who is
expected, asked for, or spoken to?"; to which the answer is, "I am he."11 However, it is
important to recognize that an attempt to classify the "I Am" sayings based on what
question they are answering is necessarily speculative in nature. Furthermore, basing
such speculation solely on Greek sentence structure of a Hebrew writer is only
considering half of the writer's possible intention. If "I Am" was understood by the
Hebrews as a proper title for Yahweh, its usage cannot be accounted for by determining
what sort of question it answers. This is, in fact, how Johannes Richter views it: "Ani hu
is a code-word of absolute monotheism and thus it becomes 'by its breadth and all-
embracing significance the sum of all God's statements about himself.' By reasoning that
ego eimi in the New Testament does indeed point back to ani hu in the Old Testament, he
maintains that Jesus speaks as God."12
With this in mind, Georg Strecker has more recently divided the usage of "
" into four different categories: extended metaphors, indirect sayings, absolute "I
Am," and a secular recognition formula, "I am he."13 Using these categories, it is the
usage of the absolute "I Am" with which the current study is concerned.

The Absolute "I Am" in Context

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger suggests, "When Jesus proclaims his 'I AM,' he is
unambiguously playing on a formula that recalls the Old Testament text about the
revelation of the divine Name."14 Understanding the context of the absolute "I Am"
sayings in the Old Testament is essential not only for this reason, but because the phrase
gains its significance and, indeed, its definition through usage in the Old Testament. As

11
Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 225-26, n. 3.
12
Johannes Richter, "Ani hu und Ego eimi: Die Offenbarungsformel 'Ich bin es'
im Alten und Neuen Testament" (Unpublished dissertation); quoted in David Mark Ball,
"I Am" in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications
(Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 33.
13
Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Walter de Gruyter,
2000), 487.
14
Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the
Everlasting Names, trans. Frederick H. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 44.
 77

noted by Larry W. Hurtado, "The absolute form, ego eimi, does not occur in classical
Greek literature; it is in fact very difficult to posit any assured uses of the expression in
sources prior to (or not influenced by) the New Testament writings except for the uses in
the Greek Old Testament."15 [emphasis his] In addition, it is only the absolute usage of
the saying that is used as a "conclusive parallel" to the New Testament. 16 Thus, it is not
too bold to assume that the absolute "I Am" gained its meaning from the Septuagint
(LXX),17 particularly in Isaiah. There, the Hebrew phrase aWh yn'a,18 associated with the
self-identification of Yahweh, is translated with the Greek . Additionally, in
instances such as Isaiah 45:18, the phrase hwhy yn'a is rendered simply, " ."
This point of contact is essential when considering the usage of the phrase in the
New Testament. As David Mark Ball points out, "It is not only these words themselves
that are important, but it is also the thought world to which Jesus' words point, which
helps explain what he means when he utters the phrase."19 The thought world of the
Israelites was one which so exalted the name and person of God that utterance of the
Divine Name was considered blasphemy. 20 In fact, the aWh yn'a/ designation was
likely an attempt to avoid such blasphemy. One must consider, then, the religious
implications of using the title to refer to one's self. Hurtado points this out with no
hesitation when he claims, "This absolute use of 'I am' in the Gospels amounts to nothing
less than designating Jesus with the same special referential formula that is used in the
Greek Old Testament for God's own self-declaration."21 By use of the absolute ,
Jesus is laying claim to the name of Yahweh.
15
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 371, n. 41. See also G. Braumann, "I Am," The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, ed. Colin Brown (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 278.
16
David Mark Ball, "I Am" in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and
Theological Implications (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 177.
17
All Septuagint references are from Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
18
All Hebrew references are from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th ed.
corrected (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1997).
19
Ball, 177-178.
20
Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5. This passage will be discussed in further detail in
Chapter 2.
21
Hurtado, 371.
 78

The Fourth Gospel is full of such "I Am" sayings. Many scholars have noted that
this is difficult to reconcile with the so-called Messianic Secret of the Synoptic Gospels.
The scholastic tendency is, therefore, to regard the "I Am" sayings in The Fourth Gospel
as the theological reflections of the author, not necessarily the direct words of Jesus. As
G. H. Parke-Taylor summarizes, "Most Johannine scholars would understand the Fourth
Gospel as an inspired commentary on the theological meaning of the incarnation, death,
and resurrection of Jesus."22 Knight suggests that while the words of Jesus may be
authentic, The Fourth Gospel "employs the ambivalent language of Jesus' own words
found in the Synoptic Gospels, in such a manner that he seems to have turned the words
of Jesus into pictorial theology."23 Parke-Taylor further suggests that the question is not
whether a link exists between the statements of the Synoptic and Fourth Gospels,
but rather "whether Jesus actually used the absolute regarding himself."24 If
these sayings are to be regarded as the Fourth Gospel presents them (as Jesus' definitive
claim to the title of Yahweh) it is necessary to find similar, supporting statements in the
Synoptic Gospels as well, even in the midst of the Messianic Secret.
Many scholars have omitted the Synoptic "I Am" sayings from their Christology
on the basis that such sayings are not present—or, at least, not as clear—in any other
gospel as in the Fourth. This writer argues that recognizing not only the association, but
the equality of Jesus to "I Am" in all four Gospels is fundamental to an understanding of
Christ and whom He described Himself to be. Though the statements in the Synoptic
presentations are not as obvious, they are arguably still present in all four Gospels, and
can be considered authentic claims to the name of Yahweh—the One God of both Jews
and Christians.

The Consequence of Jesus' "I Am" Usage

By revealing His personal name to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "God made a full
declaration of his inmost being."25 The giving of this name redefined the relationship He
had already established with His people. No longer was He merely the God of the
Fathers, Elohim, but He now related to them on the basis of a fuller revelation of

22
G. H. Parke-Taylor, Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible (Waterloo, Ontario:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975), 108.
23
Knight, 61.
24
Park-Taylor, 108.
25
Clifton Allen, ed., Genesis-Exodus, Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 1
(Nashville: Broadman, 1973), 314.
 79

Himself. 26 Christopher R. Seitz expresses this progression succinctly when he states,

"The named deity whose name existed from time immemorial reveals who he is in the
events of liberation from bondage in Egypt. He gets no new name. The old name [of
Elohim] is filled with fullest content."27 According to Albrecht Alt, one of the primary
functions of the narrative in Exodus 3 is to unify Elohim and Yahweh, "by presenting the
same God as bearer of the old and new divine names. The story thus becomes the link by
which the Elohist sagas of the patriarchs and of Moses can be kept distinct and yet
brought into a very close relationship with one another."28
Jesus' relation to Yahweh is analogous to this relationship between Yahweh and
the "God of the Fathers." As Yahweh's expression of Himself to Moses granted a new
and deeper understanding of His being, the expression of Himself as the man Jesus did
the same. The manifestation of God as a human being did not separate, or even
distinguish, Jesus from Yahweh, except in the experience and perception of Him now
available to His people. As Yahweh remained Elohim, and the experience of Elohim
continued to be felt through a deeper relationship with Yahweh, so too Jesus remains
both Yahweh and Elohim. This suggests that in the same way that Yahweh continues to
be referred to as "the God of the Fathers," Jesus continues to be the great "I Am."
With this assumption in mind, it is both probable and fitting that Jesus would have
laid claim to this name. It is also likely that the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day, very much
aware of the omniscience of Yahweh, would have had a difficult time with the notion that
a mere man from Nazareth could proclaim himself as the "I Am." Any claim to that title
would have surely been regarded as blasphemy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the
trial before the Sanhedrin.

26
Brevard S. Childs, Exodus, Old Testament Library, vol. 2 (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1974), 75.
27
Christopher R. Seitz, "The Divine Name in Christian Scripture," in This is my
Name Forever: The Trinity & Gender Language for God (Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 2001), 25.
28
Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A.
Wilson (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1966),11.
 80

CHAPTER 2
THE SANHEDRIN TRIAL

Establishing Validity
One of the greatest difficulties in any study of the Sanhedrin Trial Pericope is first
establishing the historical reliability of the text. Perhaps the most difficult hurdle one
must overcome in establishing this is the validity of the trial in the context of Jewish law.
The recent emphasis in Christian scholarship on Roman involvement in the trial of Jesus
shifts the focus away from the sensitive topic of Jewish culpability in the murder of the
Christian Savior. This re-evaluation is not without merit, as it has been noted that the
Sanhedrin trial of Jesus clearly violates rules set forth in the Mishnah. As Adela Yarboro
Collins points out, while the sources are admittedly later, "if the regulations described in
the Mishnah were in force during the time of Jesus, then the trial before the council was
illegal, even a gross miscarriage of justice."29 In light of this, the credibility of a report
emphasizing an illegal trial has been a primary concern from the beginning of the current
age of scholarship. Since only a brief overview can be given at this time, it should be
noted that not all positions and possibilities have been presented here.

Validity of the Trial Itself

Herbert Danby, whose translation of the Mishnah is still widely in use today,
points out that arguing the illegality of the Sanhedrin trial on the basis of Sanhedrin 7:5
poses two substantial problems. Firstly, even if one accepts the historicity of the account
as presented, this does not mean that it provides a complete description of the entire
proceedings. Danby, for example, accepts the account in Mark as earlier, but ultimately
concludes that "in the third Gospel we are nearer the truth of the matter than in the
Markan tradition." 30 Secondly, the argument assumes that the tractate which was
compiled in the late-second century provides a code that was applicable in the early-first
century, a point which Danby argues was not necessarily the case. 31 Dissenting to
Danby's second point, Jewish scholar Israel Abrahams provides considerable evidence
that the tradition and procedure described in the Mishnah was valid and in practice during
the time of Jesus, even if it was not written down until a later date. He grants, in

29
Adela Yarboro Collins, "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64," Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004): 380. ATLA Religion Database, EBSCOhost (3
March 2010).
30
Danby, 64.
31
Herbert Danby, "The Bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the Jewish
Trial," Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1919): 55-56.
 81

accordance with Danby, "So great, indeed, is the discrepancy between the Rabbinic and
the Gospel trials, that the Mishnah almost looks like a polemic of the former against the
latter." 32 However, he maintains that in no case would the Gospel narratives have
influenced the writing of the Mishnah. Instead, the Mishnah relies upon authentic
tradition, with multiple parallels to Christian Scripture.33
Finally, Robert Horton Gundry renders insignificant the question of legality, at
least as a means for determining the story's authenticity, by simply allowing for the
possibility that the trial was unjust. He maintains that "the mishnaic judicial regulations
do not compete with the irregularities in Jesus' trial so as to require either a later dating of
those regulations or a de-historicizing of that trial." He argues that if the account were
fabricated by Mark, irregularities would have been explained to Mark's Gentile audience.
If the account was fabricated by a pre-Markan source, it raises the question of why any
Christian so close to the events described would risk the credibility of the passion
narrative by fabricating details which "might easily be recognized and exposed in an
early Jewish setting."34
Hans Lietzmann, noted by Darrell L. Bock for setting the stage of the discussion
over the last century, posed that the trial narrative was entirely a Markan creation. 35 He
argued that had Jesus been tried by the Sanhedrin, He would have been executed by
stoning—as was the Jewish custom in accordance with Leviticus 24:10-16—rather than
by crucifixion. Building on Lietzmann's work, Paul Winter's argument against the
historicity of the account also centered, in part, around the fact that the Jews did not
crucify. 36 While this argument is valid, Bock points out a fundamental flaw when he
states, "It is one thing to say the Jews did not execute by crucifixion and another to
consider whether they could pass on some of their felons to Rome for crucifixion." 37 In

32
Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, vol. 2 (Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2004), 137.
33
Abrahams, 9.
34
Robert Horton Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 893.
35
Hans Lietzmann, "Der Prozess Jesu," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: N.P., 1931); quoted in Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy
and Exaltation in Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 7.
36
Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co, 1961), 66.
37
Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2000), 9.
 82

1980, August Strobel took a different approach from the attempt to refute the theory of
Lietzmann and Winters. He posed that the Jews simply had no authority by which to
issue a death sentence. 38
E. P. Sanders presents a list of discrepancies which ultimately lead him to reject
the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial. Among them, he points out that the Gospel writers
had both a political and a theological reason to shift blame from the Romans onto the
Jews.39 While this is most evident in Luke, it is reasonable to assume that all of the
Gospel writers considered there to be a logical motive for exculpating the Romans in the
murder of Jesus. However, establishing such motive does not, in and of itself, prove that
Mark, or any of the evangelists, would have fabricated any part of the Passion Narrative.
Perhaps Sanders' most substantial argument is one adopted by David R.
Catchpole: "Jesus was theologically unexceptionable in what was anyway an atmosphere
of religious tolerance, and therefore said and did nothing meriting prosecution by the
Sanhedrin."40 Indeed, there were other messiahs. As Sanders points out, "Subsequent
would-be messiahs were not charged with blasphemy and 'son of God' might mean
almost anything."41
The potential illegality of the Sanhedrin trial is not sufficient to disprove the
historical reliability of the account as presented in the Gospel texts. There is no
conclusive evidence that the proceedings were illegal; if they were, it is entirely possible
that they were conducted illegally. Furthermore, while there is enough reason to suggest
that a claim to messiahship was not sufficient to elicit a charge of blasphemy, this very
point may lend itself more to the true eccentricity of Jesus' actions and statements, in a
context not easily understood by latter Christian scholars. Certainly a bold-faced claim to
be one and the same with Yahweh would have sufficed to set Him apart from these other
messiahs.

