To the editors:
- The world-view of Bultmann and similar German theologians is the proper way of interpreting the Bible
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
First, Sheehan does not accurately assess the view of Jesus we get from Mark. I agree with him that the ending of Mark is questionable from a textual perspective (Mark 16:9-20), but there are several other passages in this gospel which teach the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus. For example, Jesus in Mark 10:33-34 predicts that he will be killed and rise again after three days. In Mark 14:28, Jesus says that after he has arisen he will go ahead of his disciples into Galilee. Finally, in Mark 16:6, an angel states that Jesus has arisen. All of these passages come from parts of the gospel where there are no textual problems. Sheehan may say that they are all later additions to the text, but there is no evidence of this. Other passages contradict Sheehan more indirectly. For example, in Mark 2:5-10, Jesus claims that he can forgive sins. The teachers of the law call this blasphemy, since only God can forgive sins. Jesus does not deny this, but instead reiterates his point. In Mark 12:1-12, the parable of the tenants, he clearly implies that he is the heir of God. Thus, Sheehan’s main point falls apart based on Mark alone.
Richard D. Easton
