Liberal New Testament scholar James G. Crossley, in his monograph arguing for a very early date of the Gospel of Mark (late-30s to late-40s), while arguing it does not have as high a Christology as Paul or John, writes that the Gospel of Mark probably teaches the personal (not merely notional) pre-existence of Jesus:
Another christological title often
mentioned in discussions of Mark and Paul is ‘Son of God’, a title significant
for both writers (Mk 1.1, 11; 3.11; 5.7; 9.7; 15.39; Gal. 4.4; Rom. 1.3-4; 8.3;
cf. Mk 12.6; 13.32). For example it has been noted that Paul had a concept of a
pre-existent Son of God figure (Gal. 4.4; 1 Cor. 8.6; 10.4; 2 Cor. 5.21; 8.9;
Rom. 8.3; Phil. 2.6-7; Col. 1.15-17) and that Mark may have shared this
concept, with reference to the ‘sending’ or ‘coming’ language in Mk 12.6 (cf.
Mk 1.38; Rom. 8.3), the possibility of the miracles as epiphanies, the
transfiguration (Mk 9.2-8), the apparently heavenly Son of Man (e.g. 2.10;
8.38), and a supposed pre-existent ‘Lord’ (Mk 12.35-37). Again caution needs to
be exercised. While Mark may well have accepted a concept of pre-existence,
a common view in the ancient world, there is little evidence that this is
developed into a pre-existent Son of God concept. The only possible time it may
be developed is in Mk 12.6 but this is parabolic language which is hardly
strong evidence for such a belief. The so-called heavenly Son of Man is likewise
not as obvious as many would have us believe. Mark 2.10 may simply be a literal
translation of the Aramaic בר (א)נש(א), with a reference to humans having authority
on earth to forgive/loosen sins (cf. Mk 9.38-41) which would include a
reference to Jesus himself. Even if it does function as a title for Jesus alone
in Mk 2.10 it does not necessarily follow that this is a heavenly Son of Man
concept: it may well be a question of Jesus’ authority, something which clearly
interests Mark (e.g. 1.21-28; 3.22-30; 11.27-33). That said, the case can be
made elsewhere in Mark for a heavenly Son of Man concept (8.38; 13.26; 14.62)
but even so Paul does not actually use the term ‘son of man’. While
pre-existence may not be alien to Mark it is certainly not developed in
these passages and similar sorts of comments may be made for the miracles and
the transfiguration. As for Mk 12.35-37 the idea of pre-existence may be assumed
but there is no development of a pre-existent ‘Lord’ explicitly applied to
Jesus here. (James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from
the Law in Earliest Christianity [Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series 266; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 52, emphasis in bold added)