Validity of Jesus' Words

If one accepts the historical fact of the account, in and of itself, there remains the
question of Jesus' actual words, which are presented differently by all three Synoptic

38
August Strobel, "Die Stunde der Wahrheit," Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 21 (Tubigen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1980); quoted in Darrell L. Bock,
Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000)
39
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 296-306.
40
David R. Catchpole, "The Problem of the Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial," in
The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the
Present Day (Naperville, IL: Alex R. Allenson Inc. 1970), 48.
41
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 297.
 83

writers. The elimination of the "I Am" statement from Matthew's gospel and Luke's
longer rendering, "You say that I Am," will be discussed in more detail later. Assuming
the Gospel of Mark (or proto-Mark) was the primary source which Matthew and Luke
consulted regarding the Trial Narrative, it is first necessary to consider the shorter
rendering of Jesus' words in Mark.
Stauffer's controversial work, largely discredited by contemporary scholars for his
eccentric and often abrasive presentation, nonetheless provides reasonable evidence for
the "I Am" saying of Jesus before the Sanhedrin by examining the writings of Jewish
Rabbis Eleazar and Abbahu. Stauffer correlates the writings of both rabbis, who both
warn against anyone who would say "I am God," "I am the Son of Man," and finally, "I
will ascend into heaven." He suggests that these three sayings, presented in order, seem to
correlate with the content of Mark 14:62, "I Am, and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." 42 [emphasis added]
This sort of associative reasoning, while interesting, is not definitive. Arguing for
a text-critical perspective, Rudolph Bultmann speaks of the insertion of Mark 14:55-64.43
So too says Winter, of the same text.44 However, as Catchpole points out, this theory does
not include verse 65, which is closely tied to the text in question. 45 Winter accepts verse
65 as an independent tradition, which Mark so positioned to weave together the trial,
mockery, and denial. 46 While Catchpole concedes, in part, to this argument, he maintains
Winter goes too far in declaring this as proof against the historicity of the account. He
instead claims, "The exposure of the editorial method of Mark does not prejudge the
matter of historicity either way."47 [emphasis his]
John R. Donahue considers the majority of the text to be Mark's creative material.
He regards the content of verses 61-62, in particular, as Mark's "Christological

42
Stauffer, 155-56.
43
Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. by John Marsh (New
York: Harper & Row, 1963), 269. See also Carl R. Kazmierski, Jesus, the Son of God: A
Study of the Markan Tradition and its Redaction by the Evangelist (Wurzburg, Germany:
Echter Verlag, 1979), 168.
44
Paul Winter, "The Markan Account of Jesus' Trial by the Sanhedrin," Journal of
Theological Studies 14 (1963): 99.
45
Catchpole, "Problem of the Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial," 55.
46
Winter, 99.
47
Catchpole, 56.
 84

compendium."48 Illustrating Mark's creative authorship, Mary Ann Beavis draws

distinctive parallels between Peter's confession in Mark 8:27-33 and the Sanhedrin trial
text. She concludes that the parallels "are enough to suggest that the two passages were
constructed according to the same pattern,"49 but maintains that the differences between
them are even greater, and that the trial narrative should not be understood as a "parody"
of the scene at Caesarea Philippi. 50
Mark's use of "writer's privilege" on any particular passage can never be proven
or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Certainly, Mark had both motive and means to
word his gospel in such a way as to communicate his Christological message more
clearly. Furthermore, it is not only possible, but probable, that his sources were not able
to provide a verbatim account of Jesus' words. However, it is one thing to acknowledge
Mark's creative contribution, and another matter entirely to consider the words of the
Bible "fabricated." If there is no convincing reason to believe that Mark intentionally
altered his text, it must be allowed that the way he recorded the words of Jesus preserves
the content and context of Jesus' statement.

Alternate Rendering
There is an alternative rendering of the text of Mark 14:62, in the secondary
Manuscript �. While it is not as well attested in the Patristic Era, and has a limited
geological distribution, some scholars have argued for the superiority of the manuscript's
rendering, " ," which conforms more closely to " " in
Matthew 26:64 and " " in Luke 22:70. Vincent Taylor prefers the
longer rendering because it preserves the Messianic Secret elsewhere attested in Mark. 51
Burnett H. Streeter also cites this connection as evidence to the longer reading's
authenticity, in addition to the fact that he considers an obscure and hesitant reply more
likely. 52

48
John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of
Mark (Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 1973), 101.
49
Mary Ann Beavis, "The Trial Before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53-65): Reader
Response and Greco-Roman Readers," Catholic Bible Quarterly 49 (1987): 586. ATLA
Religion Database, EBSCOhost (3 March 2010).
50
Beavis, 587.
51
Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (New York: St. Martin's,
1966), 567-568.
52
Burnett H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 322.
 85

However, this is not substantial evidence, according to text critics (such as Jean
Claude Loba-Mkole), who convincingly defended the shorter rendering through an
overview of internal and external considerations. Loba-Mkole maintains that the most
reliable uncial manuscripts attest to the shorter rendering.53 Furthermore, "the longer
reading has no evidence which can challenge all the witnesses supporting the shorter
reading."54 Shifting the criticism to internal considerations, he points out that the only
substantial argument for the longer reading is accidental omission, a suggestion which
"has no fit justification based on transcriptional probability."55
Joel Marcus and most other textual critics consider the longer reading "poorly
attested"56 and "clearly secondary." 57 Witnesses to the longer reading are limited to
Origen's commentary on John and later Greek manuscripts, while Irenaeus and Clement
of Alexandria attest to the shorter rendering found in all other, earlier texts. In addition,
Renatus Kempthorne points out that the longer construction is not typical of Mark.58 The
general consensus that the shorter rendering is more authentic is evidenced by the fact
that all text critical editions of the Bible prefer it over the longer rendering. 59
As a possible explanation for the variation, Craig A. Evans points one's attention
to Matthew and Luke, whose renderings "may represent attempts to mitigate the
presumptiveness of Jesus' bald statement, 'I am.' Inspired by the qualifications and feeling
the same pressure, a later scribe copying Mark may have expanded and qualified Jesus'

53
a, B, L, and all preserve the shorter rendering.
54
Jean Claude Loba-Mkole, "Disclosure of the Messianic Secret in Mk 14:62? A
Text Critical Response," Neotestamentica 33 (1999): 117.
55
Loba-Mkole, 119.
56
Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16, Anchor Bible, vol. 27A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1985), 1005.
57
Bock, 200 n. 39.
58
Renatus Kempthorne, "The Markan Text of Jesus' Answer to the High Priest,"
Novum Testamentum 19 (1977): 200.
59
Loba-Mkole provides a list of these editions, as well as a list of exegetes who
continue to defend the longer reading in his article. Loba-Mkole, 116.
 86

reply: 'You have said that I am.'"60 Catchpole goes a step further, to say that it is most
likely this later rendering is an assimilation from Matthew.61

Tension Among the Gospels

The shorter answer of " " is well suited to Mark's Christological message,
and the later expansion of the statement by a scribe seems likely. While this does not
present definitive evidence of the historical authenticity of Mark's shorter rendering, it
supports the theory that the bold statement reflects the material preserved by Mark from
his source. The longer statement attested by Matthew and Luke, which in both cases
answers the question more vaguely, can therefore either be viewed as Matthew and
Luke's own separate and coincidentally similar (not identical) redactions upon Mark or
their reliance upon an alternative source or sources.
It has been suggested that Matthew and Luke constructed their responses to
similarly conform to Jesus' response to Pilate in Mark 15:2.62 The textual evidence allows
for this. However, it presents the question of why Matthew in particular, since he
eliminates the altogether, preferred this reference over a proclamation of such
potential significance. This is particularly puzzling since, as Catchpole points out,
"Matthew . . . is not opposed to the theophanic sense of or to the assimilation of
the divine presence into Jesus."63
Gundry suggests the somewhat doubtful possibility that "Matthew changed Mark
in that very way because he wanted to keep Jesus from answering under oath in violation
of Matt. 5:33-37, a passage unique to Matthew's gospel."64 Donald A. Hager uses the
Messianic Secret Theory to argue in favor of the shorter reading's authenticity: "In this
alteration of Mark, Matthew probably intends to allow for qualification and to preserve
the consistency of the indirectness of Jesus' messianic claims, especially vis-à-vis his
opponents, throughout his narrative. Matthew, whose Christology is generally more
explicit than Mark's, would not in principle have objected to Mark's ."65
60
Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 34B
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 450.
61
David R. Catchpole, "Jesus Answer to Caiaphas (Matt. 26:64)," New Testament
Studies 17 (1970/71): 220.
62
Streeter, 322.
63
David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 134.
64
Gundry, 910.
65
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol 33B
(Waco, TX: Word, 1995), 800.
 87

In a harsh criticism of Matthew's redaction of the text, Stauffer blames the

apocalyptic emphasis of Matthew's work for the invalidation of what he considers to be
Jesus' true words. He provides a nearly vicious commentary on Matthew's non-treatment
of the text, claiming that in altering the saying, Matthew "has again transformed
this traditional theophanic formula to fit in with his messianic dogma, and thus debased
it."66 Stauffer's point may hold some validity, but he goes too far in later stating, "The
transmission of Jesus 'I' saying in Matt. 26:64 is an impressive document of the apostasy
of the apostolic preaching, the kerygma, from Jesus' original message."67
Catchpole, who maintains that Matthew was wholly dependent on Mark for his
source, suggests that Matthew changed Mark's to in favor of a more
Semitic idiom. However, he does not regard that Matthew changed the intensity of
Mark's statement in a way that lowered his Christology:
Such a change in sense, and particularly stemming from this evangelist, is almost
unbelievable, for in the rest of the gospel Matthew never lowers Christology, and
the Sanhedrin trial is the last place where such a modification would be expected.
This in itself constitutes strong evidence for the view that means 'Yes',
modified only by the implication that more is needed for a complete
understanding of Jesus, which indeed the kingly Son of Man saying immediately
provides. 68

If not a lowering of Christology, the alteration does suggest a different emphasis,

if Mark's is to be understood as a theophanic formula. However, that Matthew
chooses a different emphasis does not suggest that he is correcting Mark, historically or
theologically. The redaction is due to Matthew's different Christological interest, and is
both allowable and in character for this gospel writer. In fact, Matthew elsewhere does
not consider himself obligated to present a story identical to his source. Even where his
theology may be, as a whole, aligned with that of Mark—as previously noted—he
sometimes chooses to emphasize different points in light of the greater message of his
Gospel.69 However, if Matthew altered his source to emphasize the Son of Man, this does
not affect the historical reliability of the account in Mark.
Considering now the rendition of Jesus' answer recorded in Luke, it is interesting
that the Greek grammar of Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk

66
Stauffer, 150.
67
Stauffer, 158.
68
Catchpole, "Jesus' Answer to Caiaphas," 221.
69
A similar alteration will be addressed in chapter 3 of this thesis, pertaining to his
rendition of Jesus walking on the water.
 88

translates Luke 22:70, "You have said, for I Am." 70 Their rendition of John 18:37, Jesus'
answer to Pilate, is similarly punctuated. Kempthorne agrees that this is a possible
translation, but reminds that "the natural construction of after seems inevitable.
No better is to read a period and continue, 'Because I am a king, I have been born.'"71
Since this rendering of " ," while grammatically feasible, is admittedly not the
most naturally suggested by the text, one must still seek to answer the question of why
Luke has chosen to offer the more obscure " ," rather than the
clear " " statement of Mark.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer speculates that Luke may well have known the Markan
tradition, but chose not to reflect it in order to draw attention to the reference of Psalm
110 and Daniel 7:13-14.72 Catchpole suggests that Luke had a second source, other than
Mark (or proto-Mark) that he incorporated into the trial scene. He considers Luke's
account most historically reliable.73 Catchpole also addresses the "muted similarity" of
Matthew and Luke against Mark, but considers this accidental, and not evidence of
Matthew’s reliance on Luke’s source. Instead, "Luke 22:69 and Matthew 26:64 are
independent redactions of Mark 16:62, the former being an intrusion of material drawn
from Mark into a non-Markan context."74
Another theory, held by John Kilgallen, poses that Luke intentionally separated
the title "Messiah" from "Son of God" in order to draw attention to the mockery of justice
in Jesus' trial. 75 In separating the two, Luke emphasizes the fact that the Sanhedrin
receives no admission of "guilt" regarding the title of Messiah, (which is the accusation
brought before Pilate) but that Jesus does give them the pointed answer, "you say that I
am the Son of God." Kilgallen suggests that "Luke's separation of the two titles for Jesus
is a deliberate choice, not the unintentional result from use of a source other than

70
Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1961), 441.
71
Kempthorne, 202.
72
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke, Anchor Bible, vol. 28A (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1985), 1463.
73
Catchpole, "Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial," 65.
74
Catchpole, "Jesus' Answer to Caiaphas," 220.
75
John Kilgallen, "Jesus' First Trial: Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22:66-71),"
Biblica 80 (1999): 401-414.
 89

Mark."76 In agreement with this position, Walaskay suggests, "Luke has made clear to his
readers that the Sanhedrin knew the politico-religious distinction but chose, in its
accusation to Pilate, to place the emphasis solely on the political side."77 In fact, Luke
seems narrowly concerned only with the juxtaposition of the two titles, and it is not too
bold to say that he has altered his source to reflect what he considers to be a gross
distinction. Perhaps the potential is even greater in Luke, than in Matthew, to lose the
Christological message. Whereas Matthew was concerned with the Son of Man message,
Luke's emphasis on the culpability of the Sanhedrin in the death of Jesus could even be
responsible for making the Christological message of Jesus' words more obscure.
As previously mentioned, it is also a possibility that a separate source or sources
may have been used by Matthew and Luke in their more vague renditions of the
statement. If such sources exist, it is at least possible that they preserve an earlier
tradition. While the use of different verbs in different constructions may be a result of
Matthew's more Hebraic writing style against Luke's phrasing for his Greek audience, it
certainly suggests that the evangelists' sources for these additions were oral and not
written. However, it should be noted that even in the case that Matthew and Luke agree
against Mark on the basis of an alternative tradition, it would be difficult to definitively
prove that this tradition is more authentic than Mark's.
While a separate source may have been consulted by Matthew and Luke, the
simple fact that Luke retains Mark's " " suggests that he did not necessarily
consider the alternative source more authentic. In fact, Luke holds a "middle ground,"
conforming no more to Matthew than to Mark in his recounting of Jesus' statement.
Matthew's possible reasons for opting to use an alternative tradition are not likely
different than if he had redacted the text without such a source. In any case, there is no
indication that either Luke or Matthew would have objected in principle to Mark's
presentation.

Divine Name or Affirmative Statement?

Any consideration of the statements as instances of the Divine Name
must first address the issue of Greek grammar. Why not simply understand as an
affirmative statement? As scholars arguing against the understanding of "I Am" as a
divine title have been quick to point out, a man born blind can say "I am" in John 9:9.78
The words themselves are merely a combination of a first person pronoun with a copula.
Collins sums up the phrase as "an ambiguous formulation that can signify a

76
Kilgallen, 401.
77
Walaskay, 82.
78
Gundry, 910.
 90

simple positive response. . .or be an allusion to scripture that implies divinity."79

Therefore, it is necessary to determine which of these was intended, based on the context
of the words and the reactions they elicited. As Raymond E. Brown suggests, while the
title may simply be a direct affirmative answer, it "provokes the charge of blasphemy—a
charge that would be more understandable if Jesus were claiming a divine name rather
than simply affirming messiahship."80
Heinrich Zimmerman, as quoted by Donahue, poses that Jesus' functions
here as a rekognitionsformel, in accordance with Bultmann's four categories discussed in
chapter one.81 However, one may argue that this categorization is insufficient, for it does
not take into account the potential understanding of as a proper name. Randolph
O. Yeager takes the possibility of this rendering for granted in his translation of this and
other passages. 82 It is Raymond Brown's position that it is used as such in accordance
with Isaiah 43:25. While the Fourth Gospel makes this explicit, it is used this way in all
four gospels.83 Furthermore, the Tractate Sopherim of the Babylonian Talmud lists the
manifestation formula of Exodus 3:14, (‫שׁר ֶא ְהי ֶה‬
ֶ ‫ ) ֶא ְהי ֶה ֲא‬among substitute names of
Yahweh.84
Stauffer presents a detailed argument for translating /aWh yn'a on the basis
of theological significance to Jesus' Jewish audience at the time rather than the
grammatical aspects of the Greek text. He compares Jesus' use of the (Hebrew) term to a
riddle posed by Hillel the Elder, a contemporary of Jesus. During the Feast of
Tabernacles, Hillel posed the saying which Stauffer translates, "When ANI is here, then
all is here. When ANI is not here, then who is here?" According to Stauffer, the "yn'a"

79
Collins, "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64," 398.
80
Raymond E. Brown, John, Anchor Bible, vol. 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1985), 538.
81
Heinrich Zimmerman, "Das absolute 'Ich bin' in der Redeweise Jesu," Trierer
Theologische Zeitschrift 69 (1960): 20; quoted in John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ?
The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 1973),
91, n. 4.
82
Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament, vol. 8 (Gretna, LA:
Pelican,1998), 290. See also vol. 2: 453, 455; vol. 5: 439.
83
Raymond Brown's consideration of the Synoptic "I Am" sayings is, in large part,
a basis for the current research. See Raymond Brown, John, 536-538; also Hurtado, 371,
n. 42.
84
B. Talmud Sopherim 4:1.
 91

should not be simply translated "I" because it refers to the "divine ANI in the temple," as
referenced in Scripture and in Temple practices of the time. 85 If for any reason—whether
rabbinic, liturgical, or scriptural—the Jewish community saw the statement of "aWh yn'a" as
more than merely an affirmative statement, then, as an answer to the question of Jesus'
identity, the phrase could be seen as a much fuller answer than "yes" or "no" or even, as
Bultmann's recognition formula would suggest, "who is the one?" If understood as a
divine name, the implied question and answer is, in fact, "Who are you?" to which the
answer is, "I Am." In such a case, the response is remarkably similar to the interaction
between Moses and Yahweh in Exodus 3.
Sanders argues against Stauffer, posing that "I Am" is not a response to the
question of "Who are you?" His argument is largely based upon discrediting Staufffer's
work as a whole. 86 While it is duly noted that Stauffer's work is fundamentally flawed in
that it concludes that nearly all instances where God uses the first (or third) person
pronoun are instances of a theophanic formula, his work in this particular passage is not
discredited by this flaw; the theophanic formula in its entirety is, in fact, present. Sanders
also argues that an understanding of "I Am," as anything more than an affirmative
statement, requires a restructuring of the text in such a way that the question, "Are you
the Messiah?" is not posed.87 However, one could still argue that "I Am," if here used as a
proper name, is a clarification of a misguided assumption. Indeed, throughout the
gospels, Jesus seems wary of accepting the name "Messiah" and all of the connotations
associated therewith. While it is not a direct negative, for Jesus could not have denied
that he was the promised Messiah, it is neither a direct affirmation. Instead, it answers the
question with a clearer explanation: I Am (Yahweh).

85
Stauffer devotes several pages to his argument that "I Am" was often understood
by the Jewish community of the time as a "formula of proclamation" that was chanted in
the Temple, read in Scripture, and preserved in rabbinic theology. While some of his
points are valid, he is a bit eccentric in his efforts to correlate so many instances of a
simple first person pronoun with a divine meaning, a fault pointed out by contemporaries.
However, his argument cannot be wholly discredited as he does make reasonable appeal
to canonical and non-canonical sources, as well as recorded liturgical and rabbinic
anthologies. His research, while at times presented in a way that renders it unacceptable
to a scholarly audience, provides a starting point from which to begin tracing the Divine
Name through Jewish Scripture and practice. Unfortunately, no such attempt can be
incorporated in this brief thesis. Stauffer, 142-149.
86
E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity
Press, 1990), 65.
87
Sanders, 65.
 92

What Was Blasphemous?

If one accepts the authenticity of the Markan text pertaining to the Sanhedrin
account, there are still questions left unanswered. Perhaps foremost among these is the
question of which words elicited the charge of blasphemy. This is again a topic that has
sparked many decades worth of debate, and the current thesis can only provide a brief
overview of the many works that have been contributed.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that nothing in Jesus' words was inherently
blasphemous, according to the definition as presented in Sanhedrin 7:5. According to the
Mishnah, "The blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself." 88 The
answer to this problem is clear to the anonymous writer of the 1881 book Rabbi Jeshua:
How, then, are we to understand the fact that after the simple answer "I am" had
been given by the prisoner, the high priest arose at once and called the Sanhedrin
to witness, by the rending of his garments that the Divine Name had been uttered,
the pronunciation of which, according to its letters, condemned the prisoner to
death? There is only one explanation possible, and this we find in reading the
chronicle in Hebrew: for the word "I am" was the ancient and original form of the
Holy Name, by which Jehovah Himself had made Himself known unto Moses.89
Interestingly, the author's position is not that Jesus had intended his words to be taken
this way, but that the High Priest had maliciously taken a simple affirmative statement
and attributed to it a meaning which Jesus did not intend.
Collins argues for a much broader understanding of the term "blasphemy," citing
references to Josephus and Philo. She also points out that "blasphemy" is elsewhere
discussed in the Gospel of Mark, where the Divine Name is not mentioned. 90 Catchpole
quotes John 10:24-39, as well as rabbinical writings pre-dating the compilation of the
Mishnah, as evidence of the broader definition of "blasphemy."91
A number of scholars, including Catchpole and Strobel, 92 cite the "Son of Man"
reference as the source of the blasphemy; particularly the emphasis that Jesus as the Son
of Man would be seated at God's right hand. However, J. C. O'Neill points out that not

88
Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5.
89
Anonymous, Rabbi Jeshua: An Eastern Story (New York: Henry Holt & Co.,
1881), 140-141.
90
Mark 15:29, 7:22, 3:28-29, 2:7. Collins, "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark
14.64," 396-397.
91
Catchpole, "You Have Heard His Blasphemy," Tyndale Bulletin 16 (1965): 10.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (15 July 2010).
92
Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus; August Strobel, "Die Stunde der Wahrheit," 14.
 93

only is the title ambiguous, but "even if Son of man were understood by Jesus and the
Sanhedrin to mean the heavenly exalted figure, it does not seem obvious that the claim to
be an apocalyptic man would be a capital offence if everyone expected such a man to
appear."93 That this apocalyptic man was forthcoming is supported by Collins in her
quotation of Bock, "At least some Jewish circles in the late Second Temple period had no
problem with the idea of a heavenly Messiah, an exalted patriarch or a principal angel
sitting or standing at the right hand of God or even sitting on God's throne itself." 94
Collins and Bock, therefore, agree that it is the combination of the two passages which
constituted blasphemy. The fact that the one making this claim was a living human being,
rather than an apocalyptic figure (such as Enoch), was further complicated by the claim
that as the Son of Man, Jesus would return, or be manifest with divine glory. 95
The conclusion is that one can find no consensus among theologians as to the
nature of the blasphemy charge. Though the Mishnah provides a clear and unambiguous
definition of blasphemy, it is difficult to reconcile with biblical texts, particularly the text
of the Sanhedrin Trial. Most attempts to reconcile the two have centered on the possible
use of the Divine Name in the quotation of Psalm 110:1, "seated at the right hand of
Power."96 Collins maintains that the Name was clearly not used here,97 but Gundry
proposes that it may have been used in the Psalm citation. He suggests that in reporting
and recording the events, the Name would have been suppressed, so as to avoid a repeat
offense. 98 However, Evans argues that even in this instance, the Name would have been
used only as it appeared in the citation of Scripture, and thus would not apply. 99
Similarly, it must be considered that even if Jesus' (aWh yn'a) proclamation
is understood as a claim to the Divine Name, it still does not precisely satisfy the ruling in

93
J. C. O'Neill, "The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin,"
in The Trial of Jesus, ed. Ernst Bammel (Naperville, IL: Alex R. Allenson, 1970), 73.
94
Collins, "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64," 399.
95
Bock, 236; Collins, "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64," 399.
96
Bock, 198.
97
Collins, "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64," 381. She suggests that
instead of the Divine Name, Jesus uses the circumlocution "the Power," emphasizing her
position that "I Am" is here of no consequence.
98
Gundry, 915-18.
99
Craig A. Evans, "In What Sense Blasphemy?" Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Papers 30 (1991): 218.
 94

Sanhedrin 7.5. As Catchpole points out, "Ani hu in Sukk. 4.5 is itself a periphrasis for the
full Divine Name."100 While this is true, it leads to a cyclical argument, as it has already
been discussed that "blasphemy" was defined in broader terms than may be seen in the
Mishnah.
As is pointed out by Sanders, "It is to be remembered that Jesus did not read the
Bible in Greek, and so did not have the word blasphemia to guide him." 101 This fact must
also be taken into consideration when considering the wording of Jesus in the presence of
the Sanhedrin. If Jesus stood before the High Priest and uttered an affirmative statement
in proper Greek form, it would be difficult to understand how anyone could have called
this blasphemy. However, if one considers, as H. J. Schoeps does,102 that he instead
proclaimed "aWh yn'a," a phrase rich in tradition and theological significance, it offers a
greater potential for understanding why the Jewish leaders condemned him to death. As
Mettinger points out:
The Jewish materials show that Jesus may well have employed the Hebrew
revelatory formula; they also show what reaction was to be expected if he had
done so. For those who did not accept Jesus' claims, he would in so doing have
infringed upon the sacredness of the divine Name. He would have committed
blasphemy. 103
If it serves that Jesus' statement before the Sanhedrin may have been an open
declaration of his identity as Yahweh, it is no wonder that the Jewish leaders saw in him a
horrific scandal. Furthermore, it stands to reason that such a statement, which effectively
condemned him before the Jewish leaders, would have likely been preceded by a private
declaration to his own disciples. This instance may be found in the text of Mark 6:50 and
its corresponding pericopes, which present the story of Jesus walking on the water.

100
Catchpole, Trial of Jesus, 133.
101
Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 65.
102
H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish
Religious History, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 161.
103
Mettinger, 45.
 95

CHAPTER 3
DO NOT FEAR; I AM

The Historical Reliability of Miracle Stories

The historical reliability of Jesus' walk on the water, preserved similarly in the
accounts of Matthew (14:22-33), Mark (6:45-52), and John (6:16-21), is a matter of
controversy for scholars. It is debated first and foremost because of its miraculous nature.
Secondly, the intent of both Jesus and the evangelists is disputed in Jesus' proclamation,
" " proclamation. Certainly this debate is not new, and Stauffer suggests it may
have existed at the time of the writing itself: ". . .in Mark 6:49 the evangelist is evidently
contesting a hostile report which wished to dispose of the whole affair as a ghost story,
and in 6:50 the reader learns that the passengers in the boat saw the miracle and can
testify to it."104
It is perhaps more difficult to establish the historical reliability of this text than the
previous, in spite of the fact that it is included in all three aforementioned Gospels in very
similar form. The underlying point of contention between liberal and conservative
scholars is whether the miracle of Jesus walking on the water is a creation of the writer or
an historical account. If the account is not historical, one can draw any number of
conclusions as to the message of the evangelist—all of which are conjecture at best—but
can make no claim as to the significance of the "I Am" saying regarding Jesus' self-
awareness. In this light, there is no reason to believe that Jesus spoke the words
at all; rather this was a redaction with intended theological significance, reflecting the
Christology of the evangelist.
Pinchas Lapide considers this to be the case. He suggests that two aspects of the
account are clearly a reflection of Mark's redaction: the Messianic Secret and the failure
to understand on the part of the disciples. He includes in the former, "all those elements
which would depict the walking on the water as a manifestation of 'the Son of God.'"105
This would seem to include the statement, or at least any theological significance
it might possess in the mouth of Jesus. Rather, it is a Markan disclosure of Jesus' divinity
to the reader. While Lapide does not go so far as to label the account a fabrication, he
suggests, "Here we see the pre-Markan contours of a figure of Jesus who, while he acts
with authority, is essentially earthly, and does not seem inclined to perform miracles,

104
Stauffer, 149.
105
Pinchas Lapide, "A Jewish Exegesis of the Walking on the Water," in
Conflicting Ways of Interpreting the Bible, ed. Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), 36.
 96

since he receives his authority solely from God." He traces this de-divinizing back to an
earlier, pre-Markan tradition. 106
It is not the function of this thesis to justify, or in any way prove, the existence of
miracles. In addition, this author feels that any attempt to rationalize this miracle story in
order to make it conform to scientific proofs debases it to a study of the evangelist's
Christology, at best, and a fable of little significance, at worst. It is not sufficient for the
current study to consider only the Christological message of the Gospel writers. W. F.
Albright and C. S. Mann suggest this approach, and also illustrate the problem in stating,
"We can never know precisely what happened on this occasion, but the spiritual import is
clear."107 [emphasis his] In fact, the precise spiritual import is not clear, and is just as
heavily debated as the authenticity of the miracle itself. Any attempts from this
perspective to gain a clearer understanding of the revelation of Jesus are further impeded
by the conflicting presentations of Matthew's, Mark's, and John's presentations of
Christology. While the influences of the evangelists' convictions on their accounts are not
disputed, the significance of Jesus' statement, preserved in all three accounts,
would seem to surpass the individual Christological emphasis of each evangelist.
As succinctly stated by Hagner, "If the world view of the interpreter does not
allow this possibility [of "natural miracles"], implausible naturalistic explanations will be
sought. . . .Such explanations are far from the intention of the evangelists and out of line
with the Gospel narratives."108 For this reason, the current study will join Hagner in
presupposing that the miracles recorded by the evangelists are historical events, or at least
that the evangelists assumed them to be so and intended them to be read as such.
Inasmuch as it is impossible to separate the writer from the written work, the
Christological emphases, style, and message of the evangelists will be considered.
However, this consideration serves to lend itself to a greater understanding of the actions
and words of Jesus in their historical context by first embracing the message of the
evangelist, and then extracting the message of Jesus from beneath it. Because of this goal,
the current study is set apart from most similar examinations of the text at hand.

Pre-Markan Sources
To say that Jesus did, historically, walk on the water is not to suggest that Mark
did not rely upon sources and familiar literary traditions in his retelling of the story.
However, most discussions of Mark's potential influences have been presented from the
liberal position that Mark's account is largely his own creation. This author maintains that
106
Lapide, 37-38.
107
W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible, vol. 26 (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1971), 182.
108
Hagner, 416.
 97

recognizing the varying motifs and stylistic elements of the evangelist does not invalidate
the historical content. On the contrary, a study of the evangelist's use of motifs and
redaction upon his source may serve to illuminate the content of a pre-Markan source,
closer to the historical Jesus.
While it is not proven that Mark's source existed in a written form rather than as
scattered oral tradition, Howard Clark Kee considers that "the degree of probability in
favour of written collections is high."109 Whether written or oral, the majority of scholars
find consensus only in the fact that a pre-Markan account of this story exists.
Furthermore, William Richard Stegner offers, "Nearly everyone agrees that the
conclusion in v. 52 was written by Mark and that some or all of the introduction in v. 45
is the result of Markan redaction."110
Scholars attempting to categorize the miracle in this pericope have suggested that
Mark's narrative is drawn from two sources. Bultmann proposes that the presence of both
the original "walking on the water" motif and the secondary storm motif are probably due
to a "mixture of sources."111 Ernst Lohmeyer also supports the two source theory,
incorporating both the storm motif and the epiphany motif of Jesus' walking on the sea.
In addition, Lohmeyer sites conflicting geographical notes in both the content and context
of the narrative. 112 This suggests that the sources held specific details of the events
described by Mark, and were not merely abstract Christological sermonettes combined
and altered to fit Mark's message.
Ignoring the "motifs," Paul J. Achtemeier relies on structural elements to suggest
that "at some pre-Markan stage in the tradition, two similar miracle stories could be
combined into one."113 He offers that one story was similar to the stilling of the storm in

109
Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 33.
110
William Richard Stegner, "Jesus' Walking on the Water," in The Gospels and
Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 214.
111
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 216.
112
Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus Ubersetzt und Erklart
(Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957): 131-32; quoted in William
Richard Stegner, "Jesus' Walking on the Water: Mark 6:45-52," in The Gospels and the
Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 212.
113
Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark, Proclamation Commentaries (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1975), 77.
 98

4:35-41, and the other was a story of Jesus walking on the sea. The similarities in the
accounts of the stilling of the storm and the walking on the sea are notable. Both express
Jesus' dominion over the sea. It is possible that both stories (and any pre-Markan
accounts of them that may have been used as sources) could have potentially been
derived from the same historical event. However, there is nothing to suggest that the
Christological message of Mark would have been debased had Jesus spoken to the sea in
the walking on the water; yet, he did not include it. Therefore, the question exists as to
why Mark did not more explicitly combine the two accounts, if it was his intent to make
them one.
The fact that Mark includes both story motifs, and not merely one or the other,
suggests that he received the stilling of the storm and the walking on the water as two
separate traditions. Achtemeier and others, who support the theory that the walking on
the water is a Markan creation based upon these two sources, fail to address why he
would have preserved a "stilling story" in one place, only to incorporate a similar account
in his creation of a separate passage. It is far more likely that if the walking on the water
was a Markan creation, he would have written it to incorporate a tradition he had not
previously recounted elsewhere. This leads one to believe that the account is based upon
a tradition which may be similar to the stilling of the storm, but is, nevertheless, distinct
and distinctly preserved by Mark.
Not all motif hypotheses suggest that Mark relied upon more than one source in
his telling of the account. John Paul Heil suggests a single "sea rescue" motif, derived
from an epiphany motif and more specific "sea-walking motif with a rescue function."
While this categorization seems unique to Heil, he provides substantial evidence that
such a motif was recognized within Jewish literature, both in Scripture and extrabiblical
material. 114 While his points are well-supported, they do not necessarily lead one to
conclude that Mark, and not Jesus, was the one to draw out this "rescue" function. If
Jesus compelled the disciples to get into the boat, the entire scenario described in this
narrative was initiated by Jesus Himself. In fact, in both Matthew's and Mark's accounts,
the narrative suggests that it was Jesus Who created the situation wherein the disciples
were out in the boat alone. Arguably, He may have done this for the very purpose of
walking on the sea and rescuing them. While Jesus' motives in this instance are of course
mere speculation, it is not impossible to venture that if the recognition of such a "sea
rescue" motif was as widespread as Heil's evidence suggests, it may not have originated
with Mark. It is just as likely that Jesus used these "water miracles" to communicate the
significance of his role to his disciples. Thus, the "sea rescue" motif might be taken into
account when considering Jesus' message to the disciples.
Though the source, motifs, and original form of the pericope continue to be
debated, the primitive, pre-Markan nature of the passage is generally affirmed. If pre-
114
John Paul Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1981), 17-30.
 99

Markan, the historicity of the account in the ministry of Jesus becomes quite plausible
unless ruled out by a worldview that does not allow for miracles. While this may be the
position of liberal scholars today, it was certainly not the position of first century
Judaism.

Parallels
Bertil Edgar Gärtner suggests that Mark's single source was a Jewish-Christian
Passover haggadah, which cast Jesus as the fulfillment of the typology seen in the
deliverance at the Red Sea.115 Indeed, the Red Sea parallel is recognized by many
scholars, whether in support of the story's authenticity or in its refutation. Lapide points
out that references to Moses abound in the Gospel of Mark—as he is mentioned six times
explicitly, and "several other times seems to be present at the back of his mind as the one
with whom Jesus is compared."116
Stegner proposes that "one narrative is told with the other 'in mind' so that the
audience who heard the story about Jesus would recall the familiar story from the
Septuagint."117 Stegner presents an impressive count of the similarities in terminology
and form between the two narratives. He ultimately concludes that the pre-Markan
account of the text, which excludes redactional activity of Mark in verses 45, 51b, and
52, is directly quoting Exodus 14.118 Furthermore, Stegner suggests that the early
Christians were likely aware of the tradition which held that the visible presence of God
was manifest in the Exodus Narrative. Thus, the intent of the pre-Markan narrative was to
demonstrate that "as the Israelites saw their God in the midst of the deliverance at the sea,
so the disciples saw Jesus in delivering them from the windswept sea."119
Stegner's analysis is sound, and the fact there are textual similarities between the
two stories is well-supported. However, it is also important to note the differences. Eric
Eve suggests that the differences in many ways outweigh the similarities:
Neither of Jesus' sea miracles involves flight from enemies, parting of the waves,
crossing on dry land, or the drowning of hostile pursuers, all of which are features
emphasized in contemporary accounts of the Red Sea events or miracles based
upon it. Had the Gospel sea stories been invented to recall the exodus, they would

115
Bertil Edgar Gärtner, John 6 and the Jewish Passover (Lund, Sweden: C.W.K
Gleerup, 1959), 37.
116
Lapide, 36.
117
Stegner, 215.
118
Stegner, 221.
119
Stegner, 227.
 100

surely have done so far more closely. As it is there is only a generic resemblance
in Yahweh's control of the wind and water, but no specific resemblance to the
events at the Red Sea.120

This clarifies the position that while parallels exist, there was an additional prior source
of inspiration beyond a mere updating of a well-known text. While allusions are certainly
present, acknowledgement of this fact is very different from stating that such allusions
discredit the authenticity of the account.

The Significance of
The account's relevance to the identity of Jesus is also in question because of the
uncertainty regarding what was intended, both by Jesus and the evangelists, in the "
" proclamation contained in the pericope. The running Christological themes of each
evangelist are certainly visible in their accounts of Jesus walking on the water. However,
Jesus' statement, preserved identically in all three accounts, is unified in its
presentation, and not altered to conform to the more specific Christological emphasis of
each gospel writer.
Support for the idea that is used here merely as an affirmative statement
requires only brief mention, as it is, by far, the minority opinion among scholars. C.K.
Barrett finds it unlikely that either Mark or John meant anything more than a simple, "It
is I." Nevertheless, even Barrett cannot deny the possibility that "some of the special
associations of the words cling to them here and suggest in the appearance of Jesus the
epiphany of a divine figure."121 Other scholars also suggest that the phrase gains
deeper Christological meaning only due to the redaction of the author and/or his sources,
not the intent of Jesus Himself. Catrin H. Williams maintains this position, while insisting
that in the broader tradition, the words were understood as "an identification formula
only."122
However, unlike other instances in the Synoptic Gospels, where on the
lips of Jesus would be contested on the basis of grammar and style, here such a position
seems largely underrepresented. Instead, the question seems not to be whether the
statement is communicating something about Jesus' nature, but what it is communicating.

120
Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles (London: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2002), 383.
121
Barrett, 234.
122
Catrin H. Williams, "'I Am' or 'I Am He'? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in
the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition," in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert
T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001), 346.
 101

Previously suggested possibilities for interpreting Jesus' statement are now

herein presented.
Stegner consciously rejects the idea that the narrative intended to give any proof
of Jesus as a "divine man."123 Instead, he suggests that the narrative "belongs to the world
of Jewish apocalyptic with its exorcisms and wonders. . .[which]. . .do not prove the
divinity of the wonder-worker so much as they reveal the power of God working through
him."124 Stegner considers that if Jesus had to clarify that He is not a ghost, and
furthermore climbed into the boat, this constituted "strange words and stranger activity
for a 'divine being.'"125 This author fails to see what is strange about it. The disciples had
never seen a man walk on the water, and were rightly overcome with fear. Jesus had
every reason to clarify His identity and, arguably, the authority by which He was walking
on the water. Regarding the implication that a "divine man" would not have climbed into
the boat, this statement seems to rely almost entirely on Stegner's presupposition that the
narrative is apocalyptic in nature. Disregarding an expectation of the grandiose
manifestations of power seen in apocalyptic literature, if one believes that Jesus was
capable of walking on the water, it by no means implies that He would be obligated (or
inclined) to follow alongside the boat all the way back to shore. Nevertheless, if it was
somehow necessary for Jesus to perform a supernatural miracle, rather than climb into the
boat, this possibility is allowed by the writer of the Fourth Gospel, wherein the boat was
immediately on the shore.
Stegner also argues, "If walking on the water defines a 'divine man,' then Peter
also belongs to that category."126 This argument is unfounded, as one clearly sees from
the text that Peter had no such divine power. Apart from the power extended by Jesus, he
began to sink. Graham H. Twelftree takes this argument a step further in concluding, "It
cannot be that [Peter] is to be seen like Moses or the Son of God or even God, for his
walking on the water is clearly dependent on Jesus, and he fails to maintain this ability
and has to be rescued by Jesus."127
In the end, Stegner concludes that the pericope was merely a "Jewish Christian
'updating' of Passover."128 He thereby disregards the content as revelatory of the nature
123
Stegner, 230.
124
Stegner, 230-31.
125
Stegner, 231.
126
Stegner, 231.
127
Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1999), 131.
128
Stegner, 233.
 102

and person of Jesus Christ, except that "the power of God, which had once delivered their
ancestors, was now working through Jesus to deliver them."129 From this standpoint, it is
clear that he does not consider the account historically credible. Furthermore, even if
Jesus did walk on the water, Stegner would certainly hold that He meant no more by His
statement than a confirmation of identity; though His followers in their rendition
of the story may have recounted it in such a way as to draw attention to the story of the
Exodus.

Jesus the Agent of Yahweh

Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland R. Murphy consider Jesus'
in light of Septuagint references, and find, "In the redemptive context of
Deutero-Isaiah [ ] emphasizes God's transcendence and fidelity to his promises of
salvation. Thus Jesus designates himself as the transcendent agent of God's salvation." 130
This "agent" approach is shared by Heil, in light of the story of Exodus 14. However,
Heil expresses the limits of this association when he says, "Jesus is not revealing himself
to be God, nor attributing to himself the divine name. Rather, as Yahweh's agent of
revelation, Jesus reveals Yahweh's will to save his people here and now in the concrete
situation of saving his disciples from distress in crossing the sea. The , then,
signifies the self-identification of Jesus as the revealer of Yahweh." 131
However, it should be noted that Jesus is not here fulfilling the role of the
revealer, another Moses, but of Yahweh himself, a position which Eve supports.132 It may
even be further suggested, as done by Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, that
Jesus fills both roles.133 The theory that Jesus' identifies Him as a mere revealer
of Yahweh furthermore fails to be convincing because no other revealer of Yahweh
identified themselves with an unqualified —a term rich in theological
significance, especially in light of the Exodus parallels in this passage.
Heil likewise correctly assumes that Jesus' "derives its significance from
Jesus' epiphanic action of walking on the sea." However, his conclusion leads him only to
the understanding that it "identifies Jesus as the one acting on behalf of Yahweh in this

129
Stegner, 233.
130
Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, eds., The Jerome
Biblical Commentary, vol. 2 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall., 1968), 36.
131
Heil, 59.
132
Eve, 384.
133
Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The
Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 205.
 103

situation." 134 This slightly different interpretation of Jesus, as an agent of Yahweh, again
fails to provide a background for understanding the one who proclaims, " " (and
then validates its significance by walking on the water) as one who merely "acts on
behalf" of Yahweh. Certainly, there is nothing to suggest that Moses stood before the Red
Sea and proclaimed, " " on behalf of Yahweh. This was not a typical identification
formula for an agent of Yahweh.
Those who hold the position that in His statement Jesus revealed Himself
only as an agent offer no solution to this problem and, indeed, completely disregard the
significance of the saying as a title. They draw symbolic points of reference to Old
Testament Scripture, while ignoring the more blatant reference to the self-identification
of Yahweh at the "Burning Bush." Furthermore, if one accepts the historical reliability of
the account on any level, there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have
thought about Moses when Jesus said "I Am." It is far more likely that they would have
thought about Yahweh. Indeed, this would seem to be closer to the association intended
by Jesus as well. Additionally, as pointed out by Twelftree, "It is not that Jesus acts for
God. Rather, in Jesus, God is seen acting to calm the storm and to rescue his people." 135

Divine Self-Revelation of Yahweh

A background for the understanding of as a divine title has already been
presented in chapter 2. It is not necessary to substantiate again whether the statement in
the current pericope could have potentially been heard this way. However, it remains to
be discussed whether the context lends itself to this interpretation.
Heil's suggestion that Jesus' statement of derives its significance from the
act of walking on the water is affirmed by other scholars, who utilize it in coming to a
very different conclusion than Heil's "agent" approach. While speaking only of the
redactional efforts of the Fourth Evangelist, Williams nevertheless makes a bold
statement with which this author agrees: " is the vehicle whereby [Jesus] makes
himself manifest as the one exercising the power [over the sea] that the Hebrew Bible
attributes to God alone."136 The implied reference to the God of Isaiah 43:1 (who controls
the sea) is also noted by Stauffer, who additionally cites Passover liturgy in support of the
association. 137
Another point of emphasis is in the language surrounding Jesus'
statement. All three accounts include "do not fear" in association with ; a phrase

134
Heil, 79.
135
Twelftree, 132.
136
Williams, 346.
137
Stauffer, 150.
 104

described by Mettinger as "a standard assurance in the context of Old Testament

theophanies."138 Williams attributes this to Isaiah 41:10. Stauffer also emphasizes the text
surrounding the as "part of the formal language of the divine self-
139
manifestation."
In light of the context within the frightening storm, John P. Meier states plainly,
"Indeed the divine probably means here what it meant in Ex 3:14: I am here to
140
save you." David Brown expresses this beautifully in his commentary on the text:
From other lips that "I am" would have merely meant that the person speaking
was such a one and not another person. That, surely, would have done little to
calm the fears of men expecting every minute, it may be, to go to the bottom. But
spoken by One who at that moment was "treading upon the waves of the sea," and
was about to hush the raging elements with His word, what was it but the voice
which cried of old in the ears of Israel, even from the days of Moses, "I AM"; "I
EVEN I AM HE!"141

The Gospel Writers and Jesus' Intent

A basis exists for understanding the statement as a revelation of Yahweh,
visible as Jesus. Twelftree certainly maintains that Jesus' message was clear when he
states, "The disciples should have understood Jesus' statement 'It is I' as a clear disclosure
of his divine nature, but they did not."142 Therefore, the question is not whether the
can be understood in that context, but whether there is evidence that the historical
Jesus would have intended it this way. It is most often assumed that the disciples, in the
historical context, did not recognize Jesus as the divine "I Am," as it is fairly well-
attested that the worship presented in Matthew is redactional material added over and
against Mark. In fact, the reaction of the disciples contains heavy redaction on both sides.
As the Fourth Gospel states only that they were "glad" ( ) to take Him into the
boat, it attests to neither. While any answer to the question of Jesus' intent can be no more
than a well-supported theory at best, such support can be gained by briefly addressing the

138
Mettinger, 46.
139
Stauffer, 150. See also William L. Lane, Mark, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 237.
140
John P. Meier, Matthew, New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological
Commentary, vol. 3 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980), 165.
141
David Brown, The New Testament, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory,
on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2 (Hartford, CT: SS Scranton Co., 1887), 52.
142
Twelftree, 78.
 105

redactional efforts of both Matthew and Mark, to determine whether they considered
Jesus' in this light, regardless of how they portrayed the disciples.

Matthew
Matthew's account conforms more closely to the proposal of this thesis than
Mark's. Hagner poses that while the disciples may have understood the words as
a simple self-identification formula only, such a statement held deeper meaning to
Matthew and his readers who, in such a context, would have drawn immediate parallels
to Exodus 3:14 and the definition of the name Yahweh. 143 However, this author questions
why the disciples might not have also drawn such parallels, since their context for
receiving the statement is the same. Regardless of Matthew's redactional efforts,
the disciples heard the same words, and saw the same manifestation of Jesus, as is
presented similarly in all three accounts. Only their response, not the revelation itself, is
unknown due to the redaction of the Gospel writers. Here, one sees that Matthew—
himself likely an eye witness to the events described—considers worship to be the
appropriate response to this revelation.
Eduard Schweitzer suggests that Matthew intended the passage to be read that the
disciples worshipped Jesus as a "miracle worker."144 While this conclusion is valid, it
should also be acknowledged that the miracle worked in this instance, dominion over the
sea, was the priority of Yahweh alone. The ability to walk on the water by one's own
power was heretofore unheard of by any miracle worker. According to Jewish sources,
the sea was subject to Yahweh alone.145 Here, just as in the Fourth Gospel account of the
raising of Lazarus, there is no indication here that Jesus prayed or elicited the help of any
"outside force" to accomplish this feat, as Moses did at the Red Sea.
In consideration of Matthew's appropriate response emphasis, Brown nearly
makes the connection between Jesus and Yahweh when he considers that Matthew's
interpretation of the statement is made explicit by disciples' declaration of Jesus
as the Son of God. 146 However, Heil takes the association too far when he states, "As an
agent of this divine revelation Jesus has shown himself to be in the Son-Father
relationship to God. This is what the disciples acknowledge and proclaim when they

143
Hagner, 423.
144
Eduard Schweitzer, "huios," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.
Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey Q. Bromily (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1985), 1209.
145
B. Talmud Baba Bathra 73a.
146
Raymond Brown, John, 538.
 106

confess that Jesus is truly the Son of God."147 There is no indication, anywhere, that the
Jewish disciples of Jesus had any notion of what would later become elements of the
Trinitarian Doctrine when they approached the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus.
It is highly debatable whether Matthew himself had any such notion. If he did, it would
have been only a primitive form—certainly not the highly developed church dogma that
took several hundred years to form. The clarification and result of Jesus' is not
made in the "Son of God" statement, for the title "Son of God" had a variety of meanings
in Judaism, which would have also been known by Matthew, and were not cause for
worship. 148 Schweitzer makes this explicit when he points out, "Hellenistic Judaism uses
'son of God' more freely than Palestinian Judaism. Yet it does not equate the son of God
with the theios aner either as a Hellenistic charismatic or as a biblical man of God
through whom God works miracles."149 If, in fact, Matthew meant to employ this title as
a sort of "trigger phrase" signaling divinity, he did so by incorporating it with the
formula and the fact that the disciples worshipped Jesus, when such worship was owed
only to Yahweh. It was not the result of the statement, nor the cause of the
worship, but the more powerful meaning of the statement that is granted by both in
combination (the "Son of God" is here defined as the "I Am," who alone is worthy to be
worshipped).
If the singularity of Jesus and Yahweh is not explicitly stated in Matthew's
account by the worship of the disciples, it is at least implied. Therefore, one may assume
that the interpretation of Jesus' as a divine name is in accordance with the
evangelist's understanding. Arguably, it is evident in his redactional point as well.

Mark
In light of Matthew's efforts to emphasize the identity of Jesus, it is necessary to
address why Mark would seemingly favor his own redactional emphasis on the Messianic
Secret over such a clear statement of Jesus' identity; if, in fact, he understood it as such.
Redactional material in Mark's presentation of the pericope is almost unanimously agreed
upon. Most consider verse 52, "for they did not understand about the loaves, but their
hearts were hardened," a clear Markan redaction. However, what he intended by inserting
it is unclear, and heavily debated. Mark seemingly does not make the revelation of Jesus
147
Heil, 67.
148
Lapide discusses in detail the way in which Jesus the "son of God" may be
interpreted by a Jew in a non-Trinitarian sense. Pinchas Lapide and Jurgen Moltmann,
Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine, trans. Leonard Swindler
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 78-79. See also Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A
Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 192-200.
149
Schweitzer, "huios," 1209.
 107

explicit, only that the disciples failed to understand it. Furthermore, their reason for not
understanding seems confusing, as it refers back to the previous pericope.
Mark and John both preserve the order of the miraculous feeding and the walking
on the water. Kee suggests that this implies the stories are linked in significance, even
void of Mark's concluding statement about the disciples' misunderstanding. 150 A number
of scholars have contributed this association to Eucharistic overtones. Wilfrid Harrington
points out that the name of "I Am" in the Old Testament signifies God's saving presence,
and suggests that it may here "be meant to reassure Christians that their Lord is indeed
present at the Lord's Supper."151 Achtemeier agrees that the pre-Markan tradition of both
the feeding story and the walking on the water may have been largely Eucharistic, but
maintains that Mark "dissociated them from any Eucharistic adaptation by working them
into the Galilean portion of Jesus' ministry, and further reinterpreted them by inserting
into each of them a large block of material which showed Jesus as one engaged in
teaching and dispute."152
In fact, the Eucharistic interpretation seems only to further complicate the
material, for the sake of a message which did not seem to be a primary emphasis for
Mark. Furthermore, such an association assumes that Mark did not intend for this story to
be read historically, a point which is, in and of itself, highly debatable. In fact, there is no
substantial reason to believe that Mark held any different perspective on the self-
revelation of Jesus than did Matthew. His redactional material pertained to the disciples,
not to the revelation of Jesus, which is identical in both accounts. The words " "
are preserved, and there applies the same reasoning for Mark's understanding of this
statement as Matthew's. Mark's so-called Messianic Secret is only in contention with
Jesus' claim to singularity with Yahweh if one means by "Messianic Secret" that these
words were fabricated by Mark. If one instead interprets that Jesus intended for his
identity to remain a secret, or that the disciples did not understand his identity, then the
reaction of the disciples is of little consequence to Mark's presentation of the
statement.
It could therefore be assumed that Mark's understanding of Jesus was enhanced
by this experience of Jesus. Furthermore, it is certainly possible that he intended his
readers to have the same revelation. In order that the misunderstanding of the disciples is
seen explicitly as such, he even provides a reason that he seemingly intends for his
readers to understand: because of the loaves.

150
Kee, 112.
151
Wilfrid Harrington, Mark, New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological
Commentary, vol. 4 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980), 94.
152
Achtemeier, 78.
 108

It is this author's position that such a statement can only be understood within the
broader context of the Messianic expectations of Jesus' day. The expectation of the
disciples was not that there would be a divine messiah. Certainly, they did not
understand, nor could they even comprehend, that the man Jesus was Yahweh incarnate.
The feeding of multitudes conformed to the expectation of a provider messiah, which the
disciples understood. They were thereby even more confused with the new revelation of
Jesus, which seemed to conflict with an understanding Jesus had just recently confirmed.
Interestingly, this interpretation is in perfect accordance with the Fourth Gospel, though
the writer felt no need to make such a statement as Mark's "because of the loaves" in this
pericope. Instead, in the very next, Jesus explicitly states what Mark may have been
suggesting, "Truly I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs but because you
ate your fill of the loaves" (John 6:26).
It could therefore be posed that it is entirely possible that both Matthew and Mark
likely saw as a direct claim to the name of Yahweh. Matthew's redactional
efforts presented what he considered to be a "right response," conforming to his portrayal
of the disciples. Mark, on the other hand, presented a "wrong response," which
conformed to his portrayal and, furthermore, retained his emphasis on the Messianic
Secret. The redactional emphases of both writers do not challenge, but, in fact, support
the revelation of Jesus as Yahweh. The reactions of the disciples in each account can only
be understood in the context of the proclamation itself.
The name of Yahweh, the "I Am," is proclaimed by Jesus while exhibiting power
over the sea. There is no reason to believe that both Matthew and Mark did not
understand the proclamation as such. In the context of walking on the water, it is a clear
example of Jesus' assertion of the Divine Name, the explanation for how He possessed
the ability to tread upon the sea. The statement is a self-assertion from the mouth of
Jesus, preserved by both Matthew and Mark in identical form. It provides clear evidence
of Jesus' self-awareness during His ministry—that he both knew and proclaimed to His
disciples that he was the "I Am," whether or not they understood.
The pericope wherein Jesus walks upon the water, like the Sanhedrin Trial
pericope, suggests a significant possibility for an understanding of as the Divine
Name. In both instances, there is a basis for accepting the historical reliability of Jesus'
words, thereby substantiating the theory that Jesus knowingly claimed singularity with
Yahweh. This study continues with an examination of a third text, wherein the evidence
supporting this association is equally clear, but can only be referenced insomuch as it
reflects the theological understanding of the Early Church—not of Jesus Himself.
 109

CHAPTER 4
"MANY SHALL COME IN MY NAME"

Authenticity and Redaction

The significance of the statement of Mark 13:6 (Matt. 24:5, Luke. 21:8)
is particularly difficult to determine because it is presented in the context of a highly
debated apocalyptic prophecy. As with all prophetic literature, the lines between literal
and figurative interpretations can never be cleanly drawn. This is perhaps even truer
when the prophecy is apocalyptic in nature. Furthermore, the prevalence of such literature
during the time the gospels were being written makes the content of the pericope subject
to traditions that may not have originated from the historical Jesus. Anyone attempting to
definitively trace the material back to Jesus faces a particularly difficult challenge, as the
passage has clearly undergone the kind of redaction and elaboration typically seen in
Jewish-Christian apocalyptic sources.

The Authenticity of the Olivet Discourse

In his widely-accepted "Little Apocalypse" theory, Timothee Colani suggested
that the gospel writers mistakenly appropriated a written Jewish apocalyptic source
document by an unknown author for a speech of Jesus.153 Colani posed that the Early
Church did not merely influence, but in essence created the entire eschatological content
of Mark 13. He further suggested that the apocalyptic views presented are contrary to
both Jesus' contemporary Jewish audience and the views of Paul. According to Colani,
the chapter "contains the eschatology of the [first century] Judeo-Christians since in no
case could Jesus have shared their opinions."154
This "Little Apocalypse" Theory came to be widely accepted in the late-
nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, and set the stage for most later discussion of the
passage. The work of such scholars as T. W. Manson155 and Hermann Detering
presuppose a "Little Apocalypse" document of some sort. Detering poses that a "Little
Apocalypse" circulated as an independent written text, used not only by the gospel

153
Timothee Colani, "The Little Apocalypse of Mark 13," Journal of Higher
Criticism 10 (2003): 44. (This is a translation of p. 201-214 of Colani's 1864 book Jesus-
Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps).
154
Colani, 43.
155
T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content
(Cambridge, England: University Press, 1963), 260-262.
 110

writers, but also the author of the Apocalypse of Peter.156 B. W. Bacon suggests that
Mark used both the "Little Apocalypse" document and Q in his formulation of chapter
13.157
Werner Georg Kümmel rejects the idea of the "Little Apocalypse" as a Jewish
document with Christian additions. He states:
This assumption meets with the great difficulty that this alleged apocalyptic
broadsheet must have been extremely short and colourless and would have no
actual bias that we can detect, since of course the typically Christian features were
introduced into this "apocalypse" later. Moreover there is no possibility of
establishing an original literary sequence between the conjectured components of
this apocalypse, so that the hypothesis of a connected apocalyptic basis for this
chapter is hardly sufficiently well founded. 158

According to Kümmel, the discourse has been put together from several "completely
isolated components," each of which should be examined for itself. 159 Ernst Lohmeyer
also considers the chapter a compilation of this sort.160
Hugh Martin considered the discourse a collection of sayings, compiled in a
similar manner to Matthew's gathering of parables in chapter 13, but grants that these
authentic sayings were poorly transmitted.161 C. H. Dodd calls Mark 13 a "hortatory
address in apocalyptic terms." He suggests that "the apocalyptic colouring given to it in
verses 24-25 may have been drawn by the Evangelist himself from Jewish apocalyptic

156
Hermann Detering, "The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 Par): A Document
from the Time of Bar Kochba," trans. Michael Conley and Darrel Doughty, Journal of
Higher Criticism 7 (2000): 175.
157
B. W. Bacon, The Gospel of Mark: Its Composition and Date (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1925), 121.
158
Werner Georg Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message
of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1961), 98.
159
Kümmel, 104.
160
Ernst Lohmeyer Das Evangelium des Markus Ubersetzt und Erklart
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951) 285-287; quoted in George R. Beasley-
Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 106.
161
Hugh Martin, The Necessity of the Second Coming (London: SCM Press,
1928), 40.
 111

sources, but [it is] quite possible that Jesus himself did in fact make use of such
apocalyptic language: in that case certainly in a symbolic sense." 162 Though Manson
assumes an apocalyptic source document, he maintains that the Markan tradition may
also draw upon the words of Jesus, even if the passage did not take its present form until
around AD 70.163 Concerning this compilation, he states, "Any or all of these sayings
might well be genuine utterances of the Lord, but by the way in which they were put
together a new total effect would be created, which might be quite different from
anything which Jesus meant to say."164
To varying degrees, it is generally agreed upon that the tradition is a compilation
of some sort, which was affected by the apocalyptic expectations of the first-century
Christians, including the gospel writers. According to M. Eugene Boring, "No one, not
even Beasley-Murray, regards the discourse in its present form as from Jesus."165 Note
that Boring, and others, allow that the passage "contains some elements from the pre-
Easter Jesus" which have nevertheless undergone interpretation and redaction by Mark,
and possibly others. Indeed, though George R. Beasley-Murray is hardly supportive of
Colani's position (which he associates with a "mutilation" of the Gospels), 166 he allows
that the passage is a complex compilation of sources, as evidenced by his devotion of
several chapters in his book on the Olivet Discourse to the various origin theories.
Perhaps similarly, Oskar Holtzmann, J. T. Bealby, and Maurice A. Canney suggest, "In
its essential features. . .this discourse of Jesus may be thoroughly genuine, even though in
certain parts it has been very much recast."167
The origin and redaction of the account, as a whole, is complex and highly
disputed. There is no convincing way to trace the pericope, as a whole, definitively back

162
C.H. Dodd, interviewed by George R. Beasley-Murray; quoted in George R.
Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 99.
163
T. W. Manson, Luke, The Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York:
Harper, 1930), 231.
164
Manson, The Teachings of Jesus, 261.
165
M. Eugene Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the
Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1982), 187.
166
George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the
Olivet Discourse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 17.
167
Oskar Holtzmann, J. T. Bealby, and Maurice A. Canney, The Life of Jesus
(London: A and C. Black, 1904), 456.
 112

to the historical Jesus. Evidence of interpolation by the Early Church and the gospel
writers, as well as the influence of apolcalyptic tradition—both Jewish and Christian—
seems overwhelming. With this in mind, the current study now focuses specifically on
the text of Mark 13:6.

Mark 13:6
Opinions on the authenticity of Mark 13:6 range from one end of the spectrum to
the other. Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner considers that verses 1-8 are authentic. Verses
9-27, however, rely upon an apocalyptic document not ascribed to Jesus. 168 J. Lambrecht
considers the of verse 6 completely historical, and suggests that the verse, in
addition to Mark 13:21, is a variant of Luke 17:23, a well-attested Q saying. 169 On the
other hand, Rudolf Pesch regards Mark's use of " � " as a redactional
170
effort to initiate his "apocalyptic tract."
Kümmel suggests that verse 6, along with several others, may presuppose the
situation of the Early Church, but at the same time, maintains a tradition supported by
other material from the mouth of Jesus.171 Marshall also notes that the wording and
context of the verse make good sense in light of the religious climate and message of
Jesus, although it is difficult to ascertain the authenticity of the saying because the text
may well have been influenced by the experiences of the Early Church. 172 Beasley-
Murray proposes that Mark deliberately arranged the passage in such a way as to address
the false messiahs and false prophets prevalent at the time of his writing. 173
Differences between the gospel accounts, and the almost certain redaction of
Matthew, pose an additional difficulty in determining the authenticity and original

Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans.
168

Herbert Danby (Boston: Beacon, 1964), 322.

169
J. Lambrecht, "Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Literarische Analyse
und Strukturuntersuchung," Analecta Biblica 28 (1966): 104; quoted in George R.
Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 390.
170
Rudolf Pesch, Jesu Ureigene Taten? (Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 1970), 107f.;
quoted in I. Howard Marshall, Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 763.
171
Kümmel, 99.
172
Marshall, 764.
173
Beasley-Murray, 389-390.
 113

meaning of the verse. Matthew eliminates the ambiguity in Mark's and Luke's "I Am"
statements by supplementing "the Messiah" to the false assertion " ." This is an
addition that has attracted the attention of many scholars who here reflect on the
phrase. Stauffer considers this a "falsifying addition."174 While Manson makes no such
assertion, he does point out that with the addition of o �, Matthew "is scaling
down a supra-historical reality to the point at which it becomes the mere statement of one
Messianic claim amongst others in a world of competing and opposed Messianic
sects."175 Raymond Brown points out that since the addition is clearly redactional, the
juxtaposition of " " and " " should be considered in light of the
176
absolute usage seen in the Fourth Gospel.
Unfortunately, the statement of Mark 13:6 is contained in the context of a
pericope that is likely to have been altered by later redaction from Mark and the Early
Church, and any efforts to place the statement into the mouth of Jesus are mere
speculation at best. Unlike the forceful proclamations of Jesus in Mark 6:50 and
14:62, here the phrase can only be used to signify the Early Church's association of Jesus
with the "I Am," not the self-disclosed identity of Jesus. As H. G. Link poses, "Here the
early Christian church separated itself from those who unlawfully and for dishonest ends
claimed the authority of Jesus."177 This thesis continues, therefore, under the assumption
that the passage reflects a tradition in which Jesus, the "I Am," is placed in opposition to
those who would wrongly claim what He has rightly claimed, in instances such as Mark
6:50 and 14:62. The pre-Markan tradition and content is too speculative to trace the
saying itself back to the historical figure of Jesus, but the intended meaning of the
in Mark 13:6 is still important in that it reflects the position of the Early Church, who
existed closest to the time of Jesus, and their association of the Messiah with the "I Am"
based upon similar affirmations in his ministry.

"Messiahs Will Come"

The of Mark13:6 has been interpreted in a number of ways. Most
commonly, it has been seen in support of Matthew's redaction: "Messiahs will come,
saying 'I am the Messiah.'" Ezra P. Gould states the majority view when he poses that
such Messianic pretenders are not actually claiming to be Jesus reincarnate, but that they
174
Stauffer, 150.
175
T. W. Manson, "The Ego Eimi of the Messianic Presence in the New
Testament," Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1947): 140.
176
Raymond Brown, John, 538.
177
H. G. Link, "I Am," The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology, vol. 2, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976). 282.
 114

would claim his official title of Messiah. 178 The greatest difficulty seen in this
interpretation is the fact that there are no such messianic pretenders known in the first
century. Theudas and Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:36-37) are often suggested. However, as
Brown, et al., points out, "there is no indication that such men as Theudas and Judas
regarded themselves as 'messiahs.'"179 Rather, Judas was a revolutionary, and Theudas
claimed to be a prophet. Another possible association is "the Egyptian" in Acts 21:38.
However, F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake disagree with this assertion, citing that
the Egyptian was a rebel and, "unless the meaning of 'Messiah' be extended beyond
anything the Jews ever dreamt of, neither rebels nor prophets are 'Messianic.'" 180 Finally,
Collins takes a unique position, in arguing, "Mark 13 is a fitting response to an historical
situation after the summer of 66 CE, when Menachem emerged as a messianic leader, and
before the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem in August/September of 70
CE."181
In fact, the earliest known messianic pretender is Bar Kochba in AD 132. This
point leads some scholars (such as Detering) to adopt a much later dating of the passage.
Detering presents a good argument for preserving the unity of the passage by relating it
not to the Caligula Crisis of AD 40, nor to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but to
the Bar Kochba uprising in AD 132-135.182 Most scholars, however, support an earlier
dating of the Gospels, and relate the foreboding prophecies of the temple destruction to
one of the two earlier attacks on Jerusalem.
In fact, the vague nature of the apocalyptic language present in this chapter makes
the prophecy of destruction and persecution applicable to a number of "end times"
tragedies—up to and including the more recent Jewish Holocaust, or a yet unseen
apocalyptic end of the earth. Therefore, the possibility of false messiahs who claim, "I am
Christ," cannot be excluded on the basis of dating known "false messiahs." Additionally,
as Taylor points out, the fact that no known messianic pretenders are recorded from the

178
Ezra P. Gould, Mark, International Critical Commentary, vol. 27 (Edinburg:
T&T Clark, 1955), 243.
179
Brown, Fitzmyer and Murphy, 51.
180
F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 276.
181
Adela Yarbro Collins, "The Apocalyptic Rhetoric of Mark 13 in Historical
Context," Biblical Research 41 (1996), 7.
182
Detering, 185-209.
 115

first-century AD does not preclude the fact that they might have been expected at any
time.183
Alternatively, some scholars suggest that the claim need not include the title, but
merely the appropriation of messianic characteristics. Henry Barclay Swete suggests that
imposters, such as Simon Magus (Acts 8:9) and Theudas, "came holding out a false
Messianic hope, claiming powers which belonged to the true Christ, even if they did not
assume the title."184 A. E. J. Rawlinson suggests that these individuals are naturally
associated with the text.185 Marshall also asserts, without elaboration, that Jesus here
prophesies about Simon Magus. 186 This interpretation seems to disregard the point that
the factor used to identify these individuals is the claim, "I Am." Even if this phrase is
seen merely as a claim to messiahship, it is certainly a claim in the mouths of the false
messiahs, not an attestation from others of the hope they extend by their works.
The greatest challenge to the "false messiahs" interpretation is found in
reconciling the phrase with the immediately preceding, . In
fact, the apparent tension between the two portions of the verse has led some scholars to
believe that "in my name" must be a later addition, since the two cannot be read
together.187 In accordance with this, Taylor suggests that it should be appropriately
understood as "under my authority," a translation that would suggest that the ones
proclaiming " " are, in fact, believers in Christ. Taylor suggests that if false
messiahs were meant, this portion must have been a "secondary addition," presumably by
Mark upon his source.188 Gerhard Friedrich attempts to avoid this conclusion by
suggesting the passage ought to be translated "under my name," as "false christs do not
appeal to Jesus Christ but claim the name of Christ."189

183
Taylor, 503.
184
Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark: the Greek Text With
Introduction, Notes and Indices (London: MacMillan and Co., 1913), 298.
185
A. E. J. Rawlinson, Mark, Westminster Commentaries, vol. 38 (London:
Methuen & Co., 1953), 184.
186
Marshall, 763.
187
Lloyd Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of
Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1970), 14.
188
Taylor, 503.
189
Friedrich Gerhard, ed. "onoma," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
vol. 5, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 277, n. 224.
 116

Any of these attempts to reconcile the two phrases requires a translation which,
while possible, would likely have been more obvious, if intended by the author.
Interpreting one, or the other, phrase in Mark in such a way that it can be consistent with
Matthew's redaction seems unnecessary if a more suitable explanation exists. Other
possibilities for the interpretation of this passage must be explored.

"The Messiah Has Come"

A number of scholars have understood the " " of verse 6 as a formula of
190
prophecy. Manson references 2 Thessalonians 2:2 in support of his interpretation that
the "I Am" in this passage ought to be understood as "the Messiah has come." For
Manson, this eliminates the confusion as to who might be making such a claim, since it is
implied that persons coming in Jesus' name are Christians claiming His authority, but are
not likely expecting that they would themselves be received as the returning Christ. The
warning is, therefore, against "Christians who, carried away by contemporary upheavals
in the political world, precipitately raise the cry that Christ has returned and that the
Messianic age has begun." 191 This is certainly a very real problem, which Jesus and the
Gospel writers may have intended at some point to address. However, the explanation
leads one to question how " " could possibly be interpreted as "the messiah has
come," when that is certainly not insinuated by the words themselves. As Kümmel points
out, "this impersonal exegesis of the announcement is hardly possible and so
there is nothing against referring this warning back to Jesus."192 The interpretation is
possible only if the speakers of were, in fact, claiming to be the risen Jesus
Christ, a possibility which Manson does not suggest. While this possibility exists,
historical support for this rendering is almost non-existent. As Taylor points out, "We
have no independent evidence of the existence of such teachers apart from the fact that
Jesus Himself was supposed by some to be Elijah or John the Baptist raised from the
dead."193
Manson explains his interpretation by saying, "The . . .is not the of the
individual speaker, but the of Jesus Christ. The is that of the Messianic

190
Connections between Mark 13:6 and 2 Thessalonians 2 have been observed by
a number of scholars in different contexts. Rawlinson also considers the "be not troubled"
of 2 Thessalonians 2:2 to be referencing this passage. Beasley-Murray suggests that 2
Thessalonians 2:2-12 are directed against the assertion presented here: that the Messiah
has returned. Rawlinson, 184; Beasley-Murray, 392.
191
Manson, Luke, 231.
192
Kümmel, 99, n. 40.
193
Taylor, 504.
 117

presence."194 However, as Taylor points out, the formula remains a self-

195
designation in all four Gospels and Acts. Even in cases where they may be epiphanic,
they are always self-statements, not statements about another. Furthermore, even if this is
the case, there is no explanation suggested for why Mark (or his source) would have not
simply recorded the words as "he has come," rather than "I am," if that is either what
Jesus had said, or what the writer had intended. The shift to first person makes little sense
in the context.
Boring addresses both the problem and the difficulties with the proposed
solutions, which attempt to "squirm under the difficulty of accounting for both
phrases."196 He suggests that "both phrases are comprehensible in terms of Christian
prophecy (and only there, I think), for only Christian prophets speak both in the name of
Jesus ( = with and under his authority) and in his person (saying
)." Indeed, the confusion is eliminated if one considers that those coming "in my
name" are actually prophets speaking for God. Such self-identification was common
among Old Testament prophets and, according to Boring, the use of first-person with the
revelatory " " is a well-attested form of speech employed by early Christian
prophets.197 In this way, both parts of the verse are tied together. The prophet comes in
the name of God, proclaiming their message with the familiar tag, "I am (Yahweh/Jesus
Christ)." In this way, they shall deceive many.
In fact, the content of the prophets' message is made explicit in Luke 21:8,
wherein the verse also states, " " Thus, the content of their message is
not, "I am," but instead, "The end is here"—a message much more connected to the rest
of the chapter. The "I Am," in this case, is an identification statement, linking the prophet
to Jesus, the great "I Am." Boring words this precisely: "The of 13:6 is not a
claim to be the returned Jesus Christ but is the prophetic formula by which the Christian
prophets opposed by the author authenticated their oracles and is itself an indication that
the discourse derives from a situation where the phenomenon of Christian prophecy was
very much alive."198 Boring thus supposes, without denying the reworking of Mark upon
his source, that Mark 13:5b-31 preserves a "coherent unit of Christian prophecy." 199

194
Manson, "Ego Eimi," 139.
195
Taylor, 504.
196
Boring, 189.
197
Boring, 130.
198
Boring, 189.
199
Boring, 193.
 118

In this light, these prophets bear a striking resemblance to those spoken of by

Celsus in the third century AD. As recorded by Origen, Celsus claims, "These are
accustomed to say, each for himself, 'I am God'; 'I am the son of God'; or, 'I am the
Divine Spirit'; 'I have come because the world is perishing, and you, O men, are perishing
for your iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you shall see me returning again with
heavenly power. Blessed is he who now does me homage.'" 200 Likewise, Montanus may
be seen as incorporating such prophecy, when he says, "Neither angel, nor ambassador,
but I, the Lord God the Father, am come."201
Detering argues against this association of Christian prophets with the text of
Mark 13, noting that "the pseudo-prophets of Celsus. . .proclaim themselves to be 'God'
or 'the Son of God,' but not the messiah. That is a decisive difference." 202 This problem is
eliminated if the "I Am" of verse 6 can be viewed as an instance of the epiphanic "
" employed elsewhere by Jesus. In claiming "I Am," the pseudo-prophets in fact are
claiming to speak for God, who also, in this case, happens to be the Messiah. This
interpretation necessitates an understanding for this instance of " " as an epiphanic
formula.

The Messiah as the "I Am"

Donahue supports the theory that the " " of Mark 13:6 was intended as an
epiphanic formula. Furthermore, he states that "since it is used as a misappropriation
which leads the believer astray, it must sometime in Mark receive its true meaning." 203
He suggests that this meaning is found in 14:62, the trial before the Sanhedrin. This
supports the theory that even though the words in this instance cannot be definitively
traced back to the historical Jesus, the epiphanic " " presented here was associated
with Jesus through other instances of usage. Elliot C. Maloney also makes the association
between 13:6 and 6:50, and additionally points out the phrase's "connection to the divine
sphere and God's self-identification as the 'I am' in Exod 3:14."204
200
Origen, Contra Celsus 7.9, trans. Frederick Crombie (Buffalo, NY: Christian
Literature Publishing, 1885).
201
G. Ficker, ed., "Dialogue of a Montanist with an Orthodox," Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 26 (1905): 452; quoted in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament
Apocrypha, vol. 2, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963-5):
686.
202
Detering, 179.
203
Donahue, 92.
204
Elliott C. Maloney, Jesus' Urgent Message for Today: The Kingdom of God in
Mark's Gospel (New York: Continuum, 2004), 111.
 119

Interestingly, extra-biblical sources may also support the phrase's rendering as an

epiphanic formula in this instance. The Ethiopic Ascension of Isaiah warns against Beliar,
who will "speak like the Beloved and he will say: 'I AM God and before me there has
been none'. . .And all the people in the world will believe him." 205 This seems to hold a
direct parallel to the text of Mark 13:6. Though Stauffer interprets that the passage refers
to Nero, with whom "apocalyptic imagination of those days was very much engrossed,"
his point is rather that proclaiming "I am God" is considered speaking "like the Beloved."
From this, Stauffer concludes that "the apocalyptist and his readers were acquainted with
some traditional sayings in which Jesus spoke of himself after the manner of Isa.
43:10."206 Mark 13:6 may present another memorial of such traditional sayings.

205
Ascension of Isaiah, 4:6-7 (New Testament Apocrypha 2:609).
206
Stauffer, 151.
 120

Conclusion
The "I Am" sayings in the synoptic gospels present a foundation for
understanding the similar, though quite possibly redactional, statements in the Fourth
Gospel. If there is reason to trust the historical authenticity of the sayings as recorded by
the Synoptic writers, there is a greater possibility that an underlying verbatim statement
of Jesus—or a number of them—was the basis upon which the Fourth Gospel writer
made his emphasis on Jesus as the I Am. From this starting point of recognizing the
potential historical reliability of the sayings, one is able to further assess what Jesus
Himself may have understood about His relationship to Yahweh. If the
statements of the Fourth Gospel are relatable to the Synoptic Gospels, one must consider
with Ball, "The fact that the words on the lips of Jesus allude to the aWh yn'a of
Isaiah, which spoke of Yahweh's exclusive right to save, suggests that the Johannine
church acknowledged an ontological and not just a functional union between Jesus and
the Father."207
While there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the authenticity of
Jesus sayings in the Gospels, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that both the
statement before the Sanhedrin and the recorded instance of "I Am" when Jesus walked
on the water are historically reliable. Whether or not the context of either saying is
entirely accurate holds little bearing. In the case of the Sanhedrin Trial Pericope, the
proceedings may have been legal or illegal, a formal trial or an informal meeting, yet the
basic content of Jesus' words remain potentially valid. An authority figure in the
Sanhedrin asked His identity, and He responded. The differences between the responses
as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be explained by consideration of their
motives and the tone of their overall accounts of the Passion narrative. In the case of the
pericope wherein Jesus walked on the water, one is inclined to believe that the early
gospel writers considered the miracle itself was historically reliable and thus presented it
accurately in that context. Redaction was added to the reactions of the disciples—by
Matthew, or Mark, or both—in order to emphasize the different portrayals of the
disciples given by each writer. There is no reason to believe that this redaction extended
to the words of Jesus, particularly since Matthew, Mark, and John all contain the identical
statement, " "
Finally, it must be granted that not all instances of the theophanic in the
synoptic gospels can necessarily be traced back to Jesus. In the case of the Olivet
Discourse, the material has been so reworked that it is impossible to know what Jesus
actually said—much less, what he meant—in the manner described. However, even in
this instance, there is evidence that when Mark recorded the material in chapter 13, both
he and the Early Church that accepted his writings were confident that it was not
something that Jesus would distinctly not say. It would seem that there is a basis for

207
Ball, 278.
 121

believing that the Early Church accepted this as a Jesus saying even if its historical
reliability is suspect.
The singularity of Jesus and Yahweh which is implied by Jesus' " " has far
reaching effects on the Christology of the Church. This self-affirmation of Jesus certainly
lent itself to the confusion addressed by Early Church doctrine. Stauffer suggests that
Jesus' repeated claim to singularity with Yahweh, "completely explains the fact, and
provides the reason for it, that early Christianity hardly knew what to do with Jesus' ANI
HU and for most part pushed it aside, or gave it a new meaning and a new shape." 208 This
reshaping extended into the development of Trinitarian Doctrine, as a means to explain
the relationship of Jesus to the God Who sent Him. As Trinitarian doctrine was further
formed and developed, through the process of refuting one heresy after another, it
became foremost in the teaching and thoughts of Christians seeking to explain the
relationship of Jesus to Yahweh.
The precise nature of that relationship will be left to future study. In the
meantime, the current thesis concludes in agreement with Lester F. Sumerall, "Jesus
Christ is Yahweh, the God who 'is' from endless time before and beyond all time to come.
He is our Master and Savior forever."209 He walked the earth as both the God of the
Hebrews and, at the same time, as a man. To this end, Stauffer beautifully summarizes
the position of this author. In the self-affirmations of Jesus, "There is no trace of
mythology, gnosticism, mysticism, speculation, metaphysics, theory, no biblicist
'scriptural testimony,' no dogmatic teaching about the pre-existence, the incarnation, the
virgin birth. Here theology is silent. Here God is revealed. It is Jesus' boldest declaration
about himself. 'I AM.'"210
Further questions must be addressed concerning the "I Am" sayings in John, as
well as the progression of Christian doctrine which so concerned itself with doctrines of
pre-existence, incarnation, and virgin birth that the relationship between Jesus and the I
Am is, at times, overlooked. In light of the current study, the question must be asked: If
Jesus was fully the God of Exodus 3:14, was the God of Exodus 3:14 also fully Jesus? In
view of the fact that Jesus referred to Himself in all four gospels with reference to that
very experience of Yahweh, and in the case that He believed Himself to be one in the
same with Yahweh, certainly the relationship must be reexamined in light of Jesus' own
words. This is an examination of the utmost importance—both for the study of
Christology and the historical examination of Jesus—and it is a study which has, at this
point, only begun.

208
Stauffer, 157.
209
Lester F. Sumrall, The Names of God (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 41.
210
Stauffer, 159.
 122

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abrahams, Israel. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. Vol. 2. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 2004.

Achtemeier, Paul J. Mark. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Albright, W.F. and Mann C.S. Matthew. Anchor Bible. Vol. 26. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1971.

Allen, Clifton J. ed. Genesis-Exodus. Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 1. Nashville:

Broadman Press, 1973.

Alt, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by R. A.

Wilson. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1966.

Ascension of Isaiah. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. In vol. 2 of New Testament Apocrypha.

Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1992. 603-
619.

The Babylonian Talmud. Edited by I. Epstein. London: Soncino, 1935.

Bacon, B. W. The Gospel of Mark: Its Composition and Date. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1925.

Ball, David Mark. "I Am" in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and
Theological Implications. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Barrett, C.K. St. John. London: SPCK, 1960.

Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet
Discourse. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
123
77
 2

Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Boring, M. Eugene. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition.
Cambridge: University Press, 1982.

Bowman Robert M. and Komoszewski J. Ed. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity
of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.

Brown, David. The New Testament. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and
New Testaments. Vol. 2. Hartford, CT: SS Scranton, 1887.

Brown, Raymond E., Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Murphy Roland E., eds. The Jerome Biblical
Commentary. Vol. 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall., 1968.

Brown, Raymond E. John. Anchor Bible. Vol. 29. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

Bultmann, Rudolf. History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. New York:
Harper & Row, 1963.

________. The Gospel of John. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1971.

Catchpole, David R. "The Problem of the Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial." In The Trial of
Jesus: Cambridge studies in honour of C.F.D. Moule., ed. Ernst Bammel, 47-65.
Naperville, IL: Alex R. Allenson, 1970.

________. The Trial of Jesus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Childs, Brevard S. Exodus. Old Testament Library. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.

Dodd, C. H. Personal communication. Quoted in George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last
Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, 99. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Donahue, John R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. Missoula, MT:
University of Montana, 1973.

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 34B. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2001.

Eve, Eric. The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Luke. Anchor Bible. Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.
 3

Foakes-Jackson, F.J. & Lake, Kirsopp, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1979.

Gärtner, Bertil Edgar. John 6 and the Jewish Passover. Lund, Sweden: C.W.K Gleerup, 1959.

Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the
Synoptic Gospels. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1970.

Gerhard, Friedrich, ed. "Onoma." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol 5.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 242-283.

Gould Ezra P. Mark. International Critical Commentary. Vol. 27. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1955.

Gundry, Robert Horton. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33B. Waco: Word, 1995.

Hall, Edward H. Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Christian Church. Boston: American Unitarian
Association, 1888.

Harrington, Wilfrid. Mark. New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Vol.

4. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980.

Heil, John Paul. Jesus Walking on the Sea. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

Holtzmann, Oskar, J. T. Bealby, and Maurice A. Canney. The Life of Jesus. London: A and C.
Black, 1904.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.

Kazmierski, Carl R. Jesus, the Son of God: A Study of the Markan Tradition and its Redaction by
the Evangelist. Wurzburg, Germany: Echter Verlag, 1979.

Kee, Howard Clark. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1977.

Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life,Times, and Teaching. Translated by Herbert
Danby. Boston: Beacon, 1964.

Knight, George A. F. I Am: This is my Name. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Kümmel, Werner Georg. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus.
London: SCM Press, 1961.
 4

Lane, William L. Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 2. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lapide, Pinchas. "A Jewish Exegesis of the Walking on the Water." In Conflicting Ways of
Interpreting the Bible. Edited by Hans Kung and Jürgen Moltmann. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1980. 35-40.

________ and Moltmann, Jürgen. Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine.
Translated by Leonard Swindler. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

Link, H. G. "I Am." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 2.
Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. 281-283.

Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus Ubersetzt und Erklart. Gottingen, Germany:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957: 131-32. Quoted in William Richard Stegner, "Jesus'
Walking on the Water: Mark 6:45-52." In The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, 212.

________. Quoted in George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of
the Olivet Discourse. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Maloney, Elliott C. Jesus' Urgent Message for Today: The Kingdom of God in Mark's Gospel.
New York: Continuum, 2004.

Manson, T. W. Luke. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper, 1930.

________. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content. Cambridge, England:
University Press, 1963.

Marcus, Joel. Mark 8-16. Anchor Yale Bible. Vol. 27A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

Marshall, I. Howard. Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.

Martin, Hugh. The Necessity of the Second Coming. London: SCM Press, 1928.

Meier, John P. Matthew. New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Vol. 3.

Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980.

Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting
Names. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
 5

O'Neill, J.C. "The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin." In The Trial of
Jesus, ed. Ernst Bammel, 72-77. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970.

Origen. Contra Celsus 7.9. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Publishing, 1885.

Parke-Taylor, G. H. Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press, 1975.

Pesch, Rudolf Jesu Ureigene Taten? Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 1970. Quoted in I. Howard
Marshall, Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary, 763. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.

Rabbi Jeshua: An Eastern Story. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1881.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. Mark. Westminster Commentaries. Vol. 38. London: Methuen & Co., 1953.

Richter, Johannes. "Ani hu und Ego eimi: Die Offenbarungsformel "Ich bin es" im Alten und
Neuen Testament." Unpublished dissertation. Quoted in David Mark Ball, "I Am" in
John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications, 33.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

________. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990.

Schoeps, H. J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History.
Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959.

Schweitzer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975.

________. "Huios." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and
Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1985. 1209.

Seitz, Christopher R. "The Divine Name in Christian Scripture." In This is my Name Forever:
The Trinity & Gender Language for God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
22-34.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. London: S.C.M. Press, 1960.

Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
 6

Stegner, William Richard. "Jesus' Walking on the Water." In The Gospels and Scriptures of
Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994. 212-234.

Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1925.

Sumrall, Lester F. The Names of God. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark: the Greek Text with Introduction,
Notes and Indices. London: MacMillan and Co., 1913.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. New York: St. Martin's, 1966.

Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Miracle Worker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1973.

Williams, Catrin H. "'I Am' or 'I Am He'? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel
and Rabbinic Tradition." In Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert T. Fortna and Tom
Thatcher (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001), 345-359.

Winter, Paul. On the Trial of Jesus. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co, 1961.

Yeager, Randolph O. The Renaissance New Testament. Vol. 2. Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1998.

________. The Renaissance New Testament. Vol. 5. Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1998.

________. The Renaissance New Testament. Vol. 8. Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1998.

Periodicals

Beavis, Mary Ann. "The Trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53-65): Reader Response and
Greco-Roman Readers." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 581-596. ATLA Religion
Database, EBSCOhost (3 March 2010).

Catchpole, David R. “Jesus Answer to Caiaphas (Matt. 26:64).” New Testament Studies 17
(1970/71): 213-226.

________. "You Have Heard His Blasphemy." Tyndale Bulletin 16 (1965): 10-18. ATLA
Religion Database, EBSCOhost (15 July 2010).
 7

Colani, Timothee. "The Little Apocalypse of Mark 13." Journal of Higher Criticism 10 (2003):
41-47. Translated from Jesus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, 1864,
by Nancy Wilson.

Collins, Adela Yarbro. "The Apocalyptic Rhetoric of Mark 13 in Historical Context." Biblical
Research 41 (1996): 5-36.

________. "The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64." Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 26 (2004): 379-401. ATLA Religion Database, EBSCOhost (3 March 2010).

Danby, Herbert. "The Bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the Jewish Trial." Journal of
Theological Studies 21 (1919): 51-76.

Detering, Hermann. "The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 Par): A Document from the Time of
Bar Kochba." Journal of Higher Criticism 7 (2000): 161-210. Translated by Michael
Conley and Darrell Doughty.

Evans, Craig A. "In What Sense Blasphemy?" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30
(1991): 215-234.

Ficker, G. ed., "Dialogue of a Montanist with an Orthodox." Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 26

(1905): 452. Quoted in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, ed. Wilhelm
Schneemelcher, 686. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963-5.

Kempthorne, Renatus. "The Marcan Text of Jesus' Answer to the High Priest." Novum
Testamentum 19 (1977): 197-208.

Kilgallen, John. "Jesus' First Trial: Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22:66-71)." Biblica 80
(1999): 401-414.

Lambrecht J. "Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse. Literarische Analyse und

Strukturuntersuchung.” Analecta Biblica 28 (1966): 104. Quoted in George R. Beasley-
Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, 390.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Lietzmann, Hans. "Der Prozess Jesu." Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 14 (1931). Quoted in Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in
Judaism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Loba-Mkole, Jean Claude. "Disclosure of the Messianic Secret in Mk 14:62? A Text Critical
Response." Neotestamentica 33 (1999): 113-123.

Manson, T.W. "The Ego Eimi of the Messianic Presence in the New Testament." Journal of
Theological Studies 48 (1947): 137-145.
 8

Strobel, August. "Die Stunde der Wahrheit." Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 21 (1980). Quoted in Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Walaskay, Paul W. "The Trial and Death of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke." Journal of Biblical
Literature 94 (1975): 81-93.

Winter, Paul. "The Marcan Account of Jesus' Trial by the Sanhedrin." Journal of Theological
Studies 14 (1963): 94-102.

Zimmerman, Heinrich. "Das absolute 'Ich bin' in der Redeweise Jesu." Trierer Theologische
Zeitschrift 69 (1960): 20. Quoted in John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial
Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, 91, n. 4. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 1973.
This document was created with the Win2PDF “print to PDF” printer available at
http://www.win2pdf.com
This version of Win2PDF 10 is for evaluation and non-commercial use only.
This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF.
http://www.win2pdf.com/purchase/